Is global warming bogus?

[Prisoner Of Ice]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2681829/Global-warming-latest-Amount-Antarctic-sea-ice-hits-new-record-high.html




Global warming computer models confounded as Antarctic sea ice hits new record high with 2.1million square miles more than is usual for time of year

The levels of Antarctic sea-ice last week hit an all-time high – confounding climate change computer models which say it should be in decline.

America’s National Snow And Ice Data Center, which is funded by Nasa, revealed that ice around the southern continent covers about 16million sq km, more than 2.1 million more than is usual for the time of year.

It is by far the highest level since satellite observations on which the figures depend began in 1979.
In statistical terms, the extent of the ice cover is hugely significant.

It represents the latest stage in a trend that started ten years ago, and means that an area the size of Greenland, which would normally be open water, is now frozen.

The Antarctic surge is so big that overall, although Arctic ice has decreased, the frozen area around both poles is one million square kilometres more than the long-term average.

In its authoritative Fifth Assessment Report released last year, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change admitted that the computer models on which scientists base their projections say Antarctic ice should be in decline, not increasing.

The report said: ‘There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent since 1979, due to… incomplete and competing scientific explanations for the causes of change.’



More on the site.

I used to think it was real, but at this point I think it's either vastly exaggerated or else the effect is being cancelled out by the coming ice age we are long overdue for.

I have to cringe at things like this because (as is typical) it shows most 'scientists' fail at the most basic kind of logic. The first day taking graduate level courses on simulations, the professor gave a little talk about what you can and cannot simulate. Simulations only work for things you can actually calculate but you can't calculate things that you don't know all the rules for or which rely on observed values, like drag and lift. So if for example some clever kid comes to you and says "I want to simulate the amount of lift that my aircraft design will produce so I can have hyper-realistic control responses on my f-117a simulator!" you can immediately know what's wrong with this idea. Of course he won't listen and will call you a stupid asshole, but you can rest assured that he won't be putting the JPL wind tunnel team out of business any time soon.

This is the same mistake they made here, giving the benefit of the doubt it's not outright fraud. The weather patterns of a planet are probably more complicated than an aircraft, and we can't really calculate even the small details let alone the big picture. All we can do is look at measured values which we have no conception of how to calculate. That being the case, simulation is utterly impossible.

So it's no surprise it's off. And even if the seas rise 7 inches a year for 300 years, so what? Half the ancient cities of the earth seem to be underwater or else far away from the sea now. Things change. They also won't change forever as there's only so much oil in the first place. I guess more and more, though, that these things simply go up and down regardless of anything done by humans or animals. So much worrying about this nonsense when half the cities on earth don't have enough fresh water, the world population is busting at the seems and 10% of them have AIDS, and muslim 'refugees' are moving into Europe en masse and doing their best to bring it to its knees.

[Linebacker]

Ask him

http://i370.photobucket.com/albums/oo150/aesopsoze/StrandedPolarbear.jpg

And them

http://images6.fanpop.com/image/photos/33200000/Penguins-global-warming-prevention-33210735-600-400.jpg

[Prisoner Of Ice]

That kind of crap has always happened, the worst year being 1930.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2009/03/18/explorers-on-global-warming-expedition-stranded-in-north-pole-by-cold-weather/

Read the article, the arctic ice is higher than ever.

What about these guys? Going to measure the the north pole melting and instead locked in the ice. That's happened many times, when they were sure there was melting going on, and found otherwise.

[Vasconcelos]

The question is whether or not global warming is being caused by human activity or not. Temperature fluctuations are a common thing throughout the history of the planet, if it is indeed happening we just need to do what our ancestors did - adapt. They had sticks and stones, we have super computers and space rockets, I'm sure we'll do just fine.

[Linebacker]

Explorers get stranded all the time.Even Icebreakers sink.Its still the North Pole and the coldest and harshest place on the planet,Global warming or not.

But that doesnt change the fact that its melting:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-north-pole-is-melting/

http://www.nwf.org/~/media/Content/National%20Wildlife%20Magazine%20Layouts/2007/Penguins_AS07_1.ashx?w=534&h=350&as=1

[Linebacker]

The question is whether or not global warming is being caused by human activity or not. Temperature fluctuations are a common thing throughout the history of the planet, if it is indeed happening we just need to do what our ancestors did - adapt. They had sticks and stones, we have super computers and space rockets, I'm sure we'll do just fine.

Before our "Super computers and Space rockets" the planet was just fine.No holes in the Ozone,no millions of tons of trash floating around in space.Not only have we fucked up earth we are fucking up space too.

[Vasconcelos]

Before our "Super computers and Space rockets" the planet was just fine.No holes in the Ozone,no millions of tons of trash floating around in space.Not only have we fucked up earth we are fucking up space too.

The ozone hole is rapidly shrinking (http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/12/ozone-hole-shrinks-to-record-low/).

[Linebacker]

The ozone hole is rapidly shrinking (http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/12/ozone-hole-shrinks-to-record-low/).

Fox news.

Remind me when was the last time Fox got anything right?They are just vomiting articles like this to raise their popularity because they are a dying tv.

http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_content_width/hash/86/76/8676eee7d16815a254a59dded61525d0.jpg?itok=zfq6PzTu

[Vasconcelos]

Fox news.

Remind me when was the last time Fox got anything right?They are just vomiting articles like this to raise their popularity because they are a dying tv.

http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_content_width/hash/86/76/8676eee7d16815a254a59dded61525d0.jpg?itok=zfq6PzTu

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2012/20121024_antarcticozonehole.html

It is decreasing, it's not just bullshit.

[NigelF]

Ask the Slavic swine infiltrating western Europe.

[Linebacker]

The Ozone hole doesnt look small at all.

http://www.redorbit.com/media/uploads/2012/09/science-091512-003-617x416.jpg

[Hong Key]

They should have chosen the name Climate Change from the beginning but Global Warming sounded more terrifying. In the 80's (I think) a small group started with the meme Global Warming is a hoax but it wasn't till the Russian hackers hacked the English "scientists" that Global Warming is a hoax became real (oooops) and now they are trying to push Climate Change. If they would have started with Climate Change and not worried about how it sounded they might still be in the game but no one (in there right mind) trusts anything they say now. Of course there is Climate Change, there is also solar/cosmic change, things always change. Idiots! Now there is a legitimate question of how much of the change is caused by humans. I do not know, I do know they are trying to control us by any means necessary, so I do not trust anything those on top of western civilization say at all.

[Linebacker]

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2012/20121024_antarcticozonehole.html

It is decreasing, it's not just bullshit.

Sure is.
http://www.bloomberg.com/image/iXv3XU3LUHW4.jpg

Look at the hole's shapeshifting throughout the years.There are periods when it got smalled and then it got bigger again.We are just in that period now.Its shrinking a little,and then its going to grow even bigger.
http://s1.ibtimes.com/sites/www.ibtimes.com/files/styles/v2_article_large/public/2013/12/12/ozone-hole.JPG

[Styrian Mujo]

Can we predict an Ice age?

[Raven_]

No, it is not.


Globally averaged surface air temperature has slowed its rate of increase since the late 1990s. This is not in conflict with our basic understanding of global warming and its primary cause. The decade of 2000 to 2009 was still the warmest decade on record. In addition, global surface air temperature does not always increase steadily. This time period is too short to signify a change in the warming trend, as climate trends are measured over periods of decades, not years.,,,, Such decade-long slowdowns or even reversals in trend have occurred before in the global instrumental record (for example, 1900-1910 and 1940-1950; see Figure 2.2), including three decade-long periods since 1970, each followed by a sharp temperature rise. Nonetheless, satellite and ocean observations indicate that the Earth-atmosphere climate system has continued to gain heat energy.

There are a number of possible contributions to the lower rate of increase over the last 15 years. First, the solar output during the latest 11-year solar cycle has been lower over the past 15 years than the past 60 years. Second, a series of mildly explosive volcanoes, which increased stratospheric particles, likely had more of a cooling effect than previously recognized.,,Third, the high incidence of La Niña events in the last 15 years has played a role in the observed trends. Recent analyses suggest that more of the increase in heat energy during this period has been transferred to the deep ocean than previously. While this might temporarily slow the rate of increase in surface air temperature, ultimately it will prolong the effects of global warming because the oceans hold heat for longer than the atmosphere does.

Climate models are not intended to match the real-world timing of natural climate variations – instead, models have their own internal timing for such variations. Most modeling studies do not yet account for the observed changes in solar and volcanic forcing mentioned in the previous paragraph. Therefore, it is not surprising that the timing of such a slowdown in the rate of increase in the models would be different than that observed, although it is important to note that such periods have been simulated by climate models, with the deep oceans absorbing the extra heat during those decades.



http://i60.tinypic.com/2wp8efk.jpg

Figure 2.3: Observed global average changes (black line), model simulations using only changes in natural factors (solar and volcanic) in green, and model simulations with the addition of human-induced emissions (blue). Climate changes since 1950 cannot be explained by natural factors or variability, and can only be explained by human factors. (Figure source: adapted from Huber and Knutti).


SOURCE (http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/our-changing-climate/observed-change#graphic-16679)

[Äijä]

Only thing Finns need to worry about is the Ice Age, if that happens we have to invade some place in the south.

[Äijä]

Can we predict an Ice age?

Not too accurate from what I have read but it could start developing any time.

[Styrian Mujo]

Not too accurate from what I have read but it could start developing any time.
The sooner the better. We need more natural selection.

[Äijä]

The sooner the better. We need more natural selection.

Been there done that, we can do the selecting when we come down.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

No, it is not.


Globally averaged surface air temperature has slowed its rate of increase since the late 1990s. This is not in conflict with our basic understanding of global warming and its primary cause. The decade of 2000 to 2009 was still the warmest decade on record. In addition, global surface air temperature does not always increase steadily. This time period is too short to signify a change in the warming trend, as climate trends are measured over periods of decades, not years.,,,, Such decade-long slowdowns or even reversals in trend have occurred before in the global instrumental record (for example, 1900-1910 and 1940-1950; see Figure 2.2), including three decade-long periods since 1970, each followed by a sharp temperature rise. Nonetheless, satellite and ocean observations indicate that the Earth-atmosphere climate system has continued to gain heat energy.

There are a number of possible contributions to the lower rate of increase over the last 15 years. First, the solar output during the latest 11-year solar cycle has been lower over the past 15 years than the past 60 years. Second, a series of mildly explosive volcanoes, which increased stratospheric particles, likely had more of a cooling effect than previously recognized.,,Third, the high incidence of La Niña events in the last 15 years has played a role in the observed trends. Recent analyses suggest that more of the increase in heat energy during this period has been transferred to the deep ocean than previously. While this might temporarily slow the rate of increase in surface air temperature, ultimately it will prolong the effects of global warming because the oceans hold heat for longer than the atmosphere does.

Climate models are not intended to match the real-world timing of natural climate variations – instead, models have their own internal timing for such variations. Most modeling studies do not yet account for the observed changes in solar and volcanic forcing mentioned in the previous paragraph. Therefore, it is not surprising that the timing of such a slowdown in the rate of increase in the models would be different than that observed, although it is important to note that such periods have been simulated by climate models, with the deep oceans absorbing the extra heat during those decades.



http://i60.tinypic.com/2wp8efk.jpg

Figure 2.3: Observed global average changes (black line), model simulations using only changes in natural factors (solar and volcanic) in green, and model simulations with the addition of human-induced emissions (blue). Climate changes since 1950 cannot be explained by natural factors or variability, and can only be explained by human factors. (Figure source: adapted from Huber and Knutti).


SOURCE (http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/our-changing-climate/observed-change#graphic-16679)

But again, read the article. The data used for such graphs is a lie. It's made up, and they have been caught making it up many times. And other data when asked its source, they claim they lost all the original data.

[Vasconcelos]

But again, read the article. The data used for such graphs is a lie. It's made up, and they have been caught making it up many times. And other data when asked its source, they claim they lost all the original data.

It's not the first time I read exactly that. I guess there is so much contraditory information people oftentimes feel confused about the topic.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Also, this invalid methodology gets used in a lot of othr 'science'.

Basically, a simulation is not going to help you understand how things work. It will just show you how known rules will work. It's nothing to do with science at all. A good example of a simulation would be to put in the rules of a casino game and then use the results to make sure that there is no mistake made in your game design. A bad example is basically anything else. They are spending billions to come up with computer models for things that are completely pointless.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

It's not the first time I read exactly that. I guess there is so much contraditory information people oftentimes feel confused about the topic.

It's true. Also, the fact some are fraudsters does not mean the idea is wrong. However, the more they go and the more they get shown wrong and the longer massive disaster fails to happen, the less it looks like something to be concerned by.

Antarctic won't melt, it's basically impossible because it's all over land and dead over the south pole. So the worst that can happen as far as sea levels go is rising 25 feet. And even the most aggressive estimates say this would take 3 centuries. Over centuries we have that kind of rise and fall of sea levels anyway and some cities are sinking and some rising, and by then oil will be gone anyway.

[Ultra]

Yes it's bogus. It's just there to scare people into paying more taxes(which always go to fund more third-world immigration) and to make them think it's "our biggest challenge of the century" so that people don't bother about actual, real problems that we face.

[oh-nahhh]

Are there still individuals who believe in this bull?

[Graham]

There's natural warming & cooling of the Earth. But also we have the man-made polluted warming on top. Global warming isn't bogus, but it's exaggerated & it can still cause problems having both man-made and natural warming...

[Graham]

Only thing Finns need to worry about is the Ice Age, if that happens we have to invade some place in the south.

Finland rises as the Ice-melts in post glacial rebound. Like most of Northern Europe. Southern Europe will sink. ;)



http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-PI9ldBHa-FE/URqR0jSUk5I/AAAAAAAABYA/nRwgmrbKqcM/s640/BALTICA_113-120+Baltic+Uplift.gifhttp://cdn.antarcticglaciers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/milne_shennan_fig11.pnghttp://www.john-daly.com/refugees/image015.jpg

[Unome]

Yes it is bogus like most other pseudo-science bullshit spouted throughout the media today.

Truth is that "science" doesn't have all the answers. And humanity is not nearly as smart as they think they are…

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Southern europe will sink? This gets better and better.

[Vasconcelos]

Southern europe will sink? This gets better and better.

Not as much as the north


http://vrstudio.buffalo.edu/~depape/warming/europeMap.jpg

[Styrian Mujo]

Southern europe will sink? This gets better and better.
By the time southern Europe sinks most of north Europe will be inhabited by triracial mongrels.

[Svipdag]

Global warming and global refrigeration are cyclical. However, as I have pointed out several times before, the period of the cycle is measured in hundreds of thousands of years. As in all natural geological and climatological processes, there are often halts and reversals.
Any short-term trends (i.e. less than some tens of thousands of years in duration), are essentially random, that is, insignificant and irrelevant.

The long-term trend, if the most recent glacial age behaves as did its predecessors, is for global warming, IF this is the beginning of an Interglacial age. The Laurentide Ice Sheet in North America dwindled from 26.5 million cubic kilometres about 13,000 years ago to 6 million cubic kilometers in volume 8500 years ago. That took REAL global warming . If the next Interglacial Age is like its predecessors, and if this marks the beginning of one, we should expect nearly 40,000 more years of global warming.

If, though, this is just a glitch in the Wisconsinan or Wurm Ice age, and it isn't really over yet, glacial conditions could return any time. A few thousand years isn't really long enough to tell.

[Aviator]

Southern europe will sink? This gets better and better.

I'm with you. Hopefully the world really is rapidly heating up if this is true.

[FeederOfRavens]

I'm with you. Hopefully the world really is rapidly heating up if this is true.

Unfortunately, most of Britain, Netherlands, North Germany, Scandinavia and the Baltic states will sink along with it.

[Aviator]

Unfortunately, most of Britain, Netherlands, North Germany, Scandinavia and the Baltic states will sink along with it.

:(

[Prisoner Of Ice]

By the time southern Europe sinks most of north Europe will be inhabited by triracial mongrels.

Not true, there won't be any euro remants left at all.

[portusaus]

Yes, the planet is warming overall. It is also dimming; less heat (and light) is entering the atmosphere but much less is leaving. Not because of carbon emission or any of that bullshit, because of international geoengineering programs.

http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/

http://globalskywatch.com/

http://www.skyderalert.com/

[portusaus]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf0khstYDLA


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEfJO0-cTis

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Yes, the planet is warming overall. It is also dimming; less heat (and light) is entering the atmosphere but much less is leaving. Not because of carbon emission or any of that bullshit, because of international geoengineering programs.

http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/

http://globalskywatch.com/

http://www.skyderalert.com/

Why on earth would they do such a thing?

[Guapo]

global warming is fuckin bullshit Al Gore can suck my cock

[portusaus]

Why on earth would they do such a thing?

There are as many motivations as there are sick fucks investing in it and ingredients in the aerosols. Controlling the weather for capitalist and military reasons, creating an atmospheric medium suitable for extremely sophisticated 'plasma' weaponry, poisoning the soil so much in targetted areas that organic farmers cannot grow crops and only GE seeds will flourish, potentially intentionally poisoning the citizenry to cause illness and make money via the medical industry or to cause aluminum toxicity which causes mental problems and inhibited intellect. I've heard that there is probably a biological agent in some of the concoctions, if you read about 'Morgellon's Disease' it is a bizarre unexplained skin rash that is medically classified as a 'mental disorder' -the delusion that one's flesh is accumulating skin rashes. There are pictures of the rashes. Hmm.

When confronted about the issue: officials with deny it altogether, admit to the trails but claim that they are water vapor contrails, or admit that aerosols are being sprayed for the purpose of blocking the sun's rays to protect against global warming. The problem with that is that while it does reduce sunlight during the daytime (which does much, much more harm than good) it also traps heat in at night (essentially, greenhouse effect) overall increasing the temperature. Some regions like the Eastern US have had their climate intentionally cooled whereas the southwest especially California have been in an induced hot drought so bad that the bark is burning off trees and they are dying.

The US definitely gets the worst of this shit, but apparently everywhere within NATO is affected plus Russia and China at least.

There is a lot of information on the internet about this.. most haven't a clue despite the ugly things being drawn above their head most days.

[Guapo]

Al Gore, suck a fuckin duck

[armenianbodyhair]

Global warming and global refrigeration are cyclical. However, as I have pointed out several times before, the period of the cycle is measured in hundreds of thousands of years. As in all natural geological and climatological processes, there are often halts and reversals.
Any short-term trends (i.e. less than some tens of thousands of years in duration), are essentially random, that is, insignificant and irrelevant.

The long-term trend, if the most recent glacial age behaves as did its predecessors, is for global warming, IF this is the beginning of an Interglacial age. The Laurentide Ice Sheet in North America dwindled from 26.5 million cubic kilometres about 13,000 years ago to 6 million cubic kilometers in volume 8500 years ago. That took REAL global warming . If the next Interglacial Age is like its predecessoirs, and if this marks the beginning of one, we should expect nearly 40,000 more years of global warming.

If, though, this is just a glitch in the Wisconsinan or Wurm Ice age, and it isn't really over yet, glacial conditions could return any time. A few thousand years isn't really long enough to tell.
This, its also strongly linked to the poles flipping, which supposedly they are about to very soon.

[Styrian Mujo]

Not true, there won't be any euro remants left at all.
Of all the immigrant groups wich inhabit northwestern Europe wich do you think will become the dominant racial group in that region in the future?

[Svipdag]

global warming is fuckin bullshit Al Gore can suck my cock


DID YOU READ MY POST ?

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Of all the immigrant groups wich inhabit northwestern Europe wich do you think will become the dominant racial group in that region in the future?

Ultimately it will all be han chinese. Blacks and middle eastoids are just too retarded to be anything but colonization victims in the modern technical era - it's twice as bad with islam which seems to make people completely helpless to live in the real world. The only way this shit can happen is the government actually MAKES it happen, but once they are majority they will bully the europeans out of existence just like has happened with natives in most of middle east for 1000+ years now.

[Svipdag]

Can we predict an Ice age?

More or less, but there are major "if's".

IF we are entering an Interglacial Age and
IF it is comparable in duration to past Interglacial Ages , the next Glacial Age should start about 87,000 years from now. But,

IF the present warm climate episode is just an Interstadial, i.e. a temporary interruption or reversal within the Wisconsinan, or Wurm Glacial Age, then glacial conditions could return at ANY time !

This would be a major disaster with which we are not prepared or equipped to cope. I seriously doubt that civilisation could survive it, especially if, as at present, we are going to waste precious time playing the "blame game" instead of DOING anything to prepare for it.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

DID YOU READ MY POST ?

I read it but most of what you posted is wrong and much of it we don't know much about.

First off our axial tilt is well into the ice age area. We are actually overdue for the BIG ice age.

Second off there are glaciation periods all the time that are not really the same as an ice age. In fact that is the normal condition for the planet.

There are also brief warming periods. That's what we are in now. That has reversed itself however, it's not increasing but going the other way. We can see that since all the biblical port cities are now quite some distance from the ocean now. The formation of the sahara desert also occurs when the global temperatures REDUCE to a certain level, because cooling actually makes the globe more arid. This has been going on for at least 6k years, unless you think that the great ancient cities were actually built in the middle of deserts.

Hard to tell how much effect man made global warming has but the answer seems to be "not all that much" if it's not had a dramatic effect by now. We should be worrying more about the end of the holocene in the next few centuries, which is long overdue. The real ice age will be even more extreme but when the holocene ends then the sea levels are actually going to sink 200+ feet.

[Svipdag]

This, its also strongly linked to the poles flipping, which supposedly they are about to very soon.

NO ! The geographical poles do not flip., It is the magnetic poles which flip (if one can call a process taking about 10,000 years "flipping").

[oh-nahhh]

I had to pretend I believe in this crap just to pass a course.

Unbelievable.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

NO ! The geographical poles do not flip., It is the magnetic poles which flip (if one can call a process taking about 10,000 years "flipping").

The poles could flip but only if an asteroid hit the planet or something. Which is apparently how the axial tilt came about in the first place.

[Svipdag]

[QUOTE=Melonhead;2802913]I read it but most of what you posted is wrong and much of it we don't know much about.

First off our axial tilt is well into the ice age area. We are actually overdue for the BIG ice age.

Second off there are glaciation periods all the time that are not really the same as an ice age. In fact that is the normal condition for the planet.

Most of what I posted was based on the paleoclimatological record. The facts support my position. You have ignored a very important, though short word: "IF". I never said that we ARE entering an interglacial Age because neither I nor anyone else knows that. IF this is the beginning of the post-Wisconsinan (or post-Wurm) Interglacial Age, most earlier Interglacials having been around 100,000 years long, and this one having apparently started 13,000 years ago, we would have about 87,000 years to go. This is not 'wrong" , but a simple deduction from the record of past Interglacial Ages.

I clearly stated that the present episode of global warming could be an Interstadial, a temporary reversal within the Wisconsinan (or Wurm) Ice Age. This sort of thing is well known to have occurred in earlier Ice Ages, as shown by the intercalation of thin warm-climate deposits among the glacial deposits.

You confidently cite axial tilt as if this were known to be the cause of Glacial Ages, but the truth is that WE DO NOT KNOW their cause. The astronomical theory, based on the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit and the obliquity of the Ecliptic was proposed in the 1920's by Milutin Milankovitch and scrapped in the 1950's because it required that Ice Ages alternate between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. This objection was greatly weakened by the difference in relative areas of land vs water in the two hemispheres.

Faute de mieux, it has been dug out of the wastepaper basket and tidied up a bit, but it is far from proven. Some astrophysicists are blaming cyclical fluctuations in cosmic ray flux which would change the Earth's albedo. Plausible, but unproven. There is also a meteorological and oceanographic theory proposed in the late 1950's which states that glaciation in the Northern Hemisphere occurs when the Arctic ocean is free of ice, providing a source of precipitation over the upper latitudes of Europe and North America, a plausible contender which we may soon be in a position to test.

Please try to be a bit less dogmatic about matters concerning which we know so little.

[armenianbodyhair]

NO ! The geographical poles do not flip., It is the magnetic poles which flip (if one can call a process taking about 10,000 years "flipping").

I never implied it was the geographic poles that flip.:picard2: You don't always have to assume the worst of people, you know. Its kind of implied its the the magnetic poles that flip. :picard2: I also don't see why you're trying to start a semantics argument. We're making the same point here.

[Äijä]

Unfortunately, most of Britain, Netherlands, North Germany, Scandinavia and the Baltic states will sink along with it.

We pack our bags and start migrating like the rest of the planet is doing already, we could take India or Africa.

[armenianbodyhair]

The poles could flip but only if an asteroid hit the planet or something. Which is apparently how the axial tilt came about in the first place.

No one was ever talking about the geographic poles flipping. Also a lot of unexpected occurances can cause that, this is a predictable and documented occurance I'm talking about.

[Svipdag]

I never implied it was the geographic poles that flip.:picard2: You don't always have to assume the worst of people, you know. Its kind of implied its the the magnetic poles that flip. :picard2: I also don't see why you're trying to start a semantics argument. We're making the same point here.

I wasn't assuming the worst, I merely misunderstood you. Sorry about that. But, only a shift of the geographic poles would have any easily detected effects on the Earth's surface.
A magnetic polarity reversal could increase the cosmic ray flux because the polarity cannot change from + to - (or vice versa) without passing through zero. The increased cosmic ray flux could increase the Earth's albedo by providing more ionic nuclei for cloud droplets to form on.

However, the paleomagnetic record shows that reversals occur rapidly. It is questionable whether the increased albedo while the magnetic field was weak or zero, would persist for long enough to produce significant long-term climatic refrigeration.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Flipping the magnetic poles won't do shit, so this makes even less sense. The real poles also change without asteroid hits but it's an extremely slow process, even slower than magnetic pole shift.

I was watching highlander 2 today and had to laugh. Holy crap man, the delusions about the ozone layer of the time. We are going to need a giant shield to shelter the planet by 1999! No doubt all this warming crap will be seen the same way in 50 years.

Of course you complain about real environment issues such as the 24000 chemicals used in plastic bottles which disrupt your endocrines, you are a conspiracy nut.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Most of what I posted was based on the paleoclimatological record. The facts support my position. You have ignored a very important, though short word: "IF". I never said that we ARE entering an interglacial Age because neither I nor anyone else knows that. IF this is the beginning of the post-Wisconsinan (or post-Wurm) Interglacial Age, most earlier Interglacials having been around 100,000 years long, and this one having apparently started 13,000 years ago, we would have about 87,000 years to go. This is not 'wrong" , but a simple deduction from the record of past Interglacial Ages.

I clearly stated that the present episode of global warming could be an Interstadial, a temporary reversal within the Wisconsinan (or Wurm) Ice Age. This sort of thing is well known to have occurred in earlier Ice Ages, as shown by the intercalation of thin warm-climate deposits among the glacial deposits.

You confidently cite axial tilt as if this were known to be the cause of Glacial Ages, but the truth is that WE DO NOT KNOW their cause. The astronomical theory, based on the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit and the obliquity of the Ecliptic was proposed in the 1920's by Milutin Milankovitch and scrapped in the 1950's because it required that Ice Ages alternate between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. This objection was greatly weakened by the difference in relative areas of land vs water in the two hemispheres.

Faute de mieux, it has been dug out of the wastepaper basket and tidied up a bit, but it is far from proven. Some astrophysicists are blaming cyclical fluctuations in cosmic ray flux which would change the Earth's albedo. Plausible, but unproven. There is also a meteorological and oceanographic theory proposed in the late 1950's which states that glaciation in the Northern Hemisphere occurs when the Arctic ocean is free of ice, providing a source of precipitation over the upper latitudes of Europe and North America, a plausible contender which we may soon be in a position to test.

Please try to be a bit less dogmatic about matters concerning which we know so little.

I'm the one who said we don't know about a lot of things. But we do know about the axial tilt which is pretty obvious one. You can't form permanent ice over sea water. This is the root cause of the 'ice age' as it's now being used today, and yes we are plunging headlong into it and have been for some time.

That doesn't account for all the glacial periods though, there seems to be a new one at least every 30-40k. It's pretty clear that the warm period we've been has cooled down a lot since the initial hot spell due to what I said about sea levels and the desertification in the middle east due to cooling. So there's no real doubt we have getting colder it's what I like to refer to as a fact. Now we might have some comparative warming due to man made causes but it's been centuries now and the disaster has failed to happen. I know as much about making computer models as nearly anyone. You can easily run a computer model that shows exponential warming leading to mass dieout on earth, however there's no data to support such a model, it's just a made up guess. Since the real results don't fit their computer generated models we can simply say that the models were pure bullshit and move on. It's invalid.

[armenianbodyhair]

Flipping the magnetic poles won't do shit, so this makes even less sense. The real poles also change without asteroid hits but it's an extremely slow process, even slower than magnetic pole shift.

I was watching highlander 2 today and had to laugh. Holy crap man, the delusions about the ozone layer of the time. We are going to need a giant shield to shelter the planet by 1999! No doubt all this warming crap will be seen the same way in 50 years.

Of course you complain about real environment issues such as the 24000 chemicals used in plastic bottles which disrupt your endocrines, you are a conspiracy nut.
The magnetic poles shift and it affects the atmosphere a lot, this is a well documented fact.

[armenianbodyhair]

I wasn't assuming the worst, I merely misunderstood you. Sorry about that. But, only a shift of the geographic poles would have any easily detected effects on the Earth's surface.
A magnetic polarity reversal could increase the cosmic ray flux because the polarity cannot change from + to - (or vice versa) without passing through zero. The increased cosmic ray flux could increase the Earth's albedo by providing more ionic nuclei for cloud droplets to form on.

However, the paleomagnetic record shows that reversals occur rapidly. It is questionable whether the increased albedo while the magnetic field was weak or zero, would persist for long enough to produce significant long-term climatic refrigeration.
It's not really long term that's the point, it's right before it actually flips that it's at the worst, then it gets better, suggesting it's a bit of a natural cycle.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Should global warming denial be a thoughtcrime?

[Unome]

Should global warming denial be a thoughtcrime?
Truth is always a thought crime.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Truth is always a thought crime.

I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out the whole thing is to dsitract people from the impending ice age.

[portusaus]

I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out the whole thing is to dsitract people from the impending ice age.

Did you watch those documentaries I linked before?

The planet is warming, which is melting the poles and raising sea levels, while the continents dry up due to agents dispersed in the atmosphere to postpone and control precipitation. Cooler during the day, but too much heat is being insulated, so yes the planet is warming overall.

Not because of coal power plants, or Hummers, or livestock, but geoengineering by the most technologically advanced and overbudgeted militaries in the world as well as innumerable corporations and wealthy individuals. "Global warming" is a hoax, in the sense that it is used as an excuse for what is done out of the public's eye, but to imply that the planet is not on the verge of climate catastrophe would be inaccurate and over-optimistic.

[Ultra]

Did you watch those documentaries I linked before?

The planet is warming, which is melting the poles and raising sea levels, while the continents dry up due to agents dispersed in the atmosphere to postpone and control precipitation. Cooler during the day, but too much heat is being insulated, so yes the planet is warming overall.

Not because of coal power plants, or Hummers, or livestock, but geoengineering by the most technologically advanced and overbudgeted militaries in the world as well as innumerable corporations and wealthy individuals. "Global warming" is a hoax, in the sense that it is used as an excuse for what is done out of the public's eye, but to imply that the planet is not on the verge of climate catastrophe would be inaccurate and over-optimistic.
Where be these videos?

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Did you watch those documentaries I linked before?

The planet is warming, which is melting the poles and raising sea levels, while the continents dry up due to agents dispersed in the atmosphere to postpone and control precipitation. Cooler during the day, but too much heat is being insulated, so yes the planet is warming overall.

Not because of coal power plants, or Hummers, or livestock, but geoengineering by the most technologically advanced and overbudgeted militaries in the world as well as innumerable corporations and wealthy individuals. "Global warming" is a hoax, in the sense that it is used as an excuse for what is done out of the public's eye, but to imply that the planet is not on the verge of climate catastrophe would be inaccurate and over-optimistic.

I watched it but no offense I just don't think it's plausible. Millions of tons of ammonium and barium is a lot more than is practical to put into the air.

[portusaus]

Where be these videos?

geoengineeringwatch.org

http://globalskywatch.com/

http://www.skyderalert.com/


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf0khstYDLA


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGsi7JaV6gs

There's a lot of information, and misinformation, on this subject. Deep within the bowels of the inter-web.


I watched it but no offense I just don't think it's plausible. Millions of tons of ammonium and barium is a lot more than is practical to put into the air.

How do you explain the aerosols then?

https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fteamskywatcher.files.wordpress.com %2F2013%2F08%2Fwhat-is-geoengineering.jpg%3Fw%3D610%26h%3D610&f=1

https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thedailysheeple.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F07%2Fbbc_geoengineering .jpg&f=1

https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwakeup-world.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F12%2Fgeoengineering.jpg&f=1

Saturated right on the horizon:

https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hdwallpapers.in%2Fwalls%2Fnew_ york_skyline-wide.jpg&f=1

https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.staticflickr.com%2F3800%2F11 432166393_9b1afc950f_z.jpg&f=1

https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3789/14319906683_dc1f7be1ea_z.jpg

[Ultra]

How do you explain the aerosols then?

https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fteamskywatcher.files.wordpress.com %2F2013%2F08%2Fwhat-is-geoengineering.jpg%3Fw%3D610%26h%3D610&f=1

https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thedailysheeple.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F07%2Fbbc_geoengineering .jpg&f=1

https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwakeup-world.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F12%2Fgeoengineering.jpg&f=1

Saturated right on the horizon:

https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hdwallpapers.in%2Fwalls%2Fnew_ york_skyline-wide.jpg&f=1

https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.staticflickr.com%2F3800%2F11 432166393_9b1afc950f_z.jpg&f=1

https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3789/14319906683_dc1f7be1ea_z.jpg
Water vapour?


Anyway I'll check the stuff out, thanks.

[Pjeter Pan]

I thinks it bullshit, where I live it didn't stop snowing until April came around

[Prisoner Of Ice]

It's not why I started this thread but it is unseasonably cold weather this year. Of course I prayed to god for a weather change so maybe he took pity.

[rhiannon]

I don't think it is.

From my own observations living in WA state for the past 20 years.....the summers keep getting hotter and hotter. I now notice a fewer degree difference between your average summer day here versus where I grew up in SoCal.

Global Warming is very real IMO

[rhiannon]

Unfortunately, most of Britain, Netherlands, North Germany, Scandinavia and the Baltic states will sink along with it.
What about Alaska ?!?

[Aviator]

In the sense that it's typically used? Yes.

But I still acknowledge that humans do have a profound and adverse effect on our environment, and we should take steps to remedy that.

[FeederOfRavens]

What about Alaska ?!?

Half of Alaska is under an Ice sheet, so if that melts.....

[Jackson]

This is an interesting video to watch for another opinion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbgcyW-MqtY

[Prisoner Of Ice]

bump

[Svipdag]

Global warming has been going on for about 13,000 years. Like all geological and climatological processes, this trend is punctuated by halts and tremporary reversals. Any events which take place on a time scale of years , decades, or centuries are insignificant.
Prior to
13,000 years ago, there were continental ice sheets having volumes of tens of millions of cubic kilometers and central thicknesses of around 3000 km. occupying large areas of North America and western Europe. By about 8000 years ago, it was almost all gone. THIS required global warming on a scale difficult to imagine. Yet, it happened. The rock-waste transported by these ice sheets is there, but the ice is gone.

Past Glacial Ages have been followed by Interglacial Ages averaging 100,000 years in duration. If the most recent Ice Age peaked about 30,000 years ago and began to reverse about 13,000 years ago, we should expect deglaciation to continue for another 47,000 years or so. So, the global warming, on the average, over long periods of time, should continue about that long.

NOTE, This is a NATURAL PROCESS. We have NOTHING to do with it ! If we never burnt another atom of carbon, it would happen anyway. About 4500 years ago, there was a global warming spike , called the Thermal Maximum in which Scandinavia had a Mediterranean climate. Who was burning fossil fuels, then ? Who was running internal combustion engines then ? Obviously, NOBODY.

Global warming is real, natural, and we have nothing to do with it. We didn't start it and we can't stop it. So, we'd damned well better start learning how to cope with it in the long run rather than waste time, energy, and money trying to stop the inevitable !

[N1019]

I have no doubt that humans are having a devastating effect on the planet, but I wouldn't trust the bureaucrats, politicians and corporate players in the climate change movement as far as I could throw them, which for me is a huge obstacle. The political system is completely dysfunctional. When a pack of thieves identifies a problem, then presents a solution that is going to cost you money while benefitting them, be suspicious - very suspicious.

[Suleiman Arian]

It's not bogus but I believe the USSA has something to do with it

[Ultra]

Global warming has been going on for about 13,000 years. Like all geological and climatological processes, this trend is punctuated by halts and tremporary reversals. Any events which take place on a time scale of years , decades, or centuries are insignificant.
Prior to
13,000 years ago, there were continental ice sheets having volumes of tens of millions of cubic kilometers and central thicknesses of around 3000 km. occupying large areas of North America and western Europe. By about 8000 years ago, it was almost all gone. THIS required global warming on a scale difficult to imagine. Yet, it happened. The rock-waste transported by these ice sheets is there, but the ice is gone.

Past Glacial Ages have been followed by Interglacial Ages averaging 100,000 years in duration. If the most recent Ice Age peaked about 30,000 years ago and began to reverse about 13,000 years ago, we should expect deglaciation to continue for another 47,000 years or so. So, the global warming, on the average, over long periods of time, should continue about that long.

NOTE, This is a NATURAL PROCESS. We have NOTHING to do with it ! If we never burnt another atom of carbon, it would happen anyway. About 4500 years ago, there was a global warming spike , called the Thermal Maximum in which Scandinavia had a Mediterranean climate. Who was burning fossil fuels, then ? Who was running internal combustion engines then ? Obviously, NOBODY.

Global warming is real, natural, and we have nothing to do with it. We didn't start it and we can't stop it. So, we'd damned well better start learning how to cope with it in the long run rather than waste time, energy, and money trying to stop the inevitable !
True. Well said.

[Sekkmer]

It's not bogus IMO.

[ChristinaLadyBug]

I believe that the threat of Global Warming is very real, but sadly it has become a political game for both the left and the right, as well as a pawn for very greedy captains of industry.