Whew! Global warming Armageddon postponed for 200 years!

by editor on July 2, 2010

polar-bear-global-warming

The polar bears are saved! The polar bears are saved!

You pretty much knew the global warming scare was petering out when Al Gore bought a beach front house near Santa Barbara. Now global warming scientists have confirmed that the oceans won’t be lapping at his front door anytime soon.

The Independent UK has the hot news on global warming:

The 14 scientists, all experts in their fields of climate research, were asked about the probability of a tipping point being reached some time before 2200 if global warming continued on the course of the worst-case scenarios predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Nine of the fourteen scientists said that the chances of a tipping point for the high scenario were greater than 90 per cent, with only one saying that the chances were less than 50:50. At current rates of CO2 emissions, the world is on course for following the higher trajectory on global warming suggested by the IPCC.

2200? The global warming narrative has completely fallen apart. It used to be that they tried to scare us by saying our children would all die from global warming. Now it’s been delayed to our great, great, great, great, great grandchildren.

(By the way, we love the last line of that story. Doesn’t matter that even true global warming believers have indefinitely postponed Armageddon for 200 years, the Independent says things are even worse than the worst IPCC scare stories.)

Source: Independent UK

{ 141 comments… read them below or add one }

danybhoy July 4, 2010 at 9:12 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

Here is the Drudge Report for climate related news…

http://www.climatedepot.com/

gbrecke July 5, 2010 at 10:10 am

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

“Here is the Drudge Report for climate related news…”

Ahhh a lead in with ‘John Christy’. This man is worth your time to study. Isn’t it worth knowing something about the Man and his deeds BEFORE you look at his data and conclusions? Here’s a guy so caught up in the science, he totally ignores ‘wealth building’. A man who gives up precious years serving others in the third world. He has his hand in the dirt, he loves the field, he knows the instruments in the field and makes infromed observations. If you drove by Christy’s house, you’d likely see a 4WD parked in the drive with mud on the tires.

Poor John Christy… he’s comitted to Science and accurate data. He could be sitting on a pile of money as large as Algores, all he need do is surrender his ethics.

Icarus July 5, 2010 at 12:57 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

Yes, poor John Christy indeed – he was made to look a fool after his completely erroneous analysis of satellite temperature data which he promoted for ten years had to be corrected by others, ending up agreeing with every other temperature series which shows global warming of around 0.2C per decade.

He agreed in a court case* that “most of the observed warming over the last fifty years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations” and yet you can still see him on YouTube saying “…no-one can prove that the extra greenhouse gases we’re putting into the atmosphere are causing all of.. or part of [the warming]“.

He co-wrote a paper in 2007, claiming to show large discrepancies between models and observations, which was swiftly debunked in the literature.

So, I wouldn’t rely too much on Christy to support your case.

* The judge in that case said:

“There is widespread acceptance of the basic premises that underlie Hansen’s testimony. Plaintiffs’ own expert, Dr. Christy, agrees with the IPCC’s assessment that in the light of new evidence and taking into account remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last fifty years is likely to have been due to the increase in GHG concentrations. Tr. vol. 14-A, 145:18-148:7 (Christy, May 4, 2007). Christy agrees that the increase in carbon dioxide is real and primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels, which changes the radiated balance of the atmosphere and has an impact on the planet’s surface temperature toward a warming rate. Id. at 168:11-169:10.”

“Christy also agreed that climate is a nonlinear system, that is, that its responses to forcings may be disproportionate, and rapid changes would be more difficult for human beings and other species to adapt to than more gradual changes. Id. at 175:2-174:11. He further agreed with Hansen that the regulation’s effect on radiative forcing will be proportional to the amount of emissions reductions, and that any level of emissions reductions will have at least some effect on the radiative forcing of the climate.”

“Christy criticized the Hadley and Canadian models, suggesting that they were extreme and were downscaled unreliably. Tr. vol. 14-A, 121:13-122:4 (Christy, May 4, 2007). Although Christy testified that he had used climate models, however, he did not claim to be an expert on climate modeling. Id. at 78:20-79:3. In fact, his view of the reliability of climate models does not fall within the mainstream of climate scientists; his view is that models are, in general, “scientifically crude at best,” although they are used regularly by most climate scientists and he himself used the compiled results of a variety of climate models in preparing his report and testimony in this case.”

gbrecke July 5, 2010 at 1:20 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

.02C per decade! My God! Run for the hills!
If the thermometer isn’t going up, it’s going down, it’s what we expect..

Christy admitting he doesn’t have all the answers, that’s what smarter men do.. It’s the profoundly stupid that have all the answers.

Hey where’s your cure for cancer? it’s a real question, and you know it’s a tiny task compared to understanding the entire interworkings of the planet as you do.

Icarus July 5, 2010 at 1:31 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

No, 0.2C per decade, that’s ten times faster. The planet has only warmed about 0.7 – 0.8C so far and we’re already seeing Arctic ice in terminal decline, disappearing glaciers, dying forests, thawing permafrost, increasing worldwide drought and many other damaging consequences. Do you want to find out what 1C of warming looks like, in another decade? You will, I assure you. How about 2C in another 50 years? That takes us to temperatures that the planet hasn’t experienced for many millions of years. You might be comfortable with that, but many people are not.

RKae July 5, 2010 at 1:43 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

Arctic ice is NOT in terminal decline.

The moment you say that you divorce yourself from the word “science.” You are through. Go away.

Icarus July 5, 2010 at 3:38 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Arctic ice is NOT in terminal decline.

Where’s your argument for this statement? Where’s your evidence?

Here’s mine:

The world is warming at around 0.2C per decade. Even people in the charitably-named ‘skeptic’ camp, such as John Christy, agree with this. Polar amplification of this warming means that the Arctic is seeing the greatest warming of all – currently running at about 2C (see here).

We have seen around 0.7C of global warming already, and are committed to another 0.5C just from *today’s* greenhouse gas emissions, let alone whatever we produce in coming decades – and there’s no chance whatsoever of us cutting emissions to zero for at least decades to come. So, we have guaranteed several degrees C more temperature rise in the Arctic, whatever we do now, and we’re already seeing dramatic ice mass losses. The increasing open water in the Arctic is a positive feedback (ice *reflects* 80% of the solar radiation falling on it, whereas open water *absorbs* 80%). With dramatically rising Arctic temperatures, guaranteed to continue for decades to come, dramatically falling ice volume even at current warming, and the positive feedback of increasing open water to absorb more heat, there is simply no way the Arctic ice is going to survive.

JJJRO July 5, 2010 at 10:23 am

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

ICARUS! SAVE THE PLANET! KILL YOURSELF!

Speaking of Hyperbole…
You seem to have all the answers — I have some questions. 1. Is the OZONE hole closing? 2. Do volcanic eruptions have an affect on climate? 3. What is the single largest producer of CO2? 4. In what year did the majority of scientists think the world was cooling?

gbrecke July 5, 2010 at 10:53 am

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

We can visualize Icarus’ finger following the flow chart for the proper response.

Icarus July 5, 2010 at 11:41 am

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

1: Ozone depletion stabilised but there is no clear indication of a recovery as yet. This has very little to do with global climate.

2: Yes, volcanic eruptions can have a large effect on climate on a scale of several years, due to injection of aerosols into the stratosphere. However, these do decline on much shorter timescales than well-mixed greenhouse gases such as CO2.

3: The single largest producer of CO2 today, by far, is human activity. Until the industrial revolution, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 had been virtually constant for at least ten thousand years.

4: If there was any such time, it must have been in the 1960s or earlier.

JJJRO July 5, 2010 at 1:58 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

Actually, the temp of the earth was warmest in the Holocene Maximum – about 4000 years ago. Maybe the aliens had some factories running back then. Not sure…

I just find it so amazing that we’re still debating this when even Al Gore doesn’t believe it any more…

Public education has failed our once great country.

Icarus July 5, 2010 at 4:37 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

It looks more like about 120,000 years to me, but I’d have to do a bit more research.

JJJRO July 5, 2010 at 5:20 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

I’d be interested to see what you find. It seems the earth warmed without the help of manmade CO2, and at the very least, a reasonable debate must include the ‘possibility’ that CO2 is not the only cause… no?

Icarus July 6, 2010 at 6:56 am

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

The Earth has warmed and cooled throughout its history, due to changes in solar irradiance, volcanic aerosols, long-lived greenhouse gases, vegetation changes and so on. None of this had anything to do with human activity because of course for the vast majority of Earth’s 4.55 billion year history, we didn’t even exist.

Today though, we are by far the largest contibutors to one of the largest influences on global climate – greenhouse gases. Current anthropogenic forcing (the net effect of warming from man-made greenhouse gases, cooling from aerosols and so on) is 1.6 W/m². Compare this to the less than 1 W/m² increase in solar irradiance which was enough to take the planet out of the last ice age and raise global average temperature by 7C. Positive feebacks from increasing CO2, melting ice sheets, changing vegetation and other factors amplified that <1 W/m² of solar forcing to 5 W/m², resulting in the 7C of global warming. These are the feedbacks which climate scientists are particularly worried about triggering now – e.g. methane from melting permafrost (methane is a particularly potent greenhouse gas), the disappearing Arctic ice cap and so on.

So you're right – CO2 isn't the only cause of the current anthropogenic warming, but it is the largest by a substantial margin. See here for a comparison of the main forcings.

JJJRO July 6, 2010 at 5:54 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Sorry, but the science just isn’t there.
You point to the IPCC data – but there are just as many data points that prove otherwise (Hadley Global CRUT3v, MSU UAH and ESRL to name a few). And since you admitted that the earth has a natural ebb and flow of temperature without the addition of man made CO2, I’m very skeptical about the verdict. What worries me more is the focus on the US and not on China who is a much bigger polluter.
Unforutnately, I think a majority of good willed people have been duped by fake numbers and bad science in an effort to take away their money.
Be a good steward of the planet? yes. Blindly believe the IPCC and the UN – even after they admitted to bad data?
Do yourself a favor and read this with an open mind:

HERE

Icarus July 7, 2010 at 4:07 am

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

JJJRO, there is no ‘reply’ option below your latest comment so I have replied to my previous comment instead.

I have a web page showing that four of the most-cited global temperature series (RSS, UAH, GISTEMP and HADCRUT3VGL) all show the same warming trend. This should give you some confidence that the non-satellite records (which of course go back much further than the satellite series) are correct. If you don’t believe my web page, just graph it yourself, like this. It’s worth remembering that John Christy, who is definitely in the AGW skeptic camp, is responsible for the MSU UAH data series which shows exactly the same warming trend as all the others.

And since you admitted that the earth has a natural ebb and flow of temperature without the addition of man made CO2, I’m very skeptical about the verdict.

The point is, we are now changing the very same parameters which were responsible for those temperature changes before we existed – i.e. long-lived greenhouse gases, albedo, aerosols etc. If you don’t believe our changes to those parameters are having any effect, then you can’t believe that natural changes to those parameters ever had any effect either.

doug July 5, 2010 at 12:15 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

Okay Icarus, you have convinced me!

I am heading out now to trade in the Subaru Outback for a Prius…or should I just sell the car alltogether and ride my bike everywhere?

I live in a 4,000 sqft house, should I sell it, or perhaps have it demolished so that carbon absorbing trees can grow in its place?

This will be the last message you get from me as I will be selling/recyling all of my electronics…cant contribute to AGW by consuming electricity!!

Goodby fellow IHTM’ers I am going off to the mountains in hopes I can find a bear or mountain lion to consume me and return my energy back to Gaia who will use it for good, not evil….evil humans….anyone else want to join me…Icarus?…anyone?…anyone?

danybhoy July 5, 2010 at 12:53 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

Not me, I just got back from a roadie to Winnipeg, not in the mood to head into the mountains just yet. I will say they could use a nice big dose of DDT up there, the mosquitos up there are out of control. I was well syphoned of my blood up there by those effing things.

Icarus July 5, 2010 at 1:19 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

Well now… that’s an interesting comment. I do think you should make efforts to reduce your impact on the planet. I cycle to work and back every day, and cycle to many other places at other times, and I’ll often take the train and walk, or take the train and cycle, rather than using my car (electric trains are 5 to 10 times better than cars in terms of energy per passenger mile). I try to make sure that we dry clothes on the line rather than in the tumble dryer. I encourage my family to minimise driving and electricity usage, to recycle as much as possible, to avoid waste and so on. I know that my contribution in itself is insignificant, but hope that everyone will see the necessity in due course (even you).

gbrecke July 5, 2010 at 1:39 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

Electric Trains are 5-10 times better than cars in terms of energy per passenger.

That certainly depends on whether the train goes where the people want to go AND they can afford to to get to the platform to ride.

In Seattle the all knowing and all caring voted in the construction of a very expensive light rail from seattle to just short of the air port. It was constructed in such a way that most can not make use of it. If we study the ridership, energy consumed and cost per mile, it’s a big loser and an environmental disaster. It would likely be a financial disaster if it ran on fairy dust.

danybhoy July 6, 2010 at 10:32 am

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

I love how electric trains & electric cars are the answer to our problems, but many on the eco-left don’t realize that electricity comes from things like coal fire power plants, or nuke power plants. The hard leftist evironmental movement has fought the building of these plants tooth & nail for the last 30 years.

BTW, lite-rail systems are usually not cost efective, what they cost per passenger per mile is usually much higher then highways/freeways. There are some LRT systems that do OK in that area, but usually are a waste of money. You would be better with buses because of the flexability you can have by changing routes when the need exists. I personally hate public transit because I refuse to be at the mercy of gov’t transportation for any reason. Not at home, not on vacation, not ever.

gbrecke July 6, 2010 at 5:23 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Yes, everything electric is good :-) Then there’s hydrogen… that’s the real fuel (container really)….matters not what you used to create it, or how incredibly stupid the loses are in the overall system…

doug July 6, 2010 at 7:24 am

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

Yeah thanks for the “advice”. Where Im from we call that common sense. Ive had that subaru since 1999. It had 25k on the odometer when I bought it and now it has 96K. I ride a bike everywhere, not because I think Im saving the planet, but because its a great way to get around. I am always thinking of ways to save energy and consume less…not because I think it matters to Gaia, but because it saves me money.

It always amazes me how liberals feel they have discovered the secret to sustainable living and feel compelled to preach the word to others. Most people live like this because it makes sense.

danybhoy July 5, 2010 at 12:49 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

Is it just me, but does Icarus seem to have way too much interest in the subject of GlobalWarming/ClimateChange? The extent of how many posts he has at this site & how many he has made in this story are more then a little disproportionate. It is his right, but that is telling that this story is the only one he’s active in, & that has been a pattern I have been seeing here lately. Icarus & Darnell Eubank, & there have been others who have jumped in here & have had only 1 pitch. Seems to be a pattern & I don’t think it’s an accident.

Icarus July 5, 2010 at 1:23 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

danybhoy, as I said before, I have children, and one day I might have grandchildren. Destroying the relatively stable climate which has supported the growth of human civilisation for the last 10,000 years or so seems to me a fairly serious danger, and one which I think we ought to do something about, for the sake of my descendants and everyone else’s. How convinced do you have to be about something so devastating before you would do something about it?

Mistella July 5, 2010 at 4:31 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

Personally, I’ll be convinced when the Goracle moves into a reasonable sized house – or maybe just one house. When Obammy stops flying Air Force One to New York for a date. When democratic legislators ride the train home once a month instead of flying weekly. When Hollywood parks all their Gulfstreams, Citations and Lears. When these scientists stop having global conferences in desirable destinations and use video conferencing and email like the rest of us. Then, I will begin to investigate when they spout off. Till then, I refuse to be a puppet on a string.

JJJRO July 5, 2010 at 3:03 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

I can see it now… somewhere in a deep dark underground bunker, operatives of the left are busy scouring the web for logical right leaning arguments. Their handpicked agents are taught to see buzzwords like “al gore sux” and then respond using their pre-written response sheet. Hmm. That gave me the chills!!

CO2Insanity July 5, 2010 at 12:50 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

Careful Doug….Icarus will probably get a boner at the thougt of you doing all that.

doug July 5, 2010 at 2:46 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

Ewww! Tree huggers with boners…better find a knot hole!

JJJRO July 7, 2010 at 10:15 am

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

ICKY – my new nickname for you, hope you don’t mind, but the graphs I referenced show a DECLINE in temperature over the last 8 years. You must be one of the only people around who aren’t changing their tune and calling it CLIMATE change rather than GW. Most GW scientists are now jumping on the cooling bandwagon. But if I were you I’d go with “climate change” it’ll make you seem more current.>> From January 11 2010
Mojib Latif, a professor at the Leibniz Institute at Germany’s Kiel University and an author of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, thinks the cold snap Americans have been suffering through is only the beginning. He says we’re in for 30 years of cooler temperatures — a mini ice age, he calls it, basing his theory on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the world’s oceans.

gbrecke July 7, 2010 at 10:36 am

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Might as well go to a windy hill top and piss straight into a steady wind.
Facts have nothing to do with Icky’s argument.

JJJRO July 7, 2010 at 10:53 am

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Hey that’s my patented WDVS (Wind Direction Verification System)!

gbrecke July 7, 2010 at 11:11 am

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

It’s a foul wind too, same as what you find at the stock yard.

Icarus July 7, 2010 at 11:21 am

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

…the graphs I referenced show a DECLINE in temperature over the last 8 years.

OK, please read this page carefully, then come back and tell me that you understand what is wrong with your statement above.

You must be one of the only people around who aren’t changing their tune and calling it CLIMATE change rather than GW

Remember the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? Founded in 1988 – 22 years ago. Hardly what you’d call ‘changing tune’. I use the term ‘global warming’ because that describes precisely what is happening – the globe is warming at about 0.2C per decade. Even your ‘skeptical’ heroes such as Lindzen, Spencer, Christy etc. all acknowledge that. Remember that Spencer and Christy are responsible for the MSU UAH satellite temperature series which shows the same warming trend as all the others. ‘Climate change’ refers to the fact that the warming is only one aspect of what is happening to the climate at the moment – other aspects are ice melt, shifting climate zones, rising sea levels, changes in precipitation, changes in ocean acidity, salinity, currents and so on.

Mojib Latif, a professor at the Leibniz Institute at Germany’s Kiel University and an author of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, thinks the cold snap Americans have been suffering through is only the beginning. He says we’re in for 30 years of cooler temperatures…

OK, find me a verifiable direct verbatim quote from the man himself, or preferably an audio/video recording, which supports what is being attributed to him in your comment. Then we’ll discuss it.

JJJRO July 7, 2010 at 11:31 am

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

You look it up I’m tired. Just google LATIF and COOLING.
It feels like telling a child there isn’t a Santa Claus. It saddens me….
I must be getting old. I remember the coming ICE AGE (1975), the scary HOLE IN THE OZONE, Global Warming, climate change, and now, ICE AGE again.

Icarus July 7, 2010 at 11:57 am

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

I don’t have to look it up, I know what he said. He said what I’m saying in that web page of mine – that natural variability is superimposed on the long-term anthropogenic warming trend:

“The natural variation occurs side by side with the manmade warming. Sometimes it has a cooling effect and can offset this warming and other times it can accelerate it.”

Now do you understand?

Mistella July 8, 2010 at 4:21 am

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Now I DO understand. All this was about generating hits. The plot thickens.

gbrecke July 8, 2010 at 8:53 am

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Ohh, ICKY using AGW for some sort of profit or gain?
Isn’t that what it’s all about anyway?
Follow the money, power, influence, it’ll usually help you discover the real motive..

Icarus July 8, 2010 at 9:19 am

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

If you can find a way of generating an income from Google Sites, I’d be delighted to hear about it. Otherwise you’re just spouting the usual crap, which is all you have since you’re clearly incapable of understanding actual science.

CO2 Insanity July 8, 2010 at 9:29 am

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Ahhh finally! He’s denigrating to name calling! Atta boy! Lose your binder of bullshit replies and get down in the mud with the rest of us!

gbrecke July 8, 2010 at 10:10 am

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Usual Crap? that’s what you’re spreading son…
Understanding actual science? We understand all the so called science that preceeds this that turned out to be bull shit..

doug July 7, 2010 at 11:57 am

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

The only thing that NEVER gets blamed is the sun. You cant make any money on the theory that perhaps the sun’s output changes periodically.

Icarus July 7, 2010 at 12:05 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Not so. Climate scientists always factor in the variation in total solar irradiance (TSI), which in fact has been declining slightly for several decades, at the same time as global average temperature has been rising. If it weren’t for this slight cooling influence from TSI, the current warming would be even greater than it is now (by around 10%).

gbrecke July 7, 2010 at 12:13 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

And to make matters worse, the Sun is going to run out of fuel some day. Maybe we tax all who use it in order to buy more fuel when it runs low?

gbrecke July 7, 2010 at 11:58 am

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

JJRO,
We both know claims that “we’re all doomed” have been made since we left the caves. It’s worth mentioning a religious sect that grew to 100,000 members. You only became a member through castration, an oath, and ceremony of course.

Then one day the Sect disbanded with no explanation for historical record. I always thought it would have been good to have done an interview with the last member to join. If nothing else, it would be a warning to our male children at least.

The Ozone hole, I’m sure the banning of cost effective refrigerants and spray can ingredients closed it!

JJJRO July 7, 2010 at 12:51 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

They just renamed that sect and called it MARRIAGE!
Hey ICKY, you might win a nobel prize or something if you did a study on the lava mantle of the earth! I bet no one has thought about that.

CO2 Insanity July 7, 2010 at 2:19 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Too late for Icky….Al Gore says it’s several million degrees…Idiot..I mean Icky probably believes that, too like a good little greentard should.

CO2 Insanity July 8, 2010 at 10:17 am

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Even NOAA (those of the warmer persuasion) are forecasting global cooling.

http://bit.ly/dg6aLC

Icarus July 8, 2010 at 10:58 am

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Define ‘global cooling’. The globe is always warming and cooling on short timescales due to ENSO, the solar cycle etc. If NOAA are predicting that a change from El Niño to La Niña conditions in the Pacific will cause global average temperature to fall, this is not really news – it happens all the time. That’s I’ve said all along about natural variability being superimposed on the long-term anthropogenic global warming trend.

CO2 Insanity July 8, 2010 at 2:16 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Define global cooling? Are you retarded or is that from your little warmer binder of idiotic replies? You want more on this subject? Here, this is from the peer-reviewed Journal of Cosmolgy. Of course you wont believe that either because it’s contrary to your warmer belief system, which is about all you asswipes have to hang on to anymore. http://bit.ly/9DbNWx

Icarus July 8, 2010 at 2:44 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

As I said, if by ‘global cooling’ you meant the effect of ENSO changing from El Niño to La Niña conditions then that’s just normal interannual variability – not news at all. It happens all the time. Was that what you meant?

CO2 Insanity July 8, 2010 at 3:21 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Troll

Icarus July 8, 2010 at 3:28 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Could you be any more lame?

CO2 Insanity July 8, 2010 at 3:40 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

I’d say you should go look in the mirror. Does Media Matters pay you to troll around conservative websites? I only ask because you sound like a stooge.