Global Warming ended in 1998?

asur

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2008
Messages
1,100
You know this is gonna disturb Obama, Al Gore and other alarmists, to find out that even though CO2 levels increased over the last 11 years, global temperatures didn't rise!

http://blogs.wsj.com/iainmartin/2009...opped-in-1998/


Maybe Obama and Al gore can now change their tunes and say we have a global cooling problem and they need to tax us!
 
Werbung:
You're right... they don't care--but they need for enough of you to believe so that they can stick you with the new business support for all those "green" energy schemes.

OHC (Oceanic Heat Content) is falling off a cliff at the moment. Maybe Svensmark's completely correct about the GCR's having more to do with climate than most think!
 
I'd say (actual) scientists are a little-better versed, on the subject, than Rupert Murdoch.

:rolleyes:

Irrelevant. The fact is that CO2 levels have continued to rise, yet temperature has not. It doesn't matter who still supports the "co2 drives temp" theory, it is wrong.

Of course it was already proven wrong by the Ice Core samples many years ago, where they discovered the historical record of CO2 levels and temps. In that, they found CO2 levels *followed* not led, temperature.

The facts have dis-proven the theory. To claim a disproven theory is still correct, in the face of cold hard facts, is to remain willfully ignorant, and show yourself to be against science.
 
Irrelevant. The fact is that CO2 levels have continued to rise, yet temperature has not. It doesn't matter who still supports the "co2 drives temp" theory, it is wrong.

Of course it was already proven wrong by the Ice Core samples many years ago, where they discovered the historical record of CO2 levels and temps. In that, they found CO2 levels *followed* not led, temperature.

The facts have dis-proven the theory. To claim a disproven theory is still correct, in the face of cold hard facts, is to remain willfully ignorant, and show yourself to be against science.

Andy - you're right on track. They have been using partial data for years to describe something (Global Warming) that is a regional occurrence. For those who don't believe this, then just check the average temperatures for just the United States for the last 100 years (giss.nasa.gov) and then add onto it the average temps for Punta Arenas, Chili (giss.nasa.gov). Then ask yourself, is the whole globe really warming?
 
Huh, farout!!!! Looky where I found this article!!!!!!!! It sure as hell wasn't CNN:p

GREENLAND & ANTARCTIC ICE SHELF IN RUNAWAY MELT MODE

If they report it, there's no way it it's a myth, right?????????:eek:

And btw, it's opposite sides of the planet, not REGIONAL:cool:

Then of course there's the totally inaccurate Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_shelf

In the last several decades, glaciologists have observed consistent decreases in ice shelf extent through melt, calving, and complete disintegration of some shelves.[2]

The Ellesmere ice shelf reduced by 90 percent in the twentieth century, leaving the separate Alfred Ernest, Ayles, Milne, Ward Hunt, and Markham Ice Shelves. A 1986 survey of Canadian ice shelves found that 48 km². (3.3 cubic kilometers) of ice calved from the Milne and Ayles ice shelves between 1959 and 1974.[3] The Ayles Ice Shelf calved entirely on August 13, 2005. The Ward Hunt Ice Shelf, the largest remaining section of thick (>10 m) landfast sea ice along the northern coastline of Ellesmere Island, lost 600 square km of ice in a massive calving in 1961-1962.[4] It further decreased by 27% in thickness (13 m) between 1967 and 1999.[5] In summer 2002, the Ward Ice Shelf experienced another major breakup. [6]

Two sections of Antarctica's Larsen Ice Shelf broke apart into hundreds of unusually small fragments (100's of meters wide or less) in 1995 and 2002.

The breakup events may be linked to the dramatic polar warming trends that are part of global warming. The leading ideas involve enhanced ice fracturing due to surface meltwater and enhanced bottom melting due to warmer ocean water circulating under the floating ice.

But of course, all of the worlds eggheads are liberals so that has to be a lie. But wait, what is this I see?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution

The insatiable demand of the railways for more durable rail led to the development of the means to cheaply mass-produce steel. Steel is often cited as the first of several new areas for industrial mass-production, which are said to characterise a "Second Industrial Revolution", beginning around 1850, although a method for mass manufacture of steel was not invented until the 1860s, when Sir Henry Bessemer invented a new furnace which could make wrought iron and steel in large quantities. However, it only became widely available in the 1870s. This second Industrial Revolution gradually grew to include the chemical industries, petroleum refining and distribution, electrical industries, and, in the twentieth century, the automotive industries, and was marked by a transition of technological leadership from Britain to the United States and Germany.

The introduction of hydroelectric power generation in the Alps enabled the rapid industrialisation of coal-deprived northern Italy, beginning in the 1890s. The increasing availability of economical petroleum products also reduced the importance of coal and further widened the potential for industrialisation.

Amazing coincidence how some hundred plus years after experiencing an exponential increase in industrialization involving petroleum products and manufacturing, we are now seeing an exponential increase in the byproduct after effects directly attributed to those very materials we've been consuming

It's simple logic and physics, if you start your car in your garage and sit in it, what happens? You asphyxiate. Now spread that effect out over 2-3 hundred years. You think that we, insignificant humans, capable of developing technology that could instantly eradicate the worlds population several times over, are not capable of affecting the planets climate and environment????????????????? Nahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh........ That could never happen here in Wonderland.....:(

It's that exact attitude that is becoming the minority so, C'est la vie
 
Huh, farout!!!! Looky where I found this article!!!!!!!! It sure as hell wasn't CNN:p

GREENLAND & ANTARCTIC ICE SHELF IN RUNAWAY MELT MODE

If they report it, there's no way it it's a myth, right?????????:eek:

And btw, it's opposite sides of the planet, not REGIONAL:cool:

Then of course there's the totally inaccurate Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_shelf

In the last several decades, glaciologists have observed consistent decreases in ice shelf extent through melt, calving, and complete disintegration of some shelves.[2]

The Ellesmere ice shelf reduced by 90 percent in the twentieth century, leaving the separate Alfred Ernest, Ayles, Milne, Ward Hunt, and Markham Ice Shelves. A 1986 survey of Canadian ice shelves found that 48 km². (3.3 cubic kilometers) of ice calved from the Milne and Ayles ice shelves between 1959 and 1974.[3] The Ayles Ice Shelf calved entirely on August 13, 2005. The Ward Hunt Ice Shelf, the largest remaining section of thick (>10 m) landfast sea ice along the northern coastline of Ellesmere Island, lost 600 square km of ice in a massive calving in 1961-1962.[4] It further decreased by 27% in thickness (13 m) between 1967 and 1999.[5] In summer 2002, the Ward Ice Shelf experienced another major breakup. [6]

Two sections of Antarctica's Larsen Ice Shelf broke apart into hundreds of unusually small fragments (100's of meters wide or less) in 1995 and 2002.

The breakup events may be linked to the dramatic polar warming trends that are part of global warming. The leading ideas involve enhanced ice fracturing due to surface meltwater and enhanced bottom melting due to warmer ocean water circulating under the floating ice.

But of course, all of the worlds eggheads are liberals so that has to be a lie. But wait, what is this I see?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution

The insatiable demand of the railways for more durable rail led to the development of the means to cheaply mass-produce steel. Steel is often cited as the first of several new areas for industrial mass-production, which are said to characterise a "Second Industrial Revolution", beginning around 1850, although a method for mass manufacture of steel was not invented until the 1860s, when Sir Henry Bessemer invented a new furnace which could make wrought iron and steel in large quantities. However, it only became widely available in the 1870s. This second Industrial Revolution gradually grew to include the chemical industries, petroleum refining and distribution, electrical industries, and, in the twentieth century, the automotive industries, and was marked by a transition of technological leadership from Britain to the United States and Germany.

The introduction of hydroelectric power generation in the Alps enabled the rapid industrialisation of coal-deprived northern Italy, beginning in the 1890s. The increasing availability of economical petroleum products also reduced the importance of coal and further widened the potential for industrialisation.

Amazing coincidence how some hundred plus years after experiencing an exponential increase in industrialization involving petroleum products and manufacturing, we are now seeing an exponential increase in the byproduct after effects directly attributed to those very materials we've been consuming

It's simple logic and physics, if you start your car in your garage and sit in it, what happens? You asphyxiate. Now spread that effect out over 2-3 hundred years. You think that we, insignificant humans, capable of developing technology that could instantly eradicate the worlds population several times over, are not capable of affecting the planets climate and environment????????????????? Nahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh........ That could never happen here in Wonderland.....:(

The facts have dis-proven the theory. To claim a disproven theory is still correct, in the face of cold hard facts, is to remain willfully ignorant, and show yourself to be against science.

It's that exact attitude that is becoming the minority so, C'est la vie, you show your ignorance of basic common science, and physics principles.
 
Interesting how fast this post died......figured it would....

Here is a perfect example of selective statistical reporting. While the shelves you reference are currently shifting and calving at a greater rate, you must also take into account that the thickness of the glacial ice on most of Antarctica is actually getting thicker. The shelves are considered surge glaciers which ebb and tide with alarming irregularity. Scientists don't know why.

The whole concept of Global warming is that the entire globe is warming. The statistical facts I quoted above show this as false.

Most of the Global warming data includes a great deal of data from Europe from 1900 through 1950. I'm sorry, but I'm hard pressed to think much of Europe was focused on gathering temperature data during two World Wars and a massive depression.

It's easy to think that everything revolves around us, but the fact is that humans are not the center of the universe and there are many factors greater than us having a tug of war on the earth's environment. Solar flares, gravitational anomalies, and solar winds have more to do with temperature, tides, earthquakes, and weather than anything we can do.

Does that mean we should be slobs, no. We should keep our planet clean, but let's do it in a way that actually is productive to the cause instead of to someone's pocketbook. I already gave up paper bags for plastic ones so that I can get a dirty look for now not having a hemp/canvas one I carry back and forth. Realize you are being dooped again into supporting extreme measures. Be conscious and be aware, but don't fall for the panic and insanity.
 
You know this is gonna disturb Obama, Al Gore and other alarmists, to find out that even though CO2 levels increased over the last 11 years, global temperatures didn't rise!

http://blogs.wsj.com/iainmartin/2009...opped-in-1998/


Maybe Obama and Al gore can now change their tunes and say we have a global cooling problem and they need to tax us!

Just don't try to ask Al Gore a question or this will happen to you:

 
Huh, farout!!!! Looky where I found this article!!!!!!!! It sure as hell wasn't CNN

GREENLAND & ANTARCTIC ICE SHELF IN RUNAWAY MELT MODE

If they report it, there's no way it it's a myth, right?????????

And btw, it's opposite sides of the planet, not REGIONAL

Then of course there's the totally inaccurate Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_shelf



But of course, all of the worlds eggheads are liberals so that has to be a lie. But wait, what is this I see?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution

Amazing coincidence how some hundred plus years after experiencing an exponential increase in industrialization involving petroleum products and manufacturing, we are now seeing an exponential increase in the byproduct after effects directly attributed to those very materials we've been consuming

It's simple logic and physics, if you start your car in your garage and sit in it, what happens? You asphyxiate. Now spread that effect out over 2-3 hundred years. You think that we, insignificant humans, capable of developing technology that could instantly eradicate the worlds population several times over, are not capable of affecting the planets climate and environment????????????????? Nahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh........ That could never happen here in Wonderland.....:(

It's that exact attitude that is becoming the minority so, C'est la vie, you show your ignorance of basic common science, and physics principles.

Anecdotal evidence, hearsay, theories and conjecture. Very little in the way of real science.

You clearly have no understanding of the science behind man-made global warming.

For instance, you point out that some ice shelf's are melting. So? Does that fact, prove man made global warming? No it does not. I proves that Ice Shelf's are melting.

No if we are not going to use science, then you can make whatever claim you wish. But in the realm of science, correlation, does not equal, causation.

Since we know from history, and from ice core samples, that the Earth has had far higher CO2 levels, and far lower CO2 levels in the past, and since we know the Earth's temperature has also been higher and lower in the past...

How do you know that the current trend is affected at all by man made activities? Answer: You do not.
 
The same thing that has happened regularly every 100,000 years or so, is due to happen again.

Man had no effect on the previous climate changes, and there is no evidence he will have any effect on the next one.

.

globalwarmchart400k.jpg
 
As for Al Gore....

Be careful of a prophet trying to make a profit.
I think he's made like 100 million or so on this scam.

If he wasn't in it for the money, I think he would come off as more credible, but I still think it's a hoax
 
Oh... I get SO sick hearing about this stuff...

Take a look, people, and tell me what color (besides white) dominates these images:

2012029630073664377S600x600Q85.jpg


2407089660073664377S600x600Q85.jpg


2106520580073664377S600x600Q85.jpg


2222839390073664377S600x600Q85.jpg
 
Werbung:
Back
Top