Global temperatures drop sharply, what will the global warming alarmist say?

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

You seem to be talking about a secenerio that is not likely to occur and then you blame others for not being prepared for this unlikely outcome. That's not really rational is it?
Besides we are already aware that some areas of the earth might cool with overall global warming. If the ice caps melt they could halt thermohaline circulation (the oceanic conveyer belt). This could lead to some areas getting much cooler than they are now. That's why people are tending to call it "global climate change". Further, I don't think anyone is trying to hold back energy production. They are trying to find alternate sources of energy other than the burning of fossil fuels.

People are definately holding back energy production my friend I work in the field, its pretty sad really, whats worse is that the people in general dont have a clue whats happening.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

So you are saying that because the sun might continue to decline in output forever... we should not worry about the effect we are having on the planet. We don't have to worry about warming because god will make sure the sun gets cooler to offset what we are doing.

I don't really understand the point you are trying to make.

No, I am not trying to say that at all. That is just the kind of suggestion I find so offensive. The idea that if I don't blindly follow the political driven eco hysteria I don't care about human impact on the environment and must be a religious nutcase!

I have in fact had such concerns since the 1970's, before some of you were born. All the more reason to keep this discussion on a science based level and not spreading questionable notions under the banner of "causing awareness." If you want to understand something understand what harm it does to have a politics driven position on this issue.

[AMTR]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

You seem to be talking about a secenerio that is not likely to occur and then you blame others for not being prepared for this unlikely outcome. That's not really rational is it?
Besides we are already aware that some areas of the earth might cool with overall global warming. If the ice caps melt they could halt thermohaline circulation (the oceanic conveyer belt). This could lead to some areas getting much cooler than they are now. That's why people are tending to call it "global climate change". Further, I don't think anyone is trying to hold back energy production. They are trying to find alternate sources of energy other than the burning of fossil fuels.

Areas of the earth may cool as a consequence of Global Warming - yes, but not all! All the sensors around the earth that have been used to PROVE Global Warming are recording lower temperatures - not some, all. For Global Warming to be valid the earth has to continue to warm, period. In fact, the earth has to become warmer than during the Medieval Warm Up and the period around 100 BC to 200 AD.

What is not rational is to ban anything producing CO2 based on a fantasy story weaved by "hysteria" and "junk science". If next year is cooler, your comments become inflammatory rhetoric used to cause harm to the people's of the earth. If the following year the same occurs, Global Warming Theory gets flushed down the toilet along with its supporters. Three years of a cool down negates Global Warming and reduces all involved in pushing the theory as "class clowns" and fools who are liable for the mass misery they will be responsible for having helped worsen.

Europe gets uses nuclear reactors to generate over 50% of its' electrical needs. France generates 89% of its’ electricity from nuclear reactors. Even Japan uses nuclear reactors to generate a greater percentage of its' electricity than the Untied States does. There are alternatives and the Global Warming crowd have joined forces with the "back to nature groups" and the "technology is bad groups" to prevent the United States from expanding its' nuclear generating capacity and to keep the world from expanding energy production that the growing world's population desperately needs, and they are being denied by groups rallying around Global Warming to achieve other ends not related to Global Warming!

What is not rational is to ban anything producing CO2 based on a fantasy story weaved by "hysteria" and "junk science". If next year is cooler, your comments become inflammatory rhetoric used to cause harm to the people's of the earth. If the following year the same occurs, Global Warming Theory gets flushed down the toilet along with its supporters. Three years of a cool down negates Global Warming and reduces all involved in pushing the theory to "class clowns" and fools who are liable for the mass misery they will be responsible for having helped worsen.

While the nations stumble around trying to find CO2 less alternatives to energy, they could have been building CO2 systems that were low in emissions of harmful pollutants. If the death toll climbs from failed crops, no energy to warm homes, increased illness form cold and damp weather, it will be the Global Warming crowd that will get the blame.

[AMTR]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

People are definately holding back energy production my friend I work in the field, its pretty sad really, whats worse is that the people in general dont have a clue whats happening.

What I find interesting is that China has contracted with Cuba to begin drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico while we can't. Europe is expanding generating electricity from nuclear power plants, but the United States is being held back by the same people who are pointing to Europes' smaller CO2 foot print.

Perhaps it is simpler that energy or "Global Warming". Perhaps, Global Warming is simply being used as a tool to push for world government. A Global Emergency requires a global governement. I know most nations don't believe it, especially Russia and China.

[AMTR]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

No, I am not trying to say that at all. That is just the kind of suggestion I find so offensive. The idea that if I don't blindly follow the political driven eco hysteria I don't care about human impact on the environment and must be a religious nutcase!

I have in fact had such concerns since the 1970's, before some of you were born. All the more reason to keep this discussion on a science based level and not spreading questionable notions under the banner of "causing awareness." If you want to understand something understand what harm it does to have a politics driven position on this issue.

Shoemaker's comet demonstrated very nicely what will happen to the earth if hit by a big rock from space. Shoemaker has demonstrated that the earth has been pummeled many times and often with disastrous consequences for the reigning species at the time of impact. A really big hit, could wipe out all but microbes. The only species capable of preventing an environmental disaster that makes nuclear war pale by comparison is the "human race" with its technology. The very thing the environmentalists, the safe the earth, stop technology crowd hates.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by AMTR

Areas of the earth may cool as a consequence of Global Warming - yes, but not all! All the sensors around the earth that have been used to PROVE Global Warming are recording lower temperatures - not some, all. For Global Warming to be valid the earth has to continue to warm, period. In fact, the earth has to become warmer than during the Medieval Warm Up and the period around 100 BC to 200 AD.

What is not rational is to ban anything producing CO2 based on a fantasy story weaved by "hysteria" and "junk science". If next year is cooler, your comments become inflammatory rhetoric used to cause harm to the people's of the earth. If the following year the same occurs, Global Warming Theory gets flushed down the toilet along with its supporters. Three years of a cool down negates Global Warming and reduces all involved in pushing the theory as "class clowns" and fools who are liable for the mass misery they will be responsible for having helped worsen.

Europe gets uses nuclear reactors to generate over 50% of its' electrical needs. France generates 89% of its’ electricity from nuclear reactors. Even Japan uses nuclear reactors to generate a greater percentage of its' electricity than the Untied States does. There are alternatives and the Global Warming crowd have joined forces with the "back to nature groups" and the "technology is bad groups" to prevent the United States from expanding its' nuclear generating capacity and to keep the world from expanding energy production that the growing world's population desperately needs, and they are being denied by groups rallying around Global Warming to achieve other ends not related to Global Warming!



While the nations stumble around trying to find CO2 less alternatives to energy, they could have been building CO2 systems that were low in emissions of harmful pollutants. If the death toll climbs from failed crops, no energy to warm homes, increased illness form cold and damp weather, it will be the Global Warming crowd that will get the blame.

I don't even know how to argue with you. Everything you just said is false.

[SimplyImpossible]

Say Wicked Lou, You have made me have to ask a question. Now when I say question I mean more like a couple dozen or so. Glad to meet you all by the way. It was just 1500 years or so ago that there was a huge glaizer where I am sitting in Northern Minnesota. How did it go away? Second, the largest green house gas happens to be water vapor. How do we fix that? Third and most important is why can't we use nuclear energy that does not pollute. Keep in mind that if we are not worried about cost you can use the rods until they are pretty much inert. They are only radioactive to such a degree becasue of efficency of use.

Just wondering.

[SimplyImpossible]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I don't even know how to argue with you. Everything you just said is false.

I checked on the France thing because I thought he was correct but it turns out that as of 2003 France only generated 78% of thier energy from Nuclear. We can nitpick but the majority of what was said is accurate. Some small details need to be updated but most are close for getting the mind thinking.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by SimplyImpossible

I checked on the France thing because I thought he was correct but it turns out that as of 2003 France only generated 78% of thier energy from Nuclear. We can nitpick but the majority of what was said is accurate. Some small details need to be updated but most are close for getting the mind thinking.

For starters he bases his entire arguement on his ability to see into the future that the earth will continue to cool off despite the total lack of evidance for such a claim. HE this uses this ludicrsouly improbable prediction to call the vast scientific concensus on human caused climate change "hysteria" and "junk science". He is spouting nonsese. He also uses a false sort of arguement saying that the environmentalists caused this by protesting nuclear power. I don't know what that has to do with anything, but we do need more alternative energy. He lumps in several different groups of people who are by and large unrelated and says that they all want to prevetn us from using nuclear power. That's another false statement.

He also says that we aren't researching cleaner fossil fuel power generation technology when clearly we have been for the last 100 years. Technologies such as clean coal, the new clean diesel engines, hybrid cars, etc. These are all techonolgies that either burn cleaner or produce less C02.

I am well aware that France uses alot of nuclera technology. I like green tea. It's irrelevant information that has nothing to do with the science behind global warming.

[SimplyImpossible]

You do know that the concesses is not such, right? I am guessing that you read on both sides of the issue. The concept that co2 emissions have gone up and down with the changing of the enviorment seems to be lost on all those that think man is behind global warming. I personally believe that since the temps went up around the begining of the 1900s that the asteroid that hit siberia in 1908 is to blame for creating cracks in the tetonic plates that have warmed up the oceans. Now my theory has as much credibility as man creating .05 percent of all greenhouse gases is causing global warming. Also please keep in mind that man can and will adapt to a warmer climate but trying to get nature to adjust to a cooler climate that is a much all together different beast. I am not sure but did not the ICE ages wipe a good chunk of life off the planet? Can't think of a time when live on earth has been destroyed by heat. Also the concept is that Nuclear energy does not pollute nor cause green house gases. Had we went 90 percent nuclear dependent in the 70 or 80s we would not be in an energy crunch that we pretend to be in.

Just my thoughts

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by SimplyImpossible

You do know that the concesses is not such, right? I am guessing that you read on both sides of the issue. The concept that co2 emissions have gone up and down with the changing of the enviorment seems to be lost on all those that think man is behind global warming. I personally believe that since the temps went up around the begining of the 1900s that the asteroid that hit siberia in 1908 is to blame for creating cracks in the tetonic plates that have warmed up the oceans. Now my theory has as much credibility as man creating .05 percent of all greenhouse gases is causing global warming. Also please keep in mind that man can and will adapt to a warmer climate but trying to get nature to adjust to a cooler climate that is a much all together different beast. I am not sure but did not the ICE ages wipe a good chunk of life off the planet? Can't think of a time when live on earth has been destroyed by heat. Also the concept is that Nuclear energy does not pollute nor cause green house gases. Had we went 90 percent nuclear dependent in the 70 or 80s we would not be in an energy crunch that we pretend to be in.

Just my thoughts

There actually is a very large concensus. Are there people who disagree? Sure there are. But for each one of those, there are a hundred who do not.

I know nuclear power is pretty clean and that it would be great it we could build 100 more power plants, but this is with information that we have now. Back in the 1970's people didn't know anything about climate change and were only concerned with the nuclear waste that we had no way of disposing with. It was a real concern and still is a real concern. We now have a more pressing concern which is why you will hear less people complaining about nuclear power. You can't fault people for making decisions that were correct at the time they made them.

[AMTR]

Originally Posted by SimplyImpossible

I checked on the France thing because I thought he was correct but it turns out that as of 2003 France only generated 78% of thier energy from Nuclear. We can nitpick but the majority of what was said is accurate. Some small details need to be updated but most are close for getting the mind thinking.

I remember 89%, but I don't remember if it was about future production or not. So, I will state I was in error and the number is lower - 78% works fine. The following link is reasonably accurate concerning nuclear energy -
World Nuclear Association .

[AMTR]

For starters he bases his entire arguement on his ability to see into the future that the earth will continue to cool off despite the total lack of evidance for such a claim.

My evidence is a Global History full of nasy long Ice Ages. In fact, London held an ice fair on the Thames every winter up to around 1790 when GLOBAL WARMING warmed the Thames and brought and end to the LITTLE ICE AGE. Must have been all those nasty horses farting, epecially the carriages of the rich which had a whole bunch of horses (the SUVs of the 1700s.


HE this uses this ludicrsouly improbable prediction to call the vast scientific concensus

VAST SCIENTIFIC CONCENSUS HUH -

22000 scientist disagree: http://inpursuitofhappiness.wordpress.com/2008/02/12/22000-scientists-disagree-with-un-global-warming-push/

Founder of Weather Channel disagrees:
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080303175301.aspx

60 top scientists disagree:
http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605&rfp=dta

In short a whole bunch of scientists including several at M.I.T. disagree.

on human caused climate change "hysteria" and "junk science".

My ludicrously improbable prediction is no less ludicrous than Gores telling everyone we are going to fry and the cities are going to be swolled up by the melting oceans and all the cute little polar bears are going to die. Here is a link to a 4 part lecture series that says it so much better - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI&feature=related .

He is spouting nonsese. He also uses a false sort of arguement saying that the environmentalists caused this by protesting nuclear power.

This is really easy. The goofs protesting nuclear reactors kept us on fossil fuels which create KILLER CO2. There stupidity pushed the U.S. into consuming more and more fossil fuels. These are the same people who want all those illegals and more to flood into the U.S. so they can consume more energy and push KILLER CO2 levels even higher. Their collective hysteria was wrong since France, much of Europe and Japan were building nuclear reactors reducing thier KILLER CO2 footprints. These are the same clowns now telling us KILLER CO2 is destroying the EARTH.

I don't know what that has to do with anything, but we do need more alternative energy. He lumps in several different groups of people who are by and large unrelated and says that they all want to prevetn us from using nuclear power. That's another false statement.

Actually, it is a true statement. Most of the Global Warming groups history includes opposition to nuclear reactors.

He also says that we aren't researching cleaner fossil fuel power generation technology when clearly we have been for the last 100 years. Technologies such as clean coal, the new clean diesel engines, hybrid cars, etc. These are all techonolgies that either burn cleaner or produce less C02.

I am well aware that France uses alot of nuclera technology. I like green tea. It's irrelevant information that has nothing to do with the science behind global warming.

Not irrelavant! While the crazies were screaming and fighting to stop the construction of nuclear reactors in the United States, France was building and using more. The nut jobs then point to the low CO2 footprint of France as a country we should follow. Tell me this is not nuts!

[Ian W]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

For starters he bases his entire arguement on his ability to see into the future that the earth will continue to cool off despite the total lack of evidance for such a claim. HE this uses this ludicrsouly improbable prediction to call the vast scientific concensus on human caused climate change "hysteria" and "junk science". He is spouting nonsese.

It is rather strange to read this. The claims for AGW are based on models that use concentrations of atmospheric CO2 as the main driver for global warming. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 has continued to grow despite all the treaties, taxes and imposts and yet since 1998 (the warmest year since 1934) the temperature has not risen. Indeed, the last year averaged back to January 2007 has shown the largest drop in global temperatures ever recorded.

Yet you called this an 'anomaly'.

Now if I have a model that says unequivocally that as concentration of CO2 rises the global temperature rises and in fact the global temperature _falls_ not by a little but by an amount averaged over a year that breaks records - then yes I have an anomaly. That can be defined as something that does not agree with the rule in this case it does not agree with the model.

Now I realize that this is a shock to some modelers and their followers, but when REALITY does not agree with your model - it does not normally mean that REALITY is incorrect. Indeed most observers would say that the model was incorrect. Yet this is (these are) the same model(s) that are being used to close down industries, export jobs, raise taxes, use food products to fuel vehicles impacting the price of food, and leading to the destruction of virgin rain forests to grow palm oil for fuel etc etc etc....


The models are WRONG if they cannot be validated against reality. Why should these models be trusted? Why do you respond to the post on concerns on cooling with: "despite the total lack of evidence for such a claim" - from a validation point of view the global warming models are showing a lack of evidence for their veracity so cannot be used to support the claim that the earth will warm in line with CO2 concentrations. Something else must be involved - and something that has a global effect.



If I was a climate scientist who had generated these CO2 based models or politician who believed them and made incorrect policy - like you, I too would be trying to persuade people to disregard reality.

People have lost livelihoods and states their flourishing economies based on what appears to be the flawed assumption that one of the relatively minor 'green house gases' was THE driver for climate change. If the models based on this assumption continue to be proved incorrect, the backlash against the AGW proponents will be EXTREMELY ugly. It will make the attacks on the worst errors of the pharmaceutical industry pale into insignificance.

So as one of these proponents you should hope that the global temperature plateau of the last 7 years and precipitate drop in global temperatures of last year _is_ only an aberrant effect and that the so called warming trend resumes.

[SimplyImpossible]

The problem with the concesus is that everyone that was concidered the "expert" or founding fathers of climatolgy has not climbed on board of the man made warming scenerio. They say that looking at the past this is expected. Now if they can look at the past and predicit what the general cliamte of the planet is then how can man be resposible for it?

[WickedLou9]

My evidence is a Global History full of nasy long Ice Ages. In fact, London held an ice fair on the Thames every winter up to around 1790 when GLOBAL WARMING warmed the Thames and brought and end to the LITTLE ICE AGE. Must have been all those nasty horses farting, epecially the carriages of the rich which had a whole bunch of horses (the SUVs of the 1700s.

That is not evidence. That is an observation which has no meaning. Simply because we have had cyclical warming and cooling periods in the past does not mean we are in a cooling period now. IN fact all evidance points to the contrary.. that we are in a general warming period....which man seems to be accelerating. The recent cooling period you talk about was not due to cyclical global climate trends but an ANOMOLY in the suns output. Your assertion that we will continue to cool requires that the suns output will also continue to decline. The laws of physics tells us that this is not possible. Over time and up until the sun exhausts it's fuel supply ( 5 or 6 billion years from now) it's luminosity will tend to increase. There will be small fluctuations now and again as we have observed but the overall trend will be upwards.



VAST SCIENTIFIC CONCENSUS HUH -

22000 scientist disagree: http://inpursuitofhappiness.wordpress.com/2008/02/12/22000-scientists-disagree-with-un-global-warming-push/

Founder of Weather Channel disagrees:
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080303175301.aspx

60 top scientists disagree:
http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605&rfp=dta

In short a whole bunch of scientists including several at M.I.T. disagree.

I don't care about 22,000 people who were polled. Thier opinions are meaningless. There is a long thread in our other forum called "The Lab" which discusses this very idea of a concensus. I invite you to read it and come back here. The fact is that far more scientists agree with the idea that human activity has influenced the climate. Out of all of the actual studies done, zero believe that man has nothing to do with climate. 1 said that there was insufficient data to make a determination and the rest, something like 700 or so said that man atleast had some influence on the recent climate change. That's hard to argue with. Again I don't care about a chemists opinion on global warming. His opinion is no more authoritative than the CEO of the weather channels is. The CEO of the weather channel is not a meteorologist. He is a businessman. His opinion is meaningless as well.



My ludicrously improbable prediction is no less ludicrous than Gores telling everyone we are going to fry and the cities are going to be swolled up by the melting oceans and all the cute little polar bears are going to die. Here is a link to a 4 part lecture series that says it so much better - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI&feature=related .

Al gore's movie has nothing to do with anything. I havn't seen it and I don't plan on watching it. Your prediction is ludicrous because it violates the laws of physics.

This is really easy. The goofs protesting nuclear reactors kept us on fossil fuels which create KILLER CO2. There stupidity pushed the U.S. into consuming more and more fossil fuels. These are the same people who want all those illegals and more to flood into the U.S. so they can consume more energy and push KILLER CO2 levels even higher. Their collective hysteria was wrong since France, much of Europe and Japan were building nuclear reactors reducing thier KILLER CO2 footprints. These are the same clowns now telling us KILLER CO2 is destroying the EARTH.

Again You ignored the key part of what I said. At the time no one knew anything of global warming. You included. You are implying that you knew all along that Nuclear power was better than fossil fuel plants. Despite the fact that most pollutants from fossil fuel burning have been reduced to the point where they are not a problem. The only thing coming out of those plants is carbon dioxide which up until recently was not seen as a problem. You can not fault people for making decisions that were correct with the information that they had at the time.





Not irrelavant! While the crazies were screaming and fighting to stop the construction of nuclear reactors in the United States, France was building and using more. The nut jobs then point to the low CO2 footprint of France as a country we should follow. Tell me this is not nuts!

You are contorting reality. During the 70's and 80's we had Cherynoble and 3 mile island. You also had relatively clean fossil fuel plants, and no real way of disposing of nuclear waste. With that information you can not fault them for trying to discourage the use of nuclear power. We now have new data with which to make our decisions and based on this new data, global warming seems to be the greater threat. This is not logic that is hard to follow.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by AMTR

[/font][/color]

Shoemaker's comet demonstrated very nicely what will happen to the earth if hit by a big rock from space. Shoemaker has demonstrated that the earth has been pummeled many times and often with disastrous consequences for the reigning species at the time of impact. A really big hit, could wipe out all but microbes. The only species capable of preventing an environmental disaster that makes nuclear war pale by comparison is the "human race" with its technology. The very thing the environmentalists, the safe the earth, stop technology crowd hates.

Scientists are now looking at a number of mass extiction events for evidence of asteroid strikes, not just the big one that took out the dinosaurs!

[JaJae]

I notice a pattern in every climate change/global warming thread. Essentially if someone brings up an issue to debate climate change the knee jerk response is that it's understood by scientists and covered by climate change. When the opposite argument is made the knee jerk response is that it's understood by scientists and also covered by climate change.

You can't have it both ways. Essentially no matter what happens to the climate, scientists will keep attributing it to "climate change" and continue to get their grants. The media will continue to push the alarmist agenda...

When your argument can't be wrong, can't be proven, can't be disproven and can't be reproduced through models or study, I think you need to step back and really question whether your argument is truly scientific.

Originally Posted by JaJae

I notice a pattern in every climate change/global warming thread. Essentially if someone brings up an issue to debate climate change the knee jerk response is that it's understood by scientists and covered by climate change. When the opposite argument is made the knee jerk response is that it's understood by scientists and also covered by climate change.

You can't have it both ways. Essentially no matter what happens to the climate, scientists will keep attributing it to "climate change" and continue to get their grants. The media will continue to push the alarmist agenda...

When your argument can't be wrong, can't be proven, can't be disproven and can't be reproduced through models or study, I think you need to step back and really question whether your argument is truly scientific.

Well said. Especially when you consider many of the "supproting" scientist look for data that SUPPORTS their hypothesis instead of trying to DISPROVE it.

[SimplyImpossible]

I don't care about 22,000 people who were polled. Thier opinions are meaningless. There is a long thread in our other forum called "The Lab" which discusses this very idea of a concensus. I invite you to read it and come back here. The fact is that far more scientists agree with the idea that human activity has influenced the climate. Out of all of the actual studies done, zero believe that man has nothing to do with climate. 1 said that there was insufficient data to make a determination and the rest, something like 700 or so said that man atleast had some influence on the recent climate change. That's hard to argue with. Again I don't care about a chemists opinion on global warming. His opinion is no more authoritative than the CEO of the weather channels is. The CEO of the weather channel is not a meteorologist. He is a businessman. His opinion is meaningless as well.

Do you care that the majority of scientist that helped gather the data for the UN report refuse to back it because they are misquoted in the report. that the synopsis is not what they found?