Inconvenient Truth for Al Gore As His North Pole Sums Don't Add Up

reply to post by Nickmare


Not even remotely true in any possible way.
We have ways of gauging, ROUGHLY, global temperatures millions of years back. From that ROUGH data we can easily see that the Earth has been warmer and it has been cooler.

We are not talking about thousand year cycles.
We are talking about million year cycles.

To suggest the Earth has never been warmer when it was born of fire and friction is not the fruit of clear thinking.

reply to post by RelentlessDespot


No of course not. The Earth has been warmer. But those times would not be suitable environments for human life.

What science is showing is that as far back as we can measure, there hasn't been a warmer period on Earth during a time humans existed.

I mispoke when I said we are warming more then ever before. I simply meant Earth is warming more then it has before with human life present.

[edit on 16-12-2009 by Nickmare]

True, most of the time we've been around(That we know of) it's been anywhere from slightly cooler to down right frigid.
The problem is:
It is not up to us to choose.

The planet will do whatever it wants, guided by the sun, mostly.

Our job is to adapt
Nothing more.

reply to post by rnaa

Intuitively, I would expect a trend towards small 'clumps' of ice scattered over a wider area to be an indicator that polar ice is not freezing as well as it has in the past.

In short, we are seeing a slushy forming, not an ice cube.

I'm responding to myself here, dig?

I just found this item, validating my 'intuitive' expectation. Ain't I just the beeze neeze?

Multiyear Arctic ice 'effectively gone'

Very scary:

Albedo effect

The Arctic is warming up three times more quickly than the rest of the Earth, in part because of the reflectivity, or the albedo feedback effect, of ice.

As more and more ice melts, larger expanses of darker sea water are exposed. These absorb more sunlight than the ice and cause the water to heat up more quickly, thereby melting more ice.

Barber says the ice is now being melted both by rays from the sun as well as from below by the warmer water.

Scientists are also seeing more cyclones, which pick up force as they absorb heat from the warmer water. The cyclones help generate waves that break up ice sheets and also dump large amounts of snow, which has an insulating effect and prevents the ice sheets from thickening.

After a long search, Barber's ice breaker finally found a 16 kilometre wide floe of multiyear ice that was around six to eight metres thick. But as the crew watched, the floe was hit by a series of waves, and disintegrated in five minutes.

"The Arctic is an early indicator of what we can expect at the global scale as we move through the next few decades ... So we should be paying attention to this very carefully," Barber says.

[edit on 17/12/2009 by rnaa]

Originally posted by kcfusion

Originally posted by piddles
I really hate how defensive the GWing side has become.

Honestly, they should just change their title to Global Climate Destabilization (is GCD really so hard?) to make themselves more relevant.


oh, and whoever said "This jackass almost became our president" or whatever:

You liked W Bush and his dishonest way of winning an election? LOLOLOLOLZZZZZZZZZ




From my perspective: There's a chance that Gore may be sensationalizing this data but on the other hand, they recently had a great deal of trouble with those e-mails being taken out of context. I want to think that they wouldn't do something as stupid as outwardly lie after a fiasco that has people who know nothing about the weather saying "case closed".

goddamn glenn beck

Please tell me how you have come to the conclusion that the emails were taken out of context? Any links? Did you actually look at the emails??

yes I actually looked at the e-mails. Way to be condescending about it.

and as for links (even though you could have googled it yourself)

www.ucsusa.org...

www.phawker.com...

thethirdestate.net...



oh, and I'm amazed at the level of ignorance being spread on the forum on this topic. Republicans spin it to make it look like they "won", in a very George W. Bush "mission accomplished lol" kind of way. I don't see enough proof that isn't happening. As a result, right wingers are doing everything they can to pander to conspiracy theorists, which leads to the citing of Fox News as a source (shouldn't be allowed on this forum because of blatantly obvious that they support the right. Name another news network that has actually funded protesters as oppose to making money off of them by reporting about them.)



I refuse to believe we can create landfills miles deep and wide that overflowing with our discarded computers, cell phones, and other highly toxic garbage that won't break down over time isn't affecting the earth in any way.

I think all skeptics can really say is "SEE IT'S NOT GETTING HOTTER, IT'S GETTING COLDER" like it's a good thing.


but I at least respect their opinion.

but please insult me in some other way, you really make your side of the argument look great.

Originally posted by piddles I refuse to believe we can create landfills miles deep and wide that overflowing with our discarded computers, cell phones, and other highly toxic garbage that won't break down over time isn't affecting the earth in any way.

such dogmatic positioning does not aide understanding and reason

reply to post by Nickmare


Rubbish.

The latest 2 (and only the latest) were the roman warm period, and the medievil warm period.

Both of which were warmer than now.

Originally posted by blueorder

Originally posted by piddles I refuse to believe we can create landfills miles deep and wide that overflowing with our discarded computers, cell phones, and other highly toxic garbage that won't break down over time isn't affecting the earth in any way.

such dogmatic positioning does not aide understanding and reason

true, this is closer to being an opinion because it hasn't been officially proven. However, do you really think we can just keep being as wasteful and inefficient as we are and absolutely nothing is going to happen?

Originally posted by piddles
true, this is closer to being an opinion because it hasn't been officially proven. However, do you really think we can just keep being as wasteful and inefficient as we are and absolutely nothing is going to happen?

I am an environmentalist, just not a AGW one, I can fully support efforts to avoid waste, to encourage technologies that mean we are not dependent on oil from some backward arab nation, the cleaning of our air (which has improved dramatically in the cities of the UK over the last few decades), our water- I support conserving our countryside, our habitats etc- all practically, tangible benefits that it would be crazy to oppose.

I just oppose the harem scarem antics of many on the AGW who as using this rather intangible proposition "in 50 years there is a 75% chance of x happening (accoding to some scientists etc)" in order to increase government control, remove national sovereignty etc- when people such as Al Gore tell me the "debate is over" it is all I can do to refrain from putting my boot through the tv

[edit on 17-12-2009 by blueorder]

reply to post by blueorder


I hate Al Gore saying the debate is over as much as I hate Glenn Beck for saying the debate is over (among other things)


I kind of just see it like this:

people=totally F%*#)% stupid


Telling them that there is no global warming leads to things like, complete disregard for dumping and littering.



extreme example but somehow, TOTALLY feasible.

Originally posted by piddles
reply to post by blueorder

 

I hate Al Gore saying the debate is over as much as I hate Glenn Beck for saying the debate is over (among other things)


I kind of just see it like this:

people=totally F%*#)% stupid


Telling them that there is no global warming leads to things like, complete disregard for dumping and littering.



extreme example but somehow, TOTALLY feasible.

there should always be a balance and a degree of open mindedness on the issue- I would probably be called an AGW sceptic, though I do not for one moment believe we truly know either way.


Thing is, we were doing bloody well in tangible environmental matters such as littering, dumping, cleaning the air etc, before the AGW movement went nuts and had the complicity of mass media and govt- from my perspective, any disregard for intangible environmental matters stems almost entirely from their abuse and authoritarian handling of the AGW discussion

reply to post by budski

Rubbish.

The latest 2 (and only the latest) were the roman warm period, and the medievil warm period.

Both of which were warmer than now.

Rubbish squared.

Both these events were LOCAL, REGIONAL events, NOT GLOBAL. The current discussion is about GLOBAL events.

Excellent discussion here about the MWP.

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by budski

 

Rubbish.

The latest 2 (and only the latest) were the roman warm period, and the medievil warm period.

Both of which were warmer than now.

Rubbish squared.

Both these events were LOCAL, REGIONAL events, NOT GLOBAL. The current discussion is about GLOBAL events.

Excellent discussion here about the MWP.

And rubbish cubed, because as we have seen, some parts of the globe cool, while other parts of the globe allegedly warm, which is why they changed the name from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"

For global warming to occur, the whole globe has to warm, and that just hasn't been the case.
The AGW proponents will try and use an average rise to convince us, but that doesn't work either.

In fact the average rise was greater during both the MWP and RWP.

Please try and do some research and make sure of your facts.

reply to post by budski


Any study I've seen that says MWP/RWP were warmer are older studies or localized studies that have since been disputed by newer studies. I'm willing to look at newer studies that say the contrary.

The temperature of Earth is rising.

And actually...there was no name change. Global warming refers to the increase of Earth's temperature due to greenhouse gases. Climate change includes global warming, but it also includes non-temperature related climate changes (precipitation, sea level, etc.)

PS: No need to get snarky.


[edit on 17-12-2009 by Nickmare]

Whether the earth is actually warming or not, is not the real point here IMO. (I believe it is)

What's important is can people realisticaly make a significant change to this trend? The answer is no. So then, this is another strategy to bring on a one world goverment.

(putting on my fire suit) This is all in the book of Revelation. You won't be able to buy or sell in this new one world government, unless you take the 'mark of the beast'. (taking cover now)

reply to post by shasta9600


Yeah it definitely is. I read in the paper recently the police force is thinking about uniting to form a national police force. This would abolish local police departments. This would be another step to unifiy institutions into the one world Government. They creep up with these things and never quite explain the bigger picture behind it. Also in the news there is talks about aboloshing local news to have just a national news corporation. Thus, centralizing the flow of information to just one medium.

I am talking on behalf of the UK and I am pretty sure these are steps towards the one world Government. The message certainly is not hidden, it's a slap in the face if people really look behind the scenes and think.

Originally posted by IrnBruFiend
reply to post by shasta9600

 

I am talking on behalf of the UK and I am pretty sure these are steps towards the one world Government. The message certainly is not hidden, it's a slap in the face if people really look behind the scenes and think.

The 'Euro' wouldn't have anything to do with a one world government, would it? Naa, couldn't be.

earth atmosphere cooling down


anybody seen this? the atmosphere is cooling due too the lack of solar activity.
Its allready cooling down and I can see it , we have here in the Netherlands snow snow and snow its cold across Europe records are going to be broken.
In the USA its cold and its snowing all over the world in the winter region its extremly cold and the past 5 years are getting colder and colder by the years coming.

All gore can spread his lies but we have our own eyes and ears and we see different think then they claim.
the past summer wasn' t that hot it was rather cold in comparison to 4 years ago it was wet and around 20 degrees to 25 degrees celsius.
In Danmark its also colder as usually its snowing overthere and they are speaking about earth getting warmer its not being so cold in the past decades.

[edit on 17-12-2009 by MarkLuitzen]

reply to post by MarkLuitzen


A quote from the article you linked:

"While that may seem to contradict the idea of global warming, it has long been known that carbon dioxide causes warming in the lowest part of the atmosphere and cooling in the upper layers of the atmosphere"

And where I live winter was late... but when we finally got it there was too much snow at once.

[edit on 17-12-2009 by Nickmare]

reply to post by budski

And rubbish cubed, because as we have seen, some parts of the globe cool, while other parts of the globe allegedly warm, which is why they changed the name from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"

For global warming to occur, the whole globe has to warm, and that just hasn't been the case.
The AGW proponents will try and use an average rise to convince us, but that doesn't work either.

In fact the average rise was greater during both the MWP and RWP.

Please try and do some research and make sure of your facts.

Please try and read the link I provided and obsorb the information contained therein. The pretty colored pictures should be easy for you to understand if the text is beyond you.

During the MWP, Only the Europe and the North Atlantic experienced warming. The current episode is most certainly a global phenomenon.



[edit on 17/12/2009 by rnaa]