Scientific American Says Global Warming Is Occurring Both Faster And Slower Than Expected

ScreenHunter_8603 Apr. 16 00.14

ScreenHunter_8642 Apr. 16 08.59

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

68 Responses to Scientific American Says Global Warming Is Occurring Both Faster And Slower Than Expected

  1. Elaine Supkis says:

    You see, the Red Queen and the White Queen are running as fast as they can to stay in the same place and poor Alice had to assist them even though the Red Queen said, ‘Off with his head!’ all the time. 🙂

    • This doesn’t make any sense… if the Pacific Current Changed well then.. to quote Hillary “What does it matter?”.. ya see a current shift would not affect Heat Content… a warm area may become cooler… but a cool area also has to become warmer…

      Bottom Line Here: This is just excuse-making for their failed predictions!! The assertion here is that Global Warming is STILL HAPPENING… but this darn cold pacific water just masked it… for now!!

  2. Disillusioned says:

    Scientific American is a very important publication. It has replaced corn cobs, the Sears Roebuck catalog and Charmin.

  3. Elaine Supkis says:

  4. omanuel says:

    Scientific American aka SP is neither scientific nor American. It is Stalin’s Propaganda.

  5. gator69 says:

    The theoretical physicists have climbed into Schrödinger’s cat box.

    • omanuel says:

      Dr. Carl von Weizsacker was the theoretical nuclear physicist that advised Hitler’s incompetent builders of atomic bombs.

      After WWII, nuclear physics textbooks in the Allied Nations changed:

      Aston’s valid concept of “nuclear packing fraction” – that Japan and Allied Nations used to successfully build atomic bombs – was replaced with Weizsacker’s flawed concept of “nuclear binding energy” – that prevented Hitler from building the bomb.

      Carl von Weizsacker’s concept of “nuclear binding energy”
      _ a.) Exaggerates proton repulsion
      _ b.) Ignores neutron repulsion . . . the energy source that causes causes heavy atoms to fission!

      • Andy DC says:

        Thank goodness they were incompetent or none of us would be here. Or the few still left would be speaking German. If Hitler had not run off his Jewish scientists, the results might have been much different.

      • I see you’re continually posting this same bit of information..

        What’s the point? … if I may ask??

        • omanuel says:

          Thanks for asking. The point is that the Weizsacker concept of nuclear binding energy is Wrong and Obscures the Sun’s source of energy – NEUTRON REPULSION!

        • omanuel says:

          What’s the point?

          In the worldwide effort to hide the source of energy that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki – Neutron Repulsion – the veracity of these major fields of study were destroyed after 1945: astronomy, astrophysics, climatology, cosmology, geology, nuclear, particle, planetary, solar, space and theoretical physics.

      • omanuel says:

        Andy DC,

        Knowledge is power and power can be used selfishly or to benefit society. Manipulation of knowledge after WWII led society into tyranny.

        • Jason Calley says:

          Yes, knowledge is power. That is the reason why politicians lie, lie, lie. They are addicted to power, and if they tell the truth, the listener gains a little power. Have you ever seen a drug addict giving away his stash? Ever seen a crack addict passing out free crack?

          The more false historical scenarios you believe, the less you can predict what the future will be. The more economic lies you believe, the less you can protect yourself from thieves in suits. The more lies you believe, the less you are able to control your own life.

    • Michael 2 says:

      You beat me to the obvious punch line.

    • Dave1billion says:

      Or have they? I wasn’t there to see it.

    • Donna K. Becker says:

      Is that the cardboard box cats are so fond of playing in, or the litter box?

  6. ren says:

    In the lower stratosphere can see the flow of air from the north to Central Europe.

  7. ren says:

    There has been a the first attack of winter in New Zealand.

  8. Donna K. Becker says:

    Is there any validity to this Washington Post article? This doesn’t sound like the Heartland Institute to me.

      • Donna K. Becker says:

        The friend who sent me that link will give no credibility to Breitbart, or any other “conservative” or “denier” publication. Her e-mail was part of her response to my forwarding of the Reuters article about shipping being impeded by ice.

        Gator, at least you confirmed my suspicions about the article. Thanks!

        • gator69 says:

          The source is not important, just give your friend the facts and have her attempt to refute them.

        • Mark Luhman says:

          gator69 Facts don’t matter to a liberal. It is how you feel that counts.

        • gator69 says:

          Facts matter to me. So do freedoms, and truth. I am more “liberal” than most who claim to be “Liberal”. I am a “Libertarian”, and the problem is “Progressives”.

          Thomas Jefferson was a “Liberal”, and a “Libertarian”.

          But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. … Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error.
          -Thomas Jefferson

        • You are right. Progressives like facts that make them feel good. I’d try some more climate facts but if it doesn’t work I’d follow up with archeology and things that make everyone feel good:

        • Chris Barron says:

          So 300 years old is considered ‘ancient’ now ? That’s why so many people have been duped into thinking that the recent history of climate change is all there ever was !

          The church in my village was built in the 1400’s and a hill on the horizon has a henge over 5000 years old on it…..and I would only call them old, they’re not really ancient.

        • Donna, yours is the same issue we all run into. Its very, very difficult … if not impossible to get someone to change their mind on any political issue… especially “Climate Change”.. so … overall you are probably screwed.. Hey, anyone on here EVER get a light bulb to turn on in someone’s head regarding Global Warming.. where suddenly they were like “Yea, hey, there is data manipulation going on… it does seem like we’re being lied to… gosh, can’t believe what Jones/Mann said in those Climate-Gate emails!!”

          I sympathize with your cause… I’ve been trying to convince a really Scientific guy I know that Global Warming is a Lie.. or at a minimum is vastly overstated… he says “Who am I going to believe… NASA or some guy’s Blog”.. uphill battle..

          May I suggest sticking to one or 2 topics.. such as the Arctic Ice and Climate Gate… show her THIS chart and gauge her reaction… HOW did all these Glaciers retreat so vastly BEFORE the Industrial Revolution??:

          Next… several damning Climate Gate emails have been posted here… they can be googled as well.. try printing one out.. put it in front of this person.. and ask them what these “Scientists” were saying..

          Good night and Good Luck..

        • gator69 says:

          I have converted many, but most of them know my educational background, and that makes it easier.

          And it is’t only on political ‘science’ that I have been successful converting others. I am a Libertarian, and that neutralizes most of the defenses that ‘liberals’ put up, so they are more receptive to my viewpoint.

      • omanuel says:

        They certainly made it sound as if the Heartland Institute had reversed its position on climate change.

        Lies, lies and more lies.

  9. Stephen Coulson says:

    Both articles are available on lone (though one is mostly only for subscribers). Headlines are not articles. I find the juxtaposition of these two (one of which is a question) without further context misleading and unhelpful. Part of the issue is that headlines are terse eye-catchers, not arguments, and heat and temperature are not the same.

  10. Donna K. Becker says:

    Gator, whenever I present facts, articles, links, charts, or graphs, her rebuttal always consists of such references as the WaPo article or quotations from official AGW publications.

    • gator69 says:

      Then send her this…

      Argument from authority, also authoritative argument and appeal to authority, is a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy when misused. In informal reasoning, the appeal to authority is a form of argument attempting to establish a statistical syllogism.

      • Disillusioned says:

        They are full of syllogistic fallacies. (As well as false attributions.)

        • gator69 says:

          Argument from authority, also authoritative argument and appeal to authority, is a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy when misused. In informal reasoning, the appeal to authority is a form of argument attempting to establish a statistical syllogism.

          This is not debatable.

        • Disillusioned says:

          Gator, I agree. Did you think my response was a challenge?

        • gator69 says:

          No. Just making sure everyone understands the concept.

  11. Donna K. Becker says:

    Here’s an example of what I’m dealing with:

    (Me) It’s important to remember that things have warmed up, and glaciers have melted, since the Little Ice Age. This is a natural, expectable cycle.

    (Friend) No, that idea has been ruled out. Here’s an explanation.

    Whenever I cite facts, or apply logic and common sense, that “appeal to *so-called* authority is the response. I see no independent reasoning here.

    • gator69 says:

      Make her prove it. Ask her for even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability of recent or any global climate changes. Then when she comes back with a paper, go to the abstract and find where they decsribe using a model, and point this out.

      Models are tools, and not proof of anything. If she balks at that, ask her to do one more thing. List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them. If she cannot, and she can’t, then explain that the models are simply a convenient fiction that prove nothing, and have no predictive capabilities.

      “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations
      on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”

      – Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

      “The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.”
      – Dr David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University

      They have nothing but models, and their models are miserable failures.

    • annieoakley says:

      I gave up trying to cite any facts or logic. The answer I always get is “No” I will not even entertain an alternative view.” Trouble is one of these people is my brother with a BS and two MS degrees.

      • Never mind the degrees. What are his culinary preferences?

        Has he ever eaten crow?

      • Jason Calley says:

        Hey annieoakley! I have the same results with a few people I know. Just out of curiosity, thy asking this: “Just to make sure we are both talking about the same thing, would you agree that if the average global temperatures are NOT going up, then the globe is NOT warming?”

        It would be nice to know that they at least have the ability to conceptualize what “no global warming” means.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Try handing him these and ask him what the USA will be like 40 years from now if we follow the planned path.

        In 1988, coal produced 57.0%. Nuclear energy generates ~19 percent. At present hydro/wind/solar power is 5% and nuclear is 9%. The other 86% of our energy sources are carbon based.

        The White House
        Office of the Press Secretary November 25, 2009

        President to Attend Copenhagen Climate Talks

        Administration Announces U.S. Emission Target for Copenhagen

        The White House announced today that President Obama will travel to Copenhagen on Dec. 9 to participate in the United Nations Climate Change Conference, where he is eager to work with the international community to drive progress toward a comprehensive and operational Copenhagen accord. The President has worked steadily on behalf of a positive outcome in Copenhagen throughout the year. Based on the President’s work on climate change over the past 10 months – in the Major Economies Forum, the G20, bilateral discussions and multilateral consultations – and based on progress made in recent, constructive discussions with China and India’s Leaders, the President believes it is possible to reach a meaningful agreement in Copenhagen. The President’s decision to go is a sign of his continuing commitment and leadership to find a global solution to the global threat of climate change, and to lay the foundation for a new, sustainable and prosperous clean energy future.

        The White House also announced that, in the context of an overall deal in Copenhagen that includes robust mitigation contributions from China and the other emerging economies, the President is prepared to put on the table a U.S. emissions reduction target in the range of 17% below 2005 levels in 2020 and ultimately in line with final U.S. energy and climate legislation. In light of the President’s goal to reduce emissions 83% by 2050, the expected pathway set forth in this pending legislation would entail a 30% reduction below 2005 levels in 2025 and a 42% reduction below 2005 in 2030. …

        The most recent press release confirms this.
        The White House
        Office of the Press Secretary November 11, 2014

        FACT SHEET: U.S.-China Joint Announcement on Climate Change and Clean Energy Cooperation
        President Obama Announces Ambitious 2025 Target to Cut U.S. Climate Pollution by 26-28 Percent from 2005 Levels

        ….Together, the U.S. and China account for over one third of global greenhouse gas emissions. Today’s joint announcement, the culmination of months of bilateral dialogue, highlights the critical role the two countries must play in addressing climate change. The actions they announced are part of the longer range effort to achieve the deep decarbonization of the global economy over time. These actions will also inject momentum into the global climate negotiations on the road to reaching a successful new climate agreement next year in Paris.

        The new U.S. goal will double the pace of carbon pollution reduction from 1.2 percent per year on average during the 2005-2020 period to 2.3-2.8 percent per year on average between 2020 and 2025. This ambitious target is grounded in intensive analysis of cost-effective carbon pollution reductions achievable under existing law and will keep the United States on the right trajectory to achieve deep economy-wide reductions on the order of 80 percent by 2050…..

        The proposed Lee Nuclear plant has been placed on the back burner by Duke Energy and now Duke plans to go with Natural Gas instead.

        Federal licensing for proposed nuclear plants has been delayed by a court decision that requires the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to reconsider its current position on long-term waste disposal. That means Duke is unlikely to get its license to build and operate the plant until 2016.

        The USA pretty much stopped building nuclear plants thirty years ago. Of the reactors now operating in the U.S., ground was broken on all of them in 1977 or earlier. “The average age of U.S. commercial reactors is about 34 years….U.S. commercial nuclear reactors are licensed to operate for 40 years by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission” Many are being slated for shutdown (1/3 of the fleet) and roadblocks are being tossed up to prevent building new plants. The Wild & Scenic Rivers Act, of 1968 pretty much kills any posibility of new Hydro-electric plants. So what exactly is a constant reliable base energy source that is NOT nuclear, Not hydro and Not Carbon based?

        “… It takes five or more years to build a new baseload coal plant, and 10 to 15 years to build a new nuclear plant…” Duke Energy, Chairman’s Letter to Stakeholders

        MAY 8, 2014 [43 pages]

        pg 12
        Dr. Peter Vincent Pry is the executive director of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security, a Congressional advisory board dedicated to achieving protection of the United States from electromagnetic pulse and other threats. Dr. Pry is also the director of the United States Nuclear Strategy Forum, an advisory body to Congress on policies to counter weapons of mass destruction….


        Natural EMP from a geomagnetic super-storm like the 1859 Carrington Event or the 1921 Railroad Storm, a nuclear EMP attack from terrorists or rogue states as practiced by North Korea during the nuclear crisis of 2013 are both existential threats that could kill 9 of 10 Americans through starvation, disease, and societal collapse.

        A natural EMP catastrophe or nuclear EMP attack could black out the National electric grid for months or years and collapse all the other critical infrastructures, communications, transportation, banking and finance, food and water, necessary to sustain modern society and the lives of 310 million Americans. ….

        Click to access CHRG-113hhrg89763.pdf

        The Philosopher Thomas Hobbes on the human condition:
        “Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man, the same consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” [Leviathan, Ch. VI]

        Ask your brother how life in the USA is NOT going to be “…solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” under the present direction the USA is headed.

  12. gator69 says:

    “Cool” movie trailer…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s