Global Warming? It`s Actually Getting Cooler[Pic+]

Submitted by: drawman61 4 years ago in

So which doom-mongers should I believe?
There are 85 comments:
Male 17,512
mesovortex: I was linking to a valid source of news and science journal articles in the 1970`s touting "ice age" climate predictions that didn`t come true.

The NASA chart shows that "Global Warming" isn`t happening to any significant degree. At the rate that chart shows, it would take over 300 years for the temperature to get to +2.0 C. That is far far longer than all of the model predictions.

Besides that, a lot of things can and will change within 300 years. Our own country isn`t even 300 years old yet and back then we were burning firewood for fuel.

I believe in the next 50 years we will have thorium fuel reactors and advanced fuel cells, but we will always have scaremongers trying to whip up a frenzy using spurious scientific claims.

"All it is saying is ONE scientist says a model was a little off."

It`s saying that many scientists know that nearly ALL the models were massively off. 99.97% percentile off,
0
Reply
Male 458
@5Cats:
So? That doesn`t mean the consensus is wrong, or that the scientist is wrong, or that there isn`t global warming, or that man isn`t warming the planet.

All it is saying is ONE scientist says a model was a little off.

*facepalm*
0
Reply
Male 40,343
Top Scientist Says: Earth Not Warming As Predicted For a variety of reasons, ALL of which are used by NON-AGW arguments...

Best Quote: "This of course does not reflect well on our models" - Hans von Storch :-)
0
Reply
Male 458
@richanddead:
"You can say emissions are the proof positive cause but as I have stated in earlier posts, that Earth atmosphere is far to vast to be chemically changed to an unnatural state in less than 2 hundred years."

That`s bull and you know it. We can measure how the atmosphere was 200 years ago. We can measure how it was today. It is different. We know why and we can measure why - thanks to radio isotopes of the carbon in the atmosphere.

We have changed it. The depletion of the Ozone Layer is proof.
0
Reply
Male 458
@richanddead:
You don`t get it. Nature can and does adapt if the changes are slow and gradual. However, right now, they are not slow and gradual. They are rapid. When climate changes rapidly in the past it caused mass extinctions.

Why would you willingly want to go through one?
0
Reply
Male 458
"Don`t believe the side that wants to use the issue as a pretext to boss you around and take your stuff."

Like your money for oil?
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]@ OldOllie: Starting this Monday, Ollie, you musht gives me three hazelnuts every day to offset your carbon footprint--fives if you drive your car. OK? It will be very good for the environments. OK? [/quote]
I have a better offer. How would you like a few hundred pounds of nice fresh acorns? Come on by. I`ll leave them out in the yard for you.

Regarding my previous post, perhaps I should elucidate.

Don`t believe the side that wants to use the issue as a pretext to boss you around and take your stuff.
0
Reply
Male 4,099
Also the average temperature of the earth is 22 degrees celsius. Currently the average temperature is only 14.6 degrees celsius, meaning that we are still very cold. The "Climatic optimum" for the holocene is still 2-3 degrees celsius warmer than today and has always made both life and civilization flourish.


But as I have said and will repeat, until someone shows me any evidence to the contrary, we are still in a 3500 year cooling trend despite recent warming over the last 150 years.
0
Reply
Male 4,099
Scientists are also finding hundreds of skeletons of bowhead whales along the northern passage with spear points in them, as the ice recedes. Scientists say that this means natural temperatures in the last 1000 years have exceeded todays temperatures gave the bowheads a new migration route.
0
Reply
Male 4,099
@Squrlz4Sale:
""Edited"? "Edited"?! As if they changed the contraction of "can`t" to "cannot"? Are you kidding me?...Are you not merciful?"

"Badges?! Badges?! We don`t have to show you no stinkin` badges!"
-Treasure of the Sierra Madre

Lol calm down, I wasn`t even trying to downplay it, I was merely commenting that although his pic was wrong there have been other stories in Time Magazine that have pushed the "coming apocalyptic ice age" line that the picture was communicating.


0
Reply
Male 4,099
@mesovortex:
"We may be in a long term interglacial cooling trend, but we`re in a short term rapid warming trend... Our emissions are overshadowing long term trends."

First off, I`m glad I`ve finally succeeded in convincing you that the earth is in a cooling trend. Yet a 250 year warming uptick after a "little ice age" is not more significant than a 3500 year cooling trend, especially when the rate of warming is not unprecedented and we have dropped in temperatures far more than we have risen in temperatures.

You can say emissions are the proof positive cause but as I have stated in earlier posts, that Earth atmosphere is far to vast to be chemically changed to an unnatural state in less than 2 hundred years. You can keep repeating yourself if you want and making incorrect comparisons to rivers and earthmoving, but that is not evidence, it is your personal view.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@ CrakrJak:

[quote]Yup, you know that I`m well versed with scientific information on the subject and can`t refute it.[/quote]
Puh-leez. CJ, I decided to stop debating you on AGW long ago when you stated that burning fossil fuels isn`t much of a problem because, you claimed, most of the carbon is refined out of the oil. ~facepaw~

Nothing personal, but as I stated at the time, when I`m on here I may have time to waste--but not THAT much time to waste.

I`ve been pointing you to the Wranglerstar videos because they`re done by a Christian family on a homestead out in Oregon. From a faith perspective, I was thinking you might enjoy them.
0
Reply
Male 458
@Crakrjak:
"global warming simply isn`t happening"
Yet you posted a chart from NASA showing that the earth is getting warmer globally, and agreed with it?

Besides, aren`t you a creationist? It`s not like you`re an expert on anything scientific, you know.
0
Reply
Male 458
@CrakrJak:
"Well versed" - and yet you post an argument that has thoroughly been refuted 1000 times.

http://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

A blog by a guy who isn`t even a scientist isn`t a reputable source. I know of "Steve Goddard" - and he is a grade A nut, and an idiot. His blog is a joke.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Also, If you still doubt that Time, Newsweek and many other publications were touting global cooling in the 70`s. Read This.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Squrlz: "I`ll take a pass on the AGW discussion with you.."

Yup, you know that I`m well versed with scientific information on the subject and can`t refute it.

By the way I`ll toss you a few walnuts from the tree outside if you quit bugging me about wranglerstar. Hehe. ;-)

I already follow half a dozen people`s videos on youtube, Zonation, Newsbusted, Chuggaconroy, etc...
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@ OldOllie: Starting this Monday, Ollie, you musht gives me three hazelnuts every day to offset your carbon footprint--fives if you drive your car. OK? It will be very good for the environments. OK?

0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]So which doom-mongers should I believe?[/quote]
Here`s a hint. Don`t believe the ones who want to boss you around and take your stuff.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@ CrakrJak: CJ, the TIME cover you`ve found, with the headline "The Cooling of America," was about an article on the energy crisis--how people were unable to afford the oil prices to keep their homes warm during a cold winter--NOT about a coming ice age.

So that`s a swing and a miss.

In fact, TIME magazine has NEVER had a cover about a "coming ice age." Just setting the record straight here.

But honestly, I`ll take a pass on the AGW discussion with you; we`ve already covered that ground and we know where each stands.

Instead, I`ve been trying to see if you know about the Wranglerstar channel on YouTube. Have you seen it? If not, I think you`ll like it. (I mentioned it to you in another thread, but I don`t think you saw it.)

Here is a link to a recent Wranglerstar video. Let me know what you think.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Squrlz: Let me cite a recent study in the journal Nature Climate Change, "The inconsistency between observed and simulated global warming is even more striking for temperature trends computed over the past iteen years (1998-2012). For this period, the observed trend of 0.05 deg.C per decade is more than four times smaller than the average simulated trend of 0.21 deg.C per decade."

Out of 117 climate predictions made in the 1990`s, 114 overestimated the amount of warming. And on average the predictions forecasted two times more global warming than actually occurred.

Sorry, but the "climate scientists" you cite cried like chicken little too loudly and too often. Their credibility is in the trash bin, global warming simply isn`t happening and people are waking up to the fact that they`ve been duped by hucksters like Al Gore making millions of dollars off of dealing carbon credits, selling books and giving lectures.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Squrlz: While true that`s a "Shopped" Time cover. The real one, from 1977, was much more dire looking.

0
Reply
Male 458
@Andrew155:
Why do you keep trotting out the `no warming in x years` argument when it`s a lie? And you post an op ed to prove it? Really?

Look in this thread, you`ll see how that argument is dead wrong, and the earth has continually gotten warmer in the last 15 years, NOT COOLER.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
(Cont`d)

If you are genuinely interested in learning--and I trust you are--you might want to spend eight minutes watching this video (below), which explains the subject using interviews with the climate scientists who are on the frontlines of the research.

No Slowdown In Global Warming
0
Reply
Male 6,227
(Cont`d)

Would you conclude that the laws of physics don`t apply in your kitchen? No. First, you`d verify that your data and measurements were correct and that your equipment is functioning correctly. And then you`d look for the missing heat. Ah! There it is: in the early stages of heating, the water in the saucepan has formed a thermocline of heated water on the sides and bottom of the pan (a torus), which measures 95 degrees. When the water is mixed, the average temperature in the pan turns out to be--voila!--70 degrees.

This is analagous to what has occurred with global warming in the past decade. While land temperatures over the past decade HAVE risen, they have not risen at the previous decades pace because a larger share of the planet`s heat is going into the deep oceans. Some AGW models had, in fact, predicted that there would be such "hiatus decades" where deep-ocean warming would take precedence over land warming.

(Cont`d)
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@ Andrew155: [quote]...more than 1/4 of all the emissions ever in the past 10 years and no warming.[/quote]
This is a common misconception; let me try to explain.

First of all, let`s leave models out of it. We`re talking about the past 10 years, which is history. We have the data, we *know* what happened. Not just what happened in terms of land temperatures, but in terms of CO2 levels, aerosols, ocean currents, and solar radiation. Physicists KNOW how much solar energy is being put into the Earth system, how much was radiated back into space, and how much was kept in by the greenhouse effect.

It`s like putting a saucepan water on a gas burner and turning on the flame. You can do the calculations and you KNOW how much heat is going into the pan. If you put a thermometer into the middle of the pan 1/2" below the surface and found the water was just 62 degrees when your calculations stated it should be 70 degrees, what would you conclude?

(Cont`d)
0
Reply
Male 2,578
meso - more than 1/4 of all the emissions ever in the past 10 years and no warming. Is it really that ridiculous to question that? That`s why the pushers are hedging. The issue of CO2 sensitivity is already being rethought and revised.

And I bet it won`t be the last time our knowledge of CO2 sensitivity will be revised.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@ Andrew155: That was a gracious admission regarding the fraudulent TIME cover. Thanks for being a gentleman about it. ~tip of the hat~
0
Reply
Male 458
@richanddead:
We may be in a long term interglacial cooling trend, but we`re in a short term rapid warming trend thanks to man made greenhouse emissions. Our emissions are overshadowing long term trends.

Duh.
0
Reply
Male 2,578
I stand corrected about the cover, Squirz. Thank you for pointing it out.

Dr. Professor, I don`t know what your point is. I really should respond, "No f*#$*#@ing shi##)$" because what you said was pretty obvious.

McDuff - No, the science is much more nuanced than you think. There is no "Climate denier group, and Climate change believer group". It`s much more nuanced than that. I am more in the camp of, "We seriously don`t have enough data points".

I want to make this clear to everyone. The ESSENCE of what I am disputing is that we absolutely have enough data points to say anything definitively. And many of The Economist articles earlier touched on this. We certainly don`t have enough data to draw a conclusion about how each of the plethora of components can affect the environment. The Climate is complex system and to claim apocalypse with so much certainty based on so little is fraudulent.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@ Richanddead: [quote]Its true that Andrew155`s picture was edited....[/quote]
"Edited"? "Edited"?! As if they changed the contraction of "can`t" to "cannot"? Are you kidding me? It`s a piece of propagandistic fraud.

The liar who put this piece together even took the pains to remove reference to "The Sopranos" and replace it with a reference to "MASH," to replace a mention of Baghdad with a mention of the Soviet Union, and to swap out a woman with a modern hairstyle with something more vintage. Then of course the propagandist changed the YEAR, MONTH, and DATE and changed the headline to mean the exact OPPOSITE of what was published.

You call that "edited"?

But, hey, at least you concede that it`s true that it was "edited." Are you not merciful?
0
Reply
Male 3,894
@tb--Sounds like a cop-out to me.

All people need to do is start reading academic journals like Science and Nature, instead of the sensationalist stories you get through the traditional media.
0
Reply
Male 4,099
Also can anyone find any evidence at all that we are not in a 3500 year cooling trend? Even with highest temperature models from the most biased websites, we are still cooler than the Minoan and Roman warming periods, not to mention 8 other warming periods before then, and around equal with the medieval warming period.
0
Reply
Male 7,806
I agree TB but with that said if 97% of the climate scientist agree that global warming is happening in some form then uhhhh maybe they are right or they have some sort of evidence that leads them to that conclusion?
0
Reply
Male 4,099
@Andrew155 and @Squrlz4Sale:

Its true that @Andrew155`s picture was edited, yet The Times did write an article about a possible coming ice age that would hit in only a few hundred years, on June 24, 1974 titled "Another Ice Age?." link

In it they cite everything from the Sun`s rays to dust from farming cooling the earth into a new ice age.

"Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age...Scientists figure that only a 1% decrease in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth`s surface could tip the climatic balance, and cool the planet enough to send it sliding down the road to another ice age within only a few hundred years."
0
Reply
Male 4,891

Look at all the global warming experts here at IAB. Graduates of "google university".

There is WAY WAY WAY too much political interference when it comes to climate change to have an educated opinion...unless you happen to be a professional scientist with access to unbiased research, and the specific knowledge to decipher it.

I would say "listen to what the scientists are saying" but then others will say they are corrupt...and they MAY be right...or they MAY be paranoid.
0
Reply
Male 4,099
@mesovortex: Sorry but your analogy about the plane is also flawed. When you ride a plane at 30,000 feet not 35,00, you still have about 190 Kilometers of earth`s atmosphere above you, 990 kilometers if you want to go to the end of the Exosphere.

" It doesn`t take much to change the climate."

Thats what we are discussing and I still disagree with you. Restating your argument is not evidence to support it.

"Look at how much we`ve changed the landscape around us. Now extrapolate that to the atmosphere."

The difference is, we have been focused on changing the landscape for thousands of years, not accidentally doing it for a few hundred. We have also only changed the surface form in certain areas around the world, not the chemical composition of all the ground itself.
0
Reply
Male 13,630
Not wishing to be selfish, but obviously is
but Ill be dead n gone before sh it hits the fan
and I guess 99% of this forum will be ash or squashed underground before anything serious occurs
whatever happens, the Earth will continue
we are just parasites, trying to suck as much as we can out out of it
bring on Armageddon, this place needs rid of humans
0
Reply
Male 871
hahaha Andrew155 you missed the point of the image I posted you may well have a masters from columbia but your in a tiny minority of roughly 2 - 3% of academics who share your views the other 97 - 98 % kind of invalidate your claims though, but you keep on sciencing!
0
Reply
Male 1,454
the only thing we need to know is that we are polluting too much. This will catch up with eventually. Greed and the love for money, it seems, has no limit. We should have laws in place to prevent them.
0
Reply
Male 3,894
@andrew155 "and the history of settled silence is a history of settled science being routinely disproven."

No f*cking sh*t. That the point of science. It`s *good* when science proves itself wrong, because it means we`re closer to the truth.

Unlike some internet commenters, we don`t start from a point of assuming we know everything. We start from assuming we don`t know everything and that our knowledge can always be sharpened and improved.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@ Andrew155: Your image of the 1977 TIME magazine cover is a fraud. The actual cover, which has been doctored, is from 2007--where the story, as you can see, was about global warming, NOT about a coming ice age.

0
Reply
Male 2,376
yet im still paying carbon tax.. because i live in a province full of drating hipster liberal idiots. anybody with thick rimmed glasses, skinny jeans or neon shoes is about an inche away from an ass kicking in my books.
0
Reply
Male 2,578
Seventhly, Alfred Wegener.

Eighthly, remember:


Finally, all of the models they have been making are failing, and the science is based on those models! 1/4 of all the CO2 put into the air was in the past 10 years, a period of zero warming. They have to change their story, all of the articles I posted previously are saying this. That means their science was already wrong and they have to rework it for it to fit the original narrative! Or they just make stuff up like with Climategate. That`s the main point I`m highlighting! We don`t know as much as we think we know.
0
Reply
Male 2,578

Fifthly, concerning that 14,000 articles graph, it`s faulty methodology.. This particular example is the real embodiment of anti-science.

Sixthly, I`ve read extensively about history and the history of science. And the history of settled science is a history of settled science being routinely disproven.
0
Reply
Male 2,578
Firstly - NASA: Our government is in zero way the final say on anything. They`re wrong all the time. Plus the graph they have shows temperatures were below average 100 years ago by as much as they are above average now. They don`t have enough data points to make the apocalyptic claims! Nobody does!

Secondly, those 77 climate scientists they chose were cherry-picked from the 3000 respondents. So much flawed methodology.

Thirdly, I have a MA from Columbia and I have gone through the peer review process first-hand. A lot of the peer review stuff is wrong, or it goes in and out of style. A lot of stuff is right that is considered not to be right. Believe me, it`s ok to go against what the other kids are writing.

Fourthly, follow the money. Always.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Ugh as usual threads like these get flooded with charts and technobabble from both sides. Screw it I`m sitting this one out.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
From NASA`s own satellites:



+0.16 deg Celsius is not "Global Warming" under any stretch of the imagination.
0
Reply
Male 7,806
I have no idea why we are chancing if Global warming is happening or not. This is something that may or may not(to some of you) effect our species as a whole. Why are we even chancing this? Is it deciding who is going to pay for it? Is it an argument over Government vs private enterprise? Is it a battle between Scientist and Religious nuts thinking the end of the world is near?
0
Reply
Male 871

0
Reply
Male 458
0
Reply
Male 458
@Andrew155:
Your point? Should we take the consensus of AGW on people who know little about climate science? Should the consensus be based on what cancer doctors and psychiatrists think instead?
0
Reply
Male 871
wow they lost 7000 surveys in the mail whilst sending them out!?
0
Reply
Male 2,578
McDuff


0
Reply
Male 871

0
Reply
Male 458
@richanddead:
Not really. Take a look at how thin the atmosphere is at 36,000 feet the next time you fly. It doesn`t take much to change the climate. Look at how much we`ve changed the landscape around us. Now extrapolate that to the atmosphere.
0
Reply
Male 3,894
@Smagboy-- Remembered reading it via "I F*cking Love Science" and figured whoever posted this probably does NOT love science :p
0
Reply
Male 4,431
Beat me to it, DrProfessor. Good on ya! :-)
0
Reply
Male 4,431
Please see here for an actual scientific and data-supported takedown of this bullpoo.

To wit: "Arctic sea ice is now 60 percent higher over August 2012 is technically true but extremely misleading. In the summer of 2012 Arctic sea ice hit a record low. Given just how extreme it was, it’s not too surprising that it would not be as extreme this year. As you can see by the graph here, the sea ice extent (which essentially represents how much area is covered by ice) was incredibly low last year and is still lower than average this year. Rose makes this seem like the ice is on a huge rebound, but it’s more like getting a D- after getting an F on a test. Sure, it’s better, but it ain’t necessarily good."
0
Reply
Male 4,099
@Squrlz4Sale: Firstly, thank you for knowing my name and remembering how to spell it even though I`ve only spelled it once on this site, most people at my job can`t do that after 30 times. Kudos to you, and I`m sorry we got off on the wrong foot.

Yes I do know that graph ends in 1855, I`ve seen you state that before and I verified it, yet the red dotted line at the end is from current data. Current temperatures are nearly identical to that of the medieval warming period, yet the Minoan and Roman warming periods (along with several others) and even the cool periods between them were all still warmer than today and were naturally caused. That still means the earth is legitimately in a 3500 year cooling trend based on all sources.

I have to go do some work but I`ll be back later.
0
Reply
Male 1,471
Please not this again.....
I`m not gonna go into the larger debate, but this article is stupid, and here is why..
0
Reply
Male 3,894
Please read this for a good explanation

Furthermore, "the BBC predicted the Arctic would be ice-free by 2013"?

Oh, you mean the news outlet chose a sensational story that would grab attention, instead of striving for scientific accuracy? Color me SHOCKED.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@ Richanddead: Your chart, "How global warming theorists see the world," which you`ve put up on IAB numerous times in an attempt to mock AGW--are you aware that it stops charting the data at 1855?

It`s pretty easy to make fun of AGW scientists if you cherry pick data by simply chopping off temperatures from the past 158 years. Short explanation: The GISP2 records end at 1855 for the simple reason that it takes many decades for snow to compact into ice that can be drilled for the cores.

Now, I don`t think you were trying to mislead deliberately. I think you were misled. But I think this illustrates that the internet--particularly the conservative blogosphere where you get a lot of your stuff, Diedrich--is awash with bad information presented in a misleading fashion.
0
Reply
Male 2,578
Which all brings us to today - BBC and The Economist are examples I use of the biggest pushers of this. I gave many examples of the Economist hedging. Earlier I showed how the BBC was being apocalyptic about this, and how the Arctic would be ice free by 2013: BBC.

The tunes are changing.
0
Reply
Male 2,578
Here`s an entertaining link for our British friends.
0
Reply
Male 4,099
"Also, you`re being kind of piercing to people who disagree with you. We`re happy to talk about it, though."

I`m guilty of this too, I apologize to any I offended. Definitely up for debating it though.
0
Reply
Male 5,872
Global-staying-the-same-ness.
0
Reply
Male 2,578
It`s The Economist, it`s researched material written by people with access to more info than you. It shows how even the biggest pushers are hedging because the models are failing. How do you not get the point?

And I don`t get the Mississippi river point. I mean, nature has a much bigger part in it than anything. For example, the river traditional represented the borders of all the states along it, but not anymore. There was an earthquake and now there is a portion of Illinois beyond it, called Kaskaskia. Part of Tennesse is West of the river (Reverie, TN) and I think even a few other points. Point is - your whole monologue about rivers is void. Nature is more powerful.

Also, you`re being kind of piercing to people who disagree with you. We`re happy to talk about it, though.
0
Reply
Male 4,099
@mesovortex: There is a very very VERY big difference between diverting a river (which we`ve been doing for over 4000 years) and changing the climate of an entire planet into an unnatural state.
0
Reply
Male 458
@Andrew155:
That`s hardly a scientific link.
0
Reply
Male 458
@richanddead:
You do realize manmade things can change natural events, right?

It`s very bad logic to assume that because nature does something that man cannot do the same. We have changed the course of the Mississippi River, for example. We can change climate.
0
Reply
Male 2,578
Male 4,099
@Squrlz4Sale: The key term here is "reversion to the mean"; the little ice age was very high for arctic ice. It`s not surprising that an unusual amount of ice would regulate in the wake of a record high.

Despite the fact that it`s been getting colder for the last 3500 years. The earth is in control of the weather not us.


How global warming theorists see the world.


Yep, definitely getting warmer...not.
0
Reply
Male 2,578
Oh come on mesovortex, I put the BBC article there for a laugh and to show the overhyped story. And no, I remember 2007 - there was even a CNN poll that asked "Will the Arctic Ice be gone next year". A high percentage said yes. Don`t be like that.

And no, we are not well aware of the natural cycles. In fact, we know so little about it. We only have 100 years of measurable data, and I dare say that only 50 of those are reliable. The one thing we have is a stark lack of data points to draw conclusions from.

Hurricanes are a good example. First GW will cause more, then it will cause less. This year almost set a record for the latest hurricane ever. We don`t know nearly as much as we think we do. We are so conceited.
0
Reply
Male 458
@richanddead:
Also, sea ice isn`t a drop in the bucket compared to the ice caps and their total volume.

Area is not thickness and is not volume.
0
Reply
Male 458
@richanddead:

Area is not Volume.
Area is not Volume.
Area is not Volume.
Area is not Volume.
Area is not Volume.
Area is not Volume.
Area is not Volume.
0
Reply
Male 4,099
Oh no it`s the end of the world, sea ice is remaining stable!!! What will all the global warming enthusiasts do?!


0
Reply
Male 458
@Andrew155:
Funnily enough, we don`t look at BBC articles or op-eds to determine science. We look at SCIENCE to do that. Finding one person out of a thousand who happened to be wrong does not overturn a consensus.
0
Reply
Male 458
@Andrew155:
Why can`t we? We`re well aware of natural and man-made cycles. The thing is, we don`t know of any natural cycle that can account for the current warming.
0
Reply
Male 458
@MelCervini
What???

You do realize a few inches isn`t enough to radically change our seasons, right? The earth changes its distance to the sun by more than a million miles from season to season.

Also, if you do want to change a climate, you CAN change the content of the atmosphere. That changes how it interacts with the sun - and more CO2 causes more heat to be retained.

Also, we are not `cooling`. This is a lie perpetuated by the Daily Mail and others. Googling this will show you that we are still warming, and that we are not cooling.

@Squirlz4Sale has it right.
0
Reply
Male 2,578
Squirz - with all due respect, I hope you realize why some people with a more long-term vision of the Climate don`t accept data points just from 1980 onward. And the thing is - reliable records don`t go back so far on this. That`s the problem.
0
Reply
Male 2,578
The Economist was among the big Global Warming pushers, but even they have been changing their tune. And more.

You see, they are hedging. They realize that the models are all FAILING. The models on which all the science was based on are failing. They have not stacked up. And if you dare to question the validity of the science based on models are are proven to be inaccurate, you are treated like a Holocaust denier.

Turns out the Climate is much more complex than you can imagine.
0
Reply
Male 2,578
I encourage you all to look at this BBC article.

If you really want a good laugh.
0
Reply
Female 4,190
imho its not global warming... at best it can be called climate change because the climate is changing mainly due to the wobbling on our axis.. i.e. we shifted 6-8 inches on our axis as a result of the Japanese earthquake and that is MORE than significant enough to alter our weather patterns. Tell chicken little to go home, the sky isn`t falling... its been doing this for a very very long time.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
~facepaw~ The following graphic explains the distortions of this article well. The key term here is "reversion to the mean"; 2012 was a record low for arctic ice. It`s not surprising that an unusual amount of new ice would form in the wake of a record low.

0
Reply
Male 7,774
Link: Global Warming? It`s Actually Getting Cooler[Pic+] [Rate Link] - So which doom-mongers should I believe?
0
Reply