Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sorry Global Warming Alarmists, The Earth Is Cooling
Forbes.com ^ | 31MAY2012 | Peter Ferrara

Posted on 02/03/2013 5:03:35 PM PST by Jack Hydrazine

Climate change itself is already in the process of definitively rebutting climate alarmists who think human use of fossil fuels is causing ultimately catastrophic global warming. That is because natural climate cycles have already turned from warming to cooling, global temperatures have already been declining for more than 10 years, and global temperatures will continue to decline for another two decades or more.

(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: cooling; global; globalcooling; globalwanking; globalwarming; warming
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-74 next last
I checked to see if it has already been posted but could not find any.
1 posted on 02/03/2013 5:03:48 PM PST by Jack Hydrazine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine

The record shows that CO2 concentration follow changes in temperature. So I would feel perfectly confident predicting that if temperatures keep falling in a few years CO2 will start to fall too.


2 posted on 02/03/2013 5:12:53 PM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine
Of course, this is why nobody calls it "global warming" anymore.

The new term is "climate change", didn't you get the memo?

It's still your fault; because you drive an SUV and use incandescent lightbulbs.

3 posted on 02/03/2013 5:14:36 PM PST by Izzy Dunne (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DManA
Only if you make the false assumption that atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures are causal.
4 posted on 02/03/2013 5:15:28 PM PST by Buffalo Head (Illigitimi non carborundum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine
We're so sorry, Uncle Algore,

but we couldn't buy your BS for another day!

5 posted on 02/03/2013 5:17:09 PM PST by TigersEye (The irresponsible should not be leading the responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buffalo Head

Don’t have to make any assumptions about causality, The pattern is clear. Temperatures to up, after a lag CO2 goes up. Temperature goes down, after a lag CO2 goes down.


6 posted on 02/03/2013 5:17:38 PM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: All


Help FR Continue the Conservative Fight!
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!

Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!


7 posted on 02/03/2013 5:18:24 PM PST by musicman (Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine

The solution for global cooling will be the same as for global warming... taxes on everything that keeps the peasants alive.


8 posted on 02/03/2013 5:19:43 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (TYRANNY: When the people fear the politicians. LIBERTY: When the politicians fear the people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine
Wow. Remember they changed it from global warming to climate change. Change can mean warmer and colder doncha know.

Read the other day that scientist are admitting now that the Sun contributed to the warming cycle. If there was a warming cycle.

Who are these so called scientist. Apparently a bunch of circus clowns.

9 posted on 02/03/2013 5:20:00 PM PST by dhs12345
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine
No doubt the data in this article is true but the enviros are going to dismiss it because of the source.

That is one of the most interesting conclusions to come out of the seventh International Climate Change Conference sponsored by the Heartland Institute...

10 posted on 02/03/2013 5:21:35 PM PST by Robwin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
Unfortunately, he is sitting on a beach somewhere drinking pinas enjoying his “gains” from his little scam.
11 posted on 02/03/2013 5:22:48 PM PST by dhs12345
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Robwin
As if Algore, their climate god, has any credibility. Lol.
12 posted on 02/03/2013 5:24:23 PM PST by dhs12345
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: DManA
I think I see the trend. CO2 goes up as it becomes colder!
13 posted on 02/03/2013 5:25:28 PM PST by Jack Hydrazine (It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dhs12345

If he gains anymore he’s going to have to move off of the beach and out into deep water ... for buoyancy!


14 posted on 02/03/2013 5:32:39 PM PST by TigersEye (The irresponsible should not be leading the responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine

If you go back long term you’ll see that CO2 rises with temperature. BUT - it is in RESPONSE to the temperature increase which can sort-of be seen your graphs.

Also, in looking at the longer term (million years) graphs - the interglacial warm periods last about 10,000 years or so. We are on about year 9,999 of our most recent ice-free period. I’m not making predictions, but it wouldn’t surprise me if the next ice age is near. Research also shows that they may not have been gradual as one would think, but happen over a matter of years to decades, not hundreds or thousands of years.


15 posted on 02/03/2013 5:39:22 PM PST by 21twelve ("We've got the guns, and we got the numbers" adapted and revised from Jim M.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine
There is definitely a correlation between the rise and fall of temperature and the rise and fall of CO2 levels.

CO2, Temperatures, and Ice Ages

(excerpted graphs from article)

The well known Temperature-CO2 relation with temperature as a driver of CO2 is easily shown:

Temperature seems to drag CO2 levels behind it like a dead cat tied to the bumper of a car.

16 posted on 02/03/2013 5:44:37 PM PST by TigersEye (The irresponsible should not be leading the responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
Lol. A new species for the enviros to protect. Half man, half whale, half pig, half bear (I know, too many “halfs”), — all manbearpig!
17 posted on 02/03/2013 5:45:23 PM PST by dhs12345
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine

A few years ago Algore was on a speaking tour/conference circuit

Just about everywhere he went a day or 2 later they had more snow and cold tempertures than they had had in years even 100 years...

He went to Canada and a few states and overseas to Europe etc...

he would get there and gloat it was warmer than it had been before

he would leave and freezing cold and snow would happen

Canada (Montreal I think) was one of the worst in 100 years places..

and Europe had a big freeze too..

:)

and heres a song for our Burn Owl err Al..

Where our Albert Gore goes

(To the tune of Where My Rosemary Goes)

and a one and a two...

Oh the snow blows
Where our Albert Gore goes
And nobody knows
Like we

Theres something about that global warm guy
That attracts fridged air and that white stuff from on high
Hes just the sort to cool down a state
or a nation that late
ly has been hot for 10 weeks straight..

Cause snow blows
Where our Albert Gore goes
And nobody knows
Like we


18 posted on 02/03/2013 5:48:27 PM PST by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

The question is which is the cause and which is the effect? And by how much?

Have they ruled out that that increased temperatures might cause C02?


19 posted on 02/03/2013 5:53:06 PM PST by dhs12345
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: dhs12345
South Park needs an updated episode on Algorezeera.

manbearpigwhale

20 posted on 02/03/2013 5:53:12 PM PST by TigersEye (The irresponsible should not be leading the responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana

Sounds like the Gore Effect keeps effecting!


21 posted on 02/03/2013 5:53:48 PM PST by Jack Hydrazine (It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: dhs12345
Well, clearly the factor that lags behind is not the causal one.
That would kind of stand the notion of linear time on its head.
22 posted on 02/03/2013 5:56:32 PM PST by TigersEye (The irresponsible should not be leading the responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: 21twelve

Yes, temperature leads CO2 by about 800 or so years.


23 posted on 02/03/2013 5:58:16 PM PST by Jack Hydrazine (It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
I wonder if they will even touch it. Probably not.

Algorezeera. Lol.

24 posted on 02/03/2013 5:59:05 PM PST by dhs12345
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
Leave it to the “scientists” to twist the theories and data to fit the politics.

Such as the increase in temperature was from the last increase in CO2 or some silly bs like that.

Or the bad economy is still Bush’s fault and will still be Bush’s fault for the next 20 years.

25 posted on 02/03/2013 6:08:12 PM PST by dhs12345
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: DManA
The record shows that CO2 concentration follow changes in temperature. So I would feel perfectly confident predicting that if temperatures keep falling in a few years CO2 will start to fall too.

I don't think you want that. If we had not been around, the oceans would have released 5-10 ppm of CO2 from the rise in temperature from the Little Ice Age (about 1C). Instead we have had over 110 ppm rise and still rising. To absorb 5-10 ppm they would have to drop 1C (which would be very bad). For the oceans to absorb 50-100 would require them to drop at least 10C from current temperatures. Very very bad.

26 posted on 02/03/2013 6:14:32 PM PST by palmer (Obama = Carter + affirmative action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dhs12345
I wouldn't be too hard on scientists. Check my link in post #16. Those are scientists unraveling the BS of the Glowbull Warming hacks. It's more complicated than my 'dead cat tied to a bumper' joke but temperature does move first and CO2 levels follow it.

It is clear in the long term...

And in the short term...


27 posted on 02/03/2013 6:18:48 PM PST by TigersEye (The irresponsible should not be leading the responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

Looking at your chart the change in CO2 per degree change in temperature is about 10 to 1 (10 ppm for 1C change). But we have had over 100 ppm change (we’re now above 390). So the temperature can no longer be “dragging” CO2 behind it (that would require over 10C temperature rise). But rather CO2 is just going up because we are releasing it. It doesn’t have much effect on temperature because temperature reaches a peak based on convection and outgoing radiation (modulated by weather which is mostly solar controlled).


28 posted on 02/03/2013 6:20:44 PM PST by palmer (Obama = Carter + affirmative action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: dhs12345

See my previous post. An increase of global temperature causes about 10ppm rise in CO2, maybe a bit more. That’s what would have happened as we warmed from the Little Ice Age to now. Instead there has been over 110 ppm rise in CO2 and still rising 2-3 ppm per year. Temperature is not pulling CO2 up anymore, CO2 is rising because we are releasing it.


29 posted on 02/03/2013 6:23:06 PM PST by palmer (Obama = Carter + affirmative action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: palmer
I should have said "An increase of global temperature of 1C causes about 10ppm rise in CO2, maybe a bit more."
30 posted on 02/03/2013 6:25:03 PM PST by palmer (Obama = Carter + affirmative action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: palmer

What is the percentage of the human contribution to CO2 and natural CO2?


31 posted on 02/03/2013 6:34:53 PM PST by dhs12345
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: palmer

I think the article I linked to gets into that a little bit. Another point it makes is that the longer a warming period results in a slower cooling period afterward. One speculation is that the higher CO2 level slows the cooling period. But the author is honest enough to say that it’s not clear that that is the case and other factors need to be explored. In any case he says “I have not found a single situation where a significant raise of CO2 is accompanied by significant temperature rise- WHEN NOT PRECEDED BY TEMPERATURE RISE.”


32 posted on 02/03/2013 6:41:32 PM PST by TigersEye (The irresponsible should not be leading the responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

Okay. Makes sense. Generally.

In all of the discussions, I haven’t heard anyone ask — “how accurate is the data, how accurate are the models, what assumptions did you make and approximations did you make, and therefore how accurate are the results?” With what kind of accuracy can you predict global temperatures tomorrow, a week from today, an month from now and a year from now.

Science is never precise and exact. Only estimates and approximations... probabilities. Especially, with excessively complex systems as the climate. We are being told that AGW is a done deal; it is an absolute, indisputable, without question.


33 posted on 02/03/2013 6:49:14 PM PST by dhs12345
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: DManA

Please provide the source of your data or speculation.


34 posted on 02/03/2013 6:53:05 PM PST by Buffalo Head (Illigitimi non carborundum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine

I am still waiting for Al Gore to hold a press conference with answers to the recent antartic like weather the US experienced last week.


35 posted on 02/03/2013 6:58:54 PM PST by Seventh_Tiger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

Okay, another question. Sorry.

The below graph only shows CO2 concentration. Not cause and effect.

Suppose the cause is not increased production of CO2 but whatever mechanism or process that consumes it.


36 posted on 02/03/2013 7:02:17 PM PST by dhs12345
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Buffalo Head

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

Your welcome.


37 posted on 02/03/2013 7:08:43 PM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Seventh_Tiger
Let him explain this, too!

Arctic Ice Growth Shatters Previous Records

“Arctic ice area growth since mid-September has shattered the previous record, growing 175,000 Manhattans of new ice over the last four months,” says Steven Goddard.

Have you seen this anywhere in the mainstream media?

In related news... http://iceagenow.info/2013/01/severe-blizzard-eastern-romania-video/ Severe blizzard in Eastern Romania – Video
38 posted on 02/03/2013 7:11:37 PM PST by Jack Hydrazine (It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Seventh_Tiger
Let him explain this, too!

Arctic Ice Growth Shatters Previous Records

“Arctic ice area growth since mid-September has shattered the previous record, growing 175,000 Manhattans of new ice over the last four months,” says Steven Goddard.

Have you seen this anywhere in the mainstream media?

In related news...

Severe blizzard in Eastern Romania – Video
39 posted on 02/03/2013 7:12:50 PM PST by Jack Hydrazine (It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
http://www.skepticalscience.com/skakun-co2-temp-lag.html

I offer this for your viewing pleasure, note I don't actually buy what the link claims.

Its fun though. Polar CO2 Temps are not indicative of global temps when they need to get past the co2 lagging temps issue but then as soon as they are clear of that the melting ice is proof positive of global warming.

Its enough to make a polar bear want to take a swim.
40 posted on 02/03/2013 7:21:02 PM PST by wonkowasright (Wonko from outside the asylum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: wonkowasright
Yeah, that was amusing. They throw out ice core samples as reliable indicators of global temperatures yet that's all there is to go by if you're going to go beyond a few thousand years ago. We don't have any 100,000 year old trees to check rings on.

There is just never any explanation for why and how there were periods in the distant past that were much warmer than the present or how plant and animal life managed to survive it in great abundance.

41 posted on 02/03/2013 7:33:27 PM PST by TigersEye (The irresponsible should not be leading the responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: dhs12345

You are right, it only shows a correlation. But even if there is an intermediate mechanism, ie rising temps cause X-factor to occur which causes a rise in CO2 levels, even though indirect the rising temps would be causal to the rising CO2. The fact that it always seems to happen leads one to a causal connection even though it doesn’t reveal a mechanism to explain it.


42 posted on 02/03/2013 7:42:22 PM PST by TigersEye (The irresponsible should not be leading the responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate/2008.php

Well if you liked that here's another. Page S23 of the NOAA 2008 Climate Assessment. First 95% of all model predictions ruled out decade long stagnation of temps and they state that 15 years are needed before a serious discrepancy. We are at 16 years no so we are past the point of showing the models are not predicting observation. Which is the key....are the models predictive or not.

Back when I was a lad the temps leading co2 was conventional wisdom, and the natural cycle indicated we would be entering a cooling period. The science was never refuted but instead the computer models emerged predicting global warming. Because in those days using a computer was akin to "the gods said so" it took the land by storm. The question has always been are the models crap or not.

Anyway the real gem is in the third column where they claim the stable temps are potentially caused by the natural variability of "the solar cycle". Those who claim perhaps climate is tied to solar cycle have been beat over the head for decades that its silly to think the sun affects climate, yet here is NOAA claiming the solar cycle is to blame for no global warming.
43 posted on 02/03/2013 8:22:06 PM PST by wonkowasright (Wonko from outside the asylum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye; dhs12345

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20413-warmer-oceans-release-co2-faster-than-thought.html

“As the world’s oceans warm, their massive stores of dissolved carbon dioxide may be quick to bubble back out into the atmosphere and amplify the greenhouse effect, according to a new study.”

I think of it as a soda goes “flat” quicker when it is warm.

And your long-term chart that shows the several inter-glacial warm periods is the one that concerns me. We are currently in what seems to be the longest one yet (so it MIGHT be that the switch to another ice age is imminent). And the TINY percentage of “global warming gases” that humans release will not make a difference to prevent it.


44 posted on 02/03/2013 8:27:10 PM PST by 21twelve ("We've got the guns, and we got the numbers" adapted and revised from Jim M.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: wonkowasright

If the sun doesn't produce a good crop of siunspots by the middle of the next 11 year cycle....expect at best another 400 year long mini ice age.

45 posted on 02/03/2013 8:37:58 PM PST by spokeshave (The only people better off today than 4 years ago are the Prisoners at Guantanamo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: wonkowasright
Those who claim perhaps climate is tied to solar cycle have been beat over the head for decades that its silly to think the sun affects climate, yet here is NOAA claiming the solar cycle is to blame for no global warming.

I sometimes wonder if the purpose of this, and all socialist 'data,' is to simply overload the populace with so much cognitive dissonance that we all just stop thinking about anything.

46 posted on 02/03/2013 8:39:06 PM PST by TigersEye (The irresponsible should not be leading the responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: 21twelve
I think that's likely true unless we're just lucky enough that this happens to be when the glacial/inter-glacial pattern deviates from its past performance. Vegas odds on that probably aren't very good.

I generally don't take the 'we deserve it' kind of view but maybe it is time for the 'planet' to humble its inhabitants a bit. 90k - 120k year's worth of glaciation would certainly do it. We all be movin' closer to da equator, mon. Goin' be a liddle crowded at da beach bar.

47 posted on 02/03/2013 8:53:01 PM PST by TigersEye (The irresponsible should not be leading the responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: dhs12345
Read the other day that scientist are admitting now that the Sun contributed to the warming cycle.

I remember my reaction when I saw a piece of film with Algore shouting (B.S!), only he used the actual words; when describing us terrible "deniers" who claim that warming is due to the Sun. I thought that anyone who watched that, and thought this guy had any idea of what he was talking about, was beyond naive. What a maroon. Honestly, didn't we learn that the Sun warms the Earth in grade school? Maybe I am just over-the-hill; but, I don't think I'm that old (58). Have we really come so far that we deny the obvious until we are simply forced to admit to it?

48 posted on 02/03/2013 8:53:11 PM PST by LibertarianLiz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: DManA

The record shows that CO2 concentration follow changes in temperature. So I would feel perfectly confident predicting that if temperatures keep falling in a few years CO2 will start to fall too.

Human output is about 7% of annual carbon cycle, ~30 gigatons. Still enough to see increase of about 2 ppm/year but may have slight drop from ocean uptake. Good point though.


49 posted on 02/03/2013 9:09:59 PM PST by thepoodlebites (and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

“Goin’ be a liddle crowded at da beach bar.”

Perhaps for a little while.

Hard to imagine these huge life-changing/extinction events that DO happen from time to time. And while an ice age by itself probably wouldn’t cause a human extinction - it would sure reduce the population. Although I suppose a combined ice age and nuclear war to prevent others from taking the best territory could lead to extinction.


50 posted on 02/04/2013 12:24:46 AM PST by 21twelve ("We've got the guns, and we got the numbers" adapted and revised from Jim M.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-74 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson