Nooo! Global Cooling!

[cannon_fodder]

Pump up the thermostat and leave the SUV idling, researchers are taking a closer look at renewed concerns over global cooling.  All the rage in the 1970's and responsible for a host of world events during the last occurrence in the 1700's (The Little Ice Age, remember folks, it's OK to reference Wikipedia but don't try to use it as an actual source!).  Scientist are starting to worry about a reoccurence.

The sun operates on normal 11 years cycles of high and low activity (as measure by sun spots, magnetic and more importantly radiation activity).  Thus far our current "hot" cycle has not been as hot as scientist predict it should be and thus the fear is the oncoming cold cycle will be colder than it should be.

The solar physicists are quick to point out that all climate models and the entire field of climatology is falsely premised on a constant input of energy from the sun.  "The sun has more of an impact on our climate than all the smokestacks and SUVs combined."  Thus, a reduction in the input of energy regardless of any greenhouse effect will be a problem.

Interestingly, geologists are also dubious of C02 caused global warming, "R. Timothy Patterson, professor of geology and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Center of Canada's Carleton University, says that 'CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales.'"

They are seeking more funds to continue their research and the data is not considered conclusive as we lack a full understand of the sun (as we lack a full understand of our climate).

Anyway, found it interesting that at the major universities in a country that is considered "green" they are concerned about global cooling even as politicians around the world pretend like they fully understand the climate.
http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175

[TheArtist]

Wow thats one jumbled up mixture of different statements if I ever saw one.

First off the global cooling fears of the 70s were predicated on the then new thought that human caused pollution may have an effect on climate. Specifically smog and ozone, remember all the talk about smog in the 70s and the depletion of the ozone layer? And indeed that kind of atmospheric cooling does happen and is still happening. If it werent for that type of pollution the earth would be getting even warmer. For instance during the 3 days after 9-11 when planes were grounded over the US, the entire average temperature in the US went up. The sun did not change during those 3 days. But then they began to factor in the kind of pollutants that cause warming and realized that those will cancel out the cooling types of pollution.

Secondly, I have no idea where you got that "solar physicists are quick to point out that all climate models and the entire field of climatology is falsley premised on a constant input of energy from the sun." Even the average dolt knows better. Everyone knows about the 11 year sunspot cycle and how it effects the earth. I hardly doubt that any climate models do not take that into consideration, let alone ALL of them. Thats absurd. They also consider the different "wobbles" the earth makes as it orbits the sun which has a huge impact. Btw, during the current "wobble phase" the north pole should be getting cooler and adding ice, not getting warmer and losing it.

Interesting you mention that "Thus far our current "hot" cycle has not been as hot as scientist predict it should be..." Well thank goodness because the earth has still been warming, and would thus have been even warmer if it had been as "hot", for the larger message of what you have said here is that the sun has the most impact. So if the sun is in a cooling phase yet the earth is still warming....

Should we do more research to understand the sun more? Absolutely.

[cannon_fodder]

The fact that it's a jumbled mess was half the point, no one knows.

As recently as 1989 the New York times published an article definitively declaring no global warming in a 100 year study (no warming trend from 1895 to 1985):
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DEED61F3BF935A15752C0A96F948260

Within another 6 years it was publishing the opposite.

3 days no no airplanes caused the US to warm up a measurable amount?  Thank god for airplanes or surely we'd all be dead by now.  Variations within years, let alone days are meaningless.  Day to day the average temperature in the United States swing radically without grounding aircraft.  That's why long term trends are measured and not day to day fluctuations.  If slight changes over short period matter, then we certainly have nothing to fear - because from 1998 to 2005 global temperatures actually dropped:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml

We know things warmed from 11,000 years ago to recorded history (lack of ice).  Since keeping track of data we know it warmed from 1918 to 1940, cooled from 1940 to 1965, held steady to 1970, warmed again to 1998, and has since cooled.  Does any data suggest that we released, retracted, and then re-released carbon in this period - because as far as I was aware we have been exponentially releasing more and more carbon.

The entire point of posting the article was to show that there are credible scientific institutions that are not sold on Global Warming.  Even the most ardent climatologist has to concede that a multitude of cosmic trumps any man made contributions to climate.  That the historic trend is not linear and fluctuations far more radical than +/-2 degrees have happen in relatively recent history.

We don't know what's going on,  believer or non-believer in global warming the truth is we don't know.  Either side pretending they have it figured out as scientific fact is more about politics than science.  I don't want commitment to being PC or agreeing with the masses to interfere with science (as scientists are being fired or losing funding for expressing doubt about global warming).

[TheArtist]

As RECENTLY! as 1989!?


http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_trans.shtml

[joiei]

quote: data is not considered conclusive  

This says it all.  They are a bunch of whackos just trying to get their funding funded.

[nathanm]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder


The entire point of posting the article was to show that there are credible scientific institutions that are not sold on Global Warming.  

No, it's not that they are denying the unfortunate fact of global warming, it's that they're thinking the predictions may be off somewhat due to issues like increased warming due to reductions in particulate emissions in developed countries thanks to environmental laws.

The question isn't whether or not there will be catastrophic global warming (insofar as sea levels will rise several feet due to land ice melting over the next fifty to a hundred years), barring some drastic change in our behavior, solar output, or whatever, the question these scientists are raising is whether it'll be more like a three degree rise in global average temperature or whether it will be five degrees.

The problem is that the warming will be greatest where it does the most damage; where it is cold. I suppose if you don't mind low lying areas being inundated, we can just move our farming around and get by.

If it weren't such a serious subject, I'd find it almost funny how global warming deniers point at research such as this and call it disagreement about global warming, when in fact it's a disagreement as to the degree of warming that we're in for, even when nearly all estimates will be varying degrees of catastrophic.

Now, if we do end up getting lucky by having a period of decreased solar output, we'd be morons to take that as a sign that we need not do anything about the problem, as if the solar output will not return to something closer to the historical average at some point.

[TheArtist]

I was listening to NPR the other day and some lady from some organization mentioned that because of global warming concerns they were "teaching children in those countries how to swim".  It was so sad, but at the same time I just about fell out of my chair laughing. That will fix it, we can keep driving our suv's ,,, we will just teach those poor people how to swim. Problem solved. [] Actually, I think it would be quicker and more cost effective to just give them a bunch of those arm-band floaties. [8D]

[sauerkraut]

I figured it would flip back sooner or latter to something else. However, This stuff could be true since it happened in the past and the sun runs on cycles. "The Little Ice Age" back in the 1700's was pretty darn serous. Crops failed all over the globe and summers were short & cool and winters were long and bitter cold. As I see it global warming would be a good thing if it was real. Longer growing seasons and less heating oil needed. I see no problemos with a warmer planet. A colder planet is something to worry about- That can be bad. Rush L read a article about this on his radio show Friday.[8D]

[sauerkraut]

quote:Originally posted by nathanm

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder


The entire point of posting the article was to show that there are credible scientific institutions that are not sold on Global Warming.  

No, it's not that they are denying the unfortunate fact of global warming, it's that they're thinking the predictions may be off somewhat due to issues like increased warming due to reductions in particulate emissions in developed countries thanks to environmental laws.

The question isn't whether or not there will be catastrophic global warming (insofar as sea levels will rise several feet due to land ice melting over the next fifty to a hundred years), barring some drastic change in our behavior, solar output, or whatever, the question these scientists are raising is whether it'll be more like a three degree rise in global average temperature or whether it will be five degrees.

The problem is that the warming will be greatest where it does the most damage; where it is cold. I suppose if you don't mind low lying areas being inundated, we can just move our farming around and get by.

If it weren't such a serious subject, I'd find it almost funny how global warming deniers point at research such as this and call it disagreement about global warming, when in fact it's a disagreement as to the degree of warming that we're in for, even when nearly all estimates will be varying degrees of catastrophic.

Now, if we do end up getting lucky by having a period of decreased solar output, we'd be morons to take that as a sign that we need not do anything about the problem, as if the solar output will not return to something closer to the historical average at some point.

The globe was much warmer in the past than it is today. 1,000 years ago Greenland was warm enough to grow crops, the globe has since cooled off. At one time the planet had no polar ice. Ice ages will return global warming or not. The planet has survived hits by comets, asteroids and metors. It survived volcano blasts and many oother natural events~- now suddenly man has the power to ruin the planet. Man cannot even get the 3 day weather report right, man is helpless in a snowstorm and can't control that. global warming is a hoax to push a political agenda. The same "experts" talking global warming today were talking ice age and global cooling in the 1970's.

[sauerkraut]

That posted link about global dimming was very intresting. It seems the cause of that is jet fumes and vapor. If the Sun would start to dim just a hair, we'd be in deep doo~doo. It would not take much to chill off the planet big time.

[nathanm]

quote:Originally posted by sauerkraut

I figured it would flip back sooner or latter to something else. However, This stuff could be true since it happened in the past and the sun runs on cycles. "The Little Ice Age" back in the 1700's was pretty darn serous. Crops failed all over the globe and summers were short & cool and winters were long and bitter cold. As I see it global warming would be a good thing if it was real. Longer growing seasons and less heating oil needed. I see no problemos with a warmer planet. A colder planet is something to worry about- That can be bad. Rush L read a article about this on his radio show Friday.[8D]

Tell that to the New Yorkers, Floridians, and Louisianans who will be underwater. Not to mention the Bangladeshi, British, Dutch, and many other countries that will have the same fate.

Global warming is already causing much lower summer river flows in the west, leading to water shortages, thanks to there being less of a snowpack and its melting faster earlier in the year.

The massive dislocations caused by populations being forced to move around and the rapid change of the location of the world's arable land is not going to be pretty, regardless of what Rush would like you to believe.

You global warming deniers would be funny if the stakes weren't so high. There's a reason nearly every scientist without an agenda paid for by an organization with a vested interest in denying global warming agrees that it is and will continue to happen. The disagreement is on the degree of catastrophe. Will half of Bangladesh disappear under the sea, or will the whole thing be drowned? Will Orlando still be above water in 100 years, or will the problem be confined merely to Miami?

Three degrees or five degrees doesn't sound like a lot, and it isn't, if you're talking about the changes in the tropics or even most of the middle latitudes, aside perhaps from more and stronger weather systems, which is an effect that there really is disagreement about.

Unlike Al Gore, I don't really care about the polar bears not having any Arctic sheet ice to walk on or our submarines not having any to hide under. Melting the water ice only serves to increase the heat absorbed at the poles, which isn't a lot regardless of the change in albedo. The problem is the melting of ice on land, which is accelerating rapidly.

And just FWIW, there is significant disagreement as to the cause of the little ice age, since it was mainly a European and northern North America phenomonon. Some scientists are of the opinion that it was caused by excess fresh water inflows into the Atlantic causing a severe reduction in the volume of the Gulf Stream. If they're right, we're in for that in the next 50 to 100 years, thanks to the accelerating melt from Greenland.

I sure hope they're wrong.

[TheArtist]

Well thats just the thing. If the earth gets warmer the gulf stream could shift causing the UK and northern europe to dramatically cool. That area may get warmer for a time then if the gulf stream shifts then it will get a lot cooler while other parts of the globe get even warmer. This also reminds me of a comment someone else made about there being more snow in some parts of the globe than before. Some people without thinking, take that as meaning the earth may not be getting warmer. But a warmer earth will put more moisture into the air. Even if the earth were to over all have a dramatic rise in temperature, say 4 or 5 degrees, it would still be cold enough to snow in Kansas and NY for instance. If its usually 25 degrees during an evening or time of the year and its now 29 degrees, its still cold enough to snow but because there is more moisture in the air it will snow even more. Global warming doesnt mean every place is going to be warm and balmy.

One of the concerns I have for any global shift in temperature, warm or cold is habitat loss. Man has encroached with farming, cities, roads etc. on so many habitats that what is available for many animals is quite small and disconnected. Used to be, if the climate shifted, the animals simply shifted to another area. We cant just shift national parks and wildlife preserves to... wherever. For many species they already barely have enough habitat to survive in. What happens when that habitat is destroyed? That almost happened to some animal and plant species when some hurricanes hit Florida. We give them just enough space to live in, then when something happens to that space, where is the backup? "Enough" is not enough when things change. Even if we arent partially responsible for any global climate change, we are smart enough to know that change is going to happen and that we should be responsible stewards of our "furry and feathery little friends" and the shiny, not so furry ones too.

[Conan71]

I see some people are still putting Kool-Aid in the melting ice water.

[sauerkraut]

quote:Originally posted by nathanm

quote:Originally posted by sauerkraut

I figured it would flip back sooner or latter to something else. However, This stuff could be true since it happened in the past and the sun runs on cycles. "The Little Ice Age" back in the 1700's was pretty darn serous. Crops failed all over the globe and summers were short & cool and winters were long and bitter cold. As I see it global warming would be a good thing if it was real. Longer growing seasons and less heating oil needed. I see no problemos with a warmer planet. A colder planet is something to worry about- That can be bad. Rush L read a article about this on his radio show Friday.[8D]

Tell that to the New Yorkers, Floridians, and Louisianans who will be underwater. Not to mention the Bangladeshi, British, Dutch, and many other countries that will have the same fate.

Global warming is already causing much lower summer river flows in the west, leading to water shortages, thanks to there being less of a snowpack and its melting faster earlier in the year.

The massive dislocations caused by populations being forced to move around and the rapid change of the location of the world's arable land is not going to be pretty, regardless of what Rush would like you to believe.

You global warming deniers would be funny if the stakes weren't so high. There's a reason nearly every scientist without an agenda paid for by an organization with a vested interest in denying global warming agrees that it is and will continue to happen. The disagreement is on the degree of catastrophe. Will half of Bangladesh disappear under the sea, or will the whole thing be drowned? Will Orlando still be above water in 100 years, or will the problem be confined merely to Miami?

Three degrees or five degrees doesn't sound like a lot, and it isn't, if you're talking about the changes in the tropics or even most of the middle latitudes, aside perhaps from more and stronger weather systems, which is an effect that there really is disagreement about.

Unlike Al Gore, I don't really care about the polar bears not having any Arctic sheet ice to walk on or our submarines not having any to hide under. Melting the water ice only serves to increase the heat absorbed at the poles, which isn't a lot regardless of the change in albedo. The problem is the melting of ice on land, which is accelerating rapidly.

And just FWIW, there is significant disagreement as to the cause of the little ice age, since it was mainly a European and northern North America phenomonon. Some scientists are of the opinion that it was caused by excess fresh water inflows into the Atlantic causing a severe reduction in the volume of the Gulf Stream. If they're right, we're in for that in the next 50 to 100 years, thanks to the accelerating melt from Greenland.

I sure hope they're wrong.

They were saying for past 10 years that NY would be under water from global warming. New York should already be underwater from the way the talk was going in 1990.It's not going to happen it's a hoax. it's a political agenda to fool the people. The globe was much warmer 1,000 years ago and nothing flooded.

[nathanm]

quote:Originally posted by sauerkraut

They were saying for past 10 years that NY would be under water from global warming. New York should already be underwater from the way the talk was going in 1990.It's not going to happen it's a hoax. it's a political agenda to fool the people. The globe was much warmer 1,000 years ago and nothing flooded.
[/quote]
Not everything happens in 10 years time. Some things take longer. Like melting the enormous icecap on Greenland, which is melting significantly faster than it has in the last 50 years, BTW.

I guess all that water is going to magically disappear?