The Last Ten Years of Global Warming Never happened

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: MarlinGrace

'The debate is over' !

'The science is settled' !

Two things real scientists will never say.

Because real scientists NEVER STOP collecting data, etc.

Agreed... I am off for a late lunch.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

What isn't being realized is the global warming topic.

Shows us all who the real neocons are.

Skipped 'nation building' to 'world building'.

Let fascism ring !

a reply to: neo96

That's right, scientists are still debating on the flat earth, and sun revolving around it.

Yea, no. Point negated.

I have to admit I'm not sure but I know what I've read and I'll tell you what that was.
With sea ice. We hear a great deal about the decline in Arctic sea ice.
But why are environmentalists and scientists not discussing the long-term increase in the southern hemisphere of ice?

I have explained it twice, in this thread, about why there is an increase of ice in Anartica. It has been discussed a great deal, you are just not listening.

As for the Arctic:

And what happens to the Arctic has consequences for the rest of the world. With ice cover shrinking in the Arctic during the summer months, less sunlight is reflected off the icy surface, which means the ocean absorbs the sunlight instead. This heats up the ocean and surrounding area, and this effect has the potential to change global weather patterns, vary the flow of winds and alter the position of the jet stream, Wagner explained. The polar jet streams are narrow, fast-flowing rivers of wind high in the Earth's atmosphere that push cold and warm air masses around, playing an important role in determining the weather.

livescience

I under stand that across the globe, there are about one million square kilometers more sea ice than, let's say, 35 years ago, which is when satellite measurements began, I think, That's what I read.
So it's fair to say that this has been something of an embarrassment for climate Changer's Don't You think?

I bet you think it is the same ice as the in the trays in your freezer. Simply put, in the Antarctic, the land ice is melting and changing the surrounding ocean water to cause sea ice to form.

Not Only Did The Ice Not All Melt Away and the sea's and Ocean's Did Not Rise,

This really shows how clueless skeptics can be.

It has been rising, and a lot of areas are starting to pay for it.

Core samples, tide gauge readings, and, most recently, satellite measurements tell us that over the past century, the Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL) has risen by 4 to 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters). However, the annual rate of rise over the past 20 years has been 0.13 inches (3.2 millimeters) a year, roughly twice the average speed of the preceding 80 years.

NatGeo

Areas are already being affected:

Tuvalu consists of nine low-lying atolls totaling just 26 square kilometers, or 10 square miles, and in the past few years the "king tides" that peak in February have been rising higher than ever. Waves have washed over the island's main roads; coconut trees stand partly submerged; and small patches of cropland have been rendered unusable because of encroaching saltwater.

NYT

(CNN) -- Kieren Keke remembers growing up on the Pacific island of Nauru, the world's smallest independent republic.

"The weather patterns were predictable," he says. "There was a wet season and a dry season, an annual cycle. When there was drought, it was limited."

"Now it's different," he tells CNN. "There's no predictability -- periods of drought can last seven or eight years, and when we get storms they are more intense. The coastline is being eroded. Now the sea is right up to people's doorsteps."

CNN

We're still on Dry Ground

Islands and people living on the coast are most affected, if you live inland, of course you are safe. What a silly statement.

and the Polar Bears and Penguins are breeding and living full and Happy Lives.

There are 17 species of penguins. Which ones would you be referring too?

Oh wait, 11 of those are in danger of going extinct. Yerp, sure they are happy and thriving.


ANd those happy polar bears:

In just 20 years the ice-free period in Hudson Bay has increased by an average of 20 days, cutting short polar bears' seal hunting season by nearly three weeks. The ice is freezing later in the fall, but it is the earlier spring ice melt that is especially difficult for the bears. They have a narrower timeframe in which to hunt during the critical season when seal pups are born. As a result, average bear weight has dropped by 15 percent, causing reproduction rates to decline. The Hudson Bay population is down more than 20 percent.

NWF

That's my take on the whole sea ice rising, but I'm not the resident genius, She / He should be along shortly to call me a Flat Earthier or Stupid Skeptic and then you can make up your on mind as long as it's His / Her Way Of Thinking.

Yea, you pretty much proved it.

a reply to: neo96

That is pathetic.

a reply to: MarlinGrace

You are the one who made the claim that the feds are funding the scientists with grants to come up with GW.

Y.O.U. made the claim, not me. It is up to you to do the work, not me.

Money going somewhere is not proof. You made a specific claim, I am asking for specific proof, which you refuse to supply and instead you waste time with useless links.

Still waiting......

What AGENCIES are FUNDING what SCIENTISTS for WHAT global warming GRANTS.

a reply to: nixie_nox
To Be Honest, I'd have to say, at-lest one agency, the GAO is and has been for years, funding scientist to met an agenda.

Climate Change Funding and Management
Over the past 20 years, the federal government has spent billions of dollars to address climate change. Coordination and planning are critical to effective and efficient efforts.

As shown in figure 1, since 1993, the Office of Management and Budget has reported federal climate change funding in three categories:

technology to reduce emissions,
science to better understand climate change, and
international assistance for developing countries.

Notes: In its June 2010 report, OMB began reporting funding for wildlife adaptation as an interim category while criteria are developed to more systematically account for a broader suite of adaptation programs. Funding for wildlife adaptation totaled $65 million in 2010, less than 1 percent of the total, and is not included in this figure.

Funding in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Pub. L. No. 111-5 (2009)) included an additional $25.5 billion for technology and $641 million for science.

Each department and agency is operating under its own set of authorities and responsibilities, and therefore addresses climate change in different ways relevant to its mission. This type of situation demands a strategic framework and a high level of coordination. In the context of providing climate-related information, the National Research Council observed that no single government agency or centralized unit could perform all the required functions, and that coordination of agency roles and regional activities is a necessity. As illustrated in figure 2, many federal entities manage related programs and activities.

Figure 2: Selected Coordination Mechanisms for Federal Climate Change Activities

Of-Course, you'd have to follow the Link and read to understand our Government has issued Grants to scientist that play the game, But I know Who Wont!
USGAO.gov

originally posted by: jjkenobi

originally posted by: amazing
Wow. I keep seeing all these posts about Al Gore and other talking heads.

I can understand if someone disagrees with me but I'm always talking about scientists and quoting scientists. We're talking about scientists and scientific research. To bring up Al Gore and those types of people is well...retarded. Debate with science. This is what this is about now. Not talking heads or news pundits.

Maybe because Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for climate change. Like it or not he is your self-appointed spokesperson.

He's not my self appointed spokes person. In fact, I haven't read about him or seen him on TV or the news in ...well years.. He's not around. The debate/discussion has shifted to science. We shouldn't muddy the waters by bringing up people like him. It's not about these celebrities. It's about science. You seem to be deflecting me away from science and into Al Gore for some reason? Perhaps you fear the hard science?

originally posted by: nixie_nox
a reply to: neo96

That is pathetic.

What is ?

Saying the global warming crowd thinks they are the center of the universe ?

Or the global warming crowd are neocons ?

Who are the ones trying to control the air,land, and water ?

Who are the ones telling the whole world how they should be living ?

Who are the ones trying to control the world ?

Hint that is not us 'flat earthers'.

a reply to: amazing

Please forgive me for being so abrupt, but if the AGW debate was about hard science, I would be delighted.

Hard science would say "We haven't accounted for all of the factors comprising Global warming. H---, we don't even know for sure if we have global warming. The data is incomplete and can be interpreted in different ways. It doesn't help that some of our scientists have been caught lying about their results.

"The best we can tell you is that human activity may have some effect on global warming. We don't know how much of an effect, and we don't even know how high temperatures will get, and by when. On top of that, while we know that global warming to some degree will be good for the planet, we don't know what that degree is. Finally, it looks like it might be cheaper just to adapt to it if it comes, rather than spending a billion dollars a day, worrying about it.

"But all that is a politician's area not ours. if you want to take control of the planet, that's your call. But don't say science is demanding that you do it, we just don't know for sure."

originally posted by: jdub297
a reply to: nixie_nox
Are you purposely ignoring the vast pro-CAGW funding going on in the US and elsewhere?

So you are trying to join the circle of avoidance too?

What pro funding is going where? Who is paying the scientists? Which scientists?

Saying the government is paying scientists off is pure lazy skeptic logic with absolutely no basis.

Are you unaware that media sources such as the BBC and others have decided to deny skeptics any attention?

Why would they even feature skeptics? The only thing you people can trot out is Al Gore. You present 5th grade science knowledge, and accuse that "the man" is paying scientists off, without any evidence.

If you actually had a leg to stand on, then you will get attention. But going around accusing everyone else of drinking the kool-aid when you purposely avoid any real information in order to be able to adhere to your skeptic beliefs, is certainly not newsworthy.

I don't believe you are ignorant; you just sublimate the facts to support your ideology.

The only people who can't provide facts are skeptics.

Funny how you completely ignore the fact that billionaires, including the Koch brothers, have dumped hundreds of millions into an anti gw campaign.


I applaud you for working hard for your corporate overlords. They will be pleased.

Ever hear of Tom Steyer, and his $300 million pro-AGW campaign this year??

Correction, his super PAC donated to democratic election runs. And you know exactly who the money is coming from and where it is going, as opposed to dark money as opposed to "secret billionaires funding anti gw campaigns" who are funneling money through a third party and not revealing their identities to protect their oil interests. That is shady as hell.

The UN, EPA, DoE and other private sources funding alarmist agendas and dogma?

Wow, you are just throwing anything out now to try to look good.

The EPA is a federal agency, it does not receive private funding. Same with DOE.

I would love to know what alarmist agendas are being funded? Where is this private money coming from?


Or is this another one of the boogey man arguments?

deny ignorance

Indeed.

a reply to: charles1952

"But all that is a politician's area not ours. i

The second politicians started running their mouths about GW, and started blowing billions of taxpayer dollars on it.

IT stopped being about the 'science'. In one respect.

The only science it is about now is the political science.

That uses FEAR MONGERING to scare the masses in to supporting government fascism.

a reply to: neo96

Answer my question. If it is a natural cycle, what drives the natural cycle?

You can blow smoke all you want, but you are avoiding the question. If you can't answer this basic question, you shouldn't form any opinions of GW.

a reply to: guohua

I appreciate the reply because this is something I think really needs to get sorted out.

I have to admit I'm not sure but I know what I've read and I'll tell you what that was.
With sea ice. We hear a great deal about the decline in Arctic sea ice.
But why are environmentalists and scientists not discussing the long-term increase in the southern hemisphere of ice?
I under stand that across the globe, there are about one million square kilometers more sea ice than, let's say, 35 years ago, which is when satellite measurements began, I think, That's what I read.
So it's fair to say that this has been something of an embarrassment for climate Changer's Don't You think?

Yes I have read quite a bit about Arctic sea ice disappearing in fact there is a time lapse satellite image of the years that shows the drastic decline. I have that video here...

The lighter colors is the older ice that has built up and lasted throughout the summers and as you can see the darker blue is seasonal ice which is much thinner that generally melts during the summers. The blue Ice doesn't displace much if any water.

Now that is the Arctic and even if all of it melted there isn't a lot of worry over sea level rise however there is quite a bit of worry about the loss of ice in Greenland because I think their glaciers hold more water than the snowpack in the arctic.

Now my question is about the gain in sea ice in the antarctic. I hear and read a lot about the sea ice but I never hear that the Ice pack/glaciers are gaining any ice. I may be wrong but my understanding is that there is a net loss of ice even in the antarctic. There could be an additional 1000 miles of sea ice that may be only 10 centimeters thick. When you consider that a normal glacier break off can easily be 180 feet tall then each square foot of glacier that fell into the sea would cover about 549 square foot of 10 cm thick sea.

It seems to me but I may be wrong that all the talk about an increase in sea ice doesn't address the issue of sea level especially if that ice is only seasonal. I thought the concern was growing the glaciers/snow pack but I haven't read anything saying that is growing. In fact an article today says it is receding.www.designntrend.com...

So I am not sure if an increase in sea ice is something that is an embarrassment to AGW or not. It does mean it got cold enough to freeze the surface of the Ocean. For how long I don't know but it is my understanding that it will not do much or anything to displace and store water for any length of time.

Not Only Did The Ice Not All Melt Away and the sea's and Ocean's Did Not Rise, We're still on Dry Ground and the Polar Bears and Penguins are breeding and living full and Happy Lives.
That's my take on the whole sea ice rising, but I'm not the resident genius, She / He should be along shortly to call me a Flat Earthier or Stupid Skeptic and then you can make up your on mind as long as it's His / Her Way Of Thinking.

Well actually the sea has risen but not by much it has been rising by about 2 cm a year that was from 2012 I read it could be 3 cm this year. I don't think I have ever read that the antarctic was supposed to be ice free or completely melt I have read that the Arctic is on track to have some Ice free summers maybe by 2016 US Navy predicts summer ice free Arctic by 2016 but the Arctic is mostly sea ice aside from the glaciers which isn't a huge concern for sea level rise by most accounts which is why I am so curious and a bit confused what all the fuss is about with Antarctic sea ice. BTW the link to the 2016 date is a bit old but it does show that some models predict an ice less arctic, but as I said I have never seen one claiming such for the antarctic.

I think the main concern has always been Glacier melt especially ones that are land based which can affect sea level. Maybe you have some insight into this and could clear this up for me. FYI I am not going to call anyone names here I just want to understand this whole thing better.

originally posted by: nixie_nox
a reply to: neo96

Answer my question. If it is a natural cycle, what drives the natural cycle?

You can blow smoke all you want, but you are avoiding the question. If you can't answer this basic question, you shouldn't form any opinions of GW.

Why doesn't stop politicians from running their mouths about it.

Lots of things drive the 'natural cycle'.

There is no single cause.

The 'scientist's' KNOW THAT.

He's not my self appointed spokes person.

I'm Happy to hear that My Friend.

I haven't read about him or seen him on TV or the news in ...well years.. He's not around. The debate/discussion has shifted to science.

Unfortunately, he's still around.
a reply to: amazing

The event took place in the Seminary chapel. The LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) gold-certified environmentally friendly building was a fitting location for Gore’s message calling for citizens to join the fight against the money tainting politics and the fight against climate change. The event started with a speech by Gore and ended with a Q&A session led by IOP Executive Director David Axelrod (A.B. ’76), who read from preselected questions posed by people on Twitter.

With the stained glass of the chapel windows in view, at times Gore’s voice took on the tone of a preacher, warning against the perils of global warming, but more so about the consequences that may come if nothing is done to prevent it.

“If…you were somehow magically able to consult with 10,000 leading heart specialists in the world and 9,999 of them said, ‘Oh my god, you’ve got to take this medicine, change your diet, get some exercise, and make these other changes,’ but out of the 10,000 of them you found one that said, ‘Well I don’t know yet, the jury’s still out—what would you do?” Gore asked. “That is what some people are doing on climate now.”

He pointed to recent events in the weather as evidence for these findings, including Hurricane Sandy that hit the East Coast in 2012. “The waters over which [Sandy] passed were nine degrees Fahrenheit warmer than normal. That’s where the energy came from,” he said. “The single most criticized passage in [An Inconvenient Truth] was an animation about how the World Trade Center memorial site would be invaded by ocean water….But it happened with Sandy, ahead of schedule.”

Though the main focus of his talk was climate change, Gore highlighted the political climate as a roadblock to confronting change in the environmental climate. He criticized the Citizens United decision of the Supreme Court—“with whose decisions I don’t always agree,” he noted—as an “obscene” transgression against the United States’s democracy.

Link for you

a reply to: charles1952

No, it is pretty much settled. Just like evolution is settled. Just like the silly creationists denying evolution, the skeptics deny GW.

Here settles most of the arguments, scientists can tell which CO2 is man made and which is natural. Science does neat stuff like that. There is no debate, the carbon spikes are caused by man.

There is no indecision, there is no debate, it is agreed upon.

And no one has been caught lying about results. If you are referring to the IPCC emails, that was also debunked. It was skeptics, hacking and selecting key little statements out of mounds of research, taking them out of context to make it look false, when the real emails said no such thing.

The only hacks here are the skeptics and their desperate measures, bowing to their corporate overlords.

a reply to: guohua

Like I said, the only people in love with Al Gore are the skeptics. You just keep dreaming of him for us.

a reply to: nixie_nox

The only hacks here are the skeptics and their desperate measures, bowing to their corporate overlords.

The only 'hack's eh ?

Can't get anymore 'hackish' than that comment.

Which is what 'global warming' is ALL ABOUT.

Them bloody evil corporations blah,blah,blah.

a reply to: guohua

Here is the real kicker that the skeptics don't accept. It is actually in the Feds best interest to not have GW. There is no agenda, they don't want it.

Indeed, when all federal spending on last year's droughts, storms, floods, and forest fires are added up, the U.S. Climate Disruption Budget was nearly $100 billion.

The startling reality:
•America's taxpayers paid three times what private insurers paid out to cover losses from extreme weather.
•The federal government spent more taxpayer money on the consequences of 2012 extreme weather than on education or transportation.

NRDC


With a worsening GW, means worsening disasters, which means shelling out billions upon billions in recovery.

It is probably far more, since it is hard to put a price on loss of production, disruption.

GW will bring more pandemics, which can wreak havoc on the economy, and cost even more money. Lost of life, loss of production.

The total economic burden of annual influenza epidemics using projected statistical life values amounted to $87.1 billion (C.I., $47.2, $149.5).

NIH

Skeptics can try and claim that the government invented it for the tax money all they want. The mysterious tax programs that we have never seen.

But the fact is, the cost of GW will dwarf any income that can be derived from it.