And we're off.



 

I see that you have been paying attention in your indoctrination classes. Now try taking some actual atmospheric science and physics classes, thinking for yourself, and then explain how trace amounts of CO2 are capable of altering the climate. CO2 is currently less than four one-hundredths of one percent of the atmosphere (.04%), and only about one-fourth of that came from humans.

It would be easier to relate to you if you posted your location.  

I have had over 5 days this winter when the actual temperatures were -25.  Over 30 days in a row the temperatures were less than zero.  About 120 inches of snow.  Winds this week for several days reached 36 mph.  First snow that stuck happened in October.

Alaska?  No, I'm in Michigan.

It is quite late in Sweden now so I'm not going to hunt down a scientific article in English, although there are several that I have read. But I think you'll see that this video here explains it quite well without being too technical.

Basically the grate ocean conveyor shifts heat round the earth, if that stops less heat will reach the northern parts which in the worst case will lead to an ice age (remember that ice ages actually don't cover the whole planet).
The water around the equator will heat up, causing hotter land temperatures as well. A thing they didn’t' bring up in the video is that salt concentrations around the equator will increase and many species will die from being in too salt waters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuGrBhK2c7U

Quite recently a huge block of ice broke of which contained enough sweet water to meet the entire human races sweet water consumption for a year.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boiFoSRq1BM

Most scientists agree that sweet water from melting glaciers will have negative effects for the climate.
There are still a very small minority in the US that don’t believe in global warming that claims otherwise but from what I’ve understood they cannot find much evidence to support that there is no climate change.
There is also some debate on if this process is natural or man caused, the general consensus is that this is a natural process speeded up by mankind’s pollution.
So instead of taking a millennia or so the process will take a century or even just a few decades.

Sorry for bad English, it isn’t my first language, I also wrote from an iPhone.

Of course the climate is changing; it has been in a constant state-of-change for the planet's entire existence! The scientific debate is whether man is influencing it, and science requires the scientific method, not "consensus" or "beliefs". Besides the fact that the media ignores or slanders every scientist who disagrees with the ACC theory, even if there were a majority who believed in it, neither consensus nor flawed computer models can validate the theory.

Why not give Al Gore a call and ask him.  

What's that? A northerner complaining about winter?

It isn't just CO2; there are tons of greenhouse gasses. Many are a lot more effective at trapping heat.
I’ll give you three examples; these are not the worst, just some I remember the statistics for.

1.Trichlorofluoromethane commonly found in refrigerators, it is over 4500 times as effective as CO2.
It also has an extra trick which is destroying the ozone layer.

2.Sulfuryl Fluoride can trap approximately 4800 times as much heat as the common CO2 molecule.

3.Methane is one of the commonest greenhouse gases; it is “only” 21 times as potent as CO2.
But what really makes methane scary you might ask.
Well methane is actually very commonly found preserved in the ground close to the surface and on the sediment
of lakes and coasts (especially reefs and banks, there is a huge methane deposit on the coast of east Africa if I recall correctly).
Then the temperature of the water raises the methane more easily breaks free from its resting place.
In the water this creates chain reactions as methane bubbles decreases water pressure on the sediment, making it easier for the remaining methane to escape.
Warming of tundra also release large amounts of methane when large quantities of biological waste
(meat from dead animal and insects, poop and dead plant life) gets exposed to bacteria and other microbes. And then we have cows...

 
As a plus note I know that there is at least one gas that is  +20000 times as potent as CO2 but I can’t recall the name.

This is going to be the first solid week of nice weather in Lubbock. The end is near.

Sweet water is best water

Halliburton

LMAO, do you think we all don't know about effects of methane or the myriad of man-made compounds? Do you hear them talking about taxing flourocarbons at the ACC summits? Nope, just CO2. Humans produce those all in very small amounts (relative to the massive size of the atmosphere), other than the methane from our cattle (which is substantial). The ACC crowd is focused entirely on CO2, not the small amounts of man-made chemicals that we release. Sure, they would love to ban eating beef as well, but that's way down on their priority list. The ACC movement is all about carbon and taxing it. Taxing refrigerants is not going to give them the trillions of dollars that they need to fundamentally transform the planet and redistribute the wealth of the developed nations. CO2 is, if they get their way. Open your eyes!

You should read the works of this old Irishman by the name of John Tyndall.  He is so old his works are in public domain.  His steam-era investigations showed the greatest greenhouse gas is WATER VAPOR.  



Water vapor concentration in the troposphere is about 9000 ppm and because of its quirky angle between the hydroxyl bonds (OH), it has multi-mode absorption in the IR band.  Tis all thermodynamics, something you could learn in physical chemistry.  But then that is a hard science, far easier to do stamp collecting of tree rings and come up with a suspect proxy.



 

10 years ago there was a documentary on the discovery channel that melting ice can disrupt the ocean currents and possibly make Europe colder (not the whole northern hemispehere, just the countries warmed by the atlantic current.)





Not a new ice age.
 

Does thinking for yourself include copying and pasting conspiracy theory talking points?



 

I did not copy and paste ANYTHING that I've written in this thread. If you are that offended by the suggestion that the goal of the ACC movement is to redistribute the wealth of the developed nations, the truth must hurt. This is a "copy and paste" from a former member of the Obama administration: "It is even possible that desirable redistribution is more likely to occur through climate change policy than otherwise, or to be accomplished more effectively through climate policy than through direct foreign aid."  -Cass Sunstein, Obama's former head of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs

Why don't you try some critical thinking skills, instead of swallowing all of their bullshit?

It's over here in Phoenix... not that I believe in AGW.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

climate change happens here quite frequently

That's what I've done for the last three decades. Sorry that it doesn't fit well with what your false dichotomy.



 

Or, as the global warming skeptics would say



"it must be some unknown and impossibly complex mechanism, so we should stop trying to figure it out."



 

If you were applying critical thinking skills, there is no way that you would be supporting the ridiculous notion that trace levels of CO2 have caused the planet's temperature to spiral out of control.

Man caused Global Warming?

How did the planet warm to a tropical paradise 10's of millions of years before there was a human walking the planet to a point where Antarctica was covered with plants and animals?

And when the temperature at northern latitudes gets colder fresh water will once again be trapped in the ice and as had happened for millennia the climate will swing again.  

 

Sounds like first year  geology or oceanography student who's prof wore off just a little too much..

"I'm smart, I know cuz I paid money to get smarter."  

 This post nails it.

Its too bad no one can figure out how to make money from the change in weather. Anyone have any ideas?

Have I said that?





Does your critical thinking include reading?
 
 

And . . . we're off!

So what you're saying is, you aren't even vaguely familiar with the topic of climatology? Got it.



 

What I'm saying is the Antarctic has had a tropical climate in all but the recent past in Earth years, just as other areas of the Earth have had cold climates.  All without any human caused intervention.

Climate change is a normal state all through the Earth's life and it doesn't rely on humans to affect climate change.  The "pollution" or CO2 put out by volcanos and natural fires over a decade dwarfs any change that could happen through human forces.  

But no.  Those much more intelligent than I claim humans are responsible for climate change, all the while they are jetting around in their private jets.

I already lived through the 1970's climate change fraud that claimed man caused ice age was on the way.  Still waiting for the glaciers to come down from the north that we were warned about.

And have you don't any research into why climatologist think that is, or do you think is this some new revaluation that you are coming up with?



I'm always shocked when people pretend that earth's climatic history before man is somehow ignored by climatologists.





 

I'm sure someone has mentioned this already (Didn't read all the responses....sorry ) but, aren't

we on the bottom/cold end of the 17-18yr solar "Sun spots" (Yeah, I know) cycle?

I already lived through the 1970's climate change fraud that claimed man caused ice age was on the way.  Still waiting for the glaciers to come down from the north that we were warned about.

So, you are claiming to have researched this yourself?

Please link us to your personal published peer reviewed research.  You obviously are a published scientific researcher if you are asking if I have done research.  What research organization are you affiliated with and what is your professional climate affiliated career?

I hope the several percent of scientists who campaign against climate change do better than "it's cold out!  Global warming is a hoax!"

No, research, as in having a basic understanding of the topic of climate history. As is googling things like, oh, I don't know "past changes of earth's climate"
Or "causes of ice ages"
or whatever.
Its clear that you haven't.
Again, do you honestly think that climatologists aren't aware of the changes of climate in the past?
ETA::Hell, if you google the first term I posted, the first result is a website about global warming for children, and even that website says "People didn't cause the climate change that occurred thousands or
millions of years ago, so it must have happened for other natural
reasons."





So when you post those exact words, you aren't saying anything different than what global warming proponents say.  That is my point.



Its crazy that you guys aren't even aware of this fact.
 

I could care less if this winter is caused by global warming or not, but I'm loving the above normal snow and the below normal temps.

I hope this trend lasts well into March as I'm not ready to deal with the damn mud season.

No, actually we are just a bit past the peak of the cycle. But for some reason, this cycle has very low solar activity. Which is funny, considering that in the late 2000s, NASA was predicting that this solar cycle would be more active than normal.

Campaigning is part of politics, not science. And there are a lot more than "several percent" of climate scientists that don't buy the ACC hypothesis.

Here are some cut and paste quotes for ya (fatal error loves that shit):

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.  

Based on the laws of physics, the effect on temperature of man’s contribution to atmospheric CO2 levels is minuscule and indiscernible from the natural variability caused in large part by changes in solar energy output.” - Atmospheric Scientist Robert L. Scotto, who has more than 30 years air quality consulting experience, served as a manager for an EPA Superfund contract and is co-founder of Minnich and Scotto, Inc., a full-service air quality consulting firm. He also is a past member of the American Meteorological Society (AMS). Scotto, a meteorologist who has authored or co-authored numerous technical publications and reports.  

“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus [which] is the business of politics.  . . . What is relevant is reproducible results.  The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.’” - Atmospheric Scientist Timothy R. Minnich, who has more than 30 years experience in the design and management of a wide range of air quality investigations for industry and government, is a past member of the American Meteorological Society and specializes in issues like acid rain and ozone, and has authored or co-authored numerous technical publications and reports.  

“Unfortunately, Climate Science has become Political Science…It is tragic that some perhaps well-meaning but politically motivated scientists who should know better have whipped up a global frenzy about a phenomena which is statistically questionable at best.” - Award-Winning Princeton University Physicist Dr. Robert H. Austin, who has published 170 scientific papers, was elected a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and is the current Chair of the U.S. Liaison Committee of the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics. Austin, who won the 2005 Edgar Lilienfeld Prize of the American Physical Society  

“The cause of these global changes is fundamentally due to the Sun and its effect on the Earth as it moves about in its orbit. Not from man-made activities.” - Retired Award Winning NASA Atmospheric Scientist Dr. William W. Vaughan, recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Medal, a former Division Chief of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center and author more than 100 refereed journal articles, monographs, and papers.  


“Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!”- UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions.  

“The questions are scientific, but the UN answers are political. The global warming debate is hardly about science.” - Computer Modeler and Engineer Allen Simmons, who worked 12 years with NASA's top climate scientists and wrote computer systems software for the world's first weather satellites and aided in the development of computer systems for polar orbiting satellites. Simmons co-authored the new skeptical book The Resilient Earth.  

“I am appalled at the state of discord in the field of climate science…There is no observational evidence that the addition of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have caused any temperature perturbations in the atmosphere.” - Award-winning atmospheric scientist Dr. George T. Wolff, former member of the EPA’s Science Advisory Board, served on a committee of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and authored more than 90 peer-reviewed studies.  

“The sky is not burning, and to claim that it is amounts to journalistic malpractice…the press only promotes the global warming alarmists and ignores or minimizes those of us who are skeptical.” - Chemist Dr. Mark L. Campbell, a professor of chemistry at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, MD, who has published numerous studies in the Journal of the American Chemical Society on topics such as methane.


“The recent ‘panic’ to control GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions and billions of dollars being dedicated for the task has me deeply concerned that US, and other countries are spending precious global funds to stop global warming, when it is primarily being driven by natural forcing mechanisms.”

- Climatologist and Paloeclimate researcher Dr. Diane Douglas, who has authored or edited over 200 technical reports, specialized in the reconstruction of a variety of proxy data and has worked for the Department of Energy and conducted research for the Arizona State Office of Climatology to investigate the Little Ice Age.  


"My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit. Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy."

-Dr. John S. Theon, Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist


“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” -  Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology  and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”  

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.  

“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

What?!?!?!
Shits  gonna be 80 tomorow?!?!?!?!

Nice some critical thinking!



You break with the global warming denier crowd who always say "its the sun causing warming".



 

Did mankind cause this same kind of thing about 10,000 years back as well, or shall we blame the dinosaurs.

First of all, global warming is real. It's happened NATURALLY on numerous occasions throughout history and we're probably seeing the natural occurrence again now.

Second, they have adjusted their talking point to include any weather change to be associated to our over-fossilizing of the skies. Too hot? Cars to blame. Too cold? Cars to blame.

So, you're never going to be right with the accusations of stupidity because they'll just keep adapting the talking point to suit their agenda. that's why they call it "climate change". Yesterday it was raining here, today it isn't, that's climate change.

Global Warming skeptic?  Yes I am.  When they warned we were heading for another Ice Age, I waited for it to come, it never did.

When they warned about Global Warming?  I waited, and waited and waited.  Until it turned out that there wasn't any long term Global Warming.  None in the last 17 years.

Turned out that the hole in the atmosphere over Antarctica closed.

The climate researchers were caught fudging data and lying about results repeatedly, along with colluding to cover up their deceit.  

The head of the U.N. climate group report was debunked as junk science and anecdotes with no true scientific evidence.  The Himalayan mountain glaciers were supposedly receding? Based on anecdotal statements but satellite imagery showed it was false.  Artic ice was all melted, but satellite images showed that it then recovered.  

So then they decided to push Climate Change.  Well climate changes all the time. If we believed the Climate Change chicken littles then we should all be living in fear or dead by now as the told us the Glaciers were retuning, warned that the oceans were going to rise and so on and so forth.

But.. but... the world is only like 7000 years old, right?

I wouldn't be surprised if the whole west ends up in big ball of fire and smoke this summer. Fire season is going to be REAL BAD.

 

Bless your heart...

Antarctica had desert climate many millions of years ago; when it was positioned at the equator.  
Then it broke off from Africa and started slowly drifting to its current position over the course of many millions of years.
On the way towards its current position it got to a point where the temperature allowed for a tropical climate.
Note that being on the equator did not provide conditions for tropical environment, it was simply too hot because
there were no system lite the grate ocean conveyor in place at the time to shift heat around.
These changes happened naturally because of geographical changes and changes of the atmospheric setup but
it takes a long time, often many thousands of years. CO2 has been at around 300 parts per million for the last
500 000 years but has risen to 380 parts per million in the last 100 years. It isn’t natural.  



As I said above; these things happened naturally, there are very few who claim it doesn’t. It doesn’t however happen naturally at this rate.