Global Cooling

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Tue Dec 22, 2009 8:25 pm

Politics creeps into everything. Not only are we political animals, but our closest relatives are as well. And there are plenty of monkeys that play all sorts of politics. We can't escape it, it's in the genome. Then the thing becomes how do we manage to do the necessary thing, despite the fact that we have some strange and unsavory bedfellows. Or should we all be like those useless Upper Class Twits, fiddling eating muffins in a calm manner so that butter does not get on our cuffs, while Rome burns, the Titanic sinks and the world goes to hell in a handbasket. No number of debate points is going to save you from the catastrophic effects that we are almost certainly facing. If perfection is necessary, then you aren't robust enough to live on this earth.

littleflower · Post by **littleflower** » Tue Dec 22, 2009 8:41 pm

i don't think it's a matter of perfection, fishy, but of trust.

there is a great deal of data, and i wonder how trustworthy all of it is. how long have we had the capability of keeping actual records .... and how much data is derived from other sources? how credible is all of the data? what if some data is enhanced or ignored in the interests of promoting a theory? how can we be certain that scientists are not motivated by politics or personal advancement or greed?

and why should all of the scientists agree? why demonize anyone with a different viewpoint? i am not a scientist, now do i trust them, particularly ... there is clearly too much out there we do not know, IMHO. i can listen to both sides without getting too excited. but i hate the way so many people resort to disgust, anger, even hate towards those who disagree with them.

just sayin ....

Elorrum · Post by **Elorrum** » Tue Dec 22, 2009 8:46 pm

I wonder what the concensus is on this in Vanuatu.

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Tue Dec 22, 2009 8:56 pm

perhaps, someone could ascend, and speak to the wise ones, upon the "mons vanuatu"........

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Tue Dec 22, 2009 9:01 pm

All too soon to be Death Valley...

dr.placebo · Post by **dr.placebo** » Tue Dec 22, 2009 11:45 pm

While we can have a debating society (or debating brawl, or whatever) here, and we can question the motives of any individual or group of individuals, before this century ends the consequences will start costing at a level to make today's costs miniscule. The costs that I worry most about are not measured in currency but in lives ruined or lost. The reason to be passionate about this is not to score points, but to recognize that our descendants will bear those costs.

I have no problem looking at the profiteers in this struggle (I'm quite sure that I'm not in that group). That includes Al Gore, and anyone in the IPCC. It also includes oil company executives who fund smokescreen research, much as the tobacco companies used to do. What does concern me is when noting the profits gets used as an excuse to evade the science and the data. Perhaps Token did not intend that when he linked to the article about the IPCC head. If not, then I regret taking it that way.

Crypto is right, it's all political. To me the essence of politics is about the distribution of resources. In my opinion we have a situation where we have to invest now to prevent something far worse in the future. Sacrificing in the short term to get something in the long term is just about the hardest thing one can do politically, so it does not surprise me that there is contention.

Some of the investment in reducing carbon emissions will pay off even if global warming is far milder than we project. Reducing carbon emissions is tightly linked with reducing dependence on fossil fuel, and at least oil could start being much more expensive within our lifetimes, so much so that $4 gas will seem like a bargain in the distant past. It's a natural outcome of using up the easily exploited reserves. I don't know how far the world's oil can be made to last, but I predict that the cost is going up, way up.

This thread started out in 2008 as an assertion about global cooling. I've tried to cite the science (although I can get a bit snarky at times), and I've tried to understand it as well. Essentially all of my reading has supported the mainstream climate view about global warming. And yes, I have read a bunch of stuff at the denier sites.

So, there is a lack of trust in scientists? And in politicians? And the media? So be it. At least some of that distrust is well earned. But at least keep some skepticism for those who claim that CO2 has no effect, that the next ice age is around the corner, and that there is a vast conspiracy to rob you by limiting carbon emissions. The people with those ideas have far less data and far less science on their side. And they have been caught cooking the books, too.

One way of increasing trust in the data is to look at independently compiled data sets and compare them. In climate science that's just about the only valid thing to do, since the noise level on the measurements is so high. It's not just recent measurements of temperature, it includes measuring sea levels (both tide gauges and multiple satellites), ice area and volume, glaciers, species migration, tree rings, sedimentary rock layers, ice cores, models based on physics, isotopic abundance, solar intensity, and hundreds of other sets of evidence both direct and indirect. Virtually all of them are consistent with global warming. Increasingly the anomalies are being understood. It is simply not credible for that much data to all be pointing in the wrong direction. And it is not possible to get that much coordination to pull off a vast conspiracy of scientists (try being the local arrangements chair at a conference some time if you doubt this).

When the skeptics advance an alternative theory or model take a good look at it. The global warming crowd has one agreed theory (lots of minor variations, to be sure). The skeptics are scattered. They don't have the internal consistency or the agreement with data that is necessary for a robust theory.

You don't trust me, either? Welcome to the club. I don't always trust me. I have made some dramatically unwise decisions in my life. But as long as I'm still in the game I have to place my bets the way I see the odds. I suggest that each individual make some attempt to understand the odds.

It's a good idea to be skeptical. A scientist should do this as a matter of professional pride, but it's just as valid for anyone else. Just remember, though, at some point you have to place your bet. Sitting on the sidelines costs you, too.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Wed Dec 23, 2009 6:32 am

dr.placebo wrote:Some of the investment in reducing carbon emissions will pay off even if global warming is far milder than we project. Reducing carbon emissions is tightly linked with reducing dependence on fossil fuel, and at least oil could start being much more expensive within our lifetimes, so much so that $4 gas will seem like a bargain in the distant past.

Heck, we also benefit from reducing the amount of mercury in the food chain. And there will be huge spin offs from what ever technology we do develop to cope with it, if history is any judge.

Token · Post by **Token** » Fri Dec 25, 2009 11:36 am

Here is an article about Steven Chu, our current secretary of the Deparment Of Energy.

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091220/ ... 2978a.html

A stark contrast to the head of the IPCC.

I hope Mr. Chu gets the job done.

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Sat Dec 26, 2009 10:17 am

Elorrum wrote:I wonder what the concensus is on this in Vanuatu.

"Blub-blub-blub?"

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Sat Dec 26, 2009 3:57 pm

Token, that is excellent news.
"He had seen the energy department hamstrung in the past by ineffectual people placed in posts to satisfy political obligations"
"portraits of secretaries past preside over the long, carpeted hallway leading from the elevators to the secretary's office. Most are of career politicians"
POS politicians want to run everything. If they had any worthwhile talent, they wouldn't have sunk so low as to be politicians. So,, the more useless a person is,,, the more likely that they will be put in charge of something important. Y'all know why the engineers invented the acronym,, SNAFU?? Cause there were always POS politicians trying to run a program for which they had NO understanding.
Whether we're cooling or warming, I'm glad to see someone competent in a high position.

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Tue Jan 05, 2010 7:17 pm

Here's a doc with a lot of specifics;
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/image ... candal.pdf
And, NO, I don't claim that it is true. I really have no way to verify.

dr.placebo · Post by **dr.placebo** » Wed Jan 06, 2010 12:41 am

The "Climategate" stuff has been covered at length by both those who accuse CRU (UK Met Hadley Climate Research Unit) and those who defend it. It's old news, and the accusations against CRU are generally pretty distorted. Since the previously cited PDF file from Moncton contains a lot of points accusing CRU of various malfeasance, here is a selection of links from the other side on the stolen emails:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... gD9CHUS980
http://mediamatters.org/research/200912010002
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate ... hacked.htm
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/hack/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... -cru-hack/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... k-context/
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 2545a.html

Scientists are human, and have at least as much frustration to vent as the average adult. I'm not happy at all with some of the posts from the stolen emails, but I fail to see that they change the science at all. If anything the HadleyCRUT data underreports the climate change by ignoring the arctic regions, which are warming the fastest.

Moncton is a crank, and apparently likes to bully students and call them Hitler Youth, then deny it although he's been caught on video.

http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/4724

Cherry picking may get you cherries, but it does not do squat about the masses of data from independent sources that show a significant warming trend in the industrial era linked to greenhouse gases.

Dad · Post by **Dad** » Wed Jan 06, 2010 6:49 am

I found this to be quite interesting about U.S. Global warming. I have always felt the city temps and weather changing in the cities I lived in much more pronounced than the rural areas I have lived in. I still believe we all can debate the issue of global warming/cooling, but we all must do our best to clean the world and become Self Reliant. If we all did this we would not even be having this discussion. The discussion would be with the money makers and how to get their hands back into our pockets.
Just a bit of food for thought.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Wed Jan 06, 2010 10:32 am

Dad wrote:I found this to be quite interesting about U.S. Global warming. I have always felt the city temps and weather changing in the cities I lived in much more pronounced than the rural areas I have lived in.

It's called the "Heat Island" effect. I think that project where they put trees on top of a lot of buildings brought down Chicago's temp. I think we should to that where feasible, clean out city air some as well as mellow out the temp.

dr.placebo · Post by **dr.placebo** » Wed Jan 06, 2010 11:15 am

The heat island effect is locally significant, but globally pretty small. It's a great idea to have more trees in cities, and benefits the residents in several ways.

This prompts me to note that many of the actions that we can take to reduce greenhouse gas emissions have beneficial side effects. Conservation, reforestation, reduction of fossil fuel use, improved energy efficiency - all have benefits that reach far beyond GHG reduction. I would hope that even climate change skeptics would recognize those benefits.

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Wed Jan 06, 2010 1:43 pm

dr placebo, you can post all the cites you want. Neither of us knows the whole story. BUT, those who do know the whole story felt that it was necessary to cull and corrupt the data or their position would not be tenable. I don't need to argue with anyone. Those in the know have proved to me that their position is unsupportable.

Badger · Post by **Badger** » Wed Jan 06, 2010 1:58 pm

A broad brush stroke of.... nothing.

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Wed Jan 06, 2010 1:58 pm

You don't shit in your own nest, cites not needed.

littleflower · Post by **littleflower** » Wed Jan 06, 2010 4:01 pm

doc,

i was wondering .... do you know much about earthquakes? i've watched the USGS site for some time now, and am a little freaked at the number of large (5+) earthquakes that have been are occurring around indonesia/new guinea/south pacific over the past several months, as well as the entire pacific rim. i've watched the site for several years, and have never seen the world map so active. most CO2 is produced by volcanoes, i believe .... so i can't help but wonder if there was any possible correlation between climate change and earthquakes/volcanoes.

sorry if it's a stupid question..... i rarely seem to see them mentioned in the same article, but it is one big planet ....

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Wed Jan 06, 2010 4:20 pm

littleflower wrote:most CO2 is produced by volcanoes, i believe ....

It's possible that you have been told a falsehood, little flower.

The fact of the matter is, the sum total of all CO2 out-gassed by active volcanoes amounts to about 1/150th of anthropogenic emissions.

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Wed Jan 06, 2010 4:24 pm

Ugly Dougly wrote:
littleflower wrote:most CO2 is produced by volcanoes, i believe ....
It's possible that you have been told a falsehood, little flower.

I'd say that's, at best, moot........

I can't imagine anyone knows very close, how much co2 is produced by volcanoes, etc.

It's easier to ignore them, I'd imagine, or, shoot as educated guess at it.

heck, I bet there not even an inventory of how many undersea volcanoes, black smokers, etc.....there are, or, what they spew.......

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Wed Jan 06, 2010 4:26 pm

Oh, sorry, guys, I just added some data.

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Wed Jan 06, 2010 4:28 pm

Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Wed Jan 06, 2010 4:30 pm

I missed the Kilauea eruption - I left Hawaii less than a year before she went off, and I've never made it back to the big Island since.

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Wed Jan 06, 2010 4:58 pm

yeah, that's sort of what I mean......How do they calculate this?
An educated guess, at best. I really don't think they have a handle on what comes out of the ground.......
I can't imagine they've mapped or sampled undersea emissions to any real extent.

the earth is a huge, and, dynamic system, IMHO.......

we should do what's right, because it's right.........I just get frustrated with the "chicken little" folks, and, how it always comes down to the money/power they can derive from fomenting panic and hysteria.

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Wed Jan 06, 2010 5:52 pm

Dougly, while CO2 is supposedly important, the sulfur compounds from volcanoes are very important. They emit quite a bit. of hydrogen sulfide and sulfur dioxide.

Littleflower, there is a researcher by the name of Jennifer Lawson who was published by Nexus magazine. She has a PHD and has been very accurate at predicting major storms,,,, a year ahead of time. She does a lot of work with volcanoes,,, not sure exactly what. She ties her predictions to planetary and solar movements.
She wrote me to warn me that the weather would turn very violent after 2010,,,, both storms and volcanoes. You could follow her work to see if you think it's valid.

littleflower · Post by **littleflower** » Wed Jan 06, 2010 5:52 pm

Ugly Dougly wrote:
littleflower wrote:most CO2 is produced by volcanoes, i believe ....
It's possible that you have been told a falsehood, little flower.

The fact of the matter is, the sum total of all CO2 out-gassed by active volcanoes amounts to about 1/150th of anthropogenic emissions.
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php

i've read the opposite many times, dougly. perhaps i should have said "natural sources" rather than volcanoes, but still ... it creeps me out, how many different stories there are out there about everything.

my question still stands, though. if CO2 is increasing like crazy, is it possible that this increase is somehow linked to the increased earthquake / volcano activity? i am not asking as a skeptic.... i'm just curious.

littleflower · Post by **littleflower** » Wed Jan 06, 2010 5:54 pm

can't sit still wrote:Dougly, while CO2 is supposedly important, the sulfur compounds from volcanoes are very important. They emit quite a bit. of hydrogen sulfide and sulfur dioxide.

Littleflower, there is a researcher by the name of Jennifer Lawson who was published by Nexus magazine. She has a PHD and has been very accurate at predicting major storms,,,, a year ahead of time. She does a lot of work with volcanoes,,, not sure exactly what. She ties her predictions to planetary and solar movements.
She wrote me to warn me that the weather would turn very violent after 2010,,,, both storms and volcanoes. You could follow her work to see if you think it's valid.

thanks, CSS ... does she also write about earthquakes? a bad one hits LA every 15-20 years, and we are on year 16 ...

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Wed Jan 06, 2010 6:13 pm

Yes, she wrote about earthquakes. She hasn't published lately. I wrote and asked her if her work had been suppressed. She said no, she was taking time to get prepared. I'd have to look at the original mail to be sure.
The part of the San Andreas fault around the Palmdale bulge moves on average every 155 years. The last time that it moved was the Great Tejon earthquake of 1857;
http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~meltzner/tejon.html It's about due. Some years ago, I went to Scotland to ask the "Highland Seer" when it would let go. He took my 15 pounds and gave me a guess. It wasn't accurate. The USGS says that there will be lateral accelerations of 3 Gs and a displacement of 40 meters. That means that parts of Palmdale will go north at 55 mph,,, and come to a sudden stop. The fault is 250 miles deep so there will be a very large chunk of rock moving.
The southern part of the San Andreas down by the Salton Sea is reportedly 300 years overdue. It is supposed to let loose at the speed of sound.

The 2012 alignment will bring our solar system into direct alignment with the galactic plane. It's expected that there will be effects on our sun from increased gravitic stress. There are some entirely new theories about gravity. If they hold true, there may be more stress than expected.
You could read Velicovsky, "Planets in Collision" and "The Electric Universe" for background info.

sputnik · Post by **sputnik** » Wed Jan 06, 2010 7:28 pm

There is no planetary alignment in 2012

#
Question

When most of the planets align in 2012 and planet earth is in the center of the milky way,what will the effects of this be on planet earth? could it cause a pole shift,if so what could we expect.

There is no planet alignment in 2012 or any other time in the next several decades. As to the Earth being in the center of the Milky Way, I don't know what this phrase means, If you are referring to the Milky Way Galaxy, we are rather far toward the edge of this spiral galaxy, some 30,000 light years from the center. Concerning a polar shift, I also don't know what this means. If it means some sudden change in the position of the pole (that is, the rotation axis of the Earth), then that is impossible. There is no point in speculating about the consequences of something that has never happened and never will. Before geologists discovered the role of plate tectonics (about 60 years ago), there was some speculation that a polar shift was involved in transforming the Antarctic, for example, from a warm to a cold climate, but now we know it was the Antarctic continent that moved, not the rotation pole. The bottom line is that there is no possibility of a "polar shift" and no danger associated with one.
David Morrison
NAI Senior Scientist
May 14, 2008

cite: http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/ask-an-ast ... n/?id=3093