Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Back to Global Cooling again!!

Discussion in 'The Pub' started by pringa8, Apr 23, 2008.

  1. Ha ha ha, now apparently there's an ice age coming!! :LOL:


    Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh

    THE scariest photo I have seen on the internet is www.spaceweather.com, where you will find a real-time image of the sun from the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, located in deep space at the equilibrium point between solar and terrestrial gravity.

    What is scary about the picture is that there is only one tiny sunspot.

    Disconcerting as it may be to true believers in global warming, the average temperature on Earth has remained steady or slowly declined during the past decade, despite the continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, and now the global temperature is falling precipitously.

    All four agencies that track Earth's temperature (the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California) report that it cooled by about 0.7C in 2007. This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record and it puts us back where we were in 1930. If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over.

    There is also plenty of anecdotal evidence that 2007 was exceptionally cold. It snowed in Baghdad for the first time in centuries, the winter in China was simply terrible and the extent of Antarctic sea ice in the austral winter was the greatest on record since James Cook discovered the place in 1770.

    It is generally not possible to draw conclusions about climatic trends from events in a single year, so I would normally dismiss this cold snap as transient, pending what happens in the next few years.

    This is where SOHO comes in. The sunspot number follows a cycle of somewhat variable length, averaging 11 years. The most recent minimum was in March last year. The new cycle, No.24, was supposed to start soon after that, with a gradual build-up in sunspot numbers.

    It didn't happen. The first sunspot appeared in January this year and lasted only two days. A tiny spot appeared last Monday but vanished within 24 hours. Another little spot appeared this Monday. Pray that there will be many more, and soon.

    The reason this matters is that there is a close correlation between variations in the sunspot cycle and Earth's climate. The previous time a cycle was delayed like this was in the Dalton Minimum, an especially cold period that lasted several decades from 1790.

    Northern winters became ferocious: in particular, the rout of Napoleon's Grand Army during the retreat from Moscow in 1812 was at least partly due to the lack of sunspots.

    That the rapid temperature decline in 2007 coincided with the failure of cycle No.24 to begin on schedule is not proof of a causal connection but it is cause for concern.

    It is time to put aside the global warming dogma, at least to begin contingency planning about what to do if we are moving into another little ice age, similar to the one that lasted from 1100 to 1850.

    There is no doubt that the next little ice age would be much worse than the previous one and much more harmful than anything warming may do. There are many more people now and we have become dependent on a few temperate agricultural areas, especially in the US and Canada. Global warming would increase agricultural output, but global cooling will decrease it.

    Millions will starve if we do nothing to prepare for it (such as planning changes in agriculture to compensate), and millions more will die from cold-related diseases.

    There is also another possibility, remote but much more serious. The Greenland and Antarctic ice cores and other evidence show that for the past several million years, severe glaciation has almost always afflicted our planet.

    The bleak truth is that, under normal conditions, most of North America and Europe are buried under about 1.5km of ice. This bitterly frigid climate is interrupted occasionally by brief warm interglacials, typically lasting less than 10,000 years.

    The interglacial we have enjoyed throughout recorded human history, called the Holocene, began 11,000 years ago, so the ice is overdue. We also know that glaciation can occur quickly: the required decline in global temperature is about 12C and it can happen in 20 years.

    The next descent into an ice age is inevitable but may not happen for another 1000 years. On the other hand, it must be noted that the cooling in 2007 was even faster than in typical glacial transitions. If it continued for 20 years, the temperature would be 14C cooler in 2027.

    By then, most of the advanced nations would have ceased to exist, vanishing under the ice, and the rest of the world would be faced with a catastrophe beyond imagining.

    Australia may escape total annihilation but would surely be overrun by millions of refugees. Once the glaciation starts, it will last 1000 centuries, an incomprehensible stretch of time.

    If the ice age is coming, there is a small chance that we could prevent or at least delay the transition, if we are prepared to take action soon enough and on a large enough scale.

    For example: We could gather all the bulldozers in the world and use them to dirty the snow in Canada and Siberia in the hope of reducing the reflectance so as to absorb more warmth from the sun.

    We also may be able to release enormous floods of methane (a potent greenhouse gas) from the hydrates under the Arctic permafrost and on the continental shelves, perhaps using nuclear weapons to destabilise the deposits.

    We cannot really know, but my guess is that the odds are at least 50-50 that we will see significant cooling rather than warming in coming decades.

    The probability that we are witnessing the onset of a real ice age is much less, perhaps one in 500, but not totally negligible.

    All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead.

    It will be difficult for people to face the truth when their reputations, careers, government grants or hopes for social change depend on global warming, but the fate of civilisation may be at stake.

    In the famous words of Oliver Cromwell, "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."

    Phil Chapman is a geophysicist and astronautical engineer who lives in San Francisco. He was the first Australian to become a NASA astronaut.
  2. Oh no, I can't believe you posted this! Now PP will get started all over again and I thought we'd just managed to finally shut his stupid mouth up! :roll:

  3. hahahahahahahaha


  4. Ha ha ha ha I couldn't let it pass!!! :LOL:
  5. very interesting article. Not so agreeable that he has taken the data from a very small time-span, and the delaying of sunspots by a month as a sign we are heading for a quick ice age, but his points are still valid. I think humans need to start thinking about Climate Control, so that Climate Change isn't so much of a problem. This is what he alludes to in the latter parts of the article. Of course, whether we have the skills and smarts to do this is anyone's guess.
  6. Mate, you couldn't shut a creaky door on a crapper.

    This is just more material that should be used to address the inability for these MMGW crusaders to use their voodoo science in making us pay for shiite that has limited effect by us.

    You will find that that when you research the whole field, the inconsistencies in research, findings and modelling limits the theories to discussion value only, certainly not policy or this other BS we are seeing.

    I draw the same analogy about motorbikes and speeding. You all agree that the laws and findings of the government are bollocks about causality. Yet in other matters such as this, treat them as gospel.
  7. Did you google that one PP? :roll:
  8. Ah but you are missing the point; us greedy polluters are causing the polar ice to melt, thereby slowing the flow of the Gulf Stream, thereby precipitating another Ice Age in northern Europe, extending down as far as Spain...

    At least that's what a 'scientific' doco on SBS said on the weekend :roll:. See, you can have global warming AND global cooling, but either way its those meat-eating, car driving, house heating slobs who are to blame...

    And Dougz, please refrain from playing the man, not the ball :roll:
  9. Except that if we look at this graph (Originally posted by you, we can see a noticeable upwards trend this indicates the data the findings are made from is flawed.


    Let us also note when accuse the MMGW lobby of “voodoo science†that you still have an outstanding and unanswered chare of intentionally changing an article to change its meaning so as to make it appear to back your argument when it in fact argues against it.
    Pro-pilot you are a liar.
    Answer the Question!
  10. Just giving back what I get Paul. The guy is a douche
  11. So you are.... bagging the douche?

    Isn't that backwards :LOL:
  12. Oh no the sky is falling, the number of sunspots has dropped dramatically :roll:
    Nice to see they don't let the fact they do that normally on a well documented regular cycle of around 11 years get in the way of a perfectly good article.

    Sun spot numbers for the past few centuries:
  13. Finally, the first decent article i've seen on the subject!

    Make a stand for good science
    By Barry Brook

    Audio: Former astronaut warns of new Ice Age (PM) Related Story: Ice age claim angers scientists "Don't feed the troll!" This is a common admonition in the expanding science blogosphere - at least the rational quarters.

    Trolls, in the internet vernacular, are people who intentionally post false or controversial messages to gain attention or foment a conflicting style of debate. Most remain shielded within the anonymous confines of their online pseudonym. A rare but vocal few are sufficiently emboldened by self-confidence (or hubris) to speak out in public.

    For the long-standing "debate" over the relative merits of evolution versus creationism, they usually style themselves as "creation scientists" or "intelligent designists". In climate science and policy, those few apparently well-educated people who continue to deny the now vast body of scientific knowledge and analysis on the causes and consequences of global warming are variously called sceptics, denialists, contrarians, delayers or delusionists. Whatever the label you attach to them, they are all cut of the same anti-intellectual cloth.

    Their business is the dissemination of disinformation, doubt and unscientific nonsense. One of their most regular ploys is to leverage the widespread lack of public appreciation of how science operates. The scientific process of theoretical postulates, hypothesis testing, critical evaluation (and re-evaluation) of ever accumulating empirical evidence, model validation and peer review is inherently complex and often technical.

    Science has little top-down control on what should and should not be investigated (embryonic stem cell research and bioweapons development notwithstanding). There is no attempt to ignore inconvenient findings and no global conspiracy to distort the truth for securing funding or notoriety. Good science - evidence and ideas that are repeatedly supported by observations, experiments and models - gradually emerges from the pack and moves from being hypotheses to theories, paradigms and laws.

    Yet some people will attempt to hijack science for political or ideological reasons and in doing so besmirch science's public image. They are good at doing this, and they often exert a disproportionate influence on policy. Some will simply argue that the Earth is flat because "it looks flat".

    Groups with vested interests in business-as-usual (such as tobacco spokespeople or fossil fuel lobbyists) will attempt to push so-called "scientific evidence" to support their claims. In fact they are at best drawing selectively on a small part of the evidence, or at worst relying on "junk" science - that is, outdated, discredited or fabricated data and ideas.

    If confronted with good science, deniers sidestep valid critiques and ignore counter-evidence (or dismiss it by deferring to other discredited ideas).They are hard to pin down because they don't want a serious scientific debate.

    The Washington Post recently reported Walter Meier of the National Snow and Ice Data Center about the parlous state of Arctic sea ice: "Flying over the Arctic, one might perceive the sea ice cover as broad, Meier said, but that apparent breadth hides the fact that the ice is so thin. 'It's a facade, like a Hollywood set,' he said. 'There's no building behind it'."

    Joseph Romm, who writes a blog on climate change and denialism, commented: "What a perfect metaphor for the delayers. Their arguments seem solid and impressive, but it's a facade."

    Scientists should beware of feeding trolls by engaging them on their terms. Instead be strong, well-informed advocates for good science! Don't think that it is enough to be merely passive bystanders. Good science alone invariably wins these silly debates, but usually not before denialist spin does much damage.

    Active and forthright public communication of science is not only an obligation of scientists, but a critical necessity. This is especially true for climate change and environmental sustainability, where we are perilously close to running out of time.

    Professor Barry W Brook is Director of the Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability at the University of Adelaide. This article was first published in Australasian Science magazine. Views expressed are those of the author.
  14. I have read enough about the environment to make anyone's head spin. I supect many of you have done the same.

    The sad truth is that there is NO certainty whatsoever. Nothing much has changed from a year or two ago, when the scientists were evenly split between global warming, no change, global cooling or no idea.

    Sadly, the political viewpoint has changed however, and wherever the masters go the servants must follow, so the majority now 'tow the line'. I say 'sadly', because as a man of science I worship a higher god - truth, reason, science, fact - yet I am hoping that something good will come out of all the environmental catastrophe nonsense.
    But I doubt it; there are serious interests at stake, the big players are moving and the little people - as usual - have no idea what is going on. It has always been thus, and probably always will.

    Personally, I'd much prefer it if we focussed a little more on the stuff that is most likely to kill us now; air and water pollution, food additives, EMF radiation, global poverty, AIDS in Africa etc.
  15. These are 3rd world problems which requires education. Danger with that is, they become independent, smart, economically prosperous and start to threaten your or your kids' jobs. Now, we don't want that, do we. We like the third world being a little dependent on the western handouts. It costs less this way.

    Just my cynical view.
  16. First time I've agreed with you in a while :wink:
  17. That's what I'm running with.

    Factory, you could be right, but Global Warming, or cooling, or climate change or whatever the fcuk it is this week is an even better excuse to deny the third world to develop.
  18. There is no *certainy*, that's true. Science doesn't *do* certainty. But there is absolutely massive consensus that global warming is real, and this one lone loon suggesting that it's not. That is *not* a massive change and scientists not knowing what they're talking about. It's one lone loon.
  19. I find the results of this analysis interesting.

    i really just wanted to post a graph, and look intelligent, like everyone else. :cool:
  20. ive seen a similar argument presented in a couple of documents in the earth sciences school at uni. i have also seen a couple of articles in the mainstream media in the last 5 years. controversial and contary to the populist view, historical trends of temperature alone over the last million years recovered from ice shelf drillings bear a more tangiable and reliable account of long term temperature changes than mean annual temperatures recorded in urban areas (hence affected by the Urban heat blanket, artifically rising the temperature compared to what it would be in a rural area in a comparable environment) in the last 100 years.

    but of coarse that couldnt be true because not at all politically motivated greens movement say so. :roll:

    what is a far more serious and IMMEDIATE problem caused by polution in urban population centres is the exponentially increasing incidences of childhood asthma, at this point thought to be caused by exposure to particulate pollutants. Exercise induced asthma has also been seen to have risen in adults 18-30yo, it is also speculated that this is also related to particulate pollutents.

    Edit: bravus the consesus you talk about to me seems most prevelant in the arts and social sciences faculties. the consesus i have seen in geoscience schools is somewhat different...