Global Cooling

Global Cooling (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Kirata -> Global Cooling (1/10/2010 6:48:20 PM)
It's here, and more is coming... From the UK Mail Online Science and Technology section, January 10, 2010... The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists [...] Among the most prominent of the scientists is Professor Mojib Latif, a leading member of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has been pushing the issue of man-made global warming on to the international political agenda since it was formed 22 years ago. Prof Latif, who leads a research team at the renowned Leibniz Institute at Germany’s Kiel University, has developed new methods for measuring ocean temperatures 3,000ft beneath the surface, where the cooling and warming cycles start. He and his colleagues predicted the new cooling trend in a paper published in 2008 and warned of it again at an IPCC conference in Geneva last September. Last night he told The Mail on Sunday: ‘A significant share of the warming we saw from 1980 to 2000 and at earlier periods in the 20th Century was due to these cycles – perhaps as much as 50 per cent. 'They have now gone into reverse, so winters like this one will become much more likely. Summers will also probably be cooler, and all this may well last two decades or longer.' Makes for interesting reading, and raises further questions about the anthropogenic global warming hysteria. The work of Profs Latif, Tsonis and their teams raises a crucial question: If some of the late 20th Century warming was caused not by carbon dioxide but by MDOs, then how much? [...] William Gray, emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University, said that while he believed there had been some background rise caused by greenhouse gases, the computer models used by advocates of man-made warming had hugely exaggerated their effect. According to Prof Gray, these distort the way the atmosphere works. ‘Most of the rise in temperature from the Seventies to the Nineties was natural,’ he said. ‘Very little was down to CO2 – in my view, as little as five to ten per cent.’ At the very least, anyone who calls the situation "settled science" is either ignorant or lying. K.

Sanity -> RE: Global Cooling (1/10/2010 6:58:58 PM)
Manatees and iguanas and citrus trees are dying in Florida, this is no laughing matter. There is potential here for a real crisis. Much as it would be nice to say I told ya so, and we did, we knew it all along, its still no fun to be this freakin' right. On the plus side though, business is booming up at Bogus so you won't catch me crying, much.

MzMia -> RE: Global Cooling (1/10/2010 7:05:14 PM)
Great post Kirata, the weather has been over the top around the world a long time now. It is obvious from this record breaking "cold streak" that the weather IS changing. I appreciate the references, but regardless of what climatologists say or predict, the weather IS changing, and getting stranger and stranger. I don't need to see a ball of fire in the sky to see that. There IS a force greater than man. [;)]

Jeffff -> RE: Global Cooling (1/10/2010 7:05:18 PM)
I saw a thing about this on Nova, I believe. According to them, it is pollutants in the atmosphere reflecting sunlight. They said besides the obvious, that it was potentianly lesseing global warming. Most of the pollution now comes from the far east. If they cleaned it up, it could lead to problems. If they don't, it could lead to problems. fucked if ya do... fucked if ya don't Jeff

sappatoti -> RE: Global Cooling (1/10/2010 7:08:08 PM)
Well, the manatees and sea turtles haven't been dying off just yet. They're being closely monitored by biologists from both the marine park industry and the State of FL and emergency plans have been readied and staged in case they are needed to save these animals. Neither have the citrus trees been killed off. Yes, there is leaf damage and many of the smaller, weaker branches of the trees will most likely need to be pruned away, but the trees themselves are in decent shape. What's lost to a big extent is the existing fruit hanging on the trees at this point. As of today's numbers, 30% to 50% of the fruit from the local grove owners is lost, but they're optimistic that once tonight's projected cold has passed, their trees will be fine for next year's crop. Just wanted to point this out, as I live right in the heart of citrus and manatee country here in FL. [... edited to add ...] As for the iguanas... they are cold-blooded creatures and as such, when the temp falls below 40F, the animals go into a sort of suspended hibernation. They normally roost in the trees and because they are now "suspended," they happen to fall out. In some places, there are a lot of them falling out of trees (hard hats recommended if you live or walk in such areas). However, once the temp rises, the iguanas will revive and carry on with whatever it is that the lizards do.

InvisibleBlack -> RE: Global Cooling (1/10/2010 7:25:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata It's here, and more is coming... <snip> Last night he told The Mail on Sunday: ‘A significant share of the warming we saw from 1980 to 2000 and at earlier periods in the 20th Century was due to these cycles – perhaps as much as 50 per cent. 'They have now gone into reverse, so winters like this one will become much more likely. Summers will also probably be cooler, and all this may well last two decades or longer.' Makes for interesting reading, and raises further questions about the anthropogenic global warming hysteria. <snip> According to Prof Gray, these distort the way the atmosphere works. ‘Most of the rise in temperature from the Seventies to the Nineties was natural,’ he said. ‘Very little was down to CO2 – in my view, as little as five to ten per cent.’ At the very least, anyone who calls the situation "settled science" is either ignorant or lying. K. Oh, you've thrown the fat in the fire now. Didn't those five or six threads on climate change and anthropogenic global warming just die down!? I'll add my own contribution, from the IPCC Third Assessment Report on Climate Change (from 2001): "Climate variations and change, caused by external forcings, may be partly predictable, particularly on the larger, continental and global, spatial scales. Because human activities, such as the emission of greenhouse gases or land-use change, do result in external forcing, it is believed that the large-scale aspects of human-induced climate change are also partly predictable ... In practice, therefore, one has to rely on carefully constructed scenarios of human behaviour and determine climate projections on the basis of such scenarios." and "It is necessary to make assumptions about how the emissions or concentrations of the other gasses may change in the future. In addition, it is necessary to have a base scenario against which the effect of the different stabilization pathways may be assessed. The state of science at present is such that it is only possible to give illustrative examples of possible outcomes." and, most importantly, "In sum, a strategy must recognize what is possible. In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long term prediction of future climate states is not possible." (emphasis mine) That's from the IPCC report that offcially brought the whole "global warming" problem to international attention. (You'll have to forgive me for not quoting the Fourth Assessment - I just don't have it me any more to read these multi-thousand page essays.) They flat out admit that the state of science is such we can, at best, only partially predict climate and that long term predictions are not possible - that their work is basically just an "illustrative example" of a "possible outcome". That's not hard science. The fact is, we just don't know enough about the climate, what drives it or how it works to make any future predictions within any reasonable estimate of accuracy. All the climate models are junk. It's going to take decades of dedicated research to even begin to work out the foundation for a serious set of theories, and it will take more decades to test these theories. On another thread I said that economics is a science in its pre-teen years. Climate science isn't even in its infancy - it's in the foetal stage. As late as the 1950 the theory of continental drift wasn't universally accepted. We're barely out of the stage of adjusting our thinking to plate tectonics. I think it's a grand and wonderful thing that time and money and research is going into figuring out just how our planet works and what factors influence our climate. I believe that at the end of this process, there will be huge benefits for all mankind, and likely for all living creatures on the planet. I'm not arrogant enough to expect that we'll have all the answers in a few short years of looking at some tree rings and taking samples of trapped gasses in sedimentary strata. I don't think that anyone knows or has even a clue what the global temperature will be like 50 or 100 years into the future. It could be hotter, it could be colder. I am hopeful that by then we'll know why it is that way.

MzMia -> RE: Global Cooling (1/10/2010 7:30:01 PM)
This goes along with what I said "in a way". Sometimes I don't need "scientific facts" or reasons that may not be "officially" known for 50 years. The weather IS changing in a dramatic way, period. Regardless of why, it IS, and that is a fact.

heartcream -> RE: Global Cooling (1/10/2010 7:44:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Manatees and iguanas and citrus trees are dying in Florida, this is no laughing matter. There is potential here for a real crisis. Much as it would be nice to say I told ya so, and we did, we knew it all along, its still no fun to be this freakin' right. Yes, this is a case where being wrong would be a relief.

DomImus -> RE: Global Cooling (1/10/2010 7:52:30 PM)
quote: William Gray, emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University, said that while he believed there had been some background rise caused by greenhouse gases, the computer models used by advocates of man-made warming had hugely exaggerated their effect. According to Prof Gray, these distort the way the atmosphere works. ‘Most of the rise in temperature from the Seventies to the Nineties was natural,’ he said. ‘Very little was down to CO2 – in my view, as little as five to ten per cent.’ This is a story I read the other day about a study done that suggests that carbon dioxide levels have not changed dramatically in decades or longer.

DCWoody -> RE: Global Cooling (1/10/2010 8:19:00 PM)
While this particular piece seems to be mostly straightforward quotes, I feel I should warn ya that the dailymail doesn't even make good toilet paper....and honestly, it's been tried. It's not that it supports a party I don't, because I don't and it doesn't seem to....I don't think there even is a 'everything's shit and we're all going to die, and btw princess diana is still dead' party. If newspapers were people it'd be the ancient greatgrandmother who mutters to herself about foreigners and young people today and isn't allowed sharp objects. Quickly with regards to climate change, we're (as a civilisation) used to the current interglacial, sadly this can't last....or rather it might last another 20,000 years....but it also might be coming to an end right now....and when it stops lasting certain nations are in trouble. I'm living in an area which will either be underwater or underglacier.....which is nice :/ It is very solid science that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas, and traps heat....therefore the amount of CO2 humans emit, which is either huge massive numbers, or a ridiculously insignificant % of the atmosphere...or somewhere in between depending on your POV, will definitely inarguably have some effect. The problem being that it's really hard to tell or predict whether our effect is the equivalent of a single grain of sand blowing against a house, damaging it in an immeasurably small way.....or a wrecking ball. Or somewhere inbetween. People who say that human global warming is fact aren't right, but neither are those who say scientists who support the theory (ie most of them)...are part of some sort of conspiracy. Personally I'm trying to ignore it for another 20-30 years, see if the warming trend of late last century continues...it certainly doesn't appear to be so far, but it's too early to tell really.

DCWoody -> RE: Global Cooling (1/10/2010 8:33:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomImus quote: William Gray, emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University, said that while he believed there had been some background rise caused by greenhouse gases, the computer models used by advocates of man-made warming had hugely exaggerated their effect. According to Prof Gray, these distort the way the atmosphere works. ‘Most of the rise in temperature from the Seventies to the Nineties was natural,’ he said. ‘Very little was down to CO2 – in my view, as little as five to ten per cent.’ This is a story I read the other day about a study done that suggests that carbon dioxide levels have not changed dramatically in decades or longer. I would be more than a little suspicious of either of those, ya can find newsarticles and quotes from professors in some dull university to support either view, there isn't really much point firing quotes back and forth. The CO2 absorbtion thing isn't mentioned much though.....all the data suggests natural sinks have increased since humans started emmitting in a noticable way, so the natural balance that is often referred to, doesn't actually exist right now. To put it extremely simply...CO2 is good for plantlife, which absorb it (although not as much as you may think, they can't photosythnthesise at night afterall)....as more CO2 in atmosphere....more plants, more CO2 getting 'eaten' by plants. There's also some worry about the ocean absorbing it, although this has been overegged IMO. This hasn't cancelled out human emmissions by a long way, but the increase in CO2 in atmosphere is considerably less than the human output. It's all very complicated and tends to lead to arguments between greenies and conspiracy nuts. I'll probably bow out of this thread before I end up fighting off both sides :)

eyesopened -> RE: Global Cooling (1/11/2010 4:25:57 AM)
Excellent post, Kirata! It seems impossible to know exactly how much climate change is caused by human beings. These cycles of extreme weather are evident in the pre-industrial history. However, can we safely say "Carry on. Not your fault. No need to look for alternate energy. No need to cancel your order for a new Hummer. No need to worry about rain forests or pollution."? Whether nor not Al Gore's campaign is "truth" it really is inconvenient. If we are headed toward a new ice age then it prove global warming does it not? Isn't part of the problem the melting of polar ice changing the temperature and salinity of the northern atlantic which disrupts the gulfstream and prevents the warmer, saltier water from moving northward? I guess what I would like to know is what can I personally do? In any of these debates it seems like people are much more concerned about being right than being responsible. Warming or cooling it seems this Age is the Blameless Age. Nothing is ever my fault, my job, or my problem.

submittous -> RE: Global Cooling (1/11/2010 11:09:08 AM)
When posting about science how about using peer reviewed science journals... there are tons of em. Using a tabloid as a science source shows how little ya'll understand about how science works. About the actual article, ... no word about the southern hemisphere having record heat waves? huh, wonder why... oh yea, no peer review. With an small increase in atmospheric temperature there probably will NOT be a large increase in surface temps everywhere or maybe anywhere, but there will be an increase in atmospheric energy and that will translate into changed weather patterns.... Over all it will also mean more total energy in storms of all kinds. Climate is complex.... judging the future based on a cold winter in Europe and/or North America is as good science as it's gonna snow next year on January 11 because it did this year. Measuring overall and total average temps (including total ocean temp, total atmosphere temp and land mass temp) can tell you what the trends are for absorbed sun energy produced heat on earth but anything else is silly junk science.

Kirata -> RE: Global Cooling (1/11/2010 11:48:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: submittous When posting about science how about using peer reviewed science journals... With an small increase in atmospheric temperature there probably will NOT be a large increase in surface temps everywhere or maybe anywhere, but there will be an increase in atmospheric energy and that will translate into changed weather patterns.... Over all it will also mean more total energy in storms of all kinds. When posting about science how about using peer reviewed science journals? quote: ORIGINAL: submittous Using a tabloid as a science source shows how little ya'll understand about how science works. The source was the climate scientists being quoted. The "tabloid" was the medium reporting them. Get it? K.

TheHeretic -> RE: Global Cooling (1/11/2010 7:06:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: submittous When posting about science how about using peer reviewed science journals... You mean the peer-reviewed journals that the church of anthropogenic warming worked so hard to keep dissenting opinions out of?

servantforuse -> RE: Global Cooling (1/11/2010 7:14:38 PM)
This will make it easier for the global warming extremists. They can concentrate all of their travel efforts and plans to the G 8 summits . It's all the same people anyway.

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875