What happened to Global Warming?
When I put my first above ground pool in around the late 90's we were able to open it in April and start swimming in May.
Now my pool is just opened and still not warm enough to swim in
I'd like some global warming back...
It is "climate change" because the numbers stopped supporting the "consensus" of scientists that it was global warming. Now we're supposed to believe the current generation of scientists. "Fool me once", and so on. Of course, there is no actual concensus, but that doesn't fit The Plan.
What is science? You form a hypothesis, perform a test, gather data, and see if the hypothesis was correct. Then you have others independently repeat it. None of that is actually happening with regard to climate "science". Until it is, I'm not going to listen to these activists.
Lastly, with global warming the hysteria was that positive feedback loops would cause temps to increase unstoppably. Then the temperatures unexpectedly stopped going up, because scientists didn't (and still don't) understand the whole Earth system. What unfounded hysteria is there with global climate change? Maybe it's "global wierding", an increase in severe weather. But uh oh looks like the U.S. is currently in a hurricane drought. Better not mention that, or the "scientists" will look dumb once again, and that will, as before, ruin The Plan (Agenda 21).
The average century-on-century temperature variation during the Holocene is +/- 1 degree centigrade. If the tiny increase we have made to atmospheric CO2 (start of this century 300 parts per millions, now 400ppm, 80% plus of which is from natural carbon sources) is making any difference whatsover to the Earth's climate, it has yet to manifest itself.
All the climate models (like the utterly discredited "hockey stick" show temperatures racing upwards; in reality there are minimal fluctuations which are well within the bounds of natural variablity.
Here in NZ, the government body responsible for recording climate and temperature (NIWA) kept a publicly available database of New Zealand's temperature records which stretched back to the early 1900's. It showed a trend of 0.05C per century of warming. Then when a recent IPCC report came out, it showed that trend as 0.9C per century. Lots of people went huh? WTF? And went back to the database, which had all kinds of random 'adjustments' performed on it, making past termperatures colder and recent ones warmer, thus magnifying the trend. If global warming/climate change is such a clear and present danger, and is changing the world while we do nothing about it, why doesn't it show in the raw data? Why is such exaggeration neccessary? It's almost as if there's ulterior motives in play. The BOM in Australia has also been caught out making the same 'adjustments' to their temperature records, as have similar organisations around the world. When these adjusted records are being used as a basis to justify expensive - and potentially damaging -policies to reduce CO2 emissions, serious questions have to be asked.
And after 30 years of "the sky is falling! The sky is falling!" from the AGW crowd, with nothing of the sort occuring, the public at large is just tuning them out. They've become white noise. Look at all the surveys around recent elections, and the issues voters are most concerned about - climate change ranks towards the bottom in every one.
And yet many politicians, including the current U.S. President at a recent military graduation, called Global Warming one of the most serious threats to the world and national security. I wish they would just tell us their grand plan and get it over with. I somehow doubt that plan has much to do with temperatures.
It's not almost as if, there are ulterior motives at play, and it's all economic.... corporations and vested interests grabbing for your cash and mine.
If and when there are climate/temperature changes of any note, they are usually regional and there is a natural/geological explanation that precludes man made intervention... ie; volcanic/subterranean thermal activity, etc.
Yup, typical of politicians, jumping on the potential cash cow... er, bandwagon. My query there would be: who's contributing to their campaign funds, and what's in it for them?
I mean, seriously, who's going to take politicians seriously when they come up with crap like 'global warming forcing women into prostitution'?
Like I've said before, with regard to these 'global warming models'., if I want a particular finding to be prevelant, I simply pay the scientist[s] to come up with it..... and if enough scientists come up with the same or similar results, then it MUST be true.
I rest my case.
The issue isn't whether or not there is a cyclical climate shift based on variables like the wobble in the earths orbit of the sun on an 18,000 year cycle. The issue is, are we speeding the process up. I would argue we most certainly are.
To put it another folksy down home way. Your house is on fire, it's a really big house. You probably can't stop it from burning to the ground and you didn't cause the fight, but you can certainly walk into the living room, pick up a burning rug and take it upstairs to the master bedroom. There, you just sped up the process by which your house burns to the ground.
I think it is absolutely naive to discount the role of our species in accelerating or retarding this process whichever way you want to argue it. Our impact is enormous. Our use of energy is enormous, our collective biomass is enormous.
Thank you very much Hankers. Every once and a while we all need to take a step back and realize how 'full of ourselves' we get.
The scientific "concensus", as it were, is that the predicted warming over the next 75 or so years (I predict such predictions will be, yet again, over inflated) will be a net benefit to humanity! Calling the house on fire is hyperbole and alarmist.
I do not deny the planet is warming over a long period, nor do I deny that humans are helping. I also believe humans should be good stewards of our home, though not at the expense of health, living conditions, and freedom. In a recent unscientific poll I took with some friends, I asked how much the Earth has warmed in the last 10 years. The answers ranged from 7 to 20 degrees. The actual answer is zero! Why do they think it has warmed so much? It's because alarmists are brainwashing them without giving them concrete facts, because the facts do not support the alarmists' agenda. It is shameful!
Global warming is not the catastrophe many make it out to be. The numbers just don't support that. Why are politicians pushing so hard for these anti-global warming plans that very marginally make a difference but also very effectively make some people extremely rich? It is logical to question these motives.
Simple! It can be answered with two very simple.... revenue and taxes!
Put bluntly, politicians only back/support things when they believe there's something in it for them.
And does anybody know why politicians become politicians? Because the majority of them is incompetent and simply would not make it in the business/corporate world. In other words, they become powerful and wealthy through taxation and riding on the coat tails and efforts of others.
So yeah, if there's a quid to be made from 'global warming'.... sorry, I meant 'climate change' because the former was proven to be bullshit, then politicians want in for their chop. Sadly, by the time this and the next inevitable handful of global warming theories is disproven, a huge swathe of the world's population will have been fleeced, thus widening the gap between the haves and the have nots and increasing world poverty.
So it won't be 'global warming or WWIII that ends life as we know it, it'll be greed.... though greed could well trigger WWIII
Greed built the medium and the tools through which you have the pleasure of complaining about greed.
Personally, I only complain about greed when it is clear someone is taking some people down in order bring others up. Most government action does this. Capitalism relies on a bit of greed, and it works great for improving lives when not taken to the extreme.
No, sorry, it didn't. The means with which I complain about greed were built up by Stardock and its owner, and I've not seen evidence of greed throughout my travels on Wincustomize and other Stardock sites.
Same here! I complain when greed fleeces the majority to benefit just a few. As for greed being a part of improving lives, whether it be by invention or reinvestment to better the quality of life of the masses, well I don't see it that way. That is capitalism and growth at work, and there are some businesses that work hard to make money but still keep the thoughts and needs of their customers in mind.
For me, greed is where companies and individuals amass great fortunes by gouging their customers through inflated prices, pay bugger all tax and leave that burden to the very people they're ripping off, and reinvest little or nothing and stash away billions upon billions. That's greed!
You think of greed as a bad thing, somehow wanting too much, or being undeserving of it, but it has a somewhat simpler definition.
Greed is a desire for material comforts beyond that necessary to survive. Basically, you're greedy if you don't want to live in a hovel, get everywhere on foot, and eat beans and rice every day. I'd be in trouble without my video games, movies, burgers and tacos, so I'm greedy even though I could totally swing living in a hovel without transportation. Stardock is run by a horribly greedy individual that drives expensive sports cars, lives in a mansion, and has a rather impressive investment portfolio just with Stardock.
Greed is good, it makes the world go round. It's only bad like any other desire is, when you take it much too far and it becomes a consuming affliction that causes you to harm others or yourself in your attempts to fulfill it. You can destroy your life and others being charitable far more easily than you can being greedy.
He also parks in the disabled car space.....
I've seen many disabled cars broken down at the roadside, but I have never seen special parking spaces for them, however.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/04/noaa-fiddles-with-climate-data-to-erase-the-15-year-global-warming-hiatus/
Thoughts?
According to this U.S. Senator, skeptics are Al Capones.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/sen-whitehouse-d-ri-suggests-using-rico-laws-global-warming-skeptics_963007.html
And then there's this prediction that we are about to experience a mini ice-age. Where are the real scientists?
http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/28/study-predicts-decades-of-global-cooling-ahead/
There are no real scientists anymore: the reason being;
* Most of them being dead already.
* Those who aren't dead quit science and commenced working for big business.
* And the rest are either on extended sabbaticals to avoid the bullshit, or are still at high school.
Then there's me.... who believes natural phenomena are largely responsible for 'out-of-season' climate fluctuations... not to mention than messing with the calendar over the centuries has artificially put the seasons out of kilter.
And nobody had better argue ! I'm fechen right !
WTF, darn well got double posted.
Oh well ! While I'm here.... again.... weather is over-reated.
Global Warming is punishment from God. The evil of mankind has already been removed by flood and pestilence, now it is the turn of global warming to wipe the slate clean.
Have no fear. The righteous will survive!
Or it could be the Vogons - but I have no evidence for that other than the chem trails from their scout craft.
As I stated earlier, the "pause" in climate change that was the original topic of this post never really happened:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2015/noaa-analysis-journal-science-no-slowdown-in-global-warming-in-recent-years.html
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33006179
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/06/05/science.aaa5632.full
A new study published online today in the journal Science finds that the rate of global warming during the last 15 years has been as fast as or faster than that seen during the latter half of the 20th Century. The study refutes the notion that there has been a slowdown or "hiatus" in the rate of global warming in recent years.
Science being one of the most prestigious journals in the scienfitic world (along with Nature).
GISS has been falsified since 1999, when Hansen's team started editing historical data after their study concluded that he was wrong about the doom and gloom he started pimping in 1988 as head of the division. NASA had been slowly losing funding over the last decade, and got a bump the next budget year.
Rewriting climate history is the only thing they've been doing since, this happens each time they put out a new revision.
You must have missed post 2366 with links to an article describing NOAA's fiddling with numbers to fit the global warming agenda.
Ah yes, the science doesn't agree with you, so its back to conspiracy theories.
Every national academy of science in the first world disagrees with you, so they must be part of a conspiracy! NOAA data published in the most prestigious journal in all of science doesn't agree with you, so its a conspiracy!
Here's a hint: scientists "fiddle" with data all the time. Its what we do for a living. If you have many thousands of sensors, you have to correct them to have the data make any sense, and the process is non trivial. Hence, you have to reduce the data before you analyze it. The process that you use to reduce the data is public, and you can read about it in gory detail in the methods sections of the relevant papers if you want (its usually very not exciting).
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
