Ice in Antarctica proves Global Cooling!

Post Reply New Topic

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NP6wU9s2Lck[/youtube]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... ial-effort

Earth's climate (as is the climate on every body in our star system) is primarily affected by solar output and cosmic radiation.

Anything we do is a mere blip on the radar.

Get over it.

Even if we nuked the planet with every bomb we have, the planet would heal and one day look as if we were never here.

No.



As readily demonstrated above, it is well established that variations in solar output cannot explain the recent increase in global temperatures.

Furthermore, the isolated changes in solar variation since 1979 have actually had small negative effects on global temperature. So not only is variation in solar output almost irrelevant to climate change; if it *was* relevant we would expect to see decreasing, not increasing global temperatures.

In other words: If anthropogenic causes of climate change were just a "blip on the radar", Earth would be cooling. It is not.

Sources:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-a ... arming.htm
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4 ... 044022.pdf (see page 6 and table 3)

Nope
The narrative is that we're killing our mother by callously and recklessly contributing to global warming and several so called scientists have been hornswoggled into "validating" this.
A lie told often enough becomes the truth....

lol @ these people calling anyone insulated. It's so funny to see these idiots try to put their scientist coats on because they saw some Al Gore power point presentation. It as if every time there is a heatwave, forest fire, drought, hurricane, EARTHQUAKE, you don't have these very same people screaming from the top of their lungs that it's proof of global warming. Maybe these climate "scientists" in Antarctica are receiving a message from Gaia! She's fighting back! The young lady with the lip ring obviously knows what she's talking about, she's wearing glasses and a tie! I'm so smart, I put blind faith in dogma created by old men in funny coats that I cannot independently verify or begin to understand! Whats that, they're passing around the collection plate?!?!

Climate change is a better description.Look at it this way,if you only had one source of clean water,would you dump paint thinner in it?You would be a fool to poison it.We are doing just that,but on a much larger scale.

The science is fairly easy to understand. Some of the intricacies are more complicated, just like with evolution or genetics or immunology (showing my biological background there- I'm sure others can provide examples from economics, philosophy, chemistry, physics, politics, or geography). The data is fairly easy to examine. You can either look at the raw data (some of which is publicly available, some of which you might need institutional access for, some of which will be behind a paywall), or you can view popular accounts on blogs such as Real Climate.

What do YOU put your blind faith in?

Climate models are not indicative of anything, they are only as good as the data and the perimeters put into them. They don't prove anything. Furthermore, "believing" in climate change can mean anything. The problem are the alarmists and the ideologues that support them because it reenforces their worldview, not one of their assertions about CAGW has been proven and their "solutions" all carry a common theme. Some of the worst abuses in the history of the world have done under the guise of science.

You do not prove things in science. Instead, you look at what hypotheses have not been disproven and have the support of the evidence. Multiple lines of evidence, ranging from direct temperature observations in the atmosphere and ocean to measurements showing the srong impact humans have at the margins between total CO2 produced and total CO2 consumed--basically, previously CO2 produced and total CO2 consumed were about the same which kept CO2 levels stable, but human activity has significantly increased the CO2 produced without balancing CO2 consumption, resulting in increasing CO2 levels and the greenhouse effect warming temperatures--support the hypothesis, now theory, that human activities are causing CO2 levels to rise and accordingly temperatures to rise.

Another winger tactic, telling your opponents to get over it, with all the implications that phrase entails.

Keep in mind global warming doesn't mean the weather will be warm all over the globe although, theoretically, it could lead to a green house effect like what you see on the planet Venus. Also, Venus is closer to the sun than earth and each planet is engaged in it's own evolutionary journey with different sets of changing variables. No two are exactly alike. Earth may never be like Venus in this regard because face it, Earth is not Venus so quit with the nonsensical comparisons.

Global warming just means the temperature of the earth increases so the weather changes more dramatically. The gulf stream currents play a role in the weather of the northern hemisphere. Any glacial melting that disrupts it could mean an new glacial period on earth, in other words, an ice age. Glaciers will release a lot of trapped current into the climate of the northern hemisphere which could lead to the earth cooling down. How cool will it go? Who knows.

You haven't really answered my question there, nor have you addressed any of the points I raised. For example, at no point did I mention climate models.

At the basic level, we know the following things:
1) Carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases) interacts with radiation in a highly predictable way to warm the planet. (this happens to the extent that this is the primary method chemists use to identify substances where no easy test exists)
2) We are releasing large amounts of greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide
3) The planet's temperature is rising

We would therefore expect, almost a priori, for increases in greenhouse gases to lead to increases in temperature. Sure enough, there is very strong correlation between temperature and greenhouse gas levels. Skip to the conclusions if you don't want to read the whole paper.

Additionally, recent changes in temperature are best explained by a combination of natural and anthropogenic causes. Next best is anthropogenic alone, then natural alone is simply not suitable.

It is true that climate models do not prove anything, as we will always be limited by simple chaos. They are, however, the best thing we've got, and provide very strong evidence, particularly when they "predict" past climate accurately. Our observations to date fit within the bounds of our predictions, so it is simply false to say that "not one of the assertions" made by climate scientists has come true. Oceans don't warm as quickly as land, so that has meant the observed effect is at the lower end of the expected effect, but it is still well within the bounds of the expected effect.

In any case, you have grossly overstated the importance of models.

There's more variables than green house gases and you are forgetting time itself. It's not as simple as declaring "increase in green house gases means a green house effect."
You are skipping steps.

At the same time carbon dioxide is considered a pollutant. We need oxygen to be healthy, not CO.

I am sorry, but you do not appear to have understood what I, and the scientists I have cited, have been saying, and are trying to be clever without possessing knowledge of what you are talking about (either that or you have simply not articulated well- if it is that I apologise and will gladly respond to any clarifications you make). You'll notice in my post I point out that considering human and anthropogenic sources together provides the best fit; I also linked to a chart that showed the effects of albedo change and changes in solar irradiance. We know about the greenhouse effect independent of increased greenhouse gas emissions.

"Time itself" does not cause climate change, though of course it is necessary. Believe me, nobody has forgotten that.

I fail to see the relevance of your final point (in any case, CO is carbon monoxide, not carbon dioxide). We do need CO2 in order to be healthy because it is necessary for photosynthesis, which ultimately provides nearly all our food, but the current levels are not going to be healthy long term.

Its not just the Antarctic, the Arctic as well was found to be 60% bigger this year than it was at the same time last year.
Its the cold from this growing Arctic that is bringing unusually extreme cold to America at the moment.

LINK http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/enviro ... tists.html