Breaking: Scientists say Ice Age imminent!!!

[jc456]

Do you know what an absorption spectrum is, you dumb ass?

the question was do you have proof CO2 gets hot?

 

[flacaltenn]

Well, I guess we will have to wait until 2030 to find out. In the mean time, we can expect more much warmer years. Going to be an interesting time in the next 15 years.

People have been trying to predict the warming away for many years now, but it just keeps getting warmer. People like Silly Billy that are so ignorant that it is sometimes painful to read their silly claims.

Won't have to wait 15 years - thats the beginning of the peak cooling. I'll wager they can call it in the next 5 years or so with MORE precision than the 50 and 100 year GWarming predictions..

Because what they are watching is a "predictive pattern" of solar cycles mimicking those that preceded the past 2 sun cooling periods.. And the PRECEDING 11 year cycle will pretty much nail the prediction for the following one..

 

[Indeependent]

Do you know what an absorption spectrum is, you dumb ass?

the question was do you have proof CO2 gets hot?

It depends on whose mouth it comes out of.

 

[flacaltenn]

Do you know what an absorption spectrum is, you dumb ass?

the question was do you have proof CO2 gets hot?

Yes it does. Handbook of Chemistry will tell ya all about it. And CO2 IS a greenhouse gas. It just doesn't have the superpowers that Global Warming attributes to it as a primary climate driver..

 

[flacaltenn]

Do you know what an absorption spectrum is, you dumb ass?

the question was do you have proof CO2 gets hot?

Yes it does. Handbook of Chemistry will tell ya all about it. And CO2 IS a greenhouse gas. It just doesn't have the superpowers that Global Warming attributes to it as a primary climate driver..

IN FACT ---- CO2 is used in some heat/cooling pump designs to store heat.. Just like freon type refrigerants..

 

[edthecynic]

Well, I guess we will have to wait until 2030 to find out. In the mean time, we can expect more much warmer years. Going to be an interesting time in the next 15 years.

People have been trying to predict the warming away for many years now, but it just keeps getting warmer. People like Silly Billy that are so ignorant that it is sometimes painful to read their silly claims.

Won't have to wait 15 years - thats the beginning of the peak cooling. I'll wager they can call it in the next 5 years or so with MORE precision than the 50 and 100 year GWarming predictions..

Because what they are watching is a "predictive pattern" of solar cycles mimicking those that preceded the past 2 sun cooling periods.. And the PRECEDING 11 year cycle will pretty much nail the prediction for the following one..

So since this is the strongest of the natural cooling forcings, strong enough to bring on a little Ice Age in its last cycle, and if it does nothing more than temporarily stall the warming trend, like all the natural cooling forcings have done for the last 100 years, will you finally admit that our warming trends are not natural?

 

[skookerasbil]

There's no warming. There's no real cooling. We had the cooling scare in the 70s and it turned out to be pretty much part of the cycle. No climate has changed for thousands of years. No desert has become alpine, no tropical climate has become moderate. That's climate.

What these scientists are trying to tell you is that something is happening that is NOT part of the cycle of warming and cooling. What these scientists are trying to tell you is that there are changes in the sun that will cause a Maunder's Minimum, which is INTENSE cold. The last time there was this kind of cold, the Thames in England froze solid. That's intense cold that makes our piddly Polar Vortex look like a week end in Miami.

It is fascinating that to this global warming religion, the sun does not exist as part of the dynamic of the climate!! That like saying Kim Kardasian's boobs aren't part of her allure.

These people are intellectually dishonest to the degree of astounding.


Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections
These scientists have said that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

• David Bellamy, botanist.[14][15][16][17]
• Lennart Bengtsson, meteorologist, Reading University.[18][unreliable source?][19]
• Judith Curry, Professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.[20][21][22][23]
• Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [24][25]
• Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University[26][27]
• Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[28][29][30][31]
• Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.[32][33][34][35][36][37][38]
• Patrick Moore, former president of Greenpeace Canada[39][40][41]
• Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003)[42][43]
• Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University[44][45]
• Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science[46][47][48][49]
• Harrison Schmitt, geologist, Apollo 17 Astronaut, former U.S. Senator.[50]
• Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm[51][52]
• Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[53][54]
• Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [55][56]
• Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee[57][58]
• Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry[59][60]

Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes

Graph showing the ability with which a global climate model is able to reconstruct the historical temperature record, and the degree to which those temperature changes can be decomposed into various forcing factors. It shows the effects of five forcing factors: greenhouse gases, man-made sulfate emissions, solar variability, ozone changes, and volcanic emissions.[61]
These scientists have said that the observed warming is more likely to be attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

• Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[62][63]
• Sallie Baliunas, retired astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[64][65][66]
• Timothy Ball, historical climatologist, and retired professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg[67][68][69]
• Robert M. Carter, former head of the school of earth sciences at James Cook University[70][71]
• Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[72][73]
• Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[74][75]
• David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[76][77]
• Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[78][79]
• William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[80][81]
• William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy; emeritus professor, Princeton University[82][83]
• Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo[84][85]
• Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.[86][87]
• William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[88][89]
• David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[90][91]
• Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri[92][93]
• Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[94][95]
• Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[96][97][98]
• Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of mining geology, the University of Adelaide.[99][100]
• Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego[101][102]
• Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University and University of Colorado[103][104]
• Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[105][106][107]
• Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo[108][109]
• Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem[110][111]
• Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[112][113][114][115]
• Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[116][117]
• Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[118][119]
• Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center[120][121]
• George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University[122][123]
• Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[124][125]

Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown
These scientists have said that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural.

• Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.[126][127]
• Claude Allègre, French politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).[128][129]
• Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.[130][131]
• Pål Brekke, solar astrophycisist, senior advisor Norwegian Space Centre.[132][133]
• John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports.[134][135][136]
• Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.[137][138]
• David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.[139][140]
• Ivar Giaever, professor emeritus of physics at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and a Nobel laureate.[141][142]
• Vincent R. Gray, New Zealand physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes[143][144]
• Keith E. Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change[145][146]
• Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.[147][148]

Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences
These scientists have said that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for society or the environment.

• Indur M. Goklany, science and technology policy analyst for the United States Department of the Interior[149][150][151]
• Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change [152][153]
• Sherwood B. Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University[154][155]
• Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia[156][157]

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia






But the bozo's are in here every day saying "the science is settled".


No its not.


Not even close



And if it is so settled, why are members of the AGW religion in here stripping their teeth with all the hysterical pushback?

I question the accuracy of the projections. You see, there were projections made for the Arcitic Ice, and they were way low. There were projections made for the rate of melt for the perma-frost, and they were way low. Rate of increase for temperature has plateaued, however it is still warming, and our warmest years are occurring with increasing frequency. So, the models are not accurate yet. However, the stupidity spewed by the deniers is not just failed predictions, but consists mainly of outright lies. Lies that are shortly going to be a very major liability politically.

Yeah....but meanwhile, historically, the climate science projections, based upon computer models, have been laughable in terms of accuracy.

So.....its either all models suck or all models are relatively reliable.

Again........nobody knows for sure because far, far more information needs to be collected.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Pubs.GISS: Hansen et al. 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide

Hansen et al. 1981
Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.

The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

Now there are several right there from over thirty years ago. The problem is that they were made for the end of this century, not for where we are right now. Made for a time when the CO2 level is higher than it is at present. But here we are already. 1998 took us by surprise, the opening of the Northwest Passage in 2007 took us by surprise. In other words, many aspects of the models are too conservative, the effects of the present levels of GHGs are exceeding the predictions.

How many times must i tell you that MODELS ARE NOT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE! Especially Hansen's failed ones.. Hell, I know professors who use him as an object lesson in how to not conduct real science.. They even use the cited paper as what junk looks like...

 

[Old Rocks]

That was written in 1981. It was not until 2007 that the Northwest Passage opened up to where a ship did not need an icebreaker. So, his predictive model was pretty good. Looks to me like Hansen did far better than the deniers who flat out said it could not happen because it was not warming at all. Looks like the silly Billys of those days were the ones with failed models.

 

[Desperado]

Fantastic I need a little relief from my air conditioning bills

 

[Billy_Bob]

That was written in 1981. It was not until 2007 that the Northwest Passage opened up to where a ship did not need an icebreaker. So, his predictive model was pretty good. Looks to me like Hansen did far better than the deniers who flat out said it could not happen because it was not warming at all. Looks like the silly Billys of those days were the ones with failed models.

Ahhhhh NO!... IF you use your brain you would know this was a predictable shift in ocean circulations and not AGW.. IF you read his remarks he knew this before hand.. This is called deceptive practice.

What is now even more funny to watch is the ice has returned to the Northwest passage ins such amounts that it was impassible this year due to the cold flows on the Atlantic side.. Another predictable shift that happened to soon for alarmists and their COP21 power grab.

 

[Old Rocks]

The Arctic is melting — but shipping through the Northwest Passage is another story

Harry Stern, a polar researcher at the University of Washington in Seattle who was not involved in the research, says he basically agrees with the new study — but he draws a distinction between different routes through the Northwest Passage, noting that it is the northern, deeper routes that are most suitable for shipping.

“I basically agree that shipping companies, they can’t really count on a reliably open northern Northwest Passage suitable for big ships until sometime in the future,” says Stern. “But for smaller boats, it’s been open every year for probably close to 10 years now, if you look at the data on transits.”

Even though an armored bulk carrier made it though unescorted by ice breakers in 2014, it is still in the future for big ships to be using the Northwest passage, the passage is used regularly now by small boats.

 

[skookerasbil]

Do you know what an absorption spectrum is, you dumb ass?

the question was do you have proof CO2 gets hot?

nope

 

[skookerasbil]

"Xubin Zeng, a professor in the University of Arizona department of atmospheric sciences who leads a research group evaluating and developing climate models, says the goal of the study was to bridge the communities of climate scientists and weather forecasters, who sometimes disagree with respect to climate change.

The weather forecasting community has demonstrated skill and progress in predicting the weather up to about two weeks into the future, according to Zeng, whereas the track record has remained less clear in the climate science community tasked with identifying long-term trends for the global climate."



Climate models fail to predict short-term shifts - Futurity





[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/duh_09.gif.html][/URL]

 

[skookerasbil]

Climate models fail to ‘predict’ US droughts

 

[skookerasbil]

Computer models fail to predict climate

 

[skookerasbil]

Climate Models Are So Flawed They Fail History

03/28/2013 06:39 PM ET


Mon, Apr 01 2013

Environment: The alarmists want to place the world in servitude to the models that are predicting global warming. But those models can't even reconstruct the past.


Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/032813-649780-climate-models-so-wrong-they-cant-even-reconstruct-history.htm#ixzz3qfneqbGX



more duh


[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/DUHHEAD.gif.html][/URL]

 

[skookerasbil]

Junk Science Week: Climate models fail reality test


Junk science is ghey...................


[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/duh_smiley.gif.html][/URL]

 

[skookerasbil]

• This period of no-warming has now been as long as the previous period of warming. In other words, the stall in warming is getting long enough now to be statistically significant.

• The Met Office revealed its biases by how it unveiled this fact. Previously, when their data suggested the climate was warming, they heralded that fact loudly with bold predictions of catastrophes to come. But when their data suggested their predictions were wrong and the climate wasn’t warming, they released the data with as little fanfare as possible.

• Finally, and most important, this data demonstrates clearly that all the computer models used by climate scientists to predict the future climate are patently wrong. They don’t understand what is happening, even if some of them refuse to admit it.

The models are wrong | Behind The Black



Who's not winning???????

 

[skookerasbil]

I love exposing the ruse..................


[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/burnout.gif.html][/URL]