Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat."
Tanq and tonic or Red Tail Ale. Who's buying?
Certainly not nero.
__________________ "...let us not ignore the truth among ourselves, that we are the aggressors and they defend themselves. The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down."
David Ben-Gurion (the father of Israel) "When fascism comes to America it will be draped in a flag and holding a cross." Sinclair Lewis I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands. One nation, indivisible, with liberty, and justice for all.
The old saying, "can't see the forest for the trees" has never been more appropriate.
__________________ "...let us not ignore the truth among ourselves, that we are the aggressors and they defend themselves. The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down."
David Ben-Gurion (the father of Israel) "When fascism comes to America it will be draped in a flag and holding a cross." Sinclair Lewis I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands. One nation, indivisible, with liberty, and justice for all.
Can anyone give us an update on the current GLOBAL temperature and how that compared to last year, five years ago, twenty years ago? This would eliminate the extremes of hot and cold we are currently seeing.
BTW heavy frost warning for the next five nights in southern MO, about as early as I ever remember. The trees haven't even changed, hopefully it drops everything at once rather than raking *&^%ing leaves for a month as each species finally sheds.
"The blogosphere (and not only that) has been full of the “global warming is taking a break” meme lately. Although we have discussedthistopicrepeatedly, it is perhaps worthwhile reiterating two key points about the alleged pause here.
(1) This discussion focuses on just a short time period – starting 1998 or later – covering at most 11 years. Even under conditions of anthropogenic global warming (which would contribute a temperature rise of about 0.2 ºC over this period) a flat period or even cooling trend over such a short time span is nothing special and has happened repeatedly before (see 1987-1996). That simply is due to the fact that short-term natural variability has a similar magnitude (i.e. ~0.2 ºC) and can thus compensate for the anthropogenic effects. Of course, the warming trend keeps going up whilst natural variability just oscillates irregularly up and down, so over longer periods the warming trend wins and natural variability cancels out.
(2) It is highly questionable whether this “pause” is even real. It does show up to some extent (no cooling, but reduced 10-year warming trend) in the Hadley Center data, but it does not show in the GISS data, see Figure 1. There, the past ten 10-year trends (i.e. 1990-1999, 1991-2000 and so on) have all been between 0.17 and 0.34 ºC per decade, close to or above the expected anthropogenic trend, with the most recent one (1999-2008) equal to 0.19 ºC per decade – just as predicted by IPCC as response to anthropogenic forcing.
Figure 1. Global temperature according to NASA GISS data since 1980. The red line shows annual data, the larger red square a preliminary value for 2009, based on January-August. The green line shows the 25-year linear trend (0.19 ºC per decade). The blue lines show the two most recent ten-year trends (0.18 ºC per decade for 1998-2007, 0.19 ºC per decade for 1999-2008) and illustrate that these recent decadal trends are entirely consistent with the long-term trend and IPCC predictions. Even the highly “cherry-picked” 11-year period starting with the warm 1998 and ending with the cold 2008 still shows a warming trend of 0.11 ºC per decade (which may surprise some lay people who tend to connect the end points, rather than include all ten data points into a proper trend calculation). More »
Again, what happens to all that cold water from the melting poles ?
Where does it go ?
What effect do you have in your warm bath when you turn on the cold water tap ?
__________________ ...Just when I thought it was safe to go back in the water......
I will give credit to AGCC proponents for one thing. They don't give up their quest (religion) despite the current data. Nor will they let a little thing like new data or discoveries or theories to shake them from their priesthood. They are dedicated to say the least and will not stop until the Cap and Trade thing becomes law and destroys our economy forever.
If you read through that BBC piece you do see a shift against them in public opinion that they are VERY worried about. Further, when a new scientific theory arises that challenges them (Dr Piers Forsters'), they unscientifically refute it or dismiss it without even giving it consideration. That's the "tell' to me that this isnt about science at all to these "Scientists". It's about political control and wealth redistribution (and/or grant-funding). Otherwise commonly known as socialism.
Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat."
I will give credit to AGCC proponents for one thing. They don't give up their quest (religion) despite the current data. Nor will they let a little thing like new data or discoveries or theories to shake them from their priesthood. They are dedicated to say the least and will not stop until the Cap and Trade thing becomes law and destroys our economy forever.
If you read through that BBC piece you do see a shift against them in public opinion that they are VERY worried about. Further, when a new scientific theory arises that challenges them (Dr Piers Forsters'), they unscientifically refute it or dismiss it without even giving it consideration. That's the "tell' to me that this isnt about science at all to these "Scientists". It's about political control and wealth redistribution (and/or grant-funding). Otherwise commonly known as socialism.
Go easy on those Gin slings, Nero old boy. They may be rotting your brain.
Dr Forster is correct, and his theories don't challenge anyones, except the mindless and propaganda-fed tools of the oil giants.
Solar radiation has negligible effect on the abnormal heating up of the Earth.
There is no "shift" of public opinion, despite the vast threshing of the propaganda matrix, because people aren't as stupid as the oil barons and industrial elites would like.
Even fairly ignorant people understand that when the polar ice caps melt, all that cold water goes somewhere.
Seeing as we're dealing with reality, here is some more of that excellent British institution, "Aunty Beeb"...
So why did they think we were entering another ice age in the 70's? What was that based on?
The real climate scientists never believed this, it was some off-beat raving and skewed, flawed data and some idiot media hype.
"Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation. This hypothesis never had significant scientific support, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles, and a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s. General scientific opinion is that the Earthhas not durably cooled, but undergone global warming throughout the 20th century."
The real scientists? Or the ones that support your idea?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Kiwi
The real climate scientists never believed this, it was some off-beat raving and skewed, flawed data and some idiot media hype.
"Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation. This hypothesis never had significant scientific support, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles, and a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s. General scientific opinion is that the Earthhas not durably cooled, but undergone global warming throughout the 20th century."
The real scientists? Or the ones that support your idea?
It's not MY idea, nor my ideology or whatever you want to imagine that I adhere to. It's just reality. Simple, complicated reality based on scientific fact.
Do yourself a favor, some research and find some respected, peer-reviewed scientists and climate scientists who were at the forefront of the "Global Cooling" nonsense.
You won't find any.
Some quacks, like the ones who were paid by the oil and gas companies to baffle you with bull about Global Warming, but no serious peer-reviewed scientist.
Did you even bother to read the article on Wikipedia, and use the links to confirm, or at least give you the keys to do some independent research ? Or did you just think that I'm pushing an agenda ?
I don't want Global Warming, a natural phenomena but vastly enhanced through our ignorance, to be happening. I enjoy burning fossil fuels. I'm not particularly wasteful, and I try to look after my environment, but I love high octane race fuel, and the howl of engines in the red.
I would like the Greenies to shut up and go away, but I've seen the evidence of the rapid climate change, and I understand the science behind it.
I can remain with my head in the sand, blinded by the spin-meisters of the smirking elites who are plundering as hard as they can (when the fecal matter hits the fan, they plan on being long-gone in their golden coffins, so the screams of the dying won't bother them...) or I can look around, eyes wide open and mind alert and try to understand whats going on, brother.
I'm with ya LK. It's the "odds" involved. "The chances are" and all that. Even though it doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out a swelling population in a confined space will result in unforeseen and unpredictable changes, the right wants to play scientist and politician on behalf of what? Sense? Probability? bleh...
At a certain point, we must realize that we will have to fight flat earth people for even the slightest acknowledgment of reality in almost any realm... while doing the research, preparation and education! Big Business loves them and will fund them no matter what logic is banging at the door. A flock of morons who easily manipulate and refuse to apply scientific method to reality. I suppose that we will have to do this on many fronts, over and over and for a long while yet. Pollution, politics, sociology, education, science etc. What an unnecessary, wretched and wasteful confrontation it is. It's all to get grant money...lol.
So many battles with whom? A group of people who think that we should continue on listening to the conflicts in our interests instead of the common, blatant interests of self preservation and harmony with nature and evolution. The same people who monger for war and mock a peace prizes. The people who work against the team,, the system and the honor of the establishment.
Capitol lawbreakers who came to power promising to respect law...hah! It's all nicely dressed up under the umbrella of clown patriotism or unlikely godliness or moronic dismissals of current data and changing information. Or just blatant lies.
Are they making any sense? Nope. They are spewing the same crap that ran the ship into the berg. Attitudes havent changed, shame never entered the dialogue they needed to have after eight years of foolish ignorance and unmatched mistakes. This healing, learning, self introspective dialogue simply turned into blame Obama and lie away the world around them. It was expected and predicted. No big surprises from people who listen to Beck, Baugh, Pat Robertson et al.
We all know that earlier 'car' people argued against seat belts because they thought that safety belts would scare people into not buying the car...hmm. That argument, and all the flaws of logic that go with it, died a long time ago but the idiot notions persist. They still expect logic to change if they keep spewing their "safety belt' philosophy long enough.. a horrid Himmleresque fallacy...People still put sales before sanity. Thats the quandary that capitalism faces today. It's unsafe to allow business to explain science or to take a natural inventory...
Gore gets questioned and his handlers shut down the mic of the journalist/film maker with an opposing viewpoint. They have to protect the lie that is Global Warming...after all, there's lots of money involved.
Gore gets questioned and his handlers shut down the mic of the journalist/film maker with an opposing viewpoint. They have to protect the lie that is Global Warming...after all, there's lots of money involved.
Gore gets heckled by a clueless Denier from the far reich-wing tool of the MacIver Institute, about Polar bear numbers, which even a simple moron could look up on any widely available and verifiable source.
This was just shallow, sham journalism and mock outrage by paid puppets who suck for big oil.
If you think (that MAY be an oxymoron..) that there is "big money" in the Green economy, you should see how much there is in keeping you and the other Deniers stupid, ignorant and brainwashed.
The Green Economy isn't even a drop in the melting Polar ice belt compared to the vast sums the sneering elites will throw to keep you ignorant and consuming.
__________________ ...Just when I thought it was safe to go back in the water......
Linear Mode
