Scientists Confirm Significant Global Cooling Coming

reply to post by Indy





My what fools we mortals be.

I remember getting blasted for suggesting GW maybe a load of hooie.


Mod Note: One Line and Short Posts – Please Review This Link.
Mod Note: Please Stay on Topic


[edit on 5-1-2008 by DontTreadOnMe]

melatonin... I will believe it when I see it. I don't know how they've done in the past with predicting solar cycles. If their model performs as bad as the climate models this solar minimum won't happen. Climate models perform very poor. Far too many variables. Don't know how complex solar models are. Are there as many variables. Does anyone here really know or will it be speculation passed off as fact?

Don't you just love this stuff? :-)

Originally posted by Indy
So I assume this means we can ignore the tripe that gets published by the IPCC right? After all they are a government organization. Why do I suspect had this organization just repeated something that the IPCC said you'd be screaming "look here!!! global warming!!!"

Precisley. I am loathe to believe anything coming from a political source these days, the IPCC included. These guys have just as much a self-serving interest in hijacking public opinion, as does Al Gore. Dorry Indy, I know you think he should be left out of this, but the guy is brainwashing the masses with his drivel. The courts in Great Britain have eliminated his movie from the curriculm, and it should be banned everwhere as popular propaganda.

If you look at the long term temperature trends you'll see that there is something very cyclical about climate change. Like it or not man has nothing to do with it. Man isn't responsible for any of the climate changes of the past. He isn't responsible for this one. He didn't cause previous global warming. He didn't cause previous global cooling. When you look at the Vostok temperature plots you will see e very regular cycle. Right now we are at the very top of the mountain.

Exactly right. It has happened before, it is happening now, and will happen again. It is a natural phenom, CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas, and has been proven not to be a significant cause of Climate Change. But Al and the IPCC say it is, so it must be a fact. Bull.

Global Warming supporters will be fuming over this. They will come up with nonsense replies like the one I am responding to that tries to attack the messenger because the report is damaging to their beliefs.

True, but they have been spoon fed these half truths by Gore, Bono, Suzuki, the IPCC, and hundreds of other high profile lap dogs, all of whom have verything to lose should their position be proven wrong. Which it has by studies like the one you bring to light here. Nice work, keep putting it out there!!



mod EDTI, fixed quote tags

[edit on 5-1-2008 by DontTreadOnMe]

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
reply to post by Indy

 

My what fools we mortals be.

I remember getting blasted for suggesting GW maybe a load of hooie.

Not by moi. Keep the faith, this bunch is going down soon, the truth is out there......

Mod Note: One Line and Short Posts – Please Review This Link.
Mod Note: Please Stay on Topic



[edit on 5-1-2008 by DontTreadOnMe]

Originally posted by melatonin
The prediction shows a cycle of about 60-70 sunspots, which is comparable to the cycle around 1910. Indeed, the fall from this cycle to 25, if the prediction is correct, would be similar to that from the late 1800s to 1910.

That period showed a reduction in global climate temps of about 0.2'C, if we assume it was solely due to solar influence (which is unlikely, as I think there were a few volcanic eruptions around then).

So, if everything stays equal, we might have expected a similar fall at most - it would take us back to temps around 1990. But it isn't, as we have other positive forcings.

IF what NASA predicts is true (and that is a big if) this could be one of the weakest cycles in centuries as their report claims. Centuries wouldn't like 1910 for sure. What is "centuries" though? Is that 1800's? 1700?s. Later? When you look at the climate history the long term temperature drops were significant. But they were also over a long period of time. Certainly we would never live long enough to see the ride from the top to bottom. I doubt our grand children would even see half the ride.

I wouldn't lose sleep over a 0.2c change in temperature in any direction. Keep it under a couple of degrees in either direction and all is well. If the result of a solar minimum were to bring a 5 degree drop in temperatures then we'd have problems. I also wonder how these changes impact the different seasons? How does it impact snow melt at temps below freezing? People who live in the south probably wonder what I'm talking about. If you live in the north you know what i mean. You lose snow pack even when temps are well below freezing. The sun can still burn off the snow even when temps are very cold. So you'd think if solar output was reduced it would reduce that melt even without changing temperatures.

Originally posted by Indy
melatonin... I will believe it when I see it. I don't know how they've done in the past with predicting solar cycles.

I think it was about 25% off for cycle 23, heh.

I can actually present the data for all this if you want (i.e., historical sunspot data, predicted data, and temperature data).

Leif Svaalgard, another solar scientist, actually predicts that 24 will be the start of a fall in solar activity (about 75 sunspots).

If their model performs as bad as the climate models this solar minimum won't happen. Climate models perform very poor. Far too many variables. Don't know how complex solar models are. Are there as many variables. Does anyone here really know or will it be speculation passed off as fact?

I'm quite happy to accept they have made an honest prediction, now't wrong with testing out their stuff.

I actually think climate models perfrom better. Hansen's from 1988 is still doing well even now (with a bit of luck).

Don't you just love this stuff? :-)

I actually hope it does happen in some ways. It will test out a lot of science, and would take the edge of warming for a while. My worry is that people will use it to increase doubt in other areas of climate science.

Originally posted by Indy
IF what NASA predicts is true (and that is a big if) this could be one of the weakest cycles in centuries as their report claims. Centuries wouldn't like 1910 for sure.

I'm not sure where your link gets that from, to be honest.

This is the prediction from the NASA website, which shows about 60-70 sunspots for cycle 25:



and the historical data:



So, I don't see where they get this prediction of lowest for centuries from. 1910 is very comparable to the prediction for cycle 25. And to see the possible effects on temperature...

Temperature data:







[edit on 5-1-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Indy
With the addition of more fresh water the current could become even more unstable making it possible that it halts during the next solar minimum.

Correct me if I'm wrong but if the ice melt is due to global warming, global cooling would halt the melt and the threat to the current.

Originally posted by apc
Correct me if I'm wrong but if the ice melt is due to global warming, global cooling would halt the melt and the threat to the current.

I think the damage with the fresh water in the ocean has been done. If not done perhaps the work is nearly finished. Even if solar cycle 25 started tomorrow and it was to be as weak as predicted it would still take a couple of years for things to start to change. And even with that it would take longer to get enough fresh water back out of the ocean and redeposited on land as snow/ice. It won't happen overnight.

Well what the hell is it??

Global warming or global cooling??

Or will it be whatever fits you tree huggers agenda!!??

AHHHHHHHHHHH The sky is falling the sky is falling!!!

P F'in lease!!

thanks for the post indy,
i am not very well versed in this area at all, but after reading some posts about an electrical universe vs plasma,.. if this is an electrical universe,. would that change any of this data?

Well, I suppose that anyone can buy an American corn stove furance (something similiar to a wood burning stove furance but it burns hard corn and not as sooty). And perhaps some small wind power turbines that are not too expensive relatively speaking - last time I looked around $700 - 400 watts - not $15000 - 3000 watts - and then if necessary some solar cells if anyone can actually afford it.

Insulation some people talk about, but actually that is the cheapest if one can do that in the first place. Have a love in - just joking.

But really after the debate tonight on ABC News, a I have different ideas actually. Read below in my signature!

Odd how this follows a Russian report stating that global cooling is more likely than not.

Here we have more evidence that climate models are virtually useless because there are so many variables that are not yet accounted for, unknown effects and interactions, forcings, emissions, probabilities etc. Cause and effect are not so easy to quantify, and there is no control data to help interpret what little we do know about "climate change." Getting the politics out of it would be the first step towards some genuine scientific integrity on the subject matter.

My thanks to the OP for this post.

[edit on 1/6/2008 by TheAvenger]

My solution would be to ask the big oil companys to unshelf their filing on all the patent's they bought up preventing the use of alterantive energy, like Solar and Wind. The ISS Space Station runs on 24v electric which can be bumped up to 230v this is nothing new, people who own a boat will know what I'm on about, Solar and Wind turbines can be bought cheaply enough! Alongside small capacitors to bump 12v into 240v but that kill's your normal lead acid batteries!

It's just the lithium rechargable batteries (Military Spec) that cost a small fortune to buy!

If your worried about staying warm, put another log on the fire! It's only a tree right? It's not affecting the climate... Wrong!

We all need to consider using electric and not gas or oil as they are burning hydrocarbons!


[edit on 6-1-2008 by Brother_Amos]

But of course they dont want you to be self sufficient because they all then loose a lot of money!

People rely far too heavily on their car's, what's wrong with using a horse?

The governments got you in it pocket, Road Tax, Gas Tax, Income Tax, Electricity Tax.

Think about that!

Living is expensive.

[edit on 6-1-2008 by Brother_Amos]

lol....maybe horses tax?

Most electric power stations are either coal/oil fired or Nuclear. Neither of which are particularly good for the environment. (I mean causing acid rain etc./radiation. Not GW)

It will cost a lot and take awhile for Governments to get alternative power supplying a high percentage of the grid.

reply to post by Brother_Amos


What are you chatting about? Transformers change voltage, not capacitors, they just store charge.

And besides, whilst you might well be able to get many volts out of a wind turbine, but just how many Amps can you get? Seeing as voltage is quite meaningless when your talking about power generation.

As for the topic..

Why are people still using the old adages of "global warming/cooling"? I thought the agreed name was now "climate change".

If the ice caps melt, then sea levels will rise and the salinity of the oceans will fall, causing currents to stop flowing, altering the weather, possibly causing an ice age for many.

If solar output drops and mean temps fall for a time here on Earth, then that would just delay what is happening anyway with regards to the Ice caps. They are melting, that is scientific fact. Once we enter a new solar maximum, temps would increase again and the warming trend would continue.

No matter if it's man made or not, the fact is, the climate is changing. The sooner we stop bitching about it and do something, the better.

It pisses me right off that any climate change topic on ATS is hijacked by American Right/Left party politics and, instead of addressing the issues, they start name calling, politicise any debate and completely fail to see the bigger picture.

It's not an American planet, it is everyone's planet. The sooner you stop dicking around and sort something out, the better for everyone. Cutting emissions might help, it might not.

But just throwing the idea out of the window because it doesn't sit well with you, due to you hating "tree hugging hippies", is madness.

What if that is the answer? If it isn't, then all that is happened is that we have preserved fuel supplies by all having smaller cars. There is no need whatsoever for your cars (not just SUV's) to have 3 or 4 liter engines.

Cutting pollution generally would improve our lot here on earth, but any suggestion of that is attached with a condition that it "doesn't harm the economy". Ignoring the fact that your economy would be screwed if things are left unchecked as they are.

Everyone is so goddam selfish, it's bloody annoying.

The funny thing is that if these predictions are reliable, and we do get a period with a little drop in temps, I'm sure some sophists will use it to suggest the science for GHGs is wrong. Which would be a complete misrepresentation, but some never miss a trick.

So, is everyone who questions the science behind GHG necessarily a "sophist" in your view, or is it possible that some people actually have legitimate considered scientific opinions on the matter?

Please don't over-generalize.

I might also point out that "predictive ability" is a cornerstone of science. If the AGW alarmists say "temperatures are just going to keep rising due to GHG emissions," but the bottom falls out on the temperature charts. That's a violated prediction, meaning the prediction was wrong.

That, of course, does not imply logically that GHG science is wrong. However, it does imply that the predictions and thus the models behind the predictions were probably wrong. So, something has to change (perhaps some critical factor was completely overlooked)...

When predictions are falsified, it's time to go back to the drawing board and figure out what's ACTUALLY going on.

I'm not promoting any particular position here, just trying to make sure that science stays science and doesn't turn into a "modern religion" where those who "question the faith" or "question proclamations from on high" are burned as heretics (or more subtly / derisively / over-broadly called "sophists" thus marginalizing their input into the discussion). No "straw ma>" or "Bulverism" logical fallacies allowed here today. I see it happen far too often in science. Won't stand for it.

It'll be interesting to see what the climate ACTUALLY does over the next few years...

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

Originally posted by stumason
What are you chatting about? Transformers change voltage, not capacitors, they just store charge.

Actually you can arrange caps in what is called a diode-capacitor ladder voltage multiplier (or just diode ladder). I use such a circuit to kick 24V up to 96V on one of my boards to drive a single part that needs it. It's a cheap way to build a high voltage boost without having to do any switching.

Just bein' anal.