Global Cooling!

Originally posted by melatonin
Why not? If something like orbital variations provided less solar radiation then it would pretty easy, no?

You seem to falling into binary thinking again here.

Why is it that the temperatures fall in advance of CO2 declines in almost all cases? Given that this happens pretty much all the time indicates a disconnect from the idea that CO2 is causing the warming. Something caused the warming but it was unlikely to be the CO2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas but compared to the other players it is irrelevant. Water vapor is a significant gas. Methane is far more potent than CO2. Overall CO2 exists in such small quantities in the atmosphere. The graph I posted tells the story. I think we can try and dream up stories how CO2 declines lag behind temperature declines but I think its pretty obvious CO2 is not the cause of warming or cooling. The CO2 level changes are in direct response to temperature changes as the environment stores, releases and processes the gas.

Originally posted by Indy
Why is it that the temperatures fall in advance of CO2 declines in almost all cases? Given that this happens pretty much all the time indicates a disconnect from the idea that CO2 is causing the warming.

Well, ice-age cycles are what they say they are - cycles. So it's no great surprise that it repeats.

Orbital variations initiate deglaciation, and they also intiate glaciation. For a deglaciation it brings on warming, for glaciation it brings on cooling. CO2 solubility is related to temperature, so as temps fall, more CO2 is taken up, as they rise, more is released. That is of little consequence for the ability of CO2 to cause warming.

If 10% less solar radiation hit the earth tomorrow and remained at that level for a 1000 years, I would certainly expect cooling, no matter what CO2 did.

The remainder of the post was just an argument from small numbers, means nothing. Methane is even less abundant in the atmosphere (ppb), it also converts fairly rapidly to CO2, which hangs around much longer.

The CO2 level changes are in direct response to temperature changes as the environment stores, releases and processes the gas.

As above, normally this is the case. It isn't at the moment though...

I think its pretty obvious CO2 is not the cause of warming or cooling

Only obvious if you ignore the science.

It can certainly cause both. In the stratosphere, it can cause cooling, and in the troposphere, warming.

[edit on 8-12-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

The CO2 level changes are in direct response to temperature changes as the environment stores, releases and processes the gas.

As above, normally this is the case. It isn't at the moment though...

How is it not the case at the moment? Nothing in nature has changed over the last several hundred thousand years. Note the Vostok temperature trends. We just happen to be near the top of one of those cycles. And our trend will reverse just as it has every other time the climate has warmed. Signs are we are headed into a cooling trend. Temperatures topped out in 1998 and have been trending down since. History tends to repeat itself and the Vostok samples show it repeats it self regularly and consistently. There is no reason to believe that will change because we are here.

Originally posted by Indy
How is it not the case at the moment?

OK...

The CO2 level changes are in direct response to temperature changes as the environment stores, releases and processes the gas.

It is not the case now, CO2 level changes are predominately a direct result of human activity. Indeed, we seem to be releasing it at levels faster than even during the PETM event.

Signs are we are headed into a cooling trend. Temperatures topped out in 1998 and have been trending down since.

No, they haven't. The only way to know this is to apply stats. Have you done so? I suggest a correlation of the data from 1998, even though this is a big cherrypick, it still doesn't show a downward trend.

[edit on 8-12-2007 by melatonin]

I am smack dab in the middle of the next very serious Ice Storm right now, last year left us without power or water for 10 days. Is this weather manipulation? It feels like it. Is it an early warning of things to come like a mini ice age? I was wondering that today. Is it perhaps an indication of things to come as the NWO decides who lives or dies?

BTW remember I am an ATSer and am going to be just fine, but say a little prayer for me and my children and 88 year old Aunt with Alzheimer's... and the 10 -4 leggeds anyway...

Thank you friends.

Originally posted by whatsup
As for me, I am going to trust the peer reviewed science and not listen to the arm chair experts (and a few dissenting scientist which are in a HUGE minority)!

See, this is exactly what I mean...are you really so sure that the "few dissenting scientist"s are in a "HUGE minority"?? Did you get that information from the media??

Check out this page. www.oism.org...

That's a link to over 19,000 physical scientists that have signed a petition stating that the idea of manmade global warming is bunk. Note that this isn't just some site where you can click a link and add your name. Those who sign must be qualified, ie. have a BS, MS, or PHD in physical science. They must also request information and sign/return a reply card to have their names added.

While you're at it, check out this link as well...
Climate Momentum Shifting

If you want to "believe", more power to you. I'm not going to call you a "flat earther" simply because you have a different viewpoint. However, I'll be more than happy to point you to evidence that you're likely basing your opinion on biased reporting.

Complaint to Ofcom: Seven major misrepresentations of the scientific evidence in 'The Great Global Warming Swindle'

Also..

Should The Great Global Warming Swindle be censured?

Personally, I am going to go with the IPCC scientists on this one and not "buy into" all this misrepresented and inaccurate "global conspiracy" stuff. Man's foot print on this planet is so massive and "bleeding obvious" that it would take a fool not to see it. It's no different that when doctors first started saying that smoking caused cancer. I remember my aunt dying of lung cancer with a cigarette in her mouth, and all the while saying "show me the proof that smoking causes cancer."

[edit on 9-12-2007 by whatsup]

I don't buy that humans are the cause of so called global warming. One volcano blast has more punch that all of the output of human interferance. The earth will recycle as it has over and over.

Originally posted by I See You
One volcano blast has more punch that all of the output of human interferance.

All of the output?

Not likely.

I'm not gonna try to figure out global warming or global cooling. I know the earth has cycles and the sun get's hotter and cooler, but that's not the point. My point is we have to do better to protect the earth. Why is oil in the earth? Is it there so we can use it to drive our cars, fly our plains, heat our homes. Or is it there for other reasons? What happens to the oil well when it's dried up? Is there earthquakes etc..? I don't know that's why I'm asking. We keep drying up oil deposits, mining for coal and cutting down trees and replacing grass with concrete. Our earth needs our help whether global warming is happening or not. It's time to try are best to find new and better resources that don't hurt us or our invironment. At least we are making improvements and it's being talked about.

Originally posted by whatsup
Personally, I am going to go with the IPCC scientists on this one and not "buy into" all this misrepresented and inaccurate "global conspiracy" stuff. Man's foot print on this planet is so massive and "bleeding obvious" that it would take a fool not to see it. It's no different that when doctors first started saying that smoking caused cancer. I remember my aunt dying of lung cancer with a cigarette in her mouth, and all the while saying "show me the proof that smoking causes cancer."

Yeah. Lets trust the same people that couldn't handle weapons inspections in Iraq. This is after all the same governing body. IPCC is part of the UN. If they can't handle something like Iraq which is their job how can you expect them to handle science which isn't their job. I have little faith in scientists (if that is what they really are) with a political agenda (that is what the UN is about).

Originally posted by I See You
One volcano blast has more punch that all of the output of human interferance.

But the volcano blasts also have an additional product that 'balances' things out -- iron dust. It fertilizes the oceans and promotes algae growth. This in turn scrubs out the CO2.

Source: Volcanic iron, CO2, ocean productivity and climate

Edit: fixed link and also to add --

Here's some more about volcanoes and CO2 --

One point that is also worth making is that although volcanoes release some CO2 into the atmosphere, this is completely negligable compared to anthropogenic emissions (about 0.15 Gt/year of carbon, compared to about 7 Gt/year of human related sources) . However, over very long times scales (millions of years), variations in vulcanism are important for the eventual balance of the carbon cycle, and may have helped kick the planet out of a 'Snowball Earth' state in the Neo-proterozoic 750 million years ago.

Source: Current volcanic activity and climate?

[edit on 9-12-2007 by Beachcoma]

Originally posted by whatsup
Complaint to Ofcom: Seven major misrepresentations of the scientific evidence in 'The Great Global Warming Swindle'

Also..

Should The Great Global Warming Swindle be censured?

Personally, I am going to go with the IPCC scientists on this one and not "buy into" all this misrepresented and inaccurate "global conspiracy" stuff. Man's foot print on this planet is so massive and "bleeding obvious" that it would take a fool not to see it. It's no different that when doctors first started saying that smoking caused cancer. I remember my aunt dying of lung cancer with a cigarette in her mouth, and all the while saying "show me the proof that smoking causes cancer."

[edit on 9-12-2007 by whatsup]

Did you actually take the time to read your links? I'm kind of surprised you'd post the second one since it's contrary to your viewpoint.

Thanks for again indicating that "it would take a fool" to have an opposing viewpoint to yours. It's sad, but if you feel you have to demean others to get your point across, more power to you.

[edit on 9-12-2007 by BlueTriangle]

Originally posted by melatonin

Signs are we are headed into a cooling trend. Temperatures topped out in 1998 and have been trending down since.

No, they haven't. The only way to know this is to apply stats. Have you done so? I suggest a correlation of the data from 1998, even though this is a big cherrypick, it still doesn't show a downward trend.

Oh yes they absolutely have been doing down. There is no possible way for you to spin this. Temperature rankings with the exception of ONE year have been progressively lower since 1998. This is the death sentence to global warming supporters and they will stop at no length to try and spin this. Reality is that its over.

Read this thread....

www.climatepatrol.com...

It reviews the temperature trends since 1998 including the temperature rankings. Had the numbers been reversed global warming supporters would have been pointing to the rankings and saying "see... its getting warmer." Reality is that it isn't.

Deniers of truth... spin away.

reply to post by MiRRoR_MuSiC


OK...first off, I don;t need to ask myparent about the 70's....Imight have been a kid, but I was a smart kid and know all about the Cooling and pending mini-iceage everyone feared.

Secondly, water displacement is one thing, but to defend the global warming kooks out there, I don't theink you understand what they are afraid of when it comes to rising water levels. Its not the icebergs that they are attributing to "so called" rising water levels...then you woul dbe right...water displacement would called for and no rise in sea level should be felt. It is the ice on land, glaciers and such that they claim are melting and running off into the seas.

But what I would like to know is....are they taking measurments everywhere in the world? Due to plate shifts and basic crust movements (take place all the time), do they take into affect such changes in these measurements? How do we know that the measurement they took off the coast of California last year that showed a .001" rise in sea level, was not due to a recent earth quake and a shift in the seacoast (a sinking affect)? Do we know for sure they take these into account? Who calibrates their machines? Do they measure in the same spot every single time? I know the satelites are pretty good at stuff like that, but were the tides factored in? Did they measure at high tide and then low tide and see a change in measurements....therefore it must be global warming????

I don;t care what anyone says, and no one will change my mind. its just a theory. There is not science in it at all. Temperatures change all the time and there is cyclic forces at work in the change. I'll tell ya what. Lets go 200 years in to the future. If things change over time between now and then, I will eat crow and apologize to all you global warming fanatics out there.

reply to post by Animal



You might be right about upstate NY, but not down here in NY City. We are not in a snow belt.

reply to post by melatonin


Sorry melatonin,

But when it comes to volcanos...those really big ones are down right nasty and can easily spew more C02 into the air then our out put. Some of the bigger ones in the past have even put the earth into a period similar to a nuclear winter and have cause mini-ice ages that led to famine and deaths around the world. Some even attrribute the great potato famine of Ireland to a volcano explosion half a world a way (occured almost 2 years prior to the start of the famine).

reply to post by whatsup



You do know the IPPC report is regularly "updated" and corrected? They have a policy of only making changes that agree with the end result. This is one of thereasons that a lot of people give no credence to such a report. I sure don't. There is even a clause in appedix "A" indication such a policy. I am not going to go find it, but have linked to it in the past.

BY THE WAY....we all do know that the green house effect is one of the most important naturally occuring things that happens on this earth right???? Without the greenhouse effect all the heat radiated by the earth would disappear and we would freeze to death.

Did you know that Mercury, the closes planet to the sun has extreme cold temperatures at night? -300 degrees farenhite. Why? no atmosphere. All the heat from the day escapes. Can you imaging living like that? Warm up to a toasty 80 degrees F, and cool down to say -80 degrees F at night? What planst could you possibly grow for food? This is what I mean by Earth being such a perfect world. Everything is just right. The earth works in mysterious ways to stay in balance. One of those ways is cooling itself off and warming itself up.. Who are we to challenge what the earth does? Who are we to take credit for anything that earth is so obviously responsible for. Are we really that significant?

I posted this question in in another thread and got very little responses, but I will ask you all here.

"What if.........the earth uses cyclical warming and cooling as a way to maintain some kind of equalibrium? What if it is a defense mechanism that it uses to protect some life on earth, while others perish? We all seem to believe that GLOBAL WARMING is man made (well, not all of us), but what if it is really the earth defending itself from over population or deforrestation or strip mining? What if its an event necessary for life to continue here on earth?

Should we really stand in its way and try to change the climate?"

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Just to show ya how crazy some scientists (term is used loosely), check this out...

A WEST Australian medical expert wants families to pay a $5000-plus "baby levy" at birth and an annual carbon tax of up to $800 a child.
Writing in today's Medical Journal of Australia, Associate Professor Barry Walters said every couple with more than two children should be taxed to pay for enough trees to offset the carbon emissions generated over each child's lifetime.

Professor Walters, clinical associate professor of obstetric medicine at the University of Western Australia and the King Edward Memorial Hospital in Perth, called for condoms and "greenhouse-friendly" services such as sterilisation procedures to earn carbon credits.

www.news.com.au...

Originally posted by traderonwallst
But when it comes to volcanos...those really big ones are down right nasty and can easily spew more C02 into the air then our out put.

I'm sure there are periods in geological history were this is true. It isn't now though, and hasn't been for quite a while.

Over geological history I'm sure volcanoes have been a very important driver of climate. But there have been no volcanic activity for quite a while which have resulted in rises in CO2 like we have now. I'm sure things like the Deccan traps did alter climate in a strong way for a long period.

Some of the bigger ones in the past have even put the earth into a period similar to a nuclear winter and have cause mini-ice ages that led to famine and deaths around the world.

Yup, volcanoes tend to cause cooling rather than warming. This is due to emissions of sulphates, nothing to do with GHGs. But in the long-term, GHGs can predominate for massive periods of activity (c.f., Deccan traps)

Considering I was referring to CO2, then what I said is fine. Humans are emitting massive amounts of GHGs at a rate greater than previous periods of rapid climate change (e.g., PETM), and at levels much higher than recent volcanic events. For this century, volcanoes were pretty insignificant to little apes burning stuff...



Volcanoes are having little impact at the moment.

[edit on 10-12-2007 by melatonin]