Reply With Quote
I love it that God has a sense of humor.
How many times have Global Warming conferences been too cold to attend?
And Hansen is certifiable.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...ores-home.html
Nashville, the home of leading global warming prophet Al Gore, has enjoyed the coolest July 21 on record, observes Christopher Booker.
It was delightfully appropriate that, as large parts of Argentina were swept by severe blizzards last week, on a scale never experienced before, the city of Nashville, Tennessee, should have enjoyed the coolest July 21 in its history, breaking a record established in 1877. Appropriate, because Nashville is the home of Al Gore, the man who for 20 years has been predicting that we should all by now be in the grip of runaway global warming.
His predictions have proved so wildly wrong – along with those of the Met Office's £33 million computer model which forecast that we should now be enjoying a "barbecue summer" and that 2009 would be one of "the five warmest years ever" – that the propaganda machine has had to work overtime to maintain what is threatening to become the most expensive fiction in history.
The two official sources of satellite data on global temperatures, for instance, lately announced that June temperatures had again fallen, to their average level for the month over the 30 years since satellite data began. By contrast, the Goddard Ins ute for Space Studies, run by Mr Gore's closest ally and scientific adviser, James Hansen – one of the two official sources of global temperature data from surface weather stations – announced that in that single month the world had warmed by a staggering 0.63 degrees C, more than its net warming for the entire 20th century.
In the past few years, Dr Hansen's temperature record has become ever more eccentric, often wildly at odds with the other three officially recognised data sources, all of which showed a dramatic drop in temperatures in 2007 leading to markedly cooler summers and two of the coldest and snowiest winters the world has known for decades. All this has equally made nonsense of the predictions of the computer models that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change relies on, which are programmed to assume that temperatures should soar in line with rising levels of greenhouse gases.
Carbon dioxide levels continue to rise, but temperatures – apart from those revealed by Dr Hansen – have seriously parted company with them. This has not prevented the propaganda machine's media groupies continuing to peddle a daily stream of stories about how in all directions global warming is already affecting the world for the worse.
Soay sheep are shrinking in size (I am sure they've really noticed the global warming up on that bleak Scottish islet). The tiny Pacific nation of Tuvalu, we are yet again told, is pleading for international aid, as it sinks below the rising ocean – even though an expert study in 2001 showed that sea levels around Tuvalu have in fact been falling for 50 years. Even a report on the record number of Painted Lady butterflies in Britain this summer cannot resist ending with a ritual forecast that many butterfly species will soon disappear because of "climate change".
Meanwhile even America's foremost pro-warmist scientific blog, RealClimate – run by, among others, Dr Michael Mann of "hockey stick" fame – concedes that global temperatures are not only declining but are likely to continue to do so for at least another decade – after which, of course, they will leap up again higher than ever.
None of this is proving of much assistance to the politicians still desperately hoping to reach agreement on a new climate treaty in Copenhagen in December. With the still-developing countries, led by China, India, Russia and Brazil, all saying that they will only co-operate if rich governments such as the US and the EU compensate them to the tune of trillions of dollars a year, the chances of any meaningful successor to the Kyoto Protocol look like zero. (India's environment minister delights these days in saying that his country has no intention of sabotaging its fast-growing economy by agreeing to curb its CO2 emissions.)
But we are already committed, in any case, to paying out barely credible sums for our blind faith in global warming (quite apart from the £100 billion Gordon Brown wants us to spend on 10,000 more useless windmills, most of which he hasn't got a hope of seeing built).
A new study by an Australian analyst, Joanne Nova, based on official figures (available at the website of the Science and Public Policy Ins ute), shows that since 1991 US federal spending alone on climate change has been $79 billion. The cost of international carbon trading in 2008 was a staggering $126 billion, and is soon likely to run into trillions, making buying and selling the right to emit CO2 "the largest single commodity traded" in the world. Yet for all that money (along with countless billions more spent in Britain and elsewhere), "no one is able to point to a single piece of evidence that man-made carbon dioxide has a significant effect on global climate".
Are we all missing something – apart from all that money, of course?
I love it that God has a sense of humor.
How many times have Global Warming conferences been too cold to attend?
And Hansen is certifiable.
Doesn't the CO2 issue deal with more outside the norm climate variations as opposed to exclusively warming?
GGA joining in on the fail. fail bus is now full.
So you didn't want the answer the question. And I failed..I guess that makes you a coward.
so, how cool was it?
No. According to theory, when CO2 rises, temperature is supposed to rise. Current trends are just the opposite.
BTW, what are the "norm" climate variations?
My understanding of the issue is more about overall climate change than specifically warming. Is that true or not?
The Gore effect.
One piece of strong evidence that CO2 does not drive temperature is the last 11,000 years of ice data:
Please note that once CO2 was up to about 264 ppm 11,000 years ago, there was normal climatic changes ranging +/- 2 C ever since. The increase to past 280 ppm in the last few thousand years had no change on centering of the +/- 2 C temperature range.
Yes. There is a big difference between "global warming," as in surface warming, and resulting "climate change." But a cool day in Nashville is likely not explained by "climate change," nor is it evidence that Gore is wrong. This is just something intellectually dishonest people can point to and laugh about as they revel in their ignorance.
He needs a better Algorithm, doesn't he? His predictions suck.
Yea right. Look closely at the graph I just posted, and tell me I'm wrong.
Tell me, staying withing +/- 2 C for 11,000 years now, from 264 ppm, to 280+, and now 380+ ppm... Why haven't we exceeded that +2 high point?
Right. I'll just let the majority of the world's scientific community know you've solved this issue.
And this thread was about a cool day in Nashville, not your graph.
Point out ONE SINGLE piece of objective evidence that proves, or even quantifies, the human contribution to the whopping 0.74 degree C increase of the last 100 years.
Problem is, no such piece of evidence exists.
If you wanted this thread to be a springboard for another drawn-out discussion on climate change, I'm not biting. You posted about a cool day in Nashville, which is an intellectually lazy way to attack Gore's theories. That's all.
If you think it's only about one record-breaking day in Nashville, then your reading comprehension skills suck.
About the one piece of objective evidence (or lack thereof) -- that point is not debatable -- it is a fact.
Are air quality days just bull ? How about the severity of overfishing? Ever been to Los Angeles or any major city in China? Ever looked into the Hudson River? Is that normal? Eh, those things are probably nothing to worry about. Carry on.
That's kind of what I was getting to. Most of these nuts only tell you the portion of a problem that suits their agenda but we already know how intellectually dishnoest they are.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
But hey, I'm sure all that is conspiratorial in some way, right? Just a bunch of academics that want their grant money.
what does that have to do with global warming? Co2 isn't a pollutant. Plants need it to breathe.Are air quality days just bull ? How about the severity of overfishing? Ever been to Los Angeles or any major city in China? Ever looked into the Hudson River? Is that normal? Eh, those things are probably nothing to worry about. Carry on.
Pollution is a legit gripe, co2 causing global warming isn't.
The few dozen that finally agreed with the IPCC is small compared to the 31,478 signing the Oregon Pe ion.
Don't tell me they aren't Climatologists either. A climatologist is just a glorified meterorologists. How many time do they get the weather wrong? You need people who understand more of the geosciences to get proper appraisals from. Physicians who understand blood gasses also understand CO2 absorption of the oceans for example. A climatologist is not required to learn gas solubility equations. The ocean contains about 50 times more CO2 than the atmosphere. As it warms, it releases it. As it cools, it absorbs it. If it were in equilibrium already, not changing temperature, we would only be able to increase the atmospheric CO2 by 1 ppm every 12 years at the current rate highest estimate we expel it at. If we expelled 8 GigaTons of carbon annually, it would take just over 12.5 years to add 100 gigatons to the carbon cycle. With the ocean absorbing more than 98% of that, we are left with less than 2 gigatons. Since 750 gigatons in the atmosphere = 380 ppm, we add less than 1 ppm in 12.5 years. That means it would have taken, worse case scenario, 1250 years at our modern output levels, to increase the CO2 to where it is today.
That's absolutely impossible.
Study the simplicity of the Carbon Cycle and equilibrium of gasses in fluids, and you will understand.
Even the IPCC agrees that solar activity has increased by 0.3% since the 1700's. Then elsewhere, they cite radiative forcing only, and as the small number it is for climate feedback. They totally ignore the fact that the sun is the source for more than 99% of the earth heat! That means, at a 15 C global average, it is a 288 K global average. The kelvin scale is used for such calculations. 0.3% of 285 K (99% of 288) is 0.86 C. Yes, than means the direct effect of the sun increasing by 0.3% in the last 300 years has increased global temperature by that much. Myself, I stay conservative with the numbers normally. I claim a 250 range rather than 285 and 0.2 to 0.25% rather than the IPCC's 0.3% and claim I'm certain the sun has raised the Earths temperature by at least 0.5 C. But if you like the IPCC, I'll claim at least 0.7 C from the sun.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 07-31-2009 at 04:41 PM.
I'll wait to respond until you realize what CO2 really is...Pollution is a legit gripe, co2 causing global warming isn't.
Extrapolating that CO2 drives temperature from that article is as accurate as saying the sun revolves around the Earth.
Perception does not always equal scientific fact.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
