What happened to global warming?

[Geezah]

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

So what on Earth is going on?

Climate change sceptics, who passionately and consistently argue that man's influence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming.

They argue that there are natural cycles, over which we have no control, that dictate how warm the planet is. But what is the evidence for this?

During the last few decades of the 20th Century, our planet did warm quickly.

Sceptics argue that the warming we observed was down to the energy from the Sun increasing. After all 98% of the Earth's warmth comes from the Sun.

But research conducted two years ago, and published by the Royal Society, seemed to rule out solar influences.

The scientists' main approach was simple: to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature.

And the results were clear. "Warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

But one solar scientist Piers Corbyn from Weatheraction, a company specialising in long range weather forecasting, disagrees.

He claims that solar charged particles impact us far more than is currently accepted, so much so he says that they are almost entirely responsible for what happens to global temperatures.

He is so excited by what he has discovered that he plans to tell the international scientific community at a conference in London at the end of the month.

If proved correct, this could revolutionise the whole subject.

Ocean cycles

What is really interesting at the moment is what is happening to our oceans. They are the Earth's great heat stores.

According to research conducted by Professor Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University last November, the oceans and global temperatures are correlated.

The oceans, he says, have a cycle in which they warm and cool cyclically. The most important one is the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO).

For much of the 1980s and 1990s, it was in a positive cycle, that means warmer than average. And observations have revealed that global temperatures were warm too.

But in the last few years it has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down.

These cycles in the past have lasted for nearly 30 years.

So could global temperatures follow? The global cooling from 1945 to 1977 coincided with one of these cold Pacific cycles.

Professor Easterbrook says: "The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling."

So what does it all mean? Climate change sceptics argue that this is evidence that they have been right all along.

They say there are so many other natural causes for warming and cooling, that even if man is warming the planet, it is a small part compared with nature.

But those scientists who are equally passionate about man's influence on global warming argue that their science is solid.

The UK Met Office's Hadley Centre, responsible for future climate predictions, says it incorporates solar variation and ocean cycles into its climate models, and that they are nothing new.

In fact, the centre says they are just two of the whole host of known factors that influence global temperatures - all of which are accounted for by its models.

In addition, say Met Office scientists, temperatures have never increased in a straight line, and there will always be periods of slower warming, or even temporary cooling.

What is crucial, they say, is the long-term trend in global temperatures. And that, according to the Met office data, is clearly up.

To confuse the issue even further, last month Mojib Latif, a member of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) says that we may indeed be in a period of cooling worldwide temperatures that could last another 10-20 years.

Professor Latif is based at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University in Germany and is one of the world's top climate modellers.

But he makes it clear that he has not become a sceptic; he believes that this cooling will be temporary, before the overwhelming force of man-made global warming reasserts itself.

So what can we expect in the next few years?

Both sides have very different forecasts. The Met Office says that warming is set to resume quickly and strongly.

It predicts that from 2010 to 2015 at least half the years will be hotter than the current hottest year on record (1998).

Sceptics disagree. They insist it is unlikely that temperatures will reach the dizzy heights of 1998 until 2030 at the earliest. It is possible, they say, that because of ocean and solar cycles a period of global cooling is more likely.

One thing is for sure. It seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over. Indeed some would say it is hotting up.


Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm)

I will say we only got to use the pool 4 times this summer, and I'm worried we're going to be in for a crap winter.....

[Hyde]

Bring back the gas guzzlers!

[bono]

Sometimes causes outlive their usefulness. There's little political juice left in this scaremongering theory (meaning voters ain't buying it anymore), besides there won't be anymore nobel prizes. But don't worry, new ones are on the way, prepare to be afraid, very afraid.

[bono]

Bring back the gas guzzlers!

What has gas guzzeling got to do with global warming? If the vehicle passes pollution checks whats the problem? watching CNN will tie your brain into knots.

[Andromeda]

You know what happened? It's inconveniently not profitable to gore anymore.

[MG 3]

Say what you want but my country is getting colder and dryer. I remember winters in cities like Lahore meant 4 to 5C but now it reaches -2 every winter and it snows in Islamabad. But the water is also running out.

[shocker1]

http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/

Solar minimum

[gazell]

Oh, for god's sakes, Geezah, were you this bored, no gun issue going ?

Just get of it, yes it's on-going, for your information it did not get better this warming thingie.

[Bia]

Oh, for god's sakes, Geezah, were you this bored, no gun issue going ?

Just get of it, yes it's on-going, for your information it did not get better this warming thingie.actually this copy/paste article is going around on dozens and dozens of web forums past two days.

Not stellar news.




Want some crazy gun issue?
Enjoy...
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=985_1255200841

[SHAM]

Global warming my ass...we havent had a summer in Ireland for three years..its rained non-stop the last three summers.
The climate is fecked up for sure, but it sure as hell is not bringing us any warming.

[Rossdobby]

Global warming doesnt mean the whole globe will get hotter. It means that the climate will change more likely to the extremes of hot and cold. Im in Canada and there is a foot of snow on the ground and two weeks ago it was +30. Also who ever complained about a -2 winter try living in Canada average temp in january is like -25

[Hyde]

What has gas guzzeling got to do with global warming? If the vehicle passes pollution checks whats the problem? watching CNN will tie your brain into knots.


A joke can also be a single phrase or statement that employs sarcasm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joke

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

The issue of Global Warming is still on the cards and to be fair its a complex phenomenon that boffins are still trying to unravel, we I think we are all clear on the fact that man is not the sole cause but his activities do contribute. We are getting milder wetter Winters and the sea water temp is climbing slowly, you can now find marks of Seabass in the Solway Firth and a couple of years back we a few Black Sea Bream all the oldies say these were rare visitors years back.

[Blackcatnursery]

This made interesting reading
blogs.telegraph.co.u... (http://www.bbc.co.uk/go/dna/mbgardening/F2759007/ext/_auto/-/http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100011716/how-the-global-warming-industry-is-based-on-one-massive-lie/)
The real chart is here
Red is what they want you to believe, the black line is the TRUE data
www.climateaudit.org... (http://www.bbc.co.uk/go/dna/mbgardening/F2759007/ext/_auto/-/http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/rcs_chronologies_rev2.gif)

The UN advisor's are also now quoting that we may be in for 10-20 years of global COOLING.

Funny how this is not getting any publicity in the mainstream media. Living in the UK I am fed up of the BBC banging on about it.

[EatenByRats]

Disruption of the North Atlantic Thermohaline Circulato (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutdown_of_thermohaline_circulation)r has been predicted by most models for quite some time.

The collective effects of anthropogenic greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere is properly called Global Climate Change, not Global Warming.

The only people who call it global warming are witless dupes or are simply trying making a buck off inventing a controversy that doesn't exist. The fact that the existence of manmade climate change is debated at all says more about the sad state of science education and misplaced priorities of than anything else.

[commanding]

You know what happened? It's inconveniently not profitable to gore anymore.
LOL!! Gore's profit did spring to mind.

[tornadoss]

Stop global warming!!!

[c62]

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm)

I will say we only got to use the pool 4 times this summer, and I'm worried we're going to be in for a crap winter.....
Farmer's almanac says it will be a very cold winter.

Title: What happened to global warming?
Reality set in. People woke up and realized this is a bunch of hog wash. Also no more Bush to use this against.

In the article it mentions we've had 11 years of cooler temperatures. The sun runs on a cycle that science is struggling to understand(averages about 11 years, hmmmmm what a coincidence). Also the currents in the ocean, the tilt of the earth on it's axis, and the wobble, as well as other factors beyond human control affect the earth's climate.

[Wimbly]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3624242/There-IS-a-problem-with-global-warming...-it-stopped-in-1998.html

What happened to global warming?
This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.
But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures. And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise. So what on Earth is going on?

Climate change sceptics, who passionately and consistently argue that man's influence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming. They argue that there are natural cycles, over which we have no control, that dictate how warm the planet is. But what is the evidence for this?

During the last few decades of the 20th Century, our planet did warm quickly. Recent research has ruled out solar influences on temperature increases..... But one solar scientist Piers Corbyn from Weatheraction, a company specialising in long range weather forecasting, disagrees. He claims that solar charged particles impact us far more than is currently accepted, so much so he says that they are almost entirely responsible for what happens to global temperatures. He is so excited by what he has discovered that he plans to tell the international scientific community at a conference in London at the end of the month. If proved correct, this could revolutionize the whole subject.
One thing, the hottest day on record was in 1934.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8383

NASA has now silently released corrected figures (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt), and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media (http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8383#) as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II. Anthony Watts has put the new data in chart form, along with a more detailed summary (http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/1998_no_longer_the_hottest_yea.html) of the events. I think its become pretty clear that the man made global warming movement was nothing more than a vehicle for profits and more government control over people. I think most of us knew this from the beginning, but at least now its becoming obvious to everyone.

[Geezah]

Oh, for god's sakes, Geezah, were you this bored, no gun issue going ?

Just get of it, yes it's on-going, for your information it did not get better this warming thingie.

If you don't like it, move along, nothing says you have to read the threads that are started in here!

[Eye]

I think its become pretty clear that the man made global warming movement was nothing more than a vehicle for profits and more government control over people. I think most of us knew this from the beginning, but at least now its becoming obvious to everyone.

More or less - holy truth.

[gazell]

actually this copy/paste article is going around on dozens and dozens of web forums past two days.

Not stellar news.




Want some crazy gun issue?
Enjoy...
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=985_1255200841

Thanks, one can trust you for comfort.p-)

[Soldat_Américain]

Well the truth is Global Warming doesn't begin to explain what is going on. Climate Change sounds like a euphemism but it is completely accurate. All of the climates are changing, places that are hot will cool and places that are cold may become deserts of death.

[Eye]

You are always a fun factor in these science related threads, Eye, just keep on digging.

The same arrogant like usually. You are so predictable. To much Discovery Channel, I suppose?
Anyway, it's nice that you think about me :)

[Basillicus]

It seems that global warming has become way too politicized issue especially in America. Nowadays there are millions of dimwits who have absolutely no idea how a extremely complex system such as the climate functions but they think they know the truth since it fits they political ideology. There are also a huge amount of people who are dying to prove that global warming exits/doesn't exist. All this "white noise" and politically motivated "scientific" studies are hiding all the serious work so it seems to be very hard if not impossible for a average person to make any rational conclusions.

I don't have a problem admitting to myself and others that I don't know whether global warming is happening or not. I simply don't have the competence to do that, and the worst thing I could do is to choose what I believe based of which party I support/don't support. I think reality check would be good for most of you guys too.

But in any case I think it would extremely positive thing to get rid of fossile fuels as fast as possible.

[Jurinko]

But in any case I think it would extremely positive thing to get rid of fossile fuels as fast as possible.

I disagree. It is like forcing world to abandon vacuum tubes in electronics, before the semiconductors were invented.

But bankrupting big oil producers is cool idea for the future p-)

[brainplay]

It seems that global warming has become way too politicized issue especially in America. Nowadays there are millions of dimwits who have absolutely no idea how a extremely complex system such as the climate functions but they think they know the truth since it fits they political ideology. There are also a huge amount of people who are dying to prove that global warming exits/doesn't exist. All this "white noise" and politically motivated "scientific" studies are hiding all the serious work so it seems to be very hard if not impossible for a average person to make any rational conclusions.

I don't have a problem admitting to myself and others that I don't know whether global warming is happening or not. I simply don't have the competence to do that, and the worst thing I could do is to choose what I believe based of which party I support/don't support. I think reality check would be good for most of you guys too.

But in any case I think it would extremely positive thing to get rid of fossile fuels as fast as possible.

Your views are conflicting. If you feel that you are not competent to discern a scientific study from a fake then why are you commenting on said "stories by the skeptics"? Back in your hole. :bash:

[XShipRider]

The only people who call it global warming are witless dupes or are simply trying making a buck off inventing a controversy that doesn't exist.

All scientists are not climatologists which means they know as much about global (insert your favorite moniker here) as I do.

P.S. You just called Al Gore a "witless dupe."

[happyslapper]

Everyone's a fvcking expert eh...

:roll:

[Chulo]

Al Gore turned off the heating in half his houses, and remarkably Global warming has stopped

[EatenByRats]

All scientists are not climatologists which means they know as much about global (insert your favorite moniker here) as I do.

P.S. You just called Al Gore a "witless dupe."

Nope, I'd put him in the controversy creation box.

There is zero controversy in the relevant science community around the world. Anthropogenic climate change is an accepted fact, which makes specific, testable predictions. The current cooling period is one of those predictions.

[Eye]

There is zero controversy in the relevant science community around the world. Anthropogenic climate change is an accepted fact, which makes specific, testable predictions.
IMHO there are too many accepted, undisputed facts in science today.

[Jurinko]

Oh and by the way, if you put so much trust into "highly accurate" predictions, do not be surprised to pay for it, true or false:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1219682/Pay-drive-plan-meet-green-targets.html

[happyslapper]

Well, so ignorant US public has to be brainwashed about the sky is falling, since the hottest period was in 1930s. For information, J. Hansen from NASA re-adjusted the US temperature record, so 1998 was made equally warm as 1934, what was not the case before. Tell me about scientific consensus!

Hansen started this scare in 1988 by his Congress testimony, not in sixties (when he was 20). During the testimony, he selected especially warm June day and let the air conditioning turn off. That *sshole who helped him in that was later given high rank in WWF or such junk green organization.

Wrong. Hansen started his prediction exactly in 1988 and it diverged immediately after that.

Not to forget, shortly before there was global cooling scare raging. In some cases, "ice age is coming" alarmists like Stephen Schneider (IPCC lead author), switched sides to the warming crowd without blinking their eye. Of course, both cooling and warming was caused by humans, especially the US-produced CO2.

Hansen applied models, he's not a fvcking psychic! It's amazing how people choose to analyse only the bits that he got wrong (due primarily to the unforseen eruption of Pinatubo in '91) rather than seeing the purpose of the predictions, which prove him to be correct.
'Cannot see the wood through the trees'.

For anyone who actually has an education in this area, I cannot begin to tell you how exasperating it is to hear endless streams of prats talking about how it's one big conspiracy, or a leftist aganda, or a money making enterprise, or whatever other fairy story. Grow up.

[happyslapper]

Oh and by the way, if you put so much trust into "highly accurate" predictions, do not be surprised to pay for it, true or false:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1219682/Pay-drive-plan-meet-green-targets.html

The daily mail?! hahahahhaa

I just finished a masters degree in earth science, specialising in paleoclimatology.

[Jurinko]

Great. The hockey team has got some fresh blood.

What you say about the IPCC 1990 temperature reconstruction (H. Lamb 1965)? Is it wrong or correct?

[Sand Man]

Seriously, why are you guys all getting your panties tied-up over this? Agreed that the planet is changing but hasn't the human race adapted to the climate? Should Mother Nature decide to wipe out every single human, I'm pretty sure another life form will inhabit this place.


Who knows -- maybe if it got too hot and the sea level rose by a thousand feet we'd probably have scales and gills by then. p-)

[happyslapper]

Great. The hockey team has got some fresh blood.

What you say about the IPCC 1990 temperature reconstruction (H. Lamb 1965)? Is it wrong or correct?

Wow, it's been a while since I've been asked that! As ever it's shades of grey, not black-and-white. My main gripe is that many in the scientific community saw it as a simple visual representation, and subsequently overused it. It was never intended to be applied to a global scale, hence it was originally called the 'Central England Record' (or something like that, I can't remember exactly). Since it was digitised, it's far better, but it was a massively vague prediction based on things that weren't available at the time (several indicators were either in their infancy or non-existant at the time). So my overall opinion is that it served it's purpose in stimulating greater investigation, but it's pretty much run out of steam based on contemporary research techniques.

[budgie]

Seriously, why are you guys all getting your panties tied-up over this? Agreed that the planet is changing but hasn't the human race adapted to the climate? Should Mother Nature decide to wipe out every single human, I'm pretty sure another life form will inhabit this place.


Who knows -- maybe if it got too hot and the sea level rose by a thousand feet we'd probably have scales and gills by then. p-)


Geezah already does.

[happyslapper]

Which colossal rate of change? :roll:

Arctic, which should be the most sensitive to radiation imbalances caused by increased greenhouse effect, has the same temperatures as in 40ties:


The rate of warming was twice as steep in 20ties. Who was responsible for that? Wheres the colossal rate of change, except the warmist propaganda paid by public money and based on lousy 30 year trend which just ended?

Climatology is politicized as nothing in science. How do you like this utterly awful child-abusing propaganda, paid by UK government, at the same time claiming there are no money for training jumps for you paratroopers?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/09/tv_climate_ad_drowning_dog/

You're becoming more and more ridiculous.

I've seen thousands of graphs, there's no need to post a new one every time.
You understand that the earth's clime is complex, not uniform, right?

I'm getting pretty bored of this now. It was amusing at first, but now it's getting like an old joke.

Go and pick up a GCSE Geography book, or maybe talk to a 12 year old. I'm sure they'll be able to answer your questions and give you bit of an education.

[digrar]

Jurinko, Eye and gazell, you have pretty much knackered this thread by constantly posting hotlinked images, which breaks forum rules. Your posts have all been deleted.

[Eye]

You understand that the earth's clime is complex, not uniform, right?


What can be complex in temperature? We don't talk about snow or rain fallings, storms etc., but if it is getting warmer or colder.

[tea drinker]

What can be complex in temperature? We don't talk about snow or rain fallings, storms etc., but if it is getting warmer or colder.
Sounds to me like "you wouldn't understand" is the equivalent of Racist!/Nazi! in the discussions about race (or not).

Climate change is normal - I don't see what the fuss is about apart from the fact that we have to be AFRAID.

The world is flat - you wouldn't understand :-)

[gazell]

The problem is that we are doing it to ourselves, which is a bit stupid and could help the situation, which we are reluctant to do.

http://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2009a/090226HuberPete.html


http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/sea-levels-rising-twice-as-fast-as-predicted-1642087.html

[Jurinko]

The problem is that we are doing it to ourselves, which is a bit stupid and could help the situation, which we are reluctant to do.

http://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2009a/090226HuberPete.html


http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/sea-levels-rising-twice-as-fast-as-predicted-1642087.html

BS, example of mass media hysterical campaign before the Copenhagen climatic summit. They are losing it and they know it.

Melting Antarctic? Oh my! The ice extend increases gradually there, since satellite measurements started. Is it so difficult to check it online?

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg


It was warmer 7000, 4000 and 1000 years ago, why the world was not flooded then?

Sea level has stagnated in fact:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_ns_global.jpg

The second point is similar. CO2 lags temperature, since its solubility changes with changing ocean temperature. CO2 has no recognizable efect on global temperature.

http://www.americanthinker.com/%231%20CO2EarthHistory.gif

[Jobu]

If it makes you willingly pay more taxes, the debate is over. It's settled science now.

[Chulo]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/
has found that over a thousand "Monitoring" Stations have been set up to give faulty results. (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/02/14/how-not-to-measure-temperature-part-51/)


http://www.surfacestations.org/
Surfacestations project reaches 82% of the network surveyed. 1003 of 1221 stations have been examined in the USHCN network. The Google Earth map below shows current coverage.
And the error rates for the "facts" behind the argument

[gazell]

BS, example of mass media hysterical campaign before the Copenhagen climatic summit. They are losing it and they know it.

Yes, the frustration is great with politicians and the lack of action. Though China has been showing signs of an intent, India is running research programmes because of an increasing water problem, expecting something from the Obama administration, too, still, I'm also sceptical what will be achieved.

I know, BS, NASA is assholes, all scientific bodies full of idiots and it is a conspiracy. What for? What is the scientific world's interest in pulling such a thing? This view really puzzles me.


It was warmer 7000, 4000 and 1000 years ago, why the world was not flooded then?

Sea level has stagnated in fact:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_ns_global.jpg[QUOTE]

A lot of factors contribute at all times, not just those given at that time, some have a delayed effect, as yourself point out next.

Interestingly though:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/21/researchers-find-arctic-may-have-had-less-ice-6-7000-years-ago/

[QUOTE]The second point is similar. CO2 lags temperature, since its solubility changes with changing ocean temperature. CO2 has no recognizable efect on global temperature.

http://www.americanthinker.com/%231%20CO2EarthHistory.gif

Lagging does not mean CO2 has no warming effect. The lag for the last 1000 years is put about 50 years from ice core data.

On the other hand, say, there is no climate change, everybody saying so, is wrong. The sea waters are acidifying due to CO2 emissions, this is already having a serious impact on sealife. This might hit us sooner than CCH effects. Population numbers are also a problem, the Earth's resources are not endless. Fossil fuels also will run out.

Would not all that suggest anyway to take actions?

[Jurinko]

The sea waters are acidifying due to CO2 emissions, this is already having a serious impact on sealife. This might hit us sooner than CCH effects. Population numbers are also a problem, the Earth's resources are not endless. Fossil fuels also will run out.

Would not all that suggest anyway to take actions?

Oceans flourished with life, when there were thousands of CO2 in the atmosphere. Big Coral reef was formed then, made of pure calcium carbonate. 1000 ppm is optimum for plant growth, while 8000 ppm is the limit for submarine crews. Even all fossils burned will not get us to 1000 ppm.

Actions? You mean centralized world government and centrally planned eugenics? Soviets would envy you.

[Eye]

Indeed, there is nothing better for plants to growth than CO2 and warmth.

[KilRemgor]

Well, IMHO:
1) Earth's capability to maintain temperature balance is great (both by rapid growth of CO2-consuming plants, especially sea-based, balancing out the increased emissions and other means)
but
2) there will be a period of cooling amidst global warming that is caused by simple thermodynamics; the period when ice caps melt. Earth will become somewhat cooler but sea levels will rise, then Earth gets warmer again and finally balancing mechanisms will catch up and slowly restore the equilibrium.

So, IMO, the problem is 'global flooding', together with tsunamis and other similar events. If nothing is done at all some cities and countries may suffer a lot.

[Jurinko]

Well, IMHO:
the period when ice caps melt.

Maybe it is surprising, but every spring Arctic partially melts and Antarctic freezes, and in autumn it goes in opposite way.

Arctic is mostly sea ice, which does not increase sea level when melting (try to melt ice cube in glass of water and check the water level). Antarctic, which is mostly ice on the ground, has so much ice as never before satellite observation started.

But the Greenland, the melting Greenland!
Well, the Greenland enjoys the same temperatures as in 1940ies, with natural cycle heading down again.
Greenland meteorological station record (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=431043600000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1)
Reykjavik station record (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=620040300000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1)

Nobody is able to answer simple question: 800 years ago, it was so warm that Vikings were farming in the south Greenland; why the world was not flooded? During the Roman empire, it was even warmer; Hannibal did not see any glaciers when crossing the Alps, because there were none. Why the world was not flooded?

What has that politicized pseudoscience made with common knowledge and how it enhanced inability of people to question 1000x repeated lies, even sources are freely available, is much worse than any climatic catastrophe. You behave like ox with the chain ring in the nose. Dis-gus-ting!

[Abschaum]

what happen to the talk about the ozone layer and ozone holes?

[gazell]

Oceans flourished with life, when there were thousands of CO2 in the atmosphere. Big Coral reef was formed then, made of pure calcium carbonate. 1000 ppm is optimum for plant growth, while 8000 ppm is the limit for submarine crews. Even all fossils burned will not get us to 1000 ppm.

Actions? You mean centralized world government and centrally planned eugenics? Soviets would envy you.

This is more than ridiculous. Since when 'to take action' implies any world view, political standing or form of government?

Yes, governments, past and present, regardless who they are, take actions in the interest of their people and country based on the best advice and knowledge they can get, it belongs to their job description.

At just current usage rate we are predicted to get by all models near or above 1000 ppm. The coral reefs already suffering at 380-400 ppm where we are now. Always have had in the past under such circumstance.

I'm finished with this. You mixing your Arctic and Antartic, too. Also, failed to provide a reason, why 'all scientists of the world unite' - all of whom are nutters compared to you - would pull such a trick.

[gazell]

what happen to the talk about the ozone layer and ozone holes?

They have somewhat recovered, since we took action, same about acid rain.:)

[Jurinko]

Good question. Ozone hole quietly reached its maximum in 2006, sparking no interest whatsoever in mass media. At the same time, serious doubts appeared about the proposed chemical mechanism, which had to decompose ozone by interaction with freons.

http://www.junkscience.com/sep07/Chemists_poke_holes_in_ozone_theory.htm

"This must have far-reaching consequences," Rex says. "If the measurements are correct we can basically no longer say we understand how ozone holes come into being."

Global warming come just in time to save the "science" from that ozone fiasco. We are using more expensive cooling media, Du Pont made a huge business with their patented stuff forced on the market and in the meantime, politicians and eco-freaks found other virtual windmill to fight with.

It is still possible, that freons partially decompose the ozone; however, science was unanimously settled, that it is the only reason. Now it seems, that cosmic rays are main driver of stratospheric ozone life.

[Jurinko]

This is more than ridiculous. Since when 'to take action' implies any world view, political standing or form of government?


Welcome in good company.

http://infowars.wordpress.com/2009/02/13/enviroment-eugenics-quotes/

:roll:

[Jobu]

what happen to the talk about the ozone layer and ozone holes?

There wasn't much money to be made by banning CFC's.

Turning Co2 emissions into a tradeable market commodity? ****ing Priceless. Trillions of euros to be made.

So everybody just shut the **** up and pay your new taxes. The earth depends on it! lol

[brainplay]

It is still possible, that freons partially decompose the ozone; however, science was unanimously settled, that it is the only reason. Now it seems, that cosmic rays are main driver of stratospheric ozone life.

The difference here is that we were able to subject ozone to freons in various quantities and pressures while in a laboratory environment and study the effects. Freons were nasty to the atmosphere and an individual's health. But that's from direct cause and effect testing. Not just computer models which are the primary source of AGW forecast trends.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm)

I will say we only got to use the pool 4 times this summer, and I'm worried we're going to be in for a crap winter.....

Well in the past 11 years many nations of introduced stricter anti-pollution measures as well. As for the whole global warming thing.

Try living in Australia where it is a REAL ****ing problem.

[Jurinko]

The difference here is that we were able to subject ozone to freons in various quantities and pressures while in a laboratory environment and study the effects. Freons were nasty to the atmosphere and an individual's health. But that's from direct cause and effect testing. Not just computer models which are the primary source of AGW forecast trends.

From the link above:
"Reactions in experimental chambers are one thing - the free atmosphere is something else," says Joe Farman, one of the scientists who first quantified the ozone hole over Antarctica.

The ozone-CFC issue was much simpler than complex ocean-sun-atmosphere - and still it is not clear. When they simulated very cold environment like high altitudes above Antarctic, it did not work as anticipated - the decomposing reaction was by magnitude slower.

Funny thing is, that the hole peaks above Antarctic only, and only when there is half year polar night - but all sun cream protecting manufacturers persuades us we all are threatened by it.
Ozone hole somehow stabilized in last years, but whether it was the CFC ban or other reasons is unclear. There are no proxies to reconstruct historical ozone concentrations like it is possible for cosmic rays, temperature or sun activity, we have just data from last few decades.

Desulfurisation of fumes from coal burning was beyond doubt positive thing.

[shocker1]

New ways to help the planet.
BSNews
By, Seymore Butts




October 18, 2009

A much more potent greenhouse gas which has long been ignored now has the spotlight. Sour gas emissions from the digestion process taking place amongst the billions of humans infesting this planet. Researchers at the Al Gore Center for Population Management hail a joint effort it has funded with the Bilderberg Group to monitor these emissions from the masses. They also funded development of key products for the reduction of off the books emissions.

Lockheed's Skunk Works and JPL have developed a sour gas monitoring system which fits into the anus with little discomfort. Using this device first developed for Astronauts on the Space station, Governments can now monitor these horrid fumes on an individual basis. Government sources say that these systems will be used to calculate greenhouse gas contributions and impose a tax. The intent is to motivate citizens to limit their family size and eat meals with less environmental impact. A supper of Corn bread and pinto beans could be offset with a lunch of spring water and dietary supplements.

Orek Inc has recently introduced a sour gas scrubber for the lower colon that some test subjects say is a pleasant joy to wear. This new product from the maker of famous vacuums will most likely include a healthy tax deduction for the wearer. Versions are at this moment being adapted to fit all livestock. This scrubber has the added benefit of storing the valuable yet potent destroyer of worlds for collection and use at local cement plants.

The EPA plans to study the feasibility of a similar system for respiration to add to the government's arsenal in combating the poisonous CO2 emissions. Such a design would have to be inconspicuous and could even monitor political hate speech, angry rants and the mumblings of those who talk to themselves.