FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Global Cooling in 6-9 Years

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> Tomorrow's World
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8614

PostPosted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 12:32 am    Post subject: Global Cooling in 6-9 Years Reply with quote

Here's an interesting development which
counterpoints the Global Warming hype:


Quote:


Russian Scientists Forecast Global Cooling in 6-9 Years

Created: 25.08.2006 17:47 MSK - MosNews.com

Global cooling could develop on Earth in 50 years and have serious consequences before it is replaced by a period of warming in the early 22nd century, a Russian Academy of Sciences’ astronomical observatory’s report says, the RIA Novosti news agency reported Friday.

Environmentalists and scientists warn not about the dangers of global warming provoked by man’s detrimental effect on the planet’s climate, but global cooling. Though never widely supported, it is a theory postulating an overwhelming cooling of the Earth which could involve glaciation.

“On the basis of our [solar emission] research, we developed a scenario of a global cooling of the Earth’s climate by the middle of this century and the beginning of a regular 200-year-long cycle of the climate’s global warming at the start of the 22nd century,” said the head of the space research sector.

Khabibullo Abdusamatov said he and his colleagues had concluded that a period of global cooling similar to one seen in the late 17th century — when canals froze in the Netherlands and people had to leave their dwellings in Greenland — could start in 2012-2015 and reach its peak in 2055-2060.

He said he believed the future climate change would have very serious consequences and that authorities should start preparing for them today because “climate cooling is connected with changing temperatures, especially for northern countries.”

“The Kyoto initiatives to save the planet from the greenhouse effect should be put off until better times,” he said, referring to an international treaty on climate change targeting greenhouse gas emissions.

“The global temperature maximum has been reached on Earth, and Earth’s global temperature will decline to a climatic minimum even without the Kyoto protocol,” Abdusamatov said.

http://www.mosnews.com/news/2006/08/25/globalcooling.shtml

Maybe you think that these Russians are just interpreting the same
data differently from their Western counterparts. Nope.

Here's another report with the vital information
which is missing from the article above:

Quote:
Abdusamatov and his colleagues at the Russian Academy of
Sciences astronomical observatory said the prediction is based on
measurement of solar emissions, Novosti reported.

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060825-091321-7556r

Ah! Now it makes sense. We already know that solar output is the
critical determinator of Earth surface temperatures:

Quote:
Link found between solar activity, global climate
Tormod 12-22-2004

A team led by University of Maine scientists has reported finding a potential link between changes in solar activity and the Earth's climate.

In a paper due to be published in an upcoming volume of the Annals of Glaciology, Paul Mayewski, director of UMaine's Climate Change Institute, and 11 colleagues from China, Australia and UMaine describe evidence from ice cores pointing to an association between the waxing and waning of zonal wind strength around Antarctica and a chemical signal of changes in the sun's output.
http://forums.hypography.com/astronomy-news/1047-link-found-between-solar-activity-global.html

And we know the issue is complicated by other factors:
Quote:
BreakForNews.com : The Battle Against Global Cooling !

18 Aug, 2005 by Fintan Dunne, Editor

The the incessant hype over 'global warming' may turn out to be a dreadful mistake, if some scientists' more long term assessments of climate change proves right.....
http://www.breakfornews.com/articles/GlobalCooling.htm


Anyway, given that solar angle, the Russians must simply be predicting
a cooling cycle based on decreased solar activity.

We could dig ourselves in a hole by trying to reduce global
temperatures --just as a cooling cycle begins.....

Maybe we should just let the planet figure all this out for itself!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
aspectus



Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 164

PostPosted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 11:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fintan Dunne AKA Nude Infant
_________________
The larger a society or confederacy, the greater the amalgamation of collective factors - which is typical of every large organization - the more aggravated the moral and spiritual degeneration of the individual. - Carl Gustav Jung


Last edited by aspectus on Sat Feb 07, 2009 8:24 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8614

PostPosted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 7:39 pm    Post subject: Global Warming Bunk Reply with quote

Here's More on the Global Warming Bunk

Quote:
California Focus: Another enviro-scare campaign

State global-warming bill addresses problem that isn't

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 By BENJAMIN ZYCHER

Is water vapor is a "pollutant"? Yes, according to the California Climate Action Team Report. Prepared in support of pending state "global warming" legislation, it recommends 45 emission-reduction measures intended to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions toward 1990 levels by 2020.

Amazingly, the report fails to tell us the predicted reduction in future temperatures if 1990-level emissions are achieved. So we have done that analysis here. If California were to achieve the carbon-dioxide reductions, the predicted decline in world temperatures in the year 2100 would be thirteen one-thousandths of a degree Celsius. If the entire U.S. were to achieve those reductions, the decline would be sixteen one-hundredths of a degree Celsius. The figure for the 34 most-developed economies would be one-third of one degree Celsius. If we add China, the figure is forty-five one-hundredths of a degree Celsius. Such changes are far too small to matter.

The global-warming horror stories in the CCAT report – flooding, fires, heat waves, drought, insects – truly are biblical, but its proposals never would be approved for such tiny effects. Moreover, the CCAT free-lunch claim that the regulations would impose no economic costs is preposterous. The real question is: What does the science actually tell us?

A paper published in the journal Science last summer showed that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is losing mass, while the East Antarctic Ice Sheet (three times as large) is gainingmass. Another paper published in Science last fall reported that the ongoing trend for the Greenland ice sheet is an increase of 5.4 centimeter per year, almost all of which is at elevations above 5000 feet. Other research yields different findings because there is great uncertainty about new measurement techniques. But there is no dispute that Greenland was warmer in the 1930s than it is today and was much warmer 1,000 years ago.

Hurricane activity (frequency and wind speeds) has increased over the past decade, but a substantial body of scientific literature shows that this phenomenon is related to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation – water-temperature changes that shift about every decade – around Greenland and the tropical Atlantic. The AMO warmed around 1995. Hurricane activity has increased, and Greenland glaciers below 5,000 feet have been depositing more ice into the ocean. There is little need to invoke SUVs and the other purported sins of mankind to explain this.

There were no small glaciers 5,000 years ago in what would become the Western United States. Surface temperatures 3,000 years ago were about 2 degrees Celsius higher than today, abnormally low 1,500 years ago, and over 1 degree Celsius warmer in places 1,000 years ago. The Earth then entered the so-called Little Ice Age during about 1850-1900. Satellite measurements show an increase in lower tropospheric temperatures of 0.13 degrees Celsius per decade from 1979 through this March, or 1.3 degrees if extrapolated for 100 years.

So much for Gov. Schwarzenegger's argument that "The debate is over." No one disputes that increasing carbon dioxide concentrations will create some warming, but the magnitude is disputed, well, hotly. Will the warming be observed everywhere, or mainly in Siberia in the winter? (Likely answer: the latter.)

More fundamentally, there can be no "consensus" about future emissions because they will be determined largely by world economic growth conditions. There has never been a consensus among economists about economic forecasts even for the United States only five years in the future; is there a forecasting consensus about worldwide economic growth 50, 60, 80 years from now? Please.

The CCAT report fundamentally is a political document far less concerned with environmental quality than enhancing the political power of the Left to subsidize its constituencies. Recall the myriad other environmental scare campaigns. The pesticide Alar. Global cooling. The northern spotted owl. Power lines and childhood cancer. The population bomb and worldwide famine by the 1980s. The worldwide depletion of most natural resources by the year 2000. And so on. It is time to just say no.

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/opinion/homepage/article_1257562.php

See Also:

Water Vapor

It should be noted that just because water vapor is the most important contributor
to the natural greenhouse effect
does not mean that human-made climate
change emissions are unimportant. However, human activities do not seem to
be appreciably changing the atmospheric concentration of water vapor in any
direct way on the global average.
http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reports/2006-04-03_FINAL_CAT_REPORT.PDF

Source: http://www.rolf-martens.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Hocus Locus



Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 850
Location: Lost in anamnesis, cannot forget my way out

PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Global warming: somewhat myopic chemistry based theory that does not take suspended particulates into account.

Methane release/escalation: adjuct to warming, a feedback loop triggered by rising temperature releasing trapped ocean and ice that may be (or have been) a tipping point for seious runaway greenhouse. Think Venus, a planet of love for those who really love methane.

Global Dimming: effect of particulates and process affects condensation and evaporation of water vapor. If less UV reaches the surface and lower atmosphere, less photons reaching the world's water on surface and in lower atmosphere. Change happens.

Particulates are where it's at... The effect of tiny things is negligible... until you consider the fact that water-ice seeds around little iotas. So water remains the central motive element for climate, but make water slightly more likely to make clouds and you chnage the weather. Shift happens.

Time to de-worm 'Global Warming'! The term I mean. I think it should be scrapped. It has been so politicised it means too many things too soon to too many people who are already convinced that it means something about anything at all. I remember a time when a debate on science was, about science. With science in it.

OR, we could throw out the theory and just keep the name and have an empty buzzword to knowingly hurl at people. Like the modern usage of 'Nazi'.

I say this because climate change theory is so important it deserves a fighting chance, whatever direction it goes or what we call it. I could enter a room of people-factions and make this point... they'd just smile, back away politely and whisper things.

"Doesn't know anything at all about Global Warming, poor thing...schools today!!".

"What enthusiasm and passion. We could use more people like that on our side. Invite him over!"

"Hostility will not save the planet."

"Loud voice, closed mind I always say. As loud as I can. Hhe he! Bye."

"Hey... look over there! Global Warming mouse pads!"



So I have come up with a plan so Machiavelian, even people who know it was deliberate will yet be inexorably bound by its consequences. Sort of like say, a shift in global climate caused by human industry.

Bin Laden changes his name to 'Global Warming'.

All the not so religious after all hate sermons, the banners in Arabic script carried by the purported Al-Qaedaites -- as incomprehensible as ever to us illiterates -- when they start chanting, or even conversing to one another we'd hear it! "Blahblahblha blahal GLOBAL WARMING. AHSHAblah..."

Lets face it people. When we Americans listen to Other-Speak and one of those "words or phrases from America" appears in the mix, we perk our ears and wag the minds like a dog hearing its own name. Some of us even do the tongue thing.

Scientists would be annoyed... but they should be annoyed already. People who don't know what to think... would have to get off their asses and think of something, or be left on their behinds. Bin Laden would think it's funny. He knows the strategic value of confusion.

Quote:
[news clip: fists, Arabic banners and chanting]

Household #1: Guess what Marge, those news people forgot the English subtitles, AGAIN! What an incompetent outrage. Those people are clearly upset about something important, it might be about us, or maybe we can help them in some way. How could we know? Surely there must be SOMEONE in the news organization who knows Farsi and can take just a minute to write it down and hand it to the people who do screen titles. Right, but when the announcer says "Coming up: News Beat" there is plenty of time to toss in the words, Coming Up, News Beat... I should call someone.

Household #2: Those bastards are getting ready to hit us again. Jesus, just look at that hatred. Well bring it on, make my day.

Household #1: Hey..! I think I heard them mention 'Global Warming'. Nice to know someone besides us is concerned about the climate. They probably think it's our fault. (They're probably right, hon.)


Those news people and the President would be hardest hit. A new name for the you-know-what, at 11.

__
Karl Nielsen: Symphony No. 3, music to listen to while considering the effects of global climate changes.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rabbiosi



Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 21

PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 2:41 am    Post subject: Global oceans cooling Reply with quote

"The world's oceans cooled suddenly between 2003 and 2005, losing more than 20 percent of the global-warming heat they'd absorbed over the previous 50 years. That's a vast amount of heat, since the oceans hold 1,000 times as heat as the atmosphere. The ocean-cooling researchers say the heat was likely vented into space, since it hasn't been found stored anywhere on Earth."
http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/opinion/columns/article_1245606.php

The mainstream media is doing its utmost to downplay this news, claiming it is only a "global warming speed bump".

The jury is still out.
________
Honda CHF50P specifications


Last edited by rabbiosi on Mon Jan 31, 2011 5:51 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mark1360



Joined: 05 May 2007
Posts: 16

PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2007 10:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

and heres a movie on the benifits of co2...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wq_Bj-av3g0&eurl=

_________________
hgfdhgs
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Peter



Joined: 26 Jun 2007
Posts: 2459
Location: The Canadian shield

PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 10:37 am    Post subject: Re: Global oceans cooling Reply with quote

rabbiosi wrote:
"The world's oceans cooled suddenly between 2003 and 2005, losing more than 20 percent of the global-warming heat they'd absorbed over the previous 50 years. That's a vast amount of heat, since the oceans hold 1,000 times as heat as the atmosphere. The ocean-cooling researchers say the heat was likely vented into space, since it hasn't been found stored anywhere on Earth."
http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/opinion/columns/article_1245606.php

The mainstream media is doing its utmost to downplay this news, claiming it is only a "global warming speed bump".

The jury is still out.


Gee, a hot(ter) body that radiates more heat.....not really a novel concept. The whole idea of climate change is valid yet human impact should be negligible by intent and design. Then fact that we are profligate only feeds fuel to the fire.

_________________
The grand design, reflected in the face of Chaos.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Peter



Joined: 26 Jun 2007
Posts: 2459
Location: The Canadian shield

PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 2:33 pm    Post subject: What goes around comes around.... Reply with quote

When you look at those global temperature and CO2 values from the Vostok icecore samples, the last 800,000 years or so are pretty obvious. We are at the absolute peak of the cycle where within 50 years global temperatures will (or should have by now) plummet.

Circumstance or man-made effect....who knows? If the gulf stream continues to diminish to the point of ceasing to ship heat to europe.....thats a good place to start the ball rolling. Snow brings albedo changes and we are off!

At least the neocons will all have to move south.....lol (what a price to pay!) Embarassed

_________________
The grand design, reflected in the face of Chaos.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
crespowu



Joined: 27 Jul 2007
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 2:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Really? As I know before ,the world will become warmer and warmer because more CO2 will be released.
_________________
Custom iPhone ringtones
DVD to iPhone video converter is your best choice to create iphone movies.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Peter



Joined: 26 Jun 2007
Posts: 2459
Location: The Canadian shield

PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 2:31 pm    Post subject: The inevitable is just what you need to deal with... Reply with quote

It seems that we may or may not be contributing but the temps do seem to increase BEFORE the CO2 impacts them. This leads to the conclusion that they are unrelated, OR that the process of CO2 release CONTINUES (ie permafrost thawing) while the temp is decreasing initially going into the ice age. It remains to be seen, but those that do remain better have some solid alternatives to freezing or swimming..... Idea
_________________
The grand design, reflected in the face of Chaos.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> Tomorrow's World All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
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

Theme xand created by spleen.