It's Bloody Cold Here - Is Global Warming All Over?

andykn

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

So-called Global Warming is like House Prices really. Both topics are plagued by complete & utter idiots who haven't got the gumption to take a step back and think things through.

1. As we learned at school, global temperatures have changed up and down significantly through the millennia. Specifically, the 20th century was 'predicted' to be heading towards a new ice age, and looking at temperatures 1900 to date confirms that trend.

2. Similarly, house prices show an upward trend if you look at the last 50 years or so.

In both cases, just like the stock market on any particular day, you can 'zoom in' to the most miniscule point in time and see the graph going opposite to the major trend.

Global Warmists have already cottoned on (very slowly) that they are talking gibberish, which is why they now call it "Climate Change". They want to blame 4 wheel drive merchants for the cold as well, simply because they cannot afford one themselves.

Or, alternatively, we live in a causal universe, all prior climate cycles having causes. This one does too, it's increasing CO2. no other explanation fits.

The "ice age" news stories were due to particulate pollution causing temps to drop more than would be expected, as happens when a big volcano blows, look at global temps after Pinatubo and Washington. Take the pollution away and the underlying warming due to CO2 resumes. It's not some mystery "natural" cause, we know what it is and it's CO2.

Really2

andykn wrote: »

Or, alternatively, we live in a causal universe, all prior climate cycles having causes. This one does too, it's increasing CO2. no other explanation fits.

The "ice age" news stories were due to particulate pollution causing temps to drop more than would be expected, as happens when a big volcano blows, look at global temps after Pinatubo and Washington. Take the pollution away and the underlying warming due to CO2 resumes. It's not some mystery "natural" cause, we know what it is and it's CO2.

I wouldn't say nothing.


The theory relate CO2 in the atmosphere to our history as a planet, in the past CO2 was released by volcanoes etc, so it is hard to be sure on global warming.

The main point is we cant keep using resources like we do, global warming or not.

nearlynew

I love this weather.

I get to use some of my tin-foil hat survivalist gear.

A._Badger

andykn wrote: »

Or, alternatively, we live in a causal universe, all prior climate cycles having causes. This one does too, it's increasing CO2. no other explanation fits.

Don't tell Henrik Svensmark or any of the increasing band of astro/solar physicists who agree with him.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/25/something-to-be-thankful-for-at-last-cosmic-rays-linked-to-rapid-mid-latitude-cloud-changes/

ILW

davetrousers wrote: »

Here and Global are quite different!

I think "here" is part of the globe.

andykn

A._Badger wrote: »

Don't tell Henrik Svensmark or any of the increasing band of astro/solar physicists who agree with him.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/25/something-to-be-thankful-for-at-last-cosmic-rays-linked-to-rapid-mid-latitude-cloud-changes/

"Increasing" would be two. Watts is the US equivalent of Ulrika Johnsson but less well qualified. She went to secretarial college.

A._Badger

andykn wrote: »

"Increasing" would be two. Watts is the US equivalent of Ulrika Johnsson but less well qualified. She went to secretarial college.

I see. The typical warmist response - when incapable of defending a position, resort to a straw man or an ad hominem.

You're not qualified to question Svensmark, nor the authors of the paper in question, so you try to distract attention by slinging mud at the blog owner on whose site the report appeared.

Nice try. No cigar.

andykn

A._Badger wrote: »

I see. The typical warmist response - when incapable of defending a position, resort to a straw man or an ad hominem.

You're not qualified to question Svensmark, nor the authors of the paper in question, so you try to distract attention by slinging mud at the blog owner on whose site the report appeared.

Nice try. No cigar.

Well, if you'd linked to the paper itself, you'd have got comment on the paper itself. Link to a website run by someone who's last objection to the science was a background photo...

A._Badger

andykn wrote: »

Well, if you'd linked to the paper itself, you'd have got comment on the paper itself. Link to a website run by someone who's last objection to the science was a background photo...

Now that is even more risible!

No wonder this farrago of pseudo-science is unravelling if that is the level of debate!

PasturesNew

Google the pockets of methane being released into the atmosphere in Russia.

There's no historical data, just one woman who has been keeping records for 10 years.

You can see the bubbles and poke the ice with a stick and set fire to it. It's like a Russian version of setting fire to your f4rts.

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off&site=&source=hp&q=methane+ice+russia&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=573da4ec7e15bdf2