Global Cooling

[roadwarrior]

For those of you with inquiring minds, here is an overview of a more scientific perspective of the climate debate. These studies contrast dramatically with the current blabber coming from the popular press and the world wide conspiracy of no-growth alarmists:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

Let's hear what you have to say after reviewing these materials.

The footnotes are of particular interest, especially this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_ice_age

[fishingrulz]

Interesting but I don't trust Wikipedia...

[Gatorbassman]

That apparently means we're about 200300 years or so into a 650-year mild global warming. The growing seasons are likely to get even longer. Is that a bad thing?

The Medieval Climate Optimum has been called the best weather humanity ever recorded. It was the last time the world warmed. They talk about it like it has never happend before yet the last time it happened it was great time for the world. Europe grew more and better crops. The Vikings traveled the Atlantic discovering other lands. If they were to do it now with the boats they used then they would die in the rough seas that the North Atlantic has become. The facts have shown that this is another warming cycle and yes our climates will change but it isn't a bad thing.

[RiskKid.]

That apparently means we're about 200300 years or so into a 650-year mild global warming. The growing seasons are likely to get even longer. Is that a bad thing?

Maybe if you build ice fishing houses for a living it might be bad  

[boondocks]

You sure don't hear much about the depleteing ozone layer much anymore. I remember back in the late 80's early 90's they made it sound like by the year 2000 we wouldn't be able to leave our houses for fear of being fried by the sun.

[senile1]

Let me play the devil's advocate, even though I'm not sure about this issue.

RW, a number of sources claim that a 2004 survey of 900 peer-reviewed and published scientific papers on climate change failed to find a single one who went against the belief that man-made climate change is happening and is dangerous.  If you have over 900 peer-reviewed scientific studies that say we are contributing drastically to global warming you have to look a little deeper than Wikipedia.  Now I know that science receives much of its funding through governmental funding so scientists can be influenced to report something in a certain way to obtain federal and state dollars.  But over 900 peer-reviewed studies is quite a few and not all of these were performed in the United States.  Also, I have seen other studies that display the same graphs shown on Wikepedia, but in greater detail.  On these other graphs the current warming trend is shown to be much higher than the previous cyclical trends.  

So who is correct?  I don't know.  Eventually we will all know.  But I'm not going to close my mind to the possibility that we could be altering climate trends.  And if it turns out that we are and we do something about it, think of the new technologies and jobs that will be created while others fall by the wayside.  When the industrial revolution came along it put craftsmen out of business.  Countries and people became richer.  When computers came out it was said that jobs would be lost, but I think you can see that wasn't the case.   Old jobs that are obsolete are replaced by new ones.  If it is proven that we are experiencing global warming it won't result in no growth.  It will result in obsolete technologies being replaced by new ones and growth in new areas.  And I found links from Wikipedia containing numerous articles on global warming and some of these contradict the information in the links you gave.  There are so many links on this subject it boggles the mind.  Again, who is correct?  

http://eospso.gsfc.nasa.gov/ftp_docs/Global_Warming.pdf

This NASA pdf seems to be one of the most objective I've read.  On page 6 it states that the general consensus among scientists is that global warming is real and its affects are detrimental, but it also suggests that skeptical scientists take issue with the methods and models used to determine this.  

Why do we have to be so sure of our own opinions when there are numerous studies that disagree with our own point of view?  I say let's encourage more studies until we know for sure what is going on.  And here's something to think about.  If we take action to curb global warming and it turns out that this is a normal cyclical trend, some industries may have to spend extra money, some jobs may be lost, but some new ones may be created.  The loss will be something the earth can handle.  If we don't take action and global warming turns out to be as bad as many are saying, the consequences will be far worse.  Which do you want to take a chance on?

[Dan:]

I have a suggestion regarding the peer-reviewed articles. From what I have heard, scientists who oppose global warming have been ostracized (sp?) by the rest of the scientific community for holding a different beleif. I know that there have even been recent calls by global warming scientists to de-certify anti-GW scientists. This is just a theory I have heard, and it seems reasonable to me.

There are also 17,000 scientists that have signed a petition stating they cannot establish evidence that global warming is occuring or that humans are the cause.

[nboucher]

This continues to be a scientific issue muddied by political malarkey about a biased popular press and suppressed and decertified scientists (as if that were possible). Are there uncertainties? You betcha. Is the human effect on climate the same as it was during the time of the Vikings? Of course not. The sheer quantity of carbon and other gases released into the atmosphere is hugely different. There are very few scientists who would argue that this has NO effect on the world's ecosystem. The disagreement among scientists, to the extent that it exists, is over HOW MUCH of an effect this is having. The political debate is over what to do about it: nothing? something? a lot?

Of course, there have been natural cycles of warming and cooling in the past, and one may be under way now. But this isn't the same world the dinosaurs roamed or the cathedral-builders saw. Our technological impact is much much greater now, and the danger is that we've taken a natural warming trend and hit the fast-forward button. We could be augmenting a natural trend in ways that would have far more serious impacts than better fishing and longer growing seasons. Just as we may be hitting the fast-forward button on the warming side, we may trigger super-slow-motion on the cooling side when compared to natural cycles.

Why does this matter? It will have effects on food production, population distributions, and national economies in ways that could rearrange political and economic power around the world. It seems to me like a good idea to understand how much of this we can control. If it's all just a natural pattern, then we should just sit back and enjoy the ride, but if we're affecting it, that's the piece we need to think about controlling. This is even the position of all the major oil companies (except for Exxon-Mobil). Even the oil companies are saying let's understand just what effect emissions is having on this stuff so we can maintain as much economic and political stability as possible and be able to plan sensible energy extraction and refining in the future.

The Wikipedia entry on global warming is actually pretty good, I think:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

[roadwarrior]

Wikipedia wasn't chosen as the "definitive" source, this particular piece was just a concise and convenient overview. More technical review is on the Nova website and associated links, including raw data and a number of very technical statistical studies.

My point is this: The system is very dynamic regarding cause and effect. Many important variables may in fact be casual. I think the climate is warming and that this is a very good thing to have happen. Man's impact, in my view, is nominal.

[Marty]

The report to be issued Friday will allegedly say that it is "very likely" that the warming is caused by human activity. I'm no scientist, so who am I to argue with this group? But it seems intuitively correct that pouring countless millions of tons of crap into the atmosphere can have its negative effects.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16922234/

[Water Dog]

There are scientists on both sides of the issue but the truth is the debate about the science of global warming has been taken over by the politicians and their associates.

What is important is the practical results the alarmists are trying to achieve. The primary believers of global warming, at least lay people who don't have an ax to grind are those who have been bombarded by global warming propaganda until they feel guilty for enjoying the American dream. In the 70' ties, we were told not to have more than two children. We were going to over populate the world.

"Those with good genes had better have more than two children." My wife and I were gullible and just had two.

We have been taught that we are just so big and selfish and powerful, that we have the ability to cause this, and that it is our unfair and discriminatory, racist, bigoted, sexist, lifestyle that is leading to the excess use of precious resources, leading to pollution in the world. We are causing it, and as such, we have a duty to stop it.

I have been a little bit of a do gooder in my day and I can relate to them. We all want "clean water" for example. Who would be against that? Me and a few of my friends stopped several dams (TVA and NRCS) from being built and as a result saved several miles of river. These were to be primarily dry ponds until the rainy season. Those who feel guilty may want to feel that; "I matter! I'm doing something important! I'm saving the planet!" There's not one bit of intellect that's gone into their decision. It's total emotion based on good intentions. Who is against saving the planet? These people are being used, happens all the time.

Our children and we are being bombarded all of the time by doom's day movies and TV shows. The important thing is that we need to teach our children to be "critical thinkers", take these things with a grain of salt like Trout Fisher, his parents are to be commended. That boy will make you refine your arguments. ;D

TODAY'S HEADLINE: "AP Today! "Former Vice President Al Gore was nominated for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his campaign against global warming. Norwegian lawmaker Boerge Brende, a former minister of environment, told The Associated Press that Gore has put climate change on the agenda and uses his position to get politicians to understand. Brende along with other lawmakers nominated him before the deadline expired today. " The guy admits that his movie is "science fiction"!!!!!!

University personnel do have an ax to grind. Everyone one in the hierarchy of a university is a politician of one sort or other. They will use their academic credentials in many cases to support an issue that is directly related to funding their institution or research or to curry favor for another appointment. It is truly amazing how many of these feed from the public trough.

Personally, I trust those involved in research more than those involved in management. When it comes to counting scientists for consensus, many bureaucrats who hung up their scientific togs years ago are counted in both the "for and against".

Consensus science is not science. Leading scientists of the day at one time were sure that the earth was flat. So much for consensus science

"What's going to happen, what are the Algores and these types going to say when China becomes a greater polluter than the US is in just three years?"

Well, China will have a right to! After all they are a poor country. Have you seen the way their people live.....That will be the argument. Why is China not subject to the Kyoto Accords? Why were they exempted? Why was India exempted?

The people are the ultimate victims, not of their government but of us! They have a right to pollute! We deserve to be penalized. We have caused the climate change. This is the message that is going out into the school system and media.

Our neck was on the chopping block ten years ago when Congress turned down the Kyoto Accords. That was an achievement of the Clinton Administration.

Here's to you Bill!

[nboucher]

Leading scientists of the day at one time were sure that the earth was flat.  So much for consensus science  

Err, actually is was church officials who said the earth was flat (or was it that the earth was the center of the universeI can't keep my heresies straight). Scientists were persecuted for insisting it was not.

[justfishin]

www.reason.org/ps237.html

I have read so many opinions, theories and hypotheses over the last few years on global warming and cooling that I cannot form a justifiable opinion one way or the other. Is something occurring that is affecting our climate? I think there is some kind of phenomenon going on, that is evident but, how can I point a finger without the facts? I feel that until a comprehensive study is done over a long time period by qualified entities none of us can be absolutely sure of what is going on. Greenhouse gas, natural fluctuations in the earths climate, the earths magnetic field changes, solar flares and spots, etc,etc. I would like to see all the responsible countries in the world put together a fact finding commission with at least a 20 year study before anyone can make a reasonable ruling.

[nboucher]

Why is China not subject to the Kyoto Accords?  Why were they exempted?  Why was India exempted?

By the way, no one was "exempted." These countries, like the United States, refused to either sign or ratify them, primarily because each country thought the accords would unreasonably restrict its development, putting it at a competitive disadvantage in the global economy.

[Dan:]

The report to be issued Friday will allegedly say that it is "very likely" that the warming is caused by human activity. I'm no scientist, so who am I to argue with this group? But it seems intuitively correct that pouring countless millions of tons of crap into the atmosphere can have its negative effects.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16922234/

Imagine the composition of the Earth's atmosphere as a football field. Most of the atmosphere is Nitrogen. So, starting from the goal line, nitrogen takes you all the way down to the seventy-eight-yard line. And most of what's left is oxygen. Oxygen takes you to the ninety-nine-yard line. Only one yard to go. But most of what remains is the inert gas argon. Argon brings you to within three and a half inches of the goal line. That's pretty much the thickness of the chalk stripe, folks. And how much of that remaining three inches is carbon dioxide? One inch. That's how much carbon dioxide we have in our atmosphere. One inch in a hundred-yard football field.

Now, you are told that carbon dioxide has increased in the last fifty years. Do you know how much it has increased, on our football field? It has increased by three-eighths of an inch less than the thickness of a pencil. It's a lot more carbon dioxide, but it's a minuscule change in our total atmosphere. Yet you are asked to believe that this tiny change has driven the entire planet into a dangerous warming pattern.

[Dan:]

Ten Facts about Global Warming they don't want you to know

The Heidelberg Appeal

The Oregon Petition

[Gatorbassman]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/01/resisting_global_warming_panic.html

This is based on accual history not scientific theories. JR Dunn is a historian.

http://reactor-core.org/summers-lease.html

[roadwarrior]

Review from Fox News:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,249598,00.html

[nboucher]

Discussions like this really make me want to just shut up and go fishing, but the ponds are covered with ice, so here goes:

Fluke, no one's arguing with the history, and the American Thinker is elementary history with a good dose of sarcasm thrown in. Sentences like this"Despite the insistence of Al Gore and  friends, this is far from the first time the Earth has ever passed through a climatic warming period"are just silly. Didn't we all learn in eighth-grade science that the earth warmed and cooled throughout its history? Does this writer really think that scientists who claim evidence of global warming deny that the earth has gone through warming periods? His sarcasmalways a shaky debating tacticis causing him to get basic facts wrong. (Another howler was his statement that the first industrial period is even little-known among historians, a claim that would come as a real surprise in the history department at the university where I work!)

Anyway, the debate is not over whether or not the earth has ever warmed or cooled before, it's over the specific characteristics of the sudden and rapid warming of the past 50 years. Are we experiencing a natural spike, or are the levels of greenhouse gases humans have been suddenly putting into the atmosphere in large doses partly or mostly responsible, or not responsible at all? The American Thinker writer dodges that one completely, because answering that question acccurately is really really hard. Common sense suggests that when you throw a lot of junk outside, the ecosystem is affected in some way. Dump a modest amount of junk and the ecosystem can handle it. But what's the tipping point? How much is too much because it starts to distort how the system functions? Some who have posted on this thread believe that the ecosystem can handle the greenhouse emissions just fine. Water Dog pointed out, rightly, that China is about to become the world's biggest contributor of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, so the levels humans put out there is going to keep on rising. I guess the position of some of you is that none of that really matters, because human influence is so tiny there is no tipping point, and the earth can just keep on absorbing it all.

Boy, do I ever hope you guys are right.

The other article about scare tactics, Fluke, raises a good point about environmentalists, not scientists. Enviros, like all lobbying groups and true believers, are in the politics business and they sure have hurt themselves with their various doomsday scenarios in the past. They are the guys who cried wolf, but as I recall from the kids' story, the problem with people who cry wolf is not that we shouldn't believe anything they say, but that we can't tell when they are speaking the truth--the real wolf does eventually show up, but nobody believes it. Anyway, I don't think you can accuse most mainstream climatologists of being a bunch of biased alarmists. They're not setting policy, they're looking at the data and interpreting them. Sure, they want to keep getting grants, etc., but I am not (yet) so cynical that I believe that everyone in the end just does crummy work as long as it benefits Number One.

RW: politicans jumping on a bandwagon and competing for attention and approval? I'm shocked. Shocked, I say.

[senile1]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16922234/

[Hookemdown.]

Uh.. now what? I'm confused, are we all going to freeze to death, or is our blood going to boil if we go outside.  Let's all go out and fish while we still can.

[Water Dog]

Eventually there is a consensus, consensus is the way to sell it. There's the word that disqualifies any of this as being science. Consensus is just a bunch of scientists organized around a political proposition. You can't have consensus in science. We are told to believe that "We" caused global warming or climate change because, Oh, but all these wonderful people agree.

Come on now... science is about proof, but we don't have time for proof..... the earth is in a tail spin!!

They hope that you will accept Draconian alterations in your lifestyle and higher taxes to fix it, otherwise we are doomed, otherwise there won't be an earth, not one that we can survive, hogwash!

This is far from the first time the Earth has ever passed through a climatic warming period. In fact, one occurred relatively recently, the medieval warm period, more commonly known as the Little Climatic Optimum, a period stretching roughly from the 10th to the 13th centuries, in which the average temperature was anything from 1 to 3 degrees centigrade higher than it is today. Greenland was farmed, the Vikings explored N. America. This was a 300 year period.

My information was taken from an article 2/2/07 by J.R. Dunn in the "American Thinker".

It's a good read.

<http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/01/resisting_global_warming_panic.html>

"the sky is not falling" , ask for definitive proof before you place your head on the chop block.

[K_Mac]

I have read this thread with interest. The issue of global warming is one that can't be ignored, in my opinion. What frightens me most about this is the great difference between the environmentalists and their supporters on one hand, and those who think this is just an existential blip on the cosmic radar screen on the other.

I don't begin to know, or even understand all I do know about this. The development and industrialization of the last century has negatively impacted our environment in many ways; deforestation and pollution are facts of life. On the other hand, the Earth has shown an amazing ability to heal itself and many doomsayers of the past have been proven wrong. Al Gore sites many scientists that say because of increased greenhouse gases produced by man the world as we know is coming to an end; other scientists say the temperature of the oceans, controlled by movement of the Earth's molten magma core, is the mechanism by which the Earth's temperature is regulated and our production of greenhouse gases is of little real consequence. There are many other opinions within the scientific community. It's hard to know what to believe.

While I think Gore has used the issue to promote himself and sell books (I know, my conservative roots are showing :), I believe the conversation is of value. We are the stewards of the planet, and have a responsibility to future generations to protect their inheritance. The consequences of  our decisions will be our legacy.  

[Danceswithbass]

I'll tell you what. After reading all these posts both for and against global warming I've come to a conclusion.

1. George Bush stole the election.

2. Al Gore invented the internet.?

3. Chicks from the north could wear bikini's longer with global warming .

4. Bill Clinton was a test monkey for (little blue pills).

5. democrats hate big business (unless its unionized)

6. Wal Mart will sell more ice.

7. If bass would spawn in February I would be happier.

8. If democrats knew marijuana would grow better in Canada with Global warming they would encourage it.

9. Its 13 degrees right now in Okla. City

10. Global warming has become more important to the Democrats than defending our Nation.

8-)

[Guest avid]

I have said before and I still firmly believe that this global warming debate is a media fed controversy that gets everbody debating about the wrong things.

Yes the earth is warming.

Yes this is natural.

Yes it is probably true that humans are adding to it.

And that's where we argue.

The real issue is that no sane person can possibly believe that we can continue to pour billions of tons of toxic material into our air, water, and soil without the planet reacting in unpredictable ways.

Some day, countries that are the worst polluters will get together and agree to invest heavily in developing clean fuel.  Let's hope it happens soon.