forum.dwylbtzle.info Forum Index
forum.dwylbtzle.info Forum Index
forum.dwylbtzle.info
FREE-RANGE FLOYD-FREAK ASYLUM
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Global Cooling Next
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 11, 12, 13  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    forum.dwylbtzle.info Forum Index -> Everything Else
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Old Geezer



Joined: 15 Mar 2007
Posts: 526
Location: Motown The "D" Baby

PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:48 pm    Post subject: Global Cooling Next Reply with quote

Wish I had said most of this!!!


Gore gets a cold shoulder
Steve Lytte
October 14, 2007
Climate crusader: Al Gore.


ONE of the world's foremost meteorologists has called the theory that helped Al Gore share the Nobel Peace Prize "ridiculous" and the product of "people who don't understand how the atmosphere works".

Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, told a packed lecture hall at the University of North Carolina that humans were not responsible for the warming of the earth.

His comments came on the same day that the Nobel committee honoured Mr Gore for his work in support of the link between humans and global warming.

"We're brainwashing our children," said Dr Gray, 78, a long-time professor at Colorado State University. "They're going to the Gore movie [An Inconvenient Truth] and being fed all this. It's ridiculous."
At his first appearance since the award was announced in Oslo, Mr Gore said: "We have to quickly find a way to change the world's consciousness about exactly what we're facing."

Mr Gore shared the Nobel prize with the United Nations climate panel for their work in helping to galvanise international action against global warming.

But Dr Gray, whose annual forecasts of the number of tropical storms and hurricanes are widely publicised, said a natural cycle of ocean water temperatures - related to the amount of salt in ocean water - was responsible for the global warming that he acknowledges has taken place.
However, he said, that same cycle meant a period of cooling would begin soon and last for several years.

"We'll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realise how foolish it was," Dr Gray said.

During his speech to a crowd of about 300 that included meteorology students and a host of professional meteorologists, Dr Gray also said those who had linked global warming to the increased number of hurricanes in recent years were in error.

He cited statistics showing there were 101 hurricanes from 1900 to 1949, in a period of cooler global temperatures, compared to 83 from 1957 to 2006 when the earth warmed.

"The human impact on the atmosphere is simply too small to have a major effect on global temperatures," Dr Gray said.

He said his beliefs had made him an outsider in popular science.
"It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong," he said. "But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out. I don't care about grants."
_________________
"You know nothing of hell!"
I am the Angry Man.

"When a small man casts a long shadow, it's sunset" (some Chinese wise guy, who no doubt foresaw Obama)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dwylbtzle



Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 4483
Location: Sun Valley, Idaho

PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 5:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I know the salt theory
it states that during the first few hundred years after 1000 AD
the earth had an unusually warm spell
this melted the ice
this made the surface layers of the ocean less saline
normally, the warm dense saline water flows north until it cools enough so that it sinks, in northern latitudes
and flows back south
at a deeper level
the theory says that if the surface water isn't saline, and dense, enough,
no matter how cold it gets
it won't sink
this stops the thermal current conveyor belt that warms the earth
and then fresh water freezes at the poles enough till the water gets saline again

THIS THEORY COULD BE JUST AS TRUE IF HUMANS ARE CAUSING THE WARM SPELL THAT TRIGGERS ALL THIS

WHETHER THE THEORY IS TRUE OR NOT
THIS DOESN'T MEAN WE SHOULDN'T STOP BURNING FOSSIL FUELS
BECAUSE THE CO2 CONTENT OF THE OCEANS IS GOING UP BEYOND ANY NORMAL
AND THIS IS KILLING THE OCEANS
_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Old Geezer



Joined: 15 Mar 2007
Posts: 526
Location: Motown The "D" Baby

PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 4:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

To me the key point is the point I have been making and we have been cussing and discussing for a long time. Most guys don't say anything when they know it's Barbara Striesand because it would jeopardize their funding of their research.
_________________
"You know nothing of hell!"
I am the Angry Man.

"When a small man casts a long shadow, it's sunset" (some Chinese wise guy, who no doubt foresaw Obama)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dwylbtzle



Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 4483
Location: Sun Valley, Idaho

PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 9:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

but scientists were talking about global warming 20 years ago
i remember hearing about it
and the subject was no cash cow political bugaboo back then
i can't buy the "it's all a big academic/left-wing conspiracy" angle

all i hear is: "MAYBE it's not man-caused--so let's keep burning oil and coal"

there are so many reasons to get off fossil fuels
let's get on with it
and stop trying to find ONE POSSIBLE reason not to

in the future
people will need petroleum
because surely they will go back to vinyl records
and you make vinyl from petroleum Evil or Very Mad

Razz Cool
_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dwylbtzle



Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 4483
Location: Sun Valley, Idaho

PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 10:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

vinyl has higher sound quality
(when it's brand new)
_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Old Geezer



Joined: 15 Mar 2007
Posts: 526
Location: Motown The "D" Baby

PostPosted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 12:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Except 20 or so years ago it was global cooling brother man. Google Global cooling, there is no shortage of articles on it.

I don't disagree we need to get away from fossil fuels. Or at least significantly cut back.

My ORIGINAL 1960 something first release Mother's of Invention "Freakout" still sounded great without a scratch last time I played it, all 4 sides.

Well I'm about to get upset
from watching my tv....
.
.
AND
.
.

SUZY
what?
SUZY CREAMCHEESE
what?
HONEY, WHAT"S GOT INTO YOU???
.
.
AND
.
.
I can't can't remember anything else right now.
_________________
"You know nothing of hell!"
I am the Angry Man.

"When a small man casts a long shadow, it's sunset" (some Chinese wise guy, who no doubt foresaw Obama)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dwylbtzle



Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 4483
Location: Sun Valley, Idaho

PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 10:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

help, i'm a rock
help, i'm a narc

i remember
doot doo
i remember doot doo
we had a swimming poooooool
_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Foesad



Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 198

PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 3:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dwylbtzle wrote:
but scientists were talking about global warming 20 years ago
i remember hearing about it
and the subject was no cash cow political bugaboo back then
i can't buy the "it's all a big academic/left-wing conspiracy" angle

all i hear is: "MAYBE it's not man-caused--so let's keep burning oil and coal"

there are so many reasons to get off fossil fuels
let's get on with it
and stop trying to find ONE POSSIBLE reason not to

in the future
people will need petroleum
because surely they will go back to vinyl records
and you make vinyl from petroleum Evil or Very Mad

Razz Cool


as many times as I've watched debates about this issue, I have NEVER heard one person ever say, man didn't cause global warming so lets keep burning fossil fuels. Its two totally different subjects. I'm all for learning to produce energy without fossil fuels. It just doesn't have anything to do with global warming.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Old Geezer



Joined: 15 Mar 2007
Posts: 526
Location: Motown The "D" Baby

PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 12:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dwylbtzle wrote:
help, i'm a rock
help, i'm a narc

i remember
doot doo
i remember doot doo
we had a swimming poooooool


And they thought it couldn't happen here (dowt dow dow da da)
They new it couldn't happen here, they were so sure but...
_________________
"You know nothing of hell!"
I am the Angry Man.

"When a small man casts a long shadow, it's sunset" (some Chinese wise guy, who no doubt foresaw Obama)


Last edited by Old Geezer on Tue Oct 30, 2007 12:19 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Old Geezer



Joined: 15 Mar 2007
Posts: 526
Location: Motown The "D" Baby

PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 12:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Foesad wrote:
Dwylbtzle wrote:
but scientists were talking about global warming 20 years ago
i remember hearing about it
and the subject was no cash cow political bugaboo back then
i can't buy the "it's all a big academic/left-wing conspiracy" angle

all i hear is: "MAYBE it's not man-caused--so let's keep burning oil and coal"

there are so many reasons to get off fossil fuels
let's get on with it
and stop trying to find ONE POSSIBLE reason not to

in the future
people will need petroleum
because surely they will go back to vinyl records
and you make vinyl from petroleum Evil or Very Mad

Razz Cool


as many times as I've watched debates about this issue, I have NEVER heard one person ever say, man didn't cause global warming so lets keep burning fossil fuels. Its two totally different subjects. I'm all for learning to produce energy without fossil fuels. It just doesn't have anything to do with global warming.


I think he is talking about me because I insist that what little man does is insignificant compared to almost anything in nature.
_________________
"You know nothing of hell!"
I am the Angry Man.

"When a small man casts a long shadow, it's sunset" (some Chinese wise guy, who no doubt foresaw Obama)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Foesad



Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 198

PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 12:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Old Geezer wrote:
Foesad wrote:
Dwylbtzle wrote:
but scientists were talking about global warming 20 years ago
i remember hearing about it
and the subject was no cash cow political bugaboo back then
i can't buy the "it's all a big academic/left-wing conspiracy" angle

all i hear is: "MAYBE it's not man-caused--so let's keep burning oil and coal"

there are so many reasons to get off fossil fuels
let's get on with it
and stop trying to find ONE POSSIBLE reason not to

in the future
people will need petroleum
because surely they will go back to vinyl records
and you make vinyl from petroleum Evil or Very Mad

Razz Cool


as many times as I've watched debates about this issue, I have NEVER heard one person ever say, man didn't cause global warming so lets keep burning fossil fuels. Its two totally different subjects. I'm all for learning to produce energy without fossil fuels. It just doesn't have anything to do with global warming.


I think he is talking about me because I insist that what little man does is insignificant compared to almost anything in nature.


It is insignificant compared to nature. The debate for conserving fossil fuel needs to rest on the argument that future generations will need it. Not global warming. Global warming is its own issue and blaming it on SUVs is stupid.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dwylbtzle



Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 4483
Location: Sun Valley, Idaho

PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2007 11:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I wasn't thinking of any one individual
I just think people IN GENERAL are desperate to NOT think it's man-caused
because to reverse the cause would be so mammoth
so SOME part of this apparent CERTAINTY that man ISN'T causing it
HAS to be wishful thinking
(why is Foesad completely convinced that man-made cars are utterly insignificant
yet man caused deforestation is a big factor?--are our actions POSSIBLY significant, or not?
You gotta admit
it's a pretty big co-incidence that CO2 levels and global warming both
increase exactly when the industrial revolution started--don't you?)

and a percentage of the masses WILL latch onto that POSSIBILITY
as a CERTAINTY
just so they can go on with daily life in some level of comfort
and if that notion IS INDEED wrong
it could stall action just long enough to kill us all

most theories I've seen that involve CAUSES of NATURAL climate change:
(like volcanos and meteorites)
cause global cooling
SO A natural CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING MIGHT BE too few meteorites
too few volcanos
so MAYBE we will get lucky and have five Krakatoa/level volcanos next century
but MAYBE cars still cause global warming
and maybe cars cause CO2 to build up in the oceans
even if they DON'T cause global warming
so what's the difference in the end?
the result is the same
we HAVE to stop burning fossil fuels

this is my point
NOW there is a fairly large segment on the right who just totally poo poo
the idea of human caused global warming as utter silliness
and I don't see NEAR enough evidence to reach that level of certainty

IF ONE SIDE IS WRONG
WHICH ONE
BEING WRONG
KILLS THE WHOLE PLANET?

one side
if it's wrong
frees us from mid-east oil
and saves the oceans

one side kills all life on earth

if i thought global warming wasn't man-caused
i would never mention it
because I might be wrong
and BURNING COAL EXPOSES US TO MERCURY AND 1000 TIMES ALL
THE RADIATION EVER RELEASED BY ALL NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS AND
NUKE-PLANT POLLUTION PUT TOGETHER
BECAUSE COAL IS PACKED WITH POISONS AND RADIOACTIVE ELEMENTS
FRANCE RUNS ON 85% CLEAN NUKE PLANTS
WE RUN 50% ON COAL ALONE
AND HEADING FOR HIGHER
THAT'S INSANE

_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Old Geezer



Joined: 15 Mar 2007
Posts: 526
Location: Motown The "D" Baby

PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 4:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here is the article's url. The coloring and emphasizing are mine!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119387567378878423.html


My Nobel Moment
By JOHN R. CHRISTY
November 1, 2007; Page A19

I've had a lot of fun recently with my tiny (and unofficial) slice of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize awarded to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But, though I was one of thousands of IPCC participants, I don't think I will add "0.0001 Nobel Laureate" to my resume.

The other half of the prize was awarded to former Vice President Al Gore, whose carbon footprint would stomp my neighborhood flat. But that's another story.

Large icebergs in the Weddell Sea, Antarctica. Winter sea ice around the continent set a record maximum last month.

Both halves of the award honor promoting the message that Earth's temperature is rising due to human-based emissions of greenhouse gases. The Nobel committee praises Mr. Gore and the IPCC for alerting us to a potential catastrophe and for spurring us to a carbonless economy.

I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never "proof") and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time.

There are some of us who remain so humbled by the task of measuring and understanding the extraordinarily complex climate system that we are skeptical of our ability to know what it is doing and why. As we build climate data sets from scratch and look into the guts of the climate system, however, we don't find the alarmist theory matching observations. (The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration satellite data we analyze at the University of Alabama in Huntsville does show modest warming -- around 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit per century, if current warming trends of 0.25 degrees per decade continue.)

It is my turn to cringe when I hear overstated-confidence from those who describe the projected evolution of global weather patterns over the next 100 years, especially when I consider how difficult it is to accurately predict that system's behavior over the next five days.

Mother Nature simply operates at a level of complexity that is, at this point, beyond the mastery of mere mortals (such as scientists) and the tools available to us. As my high-school physics teacher admonished us in those we-shall-conquer-the-world-with-a-slide-rule days, "Begin all of your scientific pronouncements with 'At our present level of ignorance, we think we know . . .'"

I haven't seen that type of climate humility lately. Rather I see jump-to-conclusions advocates and, unfortunately, some scientists who see in every weather anomaly the specter of a global-warming apocalypse. Explaining each successive phenomenon as a result of human action gives them comfort and an easy answer.

Others of us scratch our heads and try to understand the real causes behind what we see. We discount the possibility that everything is caused by human actions, because everything we've seen the climate do has happened before. Sea levels rise and fall continually. The Arctic ice cap has shrunk before. One millennium there are hippos swimming in the Thames, and a geological blink later there is an ice bridge linking Asia and North America.

One of the challenges in studying global climate is keeping a global perspective, especially when much of the research focuses on data gathered from spots around the globe. Often observations from one region get more attention than equally valid data from another.

The recent CNN report "Planet in Peril," for instance, spent considerable time discussing shrinking Arctic sea ice cover. CNN did not note that winter sea ice around Antarctica last month set a record maximum (yes, maximum) for coverage since aerial measurements started.

Then there is the challenge of translating global trends to local climate. For instance, hasn't global warming led to the five-year drought and fires in the U.S. Southwest?

Not necessarily.

There has been a drought, but it would be a stretch to link this drought to carbon dioxide. If you look at the 1,000-year climate record for the western U.S. you will see not five-year but 50-year-long droughts. The 12th and 13th centuries were particularly dry. The inconvenient truth is that the last century has been fairly benign in the American West. A return to the region's long-term "normal" climate would present huge challenges for urban planners.


Without a doubt, atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing due primarily to carbon-based energy production (with its undisputed benefits to humanity) and many people ardently believe we must "do something" about its alleged consequence, global warming. This might seem like a legitimate concern given the potential disasters that are announced almost daily, so I've looked at a couple of ways in which humans might reduce CO2 emissions and their impact on temperatures.

California and some Northeastern states have decided to force their residents to buy cars that average 43 miles-per-gallon within the next decade. Even if you applied this law to the entire world, the net effect would reduce projected warming by about 0.05 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100, an amount so minuscule as to be undetectable. Global temperatures vary more than that from day to day.

Suppose you are very serious about making a dent in carbon emissions and could replace about 10% of the world's energy sources with non-CO2-emitting nuclear power by 2020 -- roughly equivalent to halving U.S. emissions. Based on IPCC-like projections, the required 1,000 new nuclear power plants would slow the warming by about 0.2 ?176 degrees Fahrenheit per century. It's a dent.

But what is the economic and human price, and what is it worth given the scientific uncertainty?


My experience as a missionary teacher in Africa opened my eyes to this simple fact: Without access to energy, life is brutal and short. The uncertain impacts of global warming far in the future must be weighed against disasters at our doorsteps today. Bjorn Lomborg's Copenhagen Consensus 2004, a cost-benefit analysis of health issues by leading economists (including three Nobelists), calculated that spending on health issues such as micronutrients for children, HIV/AIDS and water purification has benefits 50 to 200 times those of attempting to marginally limit "global warming."

Given the scientific uncertainty and our relative impotence regarding climate change, the moral imperative here seems clear to me.

Mr. Christy is director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and a participant in the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, co-recipient of this year's Nobel Peace Prize.
_________________
"You know nothing of hell!"
I am the Angry Man.

"When a small man casts a long shadow, it's sunset" (some Chinese wise guy, who no doubt foresaw Obama)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dwylbtzle



Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 4483
Location: Sun Valley, Idaho

PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 1:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

actually
global cooling WILL, eventually, happen
(again)
they say the position of the continents
the way they are now
and the way they will be, for millions of years
CAUSES a 15,ooo year heating and cooling cycle
(all, apparently, because of ocean currents)

so
we are ten thousand years into the cycle
so
in five thousand years, we may have another ice age
this cycle has been going on for millions of years

the co2 heating spike happening now
is apparently out of bounds
is shooting the temp higher than it ever goes, naturally
and is too co-incidental in its timing
it fits too well with the industrial revolution


BECAUSE of ice packs (which we can measure ancient gas levels in)
we can tell the co2 in the atmosphere is too high to be natural
so...
our only hope is to drive as many suvs and burn as many trees
as possible
for the next 5000 years
to
hopefully
stave off the next ice age
Laughing

ZERO krakatoa-sized volcanoes per century would help, too

(because they cause global winters)
_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Old Geezer



Joined: 15 Mar 2007
Posts: 526
Location: Motown The "D" Baby

PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 12:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dwylbtzle wrote:
actually
global cooling WILL, eventually, happen
(again)


the co2 heating spike happening now
is apparently out of bounds
is shooting the temp higher than it ever goes, naturally
and is too co-incidental in its timing
it fits too well with the industrial revolution





Globals cooling or at least some sort of cooling cycle happens quicker than that, ie 30 or so years ago, and it cycles about every 50 years.


It's also coincidental with our ability to detect the cycles. As you imply that cycle has been going on the whole time, but nobody cared because who knew it was 2 or 3 or 4 degrees warmer or colder on average than last year????
_________________
"You know nothing of hell!"
I am the Angry Man.

"When a small man casts a long shadow, it's sunset" (some Chinese wise guy, who no doubt foresaw Obama)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    forum.dwylbtzle.info Forum Index -> Everything Else All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 11, 12, 13  Next
Page 1 of 13

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group