Worried about Global Cooling...

[Azure]

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles....87279412587175

Back in 1991, before Al Gore first shouted that the Earth was in the balance, the Danish Meteorological Institute released a study using data that went back centuries that showed that global temperatures closely tracked solar cycles.


To many, those data were convincing. Now, Canadian scientists are seeking additional funding for more and better "eyes" with which to observe our sun, which has a bigger impact on Earth's climate than all the tailpipes and smokestacks on our planet combined.


And they're worried about global cooling, not warming.


Kenneth Tapping, a solar researcher and project director for Canada's National Research Council, is among those looking at the sun for evidence of an increase in sunspot activity.


Solar activity fluctuates in an 11-year cycle. But so far in this cycle, the sun has been disturbingly quiet. The lack of increased activity could signal the beginning of what is known as a Maunder Minimum, an event which occurs every couple of centuries and can last as long as a century.


Such an event occurred in the 17th century. The observation of sunspots showed extraordinarily low levels of magnetism on the sun, with little or no 11-year cycle.


This solar hibernation corresponded with a period of bitter cold that began around 1650 and lasted, with intermittent spikes of warming, until 1715. Frigid winters and cold summers during that period led to massive crop failures, famine and death in Northern Europe.

[llama64]

[Dan02]

makes a certain amount of sense, the sun is responsible for 99.9999999%(give or take some 9s) of the worlds energy.

[SarichFan]

[Rathji]

Are you trying to say the sun is responsible for heating the Earth? That is absurd and scientists would never accept that proposal on a wide scale.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Are you trying to say the sun is responsible for heating the Earth? That is absurd and scientists would never accept that proposal on a wide scale.

))

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Are you trying to say the sun is responsible for heating the Earth? That is absurd and scientists would never accept that proposal on a wide scale.

right, because one, and only one, source can ever impact our climate. the earth is just so damn simple.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by Table 5

right, because one, and only one, source can ever impact our climate. the earth is just so damn simple.

Yup. Cow farts.

My Dad calls em "Steak & Eggs". Not sure why...

[SeeGeeWhy]

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Table 5

right, because one, and only one, source can ever impact our climate. the earth is just so damn simple.

I am merely saying that the simplest answer is most often correct, but the majority of the scientific community will not even consider it an option. I recall reading something a year or so back where one of the guys who proposed this was treated as an outcast by his peers for even bringing it up.

I have no real informed opinion on the true causes of global warming, however when someone claims something that seems simple and logical and wants to study it, the last thing the entire scientific community should be doing is shutting him out.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Yeah, too bad Swedish Climate Scientist, Bert Bolin, first raised the issue of climate change and global warming almost 40 years prior to that report. Also have to question the political position of the column when it starts out "Not every scientist is part of Al Gore's mythical "consensus."" First of all, who ever wrote the article needs to understand what a concensus is. It does not mean unanamity. Second of all, it quotes well known big oil huckster Tim Patterson. On one hand they try to frame the CO2 argument as invalid because of Al Gore's known bias, but then they rely on Tim Patterson's known bias to support the Danish claims. As well, the Hoover Institute, also claimed as a source of information in the article, is well known conservative and pro-industry think tank with links directly to the Bush Administration, not at known for their expertise in climate research. The Hoover Intutte receives the majority f their funding from the Exxon Mobil, Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, Rockwell and Boeing-McDonnell. So no, definitely no potential conflict in interest there. Interesting article, but seems like it might be corporate disinformation.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Table 5

right, because one, and only one, source can ever impact our climate. the earth is just so damn simple.

Well considering it is 99.9999% of the mass of our Solar System....I'd say it has a big impact.

More than say.....farting cows.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Yeah, too bad Swedish Climate Scientist, Bert Bolin, first raised the issue of climate change and global warming almost 40 years prior to that report. Also have to question the political position of the column when it starts out "Not every scientist is part of Al Gore's mythical "consensus."" First of all, who ever wrote the article needs to understand what a concensus is. It does not mean unanamity. Second of all, it quotes well known big oil huckster Tim Patterson. On one hand they try to frame the CO2 argument as invalid because of Al Gore's known bias, but then they rely on Tim Patterson's known bias to support the Danish claims. As well, the Hoover Institute, also claimed as a source of information in the article, is well known conservative and pro-industry think tank with links directly to the Bush Administration, not at known for their expertise in climate research. The Hoover Intutte receives the majority f their funding from the Exxon Mobil, Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, Rockwell and Boeing-McDonnell. So no, definitely no potential conflict in interest there. Interesting article, but seems like it might be corporate disinformation.

Lanny being conservative doesn't make them wrong. Being big oil doesn't make them wrong. Without evidence that that their data is wrong saying that these sources are biased is just another one of your dingbat diatribes.

Considering that:

Saint Al's data has been shown to be less than stellar nevermind his hypocritical lifestyle....

We have gone from 3m rise in the world ocean to 5cm to we are not sure predictions....

We have travelled from Global Cooling to global warming to Climate change to we will keep changing the disasters name as the evidence comes in......

We have gone from record polar ice-caps receeding to oops Southern hemisphere is showing record growth....

Having NASA predict 3-5 degrees Celsius changes to finding out the data was manipulated and it woun't change 1 degree

I'd say the SCIENCE IS NOT IN.

[arsenal]

Funny.. I thought that CO2 was the only reason for climate change...

[HOZ]

Here is the Popular Mechanice article ont his topic.

Sun Dimming

[Matata]

Lets break it down this way. If we take climate change as fact and treat it as such, but it turns out to be a hoax, we get the consolation prize of living on a healthier, cleaner planet (which would be nice, seeing as hundreds of thousands people die from pollution each year in China alone). If we don't take it seriously and it turns out to be true, we are eff'ed six ways till sunday.

I know what side of the coin I want to be on.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Lanny being conservative doesn't make them wrong. Being big oil doesn't make them wrong. Without evidence that that their data is wrong saying that these sources are biased is just another one of your dingbat diatribes.

Considering that:

Saint Al's data has been shown to be less than stellar nevermind his hypocritical lifestyle....

We have gone from 3m rise in the world ocean to 5cm to we are not sure predictions....

We have travelled from Global Cooling to global warming to Climate change to we will keep changing the disasters name as the evidence comes in......

We have gone from record polar ice-caps receeding to oops Southern hemisphere is showing record growth....

Having NASA predict 3-5 degrees Celsius changes to finding out the data was manipulated and it woun't change 1 degree

I'd say the SCIENCE IS NOT IN.

And you'd be wrong, as usual.

Funny you should bring up NASA, since it was NASA's own James Hansen who finally was fed up with politicians rewriting scientific fact and blew the whistle. The science is in, the majority of the world supports it, its only a disinformation campaign that clouds the issue in North America.

http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_int...es-hansen.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n1415985.shtml

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=17926941

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/sc...erland&emc=rss

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...021001766.html

Oh, and here's the latest on what is going on, including some statements by preeminent scientist as well as what is happening in Antarctica. Oh look, its just the OPPOSITE to what you suggest in this post. Gee, go figure.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/...nclimatechange

The world’s largest society of Earth and space scientists has released a new statement on climate change that unequivocally names human activity as the cause of global warming.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...011302753.html

Climatic changes appear to be destabilizing vast ice sheets of western Antarctica that had previously seemed relatively protected from global warming, researchers reported yesterday, raising the prospect of faster sea-level rise than current estimates.

You probably won't have any of this sink in until the game tapes are delivered.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Matata

I know what side of the coin I want to be on.

But... but... but... but... if we stop using fossil fuels to power our vehicles the world will end!!!

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by Matata

Lets break it down this way. If we take climate change as fact and treat it as such, but it turns out to be a hoax, we get the consolation prize of living on a healthier, cleaner planet (which would be nice, seeing as hundreds of thousands people die from pollution each year in China alone). If we don't take it seriously and it turns out to be true, we are eff'ed six ways till sunday.

I know what side of the coin I want to be on.

You're over simplifying, what would be the effects on nations around the world who rely on oil revenues right now? not to mention Alberta. The world relies on oil right now because there is NO viable alternative.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Matata

Lets break it down this way. If we take climate change as fact and treat it as such, but it turns out to be a hoax, we get the consolation prize of living on a healthier, cleaner planet (which would be nice, seeing as hundreds of thousands people die from pollution each year in China alone). If we don't take it seriously and it turns out to be true, we are eff'ed six ways till sunday.

I know what side of the coin I want to be on.

People don't want to break it down that way. Your way costs money, and money is more important than anything else in the world... including the world itself. Find a way to fix the world that is cheaper than ruining it and you'll find your new, healthier, cleaner planet.