Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

What Global Warming? 2012 Data Confirms Earth In Cooling Trend

+5
Sal
Floridatexan
ZVUGKTUBM
boards of FL
Markle
9 posters

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Markle

Markle

Global Warming advocates are going to have a tough time with the FACTS. Nothing unusual there, they've had a tough time facing up to the FACTS for years.

What Global Warming? 2012 Data Confirms Earth In Cooling Trend
August 13, 2013 - 12:16 PM
By Barbara Hollingsworth

(CNSNews.com) – The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recently released its “State of the Climate in 2012” report, which states that “worldwide, 2012 was among the 10 warmest years on record.”

But the report “fails to mention [2012] was one of the coolest of the decade, and thus confirms the cooling trend,” according to an analysis by climate blogger Pierre Gosselin.


“To no one’s surprise, the report gives the reader the impression that warming is galloping ahead out of control,” writes Gosselin. “But their data shows just the opposite.”


Although the NOAA report noted that in 2012, “the Arctic continues to warm” with “sea ice reaching record lows,” it also stated that the Antarctica sea ice “reached a record high of 7.51 million square miles” on Sept. 26, 2012.


And the latest figures for this year show that there’s been a slowdown of melting in the Arctic this summer as well, with temperatures at the North Pole well below normal for this time of year. Meteorologist Joe Bastardi calls it “the coldest ever recorded.”


The Associated Press had to retract a photo it released on July 27 with the caption, “The shallow meltwater lake is occurring due to an unusually warm period.”


“In fact, the water accumulates in this way every summer,” AP admitted in a note to editors, adding that the photo was doubly misleading because “the camera used by the North Pole Environment Observatory has drifted hundreds of miles from its original position, which was a few dozen miles from the pole.”

- See more at: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/what-global-warming-2012-data-confirms-earth-cooling-trend#sthash.c3KIMewo.dpuf

Guest


Guest

Not to mention that this happened during the 11 year cycle of solar maximum. There are likely cycles we don't know.

Markle

Markle

What Global Warming? 2012 Data Confirms Earth In Cooling Trend    Chirping-crickets-stage-2-by-melvin

boards of FL

boards of FL

Hmm.  This brief article from an overtly conservative news organization completely outweighs the consensus of virtually every scientific organization on the planet.

Imagine Markle or PkrBum being rushed via ambulance to an ER.  They arrive at the ER and there is a team of doctors that examine them and prescribe a course of treatment.  But then some no-name conservative blogger shows up...


What Global Warming? 2012 Data Confirms Earth In Cooling Trend    Hollingsworth-3

"Are you guys nuts?!?!  You're going to listen to these morons who obviously have some political axe to grind!?!  Guess what!  They make money by treating you!  It's, like, a total conflict of interest!!"  

I suspect Markle and PkrBum would happily lap that up and forgo the treatment prescribed by the team of doctors - even as their condition deteriorates and everything the doctors tell them will happen happens. Why not take some no-name's word over the consensus of a group of experts - particularly when dealing with something that is way outside your grasp of understanding?  You're smart guys!  You think for yourselves!


_________________
I approve this message.

Guest


Guest

The current warming trend we have just learned MAY be much longer than we previously guessed in antarctica.

http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/8833/20130815/earth-orbits-wobble-key-west-antarctic-warming-last-ice-age.htm

I've listed this variable along with dozens of others that all play into the hypothesis... you should be uniquely aware here what even a few variables do to models... much less what unknowns do. I'm actually quite surprised that you can pretend it's settled science.

boards of FL

boards of FL

PkrBum wrote:The current warming trend we have just learned MAY be much longer than we previously guessed in antarctica.

http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/8833/20130815/earth-orbits-wobble-key-west-antarctic-warming-last-ice-age.htm

I've listed this variable along with dozens of others that all play into the hypothesis... you should be uniquely aware here what even a few variables do to models... much less what unknowns do. I'm actually quite surprised that you can pretend it's settled science.


Hardly anything is ever settled.  That said, I still go with the model that is based on the most information and makes the most sense - particularly when it is endorsed by virtually the entire scientific community.  

Gravity isn't even settled science.  I suppose you question the existence of that as well?  Or has a conservative blogger not refuted that for you on cnsnews.com yet?


_________________
I approve this message.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

I started graduate school late in life (age 39), earning a MS degree in Biology and Coastal Zone Studies from UWF in 1992. I took coursework in Coastal Morphology and Processes, Estuarine Ecology, and other courses related to the coastal zone, including courses having to do with policies in the coastal zone.

None of my professors ever even mentioned global warming one time. We discussed sea-level rise, but not in terms of climate change/global warming. Therefore, I am having a difficult time wrapping my arms around where all of this came from. If it was a problem in 1997 when the Kyoto Treaty was signed and in 2000 when Al Gore was pushing his book, it was a problem in 1991-1992 when I was taking coursework which should have made global warming a front-burner issue.

What turned global warming/climate change into the religion it has become? There are nefarious forces hiding in the shadows of this movement, and it has to do with draconian control of the human population on a global scale. Very dangerous.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Floridatexan

Floridatexan


Global warming or not, global weather extremes appear to be our current reality, and the melting of the ice caps, unless the trend is reversed, will lead to even more erratic weather extremes. Our world is polluted by refuse, chemicals, garbage and radioactive waste. It's not like we're stopping or reversing the processes that led us here; it seems to be "full speed ahead" here...What kind of world will we leave behind?

Sal

Sal

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:I started graduate school late in life (age 39), earning a MS degree in Biology and Coastal Zone Studies from UWF in 1992. I took coursework in Coastal Morphology and Processes, Estuarine Ecology, and other courses related to the coastal zone, including courses having to do with policies in the coastal zone.

None of my professors ever even mentioned global warming one time. We discussed sea-level rise, but not in terms of climate change/global warming. Therefore, I am having a difficult time wrapping my arms around where all of this came from. If it was a problem in 1997 when the Kyoto Treaty was signed and in 2000 when Al Gore was pushing his book, it was a problem in 1991-1992 when I was taking coursework which should have made global warming a front-burner issue.

What turned global warming/climate change into the religion it has become? There are nefarious forces hiding in the shadows of this movement, and it has to do with draconian control of the human population on a global scale. Very dangerous.
The first IPCC report was issued in 1990 and concluded that the Earth was warming, but conceded it might be caused by natural processes.

It wasn't until the second IPCC report was issued in 1995 that they concluded that man's activities were contributing to the warming.

There has since been an avalanche of scientific studies showing climate change is occurring and man is contributing and accelerating the phenomena.

A scientific consensus has been achieved on this matter.

To deny that is the case is sophistry.

Guest


Guest

Sal wrote:
ZVUGKTUBM wrote:I started graduate school late in life (age 39), earning a MS degree in Biology and Coastal Zone Studies from UWF in 1992. I took coursework in Coastal Morphology and Processes, Estuarine Ecology, and other courses related to the coastal zone, including courses having to do with policies in the coastal zone.

None of my professors ever even mentioned global warming one time. We discussed sea-level rise, but not in terms of climate change/global warming. Therefore, I am having a difficult time wrapping my arms around where all of this came from. If it was a problem in 1997 when the Kyoto Treaty was signed and in 2000 when Al Gore was pushing his book, it was a problem in 1991-1992 when I was taking coursework which should have made global warming a front-burner issue.

What turned global warming/climate change into the religion it has become? There are nefarious forces hiding in the shadows of this movement, and it has to do with draconian control of the human population on a global scale. Very dangerous.
The first IPCC report was issued in 1990 and concluded that the Earth was warming, but conceded it might be caused by natural processes.

It wasn't until the second IPCC report was issued in 1995 that they concluded that man's activities were contributing to the warming.

There has since been an avalanche of scientific studies showing climate change is occurring and man is contributing and accelerating the phenomena.

A scientific consensus has been achieved on this matter.

To deny that is the case is sophistry.
What Global Warming? 2012 Data Confirms Earth In Cooling Trend    Th?id=H.4580626706595960&pid=1

Ignoring or changing gathered information because it does not fit the end result of a hypothesis negates the scientific method and any scientific consensus... Except for the delusional political hacks that back the theory in the scientific community because they want those grants and other funds to continue from politicians and lobbyists who desire that theory supported.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpO_oVtXCa4

Smile 

VectorMan

VectorMan

No matter what you libtards say, everyone knows it's about the money. Consensus my ass! Repeating the same uninformed/underinformed talking points doesn't make it true.

Guest


Guest

I think that 95 report included the infamous hockey stick graph... or maybe a year or two after... regardless that was the big push that made the dire warnings and predictions. Whelp... it was flawed in several ways... the least of which is that the model neglected or ignored the multitude of variables that would be necessary to be taken seriously. I guess next would be the data "used"... Mann admitted that outliers were discarded and the collection centered on metropolitan areas... ever watched the outside temp rise when you drive into a large city? Then there was no scientific release of the data for peer review... that simply isn't done... and anybody that knows a single damn thing about science should have leaned back right then and scratched their chin. I'll leave the accuracy and validity of this crap up to anyone that would spend a few hours googling critical accounts... I've done it way too many times.

Look above... a clean account of a variable 22,000 years ago that might be new information about earth orbit. I know that sound mundane when you want to redistribute via green... but it's very significant. We are in a fairly stable point in this solar system... It won't stay that way... and we are really just beginning to be able to examine other solar systems. Our planets aren't likely in their original order... nor may all of them still exist.

Lastly... we are very fortunate to be living in a warming trend... I hope it lasts and if you don't you're an idiot. There's already great reasons not to pollut... no matter a societies socio-economic status. But if we're still talking co2... I doubt it's ever been an exclusive driver of the change from a snowball earth to a water earth... which by the way has been the state of the earth for the vast majority of it's history. The great concentration of co2 lead to the greatest explsion of biodiversity the earth ever had. If we can put off the next ice age by a hundred years I would be amazed.

Edit: no I don't know when the next ice age will occur and neither does anyone else... but the scientific consensus is that there will be... using those variables that the polico-scientific idiots pretend don't exist.

Guest


Guest

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:I started graduate school late in life (age 39), earning a MS degree in Biology and Coastal Zone Studies from UWF in 1992. I took coursework in Coastal Morphology and Processes, Estuarine Ecology, and other courses related to the coastal zone, including courses having to do with policies in the coastal zone.

None of my professors ever even mentioned global warming one time. We discussed sea-level rise, but not in terms of climate change/global warming. Therefore, I am having a difficult time wrapping my arms around where all of this came from. If it was a problem in 1997 when the Kyoto Treaty was signed and in 2000 when Al Gore was pushing his book, it was a problem in 1991-1992 when I was taking coursework which should have made global warming a front-burner issue.

What turned global warming/climate change into the religion it has become? There are nefarious forces hiding in the shadows of this movement, and it has to do with draconian control of the human population on a global scale. Very dangerous.

cheers cheers cheers 

Markle

Markle

boards of FL wrote:
PkrBum wrote:The current warming trend we have just learned MAY be much longer than we previously guessed in antarctica.

http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/8833/20130815/earth-orbits-wobble-key-west-antarctic-warming-last-ice-age.htm

I've listed this variable along with dozens of others that all play into the hypothesis... you should be uniquely aware here what even a few variables do to models... much less what unknowns do. I'm actually quite surprised that you can pretend it's settled science.

Hardly anything is ever settled.  That said, I still go with the model that is based on the most information and makes the most sense - particularly when it is endorsed by virtually the entire scientific community.
 

Gravity isn't even settled science.  I suppose you question the existence of that as well?  Or has a conservative blogger not refuted that for you on cnsnews.com yet?
Another lie. Or are you counting engineers who design bridges, pathologists, dentists or any number of other folks?

Margin Call

Margin Call

Markle wrote:Another lie.  Or are you counting engineers who design bridges, pathologists, dentists or any number of other folks?
Four out of five climatologists prefer Colgate.

boards of FL

boards of FL

Markle wrote:Another lie.  Or are you counting engineers who design bridges, pathologists, dentists or any number of other folks?
Why would I?


_________________
I approve this message.

Jake92



Colgate is made in Mexico!!!!!!

Margin Call

Margin Call

boards of FL wrote:
Markle wrote:Another lie.  Or are you counting engineers who design bridges, pathologists, dentists or any number of other folks?
Why would I?
Because all degrees and training in science are the same.  That's why, in light of Obamacare, I'm going to see an Astronomer about these chest pains.

NaNook

NaNook

Atlanta set a record low/high yesterday. Going back to 1908....the ice is setting record highs in the South Pole.....the Northeast is setting record lows for this time of the year. Perhaps an ice-age is coming as promised in the 70s.

Markle

Markle

boards of FL wrote:Hmm.  This brief article from an overtly conservative news organization completely outweighs the consensus of virtually every scientific organization on the planet.

Imagine Markle or PkrBum being rushed via ambulance to an ER.  They arrive at the ER and there is a team of doctors that examine them and prescribe a course of treatment.  But then some no-name conservative blogger shows up...


What Global Warming? 2012 Data Confirms Earth In Cooling Trend    Hollingsworth-3

"Are you guys nuts?!?!  You're going to listen to these morons who obviously have some political axe to grind!?!  Guess what!  They make money by treating you!  It's, like, a total conflict of interest!!"  

I suspect Markle and PkrBum would happily lap that up and forgo the treatment prescribed by the team of doctors - even as their condition deteriorates and everything the doctors tell them will happen happens.  Why not take some no-name's word over the consensus of a group of experts - particularly when dealing with something that is way outside your grasp of understanding?  You're smart guys!  You think for yourselves!
What did she post which is NOT true? Did she claim to be a scientist?

If I post a copy of the U.S. Constitution, does that render the Constitution invalid because it wasn't posted by someone of whom you approve?

So please tell us, what is in the post which is NOT true or, as usual, do you have NOTHING?

Markle

Markle

Sal wrote:
ZVUGKTUBM wrote:I started graduate school late in life (age 39), earning a MS degree in Biology and Coastal Zone Studies from UWF in 1992. I took coursework in Coastal Morphology and Processes, Estuarine Ecology, and other courses related to the coastal zone, including courses having to do with policies in the coastal zone.

None of my professors ever even mentioned global warming one time. We discussed sea-level rise, but not in terms of climate change/global warming. Therefore, I am having a difficult time wrapping my arms around where all of this came from. If it was a problem in 1997 when the Kyoto Treaty was signed and in 2000 when Al Gore was pushing his book, it was a problem in 1991-1992 when I was taking coursework which should have made global warming a front-burner issue.

What turned global warming/climate change into the religion it has become? There are nefarious forces hiding in the shadows of this movement, and it has to do with draconian control of the human population on a global scale. Very dangerous.
The first IPCC report was issued in 1990 and concluded that the Earth was warming, but conceded it might be caused by natural processes.

It wasn't until the second IPCC report was issued in 1995 that they concluded that man's activities were contributing to the warming.

There has since been an avalanche of scientific studies showing climate change is occurring and man is contributing and accelerating the phenomena.

A scientific consensus has been achieved on this matter.

To deny that is the case is sophistry.

As you know, Professor Phil Jones was the center of the Global Warming Scam at East Anglia University. Their program was considered the epitome of Global Warming Information. The disclosure of thousands of e-mails proving their efforts to conceal information discredit and even prevent opposing views from being published has wrecked the scam, hopefully forever. Data used by the United Nations IPCC and NASA findings came from EAU.

14th February, 2010

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing (it has now been disclosed that all the “raw data” was DUMPED!

There has been no global warming since 1995

Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes

Phil Jones admitted his record keeping is 'not as good as it should be.

WHAT????

[…]

Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

Phil Jones has said that he considered suicide for his part in this worldwide scam.

Let us also recall: The e-mails leaked in the fall of 2009 allow us to trace the machinations of a small but influential band of British and US climate scientists who played the lead role in the IPCC reports. It appears that this group, which controlled access to basic temperature data, was able to produce a "warming" by manipulating the analysis of the data, but refused to share information on the basic data or details of their analysis with independent scientists who requested them -- in violation of Freedom of Information laws. In fact, they went so far as to keep any dissenting views from being published -- by monopolizing the peer-review process, aided by ideologically cooperative editors of prestigious journals, like Science and Nature.

We learn from the e-mails that the ClimateGate gang was able to "hide the decline" [of global temperature] by applying what they termed as "tricks," and that they intimidated editors and forced out those judged to be "uncooperative." No doubt, thorough investigations, now in progress or planned, will disclose the full range of their nefarious activities. But it is clear that this small cabal was able to convince much of the world that climate disasters were impending -- unless drastic steps were taken. Not only were most of the media, public, and politicians misled, but so were many scientists, national academies of science, and professional organizations -- and even the Norwegian committee that awarded the 2007 Peace Prize to the IPCC and Al Gore, the chief apostle of climate alarmism.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html#ixzz0fa67A02t

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum