Global Cooling

[Martyn4802]

Thursday, June 21, 2007 12:20 a.m. EDT
Canadian Professor: Prepare for Global Cooling

Don't blame rising levels of carbon dioxide (C02) for whatever global warming is now taking place; put the blame on "old sol" — the sun may be getting ready to put the world into the deep freezer.


So say a growing number of scientists who have studied the effect of the sun on the earth's climate and concluded that the only thing scientists understand about climate change is that it is always changing.



"Climate stability has never been a feature of planet earth,” explains R. Timothy Patterson professor and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre, Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University in an article in the Financial Post.


"The only constant about climate is change; it changes continually and, at times, quite rapidly. Many times in the past, temperatures were far higher than today, and occasionally, temperatures were colder. As recently as 6,000 years ago, it was about 3 C warmer than now. Ten thousand years ago, while the world was coming out of the thousand-year-long ‘Younger Dryas’ cold episode, temperatures rose as much as 6 C in a decade — 100 times faster than the past century's.”


Dr. Patterson insists that even though advocates of the global warming theory such as Al Gore are insisting that the "the science is settled," that is far from being the case.

"The fact that science is many years away from properly understanding global climate doesn't seem to bother our leaders at all," Patterson wrote." Inviting testimony only from those who don't question political orthodoxy on the issue, parliamentarians are charging ahead with the impossible and expensive goal of 'stopping global climate change.'”


He cited the assertion by Canadian parliament member Ralph Goodale that parliament should have "a real good discussion about the potential for carbon capture and sequestration in dealing with carbon dioxide, which has tremendous potential for improving the climate, not only here in Canada but around the world.” Patterson observed that it "would be humorous were he, and even the current government, not deadly serious about devoting vast resources to this hopeless crusade."


Patterson explained that an extensive scientific project he conducted for his government regarding the health of the Canadian fishing industry yielded results that concerned not just the condition of the native fishery, but how solar activity regulates climate.


The research that involved taking core samples of mud at the bottom of deep Western Canadian fjords used sophisticated technology that enabled him and his team to collect more than 5,000 years' worth of mud. "Clearly visible in our mud cores are annual changes that record the different seasons,” he explained.


Briefly, the research showed "a direct correlation between variations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate indicators (called proxies ),” a find, he wrote, that is not unique since hundreds of other studies, using proxies from tree rings in Russia's Kola Peninsula to water levels of the Nile, show exactly the same thing: a direct correlation between variations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate indicators.

Among his conclusions:



"I and the first-class scientists I work with are consistently finding excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate. This is not surprising. The sun and the stars are the ultimate source of all energy on the planet.”


In a 2003 poll conducted by German environmental Researchers Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, two-thirds of more than 530 climate scientists from 27 countries surveyed did not believe that "the current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the effects of greenhouse gases." About half of those polled stated that the science of climate change was not sufficiently settled to pass the issue over to policymakers at all.


"Ours is one of the highest-quality climate records available anywhere today, and in it we see obvious confirmation that natural climate change can be dramatic. For example, in the middle of a 62-year slice of the record at about 4,400 years ago, there was a shift in climate in only a couple of seasons from warm, dry, and sunny conditions to one that was mostly cold and rainy for several decades.”


"In a series of groundbreaking scientific papers starting in 2002, Veizer, Shaviv, Carslaw, and most recently Svensmark et al., have collectively demonstrated that as the output of the sun varies, and with it our star's protective solar wind, varying amounts of galactic cosmic rays from deep space are able to enter our solar system and penetrate the earth's atmosphere. These cosmic rays enhance cloud formation which, overall, has a cooling effect on the planet."


"Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe solar cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on earth. Beginning to plan for adaptation to such a cool period, one which may continue well beyond one 11-year cycle, as did the little ice age, should be a priority for governments. It is global cooling, not warming, that is the major climate threat to the world, especially Canada.”

Astrophysicist Nir Shariv, a prolific researcher and one of Israel's top young scientists who was cited by Patterson, no longer accepts the logic of man-made global warming. "Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming,” Shariv wrote. "But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media."


According to Dr. Shariv there is no concrete evidence — only speculation — that manmade greenhouse gases cause global warming. Even research from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is bereft of anything here inspiring confidence.


"Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming," he states, adding that the sun's strong role indicates that greenhouse gases can't have much of an influence on the climate — nor will cutbacks in future C02 emissions will matter much in terms of the climate.


Even doubling the amount of CO2 by 2100, "will not dramatically increase the global temperature," Shaviv states.


Finally, an article formally located at climatecentral.org, now found at iceagenow.com, states that should solar activity take a dive tomorrow, the temperatures would cool significantly.


"Solar activity has overpowered any effect that CO2 has had before, and it most likely will again,” the article avers. "In fact, we should be more afraid of a cooling trend because of a solar minimum that will peak in 2030 that could be fairly large. As we saw from a minor solar minimum in the mid 1900s, the earth suddenly started to cool. If we were to have even a medium sized solar minimum, we could be looking at a lot more bad effects than 'global warming' would have had.”



© NewsMax 2007. All rights reserved.



Editor's note:
Al Gore`s Global Warming Spin Debunked, More Here

[Johannes_Paulsen]

Phillip J. Fry: It's a good thing global warming never happened.

Leela: It did. But nuclear winter canceled it out.

-Futurama

[TheFacts]

...And don`t forget about the power of Milankovitch Cycles.




Curiosity yields evolution...satiety yields extinction.

[applesanity]

Hey, that's from the evil santa episode, yeah?

Alright I know attacking the messenger is logically fallicious, but.... NewsMax?

[MADISON]

Back in the 70's it was so cold they were saying the earth was going into another Ice Age. Today Al Gore and Hollywood is saying we are going into Global warming. Everybody knows that "Internet Al" Gore is full of bull....
Can you tell me the stable figures for climate change is for the lastt million years or so?

[jimpeel]

The Canada National Post had a 27 part series of articles recently called "Climate Change: The Deniers which is a very good read.

Some of the articles specifically address future global cooling and the possibility of a coming ice age.

I wonder; will the global warming advocates take credit for causing an ice age by their reduction global warming?

Will the sun cool us?
The Deniers -- Part VII

[jimpeel]

And there's that pesky Mars thing. Must be all of those humans and their wicked, nasty SUVs.

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

Climate change hits Mars

Look to Mars for the truth on global warming

Mars also experiencing global warming: scientists

[junkpile]

Alright I know attacking the messenger is logically fallicious, but.... NewsMax?

Not in this case. Logical fallacies only come into play for logical arguments. If the argument is empirical, questioning the messenger is valid. (Example: If a tabloid came out with the suggestion that aliens were invading Earth, a rejection of their story may rightly come out of reputation. If they said, on the other hand, that we need a good defense plan in case this does happen, then a rejection of their argument based off their reputation would be fallacious).

[jimpeel]

THIS GUY is great.

British Channel 4 production of "The Great Global Warming Swindle" in eight parts which will take about 1:15 to watch.

PART I

PART II

PART III

PART IV

PART V

PART VI

PART VII

PART VIII

To watch this documentary in its entirety, plus two others on the other side of the equation, they can be downloaded from http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3657722/...l_Warming_Hoax using the Bittorrent client. The Bittorrent client is available HERE or HERE.

There are other clients but I prefer Bittornado.

[DasBoot]

http://www.gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/fall95/mod.html

The best available estimate, from the international assessment by the IPCC and based on the range of available model predictions, is that the global-mean surface temperature will increase by about 0.5 to 2 °C (roughly 1 to 3.5° F) over the period from 1990 to 2050 (Fig. 1). For comparison, an increase of 0.5° C--the lower limit--is equal to the warming that has taken place in the past 100 years. Beyond the year 2050, the carbon dioxide concentration is expected to reach twice that of pre- industrial times. When that level is reached, and after the climate has reached equilibrium, the best estimate for the resulting climate change is a warming of 1.5 to 4.5°C (about 3 to 8°F). The IPCC considers a mid-range increase of 2.5°C (5°F) the most probable result.

Just look at who is preaching the doom & gloom scenario.
The usual Hollywood crowd, reliable scientific minds like Al Gore and every green haired, ecstacy dropping, tongue pierced(boring!), tribal tatooed(boring!) cluless, conspiracy nut, going nowhere, loony leftwing loser in Birkenstocks!:barf:

Earth is a very adaptable and resourceful planet.
Some people just like to worry!

[jimpeel]

The Profit of Doom

Creators of carbon credit scheme cashing in on it

[Redworm]

wow, I didn't know this forum was populated with climatologists

guess it's ok to keep pumping a bunch of crap into the air, wouldn't want to hurt the poor oil companies and car companies and industrial manufacturers itsy bitsy profits by putting some serious restrictions on pollution or anything

nah it's ok folks, global warming isn't a big deal. no need to worry...I mean, who needs science anyways?

[Charles S]

wow, I didn't know this forum was populated with climatologists

guess it's ok to keep pumping a bunch of crap into the air, wouldn't want to hurt the poor oil companies and car companies and industrial manufacturers itsy bitsy profits by putting some serious restrictions on pollution or anything

nah it's ok folks, TFL says global warming isn't a big deal. no need to worry...I mean, who needs science anyways? the earth is only 6000 years old and god will protect the planet

Ah, nothing like intelligent discourse. Your brilliant argument has convinced me that global warming is happening and is all the my fault. After all the climate never changed before modern industry. It was fixed....before man there was never warming and cooling of our climate....no ice ages....no periods of temperate or warm climates.

The sun is a fixed entity without change....there is no periods of increased or decreased radiation no changes in storms or magnetic activity on the sun......Oh wait...I am sure that is our fault also.

As mentioned above it is our fault with the Mars explorer that the climate is warming there also.

Obviously climate change is all man's fault. I must applaud you on your brilliant debating abilities and your ability to articulate your reason.

[Redworm]

Ignoring the very real and very clear science regarding this latest batch of climate change does not add credence to your argument. Bringing up opinion from the 70s ignores the way science evolves. Bringing up Mars and the Sun completely ignores the way science works in general. The sun's effects on our climate has been examined and the data has been extrapolated. It has a comparatively low impact on the current batch of climate changes. The oceans are not spewing more CO2 into the air, that "Global Warming Swindle" documentary intentionally used mislabeled graphs to misrepresent data.

Yes, humanity is largely responsible for the current batch of changes. That is fact. It has nothing to do with Al Gores crap, nothing to do with communism, nothing to do with "sticking it to the man". Some of us are trying to save the ****ing planet.

[Charles S]

Again, excellent debating skills.

Yes, humanity is largely responsible for the current batch of changes. That is fact.

Prove it.

You seem to be the one ignoring science that does not agree with your ideals and beliefs....I find that is often the fact. It is almost impossible to debate an individual who ignores science.

Explain Mars climate changes....

Explain prior climate warming and cooling.

Explain the fact that current computer models cannot account for the carbon dioxide produced in the oceans or humidity, the single biggest factor in climate warming and cooling.

Explain how the suns changes in energy output cannot have an affect on the environment.

If you cannot explain then please continue to just espouse your ideals without being able to accurately back them with facts and science.

Some of us are trying to save the ****ing planet.

Please continue....I will watch you accumulate your carbon credits....I for one know I really appreciate all of your efforts.

[Slugthrower]

Anybody with a little knowledge of science understands that the Earth is far older than 6000 years or 6,000,000 years old.

The Earth was at one time far warmer than it is getting today. There were no industries and automobiles to contribute to that period of global warming. What was causing that to happen back then? It sure as heck wasn't man. Life survived these warming periods. A significant portion of life didn't survive the Ice Age. There is more to fear in a cooling of the Earth than a warming of it. Personally I don't buy into the "We're all gonna die, tomorrow" chicken little mind set of the day.

Here is some scientific opinion for you.

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/future1.html

[Redworm]

Prove it.

Done by the EPA, IPCC, NASA and various other organizations. It's been proven like evolution has been proven.

Explicitly.

It's not about ignoring science that doesn't fit in with my beliefs. As a scientists it's my job to put aside personal beliefs in search of the truth. No human can do that perfectly but looking at the science involved - something only a scientist is capable of doing with any reasonable aptitude - shows that we are having an enormous impact on the environment. It's proven. It's true. It's real. Deal with it.

Explain Mars climate changes....

Martian climate change has no bearing on our own, therefore it doesn't matter. It's not like the climate change on Mars is in any way, shape, or form correlating with our own.

Explain prior climate warming and cooling.

The climate changes on its own. This time, we are the ones changing it and altering the natural cycle.

Explain the fact that current computer models cannot account for the carbon dioxide produced in the oceans or humidity the single biggest factor in climate warming and cooling.

Yes they can. Choosing to ignore all the scientific data does not make that data disappear.

Explain how the suns changes in energy output cannot have an affect on the environment.

Didn't say they can't have an effect on the environment but it's been shown very clearly that the effect in this case is statistically insignificant. It's very minimal and the sun's current activity cannot explain any of the current climate changes. None.

If you cannot please continue to just espouse your ideals without being able to accurately back them with facts and science.

They've been backed up time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time again by actual scientists. My fields are closely related to climatology yet I don't work in that field specifically. However the science is still understandable, even by the layman. The layman, however, still wants to pretend that because they don't understand the hard science behind it that it can't possibly be true. Just a big ole liberal myth.

Please continue....I will watch you accumulate your carbon credits....I for one know I really appreciate all of your efforts.

And another problem with the layman. Pretending that shooting down one argument automatically shoots down the rest of it. Doesn't work that way.

I have no interest in carbon credits, I think they're a bunch of bull. They are modern entitlements, nothing more. Just another way for the rich to get richer off the emotions of the middle class. However that has zero bearing whatsoever on the reality of the science involved. Carbon credits are no way to save the planet which is why I have nothing to do with them.

[Redworm]

Anybody with a little knowledge of science understands that the Earth is far older than 6000 years or 6,000,000 years old.

yea well tell that to the creationist museum. it's the same brand of ignorance and pseudo-science that convinces people to ignore reality and concentrate on their fantasy world

The Earth was at one time far warmer than it is getting today. There were no industries and automobiles to contribute to that period of global warming. What was causing that to happen back then? It sure as heck wasn't man. Life survived these warming periods. A significant portion of life didn't survive the Ice Age. There is more to fear in a cooling of the Earth than a warming of it. Personally I don't buy into the "We're all gonna die, tomorrow" chicken little mind set of the day.

The earth goes through cycles of climatic change. The difference is that THIS change in the climate does not coincide with the natural state of the world. THIS change in climate has a strong enough correlation to our actions and the causation can be clearly supported. THIS climate change is far more threatening than if the earth was merely changing on its own.

It's like ignoring evolution because we've shown that in the past human beings have used artifical selection to grow crops that are far different from their ancient ancestors. Just because we can grow bananas that are over half a foot long does not mean that natural selection didn't result in bananas that were no longer than your thumb and would have stayed that way if we hadn't gotten involved.

I don't buy into the "we're going to die tomorrow O NOES" mantra either. I do, however, understand the science behind what's going on and it's plain to see that our actions are having an impact on the climate. Are we responsible for hurricanes? No, but cleaning up our air and stopping any further impact on the environment is a really good frakking idea.

[Slugthrower]

Jochem Marotzke has stated "We are in a state now where the more we know, the more it becomes clear how little we really understand about the (climate) system."

http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/en/institut...hem/index.html

But what does he know about science?

There is no definitive proof of man causing global warming. Man produces 3% of the green house gases. The remaining 97% is from natural causes. Should we begin to make efforts to interfere with the major contributor?

A politician isn't going to take up a scientific investigation/cause unless it supports their political agenda. Politicians will ignore any information that is contrary to what they wish the general public to believe. Al Gore isn't to be trusted, as he is a politician first and foremost.

[gc70]

Everyone who could sell books or movies or crackpot schemes about "The Coming Ice Age" did so a few decades ago. Now it is the turn of Global Warming.

[Martyn4802]

My take, scientifically, is that the human contribution to any global warming that MAY be taking place at this moment, is that our contribution is like a grain of sand on a beach, compared to the sun, and volcano eruptions.
Al Gore is a con artist, with absolutely ZERO scientific training or knowledge.
He has a racket going on, with lots of hystericals hood winked, so HE can make money.

Martyn

[Redworm]

Jochem Marotzke has stated "We are in a state now where the more we know, the more it becomes clear how little we really understand about the (climate) system."

Smart dude but it doesn't change the facts.

There is no definitive proof of man causing global warming. Man produces 3% of the green house gases. The remaining 97% is from natural causes. Should we begin to make efforts to interfere with the major contributor?

Yes, there's plenty of proof. You're forgetting that those gasses which comprise our contribution to the atmosphere have a much, much bigger impact on climate than the rest of the gasses involved. It's not a 1:1 ratio.

A politician isn't going to take up a scientific investigation/cause unless it supports their political agenda. Politicians will ignore any information that is contrary to what they wish the general public to believe. Al Gore isn't to be trusted, as he is a politician first and foremost.

I do not care about the politicians. Stop bringing up Al Gore like I give a flying rat's ass and half what he thinks. I don't. Very few people involved in this stuff actually do. His opinions DO NOT MATTER. The science, however, does matter.

[Redworm]

Everyone who could sell books or movies or crackpot schemes about "The Coming Ice Age" did so a few decades ago. Now it is the turn of Global Warming.

Aaaaaand people once again forget that "global warming" is one of the things can lead directly to an ice age. That being said it doesn't matter who was selling books back in the day because the science is concrete. Of course more research needs to be done but pretending that it's all a bunch of liberal hoohaa and it's more important to keep money in the pockets of politicians and CEOs is one of the dumbest things we can do as a civilization.

We are damaging the environment. That is not under debate.

[Slugthrower]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/singer.html

Here is another scientist. He is another that doesn't agree with the current models. There are many more that will tell you that global warming is a political ploy to manipulate the masses through fear.

[Redworm]

Good for them. They're right, it is being used a political ploy. Just like the threat of terrists, illegal immigration and gay marriage. But regardless of how politicians use these things for their own purposes it doesn't change the data. We are damaging the environment. On a global scale. There is no two ways about it.

Fortunately over the past few decades more environmental awareness has allowed us to recognize the problem and put us well on the path to solving it but to pretend that we're not having an impact on the world around us is the attitude that caused the problem in the first place.