Global cooling...

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 31 2003 @ 02:26 PM
link   
Haven't we blamed global warming on everything yet?

It's them fricken pop tarts that are doing this! Look, everyone put's their pop tarts in the toaster at once and then all the sudden! BAM! Global Warming.

Or maybe it's them aliens!!




posted on Oct, 31 2003 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Seekerof, thanks for the graph. I'm all for staying on the warm side of that line, man. Instead of a bumper sticker saying "Stop Global Warming" I'm getting one that says, "Stop Glaciation!" Screw that Ice scene.

For all you that might be of the open-minded sort, I have one other theory which sounds a little far fetched but really no more so than global warming. The theory is that Earth was a tropic climate worldwide until a collision with a comet (Ice) caused the age of ice and disrupted the natural climate which has rebounded and regressed in waves for the last few thousand years. Thats the skinny of it and I'm not sure what i think of it yet but it would answer many questions about why we find flash-frozen mammoth's with prarie grass in their bellies. If it all happened in an instant, then there would be significant pressure to cause fossilization too. Gradual build-up of weight doesn't cut it for me because the stuff would rot first. Highway fills are supercompacted but 3 out of 10 potholes is found to be caused by a rotting log placed in the fill. I have been lucky enough to be on sight at a place where numerous fossilized plants and animals was unearthed and it was so extensive in that layer, I can not be rationalize anything else accept for tremendous, instant pressure and freezing. What's your all's take on that one? Maybe that should be a separate subject.



posted on Oct, 31 2003 @ 04:04 PM
link   
GW politics is a joke. We're so far from the political climate necessary to remedy the situation(s) that, yes, I've lost hope.
Methane concentrations are already high enough to be of alarm and the trends tell me everything I need to know.

I think we're running into a semantic debate here. GW is a natural process, forced heating from antropogenic sources is not. There obviously signs of serious change in both the oceans and gas concentrations in the stratosphere.

Here's a model from Hadley Center for Climate Prediction and Research and U of O. I've taken classes from the researchers who worked on this. They know their stuff and they have a couple of Crays at their disposal.

geography.uoregon.edu...



posted on Oct, 31 2003 @ 07:08 PM
link   
"Debunking Global Warming"
Link:
www.freerepublic.com...

This is a list of articles and I'm talking a whole! list of list of list.....


regards
seekerof



posted on Oct, 31 2003 @ 07:50 PM
link   
Yes kukla, I understand the model and I don't doubt that they know their stuff when it comes to their model. The thing is reality sometimes doesn't mesh and thats the argument I fell you're avoiding. To prove global warming, we must stick to the model and it's timeline but when we look to real-time data, it just doesn't back the models up.



posted on Nov, 1 2003 @ 12:11 PM
link   
Paperclip,

Yes I think this should be turned into a research project. The scope and of which would need some discussion.

Seekerof,

It comes as no surprise that the Freepers have a GW debunking category. These are the same people that are buying Hummers and writing them off as a tax break. Heres a few of the latest threads..

Researchers question key global-warming study
www.freerepublic.com...

Heres the gist, McIntyre & McKitrick think Manns data was dirty and miscalculated. Too bad the data has been checked and re-checked by dozens of other academia, only to be proven again and again. Even McIntyre & McKitrick concluded that there is indeed warming, but only specified that it isnt as warm as the medieval maxim. The study in question is actually 5 years old. One look at the most recent data and you can see that warming is occurring, and at a rapid rate.

Same Old Arctic Warming
www.freerepublic.com...

Is the Arctic warming? Yes, for the past 20 years it has warmed at a rate of about half a degree per century, or five thousandths (0.005) of a degree per year.

He shouldve taken a look at the latest anomaly map before writing that article. The temperature increase in certain polar areas has been anywhere from 6 degrees to 18 degrees in just the last 90 days!!! In fact the poles are in real bad shape

"Although changes in Arctic circulation patterns may alter the distribution of ice thickness in the Arctic, we conclude that a continuation of the previously observed increase in melt season length will lead to a further overall thinning of the Arctic ice."
Lead author of the research, which appeared in yesterday's issue of the British science weekly journal Nature, is Seymour Laxon of the Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling, which is part of University College London.
Last Friday, NASA published satellite images showing that the northern polar ice cap has been shrinking by 10 percent per decade during the past quarter century.
www.taipeitimes.com...


Suspending disaster: the myth of global warming
www.freerepublic.com...

Only argument here is that C02 is a beneficial greenhouse gas. Sorry no mention of methane or other hydrocarbons. Nor is there any mention of ocean temperatures, salinity and currents. And the author also makes wild assumptions..


Many scientists have concluded that carbon dioxide doesn't even affect climate.


The interaction of the carbon cycle and the climate has long, long been established.

AC,

The Pacific and the Atlantic are both showing 2-4 degree warming in just the past 90 days! On land, theres only a handful of locations that are actually cooling. I think the data meshes with the models. Glaciers are in retreat. Ice caps are melting. Sea level is rising. Salinity is falling. These are all indications of forced heating.



posted on Nov, 1 2003 @ 12:49 PM
link   
Kukla,
The reason I presented the materials "debunking" Global Warming is becuase the issue of GW is being used as a political tool.....does anyone deny this?
The main argument for GW, at least many, many years ago, was that 'man' was the main reason for GW.

Science is saying, showing, and slowly proving otherwise.

The obvious thing to note is that the Earth's weather patterns have undergone and are undergoing incrediable, very noticeable and recorded changes during the Earths history. We have periods of cold, periods of heat, periods of flooding, periods of drought, etc. This is why it's obvious: it's been going on long before mankind created pollution and all the supposed environmental damage. The science of Earth's weather patterns is pure educated guess and speculations mixed with spurts of "scientific" tests and findings.....it still amounts to a science that is far from conclusive. In such, why the hemming and hawing over "Global Warming" and the "disaster" and "impact" that 'man' is causing?
I would suggest that many read Brian Fagan's book, "The Little Ice Age", which cites a myriad of data documenting the 'extreme' variations in mainly European and North Atlantic weather during the last millenium. Example: Grapes were recorded being grown in Greenland from about 1000 to 1250 AD. Temperatures then and now are estimated to be 2-3 degrees F warmer. This constitutes GW?
Another obvious: the Earth's climate has always been a non-conclusive science....has always been a variable...again, who and why constituted that we are or were in a GW condition or situation? Weather or Climate computer prediction models are another unquantifiable procedure.....one must first understand and know ALL the physcial processes involved and I just don't think and feel that science does. Rough approximations and 'educated guesses' don't cut the cake when applied to such models.

To bunk GW is disrupting the work and lively hood of many scientists and their evolving theories on Earth's climate. The impact in proving that GW is pure political hogwash is even more devastating.


regards
seekerof

[Edited on 1-11-2003 by Seekerof]



posted on Nov, 1 2003 @ 12:53 PM
link   
BTW...question:
With all this "shrinkage" of the ice caps and the polar areas heating up.....where is the information documenting that the Earth's sea-levels are increasing proportionately? Where is this "ice" going?
Just thinking here.....


regards
seekerof



posted on Nov, 1 2003 @ 01:23 PM
link   
the earth is comming out of an ice age. its not global warming. so all you enviro hippies can shut the hell up.



posted on Nov, 1 2003 @ 01:50 PM
link   
We are putting a measurealbe amount of CO2, sulphur, CH4, among other chemicals in the atmosphere. Whether or not they affect the climate remains to be proven. Global Warming is not a major threat to humanity.



posted on Nov, 1 2003 @ 04:39 PM
link   
Seekerof,

GW has become a political issue because people are rightfuly concerned about the consequences. In this matter, there's only one piece of advice I can offer, follow the money.

I haven't read Fagan's book but I know full well that Earth's climate has undergone rapid change before and is currently undergoing rapid change. I also know that models are just that, models. But when you have a statistical trend and you understand the basic underlying processes, you can make a reasonable estimate in something as complex as the global climate, as long as it's in a vacuum. That's the caveat that should be in bold face. The model I cited used IOCC low-ball projection numbers, or the "best" case scenario.

What we haven't seen in Earth's history is such a rapid rise of methane in the stratosphere. The only time such amounts of methane are found in history are during warming maxims. The 150% increase in methance concentrations in the last 200 years (link) is wholly attributable to anthropenic sources (cattle, landfills, rice, natgas).

As I've stated before, methane and the loss of ozone is the real killer. Any further reduction in stratospheric ozone levels leaves us that much more susceptible to incoming solar radiation. Methane is the double-dipped GH gas. Not only does it reflect radiation but destroys ozone. The problem can worsen when you consider the ocean can belch massive amounts of stored methane, if ocean temperature reach a certain threshold.

Not only do you have more incoming solar radiation, due to a decline in strat ozone, but we have higher concentrations of the gases that trap radiation.

As to your question about the polar ice melts. There's an international scientific organization that coordinates sampling of the ocean among scientists. In addtion to sampling, satellites are frequently used. As to sea-level measurements, most larger and smaller ports track ocean height. It would be difficult to actually prove where the water has gone, as ocean height depends on so many different variables. The concern with polar melting is the introduction of large amounts of high saline water, which can disrupt the thermo-haline circulation pattern that delivers cold, nutrient-rich waters to the north Atlantic. The upwelling associated with THC is a major factor in weather production.

KrazyIvan,

You folks haven't helped much. Soviet Union natgas burning/spills/mining/distribution was definately a contributing factor to the methane burden on the atmosphere.

jrod,

You are correct GW, by itself isn't really a threat to humanity. The effects of global warming are a threat to other natural systems, that in turn drive the global climate.







[Edited on 1-11-2003 by kukla]



posted on Nov, 1 2003 @ 07:47 PM
link   
Kukla...
Well said and very well informed.

I do certainly appreciate the information and your thoughts on this.
I will admit to very little knowledge on this matter and only presented my opinion based on neutral to bias information. The links I provided was to give a "other side" view and interpretation to the discussions.

In your normal and usual manner, you were well informed and presented very thoughtful information....and to that, I say thank you and well done.


regards
seekerof



posted on Nov, 1 2003 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Thanks seekerof!
And congrats on another T.W.A.T.S. The mantle must be getting rather crowded.


I think there's a lot of misconceptions about the GW. THe theory itself has evolved since term was coined. It is by no means a static theory...



posted on Nov, 1 2003 @ 08:11 PM
link   
In Isaac Newton's writings, while he was holed up in country estate trying to ride out the plague and developing Calculus, he wrote many letter back to his clergy in London.

One letter was a detailed, logical and scientific proof of why the earth, if left to its natural systems, would gradually cool to an uninhabital globe.

It is a very interesting read, and I urge any one interesting in the GW issue to give it consideration.



posted on Nov, 5 2003 @ 07:31 PM
link   
Kukla.....hey buddy,
Hows things been going? I hope well.

Look, I ran across these articles.....think you can decipher them and see if they may have some possible crediability and accuracy?
It seems that this discussion is fairly new and based around and on an article dated 10/29/03
"Kyoto debunked"
Link:
www.nationalpost.com...

From this topic at:
Link:
www.freerepublic.com...

And runs in conjunction with this article posted on:
"Hockey Stick Slapped: Climate change's Bellesiles?"
Link:
www.nationalreview.com...

From this topic at:
Link:
www.freerepublic.com...

And this article, for which I can not determine dated written or posted:
www.globalwarming.org...


And this graph:

*as noted already when you view threads....it seems that there are some questions as to the validity of this modified graph.*

I'm interested to hear what you think and your observations. I will try to keep you, or this thread, posted on any new findings.


*edit* found this also:
"Climate Change In The Vineyards: The Taste Of Global Warming"
Link:
www.sciencedaily.com...


regards
seekerof

[Edited on 5-11-2003 by Seekerof]



posted on Nov, 5 2003 @ 07:47 PM
link   
Not to be rude to anyone here who has done more research then I have on this subject, but I'm sitting in my house, about 15 minutes from presumably mild and usually chilly in the fall Jersey shore, and I'm sweating like a hog in mid 70 temperatures...during the first week of November.

Now, I can't speak for the rest of the nation, but my area has pretty much stopped having Winter all together. When I was a kid, and lived in Bridgeton, things were different. South Jersey would get a ton and a half of snow each winter and by late August, the cooler temperatures would start moving in.

Now, and for the past 5 years at least, Winter doesn't start until Mid December. I've looked through past entries into my personal diary, and noticed that it very rarely hits the 60 degree mark (And stays that way for at least a week) until Mid December.

During the year 2000, I had my Air Conditioner on for the entire month of October due to the temperature going as high as 85 some weeks.

Maybe it's just the smog, I wouldn't doubt it...but something doesn't feel right here.

I need to buy another box fan.



posted on Nov, 5 2003 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Not to be rude to anybody who may be suffering through a short higher-than-average sweatfest, but I'm freezing my nipples of in Southwest Oklahoma in 42 degree weather in the first week of November...and that just aint right; that's not normal. We don't get this cold here this early in the year.

brrr...be back later I gotta go run around the room and thaw out.

But seriously, my point is, that you claim global warming because of a localized high front bearing down on you. It feels like all the heat got sucked out of the planet here.



posted on Nov, 5 2003 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

But seriously, my point is, that you claim global warming because of a localized high front bearing down on you. It feels like all the heat got sucked out of the planet here.


Nice thing with the "Not to be rude" Slap, very nice. I'll give you a point for that. Good show kid.

As for the whole weather debacle, did you perhaps read my entire post or merely skim through it because it was a little bit over your reading level? I said that my area has been having extremely warm Fall weather for the past 3 years...ever since 2000. You can re-read my post to prove this.

As for the whole nipples thing, I suggest working out.



posted on Nov, 5 2003 @ 09:33 PM
link   
uhh, ain't suppose to be cold in Nov Valhall?


It's been WARM here in texas, let see current temp is....??

52

That is suppose to be cold for the desert at night during winter?

Man I remember it use to get freezing ass cold in October, I remember one year it was so cold as a kid I didn't go trick or treating, and thats in the wasteland I fondly call Odessa.

I certainly hope it's global cooling ahead, because I hate summer.

PS: I know it's not offically winter, but still it use to get a lot colder.

[Edited on 5-11-2003 by Lysergic]



posted on Nov, 5 2003 @ 09:45 PM
link   
Lysergic...

are you in Amarillo??? LOL!

That goes with a great cartoon I saw once. If I had it, I would scan it in.

It shows two roust-a-bouts on a platform in the North Sea, their beards have these long icicles hanging off them and their blue! And one says to the other, "If it's this cold here...imagine how cold it is in Amarillo!?!"

LOL! I think Amarillo is a geographic anamoly and possibly the coldest spot on earth in the winter.

Anyway, no, this is freaky weather. Starting on Sunday the wind started blowing here and it was 70's and 80's. It blew like a hurricane until almost 12:00 noon yesterday...almost on the dot it went dead still for about 1 hour...not a leaf moving. Then I think the temperature plummeted 20 degrees within two hours. Today it's too cold for this bear! Time to hybernate. The old Valhallian synapses stop firing at anything under 75.

I was sent this great email today about a woman explaining why, in her next life, she's opting to come back as a bear.

I'm in! I can do the bear scene! Wake me up in May, okay!?!

Typically, no, we don't have this nippy of weather this early in November. We usually see 50's up until mid-to third week of November.

I think I was clear on my point though...localized weird moments don't constitute evidence for or against long-term global weather changes.

[Edited on 5-11-2003 by Valhall]






top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join