Global Cooling

[quote]pookie wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
The big thing is that in one year the suns reduced output has had a huge effect compared to the very slow warming trend.

Hmmm… that theory is not doing too well when put to the test.

[/quote]

See, this is the kind of bullshit that irks me. The recent temp drop seems to equate to the output of the sun but some reporter claims some study says the suns output has no effect. Then why did the Earth cool? Why has it been esentailly the same temp or in slow decline from the peak 10 years ago? What else is there that could have caused the cooling? If the global warming theory is accurate and if sunspots don’t matter then it should be a constant warming. It is not. There is a huge question here.

[quote]heavythrower wrote:
there is no real science anymore, only money and politically driven agendas…this fact is about the only thing this thread proves.
[/quote]

That’s what I find sad.

Now that the issue has become so politicized, there won’t be another dollar’s worth of objective, unbiased climate research. There hasn’t been any in years.

All we have now are conclusions in search of data.

100 stupid whiny little bitches- if your breathtaking ignorance is not really bliss and in fact the stupid causes you a fair bit more discomfort than that time of the month, then how many doctors have you gone to and how many drugstores have you cleaned out from trying to medicate the pain of self-inflicted wounds? Can you count that high?

Science- you don’t even have correlation, much less causation. Your models don’t work and can’t predict shit. Majority votes or opinions don’t mean shit in science. This ain’t a re-run of junior high, where your cool chick clique got their way and got like all catty and bitchy with all of the not so cool girls. The glory days for you are over. Deal with it.

Please show us the data sets for all of the things that AGW has wrought and the chains of causation. Extinctions, hurricanes, blah, blah, blah. Please show one and all exactly how they got the mirror shine on the turd. Maybe some precision engineering from Scharzfahrer could help. Those guys are good with optics and glass and that sort of stuff.

BTW, Einstein, when the power-grubing feds took their second hand smoke claim to federal court, the judge gave them a good bitch slap. Something about changing the confidence level and cherry picking the data. Real science indeed.

And its not your Social Security either. You have no legal claim to it, whatever may be left of it.

Thanks for the public service, though. A finer example of the dogmatic ignorant liberal idiot cound not be found, much less created. Which is of course not to say that all, most, or even some liberals are ignorant and idiotic, you know, like not all Republicans are Dubbya clones (clowns, whatever).

Realclimate, isn’t that the hockey stick guy’s website? Mann, didn’t he get a bitchslap as well for some funny stuff with the numbers? We wait with great anticipation of your defense, a not so good offense.

Astounding. Two different people sarcastically calling 100millimeters “Einstein” in a single thread. Where’s JeffR? We could go for the hat trick.

[quote]kroby wrote:
100meters wrote:
the stupid hurts.

That’s all you got? Pathetic. [/quote]
It’s all that’s needed.

[quote]100meters wrote:
kroby wrote:
100meters wrote:
the stupid hurts.

That’s all you got? Pathetic.
It’s all that’s needed.
[/quote]

Your debating skills are astounding!

I am responding to the replies on my post, first on CO2 being absorbed by the oceans. I never said it was good or bad, just that the oceans are still absorbing CO2 which is why the levels are a lot lower in the atmosphere than they should be. The point being, there is too much focus on CO2, the levels have been higher in the past and they have been much lower but nature adapts either way, like a buffer system. I would worry a lot more about CFC’s as one molecule of CFC’s can destroy 100 000 Ozone molecules!!!

I read the part about there being more trees now than 50 years ago in a newspaper article, I vaguely remeber mention that many forests have been replanted across the US and parts of Europe and now the replanting of trees in the pulp and paper industry is standard procedure. One of the largest problems with that I guess is that when you hear about mass deforestation like the intentional forest fires in New Guinea, it seems major, but then again New Guinea is quite small on a global scale… it isn’t a good thing, nor is it a way to dismiss the fact that trees are being cut down, just that it isn’t as bad as in the 50’s to the 70’s where there was no awareness and no one gave two shits.

There are problems associated with both global cooling and warming, and neither one nor the other is really all that much better. The biggest problem with an ice age is mainly the ice cover, forcing people south (if they live more North) where they will no less compete for limited land availability and resources, and with a global population at around 7 billion people, that is not a pretty site. Also the diversity of animals will decline with a colder climate. Yeah sea level will fall and some land will be exposed, and perhaps some animals will appear that are large, but the quality of that land is the problem, but that is a whole other discussion which I don’t really know too much about.

And the last thing I saw as being problematic in this form is all the measuring of previous temperatures used as proof. Ice core samples are only good to about 100 000 years ago. At around 250 000 years ago you start to get anamolies in the O18 (oxygen 18) content which is how they measure mean global temperature through ice samples, and that itself is a fairly long explanationa and is off topic. The ice core sample do indicate we ARE in an inter-glacial period (between a warming and cooling period), which means there are going to be large fluctuations in warmings and coolings.

But recorded temperatures over a course of only a few dozen or even a hundred years, that is not proof of anything, on a global time scale that is a fraction of a second. If the earth’s time scale was a clock, 12 being the present, humans only appeared in the last minute before 12. You’d have to take the temperatures from a period of several millions of years to indicate a general cooling or warming trend. My post was initially to discredit any warming trend occuring due soely to human activity, as the systems that drive these coolings and warmings are massive (as I indicated as generally as possible), and to think we can stop a warming trend is fallacy. Although we are having an impact, it is still pretty insignificant on the grand scheme of things.

I am a geologist…well in trainning… and one way we know about global ice ages and warmings is to look at the rock record, which represents anywhere from 1000 years to several millions of years. So there is no way of knowing right now if indeed we are in a warming or cooling period so there is no point in bickering about what some scientist said for either case. What we do know is we are still in an inter-glacial period, and that, according to the trend going back hundreds of millions of years, we are due for an ice age. Pollution and cutting trees makes things worse no doubt, but compared to the larger systems I talked about, not so much. In the 1700’s they had a mini ice age, in the 1100’s they had a mini ice age, right now we are in a warming period, it happens, we are in a inter-glacial period. Does that mean we are going into a warming period for the next million years, probably not, can we do something about it if we are, no.

Mastiffs are cool by the way, I prefer however the South African Mastiff, better known as the Boerboel. They can kill lions and are used to guard diamond mines in Africa from, well anything. If you google the history, they say that you can trace their ancestors back to before the time of Alexander in some cases. Look them up, they have a superhero line up of traits.

Oh no, you actually bumped this.

It is funny how people think they are talking about science when they are not.

“Hey, I read an article over here.” And that makes the person an expert.

Then the whole idea that you must follow the group, otherwise you are not being scientific. (Never knew science was based on popularity, like totally fer shur.)

Recent research came out pointing to about a decade of cooling. The scientist actually was unsure if he should release the information because he didn’t want people to think that meant global warming was over.

Fact: If the whole Earth followed the Keyoto Protocol, we would have ended up with an eventual reduction in temperature of something like 7 hundredths of a degree. (Or was that thousandths?)

Fact: The ice core samples do show a connection between warming and rising CO2 levels. But the warming occurs centuries before the CO2 levels rise. The Earth has been warming since the peak cold of the “Little Ice Age”. Based on that we should expect a natural rise in CO2 levels.

There is actually debate as to the accuracy of the older CO2 data, and some evidence that CO2 levels may have actually been quite level during the 1900’s.

As far as the grants, John Stossel has said he has spoken to scientists that have said, “If you say everything is OK, the government is less likely to give you money to research the climate.” (Paraphrased from memory.)

One thing I think is funny is how so many of the solutions proposed in the UN involve taking money from the rich countries, (specifically America,) and giving it to the poor countries.

This has been presented in the form of technology, so they don’t produce all that greenhouse gas with low quality equipment, to having us pay them for not polluting so we can keep polluting. Still not sure how that helps. (And if you think you understand it, your full of shit.)

Recently scientists have found that global warming models are or were flawed.

http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher+Basic+Greenhouse+Equations+Totally+Wrong/article10973.htm

It refers to this study:

http://met.hu/idojaras/IDOJARAS_vol112_No1.pdf

Then there is this study:

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

And here are some fun quotes:

“Carbon dioxide is 0.000383 of our atmosphere by volume (0.038 percent)”

“We are responsible for just 0.001 percent of this atmosphere. If the atmosphere was a 100-story building, our anthropogenic CO2 contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first floor.”

All from scientists from this article:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57253

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Russian scientist predicts global cooling

Published: Aug. 25, 2006 at 9:25 PM

MOSCOW, Aug. 25 (UPI) – A Russian scientist predicts a period of global cooling in coming decades, followed by a warmer interval.

Khabibullo Abdusamatov expects a repeat of the period known as the Little Ice Age. During the 16th century, the Baltic Sea froze so hard that hotels were built on the ice for people crossing the sea in coaches.

The Little Ice Age is believed to have contributed to the end of the Norse colony in Greenland, which was founded during an interval of much warmer weather.

Abdusamatov and his colleagues at the Russian Academy of Sciences astronomical observatory said the prediction is based on measurement of solar emissions, Novosti reported. They expect the cooling to begin within a few years and to reach its peak between 2055 and 2060.

“The Kyoto initiatives to save the planet from the greenhouse effect should be put off until better times,” he said. “The global temperature maximum has been reached on Earth, and Earth’s global temperature will decline to a climatic minimum even without the Kyoto protocol.”

[/quote]

Apparently in Russia it’s ok for scientists to make political suggestions? I’m reading this and thinking that Russia is the world’s #1 producer of oil and why would they not want to dump Kyoto standards? Their economic revival has been entirely based on oil.

Meh I think we are beating a dead horse now, CO2 means nothing and the earth isn’t going to get warmer because of us.

[quote]Phil_the_legend wrote:
meh I think we are beating a dead horse now, CO2 means nothing and the earth isn’t going to get warmer because of us.[/quote]

Actually yes our actions do produce a warming of the Earth. It is just not barely what we are told it is.

We definitely want to reduce pollution. And it is always a good idea to work on getting more efficient forms of energy. The best way to do that is to look at it in an economic way.

A good example are the Hybrids. They are being touted as energy savers, but researchers found that because of all the technology, twin engines, and a batteries that last only 100 k miles, it actually uses more energy in its life then even a Hummer does. Also they would actually get better gas mileage if they actually removed the electric motor.

Now adding a plug may change that. (And they still need a year or two before a plug in hybrid comes out, because of the apparent complex technology of adding a plug to a battery.)

[quote]The Mage wrote:
Phil_the_legend wrote:
meh I think we are beating a dead horse now, CO2 means nothing and the earth isn’t going to get warmer because of us.

Actually yes our actions do produce a warming of the Earth. It is just not barely what we are told it is.

We definitely want to reduce pollution. And it is always a good idea to work on getting more efficient forms of energy. The best way to do that is to look at it in an economic way.

A good example are the Hybrids. They are being touted as energy savers, but researchers found that because of all the technology, twin engines, and a batteries that last only 100 k miles, it actually uses more energy in its life then even a Hummer does. Also they would actually get better gas mileage if they actually removed the electric motor.

Now adding a plug may change that. (And they still need a year or two before a plug in hybrid comes out, because of the apparent complex technology of adding a plug to a battery.)[/quote]

Maybe you should read my first post, I mentioned all these things, just saying it has pretty much all been said.

[quote]Phil_the_legend wrote:

Maybe you should read my first post, I mentioned all these things, just saying it has pretty much all been said.
[/quote]

Yeah, and I have made these statements here at least 10 times before on these forums over the past few years.

I find I am repeating myself often here.

I can’t tell you how many times I have pointed out that we have never gave Osama a cent, (which he would have refused due to his hate of Americans/infidels going way back,) yet people have still been posting that we trained him, and gave him money, and that he “was our guy”.

Like I said before, the main problem is that we can’t possibly gather enough data to prove either case since we would need several hundred thousand to millons of years of data to say for sure we are in a cooling or warming period.

A thousand years of cooling doesn’t necessarily mean an ice age since on a geologic scale that’s nothing, and in an inter-glacial period, is quite possible and same goes for warming.

I think the main thing to take away from here is don’t always believe what you see on tv. There has been a lot of information posted here for just about anything on global climate change and I’m happy to see a lot of people are cutting through the bullshit that is fed to them day in and day out.

On that note, there is no need to attack someone for posting an opinion or a claim. I could have gone into greater detail about many of the things I said, found sources and so on, but the point of me posting was to exchange information and knowledge I have taken in over the years that I thought seemed to be overlooked and I considered general knowledge.

I didn’t just make this up, I’ve been taught many of these things by professors with phd’s and geologist that have had 30+ years experience, not to mention my days as an engineering student.

If you read everyone’s posts going back a bit it gets ugly. Knowledge is power, the more you know, no matter how right wing it might be or how general it is, the better off you will be.

So keep the info going, just take the time to read previous posts.

[quote]beebuddy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Russian scientist predicts global cooling

Published: Aug. 25, 2006 at 9:25 PM

MOSCOW, Aug. 25 (UPI) – A Russian scientist predicts a period of global cooling in coming decades, followed by a warmer interval.

Khabibullo Abdusamatov expects a repeat of the period known as the Little Ice Age. During the 16th century, the Baltic Sea froze so hard that hotels were built on the ice for people crossing the sea in coaches.

The Little Ice Age is believed to have contributed to the end of the Norse colony in Greenland, which was founded during an interval of much warmer weather.

Abdusamatov and his colleagues at the Russian Academy of Sciences astronomical observatory said the prediction is based on measurement of solar emissions, Novosti reported. They expect the cooling to begin within a few years and to reach its peak between 2055 and 2060.

“The Kyoto initiatives to save the planet from the greenhouse effect should be put off until better times,” he said. “The global temperature maximum has been reached on Earth, and Earth’s global temperature will decline to a climatic minimum even without the Kyoto protocol.”

russian_scientist_predicts_global_cooling/7556/

Apparently in Russia it’s ok for scientists to make political suggestions? I’m reading this and thinking that Russia is the world’s #1 producer of oil and why would they not want to dump Kyoto standards? Their economic revival has been entirely based on oil.[/quote]

Scientists make political statements all the time here as well.