Global warming believers don't read this. The earth is now in a cooling mode.
Last night I listen to a report that the 4 major tracking groups for Global Warming, have agree that the world this year is cooling and the change has been so great that it has cancled out any Global warming that took place over the last 100 year. Nasa was one of the agencys, but I didn't catch the name of the other 3. I don't trust Nasa. So how good this information is, is still questionable. Basicly average tempertures have dropped world wide. Melting ice has been freezing back, The polar Bears population never did decline.
I will have to research this new information futher.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Could it be my curlly bulbs caused this?
Global Warming believers don't read this
Re: Global Warming believers don't read this
I heard on the radio today that about every 200 years we go through a mini-ice age. The last one was in the early 1800's. Even the Gulf of Mexico froze over.
I haven't researched this myself but I will - as soon as I get the time.
I haven't researched this myself but I will - as soon as I get the time.
Hawk
Re: Global Warming believers don't read this
Gwizz, we fully agree on this. I shouldn't have read it .Gwizz wrote:Global warming believers don't read this. The earth is now in a cooling mode.
Hawk, an interesting (to me anyway) chronology of the "mini ice age" from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
If the Gulf of Mexico did freeze over during the early 1800s, it probably coincided with the 1815 volcanic eruption in Indo.
Now, you guys probably know a bit more American history than me. But wasn't it Columbus who discovered America on a dog sled expedition?
Re: Global Warming believers don't read this
Hawk, I've never heard of the Gulf freezing over. You sparked my interest and I will research this further.
dj, Again,your link is a very interesting read. I did not know how many deaths were caused by the last little ice age.
One part I found very interesting.
1. If the above is true than by removing too much carbon from our atmosphere could cause a Little Ice Age. We have reduce the carbon in the atmosphere by a small amount already.
2. Over the last few years we were having an increase in sun spots, until last year. Sun Spots = warming. At the same time we were clearing some of our forests; Thus removing forest needed to consume carbon. Thus, more carbon is in the atmosphere. More carbon = warming.
3. Now the world is attempting to remove the production of carbon.
Less carbon in the atmosphere = global cooling
4. The link speculates that as little as 1 degree (average) can cause major change. (moving us toward being Warner or cooler)
Two years ago we had a warming of the world by 1 degree over the last 15 years.
Question: If man is able to slow down warming, at what point will the change, move us toward a little ice age. If the latest data is correct and we have in fact flipped the switch and are now moving into a cooling trend, What is the benefit of becoming cooler, especially of it leads toward a little ice age.
I think I would rather be warmer than cooler.
PS: I think his dog sled had sails on it.
dj, Again,your link is a very interesting read. I did not know how many deaths were caused by the last little ice age.
One part I found very interesting.
Some conclusions:Causes
Scientists have identified two causes of the Little Ice Age from outside the ocean/atmosphere/land systems: decreased solar activity and increased volcanic activity. Research is ongoing on more ambiguous influences such as internal variability of the climate system, and anthropogenic influence (Ruddiman). Ruddiman has speculated that depopulation of Europe, East Asia, and the Middle East during the Black Death, with the resulting decrease in agricultural output and reforestation taking up more carbon from the atmosphere, may have prolonged the Little Ice Age.
1. If the above is true than by removing too much carbon from our atmosphere could cause a Little Ice Age. We have reduce the carbon in the atmosphere by a small amount already.
2. Over the last few years we were having an increase in sun spots, until last year. Sun Spots = warming. At the same time we were clearing some of our forests; Thus removing forest needed to consume carbon. Thus, more carbon is in the atmosphere. More carbon = warming.
3. Now the world is attempting to remove the production of carbon.
Less carbon in the atmosphere = global cooling
4. The link speculates that as little as 1 degree (average) can cause major change. (moving us toward being Warner or cooler)
Two years ago we had a warming of the world by 1 degree over the last 15 years.
Question: If man is able to slow down warming, at what point will the change, move us toward a little ice age. If the latest data is correct and we have in fact flipped the switch and are now moving into a cooling trend, What is the benefit of becoming cooler, especially of it leads toward a little ice age.
I think I would rather be warmer than cooler.
PS: I think his dog sled had sails on it.
Re: Global Warming believers don't read this
I guess that all depends where you live. I'd not mind it a bit warmer, but for those folks living closer to the equator I bet they may not agree, especially if it changes weather patterns and thusly affects farming and the food supply.Gwizz wrote:
I think I would rather be warmer than cooler.
Re: Global Warming believers don't read this
That may very well be. I haven't had a chance to look further into it.djf01 wrote:If the Gulf of Mexico did freeze over during the early 1800s, it probably coincided with the 1815 volcanic eruption in Indo.
Actually it was Leif Erikson, a Norwegian Viking from Iceland, that discovered 'The New World' on a dog sled , in 1001 AD.djf01 wrote:Now, you guys probably know a bit more American history than me. But wasn't it Columbus who discovered America on a dog sled expedition?
That's about 491 years before Columbus.
Hawk
Re: Global Warming believers don't read this
Hawk I believe you were right. We have a new radio station, KOL. (a bit weak, so the city is unknown) They had a full hour on global warming. One comment made was that there is concern that the Gulf of Mexcio could freeze over again.
At the end they blamed the media and the political Left for brain washing the worlds Scientists and much of the people of the world, about Global warming. Once a person has been brain washed it is very difficult for a person to re-open their mind for a reality check. Therefore I find no fault with scientists or others who believe in Global Warming through brain washing..
Other comments from the notes I took:
It seems many scientists have completed studies and are coming out of their shells and offering new data that says no to global warming.
No change in the polar bear count, possibly a small increase as it has had for a long time. (Our own Pulluscy, hoax. All she did was show a polar bear picture and said we needed to save the polar bear, then the world took over)
Russian Scientists say if sun spots don't start up soon, their record amounts of ice and snow will increase. China also has record amounts of snow and cold weather this winter. Sun spots are the major cause of warming or cooling on Earth. This is followed by volcanic activity as a cause.
Science never did claim that CO2 was the main cause of Global Warming. Man has at the most a 5% part only in some areas of the world. A 1% increase in average temperture is all that is needed to change the climate either way.
We now have laws, the results from, could be adding to a new little Ice Age.
(The profteers from currly light bulbs may lose profits in the near future. My comment)
A UK Science team recently discovered that an old volcano is active under the artic ice pack. It has been warming the ice and has punch a new hole in the ice. Even with this event there is now what equals to 28 inches of new sea ice there. The first survey of sea ice was done in 1972, that there is no good history of how the ice reacts to climate change. The volcano was the cause of the melt.
There were other comments made and referance to scientfic groups being quoted, But I could not write fast enough to be sure of what I had written.
The key comment made was we may have caused ourselfs some major problems for our near future.
Other point of interest from a number of sources:
A scientist in japan has offered a proof that there is another planet a bit larger than the earth, that passes close to the Earth after a long trip in space. It is due for a return visit.
Our president was asked about gas for 4 dollars a gal.
He said he didn't know it was so high. Figures.
There is talk of passing a major tax on the oil industries 18 billion dollar profit. About time they start thinking about this problem.
Heard one report about an active volcano in the Sound near Seattle. The Sound is very deep. I wonder if this could indanger the worlds largest Octoppi that lives in the sound. This octopus (25 ft wide) could become indanged.
I wonder how we will save them.
At the end they blamed the media and the political Left for brain washing the worlds Scientists and much of the people of the world, about Global warming. Once a person has been brain washed it is very difficult for a person to re-open their mind for a reality check. Therefore I find no fault with scientists or others who believe in Global Warming through brain washing..
Other comments from the notes I took:
It seems many scientists have completed studies and are coming out of their shells and offering new data that says no to global warming.
No change in the polar bear count, possibly a small increase as it has had for a long time. (Our own Pulluscy, hoax. All she did was show a polar bear picture and said we needed to save the polar bear, then the world took over)
Russian Scientists say if sun spots don't start up soon, their record amounts of ice and snow will increase. China also has record amounts of snow and cold weather this winter. Sun spots are the major cause of warming or cooling on Earth. This is followed by volcanic activity as a cause.
Science never did claim that CO2 was the main cause of Global Warming. Man has at the most a 5% part only in some areas of the world. A 1% increase in average temperture is all that is needed to change the climate either way.
We now have laws, the results from, could be adding to a new little Ice Age.
(The profteers from currly light bulbs may lose profits in the near future. My comment)
A UK Science team recently discovered that an old volcano is active under the artic ice pack. It has been warming the ice and has punch a new hole in the ice. Even with this event there is now what equals to 28 inches of new sea ice there. The first survey of sea ice was done in 1972, that there is no good history of how the ice reacts to climate change. The volcano was the cause of the melt.
There were other comments made and referance to scientfic groups being quoted, But I could not write fast enough to be sure of what I had written.
The key comment made was we may have caused ourselfs some major problems for our near future.
Other point of interest from a number of sources:
A scientist in japan has offered a proof that there is another planet a bit larger than the earth, that passes close to the Earth after a long trip in space. It is due for a return visit.
Our president was asked about gas for 4 dollars a gal.
He said he didn't know it was so high. Figures.
There is talk of passing a major tax on the oil industries 18 billion dollar profit. About time they start thinking about this problem.
Heard one report about an active volcano in the Sound near Seattle. The Sound is very deep. I wonder if this could indanger the worlds largest Octoppi that lives in the sound. This octopus (25 ft wide) could become indanged.
I wonder how we will save them.
Re: Global Warming believers don't read this
Dont worry, they'll pass the tax on to us consumers.Gwizz wrote:There is talk of passing a major tax on the oil industries 18 billion dollar profit. About time they start thinking about this problem.
Computer: 3.2GHz i3, 6.0GB Ram, 1.5TB HD, Win7, RRT3:1.06, SMRR:1.10
Currently playing: RRT3 - Campaign Scenerios
Currently creating: RRT3 - Southwest scenerio
Currently playing: RRT3 - Campaign Scenerios
Currently creating: RRT3 - Southwest scenerio
- AZ Rail Rat
- Dispatcher
- Posts: 302
- Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 7:56 pm
- Location: Arizona
- Contact:
Re: Global Warming believers don't read this
I BELIEVE - Almost froze my pec . . . torals off walking into work today. Here it is MARCH in Phoenix and ONLY 54DEG (F).
With a 20mph wind, I feel like I'm back East!!!
With a 20mph wind, I feel like I'm back East!!!
Re: Global Warming believers don't read this
Gwizz, can you perhaps throw us a link to this information. Thanks.
Re: Global Warming believers don't read this
Most of the comments from the two posts came from the link posted by dj. or from the supporting links within that link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
Other comments came from the radio or other sites.
I found a link to the NewScientist Site listed below.
It seems to give both sides of what causes global warming, which is good.
http://environment.newscientist.com/cha ... te-change/
I heard on the radio today that many huge money trusts that were created to fund the causes for the right, have been taken over by the left. The Weather Channel has also been taken over by the left, which surprised me. I wonder if the weather channel promotes global warming. I bet it does.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
Other comments came from the radio or other sites.
I found a link to the NewScientist Site listed below.
It seems to give both sides of what causes global warming, which is good.
http://environment.newscientist.com/cha ... te-change/
I heard on the radio today that many huge money trusts that were created to fund the causes for the right, have been taken over by the left. The Weather Channel has also been taken over by the left, which surprised me. I wonder if the weather channel promotes global warming. I bet it does.
Re: Global Warming believers don't read this
Yes Gwizz the Weather Channel is totally one sided. They spew this global warming hysteria constantly. The management of the Weather Channel has threatened and fired Meteorologists who don't follow the party line. There was a big tadoo about it a year ago or so. Anyway, you need to watch the Glenn Beck Show this week on CNN. He's covering a Big Climate Change Conference in New York. They are not getting covered by the mainstream media because these scientists don't go along with the Al Gore crowd. He also can be found on AM radio from 9:00AM to Noon. Global Warming is one of his favorite topics.
Re: Global Warming believers don't read this
I goofed,
Kobe University in japan said that Planet X was a bit larger than 2/3 the size of the earth, not a bit larger than the earth. Missed putting that part in my notes.
Nasa has stated that there are 1000s of small planets in our solar systen that they know about, Pluto size and smaller. I thought that planets had to be big to qualify. Wasn't Pluto removed from the list of planets because it was too small?
Kobe University in japan said that Planet X was a bit larger than 2/3 the size of the earth, not a bit larger than the earth. Missed putting that part in my notes.
Nasa has stated that there are 1000s of small planets in our solar systen that they know about, Pluto size and smaller. I thought that planets had to be big to qualify. Wasn't Pluto removed from the list of planets because it was too small?
Re: Global Warming believers don't read this
I know we've been off on some tangents in this forum topic, but Gee Wizz, mystery planets? I couldn't find your earlier reference to it, which I let slide because I didn't understand it, but this one was just too juicy ...Gwizz wrote:I goofed,
Kobe University in japan said that Planet X was a bit larger than 2/3 the size of the earth, not a bit larger than the earth. Missed putting that part in my notes
I *think* you are talking about the Kuiper belt. Our solar system is constructed roughly: Inner Rocky plannets: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, then the Asteroid belt, then the gas giants: Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune.Nasa has stated that there are 1000s of small planets in our solar system that they know about, Pluto size and smaller. I thought that planets had to be big to qualify. Wasn't Pluto removed from the list of planets because it was too small?
Beyond that they now think there is another huge belt like the asteroid like objects made mostly of ice. Pluto is believed to be one of the larger one of these objects. But they are so far away, so small and so poorly lit that sensible observations of them have been pretty tricky. Plus, I expect distant (but very close cosmologically speaking) chunks of ice aren't as sexy as trying to find black holes and ancient galaxies that not too much telescope time has been devoted to their study.
The reason not much is known about Pluto is NASA has sent probes to all the other planets and sent back a rich array of data about them. But all we really know for sure about pluto is it's a faint (invisible to the naked eye) speck of light in the sky.
When I was studying physics at university, if my lab supervisor busted me taking a short cut, the response was "go back and do it again, we're not doing astronomy here!"
Re: Global Warming believers don't read this
OK, no more planets unless I plan to run a train on it. .
Re: Global Warming believers don't read this
It seems that John Coleman - founder of The Weather Channel - may not have sold out after all. He is attending the Global Warming Conference in New York and Glenn Beck had a little chat with him.
If anyone is interested, here's a link to that chat.
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articl ... /196/6794/
BTW! This conference is being attended by over 500 scientists from the US and other parts of the world. It is not favorable to the global warming scam.
Edit 1: Here's a link to a conversation Glenn had with Lord Monckton, former adviser to Margaret Thatcher (this is the guy that took Al Gore to court in England over 'The Inconvenient Truth'.)
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articl ... /196/6783/
And another link. http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articl ... /196/6786/ Thia is a transcript of a conversation between Glenn and Paul Reiter, he's the guy that fought to have his name removed from the IPCC (The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report because he didn't agree with it.
If anyone is interested, here's a link to that chat.
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articl ... /196/6794/
BTW! This conference is being attended by over 500 scientists from the US and other parts of the world. It is not favorable to the global warming scam.
Edit 1: Here's a link to a conversation Glenn had with Lord Monckton, former adviser to Margaret Thatcher (this is the guy that took Al Gore to court in England over 'The Inconvenient Truth'.)
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articl ... /196/6783/
And another link. http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articl ... /196/6786/ Thia is a transcript of a conversation between Glenn and Paul Reiter, he's the guy that fought to have his name removed from the IPCC (The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report because he didn't agree with it.
Hawk
Re: Global Warming believers don't read this
Hawk,
Just read through your links, and read up about "the" Climate Change conference in NYC. Sponsored by the Heartland Institute. Their website unashamedly lambasts global warming theory in much the way you do. Actually, they seem more interested in abusing Al Gore than global warming theory. It's no surprise their "conference" is a gathering of anti-global warming mouthpieces with an agenda that could only ever reach one conclusion.
But never the less, I kept looking into it. And who's name appears on every web page, and is the source of almost every quote?: Fred Singer.
The man who for 30 years accepted money from Philip Morris while endlessly "debunking" that hideous conspiracy that smoking causes lung cancer to anyone willing enough or just plain stupid enough to listen.
Now .... what I *really* want to know is ... from Hawk especially ... is *why* you hold the views on this topic you do?
I can understand people who are addicted to, or just plain enjoy, smoking cigarettes preferring to believe it's perfectly safe. I don't agree with it, but I understand it.
I can understand why oil interests might want to falsely portray/spin global warming into a minor issue. I don't agree with it, but I understand it.
I can understand why lefty green groups are declaring the sky is going to fall in and we should all go back to living in trees over global warming. They have an agenda, and Global Warming fits it nicely. I don't agree with it, but I understand it.
I can understand being suspicious/skeptical of the science behind global warming theory, especially the more extreme predictions. I *do* agree with this, and understand it.
Before 2006 I could understand Republican Party supporters "holding the line" and supporting the Bush Administration's ultra skeptical position on global warming. The agenda is Republic re-election. I (and possibly even they) might not agree with it, but I understand it.
But what I *don't* understand is how someone can hold the view that the whole this is garbage, while at the same time saying there no amount of evidence to contrary would *every* change their mind?
This might sound like I'm asking a rhetorical question to make my point, but I *really* don't understand. Help me out, please!
Just read through your links, and read up about "the" Climate Change conference in NYC. Sponsored by the Heartland Institute. Their website unashamedly lambasts global warming theory in much the way you do. Actually, they seem more interested in abusing Al Gore than global warming theory. It's no surprise their "conference" is a gathering of anti-global warming mouthpieces with an agenda that could only ever reach one conclusion.
But never the less, I kept looking into it. And who's name appears on every web page, and is the source of almost every quote?: Fred Singer.
The man who for 30 years accepted money from Philip Morris while endlessly "debunking" that hideous conspiracy that smoking causes lung cancer to anyone willing enough or just plain stupid enough to listen.
Now .... what I *really* want to know is ... from Hawk especially ... is *why* you hold the views on this topic you do?
I can understand people who are addicted to, or just plain enjoy, smoking cigarettes preferring to believe it's perfectly safe. I don't agree with it, but I understand it.
I can understand why oil interests might want to falsely portray/spin global warming into a minor issue. I don't agree with it, but I understand it.
I can understand why lefty green groups are declaring the sky is going to fall in and we should all go back to living in trees over global warming. They have an agenda, and Global Warming fits it nicely. I don't agree with it, but I understand it.
I can understand being suspicious/skeptical of the science behind global warming theory, especially the more extreme predictions. I *do* agree with this, and understand it.
Before 2006 I could understand Republican Party supporters "holding the line" and supporting the Bush Administration's ultra skeptical position on global warming. The agenda is Republic re-election. I (and possibly even they) might not agree with it, but I understand it.
But what I *don't* understand is how someone can hold the view that the whole this is garbage, while at the same time saying there no amount of evidence to contrary would *every* change their mind?
This might sound like I'm asking a rhetorical question to make my point, but I *really* don't understand. Help me out, please!
Re: Global Warming believers don't read this
As far as I'm concerned there's just to much falsified information and too much money to be made, as well as power to be had, by those that push the extreme global warming agenda.
When those things come into play I tend to disbelieve their rhetoric.
I guess it's not so much that I believe the opposite. I just don't by into their crap. Besides, I've read too much proving their agenda is not on the up and up.
Now, whether you want to believe it or not, that's entirely up to you. As I said in a post over at The Terminal, I don't care what other people think as long as you don't try to shove it down my throat, and that's what they're doing.
That in itself turns me off to it.
To add to that, I guess I just have a lot more faith in Mother Earth's resiliency than most folks. This planet has survived a lot worse and I just don't believe that man is capable of doing it the damage that it's has survived in the past.
When those things come into play I tend to disbelieve their rhetoric.
I guess it's not so much that I believe the opposite. I just don't by into their crap. Besides, I've read too much proving their agenda is not on the up and up.
Now, whether you want to believe it or not, that's entirely up to you. As I said in a post over at The Terminal, I don't care what other people think as long as you don't try to shove it down my throat, and that's what they're doing.
That in itself turns me off to it.
To add to that, I guess I just have a lot more faith in Mother Earth's resiliency than most folks. This planet has survived a lot worse and I just don't believe that man is capable of doing it the damage that it's has survived in the past.
Hawk
Re: Global Warming believers don't read this
Maybe you mis-spoke, Hawk...
It isn't the damage that Man is doing to the earth, it's the damage that Capitalism is doing...
(doing to global socialists, that is)
It isn't the damage that Man is doing to the earth, it's the damage that Capitalism is doing...
(doing to global socialists, that is)
=Winchester, Paston & Portsmouth=
====== We Provide Pride! ======
====== We Provide Pride! ======
Re: Global Warming believers don't read this
Yep! I guess you're right. We should keep Capitalism to ourselves and not infringe our capitalist evil products on the rest of the world.
Hawk