World's climate warming faster than feared, scientists say

reply to post by ChesterJohn


No i was not speaking of the ozone. Our, rather our mother earth's shield is much more than this. Your still thinking inside the box that they want you to be stuck in. Tesla was brilliant, course he had help from aliens. But every little spec in the universe has energy and corresponding energy field.

Science is just beginning to understand this. Our shield is made of all this including the magnetics mentioned. In the sense that the invisible lines of energy looks like the shavings experiments we have all done. Everything we do effects our shield. The pole shift is another example that affects part of the shield.

The depleted ozone is also a mess for us.
The Bot

Many Global Warming supporters forget that in 1990 the story went like this, "in thirty years the oceans will have rose 1 meter" and of course they show these maps of major cities inundated with water.

Then by 2000 it was moved to 60years. 2010 one mayor was saying 50 years.

Ok it has been 20 plus years and the oceans have not risen half as much or even a fourth or a third or a tenth of what they have been predicting.

Then last month NASA said their models were wrong.

Duh observation proved that.

reply to post by ChesterJohn


Can you quote an actual scientific paper that confidently predicted in 1990 (or thereabouts) that seas level would rise by 1m in 30 years?

Certainly mode predictions from those days have been proven wrong - just look at Arctic summer sea ice extent!

Bear in mind that what you read in the newspapers is as reliable and useful as rice-paper teapot. And anything politicians and media commentators say somewhat less reliable. If you want to know what science say, read what science says.

AndyMayhew
reply to post by ChesterJohn

 

Can you quote an actual scientific paper that confidently predicted in 1990 (or thereabouts) that seas level would rise by 1m in 30 years?

Certainly mode predictions from those days have been proven wrong - just look at Arctic summer sea ice extent!

Bear in mind that what you read in the newspapers is as reliable and useful as rice-paper teapot. And anything politicians and media commentators say somewhat less reliable. If you want to know what science say, read what science says.

Not the 1990 story there wasn't much online then. I read it via a newspaper article in Maui Times or Rolling Stones I can't remember which.

the 2000 is very easy to find just google it.

and in 2010 Mayor Ed Hagedorn of Puerto Princesa Palawan Philippines.

reply to post by AndyMayhew


my point was global warming predictions are not progressing as they said it would. If in 1990 then we should be already near that ocean rise.

If 2000 we should be 25% of the way there but it is not risen.

So global Warming guys cannot be trusted nor as you pointed out MSM, or scientific consensus.

reply to post by ChesterJohn


You haven't referenced any scientific papers that said sea levels would rise that much. Not saying they don't exist, mind. But of course, science by it's nature is only as good as what we know at the time and is likely to change tomorrow. After all, science once told us Pluto was the most distant planet from the Sun!!!!!

reply to post by ChesterJohn


Please feel free to stop by Chicago, right now it's 0 degrees out, quite warm. And this Monday we have a HIGH of -7 w/ a low of -15 and when you incorporate windchill into the equation you're hitting -20 to -30 out... Yes, global warming is very real here....

reply to post by jhn7537


And in Australia it's 50c+

touche

This thread goes very well with the recent pol data that points out that a large percentage of people still believe in creationism.

They are sailing ships across the Arctic in the summer time, that is about as proof positive as you can get.

The real truth is that global warming is happening faster than predicted.

reply to post by ChesterJohn


So if I write a piece for Rolling Stone or if I'm a retired or serving politician claiming that the sky is going to permanently turn red and then it doesn't happen, it's science that's wrong?

Science didn't claim in 1990 that the oceans would rise by 1 meter by this time.

jhn7537
reply to post by ChesterJohn

 

Please feel free to stop by Chicago, right now it's 0 degrees out, quite warm. And this Monday we have a HIGH of -7 w/ a low of -15 and when you incorporate windchill into the equation you're hitting -20 to -30 out... Yes, global warming is very real here....

I was in Chicago in 1968 and it was one of the coldest winters at that time. Then in 1979 it got down to -5 during the winter. cold weather is not uncommon in Chicago it was the warm winters that were uncommon.

AndyMayhew
reply to post by jhn7537

 

And in Australia it's 50c+

touche

It has been that hot in Southern California 110 in San Bernardino just last summer. But that is the average.

InverseLookingGlass
Corporations are funding the science denial movement and smearing scientists.

The only people denying science are those pushing the man-made-global-warming hoax.

reply to post by ChesterJohn


Melting ice is causing a fresh water layer on the surface of the north Atlantic, this is eventually going to cause the warm, heavier, more saline Gulf stream to sink at northern latitudes, and of course heat conveyed up the gulf stream from lower latitudes is what makes Europe's climate livable. As the ice IS melting and no amount of global warming denying can refute that, we are headed for a colder climate at some point (now). Its a lot more complicated than just the earth warming up. Thats where a lot of people get lost. TPTB know this, and they are preparing for it. At least for a small segment of the population, the rest of us are toast.

reply to post by ChesterJohn



Its warm around here today at a crisp 20 with a heat wave coming to below zero in a few days. Stupid GW.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

I try and focus on those who do it for a living for seeing who says what on such a complex and multi-layered issue. Such as these examples here....

:-)

From your links:
Anthony Watts (blogger)

Anthony Watts grew up in Indiana. He attended Purdue University. According to writer John Grant, there is no record of him graduating and he has been unwilling to discuss his education.

The Heartland Institute published Watts' preliminary report on weather station data, titled Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?. Watts has been featured as a speaker at Heartland Institute's International Conference on Climate Change, for which he acknowledges receiving payment. Documents obtained from the Heartland Institute and made public in February 2012 reveal that the Institute had agreed to help Watts raise $88,000 to set up a website, "devoted to accessing the new temperature data from NOAA's web site and converting them into easy-to-understand graphs that can be easily found and understood by weathermen and the general interested public." The documents state that $44,000 had already been pledged by an anonymous donor, and the Institute would seek to raise the rest. Watts explained the funding by stating, "Heartland simply helped me find a donor for funding a special project having to do with presenting some new NOAA surface data in a public friendly graphical form, something NOAA themselves is not doing, but should be. I approached them in the fall of 2011 asking for help, on this project not the other way around." and added, "They do not regularly fund me nor my WUWT website, I take no salary from them of any kind."

And James Taylor is a senior fellow - at the Heartland Institute:

The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian public policy think tank based in Chicago, which states that it advocates free market policies. The Institute is designated as a 501(c)(3) non-profit by the Internal Revenue Service and has a full-time staff of 31, including editors and senior fellows, as well as 222 unpaid policy advisors. Heartland's 990 form in 2011 reported revenues of $4.7 million. The Institute was founded in 1984 and conducts research and advocacy work on issues including government spending, taxation, healthcare, education, tobacco policy, hydraulic fracturing global warming, information technology, and free-market environmentalism.

In the 1990s, the group worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question serious cancer risks to secondhand smoke, and to lobby against government public-health reforms. More recently, the Institute has focused on questioning the science of human-caused climate change, and was described by the New York Times as "the primary American organization pushing climate change skepticism." The Institute has sponsored meetings of climate change skeptics, and has been reported to promote public school curricula challenging the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change.

en.wikipedia.org...

Not exactly scientists - not exactly unbiased

Meanwhile:

I think you should take up Kali's challenge

Go on - you seem pretty confident

:-)

reply to post by Spiramirabilis


Ahhh.. Thanks for the reminder! I had gotten totally side tracked and forgotten about this.

First.. Let me say up front and clearly because it needs to be without any misunderstanding in this debate. I absolutely do NOT trust "reports" that don't have corroboration I can independently locate and confirm exist as numbers in raw data. After Email-Gate and other scandals like it which show DELIBERATE fabrication and miscommunication of data relating to climate and temperature figures? Everything, from both sides, is suspect in my mind.

The one side, very obviously, because this is a political thing as it's come to evolve over the years and Conservatives are seemingly programmed to dislike Enviro-positions or something. At least that seems to be how we're supposed to think. The OTHER side has every reason to fudge this data beyond reason because there are billions and quite possibly many tens of billions to be made in direct profits by literally charging for air and what is put into it. Never to SOLVE the problem ...but to "bring financial accountability" ...which means redistributing corporate wealth into the hands of those regulating them. Carbon Exchanges..to put it another way.

My position of not taking either side at face value without corroboration ..of everything... probably ends the debate with some but so be it. Both sides of this have lied through the press and world stage often enough to destroy trust completely.

-----

Having said that, I had put a little time into this the other day before getting sidetracked with personal matters... What I found was about what I expected to find, quite frankly, but the effort to look is always interesting and educational.

I started building a spreadsheet of cities and temps for the last century, but then found someone else had already done much more and with far more cities than I'd planned.

National / Global Temp History and Trends

That shows some interesting trends and I caution people to read the link on 'how to use this tool' for what the creator himself says about accuracy and how to take the data being presented. The raw datasets are also available and why I abandoned my own effort. It became obvious we were basing off the same gov archived raw data numbers.

In other places, the trend is all together less clear. Such as Denver, who just experienced the harshest winter for snowfall in 20 years.

Denver Historic Snowfalls

It was the 91/92 winter since they had anything to match the last one and trends there show a pretty fair average running over vs. below for not just years but decades, going back.

Kansas City likewise shows it's high's, lows and recorded trends being very unclear as to a pattern.


Now, I've not said I don't believe the Climate is changing, because it is. It always is and can change radically, beyond our frame of reference to imagine IMO, by natural shifts. I am very very skeptical, at best, of direct human influence on the global system itself. We're a small presence for numbers in an ocean of space compared to a few volcanoes blowing large at once to REALLY teach us climate change.

I'm not even certain as to direction of change, as dueling headlines as well as data cited above (with plenty more to conclusively show NO conclusive pattern, for how I believe it reads at the moment) can't agree.

So we can argue about how there are or are not absolutes or settled science here ...while I hope science itself keeps looking with an open mind and not politically blinded. We know, with factual definition right in the report itself, the UN Climate Change Study EXCLUDED some factors to FOCUS on others. (Sun vs. Man). How can anything be taken seriously for science if *ANYTHING* reasonable is excluded in that way?

It can't...so I'm into the raw data ..and the raw data, before computer models tell us what we're supposed to think of it (and prove themselves wrong, regularly) simply isn't clear or settled.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

As much effort as you put into that Wrabbit...gonna say, not here to toss around your facts and figures with you - you aren't a climate scientist. Are you? :-)

I was only trying to make a simple point - you said you put your trust in certain kinds of individuals - but didn't really suss out your examples. When you present information like that in a thread - it looks like you've actually said something, when in fact all you've said is that you trust charlatans

Sorry - all your facts and figures mean very little to me as compared to the ones I'm reading elsewhere

Did you check out my video? Maybe if you do watch it you'll understand why. No disrespect intended - it's just that we all have our favored sources - don't we? :-)

As Kali, Phage - and many others have tried (in vain) to explain: climate change does not mean uniform warming - it means we'll be (and already are) experiencing an increasingly erratic climate. Things can only get so erratic before an ecosystem reaches a tipping point. We depend on our ecosystems for - everything - including food and water

But, whatever Wrabbit - we all have to find the truth in our own way. While the chuckleheads laugh and make their lame jabs at Al Gore, there are (thankfully) serious and dedicated individuals working very hard on trying to understand the situation and then work out the best approaches and solutions to the very real problems we all may be facing

This comforts me - a little

There are also other people working on this - they're the same people who tried to convince us that smoking isn't bad for us

Potato - potahto?

:-)

openminded2011
reply to post by ChesterJohn

 

Melting ice is causing a fresh water layer on the surface of the north Atlantic, this is eventually going to cause the warm, heavier, more saline Gulf stream to sink at northern latitudes, and of course heat conveyed up the gulf stream from lower latitudes is what makes Europe's climate livable. As the ice IS melting and no amount of global warming denying can refute that, we are headed for a colder climate at some point (now). Its a lot more complicated than just the earth warming up. Thats where a lot of people get lost. TPTB know this, and they are preparing for it. At least for a small segment of the population, the rest of us are toast.

edit on 4-1-2014 by openminded2011 because: (no reason given)

So basically fresh water and salt water don't mix to become all Salt water?

reply to post by Spiramirabilis

As much effort as you put into that Wrabbit...gonna say, not here to toss around your facts and figures with you - you aren't a climate scientist. Are you? :-)

Well, I wasn't replying strictly to you. You may have noticed, earlier in this thread, I had stated I'd be back with some data to support what I was saying. That is what I just did. Your post happened to be the one I attached the previously committed information to.

I also didn't realize I required academic credentials to take part in these discussions. I still don't.

Did you check out my video? Maybe if you do watch it you'll understand why. No disrespect intended - it's just that we all have our favored sources - don't we? :-)

Huh?

But, whatever Wrabbit - we all have to find the truth in our own way. While the chuckleheads laugh and make their lame jabs at Al Gore, there are (thankfully) serious and dedicated individuals working very hard on trying to understand the situation and then work out the best approaches and solutions to the very real problems we all may be facing

Chuckleheads? Lame jabs? I'm sorry we can't have a conversation on this.

Have a good day and I'll continue with the thread for other replies which may come or I may take interest in.