Widescale Global Cooling

[flyingreg]

Since the topic of global warming has been such the buzz topic for some time now, I thought many of you may find this article of considerable interest and worthy of some dicussion.

 

Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming

 

LINK TO ARTICLE

[steve.foote]

Greg, I've seen that article and others which draw similar conclusions. Truthfully, the cooling agruement is no more revelent then the warming arguement. We simply don't know enough about the atmosphere to make any determinations, one way or the other.

 

Anyone who claims to know the answers is blowing smoke up your skirt.

[SageRider]

Holy cr@p!!!

We have to do something NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!

After all, it's better to do something to stop Global Cooling than it is to do nothing, just in case.....

 

(actually, I agree with Rightspin. We have nowhere near the knowledge or accurate data necessary to start fiddling with our atmosphere / weather. Of course that won't stop many from the rush to "fix" it anyway....)

[smiller]

Anyone who claims to know the answers is blowing smoke up your skirt.

And it's possible that anyone who summarily dismisses the overwhelming agreement of almost every major research organization might be doing the same. Tough call.

[ericfoerster]

Has anyone told Gore this?

[Quinn]

An interesting book to read is Michael Crichton's State of Fear. It addresses the issue of stirring up fear of global warming to raise money for research. He also dips into how incomplete and contradictory the data is. What I remember most about the book is his saying that, since they can't prove global warming, the next move will be to just calling it, "Dramatic Climate changes" which will pretty well cover everything that happens. I read the book months before I starting hearing that matra in the media.

 

Crichton does a good job of researching his books, but this one has such a stupid plot to hang his researching on; I can't imagine it getting as much attention as some of his others.

[David]

Speaking of this subject, I found this article in yesterday's WSJ fascinating. Here's a small excerpt to abide by copyright restrictions:

 

Climate Watchers

Place Own Big Bet

On Alaska's Thaw

March 7, 2008

 

by Robert Lee Hotz

 

Every winter since 1917, people in Nenana, a village 55 miles southwest of Fairbanks, have wagered on the exact moment that the ice breaks up on the nearby Tanana River. For the 450 townsfolk, the annual Alaska ice lottery, called the Nenana Ice Classic, is a financial lifeline that offers some their year's only employment. Winners last year shared a jackpot of $303,272.

 

But for many geophysicists, the contest itself is something more valuable than any monetary prize.

 

The Ice Classic has given them a rare, reliable climate history that has documented to the minute the onset of the annual thaw as it shifted across 91 years. By this measure, spring comes to central Alaska 10 days earlier than in 1960, said geophysicist Martin Jeffries at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks -- and that trend is accelerating. "The Nenana Ice Classic is a pretty good proxy for climate change in the 20th century," Dr. Jeffries said.

 

The local ice lottery is further evidence of a long warming trend affecting lakes and rivers throughout the Northern Hemisphere, reported by University of Wisconsin researchers who analyzed newspaper archives, transport ledgers and religious records dating back to the 16th century. Seventeen lakes in Europe, Asia and the U.S. with records going back 150 years are thawing, on average, 13 days earlier now than when first recorded, said Wisconsin lake scientist Barbara Benson.

 

I wonder if we could consider that a fairly reliable indicator?

[keithb]

This global warming b.s. is the biggest scam going. Just another ploy to control and limit our freedoms while extracting additional tax dollars. California was trying to push through a bill under the cover of darkness to control YOUR thermostat REMOTELY in YOUR house. Can you say Nanny friggin state? It caused an immediate uproar and the bill was removed. This planet has been taking care of itself for millions of years and it does not need government to intervene on its behalf. If you want to worry, worry if there are fluctuations in the temperature of the sun. If that happens we will all be in deep doo doo.

 

Remember the 9 Times Rule: Human beings are 9 times more suspectible to rumor than they are fact.

[Woodie]

Interesting slant...the chart clearly shows an upward trend. Yet the author seems to think that a one-year fluctuation (impressive though it is), indicates a reversal of the trend.

 

Long-term baby, got to think long-term.

[Whip]

Interesting slant...the chart clearly shows an upward trend. Yet the author seems to think that a one-year fluctuation (impressive though it is), indicates a reversal of the trend.

 

Long-term baby, got to think long-term.

 

How long????????

 

There was an ice age.

[TyTass]

Well, I certainly find the irony and sarcasm funny.

 

But on a more serious note, the question/issue for me isn't IF it's getting warmer. The are indeed numerous examples of empirical evidence that clearly indicate it is IS warmer than say 100 years ago.

 

What I distrust is anyone - in particular those who have written books based on summarizies of "selected" studies and who extoll their own scientific credentials or former political titles as epithets - who state it is a fact that it anyone can prove this "warming trend" will continue to increase at any postulated rate, much less that they/we know the cause of that trend.

 

I agree with many here that they/we do not yet understand fully planetary weather as a system. It is a very, very young science still full of theories and very few concretes.

 

My hope is that we will be patient enough to allow serious scientific study to prevail BEFORE we start passing laws and codes from a position of limited (or misguided) understanding.

 

For those who want immediate action now I ask (somewhat facitiously) ...

 

If we are so vain as to think that the CO2 increase caused by man is what tipped the [apparently precarious} scale, why are we so confident that we know the answer now after so short a measure of scientific study?

[smiller]

My hope is that we will be patient enough to allow serious scientific study to prevail

When will that be do you think?

[GelStra]

Whip, you are soooooooo uneducated!

 

See, it's only important if it defends the TRUTH that Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio...*sniff**...so courageously and for the love of all humanity...no, wait, the planet (yeah, there we go) inform us poor ignorant common people! How can we be expected to be informed? Thank heavens they have blessed us by carrying the torch of wisdom!! (I get all choked up) Ice age....oh, brother! That was only because activist meteors (from Berkeley, IIRC) got involved and stopped those darn green house gas producing dinosaurs!

 

If it's getting cooler, it's because of global warming! If people in the NE are needing small explosive charges to get out of their houses from all the snow, it's because of capitalists like you producing all that CO2 which warms the atmosphere, producing snow! My goodness, don't you get it?? I pity you.

[steve.foote]

Anyone who claims to know the answers is blowing smoke up your skirt.

And it's possible that anyone who summarily dismisses the overwhelming agreement of almost every major research organization might be doing the same. Tough call.

 

Actually, it's an easy call.

 

On one hand, you have groups of scientists spending billions of dollars measuring the earths climate while asking for billions of dollars more to get better measurements. Then, on the other hand, you have those same scientists telling us that they can measure, with certainty, the climate of thousands of years ago from a 3" sliver of ice pulled out of a glacier in Antartica.

 

So, which is it? Billions of dollars of sophisticated scientific instruments or a snowball?

 

It doesn't require a highly educated mind to know when you are being mugged.

[GelStra]

Whu...Steve, are you saying any of this might be financially motivated???????? The horror!

[4wheeldog]

There is a theory that several scientific types have espoused that global warning flips a switch, causing the next ice age. Seems that all that fresh water upsets the oceanic conveyor (Gulf stream) that brings heat to the north. When it shuts down, ice forms, glaciers travel, and voila! You have an ice age. Most of these events in the past can be tied to volcanic activity, which produce plenty of global warming chemicals, as well as blocking sunlight, simultaniously causing cooling. Freeze or cook? Who knows.

[ghaverkamp]

Whu...Steve, are you saying any of this might be financially motivated???????? The horror!

 

There's no question that articles like the one that started this thread are financially motivated.

 

Who's got the biggest financial stake? Those scientists getting filthy rich, living the life of luxury in their labs or pulling those "slices" of ice from the poles, or wnriting grant proposals to hire some post-doc to write some software to do modeling?

 

Or those selling the stuff the scientists see as a problem?

[Quinn]

I can see it both ways from my experience. Plant species are able to grow further north than twenty or thirty years ago. Palm trees and azaleas are available further north. We haven't had any snow during the last two Winters here. Wow, proof of warming.

 

On the other hand, I remember reading about the Norse discovering and temperarily settling Vineland. The climate was warm enough back then for them to make voyages hauling cargoes of ships masts back to Greenland, Iceland, and Scandinavia. No ice pack closing off passages or filling bays; obviously a lot warmer than we are now in the North Sea.

 

I also wonder how much our air pollution output compares to forest fires, volcanos, undersea gas eruptions. I suspect that humanity has just a gnat's worth of input.

[TyTass]

My hope is that we will be patient enough to allow serious scientific study to prevail

When will that be do you think?

I would imagine it would have to be after the mass hysteria of the sky is falling becomes old news. That will probably be about the same time that (along the lines of Greg's point) grants for studies will no longer HAVE to be titled: <Insert Umpty-Squat Study Name> "... with Special Emphasis as to its Effect on Global Warming." In other words, when the studies don't HAVE to support the previously held conclusion due to the previous political pressure.

 

But that's just my guess.

[smiller]

In other words, when the studies don't HAVE to support the previously held conclusion due to the previous political pressure.

I see. Those scientists are not only money grubbing, but knowingly doing poor science in support of a political agenda as well. The bastards.

[HairyCannonball]

The indicators do point to the earth warming up. All we have at this point are theories as to why. Since one of the theories is that increased carbon emmissions caused by human activity is causing it, shouldn't we err on the side of caution and maybe reduce the risk rather than go oops, sorry we f***** up anyone's chance of survival later? The risk may be small, the consequences are huge. Conservation and cleaning up the environment have benefits beyond stopping the possibility of global warming also.

[russell_bynum]

shouldn't we err on the side of caution and maybe reduce the risk rather than go oops, sorry we f***** up anyone's chance of survival later? The risk may be small, the consequences are huge. Conservation and cleaning up the environment have benefits beyond stopping the possibility of global warming also.

 

'05 R1200RT

'76 R90/6

'02 Duc 900SSie

'00 Duc 996 mono

'74 Duc 750GT

'02 KLR650

'00 Royal Enfield Diesel

'03 Guzzi V11 LeMans

 

 

[lawnchairboy]

purty funny

[skinny_tom (aka boney)]

Either way, I'm okay with it. When it gets cold I'll get one of these:

http://www.2moto.net/index.htm

[Twisties]

Since the topic of global warming has been such the buzz topic for some time now, I thought many of you may find this article of considerable interest and worthy of some dicussion.

 

Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming

 

LINK TO ARTICLE

 

Not to quote you from another thread or anything, but it seems soooooooooooooo relevant:

 

This fellow, kingpinofdisks, is good with the stinky bait. One, solitary, but very stinky post. Three days and 59 posts later, and it is still rolling downhill. Me, I'm going riding in the morning, screw this fishing trip. I suggest, y'all do the same.

 

Now I know facts never amounted to anything around here, and there is simply no way in h... I'm going to argue GW with a bunch of marionettes again,

 

But here's what NASA GISS actually has to say on the subject: 2007 Second Hottest Year in Instrumental Period

[HairyCannonball]

shouldn't we err on the side of caution and maybe reduce the risk rather than go oops, sorry we f***** up anyone's chance of survival later? The risk may be small, the consequences are huge. Conservation and cleaning up the environment have benefits beyond stopping the possibility of global warming also.

 

'05 R1200RT

'76 R90/6

'02 Duc 900SSie

'00 Duc 996 mono

'74 Duc 750GT

'02 KLR650

'00 Royal Enfield Diesel

'03 Guzzi V11 LeMans

 

 

 

Thats the same reaction from the uneducated masses when scientists proposed the earth was round too.

[steve.foote]

'05 R1200RT

'76 R90/6

'02 Duc 900SSie

'00 Duc 996 mono

'74 Duc 750GT

'02 KLR650

'00 Royal Enfield Diesel

'03 Guzzi V11 LeMans

 

 

 

Thats the same reaction from the uneducated masses when scientists proposed the earth was round too.

 

That's interesting. I had no idea they had motorcycles back in the middle ages.

 

How old are you?

[steve.foote]

Now I know facts never amounted to anything around here, and there is simply no way in h... I'm going to argue GW with a bunch of marionettes again,

 

But here's what NASA GISS actually has to say on the subject: 2007 Second Hottest Year in Instrumental Period

 

Oh, I see. Now anyone who gores your sacred cow is a puppet? Quick thinking, Einstein.

 

BTW, how long is this Instrumental Period you speak of? How does it compare to the Snowball Period?

[Les is more]

A general reply--

 

Please stop the sniping. Past efforts have shown that this topic usually eludes intelligent discourse. Can it be brought back on course?

[tallman]

Steve,

I'd like to support my position with some relevant data, but, the Y2K bug has frozen my computer, again.

So, I guess I'll chill out, at least until I warm up to someone's POV.

Everyone talks about the weather.

But only Al, the Hippy Dippy Weatherman, knows for sure.

[steve.foote]

Tim, the only thing you need to know is that my hurricane's rotate clockwise.

[HairyCannonball]

 

That's interesting. I had no idea they had motorcycles back in the middle ages.

 

How old are you?

 

I didn't at first see the humor in my advocating conservation and then listing a collection of 8 motorcycles in my signature. In retrospect it perhaps is funny. I rather took it though that Russel was laughing at any idea of conservation. The humorous apparent conflict may diminish somewhat when you realize that I use my motorcycles, including the 160 mpg Enfield diesel, as my primary means of transportation.

For the record I am 44. How old are you??

 

Tim

[hANNAbONE]

UH.....third worse winter on record...we are currently at around 60" of snow this year (3rd place all time) and the record is only 72.5" for the season...

 

Global warming - ............... uh..............yeah.......

[hANNAbONE]

Interesting slant...the chart clearly shows an upward trend. Yet the author seems to think that a one-year fluctuation (impressive though it is), indicates a reversal of the trend.

 

Long-term baby, got to think long-term.

 

How long????????

 

There was an ice age.

 

 

 

 

dITTO..!

[Bheckel169]

I guess we should wait until June 1st of this year to find out the results of the lottery. Since cooling has been occuring in the last year, this may represent an interesting small piece of data we can use to see what's happening and if the warming trend has stopped.

Anyone want to start our own lottery?

Bruce

[Deadboy]

 

That's interesting. I had no idea they had motorcycles back in the middle ages.

 

How old are you?

 

I didn't at first see the humor in my advocating conservation and then listing a collection of 8 motorcycles in my signature. In retrospect it perhaps is funny. I rather took it though that Russel was laughing at any idea of conservation. The humorous apparent conflict may diminish somewhat when you realize that I use my motorcycles, including the 160 mpg Enfield diesel, as my primary means of transportation.

For the record I am 44. How old are you??

 

Tim

 

Not to burst your bubble but all of those bikes (especially the diesel one) emit lots more pollution on a per. mile basis than basically any car sold in the past 30 years...mpg has zero relevance to emissions...

[steve.foote]

 

That's interesting. I had no idea they had motorcycles back in the middle ages.

 

How old are you?

 

I didn't at first see the humor in my advocating conservation and then listing a collection of 8 motorcycles in my signature. In retrospect it perhaps is funny. I rather took it though that Russel was laughing at any idea of conservation. The humorous apparent conflict may diminish somewhat when you realize that I use my motorcycles, including the 160 mpg Enfield diesel, as my primary means of transportation.

For the record I am 44. How old are you??

 

Tim

 

Tim, I'm 45, but your actual age wasn't what my comment was about. You were speaking as if you had first-hand knowledge of the time period when the flat-earth theory was debunked. That would make you 650-something years old.

 

I had my doubts, but wanted to make sure.

[HairyCannonball]

 

Not to burst your bubble but all of those bikes (especially the diesel one) emit lots more pollution on a per. mile basis than basically any car sold in the past 30 years...mpg has zero relevance to emissions...

 

Simply not true. Some emissions, yes, but not the carbon emissions that supposedly cause GW.

 

Here is a question and the answer posted to another site:

 

"Q. Could you tell me, please, if I have 1 gallon of fuel in my car, how many (units?) of CO2 will be emitted? Is there any difference if the car 4 or 6 or 8 cylinders or in respect of horse power in percentage?

 

A. A good estimate is that you will discharge 19.6 pounds of CO2 from burning 1 gallon of gasoline. This does not depend on the power or configuration of the engine but depends only on the chemistry of the fuel. Of course if the car gets more miles per gallon of gasoline, you will get less CO2 per unit of service rendered (that is, less CO2 per mile traveled).[GM]

 

The U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently launched a new Fuel Economy Web Site designed to help the public factor energy efficiency into their car buying decisions. This site offers information on the connection between fuel economy, advanced technology, and the environment.

 

At any rate, the diesel motorcycle burns less than 10% of the fuel a typical SUV uses.

 

One other point, the R12RT is equipped with a cat converter and as such makes great strides at cleaning up the other emissions.

 

Tim

[HairyCannonball]

 

Tim, I'm 45, but your actual age wasn't what my comment was about. You were speaking as if you had first-hand knowledge of the time period when the flat-earth theory was debunked. That would make you 650-something years old.

 

I had my doubts, but wanted to make sure.

 

LOL. I sometimes feel like I am 650 years old Until I get on one of my bikes. They are great therapy.

 

Tim

[Deadboy]

So you think stuff like hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide are fine to emit so long as the all mighty carbon dioxide emission levels are reduced....?

 

The effects of these will have a much more immediate impact on all of our lives than carbon dioxide...and no, even with a cat your BMW still isn't nearly as clean as the average car, all of which have had cats for a long time...never mind the Enfield diesel you were bragging about a minute ago.

[HairyCannonball]

So you think stuff like hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide are fine to emit so long as the all mighty carbon dioxide emission levels are reduced....?

 

The effects of these will have a much more immediate impact on all of our lives than carbon dioxide...and no, even with a cat your BMW still isn't nearly as clean as the average car, all of which have had cats for a long time...never mind the Enfield diesel you were bragging about a minute ago.

 

This is a thread on global warming/cooling, and as such I was referring to the carbon footprint, not total emissions.

A quote from a paragraph found on the green living ideas website: "About the only thing they (motorcycles) don’t emit significantly more of compared with cars is carbon dioxide, so at least they’re not contributing to global warming as much as cars do."

 

And yes, I do believe the other emissions are significant. It just wasn't what this thread was about.

 

I have not seen any emission specs for the R1200RT. Do you have any you could share with us? I would like to see what you base your opinion that it is dirtier than the average car. It may well be, I would just like to see some numbers proving it.

 

Tim

[ghaverkamp]

UH.....third worse winter on record...we are currently at around 60" of snow this year (3rd place all time) and the record is only 72.5" for the season...

 

Global warming - ............... uh..............yeah.......

 

. . .

 

How long????????

 

There was an ice age.

 

dITTO..!

 

As long as arguments like these fly with the masses who can't differentiate climate from weather, articles like the one that started this thread will continue to rule the day. We'll all be worse off for it.

[Whip]

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=332289

 

 

"OK, so one winter does not a climate make. It would be premature to claim an Ice Age is looming just because we have had one of our most brutal winters in decades.

 

But if environmentalists and environment reporters can run around shrieking about the man made destruction of the natural order every time a robin shows up on Georgian Bay two weeks early, then it is at least fair game to use this winter's weather stories to wonder whether the alarmist are being a tad premature."

 

 

"We missed what was right in front of our eyes," says Prof. Russell. It's not ice melt but rather wind circulation that drives ocean currents northward from the tropics. Climate models until now have not properly accounted for the wind's effects on ocean circulation, so researchers have compensated by over-emphasizing the role of manmade warming on polar ice melt.

 

 

[smiller]

"But if environmentalists and environment reporters can run around shrieking about the man made destruction of the natural order every time a robin shows up on Georgian Bay two weeks early, then it is at least fair game to use this winter's weather stories to wonder whether the alarmist are being a tad premature."

That has to be one of the most grossly misinformed (or intentionally disingenuous) comments I've seen in a long time.

[russell_bynum]

I didn't at first see the humor in my advocating conservation and then listing a collection of 8 motorcycles in my signature. In retrospect it perhaps is funny.

 

 

I rather took it though that Russel was laughing at any idea of conservation.

 

Conservation is a good thing. Even if you don't believe that humans have any impact on the climate, conservation, reducing waste, and becoming more efficient at what we do are all good things.

[HairyCannonball]

Sorry I was so obtuse to not get the joke at first Russell. Good one. I am still chuckling at myself now that I get it.

[ltljohn]

Read these three books.

Unstoppable Global Warming by S. Fred Singer

Shattered Consensus and Meltdown by Patrick J. Michaels

[Whip]

Read these three books.

Unstoppable Global Warming by S. Fred Singer

Shattered Consensus and Meltdown by Patrick J. Michaels

 

A nice synopsis....

 

http://www.friesian.com/crichton.htm

[steve.foote]

{Greg said} As long as arguments like these fly with the masses who can't differentiate climate from weather, articles like the one that started this thread will continue to rule the day. We'll all be worse off for it.

{Whip said} "But if environmentalists and environment reporters can run around shrieking about the man made destruction of the natural order every time a robin shows up on Georgian Bay two weeks early, then it is at least fair game to use this winter's weather stories to wonder whether the alarmist are being a tad premature."

{You said} That has to be one of the most grossly misinformed (or intentionally disingenuous) comments I've seen in a long time.

 

Seth, they both are right on the money, but from different points of view. The reason? Simple, as has been demonstrated over and over the last twenty years, we cannot accurately measure the atmosphere. Since we are unable to accurately measure it, we cannot really tell what it is doing, hense all of the revised theories and computer models.

 

Compound that with the obvious fact that we also cannot accurately measure historical atmospherics. Sure, we can check CO2 from a carbon-dated sliver of ice. But, that only gets us a glimpse of that particular spot on earth, within a timeframe of a couple hundred years.

 

My position has been, is, and will continue to be that we simply don't know enough about climate change to warrant doing ANYTHING about it, cooling or warming.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

...Since one of the theories is that increased carbon emmissions caused by human activity is causing it, shouldn't we err on the side of caution and maybe reduce the risk rather than go oops, sorry we f***** up anyone's chance of survival later?

 

Lets assume for the next few paragraphs that manmade global warming is real, and caused by our CO2 output.

 

As Russell notes, efficiency and conservation are fine goals, but it's foolhardy to think we can implement the kind of massive CO2 reductions that would be required to stave off manmade climate change by driving Priuses and screwing in a few CFL's. Mobile sources (cars, trucks planes) are responsible for a modest fraction of total CO2 output; other sources include things like coal-fired power plants and home heating, not as easily affected. Fine, get double-glazed windows and lower your thermostat while you're away at work during the day. Cut your heating bill (and home heating-related CO2 output) by five percent. In fact, go through your life in detail and make everything more efficient, cut your total carbon foot print by maybe 20 percent if you can. Will it stop global warming? Hardly. Won't even slow it down much.

 

Cut the US energy consumption rate in half, run our economy into the ground in the process. Will it stop global warming? Not likely. Probably won't even slow it down much, especially when other countries in the world (China and India, to name a couple) are quickly revving up their own per capita CO2 output (and head count), and likely would spin up even faster once the US drastically lowers its demand for petroleum.

 

So by all means, install CFL's, drive more fuel-efficient cars, turn down your thermostat, and let's move toward renewable resources like wind and solar power as much as is reasonable; let's stretch our energy resources and make them last a little bit longer. That's a good thing. But if manmade climate change is real, then let's also be realistic about whether we can mitigate it in any meaningful way without regressing back to the stone age. I'd rather see us putting our efforts into finding ways to adapt to the changes as they come.