Global Freezing! Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

[vt]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...08-15-12-01-46

[GRG55]

Re: Global Freezing! Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...08-15-12-01-46

TIME Magazine Archive Article -- Another Ice Age? -- Jun. 24, 1974

Another Ice Age?

Monday, Jun. 24, 1974

In Africa, drought continues for the sixth consecutive year, adding terribly to the toll of famine victims.
During 1972 record rains in parts of the U.S., Pakistan and Japan caused some of the worst flooding in
centuries. In Canada's wheat belt, a particularly chilly and rainy spring has delayed planting and may
well bring a disappointingly small harvest. Rainy Britain, on the other hand, has suffered from
uncharacteristic dry spells the past few springs. A series of unusually cold winters has gripped the
American Far West, while New England and northern Europe have recently experienced the mildest
winters within anyone's recollection.

As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing
number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological
fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from
place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe
they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend
shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive,
for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.

Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the
waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the
Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. Although that figure is
at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of
Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite
weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had
suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in
the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered
year round...

[peakishmael]

Re: Global Freezing! Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

Of course the Farmer's Almanac is talking about regional US temps, not global. If you are interested in the latter:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...t-year-record/

[sunskyfan]

Re: Global Freezing! Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

Very "hot" website. Not much objectivity there. Human induced climate change via hydrocarbon "burning" is an interesting hypothesis. Perhaps a useful one once testable predictions are made and TESTED which, realistically, could take decades. Only then can things be truly addressed in a Scientific way. Until then the whole idea is about a defend-able as a stock tip from your cousin Tony.

[Southernguy]

Re: Global Freezing! Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

"The weather predictions are based on a secret formula that founder Robert B. Thomas designed using solar cycles, climatology and meteorology. Forecasts emphasize how much temperature and precipitation will deviate from 30-year averages compiled by government agencies"
That's the article about "the farmers almanac"
The other information (planet is getting hotter) is from the NASA...

[vt]

Re: Global Freezing! Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

http://astronomynow.com/2015/07/17/d...e-age-by-2030/

I hope this is wrong, but it is based on science.

NASA does confirm the solar activity:

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml

Of course if we do see an ice age people like this are going to look pretty stupid:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...se-naomi-klein

What if it all is faked?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/eart...ndal-ever.html

[Southernguy]

Re: Global Freezing! Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

From one of your links:
"Dr Helen Popova responds cautiously, while speaking about the human influence on climate.

“There is no strong evidence, that global warming is caused by human activity. The study of deuterium in the Antarctic showed that there were five global warmings and four Ice Ages for the past 400 thousand years. People first appeared on the Earth about 60 thousand years ago. However, even if human activities influence the climate, we can say, that the Sun with the new minimum gives humanity more time or a second chance to reduce their industrial emissions and to prepare, when the Sun will return to normal activity”, Dr Helen Popova summarised".

Even this scientist who focus on the impact of solar activity in climate aknowledges global warming. She DOUBTS about human origin of it. And then she says that IF new small ice age (less important that the one in 1700's) should happen it would give us more time to "reduce their industrial emissions and to prepare, when the Sun will return to normal activity".
Scientific consensus about global warming is overwhelming. Same about human origin of it is less so, but pretty extended. In the doubt; wouldn't it be sensible to control warming gases emissions?

[sunskyfan]

Re: Global Freezing! Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

"wouldn't it be sensible to control warming gases emissions?"

An interesting question. Is the confidence in man made global warming AND that it is connected to hydrocarbon burning sufficient to keep human progress from 3rd world to 1st world and all the other benefits that come with such a shift from happening?

I also would point out the Science is a method not a community. The concept of "Scientific Consensus" is a little like the concept of a "War on Terror". I am not just playing word games here with you. The Scientific Method demands that a hypothesis is put forward that is falsifiable and tested. I do not think this sequence has been completed for the global warming hypothesis. All opinions and declarations are akin to a political consensus within the Scientific community. Solar Physics types, Astronomy types, as well as Geologist are aware that Solar output it is not even close to constant. My Planetary Geology instructor, who happened to be an expert of Antarctic ice core studies conferred to us that the nasty little secret is that the Solar Constant may vary by 10% and this variance may be rapid, Geological speaking. That was in 1986! Over the last 30 years his assertion continues to be confirmed.

Human induced Global Warming ... errrrr ... Global Climate Shift has become a cultural/political movement. This DOES NOT MEAN that it should not be considered, studied, and supported as a testable Scientific hypothesis but the magnitude of the decisions that are being made, the risk shifts that these decisions cause, and the arrogance of certainty of the idea's proponents is not supported at this time.

[Southernguy]

Re: Global Freezing! Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

1) Is it really necessary to burn such huge amounts of fossil fuels to live reasonably well?
2) Transition from 3 to 1st. world is not happening. More people are consuming more but quality of life I doubt is getting so much better. China is the main case for people escaping poverty. Do they live so much better in congested, contaminated cities?
3) Let's suppose there is a 20% probability (I think, and of course can't prove it that it is much higher) that a) global warming is happening and b) it's caused by growing concentration of gases such as CO2 and methane in the atmosphere and c) the probable consequences of both a and b being right are as dire as it is stated by "many scientists" (as you don't like "consensus").
I repeat my question: why not do something that can be done without disrupting to much the world economy like significantly reduce emissions.
As you see I don't use "value" categories like "arrogance", etc.
I am convinced developed countries can reduce emissions very significantly without compromising their inhabitants quality of life or their economy. The main culprit is sure, the USA.
Europeans are far ahead in such policy, though they also consume too much.
As for underdevolped-developing countries their owner classes consume far too much too.

[lektrode]

Re: Global Freezing! Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

1) Is it really necessary to burn such huge amounts of fossil fuels to live reasonably well?
...
I repeat my question: why not do something that can be done without disrupting to much the world economy like significantly reduce emissions.
....
I am convinced developed countries can reduce emissions very significantly without compromising their inhabitants quality of life or their economy. The main culprit is sure, the USA.
.....

to that i would ask:

WHEN WILL WE, The US - START TO REDEVELOP OUR VERY OWN energy ACE IN THE HOLE?

for all the drivel coming out of the political class - particularly the current occupant - NONE of em are even talking about it.

and WHY?
because some sliver of the electorate - and i use that term loosely, since my guess would be most of the most vocal of the luddite brigade probably dont even bother to vote - unless their fave type of lyin weasel loser is on the ticket (read: like the current occupant)

The US has spent hundreds of billions - likely more like TRILLIONS on energy development, INCLUDING THE N-WORD - has even PAID-FOR and built the solution to the waste disposal issue - over there in harry reids district - kinda funny that after all the BORROWED money GOT SPENT - that he shuts it down?

WTF, over...

[sunskyfan]

Re: Global Freezing! Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

Too your question ...

1) Is it really necessary to burn such huge amounts of fossil fuels to live reasonably well?

Maybe. I do think we ought to try. If anything, to extend the life of that fuel source. I think a healthy free-market (If such a thing exists ;)) would drive toward that goal. You don't need a dire global warming hypothesis to think that conservation is a good idea.

2) Transition from 3 to 1st. world is not happening. More people are consuming more but quality of life I doubt is getting so much better. China is the main case for people escaping poverty. Do they live so much better in congested, contaminated cities?

The global warming narrative has been a force in the World's narrative since the mid nineties. That is 20 years. I think, though it would be hard to prove, that the global warming narrative has been part of the stall in the 3rd world transition the last generation. I agree that consumerism is hardly a solution to anything. I would prefer a more complex motivation for our economic systems. But, you can't drive an economy without energy. If you shut down or discourage a major source of energy, in fact the source of energy that built modern civilization, hoping that another way will happen you will have consequence. An interesting experiment that may work or it may not. What then? I think the nasty little secret is how effective the global warming narrative has been in stalling the current world economy. Ultimately, the global warming narrative is self-serving to the current First World. No matter how altruistic you may be, I think it would be reasonable for a poor African teenager to question how wise these policies are.

To your final "question" numbered three. Your narrative, and the global warming narrative as it exists is flawed. Actually, the Scientific evidence is that there roughly is a 50% chance that the World's climate will warm by 2100. There is roughly a 50% chance that the World climate will cool by 2100. It may stay the same but, realistically, the Word's climate is constantly changing. The question is how fast and how much? What are the consequences of each possibility? How can we prepare? If you create a permanent "collapse" situation in the third world until you figure things out in the US and Germany the next 80 years what have you done? You may dig a global economic hole that is too deep to come up out of. And, by-the-way, you may be wrong in the exactly opposite direction. As the original argument discuses it may be that Solar output my compensate for man made global warming. What if the "dire" possibilities of Solar output are off by an order of magnitude. Warming will not be an issue. So, you have stopped the momentum of modernity and compounded the catastrophe of the consequences of a world hitting the limits of its population carrying capacity. With respect to all other ideas the fact that First World cultures have self-limiting, and voluntary, population growth. Until the global warming hypothesis took fire this fact was seen as the saving grace for the world population issue. But, now everyone having a First World existence is a problem. Hum.

I would argue would should be spending our political and economic capital on the three ultimate resources for human beings to lead a quality life and make sure we can distribute those resources within a generation to anywhere on the planet. Those are fresh water, sewage treatment, and electricity. Developing and maintaining quality top soil would be next. All else would follow. For instance, and I think you and I would agree on this, we should be trying to figure out how to move the vast amounts of fresh water from Northern Canada to the great plains where aquifers have been drained instead of more crude oil to the World market. Building canal systems to move fresh water anywhere in the world is possible but will take several generations to accomplish. Doing that will guarantee more future life quality for the World than any movement to stop the possibility of global warming by stopping or restricting hydrocarbon burning.

As to my "arrogance" assessment. The Global Warming ...errr. Global Climate Shift movement has had a palpable arrogance about it. This arrogance is required to tell other people that they should not aspire to have the same quality of life that the proponents have. Trust me. If global warming proponents wanted to give up their first world existence to make their carbon foot print almost zero they could do it but they don't because that would mean giving up the life they like and want. But they still tell a 3rd world kid to suck it up and suffer until we figure this out. The definition of arrogance in my opinion.

[vt]

Re: Global Freezing! Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

+1

[lektrode]

Re: Global Freezing! Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

the most urgent issue, IMHO - is the acidification of the oceans - which is almost entirely due to combustion of mainly coal.

the only realistic and logical way to fix this is with NO-COMBUSTION electric production and we - that would be planet earth - require VAST quantities of it - we are NOT going to lift 3rd world living standards - nor any body elses - with 'conservation' or 'tilting at windmills' - never mind SUBSIDIZING 'utility scale' solar projects

that basically subsidize the profits of corp utilities at TAXPAYER EXPENSE - ie: 'privatize the profits and socialize the risk' - which serves only to raise the price per KWH, thus unfairly burdening those who can least afford it - as we have seen in that place i'm OH-so-familiar with - as the 'raw material' or 'input costs' from solarPV = zero, while the capital costs are included in the rate base

and the ONLY ALTERNATIVE for zero-combustion KWH's is being throttled by a certain vocal sliver of the electorate - and FOR WHAT?
because 'they are afraid' of radiation emissions?

which amounts to about what one gets from riding a jet at 38000 feet, NEVER MIND what one gets by the TSA gestapo's machines - but thats beside the point i guess

and just never mind the THOUSANDS OF CERTAIN DEATHS - every year - from coal mining and combustion - and THEN there's tobacco, just another a .gov subsidized aggro-cultural product, that flows mostly to MULTI-MILLIONAIRES - like ethanol production, which is KILLING OUR TOPSOIL resources - billed as 'alternative energy' supply to 'free us from oil imports' ?

sure - we'll trade whats left of our FOOD production capabilities FOR WHAT - 3% of oil imports, 90% of which are for motor fuels (old data i'm sure, but you get my point)

tell me THAT isnt the definition of MADNESS

and dunno about anybody else, but i'd RATHER EAT than have cheap fuel additives that amount to 3% of suppliesnever mind whats happening to the ocean ecosystems, which has been voluminously documented.

[Chris Coles]

Re: Global Freezing! Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

and dunno about anybody else, but i'd RATHER EAT than have cheap fuel additives that amount to 3% of suppliesnever mind whats happening to the ocean ecosystems, which has been voluminously documented.

+1

[sunskyfan]

Re: Global Freezing! Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

pretty controversial .... Eating? ... radical! ;) I plan to convert my body solar power and wind. Need a big hat!