Ipcc Says Global Warming

you really prefer this kind of argument rather than trying to prove its a hoax scientifically?

 

I was just confirming SL's suspicion of the culprits. Dig into this stuff long enough, with a good mind for pattern recognition, and multiple sources will converge on a very solid conclusion that we are being directed into a One World Government.

We have president, after president, after president, quoted describing the power behind the curtain, and the lengths Central Banks will go to control and dominate populations.

“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks…will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered…. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.” – Thomas Jefferson in the debate over the Re-charter of the Bank Bill (1809)
“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.” –Thomas Jefferson
“… The modern theory of the perpetuation of debt has drenched the earth with blood, and crushed its inhabitants under burdens ever accumulating.” -Thomas Jefferson

James Madison

“History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance.” -James Madison
“If congress has the right under the Constitution to issue paper money, it was given them to use themselves, not to be delegated to individuals or corporations.” -Andrew Jackson

Abraham Lincoln

“The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credits needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of consumers. By the adoption of these principles, the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity.” -Abraham Lincoln
“Issue of currency should be lodged with the government and be protected from domination by Wall Street. We are opposed to…provisions [which] would place our currency and credit system in private hands.” – Theodore Roosevelt

Woodrow Wilson

Despite these warnings, Woodrow Wilson signed the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. A few years later he wrote: “I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.” -Woodrow Wilson
Years later, reflecting on the major banks’ control in Washington, President Franklin Roosevelt paid this indirect praise to his distant predecessor President Andrew Jackson, who had “killed” the 2nd Bank of the US (an earlier type of the Federal Reserve System). After Jackson’s administration the bankers’ influence was gradually restored and increased, culminating in the passage of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Roosevelt knew this history.
The real truth of the matter is,as you and I know, that a financial
element in the large centers has owned the government ever since
the days of Andrew Jackson… -Franklin D. Roosevelt
(in a letter to Colonel House, dated November 21, 1933)

 

No one can argue with that info. ( But some will, of course.)

 

Reduced Ocean Alkalinity has been thoroughly debunked as far as I can tell. We may warm a little more before we head into the next glacial period. We may be heading straight into the next glacial period. Temperature has been completely stable for the past 15 years. Maybe without greenhouse gas emissions we would have cooled slightly. The fact is, the next glacial period is coming. I think even when we do start to cool, the hysteria will be pushed and extreme climate events cited as cause for taxation. I stand by the following predictions.

As CO2 levels surpass 500ppm we will not see mean global temperature rise more than 1 degree centigrade compared to 2000 mean global temperature.
As CO2 levels surpass 600ppm we will still not see mean global temperature rise more than 1 degree centigrade compared to 2000 mean global temperature.
As CO2 levels surpass 700ppm we will still not see mean global temperature rise more than 1 degree centigrade compared to 2000 mean global temperature.
As CO2 levels surpass 800ppm we will still not see mean global temperature rise more than 1 degree centigrade compared to 2000 mean global temperature.

 

yeah if your gonna go the skull-and-bones-reptilian route im out of this debate, if you want check out my last post that includes the explanation for co2 following temperature due to the global carbon cycle but i dont know about the whole new world order so, meh!

 

You obviously have no fucking clue where you are.

 

lol that really cracked me up!

 

December 2014, hottest December on record since global temperature weather average measurements started in 1880s. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-info/global/2014/12

January 2015 Second Hottest December on Record. Same time Frame. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/

Here are the global mean deviations since 1900. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global

Climate change is more accurate, because, as it's a rather large planet, parts of if may get cooler due to various negative feedback loops. Ocean Desalination and such. However, Global warming is still accurate and accepted within the scientific community. The global balance of heat that the earth is absorbing vs radiating into space is increasing. And steadily.

Both of those time periods also happen to be times of mass extinctions which does not lend credence to your argument. The Ordovician-Silurian extinction event is related to the "Snowball Earth" period. Since there were no oceans at this time, there was no carbon sequestration happening because there were no oceans. Volcanism was still happening, and after millions of years of CO2 buildup, the earth experienced enough of a greenhouse effect to break free of the ice.

The entire Mesozoic period had much higher CO2 concentration than present. The highest was the Triassic, following the Precambrian extinction event. One in which the Siberian Basalt's erupted. A volcano eruption lasting 100,000 years.

http://www.le.ac.uk/gl/ads/SiberianTraps/EndPermianNew.html

Question 1: The planet Venus.

Question 2: You're incorrect, but there's a grain of truth in your ignorance. Oceans sequester carbon dioxide. When Oceans freeze, they trap that extra CO2 as Ice. When the planet warms and the ice melts, that carbon dioxide which was stored in ice is released. This is a positive feedback loop.

I literally don't think you could find a person that has would ever disagree with "the government might be dishonest".

Roy Spencer is also a signer of the Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming. Which states that:

We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception

http://www.cornwallalliance.org/2009/05/01/signers-of-an-evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/


In other words, his religious views are maybe slightly clouding his judgment.

You're dismissing all evidence which is literally all evidence because it disagrees with your conclusion. How are you up for a debate?

 

Three words: hide the decline. I don't care if Richard Muller was made an offer he couldn't refuse after the fact, he wasn't lying when he made this presentation and he hasn't retracted it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk#t=3m13s

Easterbrook also finds these organizations "adjusting the data". Old hard copies show dramatically different trends than those published by NASA / NOAA. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFyH-b3FRvE#t=13m31s

"The reason the data was manipulated by NASA, the NOAA, the IPCC, etc, is very, very simple: greed. All these government agencies and universities are government ran or receive government subsidies and grants. If you shovel a bunch of cash in the face of people at the top that work for you and say "Hey, we have a preconceived notion of X. If you can prove our belief in X, we'll give you more $." The greed of those "scientists" that formed said "consensus" isn't hard to see. Then, if you zoom even further back from the situation, you see those paying all that money to said groups to find X have their own agenda for gaining more $: "If we can get the world to believe us, especially backed by our "scientific data", we can then convince the public that we can then fix the 'problem' we've "discovered", but we'll have to have more money to do it. Then we can suck their bones dry for more wealth for ourselves!"
You laugh, but don't be surprised by the greed of politicians or the governments they control.. "

How EXACTLY is 1998 not the highest deviation on this list anyway?

Now, do you believe NASA and NOAA and the IPCC manipulate the data or do you think they have no incentive to do so?

Bear in mind, in 150 years of pumping this CO2 we haven't seen a 1 degree rise in temperature, and during this time there were three available possibilities for the climate whether or not humans even existed.
A. Cooling Temperatures
B. Stable Temperatures
C. Warming Temperatures

We've seen a lot of B. with tiny little hint of C. Is it time to panic?

 

No... I'm not. We haven't seen more than a degree of warming despite putting tremendous amounts of CO2 in the air (albeit teeny tiny fractions of actual atmospheric composition)
1,000,000
...........400

This has been having essentially no effect. The burden of proof is not on me to prove it will continue to have no effect, all the empirical evidence shows it has no effect and won't have an effect. If you create computer models entirely detached from empirical evidence, and massage the numbers until they validate your disastrous predictions, you will see scary graphs predicting scary things. Then when those scary predictions fail, just downplay the failures and encourage the public not to question them while you make new scary predictions.

The hottest year on record! By 0.007 degrees! Next year will be cooler but then 2017 will be the hottest year on record by 0.009 degrees! Get away from the coasts now, you might not be able to outrun the rising sea levels! Also, let us tax you. Problem, reaction, solution.

Unfortunately, I'm finding Christians to have more commitment to honesty, or rather, aversion to deception than other groups. I went through an Anti-Theism phase, and I still hold onto a lot of that, but I'm finding more and more that Christians have their virtues. Even if their worldview is rooted in dogma, of all the broken clocks they seem to be right most often. Dependence on such a philosophy is weak minded, yes. It would be better if they were people who could stand confidently on a righteous, secular foundation, but most people seem incapable of that. They have some very positive doctrines that can't be ignored, their disdain for dishonesty foremost among them.

Roy Spencer puts out a lot of data, prone to criticism and critique. He could be proven wrong. If he's wrong, he should be proven wrong, and would be proven wrong, but he hasn't so he's almost certainly not wrong. You and everyone else criticize the character of the messenger while they put forth hard data. Spend your effort debunking the data. Oh, it's not debunkable.

 

1974 Global Cooling LOL! The Weather Machine

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeC_J6Pk_1w#t=29m

"There's the ever present threat of a big freeze. Will a new ice age claim our lands and bury our northern cities?"

 

so your admitting that its getting hotter, but you dont believe its getting hotter?

lets step back from all the "data" for a second.

i just want you to answer a simple question that i think will clear alot of my confusion.

do you believe that CO2 traps heat in our atmosphere?





thats a super simple yes or no question. if you dont think that CO2 traps heat in our atmosphere then you would be going against all the science that shows CO2 has a greenhouse effect.


we already know that humans are increasing the CO2 levels in our atmosphere so how can the earths temperature not increase?


you really dont need to show data or graphs to answer this. if you believe increasing co2 levels is not causing temperature increase, just explain why because i want to understand your argument.

 

It's getting hotter at a flat line pace, and we're due for a glacial period. This is thoroughly debunked. Even with the media blitzing this issue as hard as ever, more and more people are realizing that it wasn't long ago, 40 years, that we were worried about cold disaster, now it's hot disaster.

Yes greenhouse gases have an extremely negligible effect on temperatures. We are not anywhere remotely close to creating a runaway snowballing effect. We would have to try our fucking hardest to increase temperature 1 degree. We couldn't do any damage temperature wise in 100 years if we tried.

 

just to clarify, you believe that its getting hotter, or that its not getting hotter because that has been debunked?

 

we disagree here. i propose that greenhouse gasses are one of the main driving forces warming the planet.


Definition of Radiative Forcing from wikipedia:

so we can see that greenhouse gasses are one of the main drivers of radiative forcing.

Nerdanderthal claims that this increase is extremely negligable, so lets see how much greenhouse gasses actually affect radiative forcing.


one way we can measure how greenhouse gasses affect radiative forcing is to see how much each molecule actually reflects the insolation back down towards earth.

concept 1: when the suns rays hit the earth they are reflected back out, some of these rays are absorbed by the molecules of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere and reflected back down.

concept 2: when this radiation hits greenhouse gas molecules in the atmosphere they are reflected in all directions, some go back down towards earth. when radiation is reflected in this way, different molecules will create a different changes in the electromagnetic spectrum, which we can measure through spectroscopy back on the surface of the earth.

concept 3: since each molecule has different reflective properties, we can measure the radiation that reaches earth and measure how much energy each molecule or each greenhouse gas has reflected back down to earth.

so here is a study that actually measures the spectrum of greenhouse gasses to see which elements are reflecting the most energy back down to earth, and they found that CO2 is the biggest contributor to radiative forcing (besides water). (https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm)

 

As one gets older, our experiences see memories
Winter saw white, cold wintery blanket,
Spring saw return from hibernation from natures slumber,
Summers were warm with Sunshine uplifting spirits
Autumn (fall) that period of both respite and preparation afore the circle turns again
Seasons were seasons, and it was nature’s cycle and not a digital alarm clock that was required to tell the time
The influence and decision making of mankind has made, and continues to make does have an effect on our climate and the change we are experiencing - Natures cycle is methodical and with purpose.
What happens when the ingredients of a well prepared cake are out of sync with the recipe required? it sees it ruined
Comparison is unavoidably inevitable - methinks

 

Wait? Are you denying that global warming is anthropogenic? Or are you stating that there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect? The roughly 0.6 C temperature increase is 1.8 F. That temperature is higher at the extremes. Poles.

We can look into Antarctic and Arctic Ice cores and have very stable atmospheric C02 concentrations for the past 800,000 years. It has never risen above 300 ppm in that time. The C02 Concentration in the atmosphere is increased 25% in the past 150 years. It sure can seem small if you only look at it as a PPM value.

Global temperatures have increased more at night in this time frame. That's the opposite effect that we would experience if solar activity was to blame. We can measure volcanic activity as well. If it were a major contributing factor, it would happen as spikes. Not as predictable increases over time from our known carbon emitting activities.

Empirical evidence?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wE4ynZB0Wj0

I recommend you watch that entire documentary actually. Chasing Ice. It's on Netflix, and it's not even preachy.

You could also look into the situation in the Maldives.

Well if you're worried about 'The Day After Tomorrow' kind of mass extinction events happening overnight, than no. It almost certainly won't be that immediate. But the effects of CO2 and global warming compounding over several generations have significant effects on the climate. If you're only concerned human actions having an effect for next year, than you should not be making policy decisions.

It's not about honesty or dishonesty. It's a philosophy shared by some Christians that dictates that the world was created specially for humans, and that humans could not possibly have a major effect on it. Having that world view inherently creates a conflict when considering human actions having an effect on the ecosystem.

That's a significant logical fallacy there. 'If something hasn't been disproved it's true'. What is his data? Give me spreadsheets or articles and I promise I'll look at them, when time allows.

But you're whole case isn't one of evidence anyway. It's of spreading doubt based upon distrust of the Government or NWO or whatever. Science doesn't care about the source of the information. It cares about following the evidence. And in this case, there is tremendous evidence supporting anthropogenic climate change.

You dismiss that evidence based on your worldview. We are at an impasse.

 

There was a cooling trend in land temperatures between the 40's and 70's, particularly in Urban environments. Due to this, there were some in the scientific community concerned about global cooling. During this time there were also many papers published regarding global warming.

In retrospect, we know the cause of the urban cooling trends were largely due to high sulfate concentrations from smog. Look at pictures of the New York City sky in the 70's. Through catalytic converters and clean air acts, and reductions in smog, this urban cooling effect has largely subsided.

This actually happens after really big volcanic eruptions too. There is initial cooling from the smog and debris, followed by a longer heating trends associated with atmospheric CO2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer

 

Lode,

Richard Lindsen of MIT is probably the foremost expert on this topic. He knows there's no reason to panic. He knows there's dishonesty and profit involved in creating this problem, reaction, solution scenario.

Evidence... the burden of proof is on you, and people who believe as you do, that for the first time ever in the history of the earth CO2 is driving warming. CO2 follows warming. It has a minute, miniscule amplifying effect. There is no snowball effect. Day After Tomorrow planted extremely effective emotional imagery in your heads and you've been infected with unreasonable hypotheses.

Lode, what do you think should be done? The biggest producers by many orders of magnitude are China and India. We haven't seen any warming since the year 2000, but what do you think we should impose on China and India to prevent the warming that isn't happening?

 

Does anyone deny that NASA and NOAA and the IPCC have been caught misrepresenting data? "Hiding the decline", multiple times?



Easterbrook also finds these organizations "adjusting the data". Old hard copies show dramatically different trends than those published by NASA / NOAA. https://www.youtube....b3FRvE#t=13m31s

Three words: hide the decline. I don't care if Richard Muller was made an offer he couldn't refuse after the fact, he wasn't lying when he made this presentation and he hasn't retracted it. https://www.youtube....ciw8suk#t=3m13s