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

[manowar821]

You guys got it all out of your system, now?
...
..
.
Alright, good.

Scientific evidence changes constantly, we're always finding out new things about our environment and the universe. It's not hog-wash, it's new evidence, and they're going to run with it and try to figure out where the earth's climate could be heading. Everyone else is just bullshitting you, including most of you in this thread.

To reply to Pabster, you're right. It is basically cyclical, and within that cyclical pattern, there is an AVERAGE in temperature change in relation to time past. Key word is "average", because you can have relatively short periods of time (1000-10000 years?) where the temperature does NOT follow the average... The events that cause this to happen are not limited to the Sun having a vacation, only. We could change it slightly, an asteroid hit could change it more, and massive eruption events could do nearly the same amount of damage. We could get hit by gamma-ray bursts, we could pass too close to a roaming star, and get baked for a year. There are hundreds of things that could change our climate, whether it's a little bit (still bad) or a LOT, it does not need to follow the average perfectly.... BECAUSE IT'S AN AVERAGE.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: 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.

Wonder why we do not hear more items like this one regarding CO2 levels? Ice cores can only go back so far. For a better picture of CO2 levels, we have to look at the geologic record.

 

[LumbergTech]

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.

i agree that many global warmies have dug themselves a deep hole because of the non-scientific approach with which they use to attempt to prove global warming is caused by us..but...

there are a lot of real studies that show the health effects of all the unchecked pollution from vehicles and factories..i suggest you look up some lung health statistics of children who live in high traffic areas vs those who dont

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: 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.

Wonder why we do not hear more items like this one regarding CO2 levels? Ice cores can only go back so far. For a better picture of CO2 levels, we have to look at the geologic record.

because manbearpig wants you to buy his carbon credits to make him some mo' money

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

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.

i agree that many global warmies have dug themselves a deep hole because of the non-scientific approach with which they use to attempt to prove global warming is caused by us..but...

there are a lot of real studies that show the health effects of all the unchecked pollution from vehicles and factories..i suggest you look up some lung health statistics of children who live in high traffic areas vs those who dont

see, that argument actually has merit. no one likes air pollution. when i was a kid, that was what the "environmentalists" talked about, pollution.

i agree that pollution that affects the health of humans is worthy of reducing. but that wasn't good enough for those in the environmental movement that are religious about it. they had to push it farther and that is when "global warming" was invented, to scare people into continuing their anti-technology religion to get people stirred up about this

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: FoBoT

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: 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.

Wonder why we do not hear more items like this one regarding CO2 levels? Ice cores can only go back so far. For a better picture of CO2 levels, we have to look at the geologic record.

because manbearpig wants you to buy his carbon credits to make him some mo' money

:Q

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

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

:thumbsup: QFT.

Seriously. Why do we bother studying anything? Learning stuff is such a waste of time. We haven't cured cancer yet, obviously we never will. We should just go read the bible or something. It'd be more productive.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

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

:thumbsup: QFT.

Seriously. Why do we bother studying anything? Learning stuff is such a waste of time. We haven't cured cancer yet, obviously we never will. We should just go read the bible or something. It'd be more productive.

Quit being a fscking tool all the time. The point blackangst1 was making was (obviously) exactly the opposite of your reply here, i.e. that you think that just because you learn a little you know it all.

 

[compuwiz1]

This might get Gore's underwear in a huge knot! :laugh:

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
This might get Gore's underwear in a huge knot! :laugh:

Probably has to wear a thong.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: LumbergTech
i agree that many global warmies have dug themselves a deep hole because of the non-scientific approach with which they use to attempt to prove global warming is caused by us..but...

there are a lot of real studies that show the health effects of all the unchecked pollution from vehicles and factories..i suggest you look up some lung health statistics of children who live in high traffic areas vs those who dont

Then I recommend you fight pollution without using the dogma that surrounds temperature.

 

[desy]

C02 isn't pollution, its a naturally occuring gas that trees and plants love to breath.

Now the rest of unburnt crap from fossils is and we should reduce that

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: gsellis
Probably has to wear a thong.

Excuse me, my lunch is beginning to come up.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

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

:thumbsup: QFT.

Seriously. Why do we bother studying anything? Learning stuff is such a waste of time. We haven't cured cancer yet, obviously we never will. We should just go read the bible or something. It'd be more productive.

Quit being a fscking tool all the time. The point blackangst1 was making was (obviously) exactly the opposite of your reply here, i.e. that you think that just because you learn a little you know it all.

The tools are the ones who see what 99% of experts who are studying the problem are saying, and instead decide to seize on the ravings of a few quacks. Ask any scientist if they think they "know it all" and they'll tell you "of course not, but just because we don't know the answers to everything doesn't mean we don't have a good idea about what's going on."

Somehow it's always the case that anyone who disagrees with your position is a tool, an idiot, a partisan hack, blind to reality, etc. Maybe you aren't right about everything.

 

[Sinsear]

This must be Bush's fault somehow.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

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

:thumbsup: QFT.

Seriously. Why do we bother studying anything? Learning stuff is such a waste of time. We haven't cured cancer yet, obviously we never will. We should just go read the bible or something. It'd be more productive.

Quit being a fscking tool all the time. The point blackangst1 was making was (obviously) exactly the opposite of your reply here, i.e. that you think that just because you learn a little you know it all.

The tools are the ones who see what 99% of experts who are studying the problem are saying, and instead decide to seize on the ravings of a few quacks. Ask any scientist if they think they "know it all" and they'll tell you "of course not, but just because we don't know the answers to everything doesn't mean we don't have a good idea about what's going on."

Somehow it's always the case that anyone who disagrees with your position is a tool, an idiot, a partisan hack, blind to reality, etc. Maybe you aren't right about everything.

Who is seizing on the ravings of a few quacks? That the sun may be entering a cooling cycle is mainstream science right now, not quack science. Hell, NatGeo even did a show on it the other day.

And you aren't science, nor do you speak for it. I know for a fact that science doesn't claim to know it all. That's the very nature and purest essence of science. See my sig. The ONLY reason people can use these normal cyclical changes to discredit science is because of the asshattery of the GW alarmists in the past. More to the point though, they're not discrediting science, they're laughing at your ignorance of science (while you indignantly pretend to be science).

As to the rest, how you are a "tool" is self-evident just from reading the posts quoted here.

 

[Moonbeam]

I would build a space based industry that could reflect sunlight to earth if we need more and away if we need less.

I would, except of course I would have to pay for it. Probably what's best for me is everybody paralyzed by debate. Hell, either way it's only potential extinction. It's what I deserve anyway.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Vic

And you aren't science, nor do you speak for it. I know for a fact that science doesn't claim to know it all. That's the very nature and purest essence of science. See my sig. The ONLY reason people can use these normal cyclical changes to discredit science is because of the asshattery of the GW alarmists in the past. More to the point though, they're not discrediting science, they're laughing at your ignorance of science (while you indignantly pretend to be science).

As to the rest, how you are a "tool" is self-evident just from reading the posts quoted here.

Anyone who knows the slightest bit about global warming would know that scientists have long included cyclical changes in the sun in their predictions and equasions. It has also long ago been determined that the sun simply doesn't account for a large amount of the warming we have been seeing. This editorial is ignoring this fact, as are most of the people in this thread.

These findings/editorial discredit nothing, everything they are saying has long ago been studied, analyzed, and accounted for. The only asshattery going on here is the willful ignorance of the anti GW crowd on here. I know half the people in this thread have participated in other ones where these specific points have been raised and refuted, but because it doesn't fit in with their worldview it is ignored and forgotten.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Vic

And you aren't science, nor do you speak for it. I know for a fact that science doesn't claim to know it all. That's the very nature and purest essence of science. See my sig. The ONLY reason people can use these normal cyclical changes to discredit science is because of the asshattery of the GW alarmists in the past. More to the point though, they're not discrediting science, they're laughing at your ignorance of science (while you indignantly pretend to be science).

As to the rest, how you are a "tool" is self-evident just from reading the posts quoted here.

Anyone who knows the slightest bit about global warming would know that scientists have long included cyclical changes in the sun in their predictions and equasions. It has also long ago been determined that the sun simply doesn't account for a large amount of the warming we have been seeing. This editorial is ignoring this fact, as are most of the people in this thread.

These findings/editorial discredit nothing, everything they are saying has long ago been studied, analyzed, and accounted for. The only asshattery going on here is the willful ignorance of the anti GW crowd on here. I know half the people in this thread have participated in other ones where these specific points have been raised and refuted, but because it doesn't fit in with their worldview it is ignored and forgotten.

Why do I even waste my time posting here if the only rebuttals come from people who obviously don't even read my posts?

 

[Toasthead]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

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.

99.9...i dont think so.... and remember ALGORE IS NOT a scientist.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Vic

And you aren't science, nor do you speak for it. I know for a fact that science doesn't claim to know it all. That's the very nature and purest essence of science. See my sig. The ONLY reason people can use these normal cyclical changes to discredit science is because of the asshattery of the GW alarmists in the past. More to the point though, they're not discrediting science, they're laughing at your ignorance of science (while you indignantly pretend to be science).

As to the rest, how you are a "tool" is self-evident just from reading the posts quoted here.

Anyone who knows the slightest bit about global warming would know that scientists have long included cyclical changes in the sun in their predictions and equasions. It has also long ago been determined that the sun simply doesn't account for a large amount of the warming we have been seeing. This editorial is ignoring this fact, as are most of the people in this thread.

These findings/editorial discredit nothing, everything they are saying has long ago been studied, analyzed, and accounted for. The only asshattery going on here is the willful ignorance of the anti GW crowd on here. I know half the people in this thread have participated in other ones where these specific points have been raised and refuted, but because it doesn't fit in with their worldview it is ignored and forgotten.

Why do I even waste my time posting here if the only rebuttals come from people who obviously don't even read my posts?

Please explain what past asshattery of "GW alarmists" enables people to use these normal cyclical changes to discredit science when that is obviously impossible to do?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I would build a space based industry that could reflect sunlight to earth if we need more and away if we need less.

I would, except of course I would have to pay for it. Probably what's best for me is everybody paralyzed by debate. Hell, either way it's only potential extinction. It's what I deserve anyway.

Individual species extinction is never a potential but always a guarantee, even for species homo sapiens. Evolution marches on.

Look at the desk before you. See how there is an edge to it? A point and a line where the dimensions of the desk discontinue in space? Do you see that edge and say that the desk dies or goes extinct at that point? Of course not. Why then do you look at time that way?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Vic

And you aren't science, nor do you speak for it. I know for a fact that science doesn't claim to know it all. That's the very nature and purest essence of science. See my sig. The ONLY reason people can use these normal cyclical changes to discredit science is because of the asshattery of the GW alarmists in the past. More to the point though, they're not discrediting science, they're laughing at your ignorance of science (while you indignantly pretend to be science).

As to the rest, how you are a "tool" is self-evident just from reading the posts quoted here.

Anyone who knows the slightest bit about global warming would know that scientists have long included cyclical changes in the sun in their predictions and equasions. It has also long ago been determined that the sun simply doesn't account for a large amount of the warming we have been seeing. This editorial is ignoring this fact, as are most of the people in this thread.

These findings/editorial discredit nothing, everything they are saying has long ago been studied, analyzed, and accounted for. The only asshattery going on here is the willful ignorance of the anti GW crowd on here. I know half the people in this thread have participated in other ones where these specific points have been raised and refuted, but because it doesn't fit in with their worldview it is ignored and forgotten.

Why do I even waste my time posting here if the only rebuttals come from people who obviously don't even read my posts?

Please explain what past asshattery of "GW alarmists" enables people to use these normal cyclical changes to discredit science when that is obviously impossible to do?

How about you please read? I'm running out of ways to bold and underline what I've said, while you desperately keep trying to misrepresent what I've said.

 

[desy]

I sit 3 offices down from a PHD climatologist who's job it is to figure out how to mitigate climate change.
You now note most don't call it global warming anymore they call it climate change.
He doesn't buy into the standard convention of GH gas, all he says is climate could be changing and there is evidence to support that but why we have no idea, as EVERY climate model is so simplistic and incomplete its scientifically worthless.
But he encounters the 'converted' everyday who are staunch supporters IE your 99.9% but have never spent one day verifying the validity of GH gas claims.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Vic

And you aren't science, nor do you speak for it. I know for a fact that science doesn't claim to know it all. That's the very nature and purest essence of science. See my sig. The ONLY reason people can use these normal cyclical changes to discredit science is because of the asshattery of the GW alarmists in the past. More to the point though, they're not discrediting science, they're laughing at your ignorance of science (while you indignantly pretend to be science).

As to the rest, how you are a "tool" is self-evident just from reading the posts quoted here.

Anyone who knows the slightest bit about global warming would know that scientists have long included cyclical changes in the sun in their predictions and equasions. It has also long ago been determined that the sun simply doesn't account for a large amount of the warming we have been seeing. This editorial is ignoring this fact, as are most of the people in this thread.

These findings/editorial discredit nothing, everything they are saying has long ago been studied, analyzed, and accounted for. The only asshattery going on here is the willful ignorance of the anti GW crowd on here. I know half the people in this thread have participated in other ones where these specific points have been raised and refuted, but because it doesn't fit in with their worldview it is ignored and forgotten.

Why do I even waste my time posting here if the only rebuttals come from people who obviously don't even read my posts?

Please explain what past asshattery of "GW alarmists" enables people to use these normal cyclical changes to discredit science when that is obviously impossible to do?

How about you please read? I'm running out of ways to bold and underline what I've said, while you desperately keep trying to misrepresent what I've said.

Okay, so what you wrote is just some sort of amazing non sequitur. That's fine.