Global cooling.

[DrTodd13]

Widespread global cooling.

 

Anybody know anything the veracity of these sources?

[han]

DrTodd, do you get money (directly or indirectly) from the oil companies?

 

Let's hope those factors stop fast. Cold is more damaging than heat. The mean temperature of the planet is about 54 degrees. Humans -- and most of the crops and animals we depend on -- prefer a temperature closer to 70.

 

I prefer more than 70, with lots of sand and a cool drink. Scientific article.

[matmat]

comparing seasonal to mean temperature :)

 

just looking at some of those plots, there have been "falls" like this one before, only to bounce back in the following years. a rolling average seems like a somewhat better measure.

[pclayton]

I try to stay out these talking head debates, but I do distinctly remember the discussion of the 'coming ice age' in the 1970's when I was in elementary school.

 

If you think that you are high, mighty and scientific, how much data do you need that contradicts your beliefs to change your mind?

[matmat]

If you think that you are high, mighty and scientific, how much data do you need that contradicts your beliefs to change your mind?

a lot. but i am stubborn.

[han]

Yes, you need a lot of data and you need to look at this data very carefully. And there is a lot of data, and lots of scientists have spent a lot of time and energy gathering and studying data.

 

But there is also some scum in whose interest it is to find data to show that there is no such thing as global warming and that there is nothing wrong. Just like there were some "respected" researchers who published "scientific" papers to prove that smoking is not damaging to your health.

[kenrexford]

The ranks of those who deny that there is global warming include many with agendas and interests.

 

The ranks of those who claim that there is global warming include many with agendas and interests.

 

It is very easy, therefore, to attack a position with which you agree by citing the agendas and interests of some of those who espouse a particular view. That is called an ad hominem attack. It sounds inspirational and conspiratorial and neat, but it really furthers nothing except agendas and interests.

 

Note that I am not taking any position on this. However, I find this entire thing to be curiously similar to health advice. Coffee is good for you, then bad for you, then good for you. Alcohol is good for you, then bad for you, then good for you. Diets include anything from no carbs to vegetarian. Mind-boggling.

[han]

What should we do instead, do our own research? Never mind that virtually all serious scientists in the field have the same opinion. Never mind that committee upon committee finds that, even though the matter is extremely complicated, it is clear that global is happening (even though the level at which it is happening is still not entirely clear).

 

Yeah, we should discuss it here. Let's measure the current tempuratures in our backyards and see what we can conclude. No matter that we are not trained researchers in this field and hardly know what we are talking about, we can have our own opinions!

 

After that, let's try to form our opinion on some other subject that we really don't know much about. Anybody up for physics?

 

Well, I think that's bullshit Ken, and by your comparison with coffee you are taking a side yourself because this is nowhere near as back-and-forth as diet advice. And you may well be right that there are researchers with agenda's trying to prove that global warming exists, I have never heard of big scandals in that direction. It is well known that producing evidence against global warming is million dollar business (well, hundreds of million). And my comparison with the tabaco industry were not coincidental, these institutes for producing fake evidence were run by the same people.

[han]

It is very easy, therefore, to attack a position with which you agree by citing the agendas and interests of some of those who espouse a particular view. That is called an ad hominem attack. It sounds inspirational and conspiratorial and neat, but it really furthers nothing except agendas and interests.

I also quoted a paragraph from the article that hopefully made a clear what sheer nonsense this is. This is not science. Read the article! It is clear that the writer of this article are not interested in figuring out what the truth is, they are only interested in convincing you of their truth.

 

Let's go to Greenland, see if the ice has returned. Or to the alps, see how the gletsjers are doing. Visit the African deserts to see if they are the same size as twenty years ago. What's the state of the coral reefs?

 

If you have taken any interest in what most respectable climatologists claim then you will have found that global warming is a very poor term. It may get colder at some places, and warmer at others. But overall the climate will get more dramatic, more storms. The sea level will rise (and has already risen), the exact amount is not clear yet but there is really no doubt about that. Well, that's not true, some people are paid a lot of money to doubt this and they are.

[han]

I found a link on DrTodd's link to this article:

 

http://www.dailytech.com/SUV+Not+Big+Enoug...rticle10626.htm

 

Coincidence?

 

I'm going to buy one and drive myself (and no one else and no cargo) back and forth to the buffet three times a day.

[Gerben42]

Locally the weather may become cooler, just not globally. For one thing, the temperature in my region (S. Germany) will go up faster than the global trend. Showing examples where it goes in the other direction doesn't change the general trend.

[Gerben42]

I found a link on DrTodd's link to this article:

 

http://www.dailytech.com/SUV+Not+Big+Enoug...rticle10626.htm

 

Coincidence?

 

I'm going to buy one and drive myself (and no one else and no cargo) back and forth to the buffet three times a day.

 

 

Buying an SUV to drive on normal roads is just silly, unless you have 5 kids or so. And the horror trying to park one of these monsters. Not to mention that they are expensive cars... I ♥ my small Japanese car (drives 50 miles on a gallon).

[kenrexford]

Wow. Such hostility.

 

Lot's look at some rather simple and obvious facts. You propose Greenland, Han. OK. Let's start with Greenland.

 

Greenland's ice sheet is very much shrinking. If it were not shrinking, then I would be able to walk on it outside my front door. I happen to live in Ohio, about an hour south of Lake Erie. That's where Greenland's ice sheet was about 18,000 years ago. Since the good old days, this ice sheet has shrunk precipitously away from my home, which has its positive sides. As it turns out, I can grow vegetables here now. I like that.

 

So, it seems to be rather unquestionably the case that there is global warming going on. Some extra heat source, or some manner of keeping that heat here, must explain why I get annoyed by 4" of snow, when not too long ago there was 40' with which to contend. I would have needed a bigger snow blower.

 

The strange thing is that global cooling also seems to occur. I've been outside during the summer, and I cannot imagine ice forming under the conditions outside. So, it seems obvious that it was much cooler at one time.

 

So, global warming and global cooling are both phenomena that obviously occur.

 

The question, then, seems to be whether we are in a cooling cycle, whether we are in a warming cycle, whether one or the other is better or worse, whether we are causing the temperature to go in one way or the other in a bad way or a good way, and the like. For, I'd imagine that a decent solution to actually stopping or mitigating an impending ice age, if that were occurring, would be to pump greenhouse gasses out as much as we could. That seems to be the idea for terraforming generally, so why not here?

 

Of course, if we are getting too warm, then maybe a different solution, like limiting GG's might work. Makes sense to me.

 

Then, one of course needs to assess whether the warming or cooling trends carry a harm that is outweighed by the cost of fixing the problem. If the cost of fixing is less than the cost of the problem, then it seems onvious to fix the problem. If the problem cannot be fixed, but merely mitigated, then you'd weigh the advantage gained by the mitigation against the cost of that mitigation. All of this makes perfect sense.

 

However, what does not make sense is to cite Greenland, the Alps, or the Sahara as proof of gloable warming (they are clearly proof of global warming over thousands of years) and then to imply from that historical data that we must, of course, be the cause and the cure. Maybe we can cure this. Maybe not. Maybe not yet. But, it seems wildly obvious that all three of these trends started many, many years ago, tahnkfully so, lest we have Cleveland buried under ice. Actually, in retrospect, that last part might not be so bad...

[kenrexford]

http://geography.about.com/gi/dynamic/offs...m%2Flastice.htm

 

Note the size of the ice, and also the size of the coast that we lost over the last 18,000 years.

 

I think I know what the problem was:

 

http://www.roadsideamerica.com/attract/SDCUSbedrock.html

[pclayton]

I found a link on DrTodd's link to this article:

 

http://www.dailytech.com/SUV+Not+Big+Enoug...rticle10626.htm

 

Coincidence?

 

I'm going to buy one and drive myself (and no one else and no cargo) back and forth to the buffet three times a day.

I actually saw one of these in December near where I live. It was called the "Big Red truck".

 

No *****!!!!

[vuroth]

Yes, you need a lot of data and you need to look at this data very carefully.

Yup. Probably on the order of 10s of millions of years. At least.

 

There is evidence of global warming, but all the armchair arguments about changes over the last 10 or 100 years are patently ridiculous.

 

V

[han]

Wow.  Such hostility.

 

Lot's look at some rather simple and obvious facts.  You propose Greenland, Han.  OK.  Let's start with Greenland.

 

Greenland's ice sheet is very much shrinking.  If it were not shrinking, then I would be able to walk on it outside my front door.  I happen to live in Ohio, about an hour south of Lake Erie.  That's where Greenland's ice sheet was about 18,000 years ago.  Since the good old days, this ice sheet has shrunk precipitously away from my home, which has its positive sides.  As it turns out, I can grow vegetables here now.  I like that.

OK, so you say that people are dying of lungcancer because they are smoking? Guess what, people have been dying of long cancer for centuries when they were not smoking. In fact, my own grandmother died of lungcancer and she never touched cigaret in her life! My own data clearly shows that smoking is actually good for you, as it reduces stress and improves quality of life.

 

OK, now more seriously. If you are saying that you can't just look at Greenland and conclude that we have in any way influenced the clobal climate then I have to agree. That would be too easy. I gave these examples in one of my previous posts to hopefully make it clear that the article that DrTodd linked is nonsense, the earth is not cooling down, it is warming up and in fact it is warming up quite quickly.

 

OK, so now the question is, is this just a phenomenon beyond our control or is it something we are seriously influencing. This is a very difficult question and I think to have your own opinion on this matter when you are not an expert in the field is the similar to having an opinion about the Jacobian Conjecture when you never learned any mathematics beyond calculus. It just doesn't make sense.

 

So what do you do, you either change careers or you read and listen to the experts in the field, who fortunately have been studying climat change for many many years. If you read what they write then two things are very clear:

 

1) This is extremely difficult material and we don't understand it completely yet.

 

2) Global warming is happening and we are seriously contributing to it.

 

To answer Phil's question once again, if in 20 years the models have become much more precise and it turns out that we are not contributing at all, then I will be a happy man. I think it is very unlikely but weirder things have happened.

[cherdano]

Yes, you need a lot of data and you need to look at this data very carefully.

Yup. Probably on the order of 10s of millions of years. At least.

 

There is evidence of global warming, but all the armchair arguments about changes over the last 10 or 100 years are patently ridiculous.

 

V

By definition armchair arguments are ridiculous. However, there is also ample scientific data that makes it evident global warming is happening, and it is completely scary that 50% of the American public opinion is still unable to acknowledge that for ideological reasons.

(Reminds me of the pre-Iraq war situation, where USA was the only Western country where the public opinion completely ignored all facts that hinted at Iraq not having any massons of weap destruction.)

 

Why is it that the USA is completely unable to discuss these issues without ideological prejudice?

[Al_U_Card]

Based on the Vostok ice core samples and miniforae from the pacific ocean sediments, it is clear that:

 

For the last several million years the earth is in a periodic warming and cooling cycle;

 

No matter the duration of the warm and cold events, their onset from warmest to coldest takes place during a 50 year or so time period.

 

The Younger-Dryas event about 11,000 years ago was a localized "cooling" that created a mini ice-age during the most recent "warm cycle".

 

During the last 1000 years there have been other more moderate ups and downs on the ever-increasing global temperature rise.

 

Mean global temperature is now as high as it ever has been in the last 800,000 years.

 

CO2 content of the atmosphere lags the global temperature rise historically and methane is at least 20 to 30 times the GG that CO2 is. Both methane and CO2 are released in large quantities by the thawing of the permafrost.

 

The thermohaline conveyor is sensitive to glacial meltwater and has been seen to be reducing its flow over the last 30 years. The "gulf stream" portion takes a lot (6 deg. C) of heat from the equator to Europe.

 

Once we hit the peak temperature, the descent into the next ice-age should be quick (even historically) and brutal.

[han]

Yes, you need a lot of data and you need to look at this data very carefully.

Yup. Probably on the order of 10s of millions of years. At least.

 

There is evidence of global warming, but all the armchair arguments about changes over the last 10 or 100 years are patently ridiculous.

 

V

May I ask what your background is? Interesting how you can make such an ignorant statement with such conviction.

[han]

Why is it that the USA is completely unable to discuss these issues without ideological prejudice?

OK, I didn't want to go there but you said it.

[luke warm]

Why is it that the USA is completely unable to discuss these issues without ideological prejudice?

OK, I didn't want to go there but you said it.

arend did ask a good question... does this prejudice extend to all ideologies, i wonder?

[pclayton]

Why is it that the USA is completely unable to discuss these issues without ideological prejudice?

OK, I didn't want to go there but you said it.

arend did ask a good question... does this prejudice extend to all ideologies, i wonder?

Not if you are Right.

[cherdano]

Let me say it a bit differently. If you ask the question "Is global warming happening?" to members of Congress, then

- a huge majority of the Democrats will say yes, and

- a huge majority of the Republicans will say no.

(I am not making this up, I did read about a survey on this, I just don't recall the exact numbers nor when exactly the survey was taken.)

 

I don't know any other country where the opinion on a factual question is so extremely guided by party affiliation (and thus, I assume we can agree on that, by ideology).

[hrothgar]

Why is it that the USA is completely unable to discuss these issues without ideological prejudice?

OK, I didn't want to go there but you said it.

arend did ask a good question... does this prejudice extend to all ideologies, i wonder?

I believe that Stephen Colbert nailed this one to a T when he made the following comment during the White House Correspondent's Dinner a couple years back...

 

"Reality has a well known liberal bias"

 

Don't get me wrong: There are plenty of kooks and ideologues on the Left. However, from what I can tell, most of them are isolated nutcases.

 

In contrast, the Right has a well orchestrated machine that is designed to propagate all sorts of lunacy. Large corporations and wealthy individuals (essentially) pay individuals to manufacture controversy in all sorts of areas.

 

Its very interesting that han brought up the Tobacco think tanks: The same group of people who paided for "scientific" studies claiming that there isn't any clear evidence between smoking and cancer are the ones sponsoring all the research that is promoting the idea that Global Warming is a massive hoax/conspiracy.

 

For all their talk about "liberal bias" in the news media, the Right is the group that went out and built itself an overt propaganda machine. Ever wonder how it was that the overwhelming majority of the American public fell victim to the exact same delusion that Saddam Huseein was reponsible for 9/11?