#1  
Old 06-15-2011, 02:21 AM
Global Warming? More like Global Cooling.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110614...pphu-container

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articl...244234.htm?amp

Ladies and Gents, it looks like we're cooling off.

I knew Al Gore was full of shit.lol
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-15-2011, 02:36 AM
Both pages get 404 errors.

That's what you get when you try to make jabs at the inventor of the Internet!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-15-2011, 02:42 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110614...pphu-container
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-15-2011, 02:51 AM
I don't need to cool off. I already am cool
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-15-2011, 09:24 AM
The polar bears that are moving to Greenland don't agree.
There might not be the problem that's been predicted happening BUT something IS happening and I'm not going to act like it isn't.

Lightning during a snowstorm?
I saw it happen.
SOMETHING is going on, y'all.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-15-2011, 11:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RustyRazor View Post
The polar bears that are moving to Greenland don't agree.
There might not be the problem that's been predicted happening BUT something IS happening and I'm not going to act like it isn't.

Lightning during a snowstorm?
I saw it happen.
SOMETHING is going on, y'all.
Razor... Here is a link for you:

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/33465

It talks about Lightning during a snowstorm. Some of the discussions are from 3 or 4 years ago though.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-15-2011, 12:09 PM
So, did you read the article or...?

Quote:
The temperature change associated with any reduction in sunspot activity would likely be minimal and may not be enough to offset the impact of greenhouse gases on global warming, according to scientists who have published recent papers on the topic.

"Recent solar 11-year cycles are associated empirically with changes in global surface temperature of 0.1 Celsius," said Judith Lean, a solar physicist with the US Naval Research Laboratory.

If the cycle were to stop or slow down, the small fluctuation in temperature would do the same, eliminating the slightly cooler effect of a solar minimum compared to the warmer solar maximum. The phenomenon was witnessed during the descending phase of the last solar cycle.

This "cancelled part of the greenhouse gas warming of the period 2000-2008, causing the net global surface temperature to remain approximately flat -- and leading to the big debate of why the Earth hadn't (been) warming in the past decade," Lean, who was not involved in the three studies presented, said in an email to AFP.

A study in the March 2010 issue of Geophysical Research Letters explored what effect an extended solar minimum might have, and found no more than a 0.3 Celsius dip by 2100 compared to normal solar fluctuations.

"A new Maunder-type solar activity minimum cannot offset the global warming caused by human greenhouse gas emissions," wrote authors Georg Feulner and Stefan Rahmstorf, noting that forecasts by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have found a range of 3.7 Celsius to 4.5 Celsius rise by this century's end compared to the latter half of the 20th century.

"Moreover, any offset of global warming due to a grand minimum of solar activity would be merely a temporary effect, since the distinct solar minima during the last millennium typically lasted for only several decades or a century at most."
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-15-2011, 12:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by QUENTIN View Post
So, did you read the article or...?
These guys have been telling us for over 10 years that everything is just getting hotter, but now it's not heating up the way they predicted? Could it be possible that they were wrong but now are trying to hang on to their man made Global Warming theory? That part of the article feels a little tacked to me.

Humans are prideful creatures and most don't want to admit that they're wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-15-2011, 12:55 PM
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-15-2011, 01:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rocknblues81 View Post
Humans are prideful creatures and most don't want to admit that they're wrong.
Like, say, you?
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 06-15-2011, 01:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordon View Post
Like, say, you?
Or you?

Actually, I can admit to being wrong. I thought movies couldn't get any worse.... That is until Zookeeper was announced.=)

Last edited by rocknblues81; 06-15-2011 at 01:17 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-15-2011, 03:11 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTR-xzA8xLk


The horror of the whole thing is the amount of people think Homer is being portrayed as wise and as having outsmarted Lisa, including the uploader of the video.

I mean, this is what we are dealing with folks - people who are looking to Homer Simpson as validating their lack of understanding as proof of nonexistence. ....just don't look back. We can never look back.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-15-2011, 04:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rocknblues81 View Post
Humans are prideful creatures and most don't want to admit that they're wrong.
Ok, someone comes along and highlights information from an article you posted that should actually offset the conclusion you derived from it, and the scientists are the ones who are prideful and fearful of being wrong? It wasn't just tacked on there, either. It was a big chunk of the article.

I think I'm going to argue with the UPS man tomorrow about better ways to deliver a box, because it's my human instinct.

Last edited by Brando @$$ Fat; 06-15-2011 at 04:14 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-15-2011, 04:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rocknblues81 View Post
Or you?

Actually, I can admit to being wrong. I thought movies couldn't get any worse.... That is until Zookeeper was announced.=)
I really don't see how any of this applies at all. I'm not trying to attack you, I'm just looking for a little humility.

You linked to an article that contradicts your unqualified opinion and when you were called out on it your defense was "Humans are prideful creatures and most don't want to admit that they're wrong."

That would have been a totally remarkable quote if you were implying that you had made a mistake but did not want to admit it. That would have been cool and proper and would have put the issue to rest. But instead, as an outside and unqualified observer, you say that in relation to scientists going about doing their science? That's just sort of baffling.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-15-2011, 07:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brando @$$ Fat View Post
Ok, someone comes along and highlights information from an article you posted that should actually offset the conclusion you derived from it, and the scientists are the ones who are prideful and fearful of being wrong? It wasn't just tacked on there, either. It was a big chunk of the article.

I think I'm going to argue with the UPS man tomorrow about better ways to deliver a box, because it's my human instinct.
I could have sworn that we've been told for the last 8 years that everything was "heating up". Now... They're claiming that temps were actually flat.

Quote:
This "cancelled part of the greenhouse gas warming of the period 2000-2008, causing the net global surface temperature to remain approximately flat -- and leading to the big debate of why the Earth hadn't (been) warming in the past decade," Lean, who was not involved in the three studies presented, said in an email to AFP.
So now... it's "Ok, things actually were not warming up then... But now it's still going to warm up!".

I'm not expert at all but we've been beat over the head by people telling us that it's been heating up the last decade and now these guys are telling us something different. If I'm understanding something wrong, feel free to point it out to me.

The original post was more sarcasm than anything. I honestly don't believe they truly know what's going on.

Last edited by rocknblues81; 06-15-2011 at 08:10 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 06-15-2011, 07:29 PM
god works in mysterious ways, bro.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 06-15-2011, 07:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordon View Post
I really don't see how any of this applies at all. I'm not trying to attack you, I'm just looking for a little humility.

You linked to an article that contradicts your unqualified opinion and when you were called out on it your defense was "Humans are prideful creatures and most don't want to admit that they're wrong."

That would have been a totally remarkable quote if you were implying that you had made a mistake but did not want to admit it. That would have been cool and proper and would have put the issue to rest. But instead, as an outside and unqualified observer, you say that in relation to scientists going about doing their science? That's just sort of baffling.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/...n5423035.shtml

Quote:
"The last 10 years are the warmest 10-year period of the modern record," said NOAA climate monitoring chief Deke Arndt. "Even if you analyze the trend during that 10 years, the trend is actually positive, which means warming."

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/...#ixzz1POaP8pzD
If you want to say I used a bad choice of words... Fine. I used a bad choice of words. Whatever.

But before it was the last 10 years have been the warmest... And now they're saying that the temps have been flat?
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 06-15-2011, 08:31 PM
The scientists in the article suggest the Sun may be entering a time of inactivity as certain phenomena aren't as active as they anticipated. If true, this may in turn have a slight impact on Earth's temperature. Doesn't mean Al Gore is full of shit or that "CLIMATE CHANGE" isn't affected by humans.

These are their predictions clearly explained in the very article you posted.

You did read the article, right?

Also, please refer to post #12 by the Postmaster for more insight on global warming and the idiocy of perceptual sets.

He's the man whose name you'd love to touch.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 06-15-2011, 08:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rocknblues81 View Post
I could have sworn that we've been told for the last 8 years that everything was "heating up". Now... They're claiming that temps were actually flat.
You'd be wrong. "Heating up" is a soundbite, hyper-simplistic understanding of climate change or global warming.

That Simpsons video gets it exactly right actually. Lisa the genius corrects Homer the idiot for mocking the idea that extreme snowstorms are evidence against rather than evidence of the man-made climate change we've all been warned about for years.

"Everything's getting hotter or else those scientists were full of shit" is a fundamental misunderstanding of both the science and the warnings and this article you posted does not in any way, as it explicitly states and explains in the article, diminish or disprove the fact of pollution-exacerbated climate change and the extreme weather and potential catastrophes that result.

Again:

Quote:
A study in the March 2010 issue of Geophysical Research Letters explored what effect an extended solar minimum might have, and found no more than a 0.3 Celsius dip by 2100 compared to normal solar fluctuations.

"A new Maunder-type solar activity minimum cannot offset the global warming caused by human greenhouse gas emissions," wrote authors Georg Feulner and Stefan Rahmstorf, noting that forecasts by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have found a range of 3.7 Celsius to 4.5 Celsius rise by this century's end compared to the latter half of the 20th century.

"Moreover, any offset of global warming due to a grand minimum of solar activity would be merely a temporary effect, since the distinct solar minima during the last millennium typically lasted for only several decades or a century at most."
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 06-15-2011, 08:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Criminal Rock View Post
The scientists in the article suggest the Sun may be entering a time of inactivity as certain phenomena aren't as active as they anticipated. If true, this may in turn have a slight impact on Earth's temperature. Doesn't mean Al Gore is full of shit or that "CLIMATE CHANGE" isn't affected by humans.

These are their predictions clearly explained in the very article you posted.

You did read the article, right?

Also, please refer to post #12 by the Postmaster for more insight on global warming and the idiocy of perceptual sets.

He's the man whose name you'd love to touch.
If Al Gore believes in this so much, why the big old house?

http://newsbusters.org/node/11073
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 06-15-2011, 08:55 PM
This thread is made of retard.

"It snowed at the wrong time! Take that scientists!"

"The world might get cooler for a little while! Up yours smart people!"
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 06-15-2011, 09:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rocknblues81 View Post
I could have sworn that we've been told for the last 8 years that everything was "heating up". Now... They're claiming that temps were actually flat.
Not at all what I was addressing. Half of the article talks about the real impact of sunspots. You're acting like this doesn't negate a lot of what you're arguing.

Honestly, you come across as highly uninformed, and attacking Al Gore (who isn't even mentioned in the article) is a lame of trying to get out of that corner.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 06-15-2011, 10:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brando @$$ Fat View Post
Not at all what I was addressing. Half of the article talks about the real impact of sunspots. You're acting like this doesn't negate a lot of what you're arguing.

Honestly, you come across as highly uninformed, and attacking Al Gore (who isn't even mentioned in the article) is a lame of trying to get out of that corner.
Just in cause you missed it... I've already said that I'm far from an expert.

I see that the article is saying the flat temps of the last 10 years is basically meaningless in the long run. Maybe they're correct and maybe they're not.

But hey whatever.

Last edited by rocknblues81; 06-15-2011 at 10:19 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 06-15-2011, 11:09 PM
hmm...

I don't know if this has already been mentioned or not, but the "fear" of global warming was always unfounded. Not necessarily because the world isn't heating up, but because...

Well, just think of it this way. When you put an ice cube into a glass of water, it eventually melts. The water is then cooler, all around, then it was prior. Cooler water equals cooler air temperatures. Now apply that to icebergs and our oceans, and you get the point.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 06-15-2011, 11:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FailSafe View Post
I don't know if this has already been mentioned or not, but the "fear" of global warming was always unfounded. Not necessarily because the world isn't heating up, but because...

Well, just think of it this way. When you put an ice cube into a glass of water, it eventually melts. The water is then cooler, all around, then it was prior. Cooler water equals cooler air temperatures. Now apply that to icebergs and our oceans, and you get the point.
WHAT? You think the two are totally analogous even if you don't factor in the atmosphere and the sun's rays? Seriously, I was a lousy science student and even I understand some of this basic science.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 06-16-2011, 12:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FailSafe View Post
I don't know if this has already been mentioned or not, but the "fear" of global warming was always unfounded. Not necessarily because the world isn't heating up, but because...

Well, just think of it this way. When you put an ice cube into a glass of water, it eventually melts. The water is then cooler, all around, then it was prior. Cooler water equals cooler air temperatures. Now apply that to icebergs and our oceans, and you get the point.
If Global Warming is real with an luck it will do us in quicker.

Last edited by rocknblues81; 06-16-2011 at 12:55 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 06-16-2011, 01:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rocknblues81 View Post
If Al Gore believes in this so much, why the big old house?

http://newsbusters.org/node/11073

He has frequent house guests. (?)
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 06-16-2011, 01:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Postmaster General View Post
He has frequent house guests. (?)
Yeah.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 06-16-2011, 01:48 AM

Quote:
WHAT? You think the two are totally analogous even if you don't factor in the atmosphere and the sun's rays? Seriously, I was a lousy science student and even I understand some of this basic science.
Elaborate. I was simply making the statement that cooler water temperatures directly effect the air temperature (or, in other words, heating up could lead to cooling down). If something there doesn't make sense, I'd love to know what it is. And, I don't think the words "atmosphere" or "sun's rays" were mentioned at all in my previous post, so obviously I wouldn't have been taking them into consideration.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0W6JgnCFezo

Last edited by FailSafe; 06-16-2011 at 02:02 AM.. Reason: because I'm a baaad science student
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 06-16-2011, 03:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FailSafe View Post

Well, just think of it this way. When you put an ice cube into a glass of water, it eventually melts. The water is then cooler, all around, then it was prior. Cooler water equals cooler air temperatures. Now apply that to icebergs and our oceans, and you get the point.
It is a pertinent point indeed, however impermanent.
We can be sure that a constant source of heat and radiation with about 5 billion years of fuel(the sun) will overwhelm the finite ice reserve on earth...in due course. Unless another sizeable meteorite were to impact this planet, annihilating most life and creating the conditions for another iceage; our homeworld will invariably continue to warm past the point of natural human habitation...barring unforseen variances in future permutations, life as we know it will not survive once there is no more ice to melt.

edit-forgive me punctuation police
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 06-16-2011, 03:17 AM
In order for the icecaps to melt the overall oceanic temperature would have to be steadily getting WARMER in the first place, which would mean the air itself would also have to be getting WARMER in order for the oceans to WARM.

Also, the whole global warming causes global cooling is a theory which suggests that when the icecaps melt, fresh water is introduced into the salty oceans and would sink to the bottom where the underwater currents would stop or change direction due to the huge volumes of fresh water blocking the currents flow, which in turn alters atmospheric weather patterns and all that crazy shit.

Also Blues, without even googling I would bet money that Al Gore uses Green technology on his house. That's just common sense. Not only that, it's just a dumb argument as Climate Change has relatively nothing to do with energy consumption in itself, but more importantly has everything to do with the energy source. Like Oil or Coal. In the future we could all be using 10x as much electricity in our homes with no guilt or worry about emissions if the energy we use comes from fusion reactors, solar, and wind farms.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 06-16-2011, 09:27 AM
Meh. Global warming or no, pumping out waste chemicals into the atmosphere can't be good regardless.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 06-16-2011, 11:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Criminal Rock View Post
In order for the icecaps to melt the overall oceanic temperature would have to be steadily getting WARMER in the first place, which would mean the air itself would also have to be getting WARMER in order for the oceans to WARM.

Also, the whole global warming causes global cooling is a theory which suggests that when the icecaps melt, fresh water is introduced into the salty oceans and would sink to the bottom where the underwater currents would stop or change direction due to the huge volumes of fresh water blocking the currents flow, which in turn alters atmospheric weather patterns and all that crazy shit.

Also Blues, without even googling I would bet money that Al Gore uses Green technology on his house. That's just common sense. Not only that, it's just a dumb argument as Climate Change has relatively nothing to do with energy consumption in itself, but more importantly has everything to do with the energy source. Like Oil or Coal. In the future we could all be using 10x as much electricity in our homes with no guilt or worry about emissions if the energy we use comes from fusion reactors, solar, and wind farms.
Well, like I said... If it's happening, bring it on now and get it over with. I'm sick to death of everything from Global Warming to the Economy, 2012 and every other current "problem". Just tired of it.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 06-16-2011, 02:12 PM
uh huh

Quote:
Originally posted by Criminal Rock: In order for the icecaps to melt the overall oceanic temperature would have to be steadily getting WARMER in the first place, which would mean the air itself would also have to be getting WARMER in order for the oceans to WARM.
So what you're trying to say is that once things are WARM, they can only get WARMER, because the simple fact that it is WARM indicates that there is simply no reversal of this process... Or so it sounds. Undoubtedly meant to sound snarky, but the shit cold weather I'm experiencing in Ohio in the middle of June would like a word with you... (not to say it's being caused by any kind of crazy natural phenomenon). Or perhaps you were speaking more in terms of geological time, in which case, I don't think anybody here need concern themselves too much.

Quote:
Originally posted by Criminal Rock: Also, the whole global warming causes global cooling is a theory which suggests that when the icecaps melt, fresh water is introduced into the salty oceans and would sink to the bottom where the underwater currents would stop or change direction due to the huge volumes of fresh water blocking the currents flow, which in turn alters atmospheric weather patterns and all that crazy shit.
Also, I'm not entirely sure whose theory this is, but it seemingly ignores the fact that salt water is heavier (due to the salt) than fresh water.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 06-16-2011, 04:06 PM
What I say and what you infer are two entirely different things, so there's no need to qualify my words for me. Regardless your original idea that the coldness of melting ice will somehow directly cool off the effects global warming is patently FALSE and reminds me of a very funny bit Futurama did on the same topic. You should check it out if you haven't seen it.

Yeah, I only mentioned that theory because I was trying to make sense of your post. You seem to think melting icecaps will cool the planet, this theory backs that idea... sort of.. So, pick it apart if you want to but you won’t be doing yourself any favors.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 06-16-2011, 06:54 PM
speaking of inferences...

It may have come across differently than I'd intended, but I actually believe that global warming is occurring, and was only trying to make the assertion that we might see things cool down before they heat up, exponentially. The "unfounded fear" of global warming is me being a tad fatalistic, knowing that we won't do anything to stop the process in time for it to make any difference for future generations. Why fear what you can't change/stop, right? Sorry for the misunderstanding, but either way, I'm not entirely sure how I quantified/inferred anything different than what you posted. And yes, that Futurama bit is some funny shit. "Once and for all!"

Last edited by FailSafe; 06-16-2011 at 06:57 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 06-17-2011, 01:15 AM
What I think is funny-sad is that at the root of the global debate, it's really just about new technology and people pushing for it vs. people against it. There is really no other reason for this to be an argument to begin with, and when it comes down to it, the arguments against responding to climate change don't make sense because they are being drafted by modern-day luddites.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 06-17-2011, 03:35 AM
Ok, if global warming is rapidly happening, how do you propose to fix this? Getting millions and millions to change their ways of living doesn't seem like a likely scenario.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 06-17-2011, 04:45 AM
When I see these debates I tend to relate them to similiar debates around religion. For me I like to look at the data.

The HadCrut ( which is an IPCC reference set based on global surface temperature measurements) and UAH (using a NOAA satellite-based microwave measurement of the lower atmosphere temperature) both show that the earth is not warming as predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).


As the scientists who fervently believe in this catastrophic situation can't back it up with their modelling, I'm happy to be labelled a sceptic.


Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 06-17-2011, 11:55 AM
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailin...lancePaper.pdf

This detailed report doesn't paint a pretty picture. Sure seems like we're doomed. Very informative report.

Obviously, I misunderstand by lots. That's my fault.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump