Who is denying that weather changes? Who is denying that Climate continually changes?

I'm saying that it is in a cooling trend right now.

It is not man made, it is the natural cycle. The sun is in a lower output mode, and due to the sheer size of the sun, it doesn't take much to affect us. As it stands, the whole Northern Hemisphere has had a much colder and longer winter this year.

There are not 20 million Global Warming refugees crowding our ships. There are no drowning polar bears. There is no record Hurricane season. There are no disappearing islands. The Arctic Circle is still iced up with no ship traffic. The South Pole ice field is growing. There is no man-made Global Warming. There is no man-made Global Cooling.

But, we've had a pretty hard winter, us and the Europeans, the Russians, and the Chinese.

Arn

I own page 3

[This message has been edited by Arns85GT (edited 05-30-2011).]

quote Originally posted by newf: You seem confused. No. Human beings do exhale almost 3 billion tons of carbon dioxide annually, but the carbon we exhale is the same carbon that was "inhaled" from the atmosphere by the plants we consume. (When we eat meat, we're still eating the same carbon, except that it passes through livestock on its way into our mouths and out into the atmosphere.) The only way to add to the carbon in the atmosphere is to take it from a sequestered source like fossil fuels—where it has been safe from the atmosphere for millions of years—and combust it. So breathe easy. http://www.slate.com/id/2225286/

Slate Magazine is your source? You sure you don't want to quote something scholarly, like Wikipedia?

Does it say anything about methane emissions from livestock? Methane is a worse greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, but since it's just coming from the plants the livestock eat, it doesn't impact anything, right? How about forest fires? That's just liberating the carbon that plants had previously removed from the atmosphere, so there's no pollution there either, right?

I like how the article says we actually clean carbon from the atmosphere because some of the carbon goes into the construction of our bodies. Ok, fair enough.
It then goes on to mention that when we die our bodies very slowly decompose and slowly release that carbon back into the environment.

Oh, did they mention that's where fossil fuels come from? (decomposing bodies - "fossil" - get it?) Gee, since it's all a closed-loop system anyway, it doesn't matter what we burn since it all had to come from somewhere originally, right? So burning fossil fuel is just releasing carbon that lifeforms pulled out of the atmosphere millions of years ago. The total carbon in the system remains constant, so there can be no climate change driven by carbon dioxide emissions.

That is, if we accept your source as accurate.

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: Who is denying that weather changes? Who is denying that Climate continually changes? I'm saying that it is in a cooling trend right now. It is not man made, it is the natural cycle. The sun is in a lower output mode, and due to the sheer size of the sun, it doesn't take much to affect us. As it stands, the whole Northern Hemisphere has had a much colder and longer winter this year. But, we've had a pretty hard winter, us and the Europeans, the Russians, and the Chinese. Arn I own page 3

I know what you are saying and you've been pretty consistant. I have no problem with your belief that the earth is in a cooling trend. I believe that pretty much all the data shows otherwise but you are entitled to your opinion like anyone else. The sun is indeed in a minimum and last year was another record setting one for high temperatures if you go by actual data.

Sucks you had a hard winter, not so much here and plenty of other places, plus a hard winter for a few locales does not a global cooling trend make IMO.

quote Originally posted by newf: Accept it or don't accept it Professor. I would think the time perioid for the formation of the fossil fuels and the time period in burning it might be the factor there. Maybe you should read up on the carbon cycle and see how scientists are saying that too much is going into the atmosphere as compared to how much can be absorbed. There are many factors involved and pretty well every major scientific body is in agreement on the genereal theory. Of course you are welcome to prove them wrong, or even present your case to them and cc the response here. I have many addresses for you.

That's right. The very process that gives your body energy converts carbon found in your food and oxygen in your bloodstream into carbon dioxide. Every time you breath you are removing a little oxygen from the air and releasing carbon dioxide into the air.

In fact, there is no way to prevent a human being from releasing carbon dioxide into the air through the processes of life or even death. If you are breathing, you are emitting carbon dioxide. If you're not breathing, you're likely dead. If you're dead, you are either going to be burned in a furnace (cremated) or you're going to slowly rot away. Either of those two processes will release carbon dioxide.

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. In fact it's the main greenhouse gas that the global warming alarmists want us to worry about. And yet, it's a byproduct of all animal life.

Nature has a wonderful system for removing the carbon dioxide that animals produce from the air. It's called photosynthesis.

This is the process by which plants convert carbon dioxide, water vapor (another, much more powerful, but seldom mentioned in the mainstream media greenhouse gas), and solar energy, and convert them into glucose and oxygen. Photosynthesis is a wonder, and it's responsible for nearly all of the free oxygen in our atmosphere today.

Given that, you'd think that planting more trees would be the answer to the global warming problem. You'd be wrong though. There are other greenhouse gasses besides carbon dioxide and water vapor. There's methane. Guess what. Trees emit methane in the presence of air, and in large amounts. Researchers estimate that trees and other living vegetation produce between 20 and 30% of all of the methane emissions released globally every year!

Trees emit more than methane and oxygen. They also emit many of the chemicals that produce smog. The volatile organic compounds produced by trees are similar to the unburned hydrocarbons that come out of your car's exhaust pipe. Smog is produced when these chemicals mix with nitrogen oxides in the presence of sunlight and produce ozone.

We’ve long known that natural processes, such as volcanic eruptions and decomposition of dead plants and animals etc, produce greenhouse gases, and have done for millions of years. If living plants also produce methane, they have also been doing so for millions of years. What is causing 21st-century climate change are the extra emissions of greenhouse gases caused by human activities.

Some of the most damaging to the atmosphere are the enormous quantities of fossil fuel (oil, coal and gas) that we burn. Fossil fuels lock up millions of tonnes of carbon under the ground; burning them releases it into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Therefore the best way to tackle climate change is to reduce our emissions to the atmosphere from using fossil fuels.

Read about the carbon cycle. Here is a quick link to get you started.
http://library.thinkquest.org/11226/why.htm

quote What is the Carbon Cycle? The Carbon Cycle is a complex series of processes through which all of the carbon atoms in existence rotate. The same carbon atoms in your body today have been used in countless other molecules since time began. The wood burned just a few decades ago could have produced carbon dioxide which through photosynthesis became part of a plant. When you eat that plant, the same carbon from the wood which was burnt can become part of you. The carbon cycle is the great natural recycler of carbon atoms. Unfortunately, the extent of its importance is rarely stressed enough. Without the proper functioning of the carbon cycle, every aspect of life could be changed dramatically. We believe that it's vital to understand how the carbon cycle works in order to see the danger of it not working. Therefore, let's look at a sample carbon cycle and explore how carbon atoms move through our natural world. Plants, animals, and soil interact to make up the basic cycles of nature. In the carbon cycle, plants absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and use it, combined with water they get from the soil, to make the substances they need for growth. The process of photosynthesis incorporates the carbon atoms from carbon dioxide into sugars. Animals, such as the rabbit pictured here, eat the plants and use the carbon to build their own tissues. Other animals, such as the fox, eat the rabbit and then use the carbon for their own needs. These animals return carbon dioxide into the air when they breathe, and when they die, since the carbon is returned to the soil during decomposition. The carbon atoms in soil may then be used in a new plant or small microorganisms. Ultimately, the same carbon atom can move through many organisms and even end in the same place where it began. Herein lies the fascination of the carbon cycle; the same atoms can be recycled for millennia!

Click on the link to see the diagrams and to read the rest of the article.

quote Originally posted by newf: Accept it or don't accept it Professor. I would think the time perioid for the formation of the fossil fuels and the time period in burning it might be the factor there. Maybe you should read up on the carbon cycle and see how scientists are saying that too much is going into the atmosphere as compared to how much can be absorbed. There are many factors involved and pretty well every major scientific body is in agreement on the genereal theory. Of course you are welcome to prove them wrong, or even present your case to them and cc the response here. I have many addresses for you.

Gee, can I be a freelance writer for Slate Magazine too?
It's getting pretty easy to tell when you know your argument is full of crap. That's when you start calling me professor in an attempt to be a smart ass because you can't think of anything relevant to your discussion.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Gee, can I be a freelance writer for Slate Magazine too? It's getting pretty easy to tell when you know your argument is full of crap. That's when you start calling me professor in an attempt to be a smart ass because you can't think of anything relevant to your discussion.

Oh, this is a source problem I'll see what else I can find for you, flag waver.

Pssst..... you did notice I said some other stuff too right?

I sweat a few gallons working outside today. Global Warming? Feels legitimate, at least today.

quote Originally posted by newf: That's exactly what is used but having a hot day or month doesn't prove anything nor does having a cool one like is often suggested.

How else can you determine if the earth's temperature (climate) is going up other than taking temperature measurements (either by thermometers or by satellite)?

quote How is denier a pejorative? Please explain. If one denies that Climate Change is happening what should they be called?

Because it is *intended* that way, like a parallel to "holocaust denier". It is a pejorative. Just an FYI.

The non-insulting term would be "skeptic".

There is Global Cooling. It is caused today, by the Sun's lower output. It can also be caused by other factors like volcanic eruptions. It is not caused by CO2.

This is a graph showing the temperature averages in the Troposphere. This eliminates "local" conditions and is much more accurate than surface readings.



You can plainly see the average temperature decline starting in 2010. Remember that the earth has a somewhat delayed reaction to Sunspot variations. CO2 is a delayed response by the earth to hotter temperatures creating more vigorous plan and plankton growth. But it is interesting to note that while CO2 goes up, the temps go down. Hmmm...........

"The graph above shows the temperature changes of the lower troposphere from the surface up to about 8 km as determined from the average of two analyses of satellite data. The UAH analysis is from the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the RSS analysis is from Remote Sensing Systems. The two analyses use different methods to adjust for factors such as orbital decay and inter-satellite difference. The best fit line from January 2002 indicates a stable trend. Surface temperature data is contaminated by the effects of urban development. The Sun's activity, which was increasing through most of the 20th century, has recently become quiet, causing a change of trend. The magnetic flux from the Sun reached a peak in 1992. The high magnetic flux reduces cloud cover and causes warming. Since then the Sun has become quiet, however it continues to cause warming for about a decade after its peak intensity due to the huge heat capacity of the oceans. "

This shows the US average temps before 2010. Notice how it correlates so well



I repeat, we are in a cooling period.

Arn

[This message has been edited by Arns85GT (edited 05-31-2011).]

hot here. Broke record yesterday and expect to today too. I love it. Ill take global warming over cooling anytime.

Well, the smart kids agree - Global Warming Can Cause Global Cooling.
If it's hot, it's Global Warming.
If it's cold, it's Global Warming.
Looks like they have all the bases covered.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Well, the smart kids agree - Global Warming Can Cause Global Cooling. If it's hot, it's Global Warming. If it's cold, it's Global Warming. Looks like they have all the bases covered.

Did you even read the article you linked? Or was it just a 12 year old article you googled by the title and went no further?

And no people don't seem to agree on what you are saying at all, in fact why not look at the "skeptics" here for example, who is it that seem to claim if it's cold or hot for a few days (weeks...a month) it's proof of something? Yup, the deniers.

Having said that there are people that can't seem to relate climate with weather all the time on both sides of the theory of Climate Change unfortunately.

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 05-31-2011).]

our climate is dynamic, and you azzhats better get used to that fact.
there are endless variables, and - yes - Mankind is one of them. yes - a minute variable, in the scale of things like earths orbit & solar output, but a variable just the same. so - low solar output. this should mean lower temps than normal, right? not just returning to normal - but below normal. if we are at "normal" temps at low solar output - what does this mean when the cycle goes back to increased solar output? because it is a cycle - it will.
I myself welcome global warming as well. I would love to see the middle east be unihabitable. would just make my day.

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: There is Global Cooling. It is caused today, by the Sun's lower output. It can also be caused by other factors like volcanic eruptions. It is not caused by CO2. This is a graph showing the temperature averages in the Troposphere. This eliminates "local" conditions and is much more accurate than surface readings. You can plainly see the average temperature decline starting in 2010. Remember that the earth has a somewhat delayed reaction to Sunspot variations. CO2 is a delayed response by the earth to hotter temperatures creating more vigorous plan and plankton growth. But it is interesting to note that while CO2 goes up, the temps go down. Hmmm........... "The graph above shows the temperature changes of the lower troposphere from the surface up to about 8 km as determined from the average of two analyses of satellite data. The UAH analysis is from the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the RSS analysis is from Remote Sensing Systems. The two analyses use different methods to adjust for factors such as orbital decay and inter-satellite difference. The best fit line from January 2002 indicates a stable trend. Surface temperature data is contaminated by the effects of urban development. The Sun's activity, which was increasing through most of the 20th century, has recently become quiet, causing a change of trend. The magnetic flux from the Sun reached a peak in 1992. The high magnetic flux reduces cloud cover and causes warming. Since then the Sun has become quiet, however it continues to cause warming for about a decade after its peak intensity due to the huge heat capacity of the oceans. " This shows the US average temps before 2010. Notice how it correlates so well I repeat, we are in a cooling period. Arn

Ahhhhh yes.... "Friends of Science" I assume?

Their main points are nicely summarised thus: a) the science is so rapidly evolving that IPCC (2007) and CCSP (2009) reports are already out of date, b) the globe is cooling!, c) the consensus on hurricane/global warming connections has moved from uncertain to ambiguous, d) Greenland is not losing mass, no sirree…, e) the recession will save us!, f) water vapour feedback is negative!, and g) Scafetta and West’s statistical fit of temperature to an obsolete solar forcing curve means that all other detection and attribution work is wrong. From this “evidence”, they then claim that all variations in climate are internal variability, except for the warming trend which is caused by the sun, oh and by the way the globe is cooling.

http://sourcewatch.org/inde...e=Friends_of_Science

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 05-31-2011).]

quote Originally posted by fierobear: So...weather isn't climate unless it proves global warming?

I have no idea how you construe that question from what I said.

Learn what a joke is. When its super (record, actually) hot outside, I say "Global Warming is Plausible".. just like when we had low temps in the winter, I said "I dont believe in Global Warming today". Not every statement I make is political and for that effect. Sometimes a joke is just a joke, and a fact is a fact without underlying agendas. How about for you?

quote Originally posted by newf: Ahhhhh yes.... "Friends of Science" I assume? Their main points are nicely summarised thus: a) the science is so rapidly evolving that IPCC (2007) and CCSP (2009) reports are already out of date, b) the globe is cooling!, c) the consensus on hurricane/global warming connections has moved from uncertain to ambiguous, d) Greenland is not losing mass, no sirree…, e) the recession will save us!, f) water vapour feedback is negative!, and g) Scafetta and West’s statistical fit of temperature to an obsolete solar forcing curve means that all other detection and attribution work is wrong. From this “evidence”, they then claim that all variations in climate are internal variability, except for the warming trend which is caused by the sun, oh and by the way the globe is cooling.

Yes the IPCC's 2007 and 2009 reports are out of date. And they should be thankful, after all THE REPORTS WERE BASED ON FRAUDULENT REPRESENTATIONS

Yes the forecasted record hurricane seasons DID NOT HAPPEN

Yes, the islands of the world are not losing mass. .... again ANOTHER FRAUDULENT REPRESENTATION

Yes, since the last ice age the earth has been warming, not in dispute at all.

No, actual climate change is not due to "internal variability"

And let us once again remember the past lies.

There are not 20 million Global Warming refugees crowding onto ships.
There are no drowning polar bears.
There is no record Hurricane season.
There are no disappearing islands.
The Arctic Circle is still iced up with no ship traffic.
The South Pole ice field is growing.
The "hockey stick graph" has been proven to be concocted.

And as usual, Newf doesn't want to accept legitimate scientific information that contradicts Al Gore, who, is not a scientist, but just another scheming politician

Arn

quote Originally posted by newf: Or was it just a 12 year old article you googled by the title and went no further?

Does the age of the article invalidate it? How long ago was the Global Warming science "settled" then

How about something from the Global Warming Messiah himself, Al Gore?
http://blog.algore.com/2011...answer_for_bill.html

quote By Al Farking Gore February 1, 2011 : 11:43 AM Last week on his show Bill O’Reilly asked, “Why has southern New York turned into the tundra?” and then said he had a call into me. I appreciate the question. As it turns out, the scientific community has been addressing this particular question for some time now and they say that increased heavy snowfalls are completely consistent with what they have been predicting as a consequence of man-made global warming: “In fact, scientists have been warning for at least two decades that global warming could make snowstorms more severe. Snow has two simple ingredients: cold and moisture. Warmer air collects moisture like a sponge until it hits a patch of cold air. When temperatures dip below freezing, a lot of moisture creates a lot of snow.” “A rise in global temperature can create all sorts of havoc, ranging from hotter dry spells to colder winters, along with increasingly violent storms, flooding, forest fires and loss of endangered species.”

Is February of this year too old, or has the "science" expired?

[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 05-31-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: Yes the IPCC's 2007 and 2009 reports are out of date. And they should be thankful, after all THE REPORTS WERE BASED ON FRAUDULENT REPRESENTATIONS Yes the forecasted record hurricane seasons DID NOT HAPPEN Yes, the islands of the world are not losing mass. .... again ANOTHER FRAUDULENT REPRESENTATION Yes, since the last ice age the earth has been warming, not in dispute at all. No, actual climate change is not due to "internal variability" And let us once again remember the past lies. There are not 20 million Global Warming refugees crowding onto ships. There are no drowning polar bears. There is no record Hurricane season. There are no disappearing islands. The Arctic Circle is still iced up with no ship traffic. The South Pole ice field is growing. The "hockey stick graph" has been proven to be concocted. And as usual, Newf doesn't want to accept legitimate scientific information that contradicts Al Gore, who, is not a scientist, but just another scheming politician Arn

And as usual Arn can't see the forest for the trees. Where did I ever say anything about Al Gore or whoever it is saying these same tired old things you keep putting forward?

quote Originally posted by newf: Ahhhhh yes.... "Friends of Science" I assume?

Can't fault the data, so you try to shoot the messenger?

NOBODY disputes the data from UAH/RSS. Work on refuting the satellite data, rather than the webpage the article came from.

Newf LOVES Al Gore. Newf LOVES the UN hucksters. Newf LOVES the IPCC.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Can't fault the data, so you try to shoot the messenger? NOBODY disputes the data from UAH/RSS. Work on refuting the satellite data, rather than the webpage the article came from.

It's not the data, it's how it's interpreted by them. My opinion of course

quote Originally posted by newf: See above post, or even the one I wrote in response to your other article. Keep spinning.

So quoting Al Gore's reference to the "scientific community" which you hold so dear is "spin?"
Man, you'll say ANYTHING to continue an argument.

We're done here. You're just going in circles.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: So quoting Al Gore's reference to the "scientific community" which you hold so dear is "spin?" Man, you'll say ANYTHING to continue an argument. We're done here. You're just going in circles.

Clearly it's me going in circles. You seem to find a need to counter anything I say, even going so far as to change your avatar in attempts to try and garner a response. Yup, it's ALL me.

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 05-31-2011).]

quote Originally posted by newf: You seem to find a need to counter anything I say

LOL

Isn't your favorite phrase "pot...kettle...black...blah blah"?

[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 06-01-2011).]

If you Google "IPCC False Reports" you find many voices and many legitimate scientific voices at that.

You find articles going back to 2007 explaining in detail the reasons the IPCC reports were plain wrong.

They also explain the falsehoods and scamming that went on. Including how their Climate Report was NOT PEER REVIEWED, but was instead reviewed by only 2 people.

When we remember all the lies that never came true, and the cost to us, the tax payers for this misguided "Global Warming" and subsequent "Climate Change" political initiative, we should, in some way be thankful that Mother Nature is showing the true nature of things. The rising ice field volumes in Antarctica, the rising ice levels in the Arctic, the record cold and snow in the Northern Hemisphere these past 6 months all show the obvious.

The lack of islands disappearing, and the missing climate refugees re-enforces what Mother Nature is saying. Folks, it's Global Cooling right now. I just hope things start drying out some and warming up some before next winter starts up.

Arn

Good news for summer (I hope) There are 6 Sunspots facing earth. That is DOUBLE the number since 1 May. Things may be warming?

Of course, it all pales in comparison to 1999.

Arn

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: Good news for summer (I hope) There are 6 Sunspots facing earth. That is DOUBLE the number since 1 May. Things may be warming? Of course, it all pales in comparison to 1999. Arn

For comparison, how many sunspots were there in 1999?

This is a good site to look at the comparison

http://earthobservatory.nas...ange/solar.php?all=y

You can see the color and activity of the sun every year since 1999 and it really shows the difference in a visual way.

The sun acxtually darkened over time.

Arn

You can also track the Ozone hole from 1979 forward

http://earthobservatory.nas...ldOfChange/ozone.php

[This message has been edited by Arns85GT (edited 06-02-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: Good news for summer (I hope) There are 6 Sunspots facing earth. That is DOUBLE the number since 1 May. Things may be warming? Of course, it all pales in comparison to 1999. Arn

What are you saying here?

Things may be getting warmer when? The summer or in general? How does this support your Global Cooling theory? How can we trust any facts from NASA? ( OK the last one is totally a joke )

Pure hope Newf. In the face of Global Cooling we had better hope it doesn't keep going down.

Arn

HOT here too--but it's June--in Texas--it's supposed to be HOT.
Oh--right--anecdotal regional evidence. It's only 'science' if it Proves GW/Climate Change/[enter whatever new term they use now that the rest have been discarded]..

All that 'evidence' and 'data' newf speaks of? Every single bit of it--no matter how small or large--or frpm whence it came, is a little piece of what they so disparagingly call anecdotal evidence.

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: So now you are quibbling over the term "heavy" As in "heavy weather" as in "heavy rain" as in "heavy winds" Ask the folks in Joplin, or North Dakota, or Manitoba about the term "heavy". Arn

Ahhh, how quickly Alabama is forgotten...

If its getting cooler out, then nobody told us.. It was 109 today..

quote Originally posted by maryjane: HOT here too--but it's June--in Texas--it's supposed to be HOT. Oh--right--anecdotal regional evidence. It's only 'science' if it Proves GW/Climate Change/[enter whatever new term they use now that the rest have been discarded].. All that 'evidence' and 'data' newf speaks of? Every single bit of it--no matter how small or large--or frpm whence it came, is a little piece of what they so disparagingly call anecdotal evidence.

Nope not anecdotal at all, I assume there are themometers in Texas. And no all that 'evidence' and 'data' is not anecdotal.

You see the ability to measure, document and compare temperatures can show if it is or isn't hot in Texas in June.

Let's try the leagal definition this time:

Anecdotal evidence refers to an informal account of evidence in the form of an anecdote. It is the opposite of scientific evidence. Anecdotal evidence consists of events that tend to support a conclusion of discrimination. It may include individual experiences or stories, and statements by employers showing bias.

In In re W.R. Grace & Co., 355 B.R. 462, 481 (Bankr. D. Del. 2006), the court held “Anecdotal evidence' means reports of one kind of event following another. Typically, the reports are obtained haphazardly or selectively, and the logic of "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" does not suffice to demonstrate that the first event causes the second. Consequently, while anecdotal evidence can be suggestive, it can also be quite misleading."

quote Originally posted by Jonesy: Ahhh, how quickly Alabama is forgotten... If its getting cooler out, then nobody told us.. It was 109 today..

Like I said, weather isn't climate...unless it proves warming, right?