Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Global Warming a Hoax?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
    So Global Warming is a giant liberal conspiracy to secretly insert Communist ideology into the global economy by crippling the major industrial powers and giving wealth to the lesser ones?
    Like I said, it's always about the money with deniers.
    Hyperwar: World War II on the World Wide Web
    Hyperwar, Whats New
    World War II Resources
    The best place in the world to "work".

    Comment


    • Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
      I was aware of Venus' retrograde rotation, and the fact that its day is longer than its year (it's in the post). I posted this because it demonstrates the effect of greenhouse gasses on a planet.

      With respect to Uranus and Venus, it is more likely that their axial/rotational eccentricities are due to collisions, rather than 'flybys,' because an object on an extreme elliptical orbit would have been detected by now, had it survived. The Solar System formed from a swirling disc of gas and dust, there is a limit to how much orbital eccentricity you can achieve under these circumstances, unless you assume the Sun 'picked up' a wandering 'hitchhiker' world, which, if it had the mass necessary for these perturbations, would have been detected by now.
      (But you did not mention Venus' retrograde motion, nor its significance. )

      Star Buzzed Earth During Neanderthal Times

      Close encounters can hurl a cosmic hailstorm of comets, some of which might collide with Earth.

      http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...-scholz-space/
      TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
      “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
      Present Current Events are the Future's History

      Comment


      • Global Warming: Natural or Manmade?
        EXCERPTS;
        ...
        “Global warming” refers to the global-average temperature increase that has been observed over the last one hundred years or more. But to many politicians and the public, the term carries the implication that mankind is responsible for that warming. This website describes evidence from my group’s government-funded research that suggests global warming is mostly natural, and that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions and aerosol pollution.

        Believe it or not, very little research has ever been funded to search for natural mechanisms of warming…it has simply been assumed that global warming is manmade. This assumption is rather easy for scientists since we do not have enough accurate global data for a long enough period of time to see whether there are natural warming mechanisms at work.
        ...
        ... As of 2008, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was about 40% to 45% higher than it was before the start of the industrial revolution in the 1800′s.

        It is interesting to note that, even though carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth to exist, there is precious little of it in Earth’s atmosphere. As of 2008, only 39 out of every 100,000 molecules of air were CO2, and it will take mankind’s CO2 emissions 5 more years to increase that number by 1, to 40.
        ...
        You would think that we’d know the Earth’s ‘climate sensitivity’ by now, but it has been surprisingly difficult to determine. How atmospheric processes like clouds and precipitation systems respond to warming is critical, as they are either amplifying the warming, or reducing it. This website currently concentrates on the response of clouds to warming, an issue which I am now convinced the scientific community has totally misinterpreted when they have measured natural, year-to-year fluctuations in the climate system. As a result of that confusion, they have the mistaken belief that climate sensitivity is high, when in fact the satellite evidence suggests climate sensitivity is low.

        The case for natural climate change I also present an analysis of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation which shows that most climate change might well be the result of….the climate system itself! Because small, chaotic fluctuations in atmospheric and oceanic circulation systems can cause small changes in global average cloudiness, this is all that is necessary to cause climate change. ...
        ...
        http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-w...al-or-manmade/
        TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
        “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
        Present Current Events are the Future's History

        Comment


        • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
          Global Warming: Natural or Manmade?
          EXCERPTS;
          ...
          “Global warming” refers to the global-average temperature increase that has been observed over the last one hundred years or more. But to many politicians and the public, the term carries the implication that mankind is responsible for that warming. This website describes evidence from my group’s government-funded research that suggests global warming is mostly natural, and that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions and aerosol pollution.

          Believe it or not, very little research has ever been funded to search for natural mechanisms of warming…it has simply been assumed that global warming is manmade. This assumption is rather easy for scientists since we do not have enough accurate global data for a long enough period of time to see whether there are natural warming mechanisms at work.
          ...
          ... As of 2008, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was about 40% to 45% higher than it was before the start of the industrial revolution in the 1800′s.

          It is interesting to note that, even though carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth to exist, there is precious little of it in Earth’s atmosphere. As of 2008, only 39 out of every 100,000 molecules of air were CO2, and it will take mankind’s CO2 emissions 5 more years to increase that number by 1, to 40.
          ...
          You would think that we’d know the Earth’s ‘climate sensitivity’ by now, but it has been surprisingly difficult to determine. How atmospheric processes like clouds and precipitation systems respond to warming is critical, as they are either amplifying the warming, or reducing it. This website currently concentrates on the response of clouds to warming, an issue which I am now convinced the scientific community has totally misinterpreted when they have measured natural, year-to-year fluctuations in the climate system. As a result of that confusion, they have the mistaken belief that climate sensitivity is high, when in fact the satellite evidence suggests climate sensitivity is low.

          The case for natural climate change I also present an analysis of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation which shows that most climate change might well be the result of….the climate system itself! Because small, chaotic fluctuations in atmospheric and oceanic circulation systems can cause small changes in global average cloudiness, this is all that is necessary to cause climate change. ...
          ...
          http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-w...al-or-manmade/
          I think the AAPG is the only scientific society clearly advocating the study of the natural causes of climate change in order to establish a baseline from which to measure and evaluate human influences...
          AAPG supports expanding scientific climate research into the basic controls on climate specifically including the geological, solar, and astronomic aspects of climate change. Research should include understanding causes of past climate change and the potential effects of both increasing and decreasing temperatures in the future.

          https://dpa.aapg.org/gac/statements/climatechange.cfm

          Without a baseline, climate change will always be "worse than expected," so long as it gins up research $$$.
          Last edited by The Doctor; 28 Feb 15, 10:02.
          Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

          Comment


          • Glacier time-lapse photos

            Whether you agree with my argument or not, these photographs are very interesting:

            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...125-years.html
            Divine Mercy Sunday: 4/21/2020 (https://www.thedivinemercy.org/message) The Miracle of Lanciano: Jesus' Real Presence (https://web.archive.org/web/20060831...fcontents.html)

            Comment


            • Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
              Whether you agree with my argument or not, these photographs are very interesting:

              http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...125-years.html
              They're very interesting. They would be meaningful if they went back to the Holocene Climatic Optimum, the onset of Neoglaciation and the maximum Holocene glacial advance during the Little Ice Age.

              Knowing what glaciers have been doing over the most recent 125 years is meaningless if you don't put it into the context of what they were naturally doing over the prior 10,000 years. Geologists understand that glacial mass balance is almost always positive or negative. While glacially slow, very few glaciers sit still. Geologists also know that most alpine/valley glaciers in North America are of very recent origin, only dating back to the Mid-Holocene Neoglaciation. Most reached their maximum extent in the 1800's during the Little Ice Age. The “small glaciers” of Glacier National Park, Montana may have not existed during the Holocene Climatic Optimum (HCO). The geological evidence suggests that they formed less than 7,000 years ago as the Earth’s climate began to cool after the HCO...

              History of Glaciers in Glacier National Park


              The history of glaciation within current Glacier National Park boundaries spans centuries of glacial growth and recession, carving the features we see today. Glaciers were present within current Glacier National Park boundaries as early as 7,000 years ago but may have survived an early Holocene warm period (Carrara, 1989), making them much older. These modest glaciers varied in size, tracking climatic changes, but did not grow to their Holocene maximum size until the end of the Little Ice Age (LIA) around A.D. 1850. While they may not have formed in their entirety during the LIA, their maximum perimeters can be documented through mapping of lateral and terminal moraines. (Key, 2002) The extent and mass of these glaciers, as well as glaciers around the globe, has clearly decreased during the 20th century in response to warmer temperatures.

              Climate reconstructions representative of the Glacier National Park region extend back multiple centuries and show numerous long-duration drought and wet periods that influenced the mass balance of glaciers (Pederson et al. 2004). Of particular note was an 80-year period (~1770-1840) of cool, wet summers and above-average winter snowfall that led to a rapid growth of glaciers just prior to the end of the LIA. Thus, in the context of the entire Holocene, the size of glaciers at the end of the LIA was an anomaly of sorts. In fact, the large extent of ice coverage removed most of the evidence of earlier glacier positions by overriding terminal and lateral moraines.

              [...]

              USGS

              “Mapping of lateral and terminal moraines” clearly demonstrates that the maximum extent of the glaciers was reached during the Little Ice Age (LIA).

              Most of the alpine glaciers in Colorado formed after the HCO and reached their maximum extent during the LIA, between 400 and 150 years ago. Most have generally been retreating since the early 1900's...

              [...]

              [T]here have been three small Holocone (10,000 years BP to present) glacial advances termed, from oldest to youngest, Triple Lakes, Audubon, and Arapaho Peak advances. Collectively these minor advances are termed Neoglaciation, and the largest glacier during these advances was only 1.6 km long. The Arapaho Peak advance is local evidence for the Little Ice Age (the popular name for a period of cooling in the northern hemisphere lasting approximately from the 14th to the mid-19th centuries). Most of the glaciers and perennial ice patches in Colorado today are the tattered remnants of these small Little Ice Age glaciers.

              [...]

              LINK

              The glaciers of Mt Ranier National Park may date back to the last Pleistocene glaciation, but they also exhibit a similar variability to those of Glacier National Park and the Colorado Front Range…
              The size of glaciers on Mount Rainier has fluctuated significantly in the past. For example, during the last ice age, from about 25,000 to about 15,000 years ago, glaciers covered most of the area now within the boundaries of Mount Rainier National Park and extended to the perimeter of the present Puget Sound Basin.

              Geologists can determine the former extent of glaciers on Mount Rainier by mapping the outline of glacial deposits and by noting the position of trimlines, the distinct boundaries between older and younger forests or between forests and pioneering vegetation. Geologists determine the age of some of the deposits by noting the age of the oldest trees and lichens growing on them and the degree of weatherring on boulders. Between the 14th century and AD 1850, many of the glaciers on Mount Rainier advanced to their farthest went down-valley since the last ice age. Many advances of this sort occurred worldwide during this time period known to geologists as the Little Ice Age. During the Little Ice Age, the Nisqually Glacier advanced to a position 650 feet to 800 feet down-valley from the site of the Glacier Bridge, Tahoma and South Tahoma Glaciers merged at the base of Glacier Island, and the terminus of Emmons Glacier reached within 1.2 miles of the White River Campground.

              Retreat of the Little Ice Age glaciers was slow until about 1920 when retreat became more rapid. Between the height of the Little Ice Age and 1950, Mount Rainier’s glaciers lost about one-quarter of their length. Beginning in 1950 and continuing through the early 1980′s, however, many of the major glaciers advanced in response to relatively cooler temperatures of the mid-century. The Carbon, Cowlitz, Emmons, and Nisqually Glaciers advanced during the late 1970′s and early 1980′s as a result of high snowfalls during the 1960′s and 1970′s. Since the early-1980′s and through 1992, however, many glaciers have been thinning and retreating and some advances have slowed, perhaps in response to drier conditions that have prevailed at Mount Rainier since 1977.

              [...]

              Mount Rainier National Park Information Page

              The Mt. Ranier glaciers also seem to have reached their maximum Holocene extent during the Little Ice Age.

              The glaciers of the Schnidejoch ice field in the Bernese Alps clearly demonstrate the cyclical nature of glacial advance and retreat since the onset of Neoglaciation...

              Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

              Comment


              • I was looking in my crystal ball today and I saw the future!


                In that future, the AGW crowd finally admits the Earth is not warming.

                BUT the lack of warming is then supposedly due to the legislation and other actions they had done to curb such warming! Thereby taking full credit for a non-event and covering their lies from most of the public that can't see through the smoke screen.

                Just a random prediction based on observations from past events...
                Battles are dangerous affairs... Wang Hsi

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Pirate-Drakk View Post
                  I was looking in my crystal ball today and I saw the future!


                  In that future, the AGW crowd finally admits the Earth is not warming.

                  BUT the lack of warming is then supposedly due to the legislation and other actions they had done to curb such warming! Thereby taking full credit for a non-event and covering their lies from most of the public that can't see through the smoke screen.

                  Just a random prediction based on observations from past events...
                  Like Band-Aids and Neosporin on cuts, eh? It would have healed eventually, therefore they are needless!

                  *waits for exposé on how band-aid companies take undeserved credit for healing scrapes*
                  Divine Mercy Sunday: 4/21/2020 (https://www.thedivinemercy.org/message) The Miracle of Lanciano: Jesus' Real Presence (https://web.archive.org/web/20060831...fcontents.html)

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
                    Like Band-Aids and Neosporin on cuts, eh? It would have healed eventually, therefore they are needless!

                    *waits for exposé on how band-aid companies take undeserved credit for healing scrapes*
                    Band-Aids and Neosporin actually aid the healing process.
                    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by OpanaPointer View Post
                      Like I said, it's always about the money with deniers.
                      Not always.



                      Margaret Thatcher, that environmarxist, thought man was to blame about global warming.

                      She might have a problem in that she was a scientist before she was a politician.
                      How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                      Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                      Comment


                      • The second you leave the fold, you get this when you are a climate scientist:

                        http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...robe/70244904/

                        PHOENIX — An Arizona State University scientist said he is "shocked" to be among seven researchers at the center of a probe by an Arizona congressman over funding for their climate-change research
                        Seems he might have gotten a small amount of money from the evil Koch Brothers...

                        Of course, Rep. Raúl Grijalva, D-Arizona, is a Socialist and far Leftist (and, yes, he's really a Socialist) so... That's the Congress critter calling for an investigation on of this scientist.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                          Not always.

                          [IMG...IMG]

                          Margaret Thatcher, that environmarxist, thought man was to blame about global warming.

                          She might have a problem in that she was a scientist before she was a politician.
                          Recently three changes in atmospheric chemistry have become familiar subjects of concern. The first is the increase in the greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide, methane, and chlorofluorocarbons—which has led some to fear that we are creating a global heat trap which could lead to climatic instability. We are told that a warming effect of 1°C per decade would greatly exceed the capacity of our natural habitat to cope. Such warming could cause accelerated melting of glacial ice and a consequent increase in the sea level of several feet over the next century. This was brought home to me at the Commonwealth Conference in Vancouver last year when the President of the Maldive Islands reminded us that the highest part of the Maldives is only six feet above sea level. The population is 177,000. It is noteworthy that the five warmest years in a century of records have all been in the 1980s—though we may not have seen much evidence in Britain!

                          http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/107346

                          Lady Thatcher advocated the establishment of the Hadley Center for Climate Prediction and Research. She supported scientific research into climate change.

                          The research over the past 25 years has proven "that a warming effect of 1°C per decade" is not possible and that an "increase in the sea level of several feet over the next century" can't happen.

                          The folks at Hadley never found any evidence to support warming of 1°C per century, much less 1°C per dslecade, and can't find any global warming since the turn of the century...



                          And the Maldives aren't sinking...





                          Lots of money has been spent on climate research over the past 25 years and no actual evidence has been produced that mankind is causing the climate to do anything other than what it has naturally done over the past 10,000 years.
                          Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                          Comment


                          • 80 degrees yesterday in the Rockies! I went around all day wearing a T-short. Same today...possibly warmer!

                            Talk about a "crisis of faith" for all the Gorebots on this forum who can't stop ranting about global warming...
                            Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                              80 degrees yesterday in the Rockies! I went around all day wearing a T-short. Same today...possibly warmer!

                              Talk about a "crisis of faith" for all the Gorebots on this forum who can't stop ranting about global warming...
                              Anecdote is not evidence... Except on the Left...

                              Comment


                              • Antarctic ice floes extended further than ever recorded this southern winter, confounding the world’s most-trusted climate models.

                                “It’s not expected,” says Professor John Turner, a climate expert at the British Antarctic Survey. “The world’s best 50 models were run and 95% of them have Antarctic sea ice decreasing over the past 30 years.”


                                http://www.theguardian.com/environme...global-warming

                                That means 2 out of 50 models said the sea ice would increase and one said it would stay the same. The other 47 were completely wrong.

                                So much for being "trusted"...


                                I love this pic. The ice has been growing since 1978! The latest jump is dramtic.



                                When I was a kid, 5% success was a FAIL!

                                Maybe we can dumb it down a bit...
                                Attached Files
                                Battles are dangerous affairs... Wang Hsi

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X