Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Here comes the next ice age (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   
Author Topic: Here comes the next ice age
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The writing is on the glacier, here comes the next ice age.

First, there's this:
quote:
Southern Brazil for instance had four consecutive months of below average weather with numerous records broken. Much of Argentina saw winter temperatures averaging 5 to 10 degrees below the long term average with Buenos Aries having their first snow since 1918. Santiago, Chile had their coldest winter since 1885 where temperatures averaged between 10 and 12 degrees below seasonal averages.

Other parts of the southern hemisphere also saw record cold weather including South Africa and especially Australia where June ended up being the coldest on record over much of the country.

It was cold in the Southern Hemisphere, damn cold. And it lasted longer than usual: “What a hell is happening this year with a seven-month winter”, asked a famous TV journalist about the unusual climatic winter of 2007 that began with fury in May and still persist in November.

January 2008 has the largest areal Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the period 1966-2008. GISS and-Ocean Global temperature index data was released yesterday for the month of January, 2008 and reports January 2007 to January 2008 appears to be the largest single year to year January drop for the entire GISS data set; a -0.75 difference. NOAA says the average temperature in January 2008 was -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average.

The global warming faithful will try to tell us that record cold in both hemispheres in back to back winters is just a coincidence. Nothing more than a blip in the overall trend and we're going to get back to the warming 'real soon now'. Just watch around August when the claims roll in just as they do every summer.

Unfortunately, they'd be wrong:
quote:
Dr. Kenneth Tapping is worried about the sun. Solar activity comes in regular cycles, but the latest one is refusing to start. Sunspots have all but vanished, and activity is suspiciously quiet. The last time this happened was 400 years ago -- and it signaled a solar event known as a "Maunder Minimum," along with the start of what we now call the "Little Ice Age."

Tapping, a solar researcher and project director for Canada's National Research Council, says it may be happening again. Overseeing a giant radio telescope he calls a "stethoscope for the sun," Tapping says, if the pattern doesn't change quickly, the earth is in for some very chilly weather.

What would this quick change look like? Actually, it would look kind of like the last winters in each hemisphere with record cold and longer than usual winters. Russian astronomer Khabibullo Abdusamatov first predicted in 2005 the sun would soon peak, triggering a rapid decline in world temperatures. Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences predicts the solar minimum to occur by the year 2040, with icy weather lasting till 2100 or beyond. Kind of like the Little Ice Age:
quote:
During the Little Ice Age, global temperatures dropped sharply. New York Harbor froze hard enough to allow people to walk from Manhattan to Staten Island, and in Britain, people reported sighting eskimos paddling canoes off the coast. Glaciers in Norway grew up to 100 meters a year, destroying farms and villages.
Global temperatures dropped sharply, what a coincidence the faithful will tell us. I wonder how they'll spin the next ice age so it can be man made?
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, if it happened, at least we'd know how to turn the thermostat back up. Just feed beans and prune juice to a few million cattle.

[ February 12, 2008, 06:27 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kent
Member
Member # 832

 - posted      Profile for Kent   Email Kent   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
One year! That is all you have. But we have the hockey stick model! Very appropriate, que no?
Posts: 1434 | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kent:
One year! That is all you have. But we have the hockey stick model! Very appropriate, que no?

The "hockey stick" was discredited. You're working with faked science on that one. Very appropriate, que no?
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G2, if you had checked the actual GISS web site, you would have found that GISS is reporting that 2007 was tied with 1998 as the second warmest year on record, globally. 2005 was the warmest.

This even in the presence of a strong La Niña, which is busy cooling western South America.

You would also have noted the following:
quote:
The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990.
So, to summarize: last year was the second warmest on record even during a cool La Niña cycle, 8 of the past ten years have been the warmest on record, yet you somehow claim that a cherry-picked set of locally cool areas are a harbinger of a new ice age.

Congratulations, I think...

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh, and didn't we already explain to you (last time you made the snow-extent claim) that snow cover is transitory and almost meaningless in year over year comparisons - and that your sources seemed to be purposefully conflating it with ice cover, which is now at an historical low?
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"The "hockey stick" was discredited. You're working with faked science on that one. Very appropriate, que no?"

The "hockey stick" has been discredited by people who don't understand science, not actual scientists, who still use it, and actually know what it means.


The fake science? Any time global warming comes up on ornery, I can be certain that it is G2 posting fake science, which he will claim is the "real science," even though, if a real scientist looked at it, would laugh.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This part is legitimate:
quote:
Dr. Kenneth Tapping is worried about the sun. Solar activity comes in regular cycles, but the latest one is refusing to start. Sunspots have all but vanished, and activity is suspiciously quiet. The last time this happened was 400 years ago -- and it signaled a solar event known as a "Maunder Minimum," along with the start of what we now call the "Little Ice Age."
Probably this just means sunspot cycles are quite irregular, some have been six and some fifteen years if I remember, but the Little Ice Age shows the sun can indeed cool significantly for four hundred years. If that happened, it would be counter to the greenhouse effect. Of course, once it was over, temperatures would rebound even faster because of the increased greenhouse gases.

Nobody has ever said that global warming is certain or will be regular, just that it seems to be happening now. Global temperature is influenced by many factors, not just one. But greenhouse gas emissions are a strong push toward warmth.

[ February 12, 2008, 07:31 PM: Message edited by: hobsen ]

Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by hobsen:
This part is legitimate:
quote:
Dr. Kenneth Tapping is worried about the sun. Solar activity comes in regular cycles, but the latest one is refusing to start. Sunspots have all but vanished, and activity is suspiciously quiet. The last time this happened was 400 years ago -- and it signaled a solar event known as a "Maunder Minimum," along with the start of what we now call the "Little Ice Age."
Probably this just means sunspot cycles are quite irregular, some have been six and some fifteen years if I remember, but the Little Ice Age shows the sun can indeed cool significantly for four hundred years. If that happened, it would be counter to the greenhouse effect. Of course, once it was over, temperatures would rebound even faster because of the increased greenhouse gases.

Nobody has ever said that global warming is certain or will be regular, just that it seems to be happening now. Global temperature is influenced by many factors, not just one. But greenhouse gas emissions are a strong push toward warmth.

Interesting. Is there any way geological to know if 400 years is about standard, or whether a mini-ice age might just last a couple decades?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Depending on who's anlysis you believe, solar activity will either continue at the current low level or rebound.

What is not in dispute is that the 'normal' solar activity cycle has an (approximately) 11-year duration, of which we are currently experiencing a minimum, similar to what we experienced in 1985-86 and in 1996-97. Will activity rebound upwards as is 'normal' or will we stagnate at this low level for awhile? Enquiring minds want to know...

The NASA/Marshall Solar Physics lab seems to think that solar activity will start ramping up in 2008. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is similarly predicting the start of a new solar activity cycle.
quote:
A new 11-year cycle of heightened solar activity, bringing with it increased risks for power grids, critical military, civilian and airline communications, GPS signals and even cell phones and ATM transactions, showed signs it was on its way late yesterday when the cycle’s first sunspot appeared in the sun’s Northern Hemisphere, NOAA scientists said.

“This sunspot is like the first robin of spring,” said solar physicist Douglas Biesecker of NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center. “In this case, it’s an early omen of solar storms that will gradually increase over the next few years.”


Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle

Wikipedia has a nice article on the solar cycle, with a couple of charts first showing actual numbers back to about 1900 and then reconstructed totals back to 1600 or so. Tree ring studies take the record back for about ten thousand years, and they show summers have been hotter or cooler, for reasons nobody really understands for the most part. But some are results of known causes, such as known volcanic eruptions, and the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is known and could be a cause.

Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Did I say heliocentric?

I meant juliocentric [Wink]

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
methinks you're on the wrong thread, ken [Wink] (just like G2 [Smile] )
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kent
Member
Member # 832

 - posted      Profile for Kent   Email Kent   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Look, humans can't control the sun but we should at least try to control the general populace of the earth just in case the sun doesn't fluctuate. I am the man for the job in case you're looking.
Posts: 1434 | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G2,

quote:
Dr. Kenneth Tapping is worried about the sun.
please check your sources,

according to Dr. Kenneth Tapping,

quote:
. The stuff on the web came from a casual chat with someone who managed to misunderstand what I said and then put the result on the web, which is probably a big caution for me regarding the future.

It is true that the beginning of the next solar cycle is late, but not so late that we are getting worried, merely curious.

It is the opinion of scientists, including me, that global warming is a major issue, and that it might be too late to do anything about it already. If there is a cooling due to the solar activity cycle laying off for a bit, then the a period of solar cooling could be a much-needed respite giving us more time to attack the problem of greenhouse gases, with the caveat that if we do not, things will be far worse when things turn on again after a few decades. However, once again it is early days and we cannot at the moment conclude there is another minimum started.

http://www.desmogblog.com/scientist-bust-biz-sheet-for-misrepresenting-his-work

LetterRip

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Splendid, LetterRip. Dr. Tapping announces his belief in global warming, and says the late start for the next sunspot cycle is at the moment no more than curious. Combined with an actual sunspot appearing, the next cycle is almost certainly starting.

Sorry, Pete, I did not notice your question. The past has had everything from cold periods lasting a few years to Ice Ages lasting thousands of years. But major changes are like a big earthquake which will stike sometime, but will probably not strike right now. As you can see from the Wiki chart, sunspot cycles mostly move along with fair regularity, like a slightly defective clock. They are like waves breaking on a beach, and a major change is like a tsunami. It could always happen, but you would probably sit around your whole life if you waited for it.

Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Everard:

The "hockey stick" has been discredited by people who don't understand science, not actual scientists, who still use it, and actually know what it means.

Oh yeah, always the mantra - we're all just too stupid. I'm sure that makes you feel better. Why is it you can put totally random data into the algorithms that created your holy symbol and it creates the exact same chart? Doesn't matter what you analyze, you follow Mann's methodology you get the same results. Must be too complex for us normal folks, thank god we got smart people like you to keep it straight for us.

quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
Oh, and didn't we already explain to you (last time you made the snow-extent claim) that snow cover is transitory and almost meaningless in year over year comparisons - and that your sources seemed to be purposefully conflating it with ice cover, which is now at an historical low?

Sorry, you seem to be out of date on the data. Here is the current status: "... there is currently around 1 million squared kilometers more of ice on the worlds surface than normal."
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
G2,

quote:
Dr. Kenneth Tapping is worried about the sun.
please check your sources,

according to Dr. Kenneth Tapping,

quote:
. The stuff on the web came from a casual chat with someone who managed to misunderstand what I said and then put the result on the web, which is probably a big caution for me regarding the future.

It is true that the beginning of the next solar cycle is late, but not so late that we are getting worried, merely curious.

It is the opinion of scientists, including me, that global warming is a major issue, and that it might be too late to do anything about it already. If there is a cooling due to the solar activity cycle laying off for a bit, then the a period of solar cooling could be a much-needed respite giving us more time to attack the problem of greenhouse gases, with the caveat that if we do not, things will be far worse when things turn on again after a few decades. However, once again it is early days and we cannot at the moment conclude there is another minimum started.

http://www.desmogblog.com/scientist-bust-biz-sheet-for-misrepresenting-his-work

Of course Tapping is going to hedge things a bit. He wants to keep his funding and not be labeled a "denier". With threats of funding loss and calls for being charged with crimes against humanity, anyone falling into the spotlight is going to try to appease. If you would please check my sources, you'd see that Tapping is not the only scientist involved and that his use of "we" is inappropriate as there are a number of other scientists mentioned in the article.

quote:
Originally posted by hobsen:
Probably this just means sunspot cycles are quite irregular, some have been six and some fifteen years if I remember, but the Little Ice Age shows the sun can indeed cool significantly for four hundred years. If that happened, it would be counter to the greenhouse effect. Of course, once it was over, temperatures would rebound even faster because of the increased greenhouse gases.

The solar cycle is actually quite regular - mild variations but it is predictable. Sunspots are also a regualr part of the solar cycle.
quote:
Originally posted by hobsen:

Nobody has ever said that global warming is certain or will be regular, just that it seems to be happening now.

You must be kidding - didn't you see "An Inconvenient Truth"?. Check with the AGW cheerleaders like everard and LetterRip - they're certain and I'm sure can manufacture all the links where certainty abounds.

quote:
Originally posted by hobsen:
Global temperature is influenced by many factors, not just one. But greenhouse gas emissions are a strong push toward warmth.

Compared to the sun, they're a drop in the ocean. If greenhouse gases had as much influence as you think, the late Ordovician period where CO2 levels were 12 times today's levels should not have been an ice age.

[ February 13, 2008, 10:28 AM: Message edited by: G2 ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KonerAtHome
Member
Member # 2168

 - posted      Profile for KonerAtHome   Email KonerAtHome       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I was in the Mueseum of Natural History at the Smithsonian the weekend before last with my family as a "family day" before I leave on deployment. I found an interesting thing in there somewhere that explained that we are technically still in an "ice age", just in an interglacial period. My wife and I joked about it because of all of the talk about global warming.
Posts: 461 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G2,

a hedge is quite a bit different from a refuation which is what Tappping did.

quote:
You must be kidding - didn't you see "An Inconvenient Truth"?. Check with the AGW cheerleaders like everard and LetterRip - they're certain and I'm sure can manufacture all the links where certainty abounds.
Just because I refute all of the really poor quality articles that you post doesn't mean I'm a 'AGW cheerleader'. Anti bad science reporting doesn't mean I'm pro some particular other position.

I'm unaware of anyone arguing a monotonistic increase in temperature - instead the expectation is that the average will increase over time.

LetterRip

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G2,

quote:
Compared to the sun, they're a drop in the ocean. If greenhouse gases had as much influence as you think, the late Ordovician period where CO2 levels were 12 times today's levels should not have been an ice age.
This is a common misunderstanding, different climate drivers dominate over different time spans - variations in solar output are important; continental configuration; distance from the sun is important; aerosol content of the atmosphere is important; reflectivity of the earth is important. Distance from the sun is the biggest driver but its variations are generally either seasonal - which average out; or on the multi millennial scale which is irrelevant to concerns over the next 100 years. Variations in solar output are important but again the variations expected over the next 100 years average out (events like Maunder minimum I believe are expected to contribute a .2 C variance in global mean temperature).

In the case of the late Ordovician it had drastically different continental configuration; is believed to have had a 'cool summer' orbit. So for the same heat retaining capacity you need far more CO2. As to why the glaciation occurred

Continental drift (changing ocean heat transport); reduced atmospheric CO2 levels; reduced sea levels; etc. See this paper,
http://www.essc.psu.edu/~bjhaupt/papers/3paleo.hhpss/Herrmann_et_al_3Paleo_2004b.pdf

LetterRip

[ February 13, 2008, 02:26 PM: Message edited by: LetterRip ]

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
People are starting to really notice this. Depending on whose numbers you rely on we should see sunspots every 2-5 days. How many have wee seen so far in 2008? One. We nearly had one in December but it didn't form so we had exactly one in the last 2.5 months or more. That puts us on pace for a Maunder Minimum type event which translates into a Little Ice Age. The Russian astronomers are looking more and more like they have it figured out.

I would love for them to be wrong, turning the Earth into a tropical paradise is a whole lot better than the ice ball we're heading towards.

quote:
Originally posted by KonerAtHome:
I found an interesting thing in there somewhere that explained that we are technically still in an "ice age", just in an interglacial period. My wife and I joked about it because of all of the talk about global warming.

I don't think you're supposed to talk about that. It's very inconvenient to the AGW crowd and it will get you labeled a denier and potentially tried for crimes against humanity. You better be careful or at least aware of the risk in making these kinds of potentially blasphemous observations. [Wink]
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
vulture
Member
Member # 84

 - posted      Profile for vulture   Email vulture   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
I don't think you're supposed to talk about that. It's very inconvenient to the AGW crowd and it will get you labeled a denier and potentially tried for crimes against humanity. You better be careful or at least aware of the risk in making these kinds of potentially blasphemous observations. [Wink]

Interesting use of language - "I don't think you're supposed to talk about that" = something that is an established fact and widely known (certainly to all the actual researchers).

And for that matter, why do you accept the scientific evidence on that, and not on any other point?

Posts: 1768 | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
0Megabyte
Member
Member # 1217

 - posted      Profile for 0Megabyte   Email 0Megabyte       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Even if, hypothetically, the sun's decreased output cools down the Earth in spite of the Co2 and other greenhouse gases we're pouring into our atmosphere, how does that affect the fact that we've put them into the air at an unnatural rate, that they do have an effect on our climate, and that when said mini ice age ends it'll be worse than ever, should we continue?

All a mini ice age gives us, if something like that occurs, is a respite. It gives us a few more years, and an opportunity to, say... decrease CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions, switch to the ever more feasible alternate fuel sources (I've read the Scientific American proposal to use solar energy, and it sounds quite reasonable, and effective. That's not even counting the ever improving wind generation) switch cars to fuel cells powered by said energy sources, undo dependency on foreign oil, suggest quite firmly that other nations follow suit, by becoming something people wish to emulate if nothing else, stop much of the production of acid rain, since we wouldn't need to use nearly as much coal, and all in all have much nicer air to breathe?

Just because outside forces conspire to protect us from the worst effects of our actions (the amount of CO2 in out atmosphere has increased from ~250 ppm a hundred years ago to over 350 ppm today. Quite significant, even if it does seem "small".) does not mean it becomes an opportunity to continue doing what we're doing.

The best use of such a respite is to make things better. I know Will Durant once said that global warming just might be the solution to the next ice age, but even so, I highly doubt we want to continue the trend we've seen.

Even if you care nothing for global warming, the things that would help fix the problem would, in fact, have a ton of other benefits as well.

Regardless: I'm curious, why is Venus hotter than Mercury again? [Big Grin]

Posts: 2668 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Mercury has no significant atmosphere, so its "air temperature" is meaningless. Rocks in the sun can get hot enough to melt some metals; rocks on the night side go way below any temperatures found on Earth. Venus does have an atmosphere, and air temperatures ranging from about that of boiling water at the poles to a lot hotter near its equator.

[ February 14, 2008, 04:06 PM: Message edited by: hobsen ]

Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rallan
Member
Member # 1936

 - posted      Profile for Rallan   Email Rallan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
G2, if you had checked the actual GISS web site, you would have found that GISS is reporting that 2007 was tied with 1998 as the second warmest year on record, globally. 2005 was the warmest.

This even in the presence of a strong La Niña, which is busy cooling western South America.

You would also have noted the following:
quote:
The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990.
So, to summarize: last year was the second warmest on record even during a cool La Niña cycle, 8 of the past ten years have been the warmest on record, yet you somehow claim that a cherry-picked set of locally cool areas are a harbinger of a new ice age.

Congratulations, I think...

And of course what the "ha ha, there goes global warming crowd!" fail to mention is that while La Niña's been doing its thing in South America, its angry older brother El Niño has been royally screwing Australia for pretty much the entire last decade, giving us warm dry summers and mild dry winters and wrecking our agricultural sector with the worst droughts since records began down here.
Posts: 2570 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by vulture:
Interesting use of language - "I don't think you're supposed to talk about that" = something that is an established fact and widely known (certainly to all the actual researchers).

Not quite, "I don't think you're supposed to talk about that" = facts contradicting AGW orthodoxy get you in big trouble. You can lose your job, your freedom and even your life if you get convicted of crimes against humanity.

quote:
Originally posted by 0Megabyte:
...the amount of CO2 in out atmosphere has increased from ~250 ppm a hundred years ago to over 350 ppm today. Quite significant, even if it does seem "small".)

The focus is always on the last 100 years for a very specific reason - it skews the picture of what's going on in favor of AGW. Let's talk about real history a bit. What are the historic levels of CO2? At 350 ppm today, we are at record lows. It has been as high as 7000 ppm and averages around 2500 ppm. The average CO2 level is 7 times today's and peaks as high as 18 times today's. There is only one other period in the last 600 million years we've seen CO2 levels this low (the Carboniferous Period, about 300 million years ago). 350 ppm is nothing compared to historical levels; a rise of 100 ppm is insignificant.

How about global temperatures, what should they be? As was pointed out earlier, the planet is currently within an interglacial period of an ice age (that means it's still very cold,just no glaciers). It could be the end of the ice age or just a break, either way the temperature goes up simply because we're a t record lows - it pretty much has nowhere else to go. We're around 54° F today but we've been as high as 68° F. That 54° F (today) is about as cold as it's ever been in the last 600 million years. The historical average for Earth is around 62° F.

If we truly look at history, instead of the artificial cut off of the end of the Little Ice Age the AGW cheerleaders rely on, we see that rising CO2 levels and increasing temperatures should be happening. Using historical performance as indicators of future levels (and what better data can we use), we should clearly expect to see what we're seeing regardless of anything people are doing.

Meanwhile, if we look at the solar minimums: Maunder Minimum (1645-1715,), Spörer Minimum (1420-1570) and the Dalton Minimum (1790-1830), what do they all have in common? They all coincided with a period of lower than average global temperatures. Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, and three times is a pattern.
quote:
Originally posted by 0Megabyte:
Even if, hypothetically, the sun's decreased output cools down the Earth in spite of the Co2 and other greenhouse gases we're pouring into our atmosphere, how does that affect the fact that we've put them into the air at an unnatural rate, that they do have an effect on our climate, and that when said mini ice age ends it'll be worse than ever, should we continue?

I'm not sure how you can say decreased output from the sun would only hypothetically cool the Earth. It's obvious that it would.

What makes you think we've done anything at an unnatural rate? CO2 levels have risen drastically in the past before there were humans so we know that it can happen naturally and it can happen in large volumes - volumes that dwarf today's human output.

[ February 15, 2008, 10:06 AM: Message edited by: G2 ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kelcimer
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's the Sun, stupid!

http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html

quote:
Earth is heating up lately, but so are Mars, Pluto and other worlds in our solar system, leading some scientists to speculate that a change in the sun’s activity is the common thread linking all these baking events.
Look, if other planets in our solar system have been heating up at the same time we have been there's only one common denominator: the sun. Yes, we polute. Yes, we should see about doing something about it. But are we causing global warming? No. No, we are not. It is hubris to think that we are.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How many planets and moons are there in the solar system?

Are they all warming, or just the 4-5 bodies mentioned in the article?

And have they all been warming consistently with Earth's warming trend (with a pause following WWII and sudden dramatic warming over the past 25 years?)

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Look, if other planets in our solar system have been heating up at the same time we have been there's only one common denominator: the sun. Yes, we polute. Yes, we should see about doing something about it. But are we causing global warming? No. No, we are not. It is hubris to think that we are."

Well, kelcimer, if you run through the math, and a number of people have, it turns out that the warming trends on other bodies in the solar system accounts for, at most, 20% of the warming we have experienced.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That has to be something that perplexes me most about those who post anti-AGW threads (or about science threads in general). The read an article, and conclude that scientists are wrong and morons who never contemplated the possibility that this could be the cause; or point to a 'inconvenient fact' and conclude the scientists have never looked into the topic.

Kelcimer and G2 - you both seem frequent culprits in this - what evidence do you have that scientists are generally incompetent that would lead you to believe they are specifically incompetent as relates to the sciences related to climate or evolution?

Does the fact that every objection you raise has been quickly identified to be an error in your understanding (or an error on the behalf of the article writer you point to) give you any sort of incentive to stop and consider that perhaps you are being irrational in your beliefs and actions on the subject?

I don't understand how one can be wrong so often, and yet continue to post such simplistic and easily countered arguments and maintain belief in ones rationality.

LetterRip

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kent
Member
Member # 832

 - posted      Profile for Kent   Email Kent   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LetterRip, if only it were as you say it is. You can find plenty of scientists who disagree about this topic and the role humans play in it. You pick your experts and I'll pick mine.
Posts: 1434 | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"LetterRip, if only it were as you say it is. You can find plenty of scientists who disagree about this topic and the role humans play in it. You pick your experts and I'll pick mine."

And over 95% of the experts in climatology that we find will back the position LR and i stake out, and only a very tiny percentage will back the position that G2 and kelcimer stake out. And if we look at peer reviwed articles, the difference is even greater.

Wht there IS is a media push to make it appear as if both sides are equally credible.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
That has to be something that perplexes me most about those who post anti-AGW threads (or about science threads in general). The read an article, and conclude that scientists are wrong and morons who never contemplated the possibility that this could be the cause; or point to a 'inconvenient fact' and conclude the scientists have never looked into the topic.

Actually, I have posted numerous articles from a variety of scientists and scientific disciplines. This has to be something that perplexes me most about the AGW cheerleaders. They read an article, and conclude that's the only one ever written that contradicts their views.

quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
Kelcimer and G2 - you both seem frequent culprits in this - what evidence do you have that scientists are generally incompetent that would lead you to believe they are specifically incompetent as relates to the sciences related to climate or evolution?

I have the exact same evidence that lead you to believe the opposite of any scientist not supporting your views. The only difference is I don't call for their loss of accreditation or threaten their funding. One had to wonder why the AGW crowd feels the need to resort to threats if the science is so "settled".
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
Does the fact that every objection you raise has been quickly identified to be an error in your understanding (or an error on the behalf of the article writer you point to) give you any sort of incentive to stop and consider that perhaps you are being irrational in your beliefs and actions on the subject?

Let me rephrase that, you menat, "Does the fact that every objection you raise I have quickly identified to be an error in your understanding (or an error on the behalf of the article writer you point to) give you any sort of incentive to stop and consider that perhaps you are being irrational in your beliefs and actions on the subject?" See, it's only your opinion - nothing more. Notice how you're getting to the approved treatment of deniers - we're irrational in our beliefs? You once again are heading into the "everyone is just too stupid" while you simultaneously ignore any evidence contradicting your position as if it never actually occurred.
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
I don't understand how one can be wrong so often, and yet continue to post such simplistic and easily countered arguments and maintain belief in ones rationality.

This actually more accurately describes you than anyone else on this forum. [Wink]
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kent
Member
Member # 832

 - posted      Profile for Kent   Email Kent   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Great assertion Ev, care to back it up?
Posts: 1434 | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Everard:
And over 95% of the experts in climatology that we find will back the position LR and i stake out, and only a very tiny percentage will back the position that G2 and kelcimer stake out. And if we look at peer reviwed articles, the difference is even greater.

Part of that inequity is the result of threats and intimidation by the AGW crowd. You seem to think those things don't happen but it's well documented that it does. You actually have no idea what percentage agree with you and what percentage are merely saying what they have to so they avoid character assassination, loss of funding and the threat of "Nuremberg style" trials.

One thing that is obvious is that the tide is turning on this and scientists are starting to speak out. You need to get on the ice age side so you can claim you were always on it.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kelcimer
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
And over 95% of the experts in climatology that we find will back the position LR and i stake out, and only a very tiny percentage will back the position that G2 and kelcimer stake out. And if we look at peer reviwed articles, the difference is even greater. [/QB]
Pointing to consensus to determine a scientific truth is a fallacy. There are reasons that "man made global warming" has become a supported notion, both in terms of money and politics. But more and more scientists are coming out decrying the global warming hoax in the past few years. In the years to come you'll only see more.

And "peer reviewed" doesn't mean the same thing now as it did a few decades ago.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
G2,

quote:
Dr. Kenneth Tapping is worried about the sun.
please check your sources,

according to Dr. Kenneth Tapping,

quote:
. The stuff on the web came from a casual chat with someone who managed to misunderstand what I said and then put the result on the web, which is probably a big caution for me regarding the future.

It is true that the beginning of the next solar cycle is late, but not so late that we are getting worried, merely curious.

It is the opinion of scientists, including me, that global warming is a major issue, and that it might be too late to do anything about it already. If there is a cooling due to the solar activity cycle laying off for a bit, then the a period of solar cooling could be a much-needed respite giving us more time to attack the problem of greenhouse gases, with the caveat that if we do not, things will be far worse when things turn on again after a few decades. However, once again it is early days and we cannot at the moment conclude there is another minimum started.

http://www.desmogblog.com/scientist-bust-biz-sheet-for-misrepresenting-his-work

LetterRip

His equivocation is interesting but if we're going to check sources then really get it straight and let's go straight to Tapping himself:
quote:
The chance of another Maunder Minimum happening now is low. However, when activity starts building again, we can all relax.
If he's not worried about the sun, why would he be looking forward to a period when "we can all relax"? What state is he in now that he needs to relax from?

What is Tapping's opinion on solar variance? Goes like this:
quote:
The Maunder Minimum fell in a period known as the "Little Ice Age", where summers were cool, wet and miserable, and the winters were colder and longer than usual, and we believe decades of reduced solar energy output were responsible.
He believes the reduction in solar output were responsible for the "Little Ice Age". Quite a bit different from the equivocating "casual conversation" deflection Tapping told a blog that is dedicated to AGW (that was LetterRip's source).

What are we to make of that? When Tapping can speak freely, it's the sun and there is some cause for alarm. When he has the screws put to him by an AGW blog, it was all just a misunderstanding. Yeah, sure it is.

In another link Tapping is talking about the sun's Flux Density Values:
quote:
Typically as you go through the ten or eleven year solar activity cycle you see the numbers go up or down. The lowest number is 64 or 68. The numbers 71 or 72 are very low, but they usually start to go up. We are at the end of a cycle, but the numbers still haven’t gone up. We have been joking around coffee that we may be seeing the Sun about to shut down.
On that day we stood here:
Observed Flux Density : 0073.6

Flux Density Adjusted for 1 A.U. : 0071.4

Where are we today, about 2 weeks later? Right about here:
Observed Flux Density : 0070.1

Flux Density Adjusted for 1 A.U. : 0068.3

I wonder how much more relaxed Tapping is today vs. his article last fall or even 2 weeks ago?

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G2

In all the time I have been here, only once have I ever thought LR posted something that was pretty irrational- with the exception of joke threads. I'd submit that many times, LR has been the person who has provided links that often expose simplicity and error in other people's arguments.

Frankly, for every bit of evidence provided by either side on this issue, there is just as credible counter evidence. It reflects the juvenile stage of climatology in general. It isn't a scientific tradition with hundreds of years of methodology and evaluation to draw upon. Rather, it is a science that is not even fifty years old. But that doesn't mean that scientists on either side of this issue are sloppy by default.

I don't personally think humans are having either a massive impact nor a minimal impact. And science is tending to support both potentialities. Some evidence seems to indicate humans and their activities are 99% responsible, while others seem to indicate we are having no measurable effect at all.

Both extreme positions are likely in error. Common sense and localized example seems to indicate that any species living in an environment will have both positive and negative effects upon the environment that contains them. Humans must be having an impact on the environment. For those old enough to remember what the USA environmental state was in the 1970's, they remember air too polluted to breath most of the time. They remember soil too toxic to support anything. They remember water impossible to drink. And they remember our rivers and oceans being so toxic you could neither swim in them or even go fishing.

Clearly we had an impact. And clearly we did something about it. We have improved upon every single one of those statistics to the point that our environment in many cases is better than it was in 1900. Then again when we first past laws to deal with this problem, we also thought almost all wildlife would become extinct, our agricultural system would collapse, humanity itself would lose at least 1 billion people, and the world would be in the grips of a new Ice Age no later than 2000 A.D.

My point is that most of our assumptions were wrong. More animals roam wild now than before. Our agriculture didn't collapse. We didn't see a billion people die of climate and pollution based catastrophes. And now of course, we are on the perpetual verge of a Global Warming. What could have happened if we hadn't past the Soil, Air, and Water Conservation Acts? Would the science of forty years ago turned out the way many scientists predicted? We don't know because we effectively changed the input side of the equation. We took steps to mitigate our impact on the environment, and by most objective standards we enjoy an improved environment as a result- even though we can't be sure what we did was an actual cause for the improvement.

Having gone to school when Global Cooling was the then current and most factual issue in climatology, I tend to take the Global Warming advocates with a grain of salt. Not because they are not right, but because there is so much we don't know about climatology on even a local scale that it seems highly improbable that they can make a whole system prediction as to a global condition. Whatever happens is going to be something that takes centuries to manifest, won't likely be as bad or as good as people suggest, and is likely far beyond our technological power to solve or predict.

The best we can do is look at individual data and recognize those we can do something about and those we can't. It makes almost no sense for us to keep using incandescent bulbs instead of better alternatives. If we know parking asphalt parking lots account for 50% of the heat sink generation in a city, maybe we should paint them white, use grasscrete, or maybe mandate more trees to cover the area under a foliage canopy. If we know commercial building roofs are great places for solar arrays, then why not turn them into solar arrays?

There are hundreds of realistic things that can be done to mitigate those items we recognize as being caused by humans. In then end it probably won't cause or prevent any climatic change on a global scale, but it should improve the way we use our environment.

Frankly scientists go where the funding is. Right now you will get a grant to research why using driftwood causes global warming. You won't get a grant to research why driftwood does not cause global warming. If you could go back 25 years ago, scientists would have been all over grants to research why driftwood causes global cooling.

It is the nature of the scientific industry. You just have to hope they follow the scientific method well enough to eventually arrive at a more exact theory. Right now AGW seems to be supported more than not. Doesn't mean it is fact. Just means it is the current theory.

Expect it to be replaced.

But in the meantime would it kill us to do as Boy Scouts do, and try to leave nothing but footprints? No one alive right now is going to know whether AGW is even true. But if we can do something that lessens our impact on the environment without biting our own noses off, why not do it?

But I don't think most people who are currently arguing for AGW causality and climate change are doing it simply because they think they are right. There is so much evidence out there that indicates that at the very least, the theory doesn't account for much of the data. But if some evidence shows we are indeed the cause of specific effects due to specific actions by us, could we solve that cause and effect without accusing each other of being parts of conspiracies?

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kelcimer
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Redskullvw:
But in the meantime would it kill us to do as Boy Scouts do, and try to leave nothing but footprints? No one alive right now is going to know whether AGW is even true. But if we can do something that lessens our impact on the environment without biting our own noses off, why not do it?

Sounds fine, but that is not what the AGW crowd advocates. They want things like Kyoto which would destroy the American economy.

[ February 15, 2008, 01:17 PM: Message edited by: kelcimer ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Redskullvw:
But in the meantime would it kill us to do as Boy Scouts do, and try to leave nothing but footprints?

If it was just as innocent as that statement implies, then I'd be on board. Unfortunately, the impact goes far beyond mere boy scout naivety. The ultimate solutions range from shackling the US economy with massive taxes and restrictions on industry (while exempting the biggest single polluting nation) to radical ideas like population caps and atmospheric seeding with sulfur particles - and after that it gets really crazy.

If the AGW movement was about only protecting the environment, I'd believe they're simply misled but it's not about that and you know it - or you should. This is a massive attempt to extend a sphere of influence over all of us through fear, and when that doesn't work, then through threats and intimidation. I don't believe the boy scouts take that approach.

quote:
Originally posted by Redskullvw:
In all the time I have been here, only once have I ever thought LR posted something that was pretty irrational- with the exception of joke threads. I'd submit that many times, LR has been the person who has provided links that often expose simplicity and error in other people's arguments.

Perhaps that is his usual demeanor but with AGW he has played the part he usually exposes. I routinely provide a large body of links to many fields of science that contradict AGW. His rebuttal is to find a link to an AGW blog where the scientist in intimidated into softening his stance or to merely dismiss everyone disagreeing with him as irrational or stupid (often not is so many words but clearly enough as in his above post).

When the science is "settled" and only fools and irrational people do not submit to the belief system and it's attendant cures such that there are threats of loss of livelihood and criminal prosecution, don't you have some concern that they're not the boy scouts trying to save the planet?

[ February 15, 2008, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1