Global Warming

[IQS.RLOW]

The 97% bullshit turned out to be only 77 out of 13000.

Seriously SN, you are a fucking idiot.

[Rorschach]

According to the latest data from mankind’s best and latest instruments, from impeccable sources, the climate models are doing poorly.

Oh well who can argue with such concrete evidence as a story printed in a climate science denialists rag that quotes impeccable sources as it's evidence. Game over hey.

Dear IQ
the message is flawed, it has no substance and no verifiable proof . Someone could say you were an impeccable source.

Love skippy.

Oh dear...
All the modeling has been verified as wrong.
Pity that because that is what the conclusions and theory is based on.
GIGO you know, that is why they now have a NEW NETWORK of temperature stations because of all the flawed ones they originally used to feed the models garbage.
An Inconvenient Truth was verified as a propaganda piece riddled with errors.
Yet that was where the LW media got on board to support the Church of Climate change.
Climate gate was verified.
So was the fact that the Himalayan glaciers weren't all melting.
Etc, etc, etc....

[Rorschach]

Unfortunately for you SN, you are clueless on this, and have swallowed the lie.
Educate yourself!

Some quotes...

Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.

The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.

Finally, the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—which claims to speak for more than 2,500 scientists—is probably the most frequently cited source for the consensus. Its latest report claims that "human interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems." Yet relatively few have either written on or reviewed research having to do with the key question: How much of the temperature increase and other climate changes observed in the 20th century was caused by man-made greenhouse-gas emissions? The IPCC lists only 41 authors and editors of the relevant chapter of the Fifth Assessment Report addressing "anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing."

Latest ’97% consensus’ study collapses: Study found more scientific publications whose abstracts reject global warming than say humans are primarily to blame for it!

Some links...
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/05/17/ ... me-for-it/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/t ... al-survey/

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 2813553136

[Rorschach]

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor ... 3202445656

[Outlaw Yogi]

I don't know why you denialists are so determined to reject something that has been happening for the last 18,000 years, and has increased considerably in recent times.
Don't you get it? .. This planet is way over populated, so global warming is the best thing since pork chops, 'coz it going to cause mega damage and kill masses of useless people.

The way I look at it is, the Pentagon has access to some of the best minds US tax dollars can buy, so if they reckon the climate wars will begin in Africa, huge parts of China will be uninhabitable, western Europe could freeze over, and virtually every coastal city on the planet inundated by oceans, they're probably correct.


It's not like global warming hasn't happened before. On some occasions it wiped out nearly everything on the planet. Those left standing will have less competition for available resources.

[Rorschach]

I don't know why you denialists whom? I suggest you try again we haven't denied or rejected anything except the bodgey science lies and alarmism. are so determined to reject something that has been happening for the last 18,000 years, and has increased considerably in recent times. You seem to ignore the facts that the Earth has been warmer and CO2 higher.
Don't you get it? .. This planet is way over populated, really yet you could put everyone on the planet in a cube with 1 mile sides. so global warming is the best thing since pork chops, 'coz it going to cause mega damage and kill masses of useless people. Now that is a happy Green sentiment if ever I heard one.

The way I look at it is, the Pentagon has access to some of the best minds US tax dollars can buy, so if they reckon the climate wars will begin in Africa, huge parts of China will be uninhabitable, western Europe could freeze over, freeze over due to warming? and virtually every coastal city on the planet inundated by oceans, they're probably correct. Ah yes the whole panoply of catastrophes... which btw aren't happening.


It's not like global warming hasn't happened before. Correct... On some occasions it wiped out nearly everything on the planet. Actually The Ice Age did more damage. Those left standing will have less competition for available resources. Good to see you joining us denialists

[Super Nova]

freeze over due to warming?

YES - exactly. Instead of telling me to understand the science... please do some research yourself and understand the impact of this really a major risk.

In quick summary, if enough cold, fresh water coming from the melting polar ice caps and the melting glaciers of Greenland flows into the northern Atlantic, it will shut down the Gulf Stream, which keeps Europe and northeastern North America warm. The worst-case scenario would be a full-blown return of the last ice age - in a period as short as 2 to 3 years from its onset - and the mid-case scenario would be a period like the "little ice age" of a few centuries ago that disrupted worldwide weather patterns leading to extremely harsh winters, droughts, worldwide desertification, crop failures, and wars around the world.

Here's how it works.

If you look at a globe, you'll see that the latitude of much of Europe and Scandinavia is the same as that of Alaska and permafrost-locked parts of northern Canada and central Siberia. Yet Europe has a climate more similar to that of the United States than northern Canada or Siberia. Why?

It turns out that our warmth is the result of ocean currents that bring warm surface water up from the equator into northern regions that would otherwise be so cold that even in summer they'd be covered with ice. The current of greatest concern is often referred to as "The Great Conveyor Belt," which includes what we call the Gulf Stream.

The Great Conveyor Belt, while shaped by the Coriolis effect of the Earth's rotation, is mostly driven by the greater force created by differences in water temperatures and salinity. The North Atlantic Ocean is saltier and colder than the Pacific, the result of it being so much smaller and locked into place by the Northern and Southern American Hemispheres on the west and Europe and Africa on the east.

As a result, the warm water of the Great Conveyor Belt evaporates out of the North Atlantic leaving behind saltier waters, and the cold continental winds off the northern parts of North America cool the waters. Salty, cool waters settle to the bottom of the sea, most at a point a few hundred kilometers south of the southern tip of Greenland, producing a whirlpool of falling water that's 5 to 10 miles across. While the whirlpool rarely breaks the surface, during certain times of year it does produce an indentation and current in the ocean that can tilt ships and be seen from space (and may be what we see on the maps of ancient mariners).

This falling column of cold, salt-laden water pours itself to the bottom of the Atlantic, where it forms an undersea river forty times larger than all the rivers on land combined, flowing south down to and around the southern tip of Africa, where it finally reaches the Pacific. Amazingly, the water is so deep and so dense (because of its cold and salinity) that it often doesn't surface in the Pacific for as much as a thousand years after it first sank in the North Atlantic off the coast of Greenland.

The out-flowing undersea river of cold, salty water makes the level of the Atlantic slightly lower than that of the Pacific, drawing in a strong surface current of warm, fresher water from the Pacific to replace the outflow of the undersea river. This warmer, fresher water slides up through the South Atlantic, loops around North America where it's known as the Gulf Stream, and ends up off the coast of Europe. By the time it arrives near Greenland, it's cooled off and evaporated enough water to become cold and salty and sink to the ocean floor, providing a continuous feed for that deep-sea river flowing to the Pacific.

These two flows - warm, fresher water in from the Pacific, which then grows salty and cools and sinks to form an exiting deep sea river - are known as the Great Conveyor Belt.

Amazingly, the Great Conveyor Belt is only thing between comfortable summers and a permanent ice age for Europe and the eastern coast of North America.

Much of this science was unknown as recently as twenty years ago. Then an international group of scientists went to Greenland and used newly developed drilling and sensing equipment to drill into some of the world's most ancient accessible glaciers. Their instruments were so sensitive that when they analyzed the ice core samples they brought up, they were able to look at individual years of snow. The results were shocking.

Prior to the last decades, it was thought that the periods between glaciations and warmer times in North America, Europe, and North Asia were gradual. We knew from the fossil record that the Great Ice Age period began a few million years ago, and during those years there were times where for hundreds or thousands of years North America, Europe, and Siberia were covered with thick sheets of ice year-round. In between these icy times, there were periods when the glaciers thawed, bare land was exposed, forests grew, and land animals (including early humans) moved into these northern regions.

Most scientists figured the transition time from icy to warm was gradual, lasting dozens to hundreds of years, and nobody was sure exactly what had caused it. (Variations in solar radiation were suspected, as were volcanic activity, along with early theories about the Great Conveyor Belt, which, until recently, was a poorly understood phenomenon.)

Looking at the ice cores, however, scientists were shocked to discover that the transitions from ice age-like weather to contemporary-type weather usually took only two or three years. Something was flipping the weather of the planet back and forth with a rapidity that was startling.

It turns out that the ice age versus temperate weather patterns weren't part of a smooth and linear process, like a dimmer slider for an overhead light bulb. They are part of a delicately balanced teeter-totter, which can exist in one state or the other, but transits through the middle stage almost overnight. They more resemble a light switch, which is off as you gradually and slowly lift it, until it hits a mid-point threshold or "breakover point" where suddenly the state is flipped from off to on and the light comes on.

It appears that small (less that .1 percent) variations in solar energy happen in roughly 1500-year cycles. This cycle, for example, is what brought us the "Little Ice Age" that started around the year 1400 and dramatically cooled North America and Europe (we're now in the warming phase, recovering from that). When the ice in the Arctic Ocean is frozen solid and locked up, and the glaciers on Greenland are relatively stable, this variation warms and cools the Earth in a very small way, but doesn't affect the operation of the Great Conveyor Belt that brings moderating warm water into the North Atlantic.

In millennia past, however, before the Arctic totally froze and locked up, and before some critical threshold amount of fresh water was locked up in the Greenland and other glaciers, these 1500-year variations in solar energy didn't just slightly warm up or cool down the weather for the landmasses bracketing the North Atlantic. They flipped on and off periods of total glaciation and periods of temperate weather.

And these changes came suddenly.

For early humans living in Europe 30,000 years ago - when the cave paintings in France were produced - the weather would be pretty much like it is today for well over a thousand years, giving people a chance to build culture to the point where they could produce art and reach across large territories.

And then a particularly hard winter would hit.

The spring would come late, and summer would never seem to really arrive, with the winter snows appearing as early as September. The next winter would be brutally cold, and the next spring didn't happen at all, with above-freezing temperatures only being reached for a few days during August and the snow never completely melting. After that, the summer never returned: for 1500 years the snow simply accumulated and accumulated, deeper and deeper, as the continent came to be covered with glaciers and humans either fled or died out. (Neanderthals, who dominated Europe until the end of these cycles, appear to have been better adapted to cold weather than Homo sapiens.)

What brought on this sudden "disappearance of summer" period was that the warm-water currents of the Great Conveyor Belt had shut down. Once the Gulf Stream was no longer flowing, it only took a year or three for the last of the residual heat held in the North Atlantic Ocean to dissipate into the air over Europe, and then there was no more warmth to moderate the northern latitudes. When the summer stopped in the north, the rains stopped around the equator: At the same time Europe was plunged into an Ice Age, the Middle East and Africa were ravaged by drought and wind-driven firestorms. .

If the Great Conveyor Belt, which includes the Gulf Stream, were to stop flowing today, the result would be sudden and dramatic. Winter would set in for the eastern half of North America and all of Europe and Siberia, and never go away. Within three years, those regions would become uninhabitable and nearly two billion humans would starve, freeze to death, or have to relocate. Civilization as we know it probably couldn't withstand the impact of such a crushing blow.

And, incredibly, the Great Conveyor Belt has hesitated a few times in the past decade. As William H. Calvin points out in one of the best books available on this topic ("A Brain For All Seasons: human evolution & abrupt climate change"): ".the abrupt cooling in the last warm period shows that a flip can occur in situations much like the present one. What could possibly halt the salt-conveyor belt that brings tropical heat so much farther north and limits the formation of ice sheets? Oceanographers are busy studying present-day failures of annual flushing, which give some perspective on the catastrophic failures of the past. "In the Labrador Sea, flushing failed during the 1970s, was strong again by 1990, and is now declining. In the Greenland Sea over the 1980s salt sinking declined by 80 percent. Obviously, local failures can occur without catastrophe - it's a question of how often and how widespread the failures are - but the present state of decline is not very reassuring."

Most scientists involved in research on this topic agree that the culprit is global warming, melting the icebergs on Greenland and the Arctic icepack and thus flushing cold, fresh water down into the Greenland Sea from the north. When a critical threshold is reached, the climate will suddenly switch to an ice age that could last minimally 700 or so years, and maximally over 100,000 years.

And when might that threshold be reached? Nobody knows - the action of the Great Conveyor Belt in defining ice ages was discovered only in the last decade. Preliminary computer models and scientists willing to speculate suggest the switch could flip as early as next year, or it may be generations from now. It may be wobbling right now, producing the extremes of weather we've seen in the past few years.

What's almost certain is that if nothing is done about global warming, it will happen sooner rather than later.

Source: http://commondreams.org/views04/0130-11.htm

[IQS.RLOW]

You pissy little panic merchant.

Now you are getting your information from admitted "progressive" propaganda websites
You fucking moron.

None of your scary little fables are true.
Only idiots like yourself have swallowed this bullshit, I had no idea you were so gullible.

[Rorschach]

freeze over due to warming?

YES - exactly. Instead of telling me to understand the science... please do some research yourself and understand the impact of this really a major risk.

Belittle yourself SN.
If there is warming on the planet there cannot be freezing in the same place.
Therefore if the whole planet is warming (globally)... ipso facto there cannot be freezing.
I know I know that's why they changed it from global warming, because that was an easy lie to pin down.

You cannot claim CO2 causes global warming and we will reach a tipping point and catastrophe, the sky is falling etc, etc, etc... then say we will enter a mini-ice-age.

At least be consistent.

I've always been consistent.
And the longer this goes on the more right I'm being proven.

Your lot SN have been totally inconsistent....
global warming/cooling/warming/dimming/warming/climate change..... now a mini-ice-age apparently

ps. I already know all about the gulf stream and other currents, I also know about the air currents and our orbit and the Sun... one would hope this is not new information for you. One would hope you understand it better than that explanation.

[Super Nova]

Here is some serious action that is mind blowing and important step to take some action in Europe. Thos could be the end of live as some people know it.

Hairdryers may be next on hit list in EU power game

Günther Oettinger wants to stop people from buying household appliances with exceptionally high wattage

Published at 12:01AM, August 29 2014
The EU could ban popular hairdryers, kettles and smartphones to try to slow climate change, it has been revealed.

It follows the outlawing of vacuum cleaners with motors above 1,600 watts. The new EU energy rules being discussed in Brussels, referred to as the “Ecodesign” directive, could ban up to 30 home appliances. The power of hairdryers could be reduced by as much as 30 per cent.

Günther Oettinger, the German EU energy commissioner, said that stopping people from buying household appliances with exceptionally high wattage was necessary. EU legislation at present covers televisions, washing machines, refrigerators and vacuum cleaners.

A spokeswoman for the European Commission said: “It’s a big question mark if we go to regulate hairdryers at all. It’s a study we have asked consultants to do. In the final report they will reduce 30 products to 20.”

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/environme ... 190197.ece