It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Scientists Confirm Significant Global Cooling Coming

page: 3
30
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by apc
 


And you learn something new every day. Cheers!




posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Indy
 


the cooling could start in about 3 years?dont know about you but i'm not rich enough to be capable of buying my way out of the "h**l" that will result with the crop failures and lack of food and resources available to keep us all alive

no wonder the government is prepared with the prison facilities to house the rioters that will kill for something to eat?might as well spend what money you have while its still worth something till the government changes the american dollars into pesos value

not trying to get off thread but maybe some will become more interested in seeking for G-D once we are all in deep trouble?we cant eat gold or money or oil to survive starvation.no doubt the government will have food securely stashed away and protected for its elite members and their families.


apc

posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Yeah I don't get the rest though. Solar and wind at 240V? For off-grid stuff you generate at 12-24 or even 48VDC to charge your battery bank and then switch it up to 120-240VAC so you can bring power to where you need it with much smaller and cheaper wires (higher voltage means lower current for the same wattage). Most large wind generators can put out a couple kilowatts, too.

Not too sure what that has to do with the ISS.......

I guess there's supposed to be some convoluted Oil Company (as in The Oil Company
) conspiracy in there. But I'm unable to wade through and figure out what that has to do with global cooling.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by mgmirkin
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.


Please don't put words in my mouth.

I never said everyone, I said some people would use such solar-induced cooling as a rhetorical tool. I can see Bob Carter, Tim Ball et al using this to BS the public.

They are already using canards galore, repeated ad nauseum. When corrected, they carry on regardless.


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.


Well of course the prediction would be wrong. But it wouldn't speak to the validity of models or the science. In this instance, it would really mean the scenario was wrong, which led to a poor prediction.

If the scenario is based on solar activity remaining at a particular level, and it doesn't. That means the scenario that produces the prediction is wrong. Not the science that suggests GHGs induce warming, which you appear to notice.

The people using the models have to make certain fairly arbitrary judgements as to how other variables will act. For instance, if the biggest volcano for a million years happens, we might expect it to produce significant cooling. But the modellers might not have expected that. Likewise, a comet may strike the earth, that would likely induce significant cooling. The modellers might not have expected that. And, finally, if humans suddenly stop emitting GHGs altogether, the modellers might not have expected that.


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).


I think there are many true sceptics, Pielke Sr is probably the best around at the moment. Then there are others who can be classed as 'deniers' or 'obscurantists', they do not aim to have an honest discussion.

And science is staying science, even whilst under attack from a particular group of people. No-one wants to burn anybody. We generally just point and laugh at the more ridiculous (like Christopher Monckton).


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

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin


It will actually, as I said, it will test out some science, especially if solar activity does fall more than it has already.

Cheers.

[edit on 6-1-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 11:00 AM
link   
The biggest problem with models is that they are designed to yield an expected result, thus you get that result. A scientist stating their opinion mathematically, which is what a model does, is still just stating their opinion, no matter how elegant the method used to express it. A true model would be at least able to account for all of the climatic variations we've seen in the past whether they be warming or cooling spells. It would be foolish to accept anything less. The lack of a true control for the model is a major problem as well. Experiments without a control are useless. There are almost endless variables in climate, many which are still unknown to us, so I don't know whether a true model can ever be developed. If the global cooling that the article states will happen does occur, all models designed so far are proven false, because they did not predict it.

.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by mbkennel

Who the hell is "Space and Science Research Center"?

It's something ascientific and bogus. They barnacled themselves to keyword searches with NASA (like flaky dot-coms did) but there is no actual science there.


Here is the "theory".

www.spaceandscience.net...

It's just plain nonsense.

Here is what NASA actually said:

science.nasa.gov...

There's nothing about "global cooling" whatsoever.

In any case, it is irrelevant: a solar cycle is a cycle and if you get extra cool on one side you will get extra warm on the other side. All of it will just add to the longer term trend from greenhouse forcing, and you will eventually end up in the same place (damn hot) no matter what.

The interaction between solar cycles and climate is much more complicated than people think. (Firstly, higher solar activity means more sunspots, and this means LESS optical radiation emitted for the simple reason that sunspots are darker and lower temperature than the rest of the photosphere. )

And yes, people who actually work on climate have already taken the Sun into account using actual quantitative measurements.

Let's make sure to be able to distinguish puffery from a self-styled baloney "institute" from actual science done by actual scientists.


The theory and the statement seem farstretched to me too. What baffles me, why would you say such a thing, when you are claiming to be "scientific researchers"?
A scientist wants to be dead sure or his career is dead.
Are this failed scientists getting dark paychecks to influence the public discussions?



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheAvenger
If the global cooling that the article states will happen does occur, all models designed so far are proven false, because they did not predict it.


Yeah, and if the modellers don't predict a supervolcano then they are proven false...

I'm surprised at your comments, Avenger.

Prediction of solar activity is fairly poor, how can you expect modellers to know what solar activity will be in 30-40 years, if the solar scientists don't really know either? This is like saying that computer models of population growth would be proven false if a comet smacks the earth and wipes out 50% of the population. The models are not the issue, the scenario is.

Solar scientists have just made some predictions using their own models that show some possible future reduction in solar activity, who knows whether after 2 or 3 cycles, we'll be back at current levels of solar activity? They don't. Maybe over 100 years the average will be the scenario level.

The best a modeller can do is to make a fair judgment as to these particular variables using past knowledge. They can be reassessed when we have the data. The models give predictions using current knowledge of what GHGs will do. And that is sufficient. If all else stays equal, increasing GHGs should induce increasing warming as predicted.

The forcing from GHGs will not suddenly disappear.

[edit on 6-1-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAvenger
The biggest problem with models is that they are designed to yield an expected result, thus you get that result. A scientist stating their opinion mathematically, which is what a model does, is still just stating their opinion, no matter how elegant the method used to express


That is absolutely true. All models have a preprogrammed bias. They aren't living and breathing things. They don't just figure things out for themselves. They are preprogrammed to provided certain results if certain conditions are loaded. A model isn't going to say "whoa! you know if this condition is met is it possible that something else happens?" They are programmed to say "how high?" when you say "jump". They aren't going to respond with "I'm too tired."

:-)



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indy
A model isn't going to say "whoa! you know if this condition is met is it possible that something else happens?" T



You could actually, and I am sure they do, make a model that does exactly that. It isn't that far fetched to have a complex model which incorporates many variables. As each variable changes, so does the output, depending on the interactions between all the variables.

A model won't just churn out whatever you want it too. You put in the equations which you either know to be true, or suspect to be true. You then have values for all the elements of the equation. You could even have several different equations dealing with different things within the greater model.

In fact, this is what the most powerful computers in the world do. Such as the one for the Met Office in the UK.

They don't just take a given value, say "sun" and get "lots of sun=hot" and "not much sun=cold" as a model. They will have the computer working out the thousands of different variables and how they all work in the larger system.

If you honestly think that a computer model is so simple you can control it's output, then your mistaken. Many times scientists build models only to find that they behave entirely unlike they expected them to do, leading to new discoveries.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
You could actually, and I am sure they do, make a model that does exactly that. It isn't that far fetched to have a complex model which incorporates many variables. As each variable changes, so does the output, depending on the interactions between all the variables.


The point I was trying to make with this is that a model isn't going to go outside its design. A model isn't going to outside the box. It stays strictly within its programming. A model is nothing more than a large/complex mathematical formula. There are no real unexpected results. You aren't going to get a shocking 3 + 5 = 9. The results ultimately will be what you've designed the model to produce.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 12:43 PM
link   
The compartmentalising here is great - Climate models bad. Solar models good. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Scientific understanding of the variations in solar activity is well below that of the physics of GHGs and climate, but it's amazing how much reliance people put on their own confirmed biases.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
[

I'm surprised at your comments, Avenger.


The models give predictions using current knowledge of what GHGs will do. And that is sufficient. If all else stays equal, increasing GHGs will induce increasing warming.


I don't know why I surprise you, I've made no secret of my distrust of models. The climate is just too complex for our feeble understanding of it to develop a reliable model. There are likely 1,000s if not 10s of thousands of factors involved, with interactions of these factors complexing it even further.

A simple cause and effect by CO2 and other GHGs not even including water vapor, is missing the mark by a wide margin. There is not a linear relationship between increased CO2 and temperature. Saturation, sinks, emission, solar activity, cosmic rays and many others, including total unknowns have a role in the global GHG effects on the climate

I agree that increased GHGs will generally increase warming, if all else remains equal, but all else almost never remains equal.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 12:58 PM
link   
So, what do you expect climate modellers to do?

Consult a crystal ball?

They use the knowledge we have to make predictions. Just like solar modellers do.

But, yeah, we know - solar models good; climate models bad.

Glad to to see you accept the very basic physics surrounding GHGs. So, simply, as we increase GHGs we increase one form of positive forcing.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
So, what do you expect climate modellers to do?

Consult a crystal ball?

They use the knowledge we have to make predictions. Just like solar modellers do.

But, yeah, we know - solar models good; climate models bad.


I expect them to stop making predictions that they cannot substantiate with hard data. Reverse engineering a model to achieve the desired result is not science. I can come up with a model to prove anything I want to. I'm sure you've seen the chart that ties global temperature increases over the years to the prevalence of pirates in the world.


If it doesn't work, then don't use a model. A crystal ball might work better.
By the way, I have no love for solar models either, and mistrust them too.

It seems I have little more to contribute to this thread, but I do enjoy our
discussions, Mel. I need to run some maintenance programs on my computer now; looks like one of those bloody environmental activist sites have popped me with another keylogger program




[edit on 1/6/2008 by TheAvenger]



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 01:50 PM
link   
I just do not understand the contempt for man adding to global warming and what seems to be the lack of basic common sense in some cases.

Here is a fact and this IS a fact: At no time on this planet has man contributed to green house gases has it has now. (last 50 years) This is due to industry, population, our lack of knowledge towards its effects. This is understandable, industry boomed and we didnt know its effects, ok so now we do or at least know what we are creating is adding to the natural effects, So REASON stands to say, on top of normal climate change or natural greenhouse gases we are at the very least doubling these things. So how does ANYONE know what effect this has? They don't, we havent been significantly adding this much in history, so the trend data isnt there.
For either side, but for someone to say its happened before with out us is to overlook us doubling what has happened before.

But they do know what green houses gases do, and so doubling (at the very least People put out 130 X as much C02 as Volcanoes do, another skewd fact I always see misrepresented on this board) would tend to say the effects of those gases would double. Sounds at the very least logical doesnt it. So why the big argument? You see the coming oil crisis why the big argument on wasting resources? New rule, if you drive your kid to school and thats it, You dont get to drive a Hummer at least save 15 miles a gallon and get a jeep Cherokee or something. This to me has no common sense at all. In the words of Spock, this is illogical Captain

Grammar edit

[edit on 6-1-2008 by ShiftTrio]



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 01:55 PM
link   
I happen to be a software engineer. writing a a software model is a very
difficult thing to do! If any would bother to do research you would know that the weather guessers use up to six different models to forecast the weather. They then take an average of those models to forecast what may happen weather wise and solar wise. Also the old adage of garbage in equals garbage out is true. In other words if you put bad data in to the model you get bad data out of the model.

As far as global warming / cooling goes there are may different camps with different opinions. My belief is that there is some warming, are we causing it no. Are we accelerating it maybe! The last ice age was about 20,000 years ago.

Here is an article that I found.

news.nationalgeographic.com...




posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wing-nut

As far as global warming / cooling goes there are may different camps with different opinions. My belief is that there is some warming, are we causing it no. Are we accelerating it maybe! The last ice age was about 20,000 years ago.



See I think this is where people who are on both sides come together but do not realize it.

Is man the ONLY thing causing it, No Green house gases are produced by several natural resources, are we adding more to it then ever, yes we are.

So I think common sense should come into play. ex. People used to smoke alot in the 50s, before they knew its effect (PS I bet there were alot of people saying cigs didnt cause anything and lil 5 yr old Al Gore was lying about smoke is bad lol) People didnt know, then learned and adjusted accordingly.

Do people smoke sure, but I would bet 90% of smokers say they want to quit or at least cut down.
Same goes here. So why not everyone stop picking a side and use your .s.

Try to cut down. Get your fat @ss on a bike once in a while lol (not you =) ).. Recycle a bottle. Change one light bulb in your house. Thats all.. No biggie.

They have us at odds for their agendas, but have your own agenda. Use your common sense and just like smokers, want to cut down at least.

At least my two cents



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAvenger
I expect them to stop making predictions that they cannot substantiate with hard data. Reverse engineering a model to achieve the desired result is not science. I can come up with a model to prove anything I want to. I'm sure you've seen the chart that ties global temperature increases over the years to the prevalence of pirates in the world.



I have, and its a goodun I have used with undergrads to illustrate illusory correlation.

But that is not the case with models. They use physical processes as their basis.


If it doesn't work, then don't use a model. A crystal ball might work better.
By the way, I have no love for solar models either, and mistrust them too.


But climate models are working to an adequate level. They are far from perfect, but they are doing a sufficently good job.

I think all models have their uses, as long as we use the tentatively and constantly aim to improve.


looks like one of those bloody environmental activist sites have popped me with another keylogger program


That's what we do to heretics....mwhahahaha.



Take care.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Bring on the cooling, let's slow those ice caps from melting... reverse the process! :-)



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 04:36 PM
link   
Hello every one. Are we all really surprised by this????

I am not going to go on and on and say I told ya so, but..........

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...


I TOLD YOU SO!




top topics



 
30
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join