Global Warming

[IQS.RLOW]

You wax and wane so often SN, all you are doing is reaffirming your faith but still ignoring that the catastrophic piece of your CAGW is dead as a dodo. It's strange that you wish for death and destruction based on a false premise and seem to be despondent when your little doomsday scenario doesn't seem to be panning out as you hoped.

I'd call that a mental illness.

[IQS.RLOW]

Here's another climate activist that is 'suffering' like you SN.

Tim Blair has some words of advice for what ails you
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph ... _failures/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


The unbearable sadness of climate activism:
Nicole Thornton remembers the exact moment her curious case of depression became too real to ignore. It was five years ago and the environmental scientist – a trained biologist and ecologist – was writing a rather dry PhD on responsible household water use.
Fair enough. That would make anyone depressed.
Thornton had always been easily upset by apathy towards, and denial of, environmental issues. But now she began to notice an oddly powerful personal reaction to “the small stuff” – like people littering, or neighbours chopping down an old tree.
So she’s a bossy type who wants others to obey her. No wonder Nicole is attracted to environmentalism.
She found herself suddenly and strongly enveloped by unfamiliar feelings of helplessnes, hopelessness, anger and anxiety.
The poor woman must be a Carlton supporter.
“It’s strange. Sometimes you just don’t feel you’re making headway in the time you’ve got, before it’s too late for the planet,” Thornton says. “All these little things weigh you down, and then the big stuff breaks you.”

[Rorschach]

Well I've seen no debunking by you there SN.
But I did notice that the new Network and correct data is backing up what many of us have been telling people in denial and their fellow alarmists for many years now.

I can only counter your debunking by providing the most up-to-date scientific statements that confirm man made climate change is real. except you didn't

All you provide are articles stating the opposite. Mostly pointing to individual stats then claim the whole theory is a fabrication. The fact you are in denial should worry you

We have established that the forecasts to temperature were wrong. That is, the increase temperature was not there over the last 10 years but an object can absorb energy without increasing in temperature can't it. What we've established is that temperature stations we have been saying have been providing faulty/incorrect data from the very beginning have now been recognised as doing so... finally... GIGO

[Rorschach]

In fact, the experts continued, the White House climate report is “so grossly flawed” that it should play “no role” in analyses of U.S. energy policy and CO2 regulatory schemes. “As this rebuttal makes clear, the [National Climate Assessment] provides no scientific basis whatsoever for regulating CO2 emissions,” they added. That statement, of course, cuts to the heart of the issue: Global-warming theorists claim carbon dioxide, exhaled by humans, is “pollution” that must be taxed, regulated, and used as the basis for a draconian global climate regime led by the UN to ration energy.

Despite the fact that human emissions of the essential-to-life gas make up a fraction of one percent of all the “greenhouse gases” naturally in the atmosphere, climate alarmists insist it is causing “global warming.” The fact that there has been no warming for almost 18 years and counting — debunking 73 out of 73 UN climate models — also does not seem to have chilled the alarmists’ zeal for controlling all human activity either.

Read on SN.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/envi ... scientists

The National Climate Assessment - 2014 (NCA) is a masterpiece of marketing that shows for the first time the full capabilities of the Obama Administration to spin a scientific topic as they see fit, without regard to the underlying facts. With hundreds of pages written by hundreds of captive scientists and marketing specialists, the administration presents their case for extreme climate alarm.

As independent scientists, we know that apparent evidence of “Climate Change,” however scary, is not proof of anything. Science derives its objectivity from robust logic and honest evidence repeatedly tested by all knowledgeable scientists, not just those paid to support the administration’s version of “Global Warming,” “Climate Change,” “Climate Disruption,” or whatever their marketing specialists call it today.

We are asked to believe that humans are drastically changing the earth's climate by burning fossil fuels. The problem with their theory is very simple: It is NOT true.
Here we address the administration’s basic thesis and the essential evidence that they claim support extreme concern.

Read on SN.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/224538945/NCA-Rebuttal

[Outlaw Yogi]

ooooooh anger issues...

Not to worry yogi... I'm sure we all understand.

I was born angry shit for brains, and I doubt you even understand your own gibberish.

[Outlaw Yogi]

Lets see you fit you 'the sun did it' theory in this brainstorm ...

Glacier study reveals north-south divide in climate change
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/he ... f1a5ed2cf7

CLIMATE change is different in the northern and southern hemispheres because of the role of the Southern Ocean, probably through the uptake of carbon ­dioxide, a study of New Zealand’s glaciers has found.

The University of Queensland research, published in the ­Proceedings of the National Academy, underscores the importance of natural cycles in understanding climate change.

Jamie Shulmeister from UQ’s School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Management said the study showed that future climate changes might ­impact differently in the two hemispheres.

“The study reverses previous findings which suggested that New Zealand glaciers dis­appeared at the same time as ice in the northern hemisphere,’’ Professor Shulmeister said.

“The results ­indicate that future climate change may impact differently in the two hemispheres and that changes in the Southern Ocean are likely to be critical for Australia and New Zealand.’’

The research showed that when the northern hemisphere started to warm at the end of the last ice age, New Zealand glaciers were unaffected. The NZ glaciers began to ­retreat several thousand years later, when changes in the Southern Ocean led to increased carbon dioxide emissions and warming.

Professor Shulmeister told The Australian that if climate change was being driven by greenhouse gas emissions only, changes in the two hemispheres should be ­occurring at the same time.

“In our case, the mismatch is thousands of years and what is happening is there is a big role being played by the Southern Ocean in controlling the advance and retreat of the NZ glaciers,’’ he said.

The research does not suggest that carbon dioxide emissions are not a problem for the Southern Hemisphere, however.

“At this point in time the Southern Ocean has sucked up a big chunk of the CO2we have put into the atmosphere,’’ Professor Shulmeister said.

“If they flipped state and ­started emitting all the additional gases that have been pumped in you would get a really accelerated climate change. But we don’t understand the system well enough to know whether that will happen or not. This study highlights the need to understand regional ­climate rather than a global one-size-fits-all.’’

[Rorschach]

ooooooh anger issues...

Not to worry yogi... I'm sure we all understand.

I was born angry shit for brains, and I doubt you even understand your own gibberish.

I understand my gibberish fine.
I understand many things fine.

[Rorschach]

Lets see you fit you 'the sun did it' theory in this brainstorm ...

Glacier study reveals north-south divide in climate change
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/he ... f1a5ed2cf7

CLIMATE change is different in the northern and southern hemispheres because of the role of the Southern Ocean, probably through the uptake of carbon ­dioxide, a study of New Zealand’s glaciers has found.

The University of Queensland research, published in the ­Proceedings of the National Academy, underscores the importance of natural cycles in understanding climate change.

Jamie Shulmeister from UQ’s School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Management said the study showed that future climate changes might ­impact differently in the two hemispheres.

“The study reverses previous findings which suggested that New Zealand glaciers dis­appeared at the same time as ice in the northern hemisphere,’’ Professor Shulmeister said.

“The results ­indicate that future climate change may impact differently in the two hemispheres and that changes in the Southern Ocean are likely to be critical for Australia and New Zealand.’’

The research showed that when the northern hemisphere started to warm at the end of the last ice age, New Zealand glaciers were unaffected. The NZ glaciers began to ­retreat several thousand years later, when changes in the Southern Ocean led to increased carbon dioxide emissions and warming. Yet some scientists state that the CO2 release comes after the warming. Which is born out in many ice-core samples.

Professor Shulmeister told The Australian that if climate change was being driven by greenhouse gas emissions only, changes in the two hemispheres should be ­occurring at the same time.

“In our case, the mismatch is thousands of years and what is happening is there is a big role being played by the Southern Ocean in controlling the advance and retreat of the NZ glaciers,’’ he said.

The research does not suggest that carbon dioxide emissions are not a problem for the Southern Hemisphere, however. Nor does it say they are apparently.

“At this point in time the Southern Ocean has sucked up a big chunk of the CO2we have put into the atmosphere,’’ Professor Shulmeister said. Gee where did that come from since we can't just create matter from nothing yet.

“If they flipped state and ­started emitting all the additional gases that have been pumped in you would get a really accelerated climate change. But we don’t understand the system well enough to know whether that will happen or not. This study highlights the need to understand regional ­climate rather than a global one-size-fits-all.’’

Oh dear still obsessing over a self-delusion I see... you don't have to lie about what I said you know. people can read.
But yes... if there was no Sun then we'd have Snowball Earth and permanent night time.
try not to be too angry about that, it's a waste of energy.
Oh btw, I note the bits I enlarged back me.

Ice core data CO2 and Warming
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/carbon ... peratures/

[Super Nova]

Well deniers what if you're wrong and heat is being stored in the oceans as has been previously raised in this thread. The air/surface temperature is not a measure of total energy/heat absorption.

if this article is true... we need to have a plan because it's going to get very hot in ten years or so.

I hope your precious economies will grow and be protected as we will need to build Logan's Run type domes for our survival



We all know economic activity spikes after a disaster. I guess an on-going disaster will create lot's of economic activity... you know, a boost in air-con sales and green houses to environmentally control the food produce. What a great world we will leave.

Read on... I assume the words like "may" will lead again to your total disregard to the science and the risks.

Oceans Hid the Heat and Slowed Pace of Global Warming

The Atlantic and Southern oceans may be responsible for the slowdown in the acceleration of global warming—but not for long

Aug 22, 2014 |By Niina Heikkinen and ClimateWire

Newly published data suggest that a hiatus in rising global air temperatures in the 21st century is the result of heat sinks deep in the Atlantic and Southern oceans. The trend is likely connected to roughly 30-year global warming and cooling cycles, according to researchers.

The study could put to rest a long-standing debate among scientists about why air temperature rise had halted after a period of rapid increases at the end of the 20th century.

"We weren't surprised by the results, but this is the first time we've been able to prove it," said Ka-Kit Tung, a co-author of the study and adjunct professor of applied mathematics at the University of Washington.

Tung collaborated with Xianyao Chen of the Ocean University of China, a visiting professor at UW last year. Their study was published today in the journal Science.

The heat sink occurs when sun-warmed salty water from the tropics travels along ocean currents in the Atlantic to the coasts of Greenland and Iceland. When the saltier tropical water reaches the North Atlantic, its greater density causes it to sink, in a process called warm saltwater subduction.

"When [the water] sinks, it goes straight down, and the sinking carries heat along with it," Tung said.

About 90 percent of the Earth's heat is stored in the oceans due to the atmosphere's limited storage capacity, according to the study.

Saltwater 'subduction' is part of the cycle
The higher temperature of the water reinforces the speed of the ocean current carrying the water northward. The influx of warmer water begins melting ice in the North Atlantic, mixing more fresh water with the ocean. The melting makes the salt water less dense and slows the current, eventually changing the system back to a warming cycle.

The researchers said that about half of the warming in the last 30 years of the 20th century was due to global warming, while the other half was from the heat cycle in the Atlantic that kept heat near the ocean's surface.

The last time the Atlantic current shifted was around 2000. Since then, the change in the global annual mean surface air temperature has held steady around .5 degree Celsius (.9 degree Fahrenheit) above the base period average set from 1951 to 1980, according to data from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

The UW research represents the first time that warm saltwater subduction has been used as a possible explanation for the global temperature trend, according to Tung.

In recent years, global warming has changed the warming and cooling cycles into more of a staircase pattern, where the "cool" cycles merely stall the continued rise of global temperatures.

More heat is on the way
Based on previous trends, the current "cooling" cycle is likely about halfway over, he said. Rapid warming is expected to resume again in about a decade, though exact predictions are difficult to make.

Previous studies had focused on the Pacific Ocean as the likely location of a heat sink. However, this latest study stated that because heat cycling in the Pacific occurred much closer to the ocean's surface, the capacity of which could not account for the observed changes in the global warming trend.

Improved instrumentation has helped scientists more accurately map the temperatures in a wider sampling of the world's oceans. Previously, researchers mapped ocean temperatures by dropping instruments from ships and taking profiles, Tung said.

"The problem is they were not routine, where you have more ships, you have more measurements," he said.

Now, instead of restricting research primarily along shipping routes, researchers use Argo floats to help collect data. The torpedo-shaped robots are self-navigating and self-propelling, and they are able to dive deep underwater to collect temperature readings, which they transmit to satellites as they return to the ocean surface. This allows for much more extensive temperature sampling throughout the world's oceans.

Historical data also backs up the existence of warming and cooling cycles that last several decades. The researchers found data from central England demonstrated that 40- to 70-year climate cycles have been occurring for centuries.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... l-warming/

[Rorschach]

Ok so the oceans have been doing what oceans have been doing for all their existence.