Global Warming or a New Ice Age?

Global Warming or a New Ice Age

Measure the snow.

The more snow equals more heat energy. Which means warm.

The less snow equals less heat energy. Which means cold.

Snow is the cause of mass amounts of heat energy to bring water into the atmosphere in order for it to fall down as snow.

Find the average snowfall for one year, and the average snowfall for the next, and you just might find out the answer to the global climate question.

It may sound counter intuitive , but logic does apply.

reply to post by redoubt


A recent study by M. Mouse & D. Duck

From the university of Disney California

The study presented by Prof, M. Mouse & Dr D. Duck Proposes that global temperatures will continue to rise when the man with the big pencil, puts little spikes and swirly marks around the circle which is situated above the line that runs halfway across the paper. During these conditions there is a tendency for it to get hotter and even hotter when he colors it with yellow.

Studies also suggest that when he draws icicles, it will get colder, much colder.

The conclusion from these studies provides evidence to suggest that when "the man" with the pencil wants us to believe it is getting hotter (or colder) he will create the illusion that most appropriately fits the storyline.

This study is waiting to be peer reviewed

Originally posted by kennyb72
This study is waiting to be peer reviewed

Yeah, I get it. You're an extreme anti-science advocate, rather than even contemplate the knowledge produced from science that conflicts with your whims and ideology you would prefer to scuttle the whole process leading society into some sort of POMOistic dystopia were wishful-thinking and crippled epistemology rules.

The rise of Idiot America, though, is essentially a war on expertise. It's not so much antimodernism or the distrust of the intellectual elites that Richard Hofstader teased out of the national DNA, although both of these things are part of it. The rise of Idiot America today reflects — for profit, mainly, but also and more cynically, for political advantage and in the pursuit of power — the breakdown of the consensus that the pursuit of knowledge is a good. It also represents the ascendancy of the notion that the people we should trust the least are the people who know the best what they're talking about. In the new media age, everybody is a historian, or a scientist, or a preacher, or a sage. And if everyone is an expert, then nobody is, and the worst thing you can be in a society where everybody is an expert is, well, an actual expert.

This is how Idiot America engages itself. It decides, en masse, with a million keystrokes and clicks of the remote control, that because there are two sides to every question, they both must be right, or at least not wrong. And the words of an obscure biologist carry no more weight on the subject of biology than do the thunderations of some turkeyneck preacher out of Christ's Own Parking Structure in DeLand, Florida. Less weight, in fact, because our scientist is an "expert" and therefore, an "elitist." Nobody buys his books. Nobody puts him on cable. He's brilliant, surely, but no different from the rest of us, poor fool.

Charles Pierce (2009) Idiot America

cheers.

[edit on 5-1-2010 by melatonin]

Originally posted by munkey66
This made me laugh for some reason.
The same argument could be used for warming too. It's called summer, we had them in the past and will have them in the future.

True. People making an argument for global warming from a single warm summer would have the same problem.

[edit on 5-1-2010 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin

You might want to add the source in. I found it here in an excerpt from Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free by Charles Pierce.

TheRedneck

TBH, perhaps I got it originally from the Esquire article, but I put the book anyway. It's a good read, many lulz. Highly recommend.

But thanks for reminding me of it, here's another part of his original essay.

In the place of expertise, we have elevated the Gut, and the Gut is a moron, as anyone who has ever tossed a golf club, punched a wall, or kicked an errant lawn mower knows. We occasionally dress up the Gut by calling it "common sense." The president's former advisor on medical ethics regularly refers to the "yuck factor." The Gut is common. It is democratic. It is the roiling repository of dark and ancient fears. Worst of all, the Gut is faith-based.

It's a dishonest phrase for a dishonest time, "faith-based," a cheap huckster's phony term of art. It sounds like an additive, an artificial flavoring to make crude biases taste of bread and wine. It's a word for people without the courage to say they are religious, and it is beloved not only by politicians too cowardly to debate something as substantial as faith but also by Idiot America, which is too lazy to do it.

dinky-link

Fairly pertinent as well. It certainly ain't reason suggesting a very cold winter in the warmest decade on record is a sign of a new ice age.

[edit on 5-1-2010 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin

Yeah, I get it. You're an extreme anti-science advocate, rather than even contemplate the knowledge produced from science that conflicts with your whims and ideology you would prefer to scuttle the whole process leading society into some sort of POMOistic dystopia were wishful-thinking and crippled epistemology rules.

You have read me entirely wrong Sir. I have the greatest respect for science.

I have lost respect for those that use science to enable others to implement policies that will ensure that developing nations will never advance beyond poverty.

Policies that will ensure that developed nations will quickly follow the third world into debt slavery, through taxation and the denial of a countries natural resources.

If governments where to commit as much money to introducing viable alternatives to fossil fuels as they do to convincing us about global warming, I would be more optimistic for the future of mankind.

By the way it is bloody freezing!


[edit on 5-1-2010 by kennyb72]

Originally posted by kennyb72
You have read me entirely wrong Sir. I have the greatest respect for science.

I doubt it.

I have lost respect for those that use science to enable others to implement policies that will ensure that developing nations will never advance beyond poverty.

Policies that will ensure that developed nations will quickly follow the third world into debt slavery, through taxation and the denial of a countries natural resources.

Wow, and I thought people accepting the science were supposedly 'alarmists'.

If governments where to commit as much money to introducing viable alternatives to fossil fuels as they do to convincing us about global warming, I would be more optimistic for the future of mankind.

You mean like this:

$16.8 B through the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)
$6.0 B through the Office of Environmental Management (EM)
$4.5 B through the Office of Electricity Delivery & Energy Reliability (OE)
$4.0 B through the Loan Guarantee Program Office (LGPO)
$3.4 B through the Office of Fossil Energy (FE)
$1.6 B through the Office of Science (SC)
$400 M through the Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy (ARPA-E)

www.energy.gov...

So a part of $16 billion and $1.6 billion will be used for such purposes in the US. For example, $400m is being used for geothermal research.

You just need to show similar levels in the US to 'convince people about global warming'.

By the way it is bloody freezing!

You should use your warm blankie before the NWO take it!

Not sure any of this is on-topic though. Meh.

reply to post by melatonin

You have read me entirely wrong Sir. I have the greatest respect for science.

I doubt it.

I am afraid you will have to provide peer review empirical evidence to support that argument.

Wow, and I thought people accepting the science were supposedly 'alarmists'.

Substance > style

You just need to show similar levels in the US to 'convince people about global warming'.

Nice! as is if those figures would ever be published.

By the way it is bloody freezing!

You should use your warm blankie before the NWO take it!

A blanket will be all I have left Sir, because I will not be able to afford heating
or light a log fire without being fined.

I hope you enjoy a warm and prosperous old age, because it is going to get a lot colder than this.

(Which is on topic)

Originally posted by kennyb72
Substance > style

I concur, sir!

I hope you enjoy a warm and prosperous old age, because it is going to get a lot colder than this.

(Which is on topic)

I'm sure it will. In about 50,000 years or so. But I'm sure in a few months it will actually start getting a bit warmer.

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by pilot70
oh well ... the warmest times according to the graphs appears just before the iceage ... fast decline --- slow rise ... look at the graph again

Not really the best way to predict an ice-age. Using knowledge of solar orbital variation it's predicted to be a few thousand years away yet (about 50,000 according to Berger & Loutre, 2002). However, it's likely that emitting billions of tonnes of GHG will overcome such a process.

It's probably not a coincidence that when CO2 levels have been high in deep geological past that ice cover was reduced and when CO2 levels were low, ice cover expanded.

For someone who claims to be all sciency you sure dont know much. CO2 rises after temperature. 800 years or so after.

[edit on 6-1-2010 by watcher73]

Originally posted by watcher73
For someone who claims to be all sciency you sure dont know much. CO2 rises after temperture. 800 years or so after.

Bingo! The lagomorphs appear!

Originally posted by Melatonin
ABE: like a good latin harey rabbit, I can likely pika into da future and predict responses to this post, but lets wait and see...

Anyway, yeah, I know. And why is that important?


[edit on 6-1-2010 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by watcher73
For someone who claims to be all sciency you sure dont know much. CO2 rises after temperture. 800 years or so after.

Bingo! The lagomorphs appear!

Originally posted by Melatonin
ABE: like a good latin harey rabbit, I can likely pika into da future and predict responses to this post, but lets wait and see...

Anyway, yeah, I know. And why is that important?


[edit on 6-1-2010 by melatonin]

Being wrong means you never have to answer?

Most of your posts are full of nonsense and outdated science.

You should do more reading.

Originally posted by watcher73
Being wrong means you never have to answer?

Most of your posts are full of nonsense and outdated science.

You should do more reading.

lol, I like the cockiness.

I was hoping you might enlighten me why CO2 lagging the warming during an ice-age cycle might be important. I've heard it before, but like a good joke I don't mind hearing it again.

Fire away!

Here, I'll set the scene: An orbital variation, greenhouse gas, and temperature change were at the bar...

[edit on 6-1-2010 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by watcher73
Being wrong means you never have to answer?

Most of your posts are full of nonsense and outdated science.

You should do more reading.

lol, I like the cockiness.

I was hoping you might enlighten me why CO2 lagging the warming during an ice-age cycle might be important. I've heard it before, but like a good joke I don't mind hearing it again.

Fire away!

Here, I'll set the scene: An orbital variation, greenhouse gas, and temperature change were at the bar...

[edit on 6-1-2010 by melatonin]

I was hoping you might enlighten me.

Heres the scene: someone bought into the hype and refuses to let it go. Instead of answering to statements he previously made he instead redirects and misleads?

Maybe you should learn to get your effects and causes in order?

No?

Ok lets try this one, the only 125 climate scientists in the world walk into a bar, nothing is refrigerated, yet they toast with their cold drinks and laugh at you.

Oh and hey next time you want to post a study how about one we dont have to pay to see, it's a little too David Wilcocky for me...

[edit on 6-1-2010 by watcher73]

Originally posted by watcher73
Instead of answering to statements he previously made he instead redirects and misleads?

You came strolling in with the lag issue. If you want to learn more about the relationship between CO2 and climate over deep geological timescales, try Prof. Alley's talk from the AGU meeting last month, he explains it well and he's a great speaker. Well worth your time if you're actually interested in the science:

The biggest control knob: CO2 in Earth's climate history

Maybe you should learn to get your effects and causes in order?

OK, so there's apparently a cause and effect issue. Any more?

It's a bit of a duff joke so far. Need a punchline!

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by watcher73
Instead of answering to statements he previously made he instead redirects and misleads?

You came strolling in with the lag issue. If you want to learn more about the relationship between CO2 and climate over deep geological timescales, try Prof. Alley's talk from the AGU meeting last month, he explains it well and he's a great speaker. Well worth your time if you're actually interested in the science:

The biggest control knob: CO2 in Earth's climate history

Maybe you should learn to get your effects and causes in order?

OK, so there's apparently a cause and effect issue. Any more?

It's a bit of a duff joke so far. Need a punchline!

Why would I watch a video titled "biggest control knob: co2"

Do I have to direct you to a long list of more potent greenhouse gases?

The title itself is a lie, I cant imagine the content contains any truth.



[edit on 6-1-2010 by watcher73]

Originally posted by watcher73
Oh and hey next time you want to post a study how about one we dont have to pay to see, it's a little too David Wilcocky for me...

[edit on 6-1-2010 by watcher73]

If people actually ask nicely, I would probably see if I can get any articles people would like to read. But I can generally only post the abstracts on the forum.

Sucks, I know.

Originally posted by watcher73
Why would I watch a video titled "biggest control knob: co2"

Well, that was a pretty selective interest in the science. Richard Alley is a highly respected researcher who gave a keynote speech at a conference of one of the major scientific organisations involved in climate science.

Watch or don't. Your choice.

Do I have to direct you to a long list of more potent greenhouse gases?

Not really, but this sounds like we're mixing up different funnies now?

So tell me about cause and effect...

CO2 lags temperature during ice-age cycles, therefore there's a cause and effect problem...and?

The title itself is a lie, I cant imagine the content contains any truth.

I'm sure you can't. Willful ignorance isn't exactly a positive trait. But, hey, whatever.

CO2 lags temperature during ice-age cycles, therefore there's a cause and effect problem...and?

and?