Cooler decade to come


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : Cooler decade to come

1 · 2 · Next
Author Message
Profile Mr. Majestic
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 07
Posts: 4752
Credit: 258,845
RAC: 0
United States
Message 747237 - Posted: 3 May 2008, 1:41:26 UTC

This article suggests that global warming will actually slow down in the coming not speed up like was originally thought.
____________

Profile Johnney Guinness
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 06
Posts: 3082
Credit: 2,399,688
RAC: 2,642
Ireland
Message 748351 - Posted: 5 May 2008, 1:59:18 UTC

Interesting Albert!

If you post a "New Reply" to this thread, Then go back in again, you can edit the message title and correct the spelling from "Coller" to "Cooler"

There is a lot of heated debate, (Pardon the pun) ,about the direction of global warming. Gets you thinking though!

John.
____________

Profile Mr. Majestic
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 07
Posts: 4752
Credit: 258,845
RAC: 0
United States
Message 748357 - Posted: 5 May 2008, 2:14:46 UTC - in response to Message 748351.

Interesting Albert!

If you post a "New Reply" to this thread, Then go back in again, you can edit the message title and correct the spelling from "Coller" to "Cooler"

There is a lot of heated debate, (Pardon the pun) ,about the direction of global warming. Gets you thinking though!

John.

I'm glad that you found it interesting.
____________

Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 9201
Credit: 1,351,429
RAC: 1,558
United States
Message 748916 - Posted: 6 May 2008, 4:29:19 UTC

This is not new, however.
____________
Account ...

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8266
Credit: 4,071,245
RAC: 363
United Kingdom
Message 749021 - Posted: 6 May 2008, 12:34:01 UTC - in response to Message 747237.
Last modified: 6 May 2008, 12:34:50 UTC

This article suggests that global warming will actually slow down in the coming not speed up like was originally thought.

That is far too glib an interpretation, even of the 'pop' article itself.

Note:
Global warming could take a break in the next decade thanks to a natural shift in ocean circulation, scientists say.

But earth's temperature will rise as previously expected over the longer term, according to a study published today in the journal Nature


That says it all really.


Global warming doesn't mean that we all get to enjoy all-year-round 'summer'. It means ever increasing extremes of weather. For example, here in the UK, we can expect a combination of more 'Mediterranean' summers and much wetter summers, until the Gulf Stream is smashed and then the following year will be much more like northern Canada...

This is happening now, noticeably so.

All far far far too quickly to be 'natural'...

Regards,
Martin
____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile Knightmare
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 16 Aug 04
Posts: 7472
Credit: 82,734
RAC: 722
United States
Message 749337 - Posted: 7 May 2008, 4:51:38 UTC - in response to Message 749021.

All far far far too quickly to be 'natural'...


So I take it that you have been around for the last couple of hundred thousand years?? You must have been to be able to say that with any certainty...
____________
Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained


Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8266
Credit: 4,071,245
RAC: 363
United Kingdom
Message 749434 - Posted: 7 May 2008, 13:22:10 UTC - in response to Message 749337.
Last modified: 7 May 2008, 13:23:51 UTC

All far far far too quickly to be 'natural'...


So I take it that you have been around for the last couple of hundred thousand years?? You must have been to be able to say that with any certainty...

No need to have been.

Have you heard of science, evidence, and observation?

Even without looking at historical records, simple physics will show you that we are generating an increasingly large unholy imbalance. That imbalance is now very large and has been increasing exponentially since the early 1800's... Time has now pretty much now run out.


Next question I would guess from you would be along the lines of "It just can't possibly be so!"?

Regards,
Martin
____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile Knightmare
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 16 Aug 04
Posts: 7472
Credit: 82,734
RAC: 722
United States
Message 749477 - Posted: 7 May 2008, 15:36:50 UTC - in response to Message 749434.
Last modified: 7 May 2008, 15:39:53 UTC

All far far far too quickly to be 'natural'...


So I take it that you have been around for the last couple of hundred thousand years?? You must have been to be able to say that with any certainty...

No need to have been.

Have you heard of science, evidence, and observation?

Even without looking at historical records, simple physics will show you that we are generating an increasingly large unholy imbalance. That imbalance is now very large and has been increasing exponentially since the early 1800's... Time has now pretty much now run out.


Next question I would guess from you would be along the lines of "It just can't possibly be so!"?

Regards,
Martin



Heh. Ever heard the phrase " Statistics can be made to say whatever you want them to say " ?

Might I suggest that you read a book titled State of Fear by Michael Crighton?

If I were you, I wouldn't be trying to predict anything that I may or may not ask or say. If you ask around, people that have been here for a while will make it clear to you that I am not one that will sit here and say things like " It can't possibly be so ".

I, unlike you ( it would seem ) have a tendency to look at BOTH sides of an argument. Not just the side that suits me. :-)

As far as the " science, evidence, and observation " you pointed out...State Of Fear uses a lot of the same science, evidence, and observation to make the case that Global Warming is nothing more than a scare tactic. Of course, I don't expect you to actually read the book since it doesn't fit into your perception of how things should be.
____________
Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained


Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8266
Credit: 4,071,245
RAC: 363
United Kingdom
Message 749503 - Posted: 7 May 2008, 16:43:41 UTC - in response to Message 749477.

... Might I suggest that you read a book titled State of Fear by Michael Crighton?

Wheeeeee... That old one...

Have you checked out his credentials and what he actually has said (and why)?

Can you spell his name correctly?

And how does his comments compare with others on that topic?


Keep searchin',
Martin

____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile Mr. Majestic
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 07
Posts: 4752
Credit: 258,845
RAC: 0
United States
Message 749571 - Posted: 7 May 2008, 19:59:38 UTC - in response to Message 749477.

All far far far too quickly to be 'natural'...


So I take it that you have been around for the last couple of hundred thousand years?? You must have been to be able to say that with any certainty...

No need to have been.

Have you heard of science, evidence, and observation?

Even without looking at historical records, simple physics will show you that we are generating an increasingly large unholy imbalance. That imbalance is now very large and has been increasing exponentially since the early 1800's... Time has now pretty much now run out.


Next question I would guess from you would be along the lines of "It just can't possibly be so!"?

Regards,
Martin



Heh. Ever heard the phrase " Statistics can be made to say whatever you want them to say " ?

Might I suggest that you read a book titled State of Fear by Michael Crighton?

If I were you, I wouldn't be trying to predict anything that I may or may not ask or say. If you ask around, people that have been here for a while will make it clear to you that I am not one that will sit here and say things like " It can't possibly be so ".

I, unlike you ( it would seem ) have a tendency to look at BOTH sides of an argument. Not just the side that suits me. :-)

As far as the " science, evidence, and observation " you pointed out...State Of Fear uses a lot of the same science, evidence, and observation to make the case that Global Warming is nothing more than a scare tactic. Of course, I don't expect you to actually read the book since it doesn't fit into your perception of how things should be.

I would have to agree with your side of the argument Knightmare. I personally believe the scientific evidence that suggests that Global warming is no more than a natural cycle. I am not at all saying that the scientific evidence proves that global warming is a cycle, I am simply saying that there is more real evidence that supports it being a cycle.
As a side note: State Of Fear is a great book :)
____________

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8266
Credit: 4,071,245
RAC: 363
United Kingdom
Message 749701 - Posted: 8 May 2008, 0:19:35 UTC - in response to Message 749571.

... I personally believe the scientific evidence that suggests that Global warming is no more than a natural cycle. I am not at all saying that the scientific evidence proves that global warming is a cycle, I am simply saying that there is more real evidence that supports it being a cycle.
As a side note: State Of Fear is a great book :)

Is that your 'feeling' or do you have something to point to that backs up your thoughts?

Regards,
Martin

____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile Knightmare
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 16 Aug 04
Posts: 7472
Credit: 82,734
RAC: 722
United States
Message 749721 - Posted: 8 May 2008, 1:57:36 UTC - in response to Message 749503.

... Might I suggest that you read a book titled State of Fear by Michael Crighton?

Wheeeeee... That old one...

Have you checked out his credentials and what he actually has said (and why)?

Can you spell his name correctly?

And how does his comments compare with others on that topic?


Keep searchin',
Martin


I see. So because he doesn't agree, he isn't qualified. Very nice....lol

____________
Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained


Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

Profile Mr. Majestic
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 07
Posts: 4752
Credit: 258,845
RAC: 0
United States
Message 749736 - Posted: 8 May 2008, 2:47:49 UTC - in response to Message 749701.

... I personally believe the scientific evidence that suggests that Global warming is no more than a natural cycle. I am not at all saying that the scientific evidence proves that global warming is a cycle, I am simply saying that there is more real evidence that supports it being a cycle.
As a side note: State Of Fear is a great book :)

Is that your 'feeling' or do you have something to point to that backs up your thoughts?

Regards,
Martin

This among others. I will try to find the better ones that are heavier on the science tomorrow, but for now I must go to bed.
____________

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8266
Credit: 4,071,245
RAC: 363
United Kingdom
Message 749853 - Posted: 8 May 2008, 11:36:39 UTC - in response to Message 749721.

I see. So because he doesn't agree, he isn't qualified. Very nice....lol

Not at all.

Any fruitcake can make and publish whatever claims they wish. Some fruitcakes make lots of money out of publishing whatever 'the market wants'. Some make a lot of money from doing just that.

However, demonstrating hard verifiable facts, the truth, is very different.

In science, disagreeing is a valuable part of the scientific process. That process quickly eliminates the wild guesses to leave an increasingly stronger hypothesis that can be tested (verified) further. Provided that is, you keep to real and verifiable truths rather than random hokus pokus.

So far, the various claims that mankind can dump phenomenal amounts of pollution (including CO2) into our very finite atmosphere with impunity have been shown to be untrue.

We are already seeing the early consequences for our continued pollution.

Regards,
Martin

____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8266
Credit: 4,071,245
RAC: 363
United Kingdom
Message 749854 - Posted: 8 May 2008, 11:39:33 UTC - in response to Message 749736.

This among others. I will try to find the better ones that are heavier on the science tomorrow, ...

The "1500 year cycle" has been carefully examined and shown to be a very small effect. Vastly smaller than what we are seeing now.

Also note the source of that paper:

National Center for Policy Analysis

Oil money is included... I wonder why?...


Regards,
Martin

____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile Mr. Majestic
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 07
Posts: 4752
Credit: 258,845
RAC: 0
United States
Message 750088 - Posted: 8 May 2008, 21:07:02 UTC

I just wanted to clear something up about one of my earlier posts. I am not saying that I don't believe that humans are helping to speed the cycle up. This is pretty much a given with the way we treat the environment. All I was saying is that I believe that the amount that we are speeding it up is exaggerated.
____________

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8266
Credit: 4,071,245
RAC: 363
United Kingdom
Message 750154 - Posted: 8 May 2008, 23:36:38 UTC - in response to Message 750088.

I just wanted to clear something up about one of my earlier posts. I am not saying that I don't believe that humans are helping to speed the cycle up. This is pretty much a given with the way we treat the environment. All I was saying is that I believe that the amount that we are speeding it up is exaggerated.

I consider that the extreme 'conservatism' of science means that the extent of Global Warming is greatly underestimated.

There are various 'climate tipping points' that will add positive feedback to give a step-wise upwards jolt to various parts of climate change...

The question is more of whether the accelerating awareness of the population and of politicians can out-accelerate the rate at which we are causing the climate to change to ever greater extremes...


Hey! Politicians don't listen to what scientists say in any case. Hence the demise of the Grand Banks fisheries as just one small example...

Keep searchin',
Martin

____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile Mr. Majestic
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 07
Posts: 4752
Credit: 258,845
RAC: 0
United States
Message 750169 - Posted: 9 May 2008, 0:07:43 UTC - in response to Message 750154.


Hey! Politicians don't listen to what scientists say in any case. Hence the demise of the Grand Banks fisheries as just one small example...

Keep searchin',
Martin

Now here is something that we can agree on :)
____________

Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 9201
Credit: 1,351,429
RAC: 1,558
United States
Message 760049 - Posted: 28 May 2008, 22:15:18 UTC

Wonderfully "qualified" folks such as Revs. Al Sharpton and Pat Robertson are now teaming up to make commercials telling us it is the "right" thing to do, to go green.
So, look out, Michael Crichton! Even some far-righty folks like Robertson won't support the "it's an exaggeration or a hoax!" theory any more.
____________
Account ...

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8266
Credit: 4,071,245
RAC: 363
United Kingdom
Message 760242 - Posted: 29 May 2008, 12:01:27 UTC
Last modified: 29 May 2008, 12:04:29 UTC

Perhaps even funding groups to spread denial is now no longer profitable:

Exxon to cut funding to climate change denial groups

The oil giant ExxonMobil has admitted that its support for lobby groups that question the science of climate change may have hindered action to tackle global warming. In its corporate citizenship report, released last week, ExxonMobil says it intends to cut funds to several groups that "divert attention" from the need to find new sources of clean energy.

Note the wording... only for "several groups"... So there are other funded denial groups that have not yet been utterly discredited?...


We ALL need to change faster than we are forcing the climate to change around us...

Regards,
Martin
____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

1 · 2 · Next

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : Cooler decade to come

Copyright © 2014 University of California