Are Global Warmists Pulling a Cool Fast One? »
Posted by: pc25 3 months ago48 CommentsReflectReport this Story
Mounting evidence of lower temperature trends despite rising atmospheric CO2 levels is becoming a real problem for the greenhouse gas crowd. And reports that the cooling appears to follow a period of dormant solar activity aren't likely to ease their anxieties. Indeed, without an immediate alarmist course correction, years of "the science
Read Full Story at americanthinker.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 48
-
0%
pc253 months ago
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/04/nas...
NASA Confirms Natural Climate Shift
FTA
NASA has confirmed that a developing natural climate pattern will likely result in much colder temperatures.
"A cool-water anomaly known as La Niña occupied the tropical Pacific Ocean throughout 2007 and early 2008. In April 2008, scientists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory announced that while the La Niña was weakening, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation-a larger-scale, slower-cycling ocean pattern-had shifted to its cool phase."
Reply-
0%
libsRfunny3 months ago
It's a pity when bona fide science contrary to the global warming hype has to couch its findings in an apologetic tone. Simple fact is, humans are not causing a great global warming catastrophe. That pittance of CO2 - a naturally occurring gas - we put into the atmosphere doesn't amount to anything. As Bryson said: you can spit and cause more global warming.
Reply-
0%
djn3nunez33 months ago
"Simple fact is, humans are not causing a great global warming catastrophe."
Funny think is that's not what the article said. Nothing of the sort. But don't let that stop ya.....
Reply
-
-
0%
Endoscopy3 months ago
LOL
Now NASA's JPL is owned by big oil.
The tracking of CO2 and Temperature on the graphs for millenia show in one of them CO2 lagging temperature. But everybody ignored that.
JPL and Hughs worked together to put up satellites to measure atmospheric change. I was told by a Hughs scientist I was working with that the Earth and moon were the same temperature. That is easy to verify. The GOES satellites send down an IR and visual full globe pictures every half hour. The IR picture can give average temperature. Compare the results with an IR pictures of the moon at full moon and new moon.
There is currently evidence that greenhouse gases don't give the greenhouse effect.
Reply-
0%
RickyDawkins3 months ago
The evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas depends mainly on physics, not on the correlation with past temperature, which tells us nothing about cause and effect. And while the rises in CO2 a few hundred years after the start of interglacials can only be explained by rising temperatures, the full extent of the temperature increases over the following 4000 years can only be explained by the rise in CO2 levels.
What is more, further back in past there are examples of warmings triggered by rises in greenhouse gases, such as the Palaeo-Eocene Thermal Maximum 55 millions years ago
What is more, CO2 is just one of several greenhouses gases, and greenhouse gases are just one of many factors affecting the climate. There is no reason to expect a perfect correlation between CO2 levels and temperature in the past: if there is a big change in another climate "forcing", the correlation will be obscured.
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/ear...
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
pc253 months ago
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/02/sun...
Sun Days Will Never Be the Same
"Yet another climate expert concurs that, while solar activity normally fluctuates in 11-year cycles, we now appear to be at a cold standstill. And his research adds voice to growing concerns that Sun cycle 24's late start may have a chilling effect on the Earth's Climate.
The Sun expert reminded readers that a similar sunspot holiday in the 17th Century (The Maunder Minimum) corresponded with the coldest and most damaging temperatures of that millennium (The Little Ice Age).
Then last week, we discovered that scientists at Canada's National Research Council are also concerned with the apparent hibernation of old Sol, and are seeking emergency funding for equipment to better observe our primary source of heat. And they, like Whitehouse, also believe we may be entering into another minimum."
Reply-
0%
RickyDawkins3 months ago
Others have attempted to show that last year's numbers imply that 'Global Warming has stopped' or that it is 'taking a break' (Uli Kulke, Die Welt)). However, as most of our readers will realize, these comparisons are flawed since they basically compare long term climate change to short term weather variability.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2...
Reply
-
-
-
0%
RickyDawkins3 months ago
GLOBAL WARMING FOR DUMMIES:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2...
The red line is the annual global-mean GISTEMP temperature record (though any other data set would do just as well), while the blue lines are 8-year trend lines - one for each 8-year period of data in the graph. What it shows is exactly what anyone should expect: the trends over such short periods are variable; sometimes small, sometimes large, sometimes negative - depending on which year you start with. The mean of all the 8 year trends is close to the long term trend (0.19ºC/decade), but the standard deviation is almost as large (0.17ºC/decade), implying that a trend would have to be either >0.5ºC/decade or much more negative (< -0.2ºC/decade) for it to obviously fall outside the distribution. Thus comparing short trends has very little power to distinguish between alternate expectations.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
bobo-in-texas3 months ago
No, actually he said "I suspect you lick the dog sh*t off Rupurt Murdocks shoes, and lap up the trickle down from Gush Lamebaugh's pant leg, and suck the brown effluent from Glen Beck's Mormon rectum."
Those are the words of a True Believer who believes that anyone who disagrees with him is evil.
BTW, don't the above comments violate the much vaunted Propeller TOS?
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
libsRfunny3 months ago
"How about science to back up your dogma. Oh that's right. It wouldn't be dogma anymore."
You mean like the story posted? Pretty hypocritical coming from the king of ad-hominem attacks. Clearly, you can't see the forest because of the trees. Gulp some more Kool-Aid. You love the flavor
Reply -
0%
bobo-in-texas3 months ago
Dio how about this for an attack?
"I suspect you lick the dog sh*t off Rupurt Murdocks shoes, and lap up the trickle down from Gush Lamebaugh's pant leg, and suck the brown effluent from Glen Beck's Mormon rectum."
Courtesy of your fellow Believer behindcurtain.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
Wolfie20073 months ago
Just another disappointment. I wanted to believe in glow bull warming. I wanted where I live become as warm as the Caribbean but my hopes have been dashed against the rocks of scientific truth. Why do I ever let liberals get my hopes up, it never works out, not for me. LMAO
Reply -
0%
RickyDawkins3 months ago
There has been a lot of nonsense written about the lack of much if any warming over the last few years.
In fact, global warming has stopped repeatedly over the last 150 years --- meaning that there are many instances when the temperature reached a maximum that took many years to surpass.
The reason is clear. A warming rate of 3 degrees C per century corresponds to an annual average rate of warming of 0.03 degrees C per year. At the same time, interannual variability, such as El Niño events, are of the order of 1 degree C per year. Thus, over short time scales, the slow upward trend can be completely swamped by the large year-to-year variability.
Over the course of several decades, however, the slow warming trend dominates, and you end up with significant warming. Thus, to determine if global warming is occurring, you have to look at time periods of decades, not years.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/05/no_glob...
Reply-
-
0%
RickyDawkins3 months ago
Climate myths: It's been far warmer in the past, what's the big deal?
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/ear...
First of all, it is worth bearing in mind that any data on global temperatures before about 150 years ago is an estimate, a reconstruction based on second-hand evidence such as ice cores and isotopic ratios. The evidence becomes sparser the further back we look, and its interpretation often involves a set of assumptions. In other words, a fair amount of guesswork.
It is certainly true that Earth has experienced some extremes that were warmer than today, as well as much colder periods. In some cases the main factors that caused these past warm periods - and the ebb and flow of ice ages over recent millennia - are well understood, though not in all. Many of the details remain unknown.
Within the past billion years, there may have been one or more periods when the whole planet was covered in ice.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
RickyDawkins3 months ago
It is true that sunspot records go back to the 17th century, but sunspots actually block the Sun's radiation.
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/ear...
Direct measurements of solar output since 1978 show a steady rise and fall over the 11-year sunspot cycle, but no upwards or downward trend .
Similarly, there is no trend in direct measurements of the Sun's ultraviolet output and in cosmic rays. So for the period for which we have direct, reliable records, **the Earth has warmed dramatically even though there has been no corresponding rise in any kind of solar activity.**
Reply -
0%
IAmMine3 months ago
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Amer...
"American Thinker (AT) is a conservative daily internet publication"
"There is ample evidence to support the notion that AT serves as part of the right wing's echo chamber."
Why is this always the case?
Reply-
-
0%
RickyDawkins3 months ago
Didn't you get the memo?
"Bush outlines goals to fight climate change"
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/16/bush.cli...
President Bush on Wednesday called for halting the growth of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2025 and said Congress -- not judges or regulators -- should take the lead role in grappling with global warming.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
hamy3 months ago
Really! Is it not possible that putting less pollutants into the air is a good thing regardless of whether or not it is warming or cooling the planet?
Can't we agree that whatever the outcome, putting less emissions up into the atmostphere is at least going to stop some of the cases of asthma and respiratory infections.
You are a complete moron if you don't think so.
So why would you say that people who are just trying to maybe get their city in better shape environmentally for their children are evil or stupid or only doing so to support Al Gore.
Al Gore may not be the greatest guy in the world. But at least he is trying to do something to help make it better.
That is more than any of you can say.
Reply-
-
0%
hamy3 months ago
CO2 is not the only gas emitted. There are others. And CO2 is naturally occurring, yes, but not in the amounts that we are putting into the atmostphere.
Both gasses are pollutants.
And isn't Carbon Monoxide the main discharge of a fuel burning motor? So wouldn't having more efficient and less polluting gas engines be a good thing?
You said so yourself that CO is a pollutant.
Reply
-
-
Submitted By:
pc25
Also submitted:
- 8.7 - CPUSA (Communist Party) Backs Obama
- 4.9 - With DNC in mind, city bans carrying urine, feces
- 5.0 - DNC is getting sued for firing a gay staffer
- 8.3 - Hillary Wants Name Put In Nomination
Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
Also Propping This Article
Debbie
bobo-in-texas
BronxBomber
monte-g
Mintyfunk
Bonded
oldgringo
AlphaGnosis
CactusAnnie- mcarpentry
Groups Watching This
No groups are watching this story. Why not share it with your group?
