Get Ready For Global Cooling?

[Nomander]

Originally Posted by Memphis1979

Global climate change is summed up pretty easily here.

1. Scientists mostly agree that the Earths climate is changing.

Depends on what you mean by "climates changing". In the basic sense, not a single scientist or person that contains a brain would deny that climate has, is, and continues to change. Now, the real issue is what direction we are heading based on the very small amount of observable records we have (most of the records we consider fairly reliable are that of a span of the last 30 years since satellite).

The rest is taking samples from different sources and attempting to see if we can find any correlations to temperature and climate cycles. Ice cores give us some data to work with and there are methods attempting to find such through tree rings and plant fauna, but those are not even sources we are sure provide any usable signal (a lot of it is inconsistent noise and it creates problems trying to establish any connection which is why there is a lot of contest in the methods applied to reach any conclusion concerning a correlation).

Now if you state have we warmed? Most would agree, though there are some objections from some concerning the methods we use to establish such (surface station records not properly accounting for UHI bias or local factors of specific stations). And this of course runs into problems even when we look at ice melt in glaciers and the arctic circles as there is also objections to manners in which methods are applied (speculation between station points and satellite methods of calculation). Though as we agree we have warmed, the recent trend has showed a plateau over the last 10 years with even a slight decline suggested.

If we are talking about stronger storms and the like, the data does not suggest such (with hurricans even being in a large decline) and the tornado season while it had a single record breaker, really wasn't abnormal. The recent data did show an increase in F0-F2 storms, yet if we consider that this is only because we started tracking below F3's recently and if we evaluate the storms using our old method, there is no increase and we are sitting at average.

Point is, the devil here is in the details. Climate scientists agree and disagree on many things, but what that may be depends on what we are discussing to which a simple statement of "scientists agree that the earths climate is changing" has no meaning without such specific details.

Originally Posted by Memphis1979

2. Scientists in general feel that humans have made an impact on it.
(Notice, on counts one and two, you are free to disagree, but I want you to throw away your car, phone, house, electrical appliances, etc. All things brought to you by science. It can be wrong, but its usually way more right than wrong, and it can be checked)

Well, again this is one of those issues that requires more depth to establish what they mean by such. Most would agree that we contribute to climate, but the real argument is how much and is it significant compared to the primary factors to which govern it as well as how that process works in any fashion to which we could properly delineate (note there are still major arguments concerning feedback's and what is actually happening).

In the end, the issue is far beyond any simplistic discussion to which any general conclusion can be made. To do so would be devious as it greatly overstates when it makes such a conclusion.

Originally Posted by Memphis1979

3. We don't know if changing humans living standards would do anything for global climate change.

Which falls back into number 2, as we are not sure how much of an effect we are having and so jumping to such a position can not be even remotely ascertained.

Originally Posted by Memphis1979

4. No world wide consensus will ever be reached on lowering carbon standards.

Agreed, and when it involves money and politics it is most assured that the driver of such consensus will be motivated individually which guarantees no consensus (unless of course it is a proclaimed consensus in order to establish more money and power).

Originally Posted by Memphis1979

When it comes to oil, my only opposition is the cost and the fact that the United States doesn't have enough oil. I could care less what energy supply we use, but anything that would make that supply go further, and pollute less, without causing disruption to the economy and people in general is a good thing.

Personally, I think we could definitely benefit from opening up our own reserves and begin using it as a means to solidify our economic strength to which I believe that if we are a thriving nation, there will be much money for the free market to innovate and progress.

[Ecovlke]

Originally Posted by Nomander

First off, starting off a response with "deniers" is akin to calling people stupid and then claiming they should listen to you. All it does is make you look like a pretentious arse.

Second, your information simply contests that which research has currently published. Now I will not claim your information is wrong, certainly any objections of such should be evaluated, but let us step back and evaluate your approach to past objections concerning AGW.

You constantly appeal to authority, when anyone contests such even when they provide a rebuttal from another scientist (and provide all the proper sources to data and method) who has evaluated the claims much like you are doing here. That is, when someone provides such, you point to "NOAA" and "IPCC" and claim that is all that is required to dismiss the objection.

Next, you constantly object claiming "peer review" and published work, to which the current statements made by National Solar Observatory (NSO) and the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) are from such published work.

So, if we were to take a play from your play book, we could simply dismiss your one scientists objection with his little quick slide show as not published in a rebuttal or part of the peer review process to which these papers were published.

Are we to take such an arrogant stance as you have taken in the past concerning AGW? Shall we dismiss your pretentious drivel as unsubstantiated claim that is not properly supported by official organizations nor properly published and reviewed for comment?

I won't do such, even though you do.

Nomander, those are all the arguments you use on others. Have you taken up arguing with yourself? Talking to yourself?

Seems to be.

"Arrogance"? Pot meet kettle. And a few other things......

[hawkeye2009]

Originally Posted by Wapasha

It seems that the AGW assumption that CO2, and not the sun, plays a major roll in the climate of our planet is going down in flames.

The NSO (National Solar Observatory) has just published findings that the sun may be going into a repeat of the Maunder Minimum. The same article also reports that the US Air Force, doing separate research on the solar corona, finds supporting evidence for this conclusion.

Seems there is concern that solar cycle 25, the initial stage of which should be detectible through solar observations now, is not appearing, and may not begin at all.

Earth may be headed into a mini Ice Age within a decade (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06...age/page2.html - broken link)

The big consequences of a major solar calm spell, however, would be climatic. The next few generations of humanity might not find themselves trying to cope with global warming but rather with a significant cooling. This could overturn decades of received wisdom on such things as CO2 emissions, and lead to radical shifts in government policy worldwide

Should this come to pass, the planet will see significant global cooling and all of the related drops in global food production, lowering of global atmospheric humidity, colder temperatures at lower latitudes, longer winters, year round snow cover at lower elevations....etc

Don't worry. In a few years the libs will be back with the "New Ice Age" scam that they had in the early '70s. They will think that everyone forgot about the "global warming" scam and that it will be safe to take up the cooling position. What will they note as the cause of the cooling? Man made CO2.

[Memphis1979]

Originally Posted by Nomander

Personally, I think we could definitely benefit from opening up our own reserves and begin using it as a means to solidify our economic strength to which I believe that if we are a thriving nation, there will be much money for the free market to innovate and progress.

How much oil is in reserves in the United States?

Now, how much demand does the United States have?

Now, how long would it be if we removed all restrictions on oil companies in the United States before a single drop of oil makes it to office? (5 years is oil companies estimates)

The United States doesn't even control 1/4 of the worlds oil supply. We actually get very little oil from the middle east, most of it comes from Canada, a very safe source.

But oil is a global commodity, and because the Saudi's and the rest of the middle east control the majority of the worlds entire oil supply, as long as instability is in that region, oil will remain high.

The actual cost of oil is about 30 dollars a barrel, its speculation (which is free market if you like that kind of thing) that drives the price up to over 100 dollars a barrel.

We can never reduce the oil costs, we don't have enough oil to "shore up our economy". It is a fairy tale.

If you research anything about energy, here is what is going to have to happen, and it needs to happen before its to late.

1. Oil now, lowering our consumption over the next 30 years. If the United States can cut its oil dependency in half, the world oil price would plummet. We are the biggest buyer on the market.

2. Phase transportation needs onto natural gas (the United States has more than anyone), which we have enough of to run the world for 100 years at the current demand increase. Imagine a substance that the middle east doesn't have, that the world will buy. That will help our economy, oil hurts us

3. Electricity already has to come mostly from domestic sources (thanks President Carter), but we should shift more of it to coal, nuclear, and wind production.

4. Over the next 50 years advancements in renewable energy sources will make us capable of leaving all finite sources of power behind.

Thats not a green energy plan, thats an American energy plan. This idea that we must continue to use oil to fuel cars is ancient, and wrong. We will always need oil for lubrication and synthetics, but that makes up the smallest part of the oil consumption market.

[Nomander]

Originally Posted by Ecovlke

Nomander, those are all the arguments you use on others. Have you taken up arguing with yourself? Talking to yourself?

Seems to be.

"Arrogance"? Pot meet kettle. And a few other things......

Nice accusation, but can you back up such by quoting me in context to support such?

I can however gather tons of responses with your silly little denier insults and constant appeals to authority and disregard for anything that does not fit into your little mind view.

One who applies some critical reading (or actually just reads what is written), can see in my response above that I did not dismiss your information (I even stated that its objections should be considered if they are valid).

I simply pointed out the double standard you have. If it supports your position, it is one way, if it does not, it is another and I can quote many posts of yours to prove such.

[rbohm]

Originally Posted by Memphis1979

1. Scientists mostly agree that the Earths climate is changing.

that is a given

2. Scientists in general feel that humans have made an impact on it.
(Notice, on counts one and two, you are free to disagree, but I want you to throw away your car, phone, house, electrical appliances, etc. All things brought to you by science. It can be wrong, but its usually way more right than wrong, and it can be checked)

have humans made an impact on the climate? yes.

3. We don't know if changing humans living standards would do anything for global climate change.

the first thing we need to do is determine just how much human activity affects the climate. the current thinking is that it is miniscule.

4. No world wide consensus will ever be reached on lowering carbon standards.

this is also a given. and the reason behind it is political. have you noticed that the kyoto protocols, and other climate talks are about capping the carbon emissions that the US and europe emit, but china, india, and other second world countries is exempt? they also want to tax the GDP of america and europe, and send that money to second and third world countries to develop those economies, which indicates that the environmental accords being pushed are about redistribution of wealth, at a nation level rather than an individual level, and not about preserving the environment.

When it comes to oil, my only opposition is the cost and the fact that the United States doesn't have enough oil. I could care less what energy supply we use, but anything that would make that supply go further, and pollute less, without causing disruption to the economy and people in general is a good thing.

actually we have quite a bit of known oil reserves, the problem is that we cannot tap them due to congressional and presidential, and environmental rules and regulations. for instance we have plenty of oil shale in the rocky mountains, but we cant tap those resources because they have been locked away by previous presidents. same with the huge amount of coal reserves in utah that clinton locked away. and this administration is dragging its feet in regards to authorizing drilling permits where the oil is in the gulf, and on the east and west coasts of the US. we also have a large reserve on oil in north dakota that we cannot tap due to regulations.

in my opnion we should have been developing alternative forms of energy since the early 70s when the first oil embargo hit, and carter wanted this also, sort of. the department of energy was created with the task of developing alternative sources of energy, but it was made so inefficient that it has become a black hole for federal money.

and we have never had a solid energy policy in this country.

[HoodsofATL]

I've been saying the Earth is not a victim to global warming, it's just the water cycle, that's how it works. The Earth will warm up, and have crazy weather for awhile, then the Earth will cool with probably more stable weather (not sure). The only thing us humans did was speed up the process.