Global Cooling

[Bern80]

It may not effect the cycle but you gotta admit that we're only concerned about it's effect on humans. With the human population explosion and interdependency issues regarding the growth, production and transportation of food a cataclysmic eruption could easliy cause a greater and more immediate chaos than any gradual and cyclical change.

True. Depending on what side of the debate on climate change you fall on, volcanoe erruption is equally as uncontrollable and unaviodable.

 

[Bern80]

As a marinebiology major, I've studied a good bit about climate change and the likes. From what I've found, most scientists acknowledge Earth is warming, but there is no consensus about mankind's input. What we do know is that burning fossil fuels is harmful to our environment, and makes the world a less enjoyable place for everyone and everything. So even if the zealous environmental pundits are going overboard with the doomsday claims, we (humans) still desperately need to change our ways before we further damage our planet.

As to burning fossil fuels that is simply incorrect. Has it been detrimental to the environment? In many cases, yes. Has been entirely, or even mostly detrimental to man? Certianly not. It has provided electricity to literally millions of people as just one example.

Regarding the 1 degree argument, anyone that uses that likely hasn't done too much research behind it. The charts show hockeystick graphs of temp measurement, so claiming that 1 degree change is nothing would be futile compared to the other arguments one could make towards limited the blame humans get for climate change.

the famous 'hockey stick' graph has some major issues as well. First off in order to get the hockey stick shape the IPCC completely left out the medevil warming period, at which time it was warmer than it is now and grossly exaggerated the current warming trend.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Singer and Avery made a good case for periodic warmings every 1500 years. They say the current one started in 1850. However, what happens during those 1500 years? Cannot there be smaller cycles within the larger 1500 year cycles? It's well known that sunspot cycles occur about every 11 years.

A very cool report (pun intended) by solar scientist David Archibald shows evidence that the world will cool between now and 2030. Pay particular attention to graphs 10-14 and graph 20. Note too that he says that any potential man-made warming would not really affect the cooling trend all that much. And that the extra CO2 will provide for an abundance of new plant growth which is a good thing.

Solar Scientist: "The next ice age is overdue"
June 2007

Excerpts:

"Ken Schatten is the solar physicist with the best track record in predicting solar cycles. His work suggests a return to the advancing glaciers and delayed spring snow melt of the Little Ice Age, for an indeterminate period.

"In the near term, the Earth will experience a significant cooling due to a quieter Sun.

"In a few short years, we will have a reversal of the warming of the 20th century.

"Our generation has bathed in the warm glow of a benign, giving Sun, but the next will suffer a Sun that is less giving, and the Earth will be less fruitful.

"If it doesn’t feel hotter than it was in 1980, it is because it isn’t hotter than it was in 1980.

"Most rural temperature records in the United States were set in the 1930s and 1940s. Greenland had its highest recorded temperatures in the 1930s and has been cooler since.

"The hottest year to date in the United States was 1936.

"What I have shown in this presentation is that carbon dioxide is largely irrelevant to the Earth’s climate. The carbon dioxide that Mankind will put into the atmosphere over the next few hundred years will offset a couple of millennia of post-Holocene Optimum cooling before we plunge into the next ice age.

"There is no correlation in the geologic record between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature. The Earth went into an ice age 450 million years ago despite a level of atmospheric carbon dioxide that is ten times what it is today.

"There are no deleterious consequences of higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.

"Higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are wholly beneficial. Anthropogenic Global Warming is so minuscule that the effect cannot be measured from year to year, and even from generation to generation.
"Coral reefs first formed back in the Devonian period when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were ten times what they are today."

See entire paper (all 24 pages) at:
http://www.nzclimatescience.org/images/PDFs/archibald2007.pdf

 

[CharlestonChad]

As to burning fossil fuels that is simply incorrect. Has it been detrimental to the environment? In many cases, yes. Has been entirely, or even mostly detrimental to man? Certianly not. It has provided electricity to literally millions of people as just one example.

Ok, and now it's time to advance our world to new technologies.

the famous 'hockey stick' graph has some major issues as well. First off in order to get the hockey stick shape the IPCC completely left out the medevil warming period, at which time it was warmer than it is now and grossly exaggerated the current warming trend.

I've seen hockeystick graphs that include the mideval wamring period. What is close to convincing, but just not there, is the parallel our earth has between carbon gas concentration in the atmosphere and temperature. We've put more greenhouse gases into our environment in the last few centuries than the world has seen in hundreds of thousands of years. So if there is a positive correlation, then we're in serious trouble in the near future.

To be fair to evolution, we're likely going to raise our sea levels and diminish our environments, which is all part of overpopulation. Millions will die because of it, but that's a natural thing. So either we can ignore our resource usage problems, or say screw it and continue to prosper until the wells run dry.

 

[trobinett]

Ok, and now it's time to advance our world to new technologies.





I've seen hockeystick graphs that include the mideval wamring period. What is close to convincing, but just not there, is the parallel our earth has between carbon gas concentration in the atmosphere and temperature. We've put more greenhouse gases into our environment in the last few centuries than the world has seen in hundreds of thousands of years. So if there is a positive correlation, then we're in serious trouble in the near future.

To be fair to evolution, we're likely going to raise our sea levels and diminish our environments, which is all part of overpopulation. Millions will die because of it, but that's a natural thing. So either we can ignore our resource usage problems, or say screw it and continue to prosper until the wells run dry.

You and I seldom agree, well, ok, never agree, but on this one we do.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Ok, and now it's time to advance our world to new technologies.

I've seen hockeystick graphs that include the mideval wamring period. What is close to convincing, but just not there, is the parallel our earth has between carbon gas concentration in the atmosphere and temperature. We've put more greenhouse gases into our environment in the last few centuries than the world has seen in hundreds of thousands of years. So if there is a positive correlation, then we're in serious trouble in the near future.

To be fair to evolution, we're likely going to raise our sea levels and diminish our environments, which is all part of overpopulation. Millions will die because of it, but that's a natural thing. So either we can ignore our resource usage problems, or say screw it and continue to prosper until the wells run dry.

The question is: does increasing carbon dioxide cause earth temps to rise(significantly) or is it that increasing temps cause a rise in carbon dioxide? Historically it has been the latter. The most likely culprit for rising temps - the sun.

If the sun giveth, the sun can taketh away. Thus the possibility of global cooling due to sunspot activity.

 

[Superlative]

Global Dimming anyone??

"global dimming" is cooling our planet by more than a degree Celsius (1.8°F) and fears that as we cut back on the pollution that contributes to dimming, global warming may escalate to a point of no return."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/dimming.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/18/a...tml?ex=1190260800&en=1450cfdf6b588765&ei=5070

 

[CharlestonChad]

The question is: does increasing carbon dioxide cause earth temps to rise(significantly) or is it that increasing temps cause a rise in carbon dioxide? Historically it has been the latter. The most likely culprit for rising temps - the sun.

If the sun giveth, the sun can taketh away. Thus the possibility of global cooling due to sunspot activity.

Actually, I read a an article in, I think it was Science Magazine, and it showed that solar activity is relatively identical to what it was up to a century ago.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Several things...

One) There are Scientists now saying there has been NO significant warming since 1998, that the supposed warming since then is all created by "factoring" in adjustments that are not spelled out or provided to independent investigators.

Two) Since the 1960's the first world country's have AND continue to clean up the environment. They continue to demand better and better systems and production and power methods. Better science to bring down emmisions and better conservation and reuse methods.

Three) None of the supposed "solutions" proposed thus far by the rabid dogmatic loons on the "we are all doomed" team address at all the emerging nations that will rapidly become the major pollutors and destroyers of the environment. In fact the ONLY real so called attempt EXCLUDED them completely.

Four) There is no real proof man can change whats happening now, nor that man is causing any MAJOR increase in warming. Our Science is pitiful when it comes to climatology and the loons are driving the bus over a cliff while opposing what IS viable solutions to what we MIGHT be causing.

Five) The 70's should give pause to this rush to "fix" what we may not even be causing. Science then claimed we were headed into an Ice Age and that oil was gonna be all gone by the 80's. Basing this on 10 to 20 years of recorded history is ignorant when in fact the history is not as dire as is being made out.

Six) The lock step character assassination of anyone that disagrees with the loons needs to stop. When Science is presented it needs to be researched and verified, even IF ( and I do not agree it is the case) a Majority claim warming is running away. Science is not supposed to work by ignoring the minority positions on theories or current scientific events. Rather then dismiss Scientists and researchers that disagree with the supposed "majority" position without even checking their science or findings , Science needs to return to checking and verifying. Not Character assassination and dogmatic lockstep FAITH in ones position.

 

[Larkinn]

Six) The lock step character assassination of anyone that disagrees with the loons needs to stop.

Oh, the irony.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Oh, the irony.

I have never made any attempt to claim ANY scientist was wrong because of who they were, who they worked for or any other character trait. Scientists are not generally the loons, but then you already know that. As for you, I HAVE seen you dismiss scientific evidence not by disputing what it says and providing counter points, but by claiming that the person wasn't in the "right" field, didn't have the right "credentials" and the best one is because they once worked for some company you dislike. You have also admitted that when it comes to science you do not have the background so you just chose to believe whom ever strikes your fancy. That is called "Faith".

 

[Larkinn]

I have never made any attempt to claim ANY scientist was wrong because of who they were, who they worked for or any other character trait. Scientists are not generally the loons, but then you already know that.

Err, many many many scientists support the theory of global warming. You are calling them loons, hence attacking their credibility by calling them names.

As for you, I HAVE seen you dismiss scientific evidence not by disputing what it says and providing counter points, but by claiming that the person wasn't in the "right" field, didn't have the right "credentials" and the best one is because they once worked for some company you dislike.
You have also admitted that when it comes to science you do not have the background so you just chose to believe whom ever strikes your fancy. That is called "Faith".

Please quote me where I've said I choose to believe "whom ever strikes my fancy". Yet another lie you choose to propagate about me RGS. Can't you stick to being honest for once?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Err, many many many scientists support the theory of global warming. You are calling them loons, hence attacking their credibility by calling them names.



Please quote me where I've said I choose to believe "whom ever strikes my fancy". Yet another lie you choose to propagate about me RGS. Can't you stick to being honest for once?

MANY MANY MANY Scientists do NOT believe that there is compelling evidence that the current warming can be attributed to man. Nice attempt to dodge. I believe the planet is warming also, it is a fact. One does not need a science degree to know that over the last 100 years the temperature appears to have gone up 1 degree.

You have stated in a previous thread you have no knowledge or back ground so you can not possible argue the "points" and that no one other than certain scientists are capable of grasping the concepts, the research, the evidence ( or lack there of). in other words you have abducated your self to believing only certain specific people, you won't even argue the points when they are laid out for you on this board.

Please provide any evidence that I have ever called any specific Scientist a loon. Scientists are not the ones making the wild ignorant claims. You on the other hand totally dismissed a SCIENTIFIC finding that the planet has what appears to be 1500 year cycles of temperature changes. You wouldn't even read the information, you just said, "I am unqualified to even figure it out and it is beyond what I consider to be a valid time frame" Totally ignoring the fact that in Science once something is accepted it doesn't disappear because of age, it has to be disproved or replaced by another theory.

 

[Larkinn]

MANY MANY MANY Scientists do NOT believe that there is compelling evidence that the current warming can be attributed to man. Nice attempt to dodge. I believe the planet is warming also, it is a fact. One does not need a science degree to know that over the last 100 years the temperature appears to have gone up 1 degree.

Yes you are correct...in fact there are many who believe both sides. However by calling the proponents of the theory that its caused by man "loons", you are, in effect, calling a crapload of scientists "loons".

You have stated in a previous thread you have no knowledge or back ground so you can not possible argue the "points" and that no one other than certain scientists are capable of grasping the concepts, the research, the evidence ( or lack there of). in other words you have abducated your self to believing only certain specific people, you won't even argue the points when they are laid out for you on this board.

No, I believe those things that have the most support of the scientific community. Merely because I do not have the background to argue the points does NOT mean my beliefs on the matter are arbitrary.

Please provide any evidence that I have ever called any specific Scientist a loon. Scientists are not the ones making the wild ignorant claims.

Really? And which wild ignorant claims would these be that only non-scientists are making?

You on the other hand totally dismissed a SCIENTIFIC finding that the planet has what appears to be 1500 year cycles of temperature changes.

A "scientific finding" which has the backing of approximately 4 scientists, which one book was written about.

You wouldn't even read the information

Actually I did. Try not to assume so much.

, you just said, "I am unqualified to even figure it out and it is beyond what I consider to be a valid time frame" Totally ignoring the fact that in Science once something is accepted it doesn't disappear because of age, it has to be disproved or replaced by another theory.

I didn't ignore that fact. It never came into play. Because it was never accepted by the scientific community.

Its fascinating that you are willing to accept standard explanations for all sorts of things. But once it gets into something that is politically dangerous you to accept the scientific explanation, you get all uppity and want to explore and find your own explanation and suddenly think you are as good at science as the scientists. Recognize your own limitations. Its amusing that you simultaneously condemn me for thinking that I am smarter than you, but on the other hand think you can figure out all sorts of complicated science by researching it on the internet.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yes you are correct...in fact there are many who believe both sides. However by calling the proponents of the theory that its caused by man "loons", you are, in effect, calling a crapload of scientists "loons".



No, I believe those things that have the most support of the scientific community. Merely because I do not have the background to argue the points does NOT mean my beliefs on the matter are arbitrary.



Really? And which wild ignorant claims would these be that only non-scientists are making?



A "scientific finding" which has the backing of approximately 4 scientists, which one book was written about.



Actually I did. Try not to assume so much.



I didn't ignore that fact. It never came into play. Because it was never accepted by the scientific community.

Its fascinating that you are willing to accept standard explanations for all sorts of things. But once it gets into something that is politically dangerous you to accept the scientific explanation, you get all uppity and want to explore and find your own explanation and suddenly think you are as good at science as the scientists. Recognize your own limitations. Its amusing that you simultaneously condemn me for thinking that I am smarter than you, but on the other hand think you can figure out all sorts of complicated science by researching it on the internet.

Well, unlike your "FAITH" in Science, I believe the system works but that it ONLY works when allowed to. Ignoring what one doesn't want to hear, making decisions on how many people nod their head yes, character assassination rather then peer review and using the scientific method... all are BAD, they are not "Science"

Abducating ones own intelligence simply because a man or women in a white smock said something is good but believing in God is bad, right? Remind me again about your position on religion.

Ohh and by the way, I have free will and intelligence, even with religion, I question, I research, I ask questions, I do NOT accept at face value what others tell me just because of some title they hold. In other words dogma doesn't impress me. BUT it would appear pretty degrees and shiny white coats impress you.

 

[Psychoblues]

So serious science doesn't impress you, rgs? You admit no scientific knowledge and imply no curiosity beyond your opinions. I would suggest that you would be called an ignoramous even in red neck country. At least this red neck thinks so.

 

[Larkinn]

Well, unlike your "FAITH" in Science, I believe the system works but that it ONLY works when allowed to. Ignoring what one doesn't want to hear, making decisions on how many people nod their head yes, character assassination rather then peer review and using the scientific method... all are BAD, they are not "Science"

I already showed how its not faith. At least not faith as the word is normally understood.

Nobody is ignoring anything. And character assassination is a decent way, perhaps the only way, to overcome the constant flaw that some have of appealing to improper authority. And all of the decisions are made on how many people nod their head yes. At least scientific people...you and I don't matter so much. Why? Because we are both quite ignorant on the matter.

Abducating ones own intelligence simply because a man or women in a white smock said something is good but believing in God is bad, right? Remind me again about your position on religion.

Dude...it has NOTHING to do with intelligence. Its about knowledge. Its like the people here who read a few facts about the UN and then want it shut down, but then don't have anything to say to me when I challenge them. Except its much much stronger...because while I know much more than most people do about the UN, the knowledge gap between me and them is nowhere as large as the knowledge gap between me and climate scientists.

And really...you should be able to tell the difference between this and religion without me having to explain it.

Ohh and by the way, I have free will and intelligence, even with religion, I question, I research, I ask questions, I do NOT accept at face value what others tell me just because of some title they hold. In other words dogma doesn't impress me. BUT it would appear pretty degrees and shiny white coats impress you.

Please explain to me how a car works in intricate detail. Or a computer, microscope, quantum mechanics, advanced physics, etc, etc. Funny that when it comes to these things its ok to trust the men with "pretty degrees and shiny white coats"...but when it comes to global warming suddenly everyone is an expert. Yes, degrees impress me. Try and get a difficult one someday and you will likely agree with me.

 

[Psychoblues]

Are you done with your bullshit, Larkinn? How common sense? I suppose you are done with that as well.