Sun's "Disturbingly Quiet Cycle" Prompts Fears Of Global COOLING

[Pabster]

Story here.

Yep. Global COOLING. Now, quick. Who's selling the snake oil today? :laugh:

I don't believe in any of the BS being spouted one way or the other. There's no massive change in either direction; It's all cyclical, as it always has been. The only ones saying otherwise are the snake oil salesmen and those with political agendas.

 

[shiner]

Does this mean my ice cream cone won't melt quite so fast in the middle of August?

 

[Robor]

From that article:

"Solar activity has overpowered any effect that CO2 has had before, and it most likely will again," Patterson says. "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."

Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't CO2 levels *much* higher now than they ever have been? If so, how can this guy predict what affect solar activity might have on current levels?

 

[shiner]

It all makes sense now...this is why Manbearpig grew the beard. He knew we were headed for a cooling cycle and wanted to keep his face warm.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: shinerburke
It all makes sense now...this is why Manbearpig grew the beard. He knew we were headed for a cooling cycle and wanted to keep his face warm.

Southpark rocks! I like Al Gore but Matt and Trey's parodies of him crack me up. The one where he's got a cape on and is 'flying' around... :laugh:

 

[DealMonkey]

Hmmmm ... an editorial ... with some speculation by Canadian scientists who don't have the equipment they need ... yeah, sounds legitimate!

 

[Lemon law]

Well at least the article cites the Mondor minimum which occurred hundreds of years ago. But we have almost no evidence from one single 11 year solar cycle that we will have a repeat of even a once in a thousands year event like a Mondor minimum.

Yet we have ice records and other records stretching back hundreds of thousands of years showing more ice melting at the poles than at any other time. As usual, the ever busy Pabster has more garbage posts than valid logic. And in terms of the latter, the logic is basically maybe or maybe not in terms of even a short range trend. And is only worth paying attention to if it can be proven to be a long range trend. Which the cited article TOTALLY FAILS TO DO.

 

[Genx87]

How dare our Sun do that. I think we should pass a law and fine it for slacking on the job.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Robor
From that article:

"Solar activity has overpowered any effect that CO2 has had before, and it most likely will again," Patterson says. "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."

Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't CO2 levels *much* higher now than they ever have been? If so, how can this guy predict what affect solar activity might have on current levels?

Levels have been higher and lower than were we are today. If you look over the course of all history it appears we are right in the middle heading up.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Story here.

Yep. Global COOLING. Now, quick. Who's selling the snake oil today? :laugh:

I don't believe in any of the BS being spouted one way or the other. There's no massive change in either direction; It's all cyclical, as it always has been. The only ones saying otherwise are the snake oil salesmen and those with political agendas.

Yep, 99.9% of scientists say warming, yahoos say cooling, sounds about equal to me.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Genx87
How dare our Sun do that. I think we should pass a law and fine it for slacking on the job.

Sun credits and solar offsets will surely solve the problem.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Sun credits and solar offsets will surely solve the problem.

:laugh:

 

[Fingolfin269]

Oh noes! Our polar waters will turn into ginormous ice caps that will ultimately block out the sun.

 

[bsobel]

Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't CO2 levels *much* higher now than they ever have been?

Nope, about average (but trending up). When CO2 levels where high we had dragonflies with multifeet wingspans

 

[blackangst1]

lol @ frail man trying to figure out our universe.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Robor
From that article:

"Solar activity has overpowered any effect that CO2 has had before, and it most likely will again," Patterson says. "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."

Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't CO2 levels *much* higher now than they ever have been? If so, how can this guy predict what affect solar activity might have on current levels?

The point behind CO2 levels is that they FOLLOW temperature by 500 years. The much touted ice core charts prove that. CO2 therefore does not create the trend in temperature, they have another correlation and that is the fact that the ocean releases vast amounts of its CO2 every time the solar cycle warms the planet.

Our solar cycle theory will be proven the next time the sun lowers in activity, which is exactly what this article is pointing to. That we could have some concrete evidence to prove or disprove the theory within the next 10 years, if not sooner.

Originally posted by: Pabster
There's no massive change in either direction;

Did you even read the article?

They pointed to the 1650-1715 time period for a reflection on how cold it is expected to get this century. That's not major, that's not a new ice age, they are saying EXACTLY that "It's all cyclical, as it always has been" so where the hell is your reading comprehension?

You and the article said the same thing, are YOU a snake oil salesman?

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Oh noes! Our polar waters will turn into ginormous ice caps that will ultimately block out the sun.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now you are going to piss off Pabster---that contention was probably going to be his next post.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
lol @ frail man trying to figure out our universe.

:thumbsup: QFT.

 

[NeoV]

Pabster - how can you say the variations in the earth's temperature are just cyclical when there is a new variable in the equation - man?

I'm with you on the whole 'boogeyman' thing - they people saying this is the end of the world are just as bad as the right-wing hacks completely denying everything, but you seem like a somewhat logical person - to ignore the millions and millions of metric tons of crap that we are putting in the air seems a bit short-sighted of you.

Also - if the entire GW push is what finally gets companies that matter to get off of their collective asses and come up with cars that dont' rely/need gas, more efficient/cleaner factories, etc, etc - then where is the harm? Other nations around the world are 20-30 years ahead of us in starting programs to rely less, or not at all, on outside fuel - it can only help us to do the same.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: NeoV
to ignore the millions and millions of metric tons of crap that we are putting in the air seems a bit short-sighted of you.

Great, now prove what the effect is. Don't use a "belief", this isn't creationism, use some actual evidence.

 

[umbrella39]

+1 for Pabster for beating HelloKeith to the punch :thumbsup:

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
lol @ frail man trying to figure out our universe.

<Homer Simpson>

Stupid humans!

</Homer Simpson>

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: Robor

Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't CO2 levels *much* higher now than they ever have been?

not ever, just during the recent past where scientists have been around to measure it has the short term level gone up

the chart on this page shows co2 levels from 600 million years ago to now and the level of co2 now, even though it has gone up due to industrialization, is many many times lower that the highest levels

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFoss...oniferous_climate.html

Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya -- 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ).

There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.

The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: NeoV
to ignore the millions and millions of metric tons of crap that we are putting in the air seems a bit short-sighted of you.

Great, now prove what the effect is. Don't use a "belief", this isn't creationism, use some actual evidence.

no, environmentalism is a religion to many, you can't ridicule people for their beliefs

 

[fskimospy]

This editorial is awesome. It lumps together so many misrepresentations of the science behind global warming I don't even know where to start.

I guess that explains why its an editorial though, that way it doesn't have to adhere to any standards of accuracy or journalistic integrity.

cue the anti global warming circle jerk!