Wehrwolfen
Banned
- Joined
- May 11, 2013
- Messages
- 2,329
- Reaction score
- 402
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
By Jay Lehr, Ph.D.
June 26, 2013
Although we have been enmeshed in a long debate over global warming and climate change, this controversy has been politically motivated, not a response to actual global warming, as there has been no warming for 16 years.
In fact, it is likely we will soon need to take a long, hard look at adjustments in behavior based not on warmth, which, by and large, results in good things, but, rather, on cold, which creates endless problems for both individuals and society.
Solar Activity Waning
Scientists from Pulkovo Observatory in St. Petersburg, Russia, stated in the Voice of Russia on April 22 that solar activity is waning to such an extent that the global average yearly temperature will soon begin to decline.
Now, there is no reason to believe there will be any warming during the remainder of this century, says Vladimir Kotlyakov, head of the Institute of Geography at the Russian Academy of Science, speaking with Vladimir Radyuhin for the Hindu newspaper on April 22, 2013. In the same article, Dr. Yuri Nagovitsyn, academic secretary of the Pulkovo Observatory, is quoted as saying coming generations will have to grapple with temperatures several degrees lower than those today.
On Jan. 8, on NASA's Science News website, Tony Phillips cited Matt Penn and William Livingston of the National Solar Observatory as noting we are now in the final stages of Solar Cycle 24, which has been "the weakest in more than 50 years." By the time Solar Cycle 25 arrives shortly, they predict, "magnetic fields on the sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed," Phillips wrote.
Cold Temperatures Appearing
The effects of this weak solar activity have been notable. The United Kingdom just suffered through a winter with temperatures 5 to 10 degrees Celsius below normal, and German meteorologists report 2013 has been the coldest year in 208 years. Writing April 27 in England's Sunday Telegraph, Christopher Booker noted 3,318 places in the United States that had recorded their lowest temperatures for that time of year since records began. Similar records were set in every province of Canada, and the Russian winter has brought its deepest snowfall in 134 years.
Government Changes Needed
Cold causes more disruptions for people than warming, and mankind always has been more prosperous during warmer periods. However, with modern technology, we have the ability to plan accordingly and manage the slow change toward cooling that is likely upon us.
[Excerpt]
Read more:
Cooling Looms As Earth
Of course our dear leader has claimed that the atmosphere is warming and wants to destroy our largest source of energy COAL. This produces the bulk of our electrical generation. We have since the inception of the EPA cleaned our water, atmosphere and conserved our forests. While China Russia, and India have continued to spew pollution into the air, water and ground, while destroying their forest lands. China and India is buying all the lumber they can from South America, Africa and even the US. That does not include coal, petroleum and rare minerals, while Obama is destroying America and the ability to recover from one of the worst Depressions is 80 years.
So wee little electric cars are bad for the environment and should be taken off the market in favor of gas guzzling SUV's--humanity demands this.
Electric cars are generally inefficiently powered by coal or gas fired power plants. (Batteries are notoriously inefficient.)
Reality bites, you know.
Electric cars as replacements for gas and diesel powered vehicles are pretty much a boondoggle to separate the gullible from their money at the personal and public levels and to compensate for self imposed visions of grossly reduced virility.
The Sun is not waning, Death Valley had 129 degrees the other day with a LOW of 104. Every decade has been warmer than the last and sea water temps keep rising.
The Sun is not waning, Death Valley had 129 degrees the other day with a LOW of 104. Every decade has been warmer than the last and sea water temps keep rising.
Thank you for the Chicken Little version of reality.
However:
BBC News - Climate slowdown means extreme rates of warming 'not as likely'
To The Horror Of Global Warming Alarmists, Global Cooling Is Here - Forbes
Global Warming Alarm: Continued Cooling May Jeopardize Climate Science And Green Energy Funding! - Forbes
New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism
Here in the Real World, functional adults recognize the need to husband limited resources with the aim of addressing actual, rather than imaginary problems. (Hint: More people have been killed by Jihadis in the last week than have been killed by Global Warming since the invention of the steam engine.)
Writing in Nature Geoscience, the researchers say this will reduce predicted warming in the coming decades.
But long-term, the expected temperature rises will not alter significantly
"We would expect a single decade to jump around a bit but the overall trend is independent of it, and people should be exactly as concerned as before about what climate change is doing," said Dr Otto.
Is there any succour in these findings for climate sceptics who say the slowdown over the past 14 years means the global warming is not real?
"None. No comfort whatsoever," he said.
In the Real World, functional adults actually read sources. Let me quote from your first source:
Wait, that sounds like they are not saying AGW is not real. I wonder if they are more clear later in the article...
See why functional adults read their sources?
Let's look at the other sources you give us. Functional adults tend to check who is telling us something. Peter Ferrara is not a scientist, but in fact is a lawyer. Larry Bell is at least a scientist, too bad his degree is not in anything related to the environment. James Taylor is a lawyer again, though he at least minored in atmospheric science. He is however not a scientist.
So what we learn is that any functional adult who bothers to look at your sources learns that scientists actually studying the issue say AGW is real, while those who are not scientists are trying to say something else. I wonder who a functional adult would find more credible in a discussion about science?
Then why is the Greenland Ice core temperatures estimated by scientist to be colder now than they were 1,000 years ago, 2,000 years ago, 3,0000 years ago, 4,000 years ago, 5,000 years ago? http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/...gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt
And while you are at it, exactly what were all those wooly mammoths that are thawing out in the ice pack doing when they got frozen? I mean animals are not that smart--they eat and poop and there was not a lot to eat if Siberia were as frozen over then as it is now.
Odd how you failed to address anything I said...
Oh how odd you didn't even look at the raw data that was provided unless you can read, compare, and analyze data sets in less than 60 seconds because it refutes the whole AGW theory.
Ice cores provide direct information about how greenhouse gas concentrations have changed in the past, and they also provide direct evidence that the climate can change abruptly under some circumstances. However, they provide no direct analogue for the future because the ice core era contains no periods with concentrations of CO[SUB]2[/SUB] comparable to those of the next century.
I suppose we should look at what actual scientists are saying about the data, instead of what you wish they where saying: Ice cores and climate change - British Antarctic Survey
Damn scientists...
Oh how odd you didn't even look at the raw data that was provided unless you can read, compare, and analyze data sets in less than 60 seconds because it refutes the whole AGW theory.
The odd thing is you didn't stay in a Holiday Inn and yet you have solved the entire AGW riddle with one stroke. How is that possible?
Why has total Earth water vapor increased 5% since 1920 and 4% since 1970?
In the Real World, functional adults actually read sources. Let me quote from your first source:
Wait, that sounds like they are not saying AGW is not real. I wonder if they are more clear later in the article...
See why functional adults read their sources?
Let's look at the other sources you give us. Functional adults tend to check who is telling us something. Peter Ferrara is not a scientist, but in fact is a lawyer. Larry Bell is at least a scientist, too bad his degree is not in anything related to the environment. James Taylor is a lawyer again, though he at least minored in atmospheric science. He is however not a scientist.
So what we learn is that any functional adult who bothers to look at your sources learns that scientists actually studying the issue say AGW is real, while those who are not scientists are trying to say something else. I wonder who a functional adult would find more credible in a discussion about science?
Do you seriously, now be honest, think that in light of centuries of study we can't predict long nor short term weather and climate trends with any accuracy, we need concern ourselves with yet another dire prediction about what might happen in decades to come?
The Sun is not waning, Death Valley had 129 degrees the other day with a LOW of 104. Every decade has been warmer than the last and sea water temps keep rising.
"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,"
Why should he? All you did was follow someone else's lead. Do you understand the science? Can you exp0lain in your own words why warming is real, or do you just believe what others say?Odd how you failed to address anything I said...
Why has total Earth water vapor increased 5% since 1920 and 4% since 1970?
Why should he? All you did was follow someone else's lead. Do you understand the science? Can you exp0lain in your own words why warming is real, or do you just believe what others say?
I call the current university curriculum for climatology the society of the flat earthers. They teach radiative forcing wrong. They effectively rewrote what they didn't know, as fact, not understanding it was already a well known field of its own. They refuse to listen to reasonable people, so I say they believe the world is still flat.
Global warming is real, but it is not caused by our added greenhouse gasses. They have a very minor effect on the changes we see. The sun plays the largest role, and soot is second, but the largest man-made cause. It is this BC (black carbon/soot) that is melting the arctic ice and Greenland today. Not CO2. It is the sun's two increases since the maunder minima that is raising the earths temperature.
Source please. I'm curious about that. Are you saying it only increased 1% between 1920 to 1970? Are you saying 9%? Exactly how are those numbers determined?
The large increase since 1970 could be because we have been slowly polluting the skies. The EPA was established in the 70's, and over the next couple decades, we made serious progress at cleaning the air. More solar heating, more evaporation...
You have me wrong. I'm not disputing the water vapor, I'm curious about it. I don't see CO2 as increasing temperature, but I don't doubt it can increase vaporization. In post 19, I said "and causes a great deal of evaporation." Increased CO2, and the sun warming up together, can increase moisture more than one by itself.Funny how you make a bunch of claims with nothing to back it up, but quickly ask others for sources.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?