By looking at many charts we peaked at our Inter Glacial period in 1998 and have been falling ever since. Jan 07-08 cooled so much it wiped out 100 years of warming. Anyone that cant figure this out by looking at a chart must be stupid. Its stupid to think that the cycle will end just because humans are not here!
Great blog;
Climatic Earth - The Truth
The cycle occurs because the Sun has hot/cold phases, and various other environmental factors, such as greenhouse gas levels, ground surface (colours, textures) etc.Quote by: Craig-OmahaWX
Just because there was a small period of cooling, don't think it's a guaranteed constant, don't forget that weather is really just cause and effect in a huge convection current. There will always be anomalies.
When the time comes, that no more can be said, say no more.
Released from the American Physical Society (APS) is the following: APS Physics | FPS | Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered Christopher Monckton has begun the debate (at least at the APS) on the science of IPCC conclusions and their classification as to worthiness of political policy-making. Towards the end, there is a section titled "debate" and after that "conclusion" that is more in my pay grade for initial reading.
The debate is now open. Heard enough from the computers? Monckton challenges the IPCC on
Radiative forcing ΔF;
The no-feedbacks climate sensitivity parameter κ; and
The feedback multiplier ƒ.
If the terrain and the map do not agree, follow the terrain.
When motherhood becomes the fruit of a deep yearning, not the result of ignorance or accident, its children will become a new race.
When will the sunspots come back? A little late but still well within past cycle starts. Don't the spots heat up the globe a bit?
Was one purpose of ancient observatories to predict celestial events and thus gain power and cause fear in the masses when eclipses would happen? Sacrifices to the gods will bring back the sun scam. I wonder if Al Bore is courting the same gods? The mass hysteria he has created so far would, perhaps, overcome any doubters that dare to show heating related to the sun.
If the terrain and the map do not agree, follow the terrain.
When motherhood becomes the fruit of a deep yearning, not the result of ignorance or accident, its children will become a new race.
@ craig
people aren't stupid just because they don't understand your piece to the puzzle
@minorwork.
I can see you've imagined the star-gazing and deep-speculating people of history, at the moment of discovery, wondering what might be. even the ancient scentists were able to make historical charts based on the heating and cooling of the earth. They made a correlation between the spots and certain changes.
I don't know nothin bout the spots, but...given the effect of a full moon on the tides of our hearts, I can understand the spots. So can you imagine, so could they. Those ancient observers. But, things have always been taken for granted. While there may be definite factors induced by these spots ( or any environmental change for that matter), we humans have more to do with our fate than any of the other variables, combined.
You talking about atomics and fast food? Humans be most capable, certainly, and complex. Nature more so.
If the terrain and the map do not agree, follow the terrain.
When motherhood becomes the fruit of a deep yearning, not the result of ignorance or accident, its children will become a new race.
we ride nature like a kite on the breeze or a surfer on a wave. We can even control this variable. Like chemicals sprinkled on a storm front. Like man-made explosions on a fault line. Granted, there are things we cannot change.
What do you find to be imminent?
In the late '70s I wanted my chute to open. Now, my death. Earth wise I'd be feared of the sky fallin' Apophis style. The near miss asteroid. At least test our capability to alter such as might destroy humanity. Again.
If the terrain and the map do not agree, follow the terrain.
When motherhood becomes the fruit of a deep yearning, not the result of ignorance or accident, its children will become a new race.
His letter is an opinion, it has not been peer reviewed and the APS has expressly stated that his opinion does not match those of the APS itself.
[b]War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is strength
When you speak of an ice age coming, you probably mean that the world will start cooling down considerably for a number of years resulting in a very cold time. What if the world cools just by about ten degrees, then stops and starts heating up again? That would bring balance to the world if you ask me, so let's look at this ice age versus global warming.
The build up of gasses in our air means that the world will still become a bit hotter, but we are talking about natural phenomenon. When the world changes temperature is does so because of closeness to the sun and things happening in the sun. Because we recieve our heat from the sun, it is responsible for all heat we feel - if there was no sun there would be no heat and we would find our temperatures falling below zero globally, eventually becoming like pluto. So when the sun combusts at a higher temperature, likewise all the planets will be warmer. Let's take a fire, because that is what the sun is after all, does it become hotter and cooler during it's blaze? At what points does it do this? I have not studied chemical fire so I don't know, but if you did you could find the point when the chemical fire will cool down before picking up again, and then find a reference for how this chemical fire will perform throughout the ages.
The sun plays a bigger role in our temperature than gasses in our atmosphere. The pollution however does make the planet hotter. When gasses fight for supremecy - hot air rises - air eventually cools down, so pollution should come back to us. The pollution itself is thicker air than the air we find ourselves surrounded by, and the thicker something is the lower it will sink, so our pollution will come back to us at ground level eventually, amplifying hot conditions, as thicker air keeps heat in, so this factor of pollution will make the world hotter than it would normally be, but not to such a degree as the heating from the sun.
!! Going to my destruction !!
All of you are media brainwashed.
Read this latest story;
Climatic Earth - The Truth
Absolutely, an opinion that analyses the science of the IPCC Summary for Policymakers .
It is interesting that the APS would release the paper before peer review. It would seem that the debate is on. Monckton has pointed to parameters that have been "forced" into the computer programs. He questions the sensitivity of the climate to CO2 as my read of the paper. Also of note is the lack of empirical evidence by the use of proxies for a direct temperature reading, for example, wind speed as an indirect measure of temperature. (My example)
The Summary for Policymakers in IPCC (2007) says –
“The CO2radiative forcing increased by 20% in the last 10 years (1995-2005).”
Natural or anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere induces a “radiative forcing” ΔF, defined by IPCC (2001: ch.6.1) asa change in net (down minus up) radiant-energy flux at the tropopause in response to a perturbation. Aggregate forcing is natural (pre-1750) plus anthropogenic-era (post-1750) forcing. At 1990, aggregate forcing from CO2 concentration was ~27 W m–2 (Kiehl&Trenberth, 1997). From 1995-2005, CO2 concentration rose 5%, from 360 to 378 W m–2, with a consequent increase in aggregate forcing (from Eqn. 3 below) of ~0.26 W m–2, or <1%. That is one-twentieth of the value stated by the IPCC. The absence of any definition of “radiative forcing” in the 2007 Summary led many to believe that the aggregate (as opposed to anthropogenic) effect of CO2 on TS had increased by 20% in 10 years. The IPCC – despite requests for correction – retained this confusing statement in its report.
Such solecisms throughout the IPCC’s assessment reports (including the insertion, after the scientists had completed their final draft, of a table in which four decimal points had been right-shifted so as to multiply tenfold the observed contribution of ice-sheets and glaciers to sea-level rise), combined with a heavy reliance upon computer models unskilled even in short-term projection, with initial values of key variables unmeasurable and unknown, with advancement of multiple, untestable, non-Popper-falsifiable theories, with a quantitative assignment of unduly high statistical confidence levels to non-quantitative statements that are ineluctably subject to very large uncertainties, and, above all, with the now-prolonged failure of TS to rise as predicted (Figures 1, 2), raise questions about the reliability and hence policy-relevance of the IPCC’s central projections.
Dr. RajendraPachauri, chairman of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has recently said that the IPCC’s evaluation of climate sensitivity must now be revisited. This paper is a respectful contribution to that re-examination.
If the terrain and the map do not agree, follow the terrain.
When motherhood becomes the fruit of a deep yearning, not the result of ignorance or accident, its children will become a new race.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks