Global Cooling

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 5:47 pm

Uhhh, could you repeat the question ?

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 10:08 am

How much are communist Illimuninati alien scientists making off the hoax that the weather on our flat earth is changing? Since it's obvious that the world began in 4004 BC and we never went to the moon. A simple yes or no will suffice. Be specific! Please bring your finished papers to the front of the room for a grade.

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 11:09 am

Ugly Dougly wrote:How much are communist Illimuninati alien scientists making off the hoax that the weather on our flat earth is changing?

Since it's obvious that the world began in 4004 BC and we never went to the moon. A simple yes or no will suffice. Be specific! Please bring your finished papers to the front of the room for a grade.

how would a simple yes or no answer that?

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 11:11 am

I can't think of anyone arguing the weather is changing.

I think, the argument is cause.

natural cycle, man made, both?

and, is it outside historical parameters?

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 11:31 am

2 mile thick ice over Connecticut is within normal parameters. Global Air temp of 450 degrees Fahrenheit was normal when the meteor hit Chicxulub, YucatÃ¡n. Both Sol and Terra can be a bumpy ride

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 7:45 pm

ygmir wrote: Why does it matter if they make as much as oil companies?

No, my question was more like "Do they make as much as the oil companies, who have a vested interest in disproving global warming and billions to throw around, can afford to pay?"

Cause my bet is...no.

It's been 35 years, little if no money has been made by the conspirators, and no one has said "Fuck it, I'm cashing in"? No ex-wife, bitter children? No one got fed up with office politics and went nuclear on a rival's ass?

And that's not even counting the substantial number of science grad students from China. Think about how much prestige, etc., a Chinese grad student with hard evidence of that sort of malfeasance could command from his or her government.

And if you're a citizen of this country, you get a big payout from an oil or coal company, and you're on The O'Reilly Factor, and Rush Limbaugh, and go on the lecture circuit and write a book or two. Sitting fucking pretty. And no one's done it. The Mafia wishes they had that kind of tongue-stopping power. And they kill people.

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 9:48 am

I will look outside this weekend to see if any of the raindrops have little tags on them saying why they were made.

chiefdanfox · Post by **chiefdanfox** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 10:37 am

The cause of the rapid increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is anthropogenic; there is no real dispute about this. Gas trapped in ice cores from both Antarctica and Greenland show that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is the highest it has been for the last 800,000 years (where the ice runs out...it could be longer). The gas in the sea core samples show a similar correlation, but have other variables, like dissolved carbon from the death of tiny sea creatures. Where the outliers in the data have happened, like in the Greenland cores, it has been shown that the decomposition of carbonates in the ice is responsible for the recent, but pre-industrial spikes.

The rapid increase is correlated to the burning of fossil fuels, including coal, oil, and peat, which goes back to the industrialization of the planet. Again there is no significant dispute about this. It hasn't been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the increase of CO2 is causing climate change, but that climate change is happening is no longer responsibly disputed. As far as the cause goes, the increase in CO2 is the most likely candidate, since no other atmospheric compound thus far measured substantiates any correlation.

When you are standing in the middle of a street, and you see a bus bearing down on you, it isn't fact that it will hit you. Ask yourself; is that a reasonable doubt to delay jumping to the curb?

We hear the thunderous hoof beats of climate change, and so we are pointing at the herd of horses stampeding past as the source of the thunder. To continue to look for unicorns or zebras is probably not indicated.

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 2:40 pm

that's good info, as usual, CDF, thanks.

I don't disagree with, or dispute it.

Fish:

I'm trying to point out, it's not just black and white, IMHO.......I think money is made on both sides, and, just for that reason...........

Sure, the average folk, just want to do what's right. I agree.
don't waste, don't pollute, etc, etc.

I think it naive to think, though, that some of the "climate hysteria" is not foisted upon us for self serving ends.........doesn't make it wrong, but, neither is it altruistic.

It is sometimes, for me, frustrating to see people running around, screaming the world will end in 10 years (Al Gore, from many years ago). but, offering no substantial fix, short of stopping all human activity.

Of course, the above is hyperbole, but, you get my drift.
Sure, blame the oil companies, they do make the products, that, we all buy, and, waste.............Maybe they should do the science, and, then, tell us, who will believe them unquestioningly, and, ask us not to buy their product.
social responsibility would dictate that, but, when have any of us seen many large corps. be socially responsible?

Maybe, instead of looking to "big brother/fed. gov." to "save" us, and, make those bastards do what's right, and, fix the problem, we could decide not to drive as much, or as big a car? Maybe turn the lights off?
on and on..........Markets are predictable, IMHO:
If we didn't buy the large gas guzzlers, they'd make something we would buy.
If we'd not run the A/C all summer, and, heat all winter (funny how we turn the A/C down to where we'd be shivering and turn the heat on in winter) and not have to produce so much electricity from dirty coal, (and, a lot of that from environmentally exempted Indian owned power plants), well, you get my drift..........

It's up to us. Not the gov. not the corp. Us, IMHO, is the answer.

yikes, I've rambled again.........

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 6:05 pm

As far as I'm concerned, there isn't any proof that CO2 causes heating;
"Those who claim that CO2 molecules in the atmosphere can cause heating by trapping IR have yet to provide any empirical scientific evidence to prove such a physical process exists."
http://globalwarmingnot.blogtownhall.co ... _ago.thtml
NASA has acknowledged that the sun is heating the earth and the other planets. The preponderance of evidence is for SOL not CO2.

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Sat Feb 14, 2009 9:15 am

can't sit still wrote:As far as I'm concerned, there isn't any proof that CO2 causes heating;
"Those who claim that CO2 molecules in the atmosphere can cause heating by trapping IR have yet to provide any empirical scientific evidence to prove such a physical process exists."
http://globalwarmingnot.blogtownhall.co ... _ago.thtml
NASA has acknowledged that the sun is heating the earth and the other planets. The preponderance of evidence is for SOL not CO2.

I notice you're not quoting NASA, but someone who uses this as a source:
(Philosophical Magazine Series 6, Volume 26 July 1913, p. 1-25)

http://www.noaa.gov/
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/index.html
Go to town.

gyre · Post by **gyre** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 2:31 pm

ygmir wrote:(funny how we turn the A/C down to where we'd be shivering and turn the heat on in winter)

Other than psychological and heat reserves, the answer has to do with radiant heat loss from the body.
You can use this to your advantage with radiant heating to save up to 90% on heat.
It's the reason insulation pays off bigger than the numbers say too.

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 10:06 am

Insulation is about as sexy as preventive health care.

Too bad those are our best solutions.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 6:17 pm

Don't forget good plumbing. Saved more life than modern med.

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 7:02 pm

You're right about that. Modern plumbing is wonderful. I've used the alternative. A midden in rural india. Many an outhouse with black widows under the seat. Starting blocks in France. The memories of some of the facilities that I've used are tucked away in a small corner of my brain that I don't voluntarily access.
There is a goos site; http://www.cromwell-intl.com/toilet/
Even this guy won't show the worst he's seen.
Hurray for modern plumbing.

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 7:26 pm

2 conferences; 1 global warming and 1 global cooling;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colu ... perts.html

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 10:30 am

When we read most of these articles, the scientific information is filtered through the brain of a journalist. Said journalist may or may not have sufficient scientific training, but their main interest is in selling papers.

Who invented the simplistic term "Global Warming"? Any climatologist will agree that earth's climate is a very complex and chaotic system. All that's for certain is that we are putting stuff into the system that is known to fuck it up, and it's showing signs that it's getting fucked up. Maybe we can say "Global Fucked-up-ness"?

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:28 pm

Ugly Dougly wrote:When we read most of these articles, the scientific information is filtered through the brain of a journalist.

Said journalist may or may not have sufficient scientific training, but their main interest is in selling papers.

Who invented the simplistic term "Global Warming"? Any climatologist will agree that earth's climate is a very complex and chaotic system. All that's for certain is that we are putting stuff into the system that is known to fuck it up, and it's showing signs that it's getting fucked up. Maybe we can say "Global Fucked-up-ness"?

that's for me, as far as you'd need to go..............

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 6:51 pm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colu ... -told.html

"One of his most shocking discoveries was why the IPCC has been able to show sea levels rising by 2.3mm a year. Until 2003, even its own satellite-based evidence showed no upward trend. But suddenly the graph tilted upwards because the IPCC's favoured experts had drawn on the finding of a single tide-gauge in Hong Kong harbour showing a 2.3mm rise. The entire global sea-level projection was then adjusted upwards by a "corrective factor" of 2.3mm, because, as the IPCC scientists admitted, they "needed to show a trend".

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 7:19 am

The sun is starting to get more attention;
http://www.iceagenow.com/US_Navy_Physic ... famine.htm

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 7:38 am

that's a good article.
I wonder, if true, we'll all suddenly be urged to burn more fossil fuel to save the planet?............
Who will the extremists blame for solar minimum?
I bet the gov. will come up with some wonderfully costly, inefficient "fix", and, tax us to pay for it.........
I would wonder if we'll get protests against the lack of magnetic fields, and, how they should be provided by the government..........

nope, not cynical, not me.........

chiefdanfox · Post by **chiefdanfox** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 10:33 am

I thought it was a terrible article. No one understands the impact of solar maximums or minimums on climate. Ask anyone currently involved in helio-astronomy. The science isn't there, largely because we have a very limited understanding of the sun, the physics behind the sun's magnetism, flares etc. It has been only recently shown that the intense heat of the sun was produced by sound wave pressure. The sun rings like a bell.

This â€œhelioseismologyâ€

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 2:25 pm

As of today, Arctic ice is at its greatest extent in seven years

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:45 pm

Chiefdanfox, with a wave of your hand, you dismiss any info that doesn't agree with your global warming mantra. Imbeciles like Gore espouse an idea and ignore any conflicting data that comes along. The religion of global warming brooks no deviations from it's crusading path.
I posted some good science showing serious doubt that CO2 is an IR sink. You wave it away. I posted data showing fraud by the IPCC Another wave.
The majority of global warming adherents are so thick headed that they can't possibly differentiate between climate change and global warming. Last winter, Britain was colder than Antarctica for a period. Everywhere, there have been episodes of anomalous weather.

Obviously, it must be caused by anthropogenic creation of CO2. Everyone knows that it couldn't possibly have an extraterrestrial cause. The excellent work of people like Jennifer Lawson is ignore or marginalized,,, No matter how correct it proves to be. A wave of the hand and off it goes. Junk science. GOV is flat broke and $5 trillion carbon tax is just the ticket to fix things.
Climate change is obvious. Anthropogenic global warming is sketchy, at best. I posted that water vapor is the # 1 greenhouse gas. Someone vehemently disagreed. If the global warming people can't even be correct on basic facts, I will continue to dismiss them and you with just a wave of my hand. Don't delude yourself with self-acclaimed credibility.

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 6:19 pm

Sea level rise stopped in 2006

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_global.jpg

Global atmospheric temperatures have been cooling since 2003

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/fr ... 2003/trend

Ocean temperatures have been cooling since 2004, the first year they were measured with a battery of thousands of floats that drift throughout the ocean and report temperature data by satellite.

The models predict a mid-troposphere hot spot that has failed to materialize. In fact, none of the predictions made by the models have been reflected in physical observations.

Of course, this station does show "man made global warming".

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress. ... large2.jpg

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 6:27 pm

Oh, and lets not forget that Homo Erectus driving their SUVs from Africa into Asia and Europe during the last interglacial caused sea levels 6-8 meters higher than any seen so far in this interglacial, Northern tree lines about 400 miles North of where they are seen today, and trees such as Douglass Fir growing on the North Slope of Alaska.

In fact, temperatures in this interglacial were much higher 4 to 5 thousand years ago than they are now. How do we know this for certain? Simple, receding glaciers in Alaska and the European Alps are exposing wood that is 4 to 5 thousand years old. Valleys that are completely glaciated today were forested at that time. This would have been about the time Homo Sapiens were driving their Range Rovers into Europe and expanding South in the Americas in their Ford Broncos ... or something.

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 6:32 pm

Oh, good, we're not raping Mother Earth, now I don't have to feel guilty anymore.

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 8:16 pm

Dougly, we're not so much raping mother earth as we are shitting in our own nest. Mother nature has suffered some pretty bad knocks at the hand of the cosmos. A 10 km ball of rock hit 2 bilion years ago;
http://www.southafrica.info/about/geogr ... 080605.htm
Man can't do anything near that big. The meteor that wiped out the sauropods raised the air temp to 450 F. Here again, we're small potatoes. 20 million years from now, mother earth will probably be rid of us. In the meantime, we're shitting in our own nest. Not to mention all the species we're killing.
The Holocene has gone on for an unusually long time. The returning ice will probably kill more species than man can manage. We're just a temporary plague

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 8:46 pm

First things need a better perspective that is often given. In the US, the air and water are much cleaner today than they were when I was a child. Rivers that were dead are seeing fish return. The changes are particularly visible in the waters of the Eastern US where fish have returned to rivers that were dead for decades. In Europe you see much the same thing with salmon returning to the Thames, for example.

Where the Earth is being raped is in areas where environmental regulations are weak, nonexistent, or can be got around with the proper bribe. Current international regulations encourage the movement of industry from where there are strong regulations to areas with less environmental concern. Kyoto is an example. It encourages movement of heavy industry from areas such as the US and Western Europe that have strict environmental controls to areas in the third world that don't have these regulations. The net result is more pollution.

But the whole AGW thing isn't really about climate anyway. It is about control of production. If you control energy, you control production. We have the means right now to generate gigawatts of energy that produces no CO2. We can recycle nuclear fuel and recover 95% of it for re-use while at the same time reducing concerns over nuclear proliferation. We don't need Yucca Mountain. The material left from the recycling of fuel decays to background radiation levels in a few hundred years rather than tens of thousands of years.

SciAm December 2005

Modern reactors such as the AP1000 from Westinghouse (of which China has ordered 200 copies) use natural passive processes such as convection, gravity, condensation, and evaporation for passive emergency cooling systems that do not require pumps, electricity, valves, wiring, or operator intervention. In fact, these plants are greatly simplified. If was simply about reducing CO2, we wouldn't need to develop a single new technology. We have the technology. We could reduce our CO2 output starting today if it was really that much of a priority. It isn't. Notwithstanding the issue of if CO2 is even harmful in any way at current levels, it is that CO2 is being used as a ruse to push an unrelated agenda and people who in their hearts really want to make a difference are being misled and manipulated. All the while the manipulators grow more powerful and more wealthy.

Compared to a plant of 1960's/1970's design, the AP1000 has:

* 50% fewer safety-related valves
* 80% less safety-related piping
* 85% less control cable
* 35% fewer pumps
* 45% less seismic building volume

There's just a lot less to go wrong. Also according to Westinghouse Nuclear: Results of the Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) show a very low core damage frequency (CDF) that is 1/100 of the CDF of currently operating plants and 1/20 of the maximum CDF deemed acceptable for new, advanced reactor designs.

So the risk of core damage is something like 1% of the risk of currently running plants. Not a single new technology needs to be developed to take existing coal plants offline. And we don't need Yucca Mountain if we recycle the fuel.

Rather than forcing industry to the third world, we could be doing everything we can to encourage industry to remain here where pollution is better regulated. But it isn't really about pollution at all.

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 9:00 pm

And then there's this:

Antarctic ice is growing, not melting away

ICE is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap.

The results of ice-core drilling and sea ice monitoring indicate there is no large-scale melting of ice over most of Antarctica, although experts are concerned at ice losses on the continent's western coast.

Which agrees with this showing that the current area of Antarctic ice is over a million square kilometers greater than the 1970 - 2000 average.

To put it bluntly, you are being lied to by people with an agenda that has nothing to do with environmentalism.