03/19/2010 01:36:06 AM EST

It's global cooling we must worry about

posted by mcamelyne

Lost in all the arguments about greenhouse gases is the actual truth.  Is man generating greenhouse gas, of course he is.  Does it matter?  Not in the least.

Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook

The earth moves in cycles of 100,000 years of cooling and heating.  The last ice age ended about 18,000 years ago.  We are due for another.  Will it happen suddenly or gradually?  nobody knows.  What we do know is that from the 1400's until 1860, there was a mini-ice age.  Temperatures are only returning to those we experienced during the 1100 -1300 period.

Now, be serious.  Did man cause global cooling?  Or how about global warming during the 1300's which led to global cooling.  Instead it is the natural rhythm of the earth.

The next ice age is coming.  These mindless projections about temperatures increasing over the next several hundred years are just so much smoke.  The truth is that climatologists are guessing.  They make computer models that predict things, but until they happen they have no way to be certain.

Our society should be preparing for life in the ice instead life on the beach.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVF ossils/ice_ages.html

 

Said MacDonald, "As the Earth moves up and down in the plane of the solar system, it runs into various amounts of debris, dust and meteoroids. Our work was an outgrowth of investigations of larger impacts, such as the comet or asteroid that killed the dinosaurs. However, meteoroids and dust are much smaller and more spread-out over time."

Muller notes that this new research has important implications for the understanding of the present climate, and for predictions of future climate.

"As far as we know," he said, "none of the present climate models include the effects of dust and meteors. And yet our data suggests that such accretion played the dominant role in the climate for the last million years. If we wish to make accurate predictions, we must understand the role played by such material."

Despite the current relatively warm climate on Earth, regular recurring epochs of glaciation have dominated the planet for the past million years. Ten times, glaciers have advanced and then retreated with the duration of retreat (and corresponding warmth) frequently lasting not more than 10,000 years. The Earth has been in a warm period for about 10,000 years now.

http://www.lbl.gov/Science- Articles/archive/ice-age-se diments.html

It's a natural process, CO2 and greenhouse gases are irrelevant.

 

< AIG paying back the Bailout | South Carolina Disgrace >
 Display:
It's global cooling we must worry about | 32 comments (32 topical, 0 hidden)
Ignore the temperature increases (none / 1)

Let's agree that there's a ton of carbon being produced but that the temperature concern is misplaced (for sake of argument). There are still incredibly good reasons for us to get off dirty sources of energy ASAP:

1)-Ocean Acidification.

2)-Mercury.

3)-Asthma & Other Respiratory Issues.

4)-Cancer.

5)-Funding Terrorism.

So go ahead, use oil/coal industry funded research to try and bring down the poorly named "global warming", but everyone still has 5 reasons to worry about Climate Deterioration. In fact, even if you think you can dismiss 1 or 2 or 3 of these concerns, it only takes one.

The End

by Tom Hanc on 03/19/2010 01:55:50 AM EST

I totally agree on that! (none / 0)
I think the last point is a little weak, but it will get attention, so push it.

The whole discussion is a great example for news narratives.
There is one issue (climate change)that has recently risen and everybody focuses on that, ignoring all other aspects.
As Mr. Mackey would put it:

"Pollution is bad, mmkay?"

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 03/19/2010 03:51:03 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Seriously? (none / 0)

1)-No source(s) = no reason to take you seriously. Coming back with a corporate funded/connected source doesn't count.

2)-Coal, not gasoline. I said dirty sources of energy, period, not just oil/gas.

3)-In plenty of major cities or areas with pollution producing factories. Not to mention pollution coming to the west coast from China, or benzene from gas. And I don't walk to the studio BTW.

4)-See # 1/3.

5)-If we do nothing, you think all countries would do the same? What kind of Republican makes that argument? Really, we should keep funding terrorists indirectly because even if we stop, not everyone else will? 

by Tom Hanc on 03/20/2010 12:51:01 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Yes and no (none / 0)

Coal plants have plenty of localized effects. As for the rest of the planet, our horrible trade deals (that promote externalities like pollution) need to change as well.

 

by Tom Hanc on 03/20/2010 01:46:31 AM EST

[ Parent ]
And (none / 0)

I'm glad to see you agree the entire planet needs to get off dirty sources of energy. That's step one.

Conservatives need to concede that point and then we can get on to discussing how to go about creating the alternatives. Of course since I'm not having any kids I'm doing my part.

;)

 

by Tom Hanc on 03/20/2010 01:52:43 AM EST

[ Parent ]
You're kidding, right? (none / 0)

Liberals are all about birth control and sex ed (not sterilization) for all countries. We're also pro-choice, although obviously that shouldn't be used AS birth control. I'm also a non-theist, and generally speaking non-theist/secular types are far less likely to pump out a bunch of kids.

Where are conservatives on this issue? (Rhetorical Question)

by Tom Hanc on 03/20/2010 02:15:18 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Don't fuck in the front hole! (none / 0)
Doug Stanhope on why abortion is green.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 03/20/2010 05:46:34 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Burning fossil fuels are bad, so is lying (none / 0)

I think we can all agree that reducing our dependence on fossil fuels is a good thing.  For me, anything that reduces our consumption of petrol is good as it reduces our requirement to import oil and we can bring the troops home.  I am not an isolationist, but I see no point in continuing to prop up Arab sheiks.

We can convert to natural gas for our auto industry at the cost of $150/car.  Subsidize the installation with tax credits at your local fuel station and there it is.  No more importation of fuel.

There is plenty of natural gas in the US.  Further natural gas produces less CO2 than petroleum.  Bring all the troops home and close our overseas bases.  That will save 350 billion  a year for tax payers and help close the budget deficit.

The world is a dangerous place.  As long as we depend on imported fuel it will continue to be a dangerous place.  Having troops in harms way makes it more dangerous rather than safer.  If the Muslims want to kill each other, that's their business.

Anyone advocating a sterilization program better be the first in line.  Accidents of birth shouldn't decide your right to procreate, your level of education, your right to housing or health care.  The conservative bull of work hard and  prosper sounds good, until you have lived in slums with people making $1 a day.

I hope everyone enjoys their cheap Walmart products made by indentured labor in sweat shops.  If you are not willing to live on $2/day why should you expect the person making your clothes to.  Fox and America are a very sad place indeed.

Don't waste your vote, vote Green or Independent in the next election.

by mcamelyne on 03/20/2010 12:18:41 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I'm reasonable (none / 0)

I don't want desperate people doing something irreversible for short term cash. But I'm fine with medium term birth control (Norplant, etc.) for drug addicted women or for those needing money.

Hopefully by the time the birth control ends their financial situation has improved (and or they're off drugs) to the point where they can adequately care for a child. That's the fairest option, much better than no option or sterilization.

 

by Tom Hanc on 03/20/2010 07:07:13 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Huh? (none / 0)

I'm all about birth control (short and medium term, i.e. norplant) secularism, free education (regular ed and sex ed) and challenging the notion that it's a good idea to pump out a bunch of kids. All of those things are proven to reduce population growth.

Complain to the other set of "you guys".

by Tom Hanc on 03/20/2010 08:23:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Education is the key (none / 0)
In Vietnam it has been readily demonstrated that the best birth control is to send girls to university.  Girls that attend university are far more likely to wait until they are 27+ to have their first child.  This generally results in a 2 child household.  Whereas girls on the farm are still having 3 or 4.

Don't waste your vote, vote Green or Independent in the next election.

by mcamelyne on 03/20/2010 09:27:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
It's about family planning. (none / 0)

You make the presumption that poor people shouldn't propagate as if it is their fault they are poor.  Since the bulk of poor people are brown your statement has the unintended consequence of being racist.

I hadn't notice any programs in the US offering to pay people to get vasectomies.

Don't waste your vote, vote Green or Independent in the next election.

by mcamelyne on 03/20/2010 09:24:54 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Your referral makes my point. (none / 0)

Here is your poster child:

"In interviews Barbara Harris compared pregnant women to dogs that need to be neutered. This stance has invoked comparisons to the eugenics movement of the early 20th century.[2] Ms. Harris has repeatedly compared the women the program targets to animals, stating that “I’m not saying these women are dogs, but they’re not acting any more responsible than a dog in heat.”[3] She has also stated: “[W]e don’t allow dogs to breed. We spay them. We neuter them. We try to keep them from having unwanted puppies, and yet these women are literally having litters of children.”"

You gotta do better than that Ken.  This program is completed repugnant on all levels.

Don't waste your vote, vote Green or Independent in the next election.

by mcamelyne on 03/21/2010 12:24:25 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Is anybody asking you? (none / 0)

Aren't you being a bit melodramatic.  The entire foreign aid budget devoted to non-Israeli issues is miniscule.  Further the money paid out by the UN is infinitesimal.  Unless you are contributing to some charity group, you aren't paying for these children, quit your whining.

Those vasectomies are only for drug users and they are really mostly tubal ligations for crack users.  Ms. Harris's comparisons between bitches in heat and people is nauseating.  I don't believe in the notion of hate speech, but there is a more polite way to say it and make your message more effective.

Don't waste your vote, vote Green or Independent in the next election.

by mcamelyne on 03/21/2010 02:12:38 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Emergency relief (none / 0)
There is a difference between helping someone in an emergency and providing them with regular aid.  Which of your fellow Americans would you like to see killed?  That's what your really saying.  You would like to commit genocide worldwide so that you will not have to share the worlds resources with others.

Don't waste your vote, vote Green or Independent in the next election.

by mcamelyne on 03/21/2010 03:25:59 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Reduced oil imports would be good, (none / 0)
but:

   "There is plenty of natural gas in the US."


You might want to research that a bit more, with particular reference to the environmental effects of shale gas extraction and how suddenly and unpredictably gas deposits run out compared with those of oil.

Don't believe the hype, as someone says.

(And, although it's your choice of course, why are you stooping to read, let alone respond to, troll comments. It just produces crap that needs to be scrolled past and lowers the tone of your post.)

by Landbeyond on 03/21/2010 03:20:40 AM EST

[ Parent ]
The astrophysicist point-of-view (none / 0)
There's been lots of study done specifically on the Sun's 11-year (22-year if you count magnetic-flipping) cycle in order to see the progression of sunspot-activity. Basically, nowadays they can conclude that the mini ice-age of the 17th and 18th century that inspired the Icy Thames was indeed caused by a decrease in solar activity, not so much because of the Earth's climate.

They coined this the Maunder minimum, though they're not quite sure why a Sun that should be getting increasingly brighter (though achingly-slowly) over time suddenly slowed down its solar activity for a heightened period. What they are in agreement with though is that it was indeed the Sun that likely caused it, not climate.

by kirkus on 03/19/2010 02:05:25 AM EST

The sky is falling (none / 0)

Go online and see if you can find any detailed studies showing that glaciers are shrinking worldwide.  You can't because there are no studies.  It is an urban myth that glaciers are shrinking worldwide.  There are a few of course, there always are as local climates fluctuate.

Notice the dearth of articles regarding shrinking ice in the Artic for 2009 and 10.  That's because it's growing again.  The earth is cyclical and now we are in a cooling cycle.  Trying to fit the data to support your theory is bad science.

The ocean is warming due to volcanic activity and solar activity.  the oceans are the key, not the atmosphere.

Don't waste your vote, vote Green or Independent in the next election.

by mcamelyne on 03/20/2010 01:41:18 AM EST

Contrarian thinking (none / 0)
Sometimes you have to go the other way to find the truth.  I just look at the evidence and call it like I see it.

Don't waste your vote, vote Green or Independent in the next election.

by mcamelyne on 03/20/2010 11:58:47 AM EST

[ Parent ]
So,... (none / 0)
...the massive increases in greenhouse gasses have no effect at all?  We can safely ignore those increases?

That's the problem with you people: when you can't confront a fact head-on, you deny it by ignoring it, and that's why you don't get the respect of people who actually do understand science.

by EveningStarNM on 03/21/2010 05:30:15 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Let's have provable science and not speculative. (none / 0)

I think the jury is still out on whether man made greenhouse gases are the culprit.  I also recognize it might take another decade or two before we can really know.  In the meantime I would like us to convert to non-fossil fuels to reduce our dependence on the sheiks.

Your precious science is still a theory, not a fact.  Please read up on the differences instead of repeating the latest talking point from mass media.  In fact there has been a cooling trend since 1998 and the evidence is diverging from the models.  If you would keep an open mind I might actually be interested in your ideas.

Don't waste your vote, vote Green or Independent in the next election.

by mcamelyne on 03/21/2010 11:02:48 AM EST

[ Parent ]
rubbish. (none / 0)

Ice ages do come and go but that process is over 50 to 100,000 years cycles, and there is nothing we can do to avoid them.

Right now we are in between such cycles which may last for 10 of thousands more years.

All of which has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CURRENT CRISIS.

On the other hand, it has been shown without doubt the effects of green house gasses to raise the ocean temperatures by a few degrees, which could change global weather patterns, making some parts of the world much dryer, warmer, colder and wetter.

CO2 takes a long long time to be captured out of the atmosphere, so if we where to completely stop today zero output of CO2, it would take thousands of years for the CO2 up there to be brought down to more natural levels.

At any rate, the whole,fear of freezing due to ice ages is so laughable it is not even worth considering.

 

by wowisdabomb on 03/20/2010 12:18:16 PM EST

Wow. What a bunch of crap. (none / 0)
There's no evidence whatsoever for a 100,000-year heating and cooling cycle. Since everything you said after that ridiculous claim is based on it, I find that I'm pissed that I read your comment all the way to the end.

by EveningStarNM on 03/20/2010 02:46:27 PM EST

Did you even bother to look beofre typing? (none / 0)

A simple search on the internet would of brought you to wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik i/Milankovitch_cycles

The ice core drilling and ocean floor core samples make it abundantly clear that over the last million years there have been 10 cycles.

That has more foundation than all the computer models in the world.  It is based on the facts not supposition, hockey sticks or wags.

Don't waste your vote, vote Green or Independent in the next election.

by mcamelyne on 03/21/2010 03:57:08 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Whoopdeefuckindoo. (none / 0)
Did you bother to read about Milankovitch Theory?  It has only to do with changes in the Earth's orbit and axial tilt relative to the sun.  It says nothing about the massive increases in greenhouse gasses, some of which do not occur naturally, not to mention the unnatural mixture of those gasses, and which is caused entirely by human beings.

Go ahead.   Keep denying it.  But you're children won't be able to, and they'll blame you for their problems, as they'll be right to do so.

by EveningStarNM on 03/21/2010 05:43:32 AM EST

[ Parent ]
One other thing: (none / 0)
For Milankovitch Theory to have any bearing on this issue, the Earth's tilt would have to have changed dramatically in just a few decades.

Has it?

This is why so many of us think you deniers are idiots.

by EveningStarNM on 03/21/2010 05:46:04 AM EST

[ Parent ]
We can agree that the earth changes orbit and tilt (none / 0)

If we can agree that the earth changes orbit and tilt and that in turn causes heating and cooling cycles of the earth as well as solar radiation then we have a place to start from.

Heating of the earth's core as a result of  these changes increases the amount of precipitation which increases the amount of snow and reflected light which in turn creates cooling temperatures and brings on an ice age.

Greenhouse gases also increase the water vapor, increasing the snow, triggering an ice age.  Like I said before, its cyclical, maybe we sped up the cycle a few decades.  In the galactic scale its a non-event.

Either way we better start building bio-spheres with fusion energy reactors.

Don't waste your vote, vote Green or Independent in the next election.

by mcamelyne on 03/21/2010 11:09:14 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Past it's expiration date (none / 0)

Too bad this thread is past it's expiration date as there is FAR too much material to attack (it's like the last day buffet on a cruise ship, I just don't know where to start!).  At this point though it's not worth my time.  I'll just say one thing...Just because one thing affects climate doesn't mean that it is the ONLY thing that affects climate.  Take a few min and read up on Radiative Forcing.

Claiming that climate change is bunk because something else also affects climate also is sort of like using the fact that someone had cancer as a defense for shooting them in the head.  "But your honor my client couldn't have killed Mr. X, because he had cancer and we all know cancer kills people!"

by alphasigmookie on 03/21/2010 11:44:12 PM EST

Good post... (none / 0)
I always like to see someone post a contrary opinion for discussion. It creates a good debate.

I have to admit I don't know enough about the issue to discredit your theory but it does sound reasonable enough.

However, I do agree with ihavenobias as well, esp. about the ocean acidification. Regardless of what KenTX says, we can actually SEE the results of that right now.

by ilovecenk99 on 03/22/2010 02:44:12 AM EST

Acidification... (none / 0)
That's a different problem, one largely caused by the developing world.  Different problems, different solutions.  Cutting CO2 emissions will not impact that in the least.

Don't waste your vote, vote Green or Independent in the next election.

by mcamelyne on 03/22/2010 10:50:16 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I'm not sure about that.. (none / 0)
I thought that it was caused by the changing ph balance in the ocean exacerbated by melting icecaps which cause more freshwater to be melted into the ocean.

by ilovecenk99 on 03/22/2010 11:45:40 AM EST

[ Parent ]
It's not enough... (none / 0)

Sulphur Dioxide emissions by China and India are far more damaging.  Here is a graph of freshwater.  Notice that the lion's share of surface fresh water is in Antarctica which is not melting.

Freashwater Distribution 

Don't waste your vote, vote Green or Independent in the next election.

by mcamelyne on 03/22/2010 11:59:01 AM EST

[ Parent ]
It's global cooling we must worry about | 32 comments (32 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: