So there you have it. The Global Warmists are latching on to a new argument: Global Warming causes Global Cooling...
Posted on 06/06/2008 10:09:52 PM PDT by melt
The deniers of global warming are about to latch on to a new argument. The world is cooling. And they are right - well, slightly.
Globally, this year is likely to be the coolest for some time - back to the average of the early 90s, according to some unpublished forecasts. This is no refutation of man-made global warming. It is the inevitable consequence of one of nature's climatic cycles. The La Niña, the cold phase of the El Niño cycle in the Pacific, has sent average global temperatures plunging this year.
And there is more. Longer term climate cycles that play out over a decade or so will also be working to cool us in the coming decade. In particular, changes in the currents of the north Atlantic - which have caused Europe to warm more than anywhere else in the past decade and helped melt all that Arctic ice - are about to go into reverse.
A Germany study published earlier this month predicts the world will cool over the coming decade. British climate modellers at the Met Office don't go so far. They think nature's cooling will be more than counterbalanced by the warming effect of man-made carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
But nobody is sure. In any case, we can expect the deniers to make the most of this opportunity to pour cold water on the whole climate change narrative. No year has yet been hotter than 1998, they will say. True: it was a huge El Niño year. Now we are on the way back down, they will say. Nonsense. The underlying trend remains upwards; and as every decade passes, natural cycles can do less and less to counter the growing human influence on temperature.
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
It will get cold.
It will get hot.
My theory is irrefutable!
So there you have it. The Global Warmists are latching on to a new argument: Global Warming causes Global Cooling...
What tripe. Cooling —> Natural and Good, even though it leads to crop failure and starvation. Warming —> Man made and Bad, even though it leads to a more temperate world more conducive to growing crops.
Oh, so now we actually have "climatic cycles". Thanks for the update.
Wait. Let me get this straight: Cooling is just a part of nature's cycle but a numerically smaller amount of warming over a longer period of time is a man made catastrophe?
Mark Twain talked about invincible ignorance. He was too optimistic.
Lets see if I have the Guardian’s logic straight.
Warming caused by man.
Cooling caused by nature’s usual cycles.
It’s kind of cool this evening so I’m thinking a good ole’ carbon belch should help warm things up.
The phrase "nature's climatic cycles" is a refutation of man-made global warming however.
The promoters of global warming had predicted accelerated warming by now.
The deniers of global warming had predicted that it would start cooling by now.
Now exactly who is latching on to a "new" argument?
It starts with an idea: man is bad for the world. Facts are filtered and organized to support the preconception. Any facts which can't be made to fit are ignored. If it's actually getting colder instead of warmer, that's only temporary. It must be El Niño. It couldn't be the sun.
If you don't fall into line, you are a “denier”. Lemmings.
“The deniers of global warming...
Should we start calling them the Global Cooling deniers?
It’s the “white guilt” thing, applied to an entire species.
Well physicists, unlike global warming alarmists, have known the overwhelmingly dominant greenhouse gas is water vapor, and that carbon dioxide has almost no effect at all, stupid.
“Global warming” hoax BUMP!
Hey, I'm just curious...... would these people be as alarmed or upset if the global warming was not man-made? Would they point out some of the benefits of warming?
One more question; If we all agreed that global warming is man-made, just how hot do they think we could make it?
|
Argument? There is no argument. All the science is in. The argument is over.
We are so friggin screwed.
From BBC News [yr: 2004]:
"A new [2004] analysis shows that the Sun is more active now than it has been at anytime in the previous 1,000 years. Scientists based at the Institute for Astronomy in Zurich used ice cores from Greenland to construct a picture of our star's activity in the past. They say that over the last century the number of sunspots rose at the same time that the Earth's climate became steadily warmer."..."In particular, it has been noted that between about 1645 and 1715, few sunspots were seen on the Sun's surface. This period is called the Maunder Minimum after the English astronomer who studied it. It coincided with a spell of prolonged cold weather often referred to as the "Little Ice Age". Solar scientists strongly suspect there is a link between the two events - but the exact mechanism remains elusive."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3869753.stm
It's really hard to imagine how this little ball of fire could have any impact on our climate at all.
But the main arguments being made for a solar-climate connection is not so much to do with the heat of the Sun but rather with its magnetic cycles. When the Sun is more magnetically active (typically around the peak of the 11 year sunspot cycle --we are a few yrs away at the moment), the Sun's magnetic field is better able to deflect away incoming galactic cosmic rays (highly energetic charged particles coming from outside the solar system). The GCRs are thought to help in the formation of low-level cumulus clouds -the type of clouds that BLOCK sunlight and help cool the Earth. So when the Sun's MF is acting up (not like now), less GCRs reach the Earth's atmosphere, less low level sunlight-blocking clouds form, and more sunlight gets through to warm the Earth's surface...naturally. Clouds are basically made up of tiny water droplets. When minute particles in the atmosphere become ionized by incoming GCRs they become very 'attractive' to water molecules, in a purely chemical sense of the word.-Eye On The Left
____________________________________________________
There's a relatively new book out on the subject titled The Chilling Stars. It's written by one of the top scientists advancing the theory (Henrik Svensmark).
And here is the website for the place where he does his research:
2008: "The Center for Sun-Climate Research at the DNSC investigates the connection between variations in the intensity of cosmic rays and climatic changes on Earth. This field of research has been given the name 'cosmoclimatology'"..."Cosmic ray intensities – and therefore cloudiness – keep changing because the Sun's magnetic field varies in its ability to repel cosmic rays coming from the Galaxy, before they can reach the Earth." :
http://www.spacecenter.dk/research/sun-climate
100,000-Year Climate Pattern Linked To Sun's Magnetic Cycles:
ScienceDaily (Jun. 7, 2002) HANOVER, N.H.
Thanks to new calculations by a Dartmouth geochemist, scientists are now looking at the earth's climate history in a new light. Mukul Sharma, Assistant Professor of Earth Sciences at Dartmouth, examined existing sets of geophysical data and noticed something remarkable: the sun's magnetic activity is varying in 100,000-year cycles, a much longer time span than previously thought, and this solar activity, in turn, may likely cause the 100,000-year climate cycles on earth. This research helps scientists understand past climate trends and prepare for future ones.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/06/020607073439.htm
So the current cooling cycle is "...the inevitable consequence of one of nature's climactic cycles..." but GLOBAL WARMING is manmade and will kill us very soon!
It's like 1984 is playing out for real. These people are the world's largest idiots!
"I believe this idea has a strong connection with reality. I don't think we have much time. Fidel Castro said in one of his speeches I read not so long ago, 'tomorrow could be too late, let's do now what we need to do'."
"I believe it is time that we take up with courage and clarity a political, social, collective and ideological offensive across the world — a real offensive that permits us to move progressively, over the next years, the next decades, leaving behind the perverse, destructive, destroyer, capitalist model and go forward in constructing the socialist model to avoid barbarism and beyond that the annihilation of life on this planet."
--Hugo Chavez, at the 16th World Festival of Youth and Students, held in Caracas on August 8-15, 2005
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2005/640/640p16.htm
One thing we can do to "green" the Earth: Outlaw Greenhouses Immediately.
Fine, BUT IS IT TRUE?
From what I have read, anthropogenic climate change is nothing but a Socialist Fraud, designed to enslave the world under socialism or worse.
Everyday another article comes out totally destroying the myth.
Computer models are flawed and not proof.
Consensus has flipped the other way with 31,000 scientists saying anthropogenic warming is fraud and virtually impossible.
NONE of the predictions have become fact. Even the UN’s IPCC has admitted that the world has been cooling since 1998.
All temperature sensors that are either sea base or satellite, have recorded NO increase in temperatures. Land based readers have been proven highly suspect for various reasons.
All reports of glaciers and sea ice melting at alarming rates, are fraudulent. Did you know that California has glaciers, and they have been growing since the 1950’s?
Carbon dioxide heating feedback has been found to be a flawed theory, and does not take into account saturation levels.
Finally, the biggest proponents of anthropogenic climate change are either politicians (mostly Marxist), politically selected scientist (as in the case of the UN), and/or people who plan to get rich with Cap and Trade.
It’s not about facts; it’s about scaring us into giving up our freedoms. Socialism, always needs an enemy and comes from the top down. Those pushing or trying to scare us are Nazi’s. Father land or mother earth, same thing. Its all about controlling the people.
Let’s see the arguement goes like this “It’s cooling , we can see that, but it can’t be because of global warming, so it’s not. even though it is, but isn’t really, ‘cause it can’t be - See I told you so, you carbon producing b#stards!”
The logoc of a religious nut case!
Mel
Logic - doh!
What a pompous Marxist to say “Global warming is a fact whatever its deniers - encouraged by a cool year - have to say” And his proof that he is right, is……..????
Crickets chirping
Yeah.. why do you think I'm revisiting my airpower policy stuff.
They have the altitude, attitude, and sun behind them.
And all we lack is a will to fight.
It will be a cold day.
That day comes.
/johnny
Comparing Climate Nazis to lemmings is an insult to the intelligence of lemmings.
A half-full bottle of Scotch hanging from the cabin will keep that attitude right. :^)
Those of us that have learned their fingers to war... wish we did not so love it.
The rest are screwed pooch.
This, gentlemen, will get very interesting.
/johnny
Mr. Pearce is either being disingenuous or he’s an idiot. It’s really very simple and the problem with climate models is explained by Dr. Roy Spencer on his website:
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm
The basic problem is that the climate modelers mistakenly assumed that there was a positive feedback loop related to CO2 when there was a negative feedback loop. Thus the amount of global warming due to greenhouse gases will be much less than the models have predicted.
On the other hand, Pearce’s idea that global warming will return with a vengeance by the end of the next decade is a crock of baloney. Solar cycle 24 is going to be low, and cycle 25 will be the lowest in centuries due to the slowing of the sun’s conveyor belt. For whatever reason connected to the sun, (TSI, UV heating of the atmosphere, more cloud cover due to more cosmic ray bombardment) the temperature of earth is headed for a Dalton minimum for the next 30 years, at a minimum.
Keep your warm pjs handy. Things are going to get nasty and cold in the near future. With 2.5 billion more people than the last time things got a little cold (1970’s), Food prices are going to rise and a lot of people are going to face starvation around the planet.
Good luck with convincing the masses that we need to spend $45 trillion dollars to prevent run-away global warming while we're having a decade or two of colder climate. LOL.
P.T. Barnum said there was a sucker born every minute - he was too pessimistic.
“by the warming effect of man-made carbon dioxide”
Yep. All 0.12% of it. Unless of course we can spend trillions of dollars on reducing our CO2 output to half. Then we will only be putting out 0.06% and we’ll all be saved!
(Man-made CO2 contributes about 0.12% to the effective greenhouse gas ommissions of the entire earth. Most of it is natural, and in the form of water vapor. Other man-made contributions, primarily methane, contributes to our total effective man-made greenhouse gas emmissions of about 0.28%).
See, frog leg bones point this way.
Stupid person! The human component is so tiny.
Thank you very much, Lancey, for posting the photo of Baghdad Bob.
That’s exactly what I was thinking of when I read this article.
“All your scientific data are belong to us.”
No mention of the dearth in sunspots.
www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/Conf2007/Archibald2007.pdf
Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
New!!: Dr. John Ray's
GREENIE WATCH
The Great Global Warming Swindle Video - back on the net!! (click here)
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
The Guardian would have been quite comfortable working with Herr Hitler.
Naw, it couldn't be the Sun. Sunspots eject heat and radiation towards Earth. The counter effects of Man-made Global Warming have neutralised all Sunspot activity as of June 7, '08. The media is not concerned.
How many ridiculous contradictions can you find in that one sentence? I count three
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
