Global cooling

[yup]

Please stop letting your government spend billions of dollars on hysteria. Most every scientist that says they agree with the global warming theory works for university's and rely on funding and grants from "da Gubment" if you don't think that these professors don't want to pay there mortgage....well you get the idea.


Saturday, February 16, 2008

Brrrr... The Disappearing Arctic Ice Is Back And It's Thick


Is it safe to say we've been scammed yet?
A record cold January has helped winter sea ice grow (http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/02/15/arctic-ice.html)across the Arctic.
http://bp0.blogger.com/_L6pDyjqqsvY/R7dwHQYqymI/AAAAAAAALVo/QOard3poM8s/s400/sea+ice.jpg (http://bp0.blogger.com/_L6pDyjqqsvY/R7dwHQYqymI/AAAAAAAALVo/QOard3poM8s/s1600-h/sea+ice.jpg)

Temperatures in January set cold weather records and caused the Arctic Sea Ice to expand to its previous levels.
The Financial Post (http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/02/15/yo-peter-the-northern-sea-ice-is-back-corcoran.aspx)reported:
The Cryosphere (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/) reported that the Arctic sea ice is back... and it's thick.
The disappearing sea ice that was supposedly going to dramatically change the North, if not the world, is back. Thanks to really cold weather -- gee, where did that come from?--winter sea ice has been growing across the North. "Clearly we're seeing the ice coverage rebound back to more near normal coverage for this time of year," says Gilles Langis, a senior ice forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa.

There goes a good story. And if you doubt me on this, the source is as biased on climate change as sources get: The CBC (http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/02/15/arctic-ice.html). And if the weather stays cold, the ice will get even thicker, says the report...

This isn't the only sign of rising sea ice and extra-cold temperatures. The U.S. National Climatic Date Center reported the other day that temperatures in the United States set cold records in January. "The average temperature in January 2008 was 30.5 F. This is -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the 49th coolest January in 114 years."

...As for ice, A University of Illinois report (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/) showed that Arctic sea ice is back to its previous level. The American Thinker (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/02/so_polars_bears_arent_drowning.html) reported that not only is the ice growing, but it is growing thick.

Previously:
Brrrr... Antarctica Records Record High Ice Cap Growth (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/10/antarctica-ice-cap-growth-reaches.html)
Brrrr... South America Has Coldest Winter in a 90 Years (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/11/brrrr-south-america-has-coldest-winter.html)
Brrrr... Iraqis See First Snow in 100 Years As Sign of Peace (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/01/iraqis-see-first-snow-in-100-years-as.html)
Brrrr... Worst Snowstorms in a Decade in China Cause Rioting (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/01/disaster-china-suffers-from-worst.html)
Brrrr... Jerusalem Grinds to a Halt As Rare Snowstorm Blasts City (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/01/brrrr-rare-snowstorm-shuts-down.html)
Brrrr... Worst Snowstorms in 50 Years Continue to Cripple China (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/02/brrrr-worst-snowstorms-in-50-years.html)
Brrrr... China Suffers Coldest Winter in 100 Years (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/02/brrrr-china-suffers-coldest-winter-in.html)
Brrrr... Pakistan Suffers Lowest Temps in 70 Years-- 260 Dead (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/02/brrrr-260-dead-in-south-asia-pakistan.html)
Brrrr... Record Cold Hits Central Asia-- 654 Dead in Afghanistan (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/02/brrrr-record-cold-hits-central-asia-654.html)
Brrrr... Severe Weather Kills Dozens in Kashmir (http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2008/02/severe-winter-weather-kills-dozens-in.html)
Brrrr... Tajikistan Crisis!! Coldest Winter in 25 Years! (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/02/brrrr-tajikistan-crisis-coldest-winter.html)
Brrrr... Record Cold Wave Blasts Mumbai, India (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/02/brrrr-record-cold-wave-blasts-mumbai.html)
Brrrr... Snow and Ice in San Diego? (http://instapundit.com/archives2/015434.php)
Brrrr... Wisconsin Snowfall Record Shattered (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/02/brrrr-wisconsin-snow-record-shattered.html)

[crazyjoe]

perhaps..was thinking the same thing when last week when it appeared that winter was over and then it got cold as hell again

just like we have been told that we are going to run out of oil

they predicted it in the 20's, carter said we'd be out of it in a decade(while he was in office)

apparently canada has oil shells(something like that) that can be made into cruel oil by adding water n other things, and can fuel the world for 100 years.

makes ya think

[yup]

Thanx joe for the oil reply, I mean it, but this is about the hysteria surrounding global warming.

[crazyjoe]

didn't you read my first sentence? :D

[ceehound619]

With all due respect... posting a few links supporting your viewpoint does not prove 'warming" is hysteria.... global warming is well documented and I could post just as many links supporting that side of the story...... it is all in WHO/WHAT sources you choose to believe,.... I personally believe in the long term warming.

[JooX]

It's always about hype.

Politicians need something to run with around election time, certain scientists need to justify their grants for research, and news stations/papers need some form of bull-shit to sell.

The planet is a living breathing thing, it has it's rollercoaster ride of seasonal changes, and they are always small movements in a much larger wave.

People judge these small changes as a break from the norm and decide the sky is falling. Give it another two hundred years and I'd bet someone's left testicle that the hype will have gone through the same waves.

"New reports show that the planet will be over-run by ice shelf's in the next decade, by 2109 half of Europe will be under twenty feet of ice as global cooling creates a new ice age" "Governments are being urged to put coal burning power plants back online to stem the tide of global cooling, and environmentalists are crying out for more CFC usage before the habitat of many mammals are frozen wastelands"

One big circle jerk to bow down to the lowest common denominator.

In a perfect world the scientists that are passionately trying to understand how the world works through their research will be allocated enough finances to carry out their work without reviews and worthiness reports.
Then they will not need to became the puppets of someone with ulterior motives, when they need a white coat, to back up claims that help promote fear for non-existent worries that they can then pretend to be at the forefront of fighting this new menace to save the world.

This kind of BS hysteria making, and the fact every single major network news show has become over sensationalised crap, is why I have to rely on foreign smaller news networks and the internet for actual NEWS.
Although the internet is still about as trustworthy as a used car salesman saying "trust me"

[yup]

^^I have more but lost is on in 3 min.

[JooX]

^^^ The fat guy did it.

[Afronaught]

it's the month before the week before the day before the day after tomorow...

[crazyjoe]

even if there isn't global warming i don't see the harm in trying to be more eco-friendly

what is there to lose?

besides money

[Afronaught]

100% correct... there is a Youtube video wighing the pro's and cons... I'm to lazy to search for it now...

[HeyBuddy]

In the 70's they said that we were headed for the next ice age in the near future. They have to scare you into funding research, even if that means convincing you that you're responsible for a naturally occuring event.

[HeyBuddy]

even if there isn't global warming i don't see the harm in trying to be more eco-friendly

what is there to lose?

besides money

For people like you and I, it only make sense to consume less energy. It benefits us from a financial standpoint, and becoming less dependant on foreign oil effects our national security. Those are the reasons I do it.

The problem is that when they scare the world, we start to get these worldwide agreements (Kyoto Protocol), that prevent developing impovrished countries from developing. They never have been and never will be on the cutting edge of technology. Some have huge supplies of coal and oil, but because of the Kyoto Protocol they can't use it. They have to wait for solar and other energy sources to become economically viable for their depressed country. Meanwhile, their country falls further and further behind.

The other problem is that it inspires knee-jerk legislation which can have multiple unintended consequences. Our congress has introduced legislation to ban the incandescent light bulb by 2012. The end result will be a need for an extensive program to dispose of billions of compact flourescent bulbs which contain mercury. How do we ensure that people don't just dump them in the trash, and they all end up land fills?

Also, overly aggressive cafe standards on vehicles can cause a drop in new car sales due to increased costs. This isn't just an economic problem, but can actually be counterproductive. Almost all of the newer cars on the road, have lower emissions than the previous generation of cars. If more people are forced to buy used cars, then you increase the demand and cost of used. This forces many people to actually buy used cars from previous generations that have higher emissions.

A friend of mine was forced to switch to a new lower emission deisel in his truck. I don't know about other trucks, but it reduced his mileage by 20%. So did it reduce his OVERALL emissions? It was the result of legislation passed quickly, and without research of the end gain because somebody felt it was urgent to act quickly. They felt this way because of the SCARY messages sent out to the world by people like Al Gore.

[Snuff.]

The problem is that when they scare the world, we start to get these worldwide agreements (Kyoto Protocol), that prevent developing impovrished countries from developing. They never have been and never will be on the cutting edge of technology. Some have huge supplies of coal and oil, but because of the Kyoto Protocol they can't use it. They have to wait for solar and other energy sources to become economically viable for their depressed country. Meanwhile, their country falls further and further behind.

That wasn`t what the Kyoto protocol was about at all. :eek7:

It specifically bound only developed nations to reducing their emissions. The system has since then bent backwards to ensure the profitability of partaking in the venture for smaller, less emitting nations (see the CDM and 'carbon credit' schemes). Still without any requirement that they cut their emissions.

The other problem is that it inspires knee-jerk legislation which can have multiple unintended consequences. Our congress has introduced legislation to ban the incandescent light bulb by 2012. The end result will be a need for an extensive program to dispose of billions of compact flourescent bulbs which contain mercury. How do we ensure that people don't just dump them in the trash, and they all end up land fills?

Where did you get that? And why doesn`t it account for the billions of incandescent light bulbs that are disposed of daily? More to the point, how can anybody in their right mind disagree with supplanting incandescent bulbs?

Also, overly aggressive cafe standards on vehicles can cause a drop in new car sales due to increased costs. This isn't just an economic problem, but can actually be counterproductive. Almost all of the newer cars on the road, have lower emissions than the previous generation of cars. If more people are forced to buy used cars, then you increase the demand and cost of used. This forces many people to actually buy used cars from previous generations that have higher emissions.

This is facile. The sale of more efficient motors won`t offset their own contribution to CO2 emissions, let alone dent the emissions of cars long-term!

A friend of mine was forced to switch to a new lower emission deisel in his truck. I don't know about other trucks, but it reduced his mileage by 20%. So did it reduce his OVERALL emissions? It was the result of legislation passed quickly, and without research of the end gain because somebody felt it was urgent to act quickly. They felt this way because of the SCARY messages sent out to the world by people like Al Gore.

When did Al Gore become the icon of the scientific community that has coalesced around anthropogenic climate change over the past half-century? This isn`t new, we simply have the evidence to demonstrate
it now. Carbon dating and ice core analysis, to name but two, have allowed us to refine climate science in a way we`ve never been able to before. The overwhelming impression is that atmospheric CO2 concentrations are responsible for our current warming trend.

That`s what this reaction is based on. There`s simply nothing else to offer. 'If the current warming trends continue, we will be faced with catastrophic weather patterns'. If it can then be established that CO2 emissions are responsible for this trend it follows by default that we attempt to limit our own emissions.

[Locklear]

Great a thread about global warming... This will end well.

Know what I'm going to do just to piss you off? I'm going to save my money and buy millions of tons of dynamite, take that shit to the north ans south poles, and proceed to blow huge chunks off until there's nothing left.

There, now we're all dead.

Now shut the fuck up.

[yup]

When did Al Gore become the icon of the scientific community that has coalesced around anthropogenic climate change over the past half-century?Big Al is like an Ol' Timey revival guy, lost an election now to keep in the spot lite and to make millions of dollars more then he has and leaving a carbon footprint larger then 20 members of this site put together.
This isn`t new, we simply have the evidence to demonstrate
it now. Carbon dating and ice core analysis, to name but two, have allowed us to refine climate science in a way we`ve never been able to before.This chart demonstrates that it is a naturally occurring cycle
http://images.radcity.net/3017/2247357.jpg

The overwhelming impression is that atmospheric CO2 concentrations are responsible for our current warming trend.Whats the overwhelming evidence? I provided you with hard facts not impressions of fact.

That`s what this reaction is based on. There`s simply nothing else to offer. 'If the current warming trends continue, we will be faced with catastrophic weather patterns'. If it can then be established that CO2 emissions are responsible for this trend it follows by default that we attempt to limit our own emissions.
Magnetic pole reversal but thats a whole other story.
http://www.pureenergysystems.com/news/2005/02/27/6900064_Magnet_Pole_Shift/

[HeyBuddy]

That wasn`t what the Kyoto protocol was about at all. :eek7:

It specifically bound only developed nations to reducing their emissions. The system has since then bent backwards to ensure the profitability of partaking in the venture for smaller, less emitting nations (see the CDM and 'carbon credit' schemes). Still without any requirement that they cut their emissions.


Where did you get that? And why doesn`t it account for the billions of incandescent light bulbs that are disposed of daily? More to the point, how can anybody in their right mind disagree with supplanting incandescent bulbs?



This is facile. The sale of more efficient motors won`t offset their own contribution to CO2 emissions, let alone dent the emissions of cars long-term!



When did Al Gore become the icon of the scientific community that has coalesced around anthropogenic climate change over the past half-century? This isn`t new, we simply have the evidence to demonstrate
it now. Carbon dating and ice core analysis, to name but two, have allowed us to refine climate science in a way we`ve never been able to before. The overwhelming impression is that atmospheric CO2 concentrations are responsible for our current warming trend.

That`s what this reaction is based on. There`s simply nothing else to offer. 'If the current warming trends continue, we will be faced with catastrophic weather patterns'. If it can then be established that CO2 emissions are responsible for this trend it follows by default that we attempt to limit our own emissions.


While I disagree with much of what you said, I'm going to have to wait until tonight when I have time to site more sources and back up my arguements. I'm kind of pressed for time, and I don't think you're going to take my word for it. So I'll get back to the rest later.

As for incandescent bulbs, they don't contain mercury. We put them right in the trash. I think that they have their place. I have compact flourescents in almost every room of my house. I do not have them in my bathroom or bedroom. The reason is, that those rooms usually have the lights turned off. Compact flourescents take forever to warm up. If I need to find something in my bedroom, I don't want to wait for the light to brighten up. The same goes for my closet. In the bathroom, compact flourescents create a hideous light for using mirrors.

If these new efficient bulbs are so great, the market will move toward that technology out of simple savings, as long as they perform well. In case people have forgotten, let me remind everyone that America was founded on FREEDOM and a FREE MARKET.

[verticalkiller]

Personally, I don't believe in global warming per say; in that, I don't think it, if real, was caused by anything we've done. I get so pissed off about all the environment stuff though that sometimes I turn into a broom. Dont use the highest settting for washing clothes, dont drive as much, dont leave lights on, dont take baths, take showers, bullshit. Our water bill is cheap and fixed every month, I use as much water as possible all the time, like the cool people do.

[Snuff.]

Magnetic pole reversal but thats a whole other story.
http://www.pureenergysystems.com/news/2005/02/27/6900064_Magnet_Pole_Shift/

Where are the atmospheric CO2 concentrations in that chart? I`ve seen similar charts, with atmospheric dust and CO2 concentrations listed, and the former correlates negatively with warming and the latter positively. The current warming trend cannot be explained by anything other than CO2 concentrations. That is the opinion of learned men and women the world around.

[ceehound619]

The warming of the atmosphere and ozone hole caused my man made interests is documented fact... to argue otherwise is sheer human arrogance/ignorance. Perhaps some people are in denial.....but make no mistake people....the damage we are causing this planet is very real..... we are NOT above certain destruction......we WILL go extinct someday.... and I believe it will be due to environmental/ecological disasters.

[yup]

I think the point of that chart is to help the viewer to visualize that the atmospheric temperatures do indeed swing from what we would consider very warm to very cold. Regardless of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere we are for from being on a proverbial run away roller coaster.

This is a good article as well,

http://www.researchfellow.net/kb.php?mode=article&k=1

[yup]

The warming of the atmosphere and ozone hole caused my man made interests is documented fact... to argue otherwise is sheer human arrogance/ignorance. Perhaps some people are in denial.....but make no mistake people....the damage we are causing this planet is very real..... we are NOT above certain destruction......we WILL go extinct someday.... and I believe it will be due to environmental/ecological disasters.

Of course we are going to go extincted everything does at some point.

[ceehound619]

Of course we are going to go extincted everything does at some point.
But not everyone is smart enough to realize that... arrogance is a POWERFUL force/emotion.

[Snuff.]

I think the point of that chart is to help the viewer to visualize that the atmospheric temperatures do indeed swing from what we would consider very warm to very cold. Regardless of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere we are for from being on a proverbial run away roller coaster.

This is a good article as well,

http://www.researchfellow.net/kb.php?mode=article&k=1

'Regardless of CO2 emissions and atmospheric particle dust concentrations'?

You mean 'regardless of the cornerstones of evidence recent environmental science is based on'?

:1orglaugh: Yup! That about wraps up the sceptic`s position!

[brownbearclan]

When it comes to global warming people are going to believe what they want to believe.

The earth does go through natural warming and cooling cycles, this is fact. What is also fact, is that never in the history of the earth except for major catastrophic events has the earth heated up as fast as it has in the last century. Also never in the Earth's history has man pumped billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels.

Time will tell though, let's see what people think of global warming in about 50 years. My guess is that people won't be laughing about it.

As for oil, that is going to run out too. Most scientists agree that we have already or will hit peak oil production very soon.

We all will have to be weened off the oil tit in our lifetimes and we're going to have to make some significant sacrifices.

[JooX]

Volcanoes :40:

[HeyBuddy]

I think the point of that chart is to help the viewer to visualize that the atmospheric temperatures do indeed swing from what we would consider very warm to very cold. Regardless of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere we are for from being on a proverbial run away roller coaster.

This is a good article as well,

http://www.researchfellow.net/kb.php?mode=article&k=1

'Regardless of CO2 emissions and atmospheric particle dust concentrations'?

You mean 'regardless of the cornerstones of evidence recent environmental science is based on'?

:1orglaugh: Yup! That about wraps up the sceptic`s position!

If you make a chart of ice cream sales, and violent crime, you will see an inarguable correlation. So, does ice cream cause violent crime? No, it doesn't. It's called a false correlation. They are both related to a different cause. In this case, it's warm weather, or summer time.

You can't always look at charts and correlations, and conclude a cause. I'm in a good position to conserve, and I do so. I think it is healthy to be skeptical though. Without skeptics, the entire world would rally behind the first person with a theory, even if they are wrong. You have to question things.

Ceehound stated that it was ignorant or arrogant, to conclude that humans aren't causing global warming. I've heard many people on the other side of the arguement say just the opposite. They think it is arrogant to think that we are so significant. I guess that only time will tell.

I encourage everybody to conserve as much as possible. If nothing else, it will be good for you financially, and reduce our dependance on foreign oil. At the same time, I encourage everybody to constantly question what you hear, see and read. I especially encourage you to question any studies that are funded by government grants, etc., and definitely question it when the government defunds anyone who offers alternate explainations.