Thread: Any doubts about Climate Change?

Originally Posted by pulvarien

When the temperature hit 0 degrees in the middle of august in twente Holland last week where were the mountains? Sorry there aren't any and that's in the summer too. Of course it was the night.

I would have hoped that this would have educated you as to the significance of the word "change" in "Climate change".

But unfortunately it appears that you're a bit thick.

Originally Posted by Somboon

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by pulvarien

When the temperature hit 0 degrees in the middle of august in twente Holland last week where were the mountains? Sorry there aren't any and that's in the summer too. Of course it was the night.

I would have hoped that this would have educated you as to the significance of the word "change" in "Climate change".

But unfortunately it appears that you're a bit thick.

Been around for billions of years.

My word, nothing gets past you does it?

Originally Posted by pulvarien

The originator of this story is from realscience.com

And is on the payroll of the Koch Brothers as a speaker for the "Heartland Institute".

Originally Posted by Somboon

Wattsupwiththat is the best site to cover the data fudging

Anthony Watts studied Electrical Engineering and Meteorology at Purdue University, but he did not graduate.

That would be the founder of your Highly regarded website. He also happens to be affiliated with the heritage foundation like all the so called denialists. You people are the definition of stupid.

http://www.desmogblog.com/anthony-watts

Originally Posted by Somboon

No understanding of basic scientific principles.

Originally Posted by Somboon

The false 97% claim was really a tiny %

Then post up some peer reviewed data to prove it wrong. Post up some articles by legitimate climate scientist not on big oil or the heritage foundations payroll.

Better yet post up a list of scientists who have come out say that global warming is not happening..

The truth is that you cant.

I will even give you a head start...

https://scholar.google.com/

Originally Posted by Somboon

Popular Technology.net: The Truth about Skeptical Science

The false 97% claim was really a tiny %

Is that your website because you parrot off a lot of the nonsense that it contains.

The number is not false and your claim has been debunked countless times on this website over the years. You deniers have a lack of evidence and material so you are constantly bringing up old recycled debunked garbage and your claim is just another one of these. I will not waste my time constantly reposting articled and data that I have already posted here. Go back and read through the thread before you post up nonsense.

Don't Be Fooled: Fossil Fools Fund Latest Climate Skeptic Petition | DeSmogBlog

Originally Posted by Somboon

Observed increases in ocean heat content (OHC) and temperature are robust indicators of global warming during the past several decades. We used high-resolution proxy records from sediment cores to extend these observations in the Pacific 10,000 years beyond the instrumental record. We show that water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctic intermediate waters were warmer by 2.1 ± 0.4°C and 1.5 ± 0.4°C, respectively, during the middle Holocene Thermal Maximum than over the past century. Both water masses were ~0.9°C warmer during the Medieval Warm period than during the Little Ice Age and ~0.65° warmer than in recent decades.

Pacific Ocean Heat Content During the Past 10,000 Years | Science

That study supports anthropogenic global warming you mungbean!

Not only do you clearly not understand the science behind it but you don't even understand what you're linking to.

Originally Posted by Somboon

Sad little poor lefty.

Ahh so thats it you are right wing. No wonder you are a science denier.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

That study supports anthropogenic global warming you mungbean!

Why must they all be so stupid?

Originally Posted by Somboon

Shows warmer in the past

You don't even understand what you've posted. You just Googled something that you thought supported your position and cut 'n pasted it with zero comprehension.

Re: the study you linked to:

Oceans heating up faster now than in the past 10,000 years, says new study

Posted on 5 November 2013 by John Abraham

If the latest research is correct, our oceans are heating up much faster now than they have in the past 10,000 years. This is one of the conclusions that is drawn from a recently published paper in Science. The researchers (Yair Rosenthal, Braddock Linsley, and Delia Oppo) cleverly traveled back in time to explore how ocean temperatures have changed. Comparison of those temperatures to today's helped them quantify the impact that human greenhouse gas emissions are having on the planet.

[...]

Here is what the author himself had to say:

"It is clear that much of the heat that humans have put into the atmosphere through greenhouse gas emissions will be absorbed by the ocean. But the absorption time takes hundreds of years, much longer than the current rate of warming and the planet will keep warming. Our study puts the modern observations into a long-term context. Our reconstruction of Pacific Ocean temperatures suggests that in the last 10,000 years, the Pacific mid-depths have generally been cooling by about 2 degrees centigrade until a minimum about 300 years during the period known as the Little Ice Age.

After that, mid-depth temperatures started warming but at a very slow rate. Then, since about 1950, temperatures from just below the sea surface to ~1000 meter, increased by 0.18 degrees C. This seemingly small increase occurred an order of magnitude faster than suggested by the gradual change during the last 10,000 years thereby providing another indication for global warming. But our results also show the temperature of the ocean interior is still much colder than at any time in the past 10,000 years thus, lagging the changes we see at the ocean surface."

Oceans heating up faster now than in the past 10,000 years, says new study

You utter mungbean!

Originally Posted by bsnub

Why must they all be so stupid?

It's ridonkulous.

The weirdest thing about it is that surely you'd have to actually put effort into being that stupid?!

Notice how they call you right wing somboon! Anyone who says gw is a lie is automatically considered right wing! You cant just be for the truth! This demonstrates how they see it as a right wing vs left wing argument. And this shows what there actually after and that's socialism or should we say the big C word??? A dictatorship of the left wing because they know better then we the simple proletariat.

They will start with a price on carbon, or when u leave orwells animal house and return to English, a TAX on all power. They claim its on the big companies but we all know its the little guy who gets the bill in the end. This will directly hurt the poorest the most vulnerable and force them to become more dependant on big govt, which oh my god is exactly what they want!

Of course the greens will be in positions of power and not be affected like we the little people.....

Originally Posted by pulvarien

Notice how they call you right wing somboon!

That's because he is rightwing.

*Derp*

Originally Posted by pulvarien

This demonstrates how they see it as a right wing vs left wing argument

This is from your very first post in this thread: "...the green/extreme socialists..."

Making it a "right wing vs left wing argument".

*Double Derp*

^^ Ah another retard chimes in.

Originally Posted by pulvarien

Notice how they call you right wing somboon!

Did you happen to notice that he brought up my political affiliation first? Jeezus

Originally Posted by pulvarien

This demonstrates how they see it as a right wing vs left wing argument.

Maybe that's because almost all of the denialists are religious right wing wackos or billionaires.

Originally Posted by pulvarien

They claim its on the big companies but we all know its the little guy who gets the bill in the end. This will directly hurt the poorest the most vulnerable and force them to become more dependant on big govt, which oh my god is exactly what they want!

Are you out of your mind?

Originally Posted by bsnub

Maybe that's because almost all of the denialists are religious right wing wackos or billionaires.

You don't have to be of a certain vintage, right-wing, a White male, lack an understanding of the fundamentals of science, or be unable to differentiate between 'climate' and 'weather' to be a denialist.

It just really helps.

^Greened. Buahaha!!

Denialist retards getting....

All you who just read these posts bye the green/demotards must see its all about politics, power, and taxes your money. The greens are true believers, the terms from a book written in the 50s used as a sociology text to describe cultists and the greens are hard core cultists.

Originally Posted by pulvarien

Notice how they call you right wing somboon! Anyone who says gw is a lie is automatically considered right wing! You cant just be for the truth! This demonstrates how they see it as a right wing vs left wing argument.

...

Originally Posted by pulvarien

All you who just read these posts bye the green/demotards must see its all about politics, power, and taxes your money. The greens are true believers, the terms from a book written in the 50s used as a sociology text to describe cultists and the greens are hard core cultists.

You're simply too self-contradictory and unable to make a coherent, consistent, or logical point to be taken seriously. And that's without even considering your inability to grasp even the most basic of the fundamentals of science - you quite literally don't even know what you're talking about.

Frankly you come off as some sort of parody of a denialist whackjob. Maybe you're a plant by these greens you are always babbling on about, meant to discredit denialists by making them look thick.

^
I believe he's vying to be one of the lead cultists on this board.

On the SITE THAT CANNOT BE NAMED today [scary music now]. On the right under 411 there are some good articles the first gavin making the 1940s warmth disappear in the article a series of nasa graphs showing the evolution in how the greens disappeared the temps in the 40s and now show..... Second overestimating global waming over the past 20 years [intentional of course, otherwise how would u start a good old panic]. Third, US biofuels increase rather then decrease co2 levels. There are lots of other interesting articles too!

Brought to you all from the SITE THAT HAS BEEN DEBUNKED.

Originally Posted by pulvarien

On the SITE THAT CANNOT BE NAMED today [scary music now]. On the right under 411 there are some good articles the first gavin making the 1940s warmth disappear in the article a series of nasa graphs showing the evolution in how the greens disappeared the temps in the 40s and now show..... Second overestimating global waming over the past 20 years [intentional of course, otherwise how would u start a good old panic]. Third, US biofuels increase rather then decrease co2 levels. There are lots of other interesting articles too!

Brought to you all from the SITE THAT HAS BEEN DEBUNKED.

I talked of this cosmic ray theory here years ago .

High sun activity (ie many sun spots) causes cosmic rays that normally fall on Earth to be batted away.
Thus less clouds are formed as they are seeded by these very particles .

High sun activity = fewer clouds = global warming and vice versa




Nice to see other scientist agreeing:

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK

New study confirms 'solar activity has a direct impact on Earth's cloud cover' important to climate change


A new study confirms "solar variations affect the abundance of clouds in our atmosphere," a solar amplification mechanism which is the basis of Svensmark's theory of cosmo-climatology.

The solar eruptions are known to shield Earth's atmosphere from cosmic rays. However the new study, published in Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, shows that the global cloud cover is simultaneously reduced, supporting the idea that cosmic rays are important for cloud formation. The eruptions cause a reduction in cloud fraction of about 2 percent corresponding to roughly a billion tonnes of liquid water disappearing from the atmosphere.

As Dr. Roy Spencer notes,

"The most obvious way for warming to be caused naturally is for small, natural fluctuations in the circulation patterns of the atmosphere and ocean to result in a 1% or 2% decrease in global cloud cover. Clouds are the Earth’s sunshade, and if cloud cover changes for any reason, you have global warming — or global cooling."

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Bombshell: New study confirms 'solar activity has a direct impact on Earth's cloud cover' important to climate change