Global Warming Disproved....

Global warming is a natural proven cycle.

Change your topic title to include 'man-made'. Also, cooling can be an effect of global warming due to changes in ocean salinity. Many know this.

I think the whole "climate change" thing is a lot more complex than either you or the universal global warming weenies make it out to be.

We haven't been documenting the Earth's climate in any systematic way for more than a couple hundred years, which simply isn't enough time, given the size and complexity of climate to be able to make any hard-and-fast predictions. The temperature and precipitation fluctuations, along with the El Niño and La Niña ocean currents, may be on a scale longer than anyone knows, and there are probably epicycles (cycles of cycles) that we're just beginning to find out about.

I do know that any conclusions based on record-keeping over a one-year period is statistically meaningless, just like a coin flipping tails three times in a row is not "proof" or even "evidence" of a crooked coin.



Here is some time-lapse photography of the North Polar Ice Cap, showing summer and winter extent over the past twenty years.. In the winter, of course, it freezes up, be each year it re-freezes a bit less. In the summer it melts a bit more.

[link to www.youtube.com]




What's surprising about that? Science is never unanimous in its hypotheses, because the natural world doesn't conveniently act like we expect it to all the time. If you got perfect data and unanimity among observers, it wouldn't be science at all. Science is arguing and constantly reviewing the information, cranking in new data as it becomes available and changing your assertions and hypotheses to match what is happening.

We know that there's a lot more CO2 released into the atmosphere than there was before, and we know that CO2, like glass, tends to allow incoming UV through and block outgoing IR. This leads to a higher stagnation temperature, as anyone who owns a greenhouse will tell you.



Actually, it was around the last part of 2007 and early part of 2008 that a lot og government scientists came out with the information that the Bush Administration, which does not buy the concept of global warming -- since it would hurt their buddies in the oil business -- has been leaning on NOAA and NASA scientists to try to get them to "clamp down" on their research data concerning climate change.

All those people who claim that there is no significant change in the Earth's climate are saying exactly what Bush and Co. was trying to get the government scientists to say for the past five or six years.

I sincerely believe you should simply stick to spouting Isreali propaganda using eye-candy avatars that just might win hearts and minds of the gullible mods.

As for the subjects that are far beyond your primitive female reckoning, such as the question of global warming, you need to stay away from.

You have to expect a certain amount of this kind of thing right now. We are in for a cold winter and 2009 will almost certainly be cooler than 2008.

So this will be "proof" that there is no Global warming or Climate change...

Except that 2010 will be warmer and 2011 or 2012 will be so warm that people will begin to freak out a little...

Followed by an even greater cooling trend...

What we are seeing has been predicted by some climate models! It is an increasingly uncontrolled oscillation of the worlds climate.

Even though the average mean temperature goes up we may actually see an ice age coming....

This has been claimed and stated for nearly 30 years, but some groups have worked very, very hard to keep the average person in the dark about what is coming, even though it is happening far faster than any of us have publicly been told.

:)

This is a conspiracy web-site....

I would think that it should be obvious that there may be some kind of conspiracy involved in this matter as well...

D.

However, the President elect says it's necessary to work the USA out of recession by embracing climate change programs.

Here in the UK the local council have turned off the street lighting to 'reduce their carbon footprint'. They've probably sold the snowplow and salt lorries too!!!

Real policies founded on propaganda not science.

[link to www.telegraph.co.uk]

The climate has changed in the past as shown by fossil evidence and man had nothing to do with it.

The hippos would find the present day climate pretty nippy - for instance you would need a pneumatic drill to dig my garden at the moment(frozen), also hippos give birth under water and the young would not survive a prolonged cold spell. Also what did they eat during the winter months - even in the more temperate regions of Europe farmers have to get feed for their livestock in the winter months as even if the ground is not frozen the short day length and cold temperatures mean that the vegetation will not grow and what vegetation there is lacks nourishment.

Does anybody have any credible climate data that is current, not 8-12 months old?

The trend as of last spring was definitely that of extreme cooling. But it was a very short term trend.

What has actually happened climatically since then? Anybody have links?

It is now Climate Change, not Global Warming, BTW, this planet would be a frozen wasteland if it was not for the greenhouse effect of CO2 and other gasses.

Whatever, the agenda was never about pollution, but about a carbon tax, and carbon trading.

Here in the UK, taxation is at nearly 50%, governments know they will have riots if it goes any higher, but how else can redistribution be maintained, to turn our society into a collective? Ha Ha!

after the warm come the cold...

Ice Age a comin'

The problem with the term "global warming" is that it's almost always associated with the "man-made" attribute and almost never with the interglacial periods which correspond to the natural warming cycles. To talk about some "cooling" associated with warming is a misleading statement as the present cooling period has all the characteristics of a transition associated with low solar activity.

That's understandable as the interglacial periods can be considered as very long in comparison with human life and therefore it's existence is usually not noticed.

The proven natural cycle of warming is a period of nearly 10-11 thousand years (called interglacial) that occur between larger periods of colder averages of about 100 thousand years, which are called the ice-ages.

The present cycle (the holocene) is by all accounts overdue to end (nearly 12000 years already) and that's why so many talk with good reason about a new ice-age period that could begin in the near future.

The problem is that nobody knows exactly when the new ice-period will begin and this opens the possibility of too much speculation on the subject.

Average temperatures lately (last few decades) have been too high (in comparison with the last 500 years) probably in connection with the VERY high activity of the Sun in the last 30-40 years of the XX century.

The localized warming of the late XX century is only matched by the warming period of the middle age (called middle age optimum) and the temperatures at the time of the Roman empire which had even higher averages than those observed at the end of the XX century and the first 3-4 years of the XXI century.

The Sun activity is consistently lowering in the last 20 years and in the more recent time (at the end of the solar cycle-23) it has shown a more well defined pattern of decreasing activity.

Then, we're experiencing lowering averages and if the Sun activity continues low, it's fair to expect even colder weather in the near future as some correlation show that the temperatures will probably reach the levels of the beginning of the XIX century or even before. (206 years correlation activity)

This would place us in a new minimum like the previous one called Dalton Minimum, or even (possibly) the more pronounced one called Maunder Minimum that happened at the middle of the XVII century.

These conditions will probably set the stage for the beginning of a new "little Ice-age", which is what some experts believe will happen in few years or, maybe, has already started.

But it's important to keep in mind that it is hard to predict these periods of local warming or cooling precisely. The best hint we have regarding Earth's temperatures in the next few years will probably come from the solar activity, sunspot numbers, etc.
.........................

actually only 30 years. The most critical climate data comes from the polar regions because the bulk of the climate variations is concentrated there.

That data even today can only be collected via satelite surveys, which have only been possible since the 70's.

IOW our data is pathetically inadequate to even establish baselines and normal ranges.

Oddly we have a stellar record of climate at two locations in Antarctica but it doesn't include any of the last 200 years because the ice core relies on compacted snow which takes a few hundred years to compact. And two locations hardly makes a climate data set.

But from what we do know CO2 has typically been far more abundant than it is today:

[link to earthguide.ucsd.edu]

That the earth's climate has been stuck in an ice age cycle for approx 4 million years:

[link to www.scotese.com]

and that a cooling trend of even 3 degrees would be catastrophic for our population, wheras a warming trend of even 20 degrees wouldn't necessarily have any negative impacts at all. We just don't know. Warming might be a net positive for our species.

and here's the proof:

[link to www.un.org]

Al Gore doesn not approve of this thread :)

Very good post. Some recent research ties movements of the Sun around the Solar System Barycentre with sunspot cycles and particularly various prior minimums. This is why Cycle 24 is so important because a continuing minimal level of sunspots now virtually guarantees a minimum such as Dalton or Maunder.

It would mean we've already entered a minimum.

Do you think that, based on your data, that we could be in for something along the lines of a Younger Dryas?

Duncan, the data and graphs I've seen fit the last known minima; Wolf, Sporer, Maunder and Dalton. They only cover the past 1000 years or so. We're at a similar juncture now.

The Younger Dryas was way before that at the end of the last full ice age. The theory for the Younger Dryas suggests a breakdown in ocean circulation caused by draining of lake freshwater into Artic waters but I've also seen theories based on volcanic activity.

The interesting part is that we are seeing the same ocean circulation breakdown now at a point where sunspot activity may reduce so I guess there's a possibility of a protracted minimum.

UK WEATHER OUT LOOK NEXT 14 DAYS.



Monday 29/12
A widespread frost in the morning will be followed by a very cold day with temperatures only rising a few degrees above freezing point in many places. Sunny spells and dry.
Tuesday 30/12
A widespread and sharp frost in the morning will be followed by a very cold day with temperatures only rising a few degrees above freezing point at best in many places.
Wednesday 31/12
A widespread and sharp frost in the morning will be followed by a very cold day with temperatures only rising a few degrees above freezing point at best in many places.
Thursday 01/01
A widespread and sharp frost in the morning will be followed by a very cold day with temperatures only rising a couple of degrees above freezing point at best in many places.
Friday 02/01
A widespread and sharp frost in the morning will be followed by a very cold day with temperatures only rising a couple of degrees above freezing point at best in many places.
Saturday 03/01
A widespread and sharp frost in the morning will be followed by a very cold day with temperatures only rising a couple of degrees above freezing point at best in many places. Increasing chance of some light sleet or snow in places.
Sunday 04/01
A widespread and sharp frost in the morning will be followed by a very cold day with temperatures only rising a couple of degrees above freezing point at best in many places. Increasing chance of some light sleet or snow in places.
Next week
Low forecast confidence, but it currently looks as though a very cold and wintry spell of weather is likely during the first half of the week, and this may persist. This could bring the risk of snowfall during the week.

Everything else has undergone a 1980s revival at one time or another, so why not the weather? The 1980s brought a run of much colder winters to the UK as pressure built at high latitudes opening the door to bitterly cold air from the north and east to flood across western Europe and at times bring heavy snowfall. It looks like we are now very close to this scenario developing during the next week for the first time in many years, but because it has become so rare there is still a lot of doubt about how things will play out. Forecast confidence for the next few days is high with a continuation of the mostly dry and cold conditions expected. As we move through the second half of the week it does look quite likely to turn even colder as high pressure drifts northwards and low pressure systems start being forced much further south than usual, leaving the UK on their cold side. Once established this set-up often persists for a week at least and brings the likelihood of overnight temperatures falling below -10C in places, with the mercury struggling to reach 0c during the day. The prospect of snow developing and becoming heavy also increases as really cold upper level air crosses the UK. We’ll bring you regular updates during the days ahead on whether this scenario does develop and bring the first nationwide cold spell since 1995.
The latest UK 14 day discussion forecast is online.

Anyway, OP the recent last 10 years of data showing a cooling trend can be entierly put down to volcanic eruptions, i dont support the idea of man made global warming and carbon tax, but the evidence suggests that we contribute a fair amount of CO2 and its a greenhouse gas. The way politicians in the west(not the developing countries like China) seem to have hijacked the idea to make money is the big problem!
But at the end of the day we are in an interglacial period, sooner or later the next iceage is coming!

You mean silk hot pants and snow!!!

Agreed, that is akin to sticking your head in sand to deal with a threat.

Climate change is definitely proven. Focusing on 'global warming' is a waste of time. We need to focus on what changes we can expect and how to best deal with them.

we need to figure out what natural cycles the climate is going to be taking and this starts from measuring what the "SUN" is doing. And if the change is an imminent threat to mankind we need to spend the money on weather modification technology to actually try and manimpulate mother nature!

I'm not at all sure it's at all wise to manipulate Mother Nature. But equally energy policies have been pushed through as a result of Global Warming 'evidence'.

There are new nuclear power reactors under production globally as 'green' alternatives to carbon-based methods. This includes the first reactors in the USA since Three Mile Island.

Getting Global Warming versus Climate Change right is imperative.

if global warming is disproved then explain me this:

WHY IS THE SOUTHERN ICE POLE OF MARS SHRINKING??? earthly robots that we sent there is extending our carbon footprints in our solar system and warming up everything

man, these anti global warming people make me SICK

From Wikipedia:

On September 25, 2007, South Texas Project filed the application for a Combined Construction and Operating License (COL). Two new GE-Hitachi ABWRs will be built adjacent to the existing PWRs.

This is the first application for a new nuclear plant in the US for nearly 30 years.

This was followed in October, 2007 by TVA and NuStart filing for a COL for two Westinghouse AP1000s to be built at Bellefonte in Hollywood, Alabama.

In April 2008 Southern Company signed an engineering and procurement contract with Westinghouse and Shaw Group for two AP1000s to be built at Vogtle in Georgia.

This is the first construction contract for a new nuclear power plant in the US to be signed since 1978.

However, MidAmerican Energy Company decided to "end its pursuit of a nuclear power plant in Payette County, Idaho."

MidAmerican cited cost as the primary factor in their decision.

On August 26, 2008, it was reported that The Shaw Group and Westinghouse would construct a factory at the Port of Lake Charles at Lake Charles, Louisiana to build components for the Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear reactor.

On October 23, 2008, it was reported that Northrop Grumman and Areva were planning to construct a factory in Newport News, Virginia to build nuclear reactors.

This story is bullshit

and so is this thread!

Yeah, I call bogus post on this too. Here is an article from ScienceDaily posted yesterday (Dec. 28, 2008) I trust a science based paper over a blogspot any day.

[link to www.sciencedaily.com]

NASA Study Links Severe Storm Increases, Global Warming
ScienceDaily (Dec. 28, 2008)

— The frequency of extremely high clouds in Earth's tropics -- the type associated with severe storms and rainfall -- is increasing as a result of global warming, according to a study by scientists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.

In a presentation today to the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco, JPL Senior Research Scientist Hartmut Aumann outlined the results of a study based on five years of data from the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) instrument on NASA's Aqua spacecraft. The AIRS data were used to observe certain types of tropical clouds linked with severe storms, torrential rain and hail.

The instrument typically detects about 6,000 of these clouds each day. Aumann and his team found a strong correlation between the frequency of these clouds and seasonal variations in the average sea surface temperature of the tropical oceans.

For every degree Centigrade (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) increase in average ocean surface temperature, the team observed a 45-percent increase in the frequency of the very high clouds. At the present rate of global warming of 0.13 degrees Celsius (0.23 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade, the team inferred the frequency of these storms can be expected to increase by six percent per decade.

Climate modelers have long speculated that the frequency and intensity of severe storms may or may not increase with global warming. Aumann said results of the study will help improve their models.

"Clouds and rain have been the weakest link in climate prediction," said Aumann. "The interaction between the daytime warming of the sea surface under clear-sky conditions and increases in the formation of low clouds, high clouds and, ultimately, rain is very complicated. The high clouds in our observations—typically at altitudes of 20 kilometers (12 miles) and higher—present the greatest difficulties for current climate models, which aren't able to resolve cloud structures smaller than about 250 kilometers (155 miles) in size."

Aumann said the results of his study, published recently in Geophysical Research Letters, are consistent with another NASA-funded study by Frank Wentz and colleagues in 2005. That study found an increase in the global rain rate of 1.5 percent per decade over 18 years, a value that is about five times higher than the value estimated by climate models that were used in the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Here's another scientifically researched article.

[link to www.sciencedaily.com]

Global Warming Will Bring Violent Storms And Tornadoes, NASA Predicts
ScienceDaily (Aug. 31, 2007) — NASA scientists have developed a new climate model that indicates that the most violent severe storms and tornadoes may become more common as Earth's climate warms.

Previous climate model studies have shown that heavy rainstorms will be more common in a warmer climate, but few global models have attempted to simulate the strength of updrafts in these storms. The model developed at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies by researchers Tony Del Genio, Mao-Sung Yao, and Jeff Jonas is the first to successfully simulate the observed difference in strength between land and ocean storms and is the first to estimate how the strength will change in a warming climate, including "severe thunderstorms" that also occur with significant wind shear and produce damaging winds at the ground.

This information can be derived from the temperatures and humidities predicted by a climate computer model, according to the new study published on August 17 in the American Geophysical Union's Geophysical Research Letters. It predicts that in a warmer climate, stronger and more severe storms can be expected, but with fewer storms overall.

Global computer models represent weather and climate over regions several hundred miles wide. The models do not directly simulate thunderstorms and lightning. Instead, they evaluate when conditions are conducive to the outbreak of storms of varying strengths. This model first was tested against current climate conditions. It was found to represent major known global storm features including the prevalence of lightning over tropical continents such as Africa and, to a lesser extent, the Amazon Basin, and the near absence of lightning in oceanic storms.

The model then was applied to a hypothetical future climate with double the current carbon dioxide level and a surface that is an average of 5 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the current climate. The study found that continents warm more than oceans and that the altitude at which lightning forms rises to a level where the storms are usually more vigorous.
These effects combine to cause more of the continental storms that form in the warmer climate to resemble the strongest storms we currently experience.

Lightning produced by strong storms often ignites wildfires in dry areas. Researchers have predicted that some regions would have less humid air in a warmer climate and be more prone to wildfires as a result. However, drier conditions produce fewer storms. "These findings may seem to imply that fewer storms in the future will be good news for disastrous western U.S. wildfires," said Tony Del Genio, lead author of the study and a scientist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York. "But drier conditions near the ground combined with higher lightning flash rates per storm may end up intensifying wildfire damage instead."

The central and eastern areas of the United States are especially prone to severe storms and thunderstorms that arise when strong updrafts combine with horizontal winds that become stronger at higher altitudes. This combination produces damaging horizontal and vertical winds and is a major source of weather-related casualties. In the warmer climate simulation there is a small class of the most extreme storms with both strong updrafts and strong horizontal winds at higher levels that occur more often, and thus the model suggests that the most violent severe storms and tornadoes may become more common with warming.

The prediction of stronger continental storms and more lightning in a warmer climate is a natural consequence of the tendency of land surfaces to warm more than oceans and for the freezing level to rise with warming to an altitude where lightning-producing updrafts are stronger. These features of global warming are common to all models, but this is the first climate model to explore the ramifications of the warming for thunderstorms.

IPCC Report on Climate Change - 2007
The Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the fourth in a series of reports on climate change.

[link to www.sciencedaily.com]

Climate Change 2007 The Physical Science Basis, the report of Working Group I, "assesses the current scientific knowledge of the natural and human drivers of climate change, observed changes in climate, the ability of science to attribute changes to different causes, and projections for future climate change." The report was produced by about 600 authors from 40 countries, and reviewed by over 620 experts and governments.

Before being accepted, the summary was reviewed line-by-line by representatives from 113 governments during the 10th Session of Working Group I, which took place in Paris, France, between 29 January and 1 February 2007. The key conclusions were that: It is "unequivocal" that global warming is occurring; the probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes is less than 5%; and the probability that this is caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases is over 90%. As a result it is predicted that, during the 21st century the following will occur. Regarding surface air warming in the 21st century, the best estimate for a "low scenario" is 1.8 degrees Celsius with a likely range of 1.1 to 2.9 degrees Celsius (3.2 degrees Fahrenheit with a likely range of 2.0 to 5.2 degrees Fahrenheit).

The best estimate for a "high scenario" is 4.0 degrees Celsius with a likely range of 2.4 to 6.4 degrees Celsius (7.2 degrees Fahrenheit with a likely range of 4.3 to 11.5 degrees Fahrenheit). Based on a model that excludes ice sheet flow due to a lack of basis in published literature, it is estimated that sea level rise will be, in a low scenario, 18 to 38 cm (7 to 15 inches) and in a high scenario, 26 to 59 cm (10 to 23 inches). It is more than 90% certain that there will be frequent warm spells, heat waves and heavy rainfall.

It is more than 66% certain that there will be an increase in droughts, intensity of tropical cyclones (which include hurricanes and typhoons) and extreme high tides. Working Group II reports on impacts, adaptation and vulnerability to climate change. The Working Group III volume analyses mitigation options..

shut up fag. At least OP contributes information. You only attack like a little school-boy.

If I see that bloated over fed idiot Gore promoting his global warming scam again I will put my foot through the television! SHMG!!!!!

PEOPLE are not convinced there is a global warming issue. Gore is daily looking more like just another scam artist.The UN tax junkies have been licking their chops on taxes to be paid to the "world" by who? the worlds most advanced industrialized countrys. so how do you do this? by creating a crisis after all for generations we have indoctrinated the youth of this country filling them with "man is bad mother earth vulnerable BS" The liberals the mush minded youths feel it is possible for people to affect the earth.. how absolutely vain!!!!One friggen volcano like Penetubo and enough ash and debrea to contaminate the entire atmosphere for months!!!