Global Warming Alarmists Jumping Off Bridges

[expandspanos]

The Earth's temperature has never been a flat-line.. in fact, the Earth's temperature has been much warmer than it is now during periods of our not-so-distant history.




Furthermore, looking at longer-term historical records, there appears to be no correlation whatsoever between CO2 and global temperatures.

Even, when a shorter time-frame is looked at, we realize the IPCC "predictions" are always alarmist,always wrong and always predicting far too much increase in temperature, over and over again, consistently:




During the last Medieval warm period- Grapes grew in Northern England, they can't grow there now, because it's too cold.

So what do the Global Warming Cult Alarmists want us to do to stop the natural fluctuation of the Earth's temperature? Get this, they want a fleet of aircraft spraying us with known toxins and pollution!!! To save us from pollution! I couldn't make this up if I wanted to!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBlJn17B8XI[/youtube]
Al Gore talks about how to "fix" the natural cycle taking place that has been proposed by climate change mad-scientist alarmists: Spray the sky to block the sun! "we wouldn't have blue skies anymore"

on the Colbert Report this month they talked about the "solution" this fear-mongering.. spraying us!
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFrPefWzwKM[/youtube]

The guest suggests "climate engineering" and Colbert mentions "chemtrails"

He suggest spraying Sulfuric Acid Pollution into the atmosphere! (which would burn our eyes, and create huge environmental impact) to save us all!

This is what the global warming cult ultimately wants- spray everybody with pollution and toxins.. They're already spraying us in California with Silver Iodide - a known "priority pollutant" by the EPA.

The "solution" is always to spray everyone with airplanes with known toxins and pollution and tax us more ! Are people really going to allow this to happen? I don't know.. Americans area fear-driven and really stupid, so they might.

[89Hen]

Chemtrails. Cripes.

[expandspanos]

Chemtrails. Cripes.

Hey, I'm not the one proposing spraying our sky... - the guy on Ellen (Al Gore) and the guy on Colbert (David Keith) are!.. you can keep your head buried in the sand.. and act like they're not talking about it, but they are.

They are laying out their plans to spray our air right before your very eyes on mainstream TV now- listen to what they're proposing (which is spraying the sky) before buying the Global Warming Alarmist Cult fear mongering.

[JMU DJ]

Climate models couldn't predict the flatlining in temperatures over the last 15 years, what makes you think they have any idea what the temperature of sea level will be in 2100?

Also, 5000 years in geological time is nothing. What about all those ice ages and warm periods coming before that?

Land/Air temperature has increased over the last 15 years. You're also discounting changes in ocean, sea temperature, which has gone up signficantly in the last 15 years/decades.

Recent history:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 0112010389" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 2/abstract" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

10,000 years:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/617" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


If you want to, you can go back and look at the ice core records that now span back 800,000 - 1.5 million years that give pictures of cooling and warming periods. There's plenty of peer reviewed publications out there addressing these findings.


EDIT: In response to Capt'n Crazeballs above.

From the Vostok ice core.

[89Hen]

They are laying out their plans to spray our air

Boxcars... brawk... shackles.... brawk... new world order...

[andy7171]

Chemtrails. Cripes.

Hey, I'm not the one proposing spraying our sky... - the guy on Ellen (Al Gore) and the guy on Colbert (David Keith) are!.. you can keep your head buried in the sand.. and act like they're not talking about it, but they are.

They are laying out their plans to spray our air right before your very eyes on mainstream TV now- listen to what they're proposing (which is spraying the sky) before buying the Global Warming Alarmist Cult fear mongering.

So now Ellen and Colbert are credible news sources?

[Pwns]

Climate models couldn't predict the flatlining in temperatures over the last 15 years, what makes you think they have any idea what the temperature of sea level will be in 2100?

Also, 5000 years in geological time is nothing. What about all those ice ages and warm periods coming before that?

Land/Air temperature has increased over the last 15 years. You're also discounting changes in ocean, sea temperature, which has gone up signficantly in the last 15 years/decades.

Recent history:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 0112010389" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 2/abstract" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

10,000 years:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/617" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


If you want to, you can go back and look at the ice core records that now span back 800,000 - 1.5 million years that give pictures of cooling and warming periods. There's plenty of peer reviewed publications out there addressing these findings.

How is heat content measured as opposed to just ocean surface temperature measurements? How reliable are those measurements. How is the increase in heat content content in the last 15 years compare to the actual heat capacity of all the oceans? How much is that energy on a global scale? Seems kind of fishy to me to use that to explain a lack of warming.

Even climate alarmist admit that they can't explain the lack of warming over the last 15 years.

[expandspanos]

Hey, I'm not the one proposing spraying our sky... - the guy on Ellen (Al Gore) and the guy on Colbert (David Keith) are!.. you can keep your head buried in the sand.. and act like they're not talking about it, but they are.

They are laying out their plans to spray our air right before your very eyes on mainstream TV now- listen to what they're proposing (which is spraying the sky) before buying the Global Warming Alarmist Cult fear mongering.

So now Ellen and Colbert are credible news sources?

Colbert has a number of high-profile guests on. Al Gore is a top "global warming guru" and he's the guy who was talking about it.. you're using a "straw man argument" and it didn't work.

They also talked about it on NPR.. but that's likely not a good enough platform for you either.

http://www.npr.org/2013/10/20/238548240 ... er-climate" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In fact.. people could be talking about it all day long, laying out the plan to turn the blue sky white on every program on TV and Radio and you'd probably still be in denial...

[89Hen]

In fact.. people could be talking about it all day long, laying out the plan to turn the blue sky white on every program on TV and Radio and you'd probably still be in denial...

Or FEMA could even buy coffins in bulk in front of everyone's eyes and then nothing happens...

[Grizalltheway]

Land/Air temperature has increased over the last 15 years. You're also discounting changes in ocean, sea temperature, which has gone up signficantly in the last 15 years/decades.

Recent history:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 0112010389" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 2/abstract" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

10,000 years:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/617" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


If you want to, you can go back and look at the ice core records that now span back 800,000 - 1.5 million years that give pictures of cooling and warming periods. There's plenty of peer reviewed publications out there addressing these findings.

How is heat content measured as opposed to just ocean surface temperature measurements? How reliable are those measurements. How is the increase in heat content content in the last 15 years compare to the actual heat capacity of all the oceans? How much is that energy on a global scale? Seems kind of fishy to me to use that to explain a lack of warming.

Even climate alarmist admit that they can't explain the lack of warming over the last 15 years.

Why don't you run some more reliable experiments of your own and prove us all wrong?

[JMU DJ]

Land/Air temperature has increased over the last 15 years. You're also discounting changes in ocean, sea temperature, which has gone up signficantly in the last 15 years/decades.

Recent history:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 0112010389" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 2/abstract" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

10,000 years:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/617" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


If you want to, you can go back and look at the ice core records that now span back 800,000 - 1.5 million years that give pictures of cooling and warming periods. There's plenty of peer reviewed publications out there addressing these findings.

How is heat content measured as opposed to just ocean surface temperature measurements? How reliable are those measurements. How is the increase in heat content content in the last 15 years compare to the actual heat capacity of all the oceans? How much is that energy on a global scale? Seems kind of fishy to me to use that to explain a lack of warming.

Even climate alarmist admit that they can't explain the lack of warming over the last 15 years.

Oceans represent a massive reservoir and cover 70% of the earth. If you read the articles, they will give you their methodology of measurements, depths at which they measured, reproducibility of their findings, % of increase, where they got the data from, where it was peer reviewed and published, etc.

The specific heat of ocean water is about 4000 J/kg-K whereas the specific heat of air is 1000 J/kg-K, 4-fold less or a 1,000 times less heat capacity than the oceans. Meaning the oceans can carry much, much more heat than the atmosphere. This is why scientist are watching the oceans, it means that the slightest change in ocean temperature can have a massive impact on atmospheric temperature. Below is the heat content change, which you can correlate with the temperature change publications above. Bathythermographs, CDT's, Nansen/Niskin bottles, etc are used to measure ocean heat content.




Which "climate alarmist" do you speak of?



Also, this RA Berner referenced in one of Spanos's graph above has stated in numerous publications of his that CO2 is linked to changes in temperature. The infamous Scotese Berner graph.

[Ibanez]

Spandos, i'm surprised you aren't worried about the stealth blimp.

[JMU DJ]

The Earth's temperature has never been a flat-line.. in fact, the Earth's temperature has been much warmer than it is now during periods of our not-so-distant history.

This graph is misleading as the final data point that you are using to represent present time is actually 1855. If we look at the graph you are using just below, this final data point is where we were coming out of the "Little Ice Age." So again, misleading to say "now" or "present time" when using the above graph.




This graph above that you posted is also taken from data from a 1965 publication where the last data point is 1950. It is also just a projected representation of 50 year averages. Also, there are no units on the y-axis, which is also a cause for concern. How do we know what we're looking at if we can't even gauge proper scaling? Since 1990, the IPCC has not used this projection, every report since then has been updated to represent more accurate projections. If you look at modern temperatures, they're actually higher than any time in the past. Below is a projection using 13 different sources with more up to date data.

Furthermore, looking at longer-term historical records, there appears to be no correlation whatsoever between CO2 and global temperatures.

RA Brener has numerous publications showing a correlation between CO2 and temperature change. You should look them up. The above graph is also based on modeling and not physical data. Models are meant to be tested, not used as scientific proof. Below is 800,000 year of physical data.

Even, when a shorter time-frame is looked at, we realize the IPCC "predictions" are always alarmist,always wrong and always predicting far too much increase in temperature, over and over again, consistently:

Incorrect, their predictions have actually faired well. Also, the above is missing labeling on the y-axis. What am I looking at? Again, models are just models, but the IPCC models have held up thus far with actual measurements from NASA, NOAA and the Hadley Centre.



IPCC AR5 Figure 1.4. Solid lines and squares represent measured average global surface temperature changes by NASA (blue), NOAA (yellow), and the UK Hadley Centre (green). The colored shading shows the projected range of surface warming in the IPCC First Assessment Report (1990 FAR; yellow), Second (1995 SAR; green), Third (2001 TAR; blue), and Fourth (2007 AR4; red).

During the last Medieval warm period- Grapes grew in Northern England, they can't grow there now, because it's too cold.

The Romans tried to grow grapes in Lincolnshire, that's as far north as they went. Today there are vinyards producing wine in Yorkshire, which is to the north west of Lincolnshire.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... parts.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't have time to touch the rest of your post...

[kalm]

Damn. Koch brothers need to update their material so that Z, pwns, and Spanos have something to fire back with.

[AZGrizFan]

Damn. Koch brothers need to update their material so that Z, pwns, and Spanos have something to fire back with.

Sorry, I look at these threads as "fire and forget"....offseason material for us dregs that aren't still in the playoffs...

But I'll leave JMU DJ with this: "If you can't explain the pause, you can't explain the cause."

[CID1990]

Chemtrails. Cripes.

Hey, I'm not the one proposing spraying our sky... - the guy on Ellen (Al Gore) and the guy on Colbert (David Keith) are!.. you can keep your head buried in the sand.. and act like they're not talking about it, but they are.

They are laying out their plans to spray our air right before your very eyes on mainstream TV now- listen to what they're proposing (which is spraying the sky) before buying the Global Warming Alarmist Cult fear mongering.

Al Gore is as nutty as you are and like you, nobody listens to him.

Especially the people who would spray dog sh!t in the air.

[JMU DJ]

But I'll leave JMU DJ with this: "If you can't explain the pause, you can't explain the cause."

Are we still talking about climate change or are we switching over to Mary mother of Jesus?

[AZGrizFan]

But I'll leave JMU DJ with this: "If you can't explain the pause, you can't explain the cause."

Are we still talking about climate change or are we switching over to Mary mother of Jesus?

Wait. What?

[Grizalltheway]

Damn. Koch brothers need to update their material so that Z, pwns, and Spanos have something to fire back with.

Sorry, I look at these threads as "fire and forget"....offseason material for us dregs that aren't still in the playoffs...

But I'll leave JMU DJ with this: "If you can't explain the pause, you can't explain the cause."

Nice cop out.

[D1B]

Sorry, I look at these threads as "fire and forget"....offseason material for us dregs that aren't still in the playoffs...

But I'll leave JMU DJ with this: "If you can't explain the pause, you can't explain the cause."

Nice cop out.

Z is an idiot, plain and simple. Use to think he was a sharp guy until the infamous Palin "fawn pas".

Now he's at the kids' table with SuperHermaphrodite and Expandos.

[JMU DJ]

Are we still talking about climate change or are we switching over to Mary mother of Jesus?

Wait. What?

That was a period joke.

[Pwns]

DJ, you can find plenty of news articles from this year where it is basically admitted that the pause in warming can't be explained. If this ocean heat content explanation is really something new, it reeks of changing the subject to distract from that fact that predictions weren't working. From the figure in that Physics Letters A paper it looks like the accumulation of heat in the ocean was more rapid before the pause in warming. So why would ocean heat content all of the sudden be an issue?

I don't question the correlation between atmospheric CO2 and mean temps. What I do question is how atmospheric CO2 can be affected by just human carbon emissions alone when human activity is responsible for such a small percentage of CO2 production. What about microbial populations? Plankton? Insects? Those biomasses are enormous and produce far more CO2 than all human activity. It's been estimated 40% of the phytoplankton biomass has disappeared in the last 50 (don't remember the exact number) years. Even a lot of the scientists who study it aren't convinced that climate change is really responsible for that. That's a huge biomass that is no longer consuming CO2.

Is it really not possible that human activity is causing climate change but that reducing emissions won't do s*** and were not the cause to begin with? Seems reasonable to me.

[JMU DJ]

DJ, you can find plenty of news articles from this year where it is basically admitted that the pause in warming can't be explained. If this ocean heat content explanation is really something new, it reeks of changing the subject to distract from that fact that predictions weren't working. From the figure in that Physics Letters A paper it looks like the accumulation of heat in the ocean was more rapid before the pause in warming. So why would ocean heat content all of the sudden be an issue?

I don't question the correlation between atmospheric CO2 and mean temps. What I do question is how atmospheric CO2 can be affected by just human carbon emissions alone when human activity is responsible for such a small percentage of CO2 production. What about microbial populations? Plankton? Insects? Those biomasses are enormous and produce far more CO2 than all human activity. It's been estimated 40% of the phytoplankton biomass has disappeared in the last 50 (don't remember the exact number) years. Even a lot of the scientists who study it aren't convinced that climate change is really responsible for that. That's a huge biomass that is no longer consuming CO2.

Is it really not possible that human activity is causing climate change but that reducing emissions won't do s*** and were not the cause to begin with? Seems reasonable to me.

Ocean content isn't "All of a sudden" and issue, that's why there are historical measurements. If you recall, there has been discussion for the past decade on the affects warming is having on on coral reefs and on ocean populations. This isn't something new that I am springing on you. People tend to focus on tangible things, such as the weather outside today in their local area as personal measurements for how they view the world and not how the world is actually moving or working.

Check this Science paper from 1999 talking about ocean warming and phytoplankton:

Data from recent oceanographic cruises show that phytoplankton community structure in the Ross Sea is related to mixed layer depth. Diatoms dominate in highly stratified waters, whereas Phaeocystis antarctica assemblages dominate where waters are more deeply mixed. The drawdown of both carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitrate per mole of phosphate and the rate of new production by diatoms are much lower than that measured for P. antarctica. Consequently, the capacity of the biological community to draw down atmospheric CO2 and transport it to the deep ocean could diminish dramatically if predicted increases in upper ocean stratification due to climate warming should occur.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/283/5400/365.short" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Also a 2007 Nature paper discussing the same issue:

Contributing roughly half of the biosphere's net primary production (NPP)1, 2, photosynthesis by oceanic phytoplankton is a vital link in the cycling of carbon between living and inorganic stocks. Each day, more than a hundred million tons of carbon in the form of CO2 are fixed into organic material by these ubiquitous, microscopic plants of the upper ocean, and each day a similar amount of organic carbon is transferred into marine ecosystems by sinking and grazing. The distribution of phytoplankton biomass and NPP is defined by the availability of light and nutrients (nitrogen, phosphate, iron). These growth-limiting factors are in turn regulated by physical processes of ocean circulation, mixed-layer dynamics, upwelling, atmospheric dust deposition, and the solar cycle. Satellite measurements of ocean colour provide a means of quantifying ocean productivity on a global scale and linking its variability to environmental factors. Here we describe global ocean NPP changes detected from space over the past decade. The period is dominated by an initial increase in NPP of 1,930 teragrams of carbon a year (Tg C yr-1), followed by a prolonged decrease averaging 190 Tg C yr-1. These trends are driven by changes occurring in the expansive stratified low-latitude oceans and are tightly coupled to coincident climate variability. This link between the physical environment and ocean biology functions through changes in upper-ocean temperature and stratification, which influence the availability of nutrients for phytoplankton growth. The observed reductions in ocean productivity during the recent post-1999 warming period provide insight on how future climate change can alter marine food webs.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 05317.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Scientist have, are and will be studying this. It's not new.

[Pwns]

Like I said, a lot of scientists are saying rising ocean temperatures can't really account for the phytoplankton die-off. One article from a few months ago.

http://theterramarproject.org/thedailyc ... es-alarms/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And what I was saying is that what does the ocean heat content have to do with the fact that the pause in warming can't be explained? The graph from the PLA article you posted shows clearly the heat accumulation was more rapid before the pause.

[JMU DJ]

Like I said, a lot of scientists are saying rising ocean temperatures can't really account for the phytoplankton die-off. One article from a few months ago.

http://theterramarproject.org/thedailyc ... es-alarms/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And what I was saying is that what does the ocean heat content have to do with the fact that the pause in warming can't be explained? The graph from the PLA article you posted shows clearly the heat accumulation was more rapid before the pause.

From the article you link, which by the way supports global warming/climate change:

To set matters straight, the German scientists modelled a range of temperature sensitivities. “Our results show that the biological response of plankton to a warming ocean can be even more important than changes in the ocean’s physical structure,” he says.

In particular, levels of chlorophyll a, which phytoplankton use to synthesise sunlight, are in decline. (Chlorophyll is a green plant pigment that absorbs the solar energy needed to produce carbohydrates from carbon dioxide and water.)

“The decrease in global oceanic chlorophyll a is further evidence for global ocean warming,” Mr Olonscheck says.

Carbon emissions are leading to acidification and de-oxygenation of the oceans. These processes are happening at a rate much faster than in the past, and so scientists expect significant changes in ocean flora and fauna. Might these one day lead to the extinction of some marine species?

“This is well possible,” says environmental scientist Richard Twitchett, of Plymouth University in Britain.

The fossil record, he explains, shows that the biggest of the world’s major five mass extinctions are associated with global warming, as are a number of smaller events.

This is because as global temperatures rose, oxygen levels fell, thus depriving marine life of a vital necessity. During the Jurassic extinction alone, more than a quarter of ocean genera, or groups of closely related species, vanished, as did about 5 per cent of biological families, comprising several genera.

Few experts would disagree that global climate change is affecting today’s marine life. “This is not hypothetical – negative effects are coming to light every day,” says marine biologist Pam Allen, of the Australian Marine Conservation Society.

There are several reasons for this, she explains. As climate change causes oceans to acidify, the carbonate shells of animals such as shellfish and corals become thinner. Warming oceans, combined with overfishing, lead to blooms of jellyfish so large that fish populations cannot compete.

“The effects on coral reefs are evident – warmer waters resulting from climate change are causing bleaching events on a massive scale,” Ms Allen says.

She finds it hard to predict the proportion of marine life that is likely to be affected by climate change. “Ocean animals are intimately intertwined, just like on land, and unravelling food webs and ecological associations are a life’s work.”

They all agree, warming is having an impact. Also, that Jellyfish point is interesting considering the blooms that were seen this year.



The ocean heat content is one indication that warming hasn't paused. If warming had paused globally, you wouldn't see an increase in the oceanic heat content. By the logic in this thread, the oceans temperature/heat content should have "plateaued" as well in the past decade. To my eye, the PLA graph looks like it slows or is steady between 1980-1995 to 98 (MRI/JMA and CSIRO) and then spikes up again. Just averaging that based on eye though.