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.

 

Earth Cools, and Fight Over Warming Heats Up

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 07:10 AM
link   

WASHINGTON — Two years ago, a United Nations scientific panel won the Nobel Peace Prize after concluding that global warming is "unequivocal" and is "very likely" caused by man. Then came a development unforeseen by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC: Data suggested that Earth's temperature was beginning to drop. That has reignited debate over what has become scientific consensus: that climate change is due not to nature, but to humans burning fossil fuels. Scientists who don't believe in man-made global warming cite the cooling as evidence for their case. Those who do believe in man-made warming dismiss the cooling as a blip triggered by fleeting changes in ocean currents; they predict greenhouse gases will produce rising temperatures again soon.


This article talks about how the climate models were/are flawed. Both sides agree on that. The recent cooling wasn't predicted. So is it possible that the Earth melting, or exploding in a fiery death, maybe aren't true either? Maybe it's possible that a natural change was in play and it will correct itself just as it has many time in the past. I know, death, destruction, and mayhem sell, and a natural cycle seem so mundane.




posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 08:05 AM
link   
two suns in the sunset....nice.

the Old Farmers Almanac had a great article in the 2009 edition on global cooling. Many seen to think we are actually heading toward the next mini ice age (and why not...it's been a long time) They had a great chart (here is the link)

Farmers Almanac Global Cooling Chart

in 1895 they swore the ice age was coming...up into about the 1930s when the world started warming up...then of course the was the 1970s global cooling rage again. so from the chart you can tell that like clockwork, every 30 or so years the trends change. Sunspots, maybe. but I really REALLY wish they would drop the whole global warming thing and shoot al gore.
oh right...it's not global warming anymore is it...it's fight climate change, right.
well, maybe my planet wants to change.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 08:31 AM
link   
We are highly due for an Ice Age. I'm fairly sure that the leaders of the world know this, which is why it's become "Climate Change" instead of "Global Warming". . . so they are misleading, but not exactly 100% lying. Cooling is actually more destructive than Warming. Cooling expands deserts, destroys crops, etc. . . Warming brings rain, expands arable land, etc. . . Sea levels take thousands of years to change significantly, so I don't know why they are always mentioned, usually by the Warmists.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 09:14 AM
link   
I see it as cycles of cooling and also cycles of warming in years to come.
Warming will still be the one out front in my understanding.
Also this does not mean more rain, less aridable land. Deserts are and will be the hottest parts of the earth.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by justine093
 


only a true fan would know where those lyrics came from. (most folks hated that album.)

Thanks for that link. I like to collect factual information to use when attempting to get this point across to a rock head. Natural cycle, sun spots sounds like the most plausible explanation. Thanks for the replies.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 01:04 PM
link   
A few years of cool weather is indicative of nothing. It is because el nino is laying low. El nino is ready to amp up any moment now and when it does, it will go back to even worse chaos and continue to be so.

The next ice age scenario that came out in the 70s was hypothesized by one guy, barely supported by the science community, but the media took it and ran. There was never any sensation about it.

The next ice age is not due for 80,000 years. We just had one.

Even if we were due for an ice age, the carbon dioxide and warming occurrs at a very slow rate. Not only that, the co2 is a biproduct, not the cuase. The ocean warms up and then releases the co2, not the other way around.

And it should take about 5,000 years for the cooling or heating process to take place.

You should never be able to witness anything in a human lifetime.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by justine093
 


only a true fan would know where those lyrics came from. (most folks hated that album.)


OT - but I liked it



As for global cooling - I'd wait till we have a number of years that are globally cooler than any before the current century before getting too excited.

The only thing we can really say is that natural variation seems to have tempered anthropogenic warming for the time being (and that Gore etal misled by implying that AGW means constantly rising temps even over short tiimescales)

[edit on 30-10-2009 by Essan]



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by bettermakings
 


They only changed because of there rubbish scientists where wrong.

The same things that have always run the world, run it today. The politicians still listen to the (priests)witches at the top, who nobody knows.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 


one point in the article talks about the climate models that were used. They showed a constant rise until the polar ice caps melt and the sea level rises 2 feet or more. The cooling we are seeing now was not seen in the models. I am not anywhere near a scientist, but I am a troubleshooter. I look at things and attempt to analyze the situation to determine the cause or problem. When I look at the evidence provided, I see things like global temeperatures over a long period of time. When I see them, it does appear that it has done this exact thing in the past quite a few times. So how is it even remotely possible that the same conditions exist as before but the cause is different this time?


BTW- as for waiting a few years before getting excited about cooling, we should do the same for the warming. In fact, by looking at the historical charts, one could almost pinpoint a close to exact amount of time before cooling starts all by itself.

Roger waters was a wordsmith of biblical proportions.(IMHO)



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by Essan
 


one point in the article talks about the climate models that were used. They showed a constant rise until the polar ice caps melt and the sea level rises 2 feet or more. The cooling we are seeing now was not seen in the models.


Models are just models - simplified computer simulations, assuming all else is equal. They indicate increased warming over time but cannot determine short term 'noise' within the long term (multi decadal) trend. Unfortunately some proponents of catastrophic global warming portrayed them differently. No wonder people get confused.


So how is it even remotely possible that the same conditions exist as before but the cause is different this time?


Because conditions are different.

Humans burn a forest the size of the USA and burn rather a lot of coal. Do you think that has no effect? Remember, despite what the Goristas tell you, climate change is about a lot more than CO2. Just urbanisation has an effect. So to do aircraft contrails. Or are they all inconsequential?

A forest fire occurs naturally. Does that mean that if you throw a lighted match into a tinder dry forest it cannot also cause a forest fire?


BTW- as for waiting a few years before getting excited about cooling, we should do the same for the warming. In fact, by looking at the historical charts, one could almost pinpoint a close to exact amount of time before cooling starts all by itself.


Well, it'll be interesting to see what happens over the next decade


IMO it should currently be cooler than it is - given current PDO and Solar Activity.


Roger waters was a wordsmith of biblical proportions.(IMHO)


And on that we can definitely agree



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 



Because conditions are different. Humans burn a forest the size of the USA and burn rather a lot of coal. Do you think that has no effect? Remember, despite what the Goristas tell you, climate change is about a lot more than CO2. Just urbanisation has an effect. So to do aircraft contrails. Or are they all inconsequential? A forest fire occurs naturally. Does that mean that if you throw a lighted match into a tinder dry forest it cannot also cause a forest fire?


What affect does a large volcano erupting have on the things mentioned here? I saw a timeline showing a proposed correlation between that and global temp swings. Again, I an not a climate guy, just someone with an opinion. Did we have a climate change right about the time Pompey erupted?

I realize it would be incredibly nieve to think that humans had no affect on the earth, but I am not buying into the fact that we can change anything in the immediate future to reverse anything the Goreites are suggesting. On that same note, I also don't think that if we were still living in caves, it would be 5 degrees cooler in your back yard. I think our affect is more aesthetic than detrimental to an extent and over a large period of time. When the big asteroid hits and destroys life as we know it, and a new civilization rises up from the ashes in 4 billion years, there will be little to remember us by.(IMHO)



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by network dude
one point in the article talks about the climate models that were used. They showed a constant rise until the polar ice caps melt and the sea level rises 2 feet or more. The cooling we are seeing now was not seen in the models.



On a graph, the models' temperature projections ultimately point upward, signifying warming. But along the way, each line has dips -- temporary periods of cooling. The timing and depth of the drops differ from model to model.

Most climate scientists have regarded these zigs and zags as noise. Their models are designed to project how greenhouse gases will affect the global thermostat over a century, not what temperatures will be in any year or even in any decade.

The article you posted


it does appear that it has done this exact thing in the past quite a few times. So how is it even remotely possible that the same conditions exist as before but the cause is different this time?


Almost worth a quick grin...



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 08:00 AM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


also from the article I posted, and amazingly enough, the reason I started this thread.

The reality is more complex. A few years of cooling doesn't mean that people aren't heating up the planet over the long term. But the cooling wasn't predicted by all the computer models that underlie climate science. That has led to one point of agreement: The models are imperfect.



I would have though someone with your vast intelligence and ability to minimalize another poster would be smart enough to at least discuss the topic at hand for one post before acting like a school kid who was just beat up and now has the teacher standing behind her.

My original post was asking the question that if the climate models didn't predict this cooling (however insignificant it may be) can any other outcomes be trusted?

I look forward to being belittled with your next post.



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by Essan
 


What affect does a large volcano erupting have on the things mentioned here? I saw a timeline showing a proposed correlation between that and global temp swings. Again, I an not a climate guy, just someone with an opinion. Did we have a climate change right about the time Pompey erupted?



the answer to that one is easy....
check out the year 1816, also known as 'the year without a summer".

from
wikipedia

It is now generally thought that the aberrations occurred because of the 1815 (April 5–15) volcanic eruptions of Mount Tambora[8][9] on the island of Sumbawa, Indonesia (then part of the Dutch East Indies). It was the world's largest eruption in about 1,600 years with a Volcanic Explosivity Index ranking of 7, a super-colossal event that ejected immense amounts of volcanic dust into the upper atmosphere. (Lake Taupo's Hatepe eruption of c. 180 AD was probably of similar size, see Supervolcano.) The fact that the 1815 eruptions occurred during the middle of the Dalton Minimum (a period of unusually low solar activity) is also significant.

Other large volcanic eruptions (with VEI at least 4) during the same time frame are:

* 1812, La Soufrière on Saint Vincent in the Caribbean
* 1812, Awu on Sangihe Islands, Indonesia
* 1813, Suwanose-Jima on Ryukyu Islands, Japan
* 1814, Mayon in the Philippines

These other eruptions had already built up a substantial amount of atmospheric dust. As is common following a massive volcanic eruption, temperatures fell worldwide because less sunlight passed through the atmosphere.



as for roger waters...the man is a genius, that was a great album....
my fav. is a toss up between pro and cons or amused to death.
anything except ca ira...
die hard floyd fan here.



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 10:52 AM
link   
All you're pointing out is the schizophrenic nature of the article. The author is trying to maintain a balance between the denialist and the actual words of the scientists and the features of climate science.

So, for example, the author already states why this 'prediction' lark is a non-issue. Which I had already posted...


On a graph, the models' temperature projections ultimately point upward, signifying warming. But along the way, each line has dips -- temporary periods of cooling. The timing and depth of the drops differ from model to model.

Most climate scientists have regarded these zigs and zags as noise. Their models are designed to project how greenhouse gases will affect the global thermostat over a century, not what temperatures will be in any year or even in any decade.

The article you posted

These model's aren't meant to produce predictions. They do show cooling periods, but it's a non-issue. The points you are making are pretty meaningless - the models were never made to be applied in such a way. Lets go through them one by one...


This article talks about how the climate models were/are flawed.


Like much in life. Perfection is something any of us rarely achieve.


The recent cooling wasn't predicted.


The models aren't producing predictions. Projections.


So is it possible that the Earth melting, or exploding in a fiery death, maybe aren't true either? Maybe it's possible that a natural change was in play and it will correct itself just as it has many time in the past. I know, death, destruction, and mayhem sell, and a natural cycle seem so mundane.


Non-sequitor


one point in the article talks about the climate models that were used. They showed a constant rise until the polar ice caps melt and the sea level rises 2 feet or more.


Didn't read that myself. But it does say the projections are of a gradual but noisy increase in temperature in the long-term.


The cooling we are seeing now was not seen in the models.


It isn't actually cooling. However, the models (and there are lots) do show noisy variations around a consistent increase.

Therefore temporary cooling is seen in all models.


When I look at the evidence provided, I see things like global temeperatures over a long period of time. When I see them, it does appear that it has done this exact thing in the past quite a few times.
So how is it even remotely possible that the same conditions exist as before but the cause is different this time?


Quite simply. Your argument is a totally specious. The archetypal inductive turkey. Gobble gobble.

There is one similar event to now. It was the PETM event. Billions of tonnes of carbon-based GHGs released into the atmosphere leading to long-term increases of several degrees celcius.


My original post was asking the question that if the climate models didn't predict this cooling (however insignificant it may be)...


They were never meant to. They are projections


...can any other outcomes be trusted?


Non-sequitor


I look forward to being belittled with your next post.


By a little 'rock head' like moi?

[edit on 2-11-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


thanks, you didn't disappoint.


Just so I understand, if we in fact continue with a cooling trend through next year, at what point might that trend be able to be calculate into discussions? Please note that I make no claims that it will continue to be cooler than normal, I just want to know when it's ok to bring it up in discussions. And that question while it may sound condescending, was serious.



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by network dude
thanks, you didn't disappoint.


You're welcome.


Just so I understand, if we in fact continue with a cooling trend through next year, at what point might that trend be able to be calculate into discussions? Please note that I make no claims that it will continue to be cooler than normal, I just want to know when it's ok to bring it up in discussions. And that question while it may sound condescending, was serious.


Doesn't sound condescending at all, you seem a bit sensitive to such issues. We won't have a cooling trend through to next year, this last decade is warmer than any in the observational record.

The best description of a method which would show potential cooling climate-wise is given by the statistician, Tamino, at the OpenMind blog.

tamino.wordpress.com...

Pay particular attention to the latter parts where he discusses residuals. That would be one ideal statistical approach to show deviation from a long-term trend. It would need to show several years of continuous negative residuals to even initially attract my attention.

[edit on 2-11-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 01:11 PM
link   
earth cooling down ? no- tell that to Greenlanders
- Maldivians
-Alaskans


heating up ? -yes - but it's nothing to do with human activity




posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


the site you listed seems a bit biased. Kind of spends the first two paragraphs defending against the opposing side even before any data is presented.

I will admit I cherry pick the data I am looking for because it's hard to find published core samples and things that can provide real data. But luckily I did find and article with just that.


from the site listed here

then when I was looking for more data I found this site which seems to question why some of the data was disregarded in the graphing of charts. I am sure there are underhanded people on both sides of this debate trying to steer data to ensure funding and such. Since I have nothing riding on the outcome personally, it would be nice to get core sample data from all the areas people claim are heating up at a much faster rate than they have in the past. Unless that is another one of those arguments I am not supposed to have.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by melatonin
 

the site you listed seems a bit biased. Kind of spends the first two paragraphs defending against the opposing side even before any data is presented.


That wasn't actually the point of my posting the link. It was to show what residuals are and how they relate to the issue. You asked something like 'when would a cooling trend be an issue in discussions' - I outlined the sort of statistical data I would pay attention to if cooling was a real issue (which it isn't).

Tamino is biased. He's biased in the sense that he is reality-based. There is no equivalence between anti-science deniers (like McKitrick) and climate scientists. One side is little different than tobacco-funded 'scientists' arguing against the reality of tobacco-induced lung cancer. Indeed, some of the same faces in climate denial were paid to do so.

You now seem to be arguing against even the fact of warming this century (which is the angle people like the economist McKitrick take). That's a real flatearth position. You can argue whatever you like, but I tend to not bother arguing the very basic facts anymore - better things to do. Indeed, this sort of scattergun denialism is always tedious.




top topics



 
3

log in

join