# The coming ice age?



## metric (24 April 2008)

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Earth/Are_we_heading_to_ice_age/articleshow/2975016.cms

CANBERRA: Scientists have warned that the world might once again be heading towards an Ice Age, with global warming approaching a possible end. 

Evidence in support of this theory has come from pictures obtained from the US Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, which showed no spots on the sun, thus determining that sunspot activity has not resumed after hitting an 11-year low in March last year. 

A sunspot is a region on the sun that is cooler than the rest and appears dark. 

Some scientists believe a strong solar magnetic field, when there is plenty of sunspot activity, protects the earth from cosmic rays, cutting cloud formation, but that when the field is weak - during low sunspot activity - the rays can penetrate into the lower atmosphere and cloud cover increases, cooling the surface. 

According to Australian astronaut and geophysicist Phil Chapman, this might have caused the world to cool quickly between January last year and January this year, by about 0.7C. 

"This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record, and it puts us back to where we were in 1930," said Dr Chapman. 

"If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over," he added. 

Dr Chapman has proposed preventive, or delaying, moves to slow the cooling, such as bulldozing Siberian and Canadian snow to make it dirty and less reflective. 

"My guess is that the odds are now at least 50:50 that we will see significant cooling rather than warming in coming decades," he said


----------



## wayneL (24 April 2008)

*Re: comming ice age. canberra scientists*

ROTFLMAO!

There goes Al Boring's income. How "inconvenient". :


----------



## professor_frink (24 April 2008)

*Re: comming ice age. canberra scientists*



wayneL said:


> ROTFLMAO!
> 
> There goes Al Boring's income. How "inconvenient". :




Don't worry, the people that wrote this will be dismissed as AGW doubters and will be ridiculed into submission by the green movement. They will be stripped of their funding and will never be heard from again.

Al Gore will be just fine


----------



## metric (24 April 2008)

*Re: comming ice age. canberra scientists*



professor_frink said:


> Don't worry, the people that wrote this will be dismissed as AGW doubters and will be ridiculed into submission by the green movement. They will be stripped of their funding and will never be heard from again.
> 
> Al Gore will be just fine




thats why you are a professor mr frink! 

not only are sunspots a danger to create global cooling, ice ments at the poles could disrupt the warm water currents of the oceans, the result being global cooling.

the emphasis of the green movement should be on polution in all its forms, not the GW lie. but then no one would make money from carbon taxes would they ?


----------



## Birdster (24 April 2008)

*Re: The comming ice age. Canberra scientists views*



metric said:


> http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Earth/Are_we_heading_to_ice_age/articleshow/2975016.cms
> 
> ...
> 
> "My guess is that the odds are now at least 50:50 that we will see significant cooling rather than warming in coming decades," he said




Good to see this scientist is willing to go out on a limb for his prediction.


----------



## metric (24 April 2008)

*Re: The comming ice age. Canberra scientists views*

and another article of the same scientific observation.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23583376-7583,00.html

April 23, 2008 

THE scariest photo I have seen on the internet is www.spaceweather.com, where you will find a real-time image of the sun from the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, located in deep space at the equilibrium point between solar and terrestrial gravity.

What is scary about the picture is that there is only one tiny sunspot. 

Disconcerting as it may be to true believers in global warming, the average temperature on Earth has remained steady or slowly declined during the past decade, despite the continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, and now the global temperature is falling precipitously. 

All four agencies that track Earth's temperature (the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California) report that it cooled by about 0.7C in 2007. This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record and it puts us back where we were in 1930. If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over. 

There is also plenty of anecdotal evidence that 2007 was exceptionally cold. It snowed in Baghdad for the first time in centuries, the winter in China was simply terrible and the extent of Antarctic sea ice in the austral winter was the greatest on record since James Cook discovered the place in 1770. 

It is generally not possible to draw conclusions about climatic trends from events in a single year, so I would normally dismiss this cold snap as transient, pending what happens in the next few years. 

This is where SOHO comes in. The sunspot number follows a cycle of somewhat variable length, averaging 11 years. The most recent minimum was in March last year. The new cycle, No.24, was supposed to start soon after that, with a gradual build-up in sunspot numbers. 

It didn't happen. The first sunspot appeared in January this year and lasted only two days. A tiny spot appeared last Monday but vanished within 24 hours. Another little spot appeared this Monday. Pray that there will be many more, and soon. 

The reason this matters is that there is a close correlation between variations in the sunspot cycle and Earth's climate. The previous time a cycle was delayed like this was in the Dalton Minimum, an especially cold period that lasted several decades from 1790. 

Northern winters became ferocious: in particular, the rout of Napoleon's Grand Army during the retreat from Moscow in 1812 was at least partly due to the lack of sunspots. 

That the rapid temperature decline in 2007 coincided with the failure of cycle No.24 to begin on schedule is not proof of a causal connection but it is cause for concern. 

It is time to put aside the global warming dogma, at least to begin contingency planning about what to do if we are moving into another little ice age, similar to the one that lasted from 1100 to 1850. 

There is no doubt that the next little ice age would be much worse than the previous one and much more harmful than anything warming may do. There are many more people now and we have become dependent on a few temperate agricultural areas, especially in the US and Canada. Global warming would increase agricultural output, but global cooling will decrease it. 

Millions will starve if we do nothing to prepare for it (such as planning changes in agriculture to compensate), and millions more will die from cold-related diseases. 

There is also another possibility, remote but much more serious. The Greenland and Antarctic ice cores and other evidence show that for the past several million years, severe glaciation has almost always afflicted our planet. 

The bleak truth is that, under normal conditions, most of North America and Europe are buried under about 1.5km of ice. This bitterly frigid climate is interrupted occasionally by brief warm interglacials, typically lasting less than 10,000 years. 

The interglacial we have enjoyed throughout recorded human history, called the Holocene, began 11,000 years ago, so the ice is overdue. We also know that glaciation can occur quickly: the required decline in global temperature is about 12C and it can happen in 20 years. 

The next descent into an ice age is inevitable but may not happen for another 1000 years. On the other hand, it must be noted that the cooling in 2007 was even faster than in typical glacial transitions. If it continued for 20 years, the temperature would be 14C cooler in 2027. 

By then, most of the advanced nations would have ceased to exist, vanishing under the ice, and the rest of the world would be faced with a catastrophe beyond imagining. 

Australia may escape total annihilation but would surely be overrun by millions of refugees. Once the glaciation starts, it will last 1000 centuries, an incomprehensible stretch of time. 

If the ice age is coming, there is a small chance that we could prevent or at least delay the transition, if we are prepared to take action soon enough and on a large enough scale. 

For example: We could gather all the bulldozers in the world and use them to dirty the snow in Canada and Siberia in the hope of reducing the reflectance so as to absorb more warmth from the sun. 

We also may be able to release enormous floods of methane (a potent greenhouse gas) from the hydrates under the Arctic permafrost and on the continental shelves, perhaps using nuclear weapons to destabilise the deposits. 

We cannot really know, but my guess is that the odds are at least 50-50 that we will see significant cooling rather than warming in coming decades. 

The probability that we are witnessing the onset of a real ice age is much less, perhaps one in 500, but not totally negligible. 

All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead. 

It will be difficult for people to face the truth when their reputations, careers, government grants or hopes for social change depend on global warming, but the fate of civilisation may be at stake. 

In the famous words of Oliver Cromwell, "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."


----------



## Superfly (24 April 2008)

*Re: The coming ice age*



metric said:


> http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Earth/Are_we_heading_to_ice_age/articleshow/2975016.cms
> 
> CANBERRA: Scientists have warned that the world might once again be heading towards an Ice Age, with global warming approaching a possible end.
> 
> ...




Blasphemy... 

Ohhhh... the greens and all the people who make a living of GW will not like this...


----------



## metric (24 April 2008)

*Re: The coming ice age*



Superfly said:


> Blasphemy...
> 
> Ohhhh... the greens and all the people who make a living of GW will not like this...





the thread title has been sencored already....! twice!!


----------



## Aussiejeff (24 April 2008)

The following link will give you a few minutes of entertainment, reading through the blog comments on this article.....

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...ents/its_global_cooling_thats_the_real_threat

AFAIC I'll wait a year or two till more scientific research is done on the phenomenon of whether the planet is about to melt-down or freeze-up!

Chiz,

AJ


----------



## Prospector (24 April 2008)

*Re: comming ice age. canberra scientists*



wayneL said:


> How "inconvenient". :






Ain't that the truth.

Unfortunately the global warming theory has spawned far too many profit making businesses now.  Just like the Year2K bug, except once January 1 2000 had passed, everyone could pack up their bags and go home.


----------



## Sean K (24 April 2008)

Anyone who has read State of Fear will agree that the global warming threat caused by human related CO2 emissions is a furphy. Even though it's a novel.


----------



## metric (24 April 2008)

i am a member of many forums as my interests are diverse. hunting forums, boxing, religious, shares, metal detecting, fishing, (or anything i want to learn)  etc. like here, many subjects are covered.

an observation i have made is that the shares forums have the most intelligent posters. and also the most members that are sceptical of media and government actions.....

good stuff!


----------



## Kimosabi (24 April 2008)

I propose we should start an Ice credit scheme and an Ice Tax.

Obviously the first people that need targetting for the Ice Tax are those with Freezers because they are the biggest contributers to Global Cooling.

Maybe we could pump unwanted Ice back into the earths crust or pump it down deep into the oceans.

I just thought of another one, an Ice cube tax.  Down the pub on a hot summers day, you want ice cubes, you pay extra.

I'm contacting the UN to see if I can get a job as a global cooling tax consultant...


----------



## Julia (24 April 2008)

*Re: comming ice age. canberra scientists*



professor_frink said:


> Don't worry, the people that wrote this will be dismissed as AGW doubters and will be ridiculed into submission by the green movement. They will be stripped of their funding and will never be heard from again.
> 
> Al Gore will be just fine



Already heard on "PM" ABC Radio last night one of the green fanatics pouring scorn on this heretical suggestion.  Don't doubt there will be much more to come, should any of the doubters have the temerity to raise their heads again.


----------



## professor_frink (24 April 2008)

*Re: comming ice age. canberra scientists*



Julia said:


> Already heard on "PM" ABC Radio last night one of the green fanatics pouring scorn on this heretical suggestion.  Don't doubt there will be much more to come, should any of the doubters have the temerity to raise their heads again.




By this afternoon, I'm sure there will be comments made about who funds them too- I'm sure there will be a link to a large oil company in there somewhere!


----------



## Sean K (24 April 2008)

*Re: comming ice age. canberra scientists*



professor_frink said:


> By this afternoon, I'm sure there will be comments made about who funds them too- I'm sure there will be a link to a large oil company in there somewhere!



Yeah, but don't often here about who is funding the greenies and their agendas.


----------



## numbercruncher (24 April 2008)

Awesome ....

Ive always been a human caused _climate change_ as opposed to GW sorta guy, but I do find it interesting that everyone here is agreeing with this guys theory.


I really dont find this very reasurring ....



> My guess is that the odds are now at least 50:50 that we will see significant cooling rather than warming in coming decades.




Wow an each-way bet on the health of the planet ?

Scrap the electric cars folks lets build v12's, make tons of cash and have some fun 

Thought Id google this chap, yep as I thought, on the US gov payroll, aka the worlds greatest Climate Change denyers.



> Dr. Chapman is now Chief Scientist of Transformational Space Corporation("t/Space," Reston, VA, http://www.transformspace.com/). Under a $6 million contract from NASA




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_K._Chapman


----------



## spooly74 (24 April 2008)

> Evidence in support of this theory has come from pictures obtained from the US Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, which showed no spots on the sun, thus determining that sunspot activity has not resumed after hitting an 11-year low in March last year.




Jan. 10, 2008: 
Hang on to your cell phone, a new solar cycle has just begun.

The previous solar cycle, Solar Cycle 23, peaked in 2000-2002 with many furious solar storms. That cycle decayed as usual to the present quiet leaving solar physicists little to do other than wonder, when would the next cycle begin?


"New solar cycles always begin with a high-latitude, reversed polarity sunspot," explains Hathaway. "Reversed polarity" means a sunspot with opposite magnetic polarity compared to sunspots from the previous solar cycle. "High-latitude" refers to the sun's grid of latitude and longitude. Old cycle spots congregate near the sun's equator. New cycle spots appear higher, around 25 or 30 degrees latitude.

The sunspot that appeared on January 4th fits both these criteria.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/10jan_solarcycle24.htm


----------



## metric (24 April 2008)

professor_frink said:


> By this afternoon, I'm sure there will be comments made about who funds them too- I'm sure there will be a link to a large oil company in there somewhere!




and here it is professor......you da bomb!




numbercruncher said:


> Awesome ....
> 
> Ive always been a human caused _climate change_ as opposed to GW sorta guy, but I do find it interesting that everyone here is agreeing with this guys theory.
> 
> ...





you notice these people never argue the facts. just attack the messenger!


----------



## wayneL (24 April 2008)

The facts seem incontrovertible however. The planet's temp has been stable or cooling for a decade. 

I'm going long on long underwear.


----------



## professor_frink (24 April 2008)

numbercruncher said:


> Thought Id google this chap, yep as I thought, on the US gov payroll, aka the worlds greatest Climate Change denyers.
> 
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_K._Chapman




Hey I said by this afternoon! You're ahead of schedule


----------



## professor_frink (24 April 2008)

wayneL said:


> The facts seem incontrovertible however. The planet's temp has been stable or cooling for a decade.
> 
> I'm going long on long underwear.




I do believe the preferred phrase to cooling is "warming isn't increasing at the same rate"

Gotta be PC about these things Wayne

That's enough of me being a smart ar$e. I'll go and find something else to make fun of.


----------



## wayneL (24 April 2008)

professor_frink said:


> I do believe the preferred phrase to cooling is "warming isn't increasing at the same rate"
> 
> Gotta be PC about these things Wayne
> 
> That's enough of me being a smart ar$e. I'll go and find something else to make fun of.



Ah yes... I must remember to adjust my vernacular to the current propag.... err, paradigm. (waffle waffle)


----------



## numbercruncher (24 April 2008)

I remember reading somewhere that the Antarctic melting causes something in the currents to make it colder in places like Europe, so maybe we need this guys theory to be true ?

Anyways seems to me this new theory could be dangerous if governments take it literally. (is open the floodgates to continue emitting etc)



> CLIMATOLOGISTS may insist the world is getting warmer and that climate change is here to stay.
> 
> But the meteorological phenomenon called La Niña, in which the central and eastern Pacific Ocean is getting cooler, means global temperatures will drop slightly this year.
> 
> But this year's temperatures would still be way above the average - and weADVERTISEMENTwould soon exceed the record year of 1998 because of global warming induced by greenhouse gases




http://news.scotsman.com/scitech/World--cooling--but.3951196.jp



> POLAR ice is melting faster than previously believed and could have reached a "tipping point" beyond which it may not be able to recover, a report warns today.




http://news.scotsman.com/scitech/Climate-fears--as-Arctic.4014483.jp


----------



## derty (24 April 2008)

spooly74 said:


> "New solar cycles always begin with a high-latitude, reversed polarity sunspot," explains Hathaway. "Reversed polarity" means a sunspot with opposite magnetic polarity compared to sunspots from the previous solar cycle. "High-latitude" refers to the sun's grid of latitude and longitude. Old cycle spots congregate near the sun's equator. New cycle spots appear higher, around 25 or 30 degrees latitude.
> 
> The sunspot that appeared on January 4th fits both these criteria.



It appears Spooly that more recent data shows that that sunspot is infact an old cycle one and has not heralded the commencement of cycle 24. 



			
				http://www.spaceweather.com/ said:
			
		

> Sunspot 992 poses no threat for strong solar flares. The magnetic field of this sunspot is now well characterized; the N-S pattern identifies it as an old-cycle rather than a new-cycle sunspot. Solar Cycle 23 remains active. Credit: SOHO/MDI




There are many phenomena and cycles that effect the Earth's temperature and weather. Some have a very short periodicity and others a very long periodicity. The El nino - La nina cycle is one of the shortest of these (other than the seasons). The ice age cycle is in the order of 100,000 years and there are others in between and some of these are directly related to the sun's behaviour and others are related to the Earth's precession and orbital behaviour. There would also be cycles that occur over millions of years and 100's of millions of years. 

Our position within these cycles and the magnitude relative positive and negative effects of the cycles at this time dictates the climate on Earth. We cannot look at data over one or two years and call a trend, just like you cannot call a bull or bear market from a couple of weeks activity.

The Sun, being our main source of energy, has an overriding effect on our climate and it takes only very small changes in the Sun to effect us. The sun will essentially overpower and produce reversals in the dominant trend of temperature at the time. The cycles of the sun that we know of are the short term 11 year sunspot cycle (22years for full cycle) and the longer term minima maxima (such as the Maunder Minimum) that appears to have a cycle of a few 100 years. Either way both of these are very short term cycles when compared to the main ice age cycle and cause only local reversals. 

CO2 is an extremely effective green house gas. It's presence in the atmosphere one of the main differences between the Earth being a snowball or supporting life. Adding to the CO2 in the atmosphere must have an effect, I cannot see how it cannot. That effect will be moderated or amplified by other factors occurring at the time. 

As we are dealing with a system of such long time frames and a system with so many parameters of varying periodicity and strength it amuses me to see proponents for and against GW and AGW calling WINNER based on one article or a small collection of evidence. 

We are coming off an ice age, the world has been warming. The question is Is the CO2 we have been adding to the atmosphere increasing that warming rate? (As I said before I do not see how it won't.) And if so is that warming rate going to be deleterious to our existence on Earth?   If we are heading into an extended solar minimum that is probably a very good thing. If the models are correct it will counter the predicted warming and will allow the world to continue using the abundant coal to fuel progress. 

The presence of a minimum does not discount AGW or GW it simply negates it or dampens the effect. I believe it is still too early to call a solar minimum anyway, the sunspots are only a few months late anyway.

This whole argument can only be answered in the long term.


----------



## doctorj (24 April 2008)

It's nigh on impossible to prove something scientifically.  You can prove it's highly likely, but you can never say that it's a dead certainty.

The client change movement is scary in that it's taken a theory and turned it into a religion.  Thou shalt not speak ill of global warming.

That said, there are plenty of good reasons to be aware of our effect on the environment beyond just global warning (such as health) so cleaner industry isn't a bad thing but we should always be ready, willing and able to challenge ideas.

Remember at one stage it was a 'fact' that the world was flat.  Science has progressed a lot since then but human nature apparently hasn't.


----------



## adamim1 (24 April 2008)

Maybe John Howard was right - Global warming is  a load a bull****.

I agree though, weather global warming is an issue or not, we should still do it for our own health.


----------



## Superfly (24 April 2008)

adamim1 said:


> Maybe John Howard was right - Global warming is  a load a bull****.
> 
> I agree though, weather global warming is an issue or not, we should still do it for our own health.




If John Howard was right ( which he was ), that would mean that St Kevin was wrong to sign Koyoto...

St Kevin wrong.. is that possible... 

Surely this must be the work of the CIA with President Bush and Vice Chaney potting all our ends from the white house oval office.. the same oval office that Clinton had sex in and denied it on camera.... but Bush is bad .. Bush is bad.. global warming .. global warming... rah rah rah..


----------



## Superfly (24 April 2008)

doctorj said:


> Thou shalt not speak ill of global warming.



So true DocJ...


This thread is outrageous... it should be removed from the forum, quickly before people read another side of the story... 

If anyone has seen it tell them it was an American plot to kill more innocent people... gobal warming global warming... Bush is bad... Rudd is good ...


----------



## jonojpsg (24 April 2008)

Superfly said:


> Bush is bad...




Bush is bad though - DUH, who doesn't know that


----------



## disarray (24 April 2008)

i think it just goes to show how little we still know. recent advances in climatology are throwing more and more input into the (chaotic) system and we are visibly struggling to interpret it all as evidenced by the huge disparity of views on the subject. we're either going to melt and flood or freeze to the equators - thats a pretty extreme range we are arguing over.

recent advances include more indepth understanding of solar cycles thanks to SOHO over the last 13 years, icecore drilling projects, research on the cooling of the north atlantic current, fluctuating co2 levels, the thawing of siberian permafrost, ocean co2 levels etc. etc.

so when it comes to climate we are like noobs with a moving average trying to figure out elliot wave (or anything motorway is talking about). regardless of the outcome the public research process is really interesting.


----------



## wayneL (24 April 2008)

disarray said:


> so when it comes to climate we are like noobs with a moving average trying to figure out elliot wave. regardless of the outcome the public research process is really interesting.




Haha!

That's a great metaphor... true ... true.


----------



## explod (24 April 2008)

Well I'm completely mixed up and confused now.   All day I have been checking on this thread, and becoming convinced that our problems are over and I might be able to start a year round ski run here at Mount Martha, and bu..er me on ABC News tonight they show a NZ Glacier dying, and they said no hope for it because the temperatures are continuing to get too hot.   They sounded pretty convincing too.  

Anyway just like Wall Street cant take Notice of the press any more.  Stick to these intelligent threadS on ASF and as the great Sir Les Paterson says, "NO WORRIES"


----------



## 2020hindsight (24 April 2008)

explod said:


> .. on ABC News tonight they show a NZ Glacier dying, and they said no hope for it because the temperatures are continuing to get too hot.   They sounded pretty convincing too.



http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/news...shrinking-fast-says-scientist-91466-20812019/
explod 
I think they said it would start to grow again if / when we have another ice age. (mini-ice age whatever).

The sight of a lake 7km long and 250m deep - which they inferred used to glacier - and several boats on it 



> Tasman glacier shrinking fast, says scientist
> Apr 24 2008 icWales
> 
> A glacier scientist says New Zealand’s biggest glacier is melting faster than at any time in recent history and could be reduced to a few miles of ice within 20 years.... etc


----------



## 2020hindsight (24 April 2008)

metric said:


> http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Earth/Are_we_heading_to_ice_age/articleshow/2975016.cms
> 
> CANBERRA: Scientists have warned that the world might once again be heading towards an Ice Age, with global warming approaching a possible end.
> 
> ...




so 
1. this report makes the startling "breaking news" discovery that sun spot activity goes in an 11 year cycle

o boy - Galileo discovered that 

2. wikipedia :-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot


> A minimum in the eleven-year sunspot cycle may have taken place in late 2007 [1] and while the observation of a reverse polarity sunspot [1] on 4 January 2008 officially began Cycle 24, no additional sunspots have yet been seen in this cycle




3.  so let me get this straight 
the sun has somehow (allegedly) not acted predictably
and therefore the scientists who predicted global warming ( and no doubt continue to do so) are fools


----------



## wayneL (24 April 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/news...shrinking-fast-says-scientist-91466-20812019/
> explod
> I think they said it would start to grow again if / when we have another ice age. (mini-ice age whatever).
> 
> The sight of a lake 7km long and 250m deep - which they inferred used to glacier - and several boats on it



The world's climate must be taken as a whole to discuss global warming/cooling. Single incidences may have other local factors at play... deforestation, heat sink effect, el niÃ±o/la niÃ±a, whatever.

On a whole the world has been getting cooler over the last decade... and that's from the likes of NASA etc.


----------



## explod (24 April 2008)

wayneL said:


> The world's climate must be taken as a whole to discuss global warming/cooling. Single incidences may have other local factors at play... deforestation, heat sink effect, el niÃ±o/la niÃ±a, whatever.
> 
> On a whole the world has been getting cooler over the last decade... and that's from the likes of NASA etc.






> By Juliet Eilperin
> Washington Post Staff Writer
> Friday, August 4, 2006; Page A03
> 
> ...


----------



## explod (24 April 2008)

I found one Waynel, from the same article above;



> Drew Shindell, an atmospheric physicist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies who attended Della-Marta's presentation, said the European findings are especially significant because they draw on long-term surface temperature records.
> 
> "The European records, being so long, make a convincing case that we're already seeing changes" in the climate, Shindell said. "This is not like 'Centuries from now the ice sheets will melt.' This is 'In a few decades it will be dramatically different.' To me, that's alarming."
> 
> [unquote]


----------



## wayneL (24 April 2008)

explod said:


> > By Juliet Eilperin
> > Washington Post Staff Writer
> > Friday, August 4, 2006; Page A03
> >
> ...




I'm sure it is already quoted somewhere in the other thread, but will see if I can find it.


----------



## 2020hindsight (24 April 2008)

from NASA website 

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/
Global Temperature Trends: 2007 Summation


> The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis. 2007 tied 1998, which had leapt a remarkable 0.2°C above the prior record with the help of the "El Niño of the century". *The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum *and the equatorial Pacific Ocean is in the cool phase of its natural El Niño-La Niña cycle.
> 
> Figure 1 shows 2007 temperature anomalies relative to the 1951-1980 base period mean. The global mean temperature anomaly, 0.57°C (about 1°F) warmer than the 1951-1980 mean, *continues the strong warming trend of the past thirty years that has been confidently attributed to the effect of increasing human-made greenhouse gases *(GHGs) (Hansen et al. 2007). The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990.


----------



## 2020hindsight (24 April 2008)

NASA continues to a summary :-
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/


> Summary
> The Southern Oscillation and the solar cycle have significant effects on year-to-year global temperature change. Because both of these natural effects were in their cool phases in 2007, the unusual warmth of 2007 is all the more notable. It is apparent that there is no letup in the steep global warming trend of the past 30 years (see 5-year mean curve in Figure 1a).
> 
> *"Global warming stopped in 1998," has become a recent mantra of those who wish to deny the reality of human-caused global warming*. *The continued rapid increase of the five-year running mean temperature exposes this assertion as nonsense. *
> ...




"assertions of "global warming has stopped" exposed as nonsense"

have a look at the graph of solar irradiance - currently at a low, will peak in about 2011-2012.
- maybe now you realise why I offered a $5 bet that 2011 would be hotter than 2007.


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 April 2008)

*Re: comming ice age. canberra scientists*

One thing I've certainly been thinking is that, in a scenario very familiar to share traders, the whole global warming thing does seem to have undergone a parabolic rise and possible blow off top in the past year or so. That it came amidst falling temperatures does reek of a desperate "now or never" stance being taken.

IMO 10 years from now the issue will be largely ignored no matter what the evidence or science. Oil shortages will be the focus then and that one is real.

As for the Greens, they're busy organising a 25 years later party in honour of their "greatest moment" aka saving the Franklin. Fair enough, but there's a limit to how long they can keep flogging that one. Time to achieve something else, preferably in a democratic manner without frightening small children.


----------



## explod (24 April 2008)

*Re: comming ice age. canberra scientists*



Smurf1976 said:


> One thing I've certainly been thinking is that, in a scenario very familiar to share traders, the whole global warming thing does seem to have undergone a parabolic rise and possible blow off top in the past year or so. That it came amidst falling temperatures does reek of a desperate "now or never" stance being taken.
> 
> IMO 10 years from now the issue will be largely ignored no matter what the science. Oil shortages will be the focus then and that one is real.





Maybe, but you cant eat oil.  The rice problem due to drought is not looking the best, if it continues then in 10 years time perhaps our hunger will make us forget about oil.


----------



## Plasmo (24 April 2008)

Global warming true believers have spent the last few years denying that sunspots affected global temperature, because admitting this fact would undermine all the "models" attributing historic temperature rises to CO2.

It isn't possible to pin the recent low temperatures on sunspots without also pinning historical rises in temperature to the same cause.

You can't have your cake and eat it to, attributing all falls in temperature to sunspots, and all rises in temperature to CO2.


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 April 2008)

explod said:


> > By Juliet Eilperin
> > Washington Post Staff Writer
> > Friday, August 4, 2006; Page A03
> >
> ...



Ground based thermometers near cities or industry are essentially useless due to localised effects.

If I go across the river to the zinc works (Hobart) then I'm sure it's going to be a bit warmer there with 130,000 kilowatts, various gas burners and a couple of great big roasters (which are constantly cooled so they don't melt) running 24/7. 

And if I stand in central Melbourne then it's a fact that it's warmer than the outer suburbs which are themselves warmer than rural Victoria.

So taking temperature measurements in Melbourne, the Latrobe Valley, Sydney, London, New York or any other place that creates heat is guaranteed to stuff things up. And guess where most ground based thermometers are? Yep, right where people live and create heat.


----------



## Julia (24 April 2008)

It seems there is presently no conclusive evidence about global warming or cooling.  We might all be going to fry or alternatively freeze to death.
That is, if we don't starve in the meantime.

What is interesting to me the way human beings in large numbers so readily attach ourselves to any one of various doomsday scenarios with such vigour.
Why do we do this?  Is there something in our DNA which dictates we have to be worried about something?

We are told there is an epidemic of depression/anxiety.  Prescriptions of anti depressants and anxiolytics bear this out.  Are we all worried about the latest disaster befalling the planet, either in a macro sense (actual climate change) or the micro fall out (increased electricity bills and other expenses which affect us on a personal basis)?

Are those of us engaging in this discussion here on ASF typical of the general population?  Or do Mr and Mrs Average really only worry about what they want to watch on television tonight and who will win the footy?

I guess what I'm wondering is how much time and emotional effort we are all expending on actually worrying about global stuff (other than financially related markets of course).  Is it just the time it takes to type out a post on this thread, or are members seriously thinking about it for much of their time?

For myself, I'm just pretty sick of hearing about it all, and tend to sigh when yet another news item comes on the radio, or is printed in the paper, and flick over to something else.  Anything which smacks of fanaticism just turns me right off.

I'd be interested in others' perceptions on this rather messily proposed question.


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 April 2008)

*Re: comming ice age. canberra scientists*



explod said:


> Maybe, but you cant eat oil.  The rice problem due to drought is not looking the best, if it continues then in 10 years time perhaps our hunger will make us forget about oil.



Possible. But industrial scale farming is simply a means of converting oil, gas and a bit of electricity into something humans can eat. If you look at the total energy input to a meal on your table then actual crop growing is very much in the minority. No oil = no food, at least not enough for 6 billion people.


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 April 2008)

Julia said:


> Are those of us engaging in this discussion here on ASF typical of the general population?  Or do Mr and Mrs Average really only worry about what they want to watch on television tonight and who will win the footy?
> 
> I guess what I'm wondering is how much time and emotional effort we are all expending on actually worrying about global stuff (other than financially related markets of course).  Is it just the time it takes to type out a post on this thread, or are members seriously thinking about it for much of their time?



I know of very few people that don't view global warming as 100% proven fact. Those that don't take this view tend to be the type that are into alternative medicines, work out at gyms and are generally not big followers of mainstream news media. Also those with some reason, such as employment or an interest in science, to have thoroughly investigated the issue. Other than that small bunch, the rest take it as fact beyond question.

As for related issues, I'd estimate that decent knowledge of the oil supply situation is in the order of 1 - 2% of the adult population but rising. For the food situation / biofuels I'd say that less than 0.1% have any real comprehension of the math that makes it so unworkable. Those are just my estimates however.

Overall public comprehension of scientific, engineering etc matters is sharply declining in my opinion. That comes down to a media that just doesn't publish anything requiring much intelligence or knowledge to understand. Hence I stopped buying papers.


----------



## explod (24 April 2008)

Plasmo said:


> Global warming true believers have spent the last few years denying that sunspots affected global temperature, because admitting this fact would undermine all the "models" attributing historic temperature rises to CO2.
> 
> It isn't possible to pin the recent low temperatures on sunspots without also pinning historical rises in temperature to the same cause.
> 
> You can't have your cake and eat it to, attributing all falls in temperature to sunspots, and all rises in temperature to CO2.




Not necessarily correct.  It is all shades of grey.  What cannot be disputed is that we do have some dramatic weather chnages.

It is well contended that with global warming the heat creates increased cloud cover at times which increases cold snaps and some winters.

Increased juxtapositions of hot and cold air make for stronger winds, storms, cyclones ans twisters.

And it is all so complex that in fact someone will come  along and blow what I say out of the water.

To be catigoric on this subject is to delude oursleves.


----------



## The Once-ler (25 April 2008)

*Re: comming ice age. canberra scientists*



Smurf1976 said:


> Possible. But industrial scale farming is simply a means of converting oil, gas and a bit of electricity into something humans can eat. If you look at the total energy input to a meal on your table then actual crop growing is very much in the minority. No oil = no food, at least not enough for 6 billion people.




Your exactly right there smurf.

Peak oil is a peak food issue. But the biggest issue right now is the rising cost of food and this is directly linked to the rising cost of oil.

Of course food can be grown without oil based industrialised methods. But the yields are far lower and there is not enough natural nutrients to supply food to 2 billion people let alone 6.5 billion growing to 9 billion.

We are stuck with industrial oil based agriculture, so that means we are in deap $hit in the years to come.



Put a wall around Africa, and increase our coastal military power. The West will be OK as long as they can keep out the millions of refugees.


----------



## metric (25 April 2008)

here is an  newsweek article from 1975 that wasnt tainted by todays politisised GW 'agenda'.

you should go to link and see graph etc..

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/newsweeks-1975-article-about-the-coming-ice-age

The Cooling World
By Peter Gwynne
28 April 1975 

There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production ”” with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas ”” parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia ”” where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon. 

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. 

During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree ”” a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states. 

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. 

“A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.” 

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972. 

To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras ”” and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. 

Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 ”” years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City. 

Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.” 

Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases ”” all of which have a direct impact on food supplies. 

“The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.” 

Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines. 

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. 

They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

Lest we forget just how wrong the climate experts can be.

It’s funny isn’t it? 

Everyone complains about the weather, but only liberals try to legislate it.


----------



## 2020hindsight (25 April 2008)

Plasmo said:


> 1.Global warming true believers have spent the last few years denying that sunspots affected global temperature, because admitting this fact would undermine all the "models" attributing
> 
> 2.......historic temperature rises to CO2.
> 
> ...



1.No, anyone who has read a paragraph or two about this will know that the sun affects the earth's temperature.  And no-one has “spent the last few years denying this” (except the no-hopers I guess).  The question becomes, what about the excessive increase in temperature that cannot be (almost certainly – like 95% + certain) explained by natural phenomena (sun, atmospheric/volcanic dust, etc). 

2.At least you concede historic rises of temperature, which is more than every second post around here is prepared to do. 

3.?? Of course it's possible to expect a trend towards some recent slowing of temperature rise (or even lower average temperatures – assuming that has happened – which NASA suggests hasn't)  when there is less sunspot activity.  Incidentally, when sunspots peak, - eg in 2011 - so too will the temperature of the sun's radiation.  So we should be talking dip in the temperature at the moment.   

4.?? Rises and falls in temperature have been due to a combination of sun and CO2 (and other).   

5.No one's denying that climate like the weather, or temperature is chaotic. The other thing , I notice that NASA in the recent article I posted back there talks about the 5-year-averaged temperature, which helps reduce the fluctuations.  And the temperature increase in not a monochromatic scale here – we're not slowly playing a scale on the piano.   The earth's temperature is more like a beginner kid trying to play a scale on a trumpet – and ending up with what could loosely be described as a melody slowly working its way up the scale.   But the general trend is higher temperatures.


----------



## Plasmo (25 April 2008)

You will note that solar activity has over the last 300 years progressed to historical highs, especially since 1950 where it has held at a pretty constant level of "extremely high".  It has been like turning the temperature controls up on the oven.  It takes the oven a while to heat up, but heat up it does.

"Climate change models" universally neglect sunspot activity as a factor in climate change, attributing it to CO2 instead.

Now over the last year or so, someone turned the oven off.  The earth is returning to the ambient temperature, and quite fast.  Maybe it'll get turned back on soon, maybe it won't.  Maybe it'll come back on stronger than before, maybe weaker. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sunspot_Numbers.png



> anyone who has read a paragraph or two about this will know that the sun affects the earth's temperature




Show me one report on climate change that considers the impact of sunspots.  The IPCC report totally neglects this issue, attributing every part of temperature change that could be solar to CO2 instead.

I would say that if climate change models accounted for solar activity, this would wipe out 90% of the impact of CO2.


----------



## metric (25 April 2008)

youve goota watch this youtube video. part 1 of 4. i doubt you will believe the rubbish that is GW after this..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI

the other 3 are at link..


----------



## So_Cynical (25 April 2008)

I cant believe we have 3 pages of an ice age thread and no mention of the
North Atlantic conveyor and its predicted demise....thus new ice age.

But of course its all nonsense and will never happen...i know this 
because i read it on an internet forum. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_Stream

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation


----------



## 2020hindsight (25 April 2008)

Plasmo said:


> ... Show me one report on climate change that considers the impact of sunspots.



http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11650


> Sunspot trouble
> So what role, if any, have solar fluctuations had in recent temperature changes? While we can work out how Earth's orbit has changed going back many millions of years, we have no first-hand record of the changes in solar output associated with sunspots before the 20th century.
> 
> It is true that sunspot records go back to the 17th century, but sunspots actually block the Sun's radiation. It is the smaller bright spots (faculae) that increase the Sun's output and these were not recorded until more recently. The correlation between sunspots and bright faculae is not perfect, so estimates of solar activity based on sunspot records may be out by as much as 30%.
> ...




gee Plasmo - you claim that the IPCC didn't mention solar activity 
How hard did you try before you made that incredible claim ?
I mean - here's what happens when you go to wikipedia .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report



> Factors that warm or cool the planet
> 
> AR4 describes warming and cooling effects on the planet in terms of radiative forcing ”” the rate of change of energy in the system, measured as power per unit area (in SI units, W/m ²). The report shows in detail the individual warming contributions (positive forcing) of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, halocarbons, other human warming factors, and the warming effects of changes in solar activity. Also shown are the cooling effects (negative forcing) of aerosols, land-use changes, and other human activities. All values are shown as a change from pre-industrial conditions.
> 
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (25 April 2008)

So_Cynical said:


> I cant believe we have 3 pages of an ice age thread and no mention of the North Atlantic conveyor and its predicted demise....thus new ice age.




SoCyn - you are obviously talking ONLY about Europe right?
I mean, the demise of the Gulf Stream means that the Gulf of Mexico gets much hotter yes?

The Gulf Stream is discussed as one of the topics (labelled myths) here ..

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11838

In fact that article claims that "Few scientists think there will be a rapid shutdown of circulation. Most ocean models predict no more than a slowdown, probably towards the end of the century. "

I wouldn't have a clue.  But your point is the very first post I made on the "Global Cooling " thread   - Seems it's unlikely.   Certainly UK and Europe is doing much much more towards reducing CO2 that Aus is - DESPITE the fact that they (allegedly ) have less to lose 



> Climate myths: Warming will cause an ice age in Europe
> 
> While the rest of Earth swelters, might Europe and parts of North America freeze? This scenario was always unlikely, and the latest findings largely rule it out.
> 
> ...




see also https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=244788&highlight=scientist#post244788

Here are the other alleged myths...



> There is also a guide to assessing the evidence. In the articles we've included lots of links to primary research and major reports for those who want to follow through to the original sources.
> 
> Can we trust the science?
> • Chaotic systems are not predictable
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (25 April 2008)

So_Cynical said:


> ...North Atlantic conveyor and its predicted demise....thus new ice age.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_Stream




You're right - some brilliant articles out there 
sheesh - allegedly (??) it pretty much stopped for 10 days back in 2004  (believe it or not).



> There is some speculation that global warming could decrease or shutdown thermohaline circulation and therefore reduce the North Atlantic Drift. The timescale that this might happen in is unclear; estimates range from a few decades to a few hundred years[1]. This could trigger localised cooling in the North Atlantic and lead to cooling (or lesser warming) in that region, particularly affecting areas that are warmed by the North Atlantic Drift, such as Scandinavia and Great Britain.[7] The chances of this occurring are unclear.[8]
> 
> At present, most available data show that Gulf Stream flow was stable over the past 40 years.[9] One report, based on a snapshot survey, suggested that the deep return flow has weakened[10] by 30% since 1957, which would imply a weakening in the North Atlantic Deep Water production.[11] However, this should have caused a temperature drop of several degrees in northwest Europe, but instead temperatures have tended to increase.
> 
> ...




http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/oct/27/science.climatechange



> Researchers are not sure yet what to make of the 10-day hiatus. "We'd never seen anything like that before and we don't understand it. We didn't know it could happen," said Harry Bryden, at the National Oceanography Centre, in Southampton, who presented the findings to a conference in Birmingham on rapid climate change.
> 
> Is it the first sign that the current is stuttering to a halt? "I want to know more before I say that," Professor Bryden said.
> 
> Lloyd Keigwin, a scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, in Massachusetts, in the US, described the temporary shutdown as "the most abrupt change in the whole [climate] record".






> Prof Bryden's group stunned climate researchers last year with data suggesting that the flow rate of the Atlantic circulation had dropped by about 6m tonnes of water a second from 1957 to 1998. If the current remained that weak, he predicted, it would lead to a 1C drop in the UK in the next decade. A complete shutdown would lead to a 4C-6C cooling over 20 years.
> 
> The study prompted the UK's Natural Environment Research Council to set up an array of 16 submerged stations spread across the Atlantic, from Florida to north Africa, to measure flow rate and other variables at different depths. *Data from these stations confirmed the slowdown in 1998 was not a "freak observation"- although the current does seem to have picked up slightly since.*


----------



## 2020hindsight (25 April 2008)

Just a comment about the level of certainty implied in IPCC's 90% or 95% confidence limits that things are in fact warming globally ...
let's say it's 94% confidence...
that's like playing 2 up, but with 4 coins, - and the IPCC are prepared to put money on 4 tails


----------



## 2020hindsight (25 April 2008)

wayneL said:


> The world's climate must be taken as a whole to discuss global warming/cooling. Single incidences may have other local factors at play... deforestation, heat sink effect, el niÃ±o/la niÃ±a, whatever.
> 
> On a whole the world has been getting cooler over the last decade... and that's from the likes of NASA etc.



Wayne you posted this in response to the Tasman Glacier comments .. 

I think you'll find that recession of glaciers is a damned site less "local" or "single incidents".   - here are rough estimates of what is happening at other glaciers (and no question the majority over the world are receding and receding at an alarming rate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850

btw, I've already posted this re your NASA claims


> NASA continues to a summary :-
> http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/
> 
> Summary
> ...


----------



## disarray (26 April 2008)

look familiar? guess whats next


----------



## metric (26 April 2008)

Mont Blanc glacier almost doubles in size 
in four years  
.


> 15 Oct 07 - That’s what the headline should have said. Instead, it shouted "Global warming makes Mont Blanc grow," in what I consider a blatant attempt to hide the truth. A different paper entitled the story "Climate change making Mont Blanc even higher."
> 
> Here’s how the stories went:
> "Mont Blanc, the highest mountain in France and western Europe, has grown more than two metres in two years ... ironically as a result of global warming."
> ...




http://www.iceagenow.com/Mont_Blanc_glacier_almost_doubles_in_size.htm


----------



## Plasmo (26 April 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11650
> 
> 
> gee Plasmo - you claim that the IPCC didn't mention solar activity
> ...




Gee whiz 2020Hindsight, thanks for linking me to a writeup on "solar forcing".  I wonder if "solar forcing" and "sunspots" are the same thing.

Oh wait, they aren't.  So my point still stands, and you should please find out the difference between the two before continuing to talk about global warming.


----------



## Superfly (26 April 2008)

Please this must stop... do not ask the left hard questions, you are not meant to do that, just accept GW as truth...global warming... global warmimg.. Bush is bad... Bush is bad... Rudd is good.. Koyoto is good... rah rah rah ...


----------



## metric (26 April 2008)

below is a whinge by the rabidly partisan, rabidly green, agenda driven, bubble gum scientists....

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/24/2225980.htm




> Ice age claim angers scientists
> By Emily Bourke
> 
> Posted Thu Apr 24, 2008 8:42am AEST
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (26 April 2008)

Plasmo said:


> Global warming true believers have spent the last few years denying that sunspots affected global temperature, because admitting this fact would undermine all the "models" attributing historic temperature rises to CO2.






Plasmo said:


> Gee whiz 2020Hindsight, thanks for linking me to a writeup on "solar forcing".  I wonder if "solar forcing" and "sunspots" are the same thing.
> 
> Oh wait, they aren't.  So my point still stands, and you should please find out the difference between the two before continuing to talk about global warming.




groan

Plasmo, "forcings" in this case include natural forcings such as solar activity, volcanic ash etc , and also manmade forcings such as CO2.  You’ll see solar radiance amongst the bars of that chart I posted from that wikipedia link. 

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11650


> Recent rises
> Despite these problems, most studies suggest that before the industrial age, there was a good *correlation between natural “forcings" – solar fluctuations and other factors *such as the dust ejected by volcanoes – and average global temperatures. Solar forcing may have been largely responsible for warming in the late 19th and early 20th century, levelling off during the mid-century cooling.
> 
> *The 2007 IPCC report halved the maximum likely influence of solar forcing on warming over the past 250 years from 40% to 20%. This was based on a reanalysis of the likely changes in solar forcing since the 17th century. *
> ...




I thought your point was that IPCC (and other true believers) never considered , - or were reluctant to consider - variations in solar radiance. yes?  But it’s just sunspots yes?  No, that doesn’t make sense, because your first post was either 
a) sunspots , or 
b) CO2. 

So I assume you are not trying to split hairs between “sunspots” versus “general solar activity”.

You'll also see (above - and as previously posted in my reply to your post) that the IPCC take solar radiance into account. - albeit they downplay the effect somewhat compared so some others. (20% as against 40% etc respectively).  They have reasons for doing this – which I can either post or let you research.  Maybe I’ll post them later. 

But rest assured that the IPCC as well aware of the role of the sun in all this.  

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11650



> Switch off the Sun and Earth would become a very chilly place. No one denies our star's central role in determining how warm our planet is. The issue today is how much solar changes have contributed to the recent warming, and what that tells us about future climate.
> 
> *The total amount of solar energy reaching Earth can vary due to changes in the Sun's output, such as those associated with sunspots, or in Earth's orbit*.




there’s a graph there – all about sunspots – you ‘ll like it.  


> “Even if sunspot activity has been exceptionally high over the past century, as the reconstructed sunspot number suggests, this still cannot account for the recent warming.




Finally can I assume take it you will withdraw your statement that the IPCC have never considered sunspots / solar activity.


----------



## metric (26 April 2008)

considering todays weather patterns are much cooler than in previous times in history, some 6 deg cooler, GW (even if it was true) is of no consequence to the survival of the bears. otherwise, why havent they died out in the many tens of thousands of years when it was hotter than now? are they not genetically adapted to handle warmer conditions??? of course!!! but the GW deciples love to keep throwing the polar bear image at us.....




> Polar bear in trouble, not endangeredBy Randall Palmer in Ottawa
> April 26, 2008 08:23am
> 
> THE polar bear, the symbol of the effects of climate change on the sensitive Arctic environment, is in trouble but it is not endangered or threatened with extinction, an advisory panel says.
> ...


----------



## Plasmo (26 April 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> groan
> 
> Plasmo, "forcings" in this case include natural forcings such as solar activity, volcanic ash etc , and also manmade forcings such as CO2.  You’ll see solar radiance amongst the bars of that chart I posted from that wikipedia link.
> 
> ...




Learn the difference between radiative forcing and sunspot activity's direct impact on global temperature.  Then get back to me.  It isn't my job to educate people who are deliberately impervious to learning about something that would contradict their worldview.

It isn't a matter of "splitting hairs", sunspots have a far greater impact on global temperature directly than they do via their contribution to radiative forcing.

And no, the IPCC has not considered this impact.


----------



## 2020hindsight (26 April 2008)

Plasmo said:


> Learn the difference between radiative forcing and sunspot activity's direct impact on global temperature.  Then get back to me.  It isn't my job to educate people who are deliberately impervious to learning about something that would contradict their worldview.
> 
> It isn't a matter of "splitting hairs", sunspots have a far greater impact on global temperature directly than they do via their contribution to radiative forcing.
> 
> And no, the IPCC has not considered this impact.




okok - so you ARE splitting hairs between sunspots and solar activity 
(despite the fact that warming - according to one of your posts -  was either due to
a) sunspots, or 
b) CO2)

Furthermore, it would appear that you are talking in riddles, keeping your cards to your chest so you change the argument to suit.

Let's just admit that IPCC are onto  solar radiance. .....



> The consensus position (as represented for example by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report) says that solar radiation may have increased by 0.12 W/m ² since 1750, compared to 1.6 W/m ² for the net anthropogenic forcing.[81] The TAR said, "The combined change in radiative forcing of the two major natural factors (solar variation and volcanic aerosols) is estimated to be negative for the past two, and possibly the past four, decades."




... then move onto other secondary effects of sunspots - I'm gonna guess that you're talking the effect on cosmic rays ok 

 - increase in sunspot activity causes increase in sun's magnetic field, decrease in cosmic rays hitting earth, POSSIBLE (argued) reduction in cloud formation, POSSIBLE more heat.     

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11651



> Climate myths: It’s all down to cosmic rays
> 
> Increased sunspot activity is known to strengthen the Sun's magnetic field, which deflects more of the galactic cosmic rays entering the solar system and thus reducing the number hitting Earth. The argument championed by Henrik Svensmark is that this would reduce cloud formation in the atmosphere – warming the Earth – and that this effect explains the recent global warming.
> 
> ...




In short, I think you'll find that the IPCC are onto sunspots in every conceivable interpretation thereof.


----------



## Plasmo (26 April 2008)

Wow you've gone from knowing nothing about sunspots to being an expert on what they can and can't do in the space of 30 seconds googling for any articles you can find to support the preexisting opinion you held.  I bow to your wisdom and expert knowledge.



> In short, I think you'll find that the IPCC are onto sunspots in every conceivable interpretation thereof.




Show me where.


----------



## noirua (26 April 2008)

The polar icecaps are not decreasing everywhere. Infact, they are increasing in places.
When the ice age cometh everyone will have left Planet Earth by then, and most planets will have declared their Independence.


----------



## 2020hindsight (26 April 2008)

metric said:


> youve goota watch this youtube video. part 1 of 4. i doubt you will believe the rubbish that is GW after this..
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI
> 
> the other 3 are at link..




metric , I believe I may have been the first to post those youtubes. 
I also posted the contribution of Prof Bob Carter to that ABC global warming debate - compared to IPCC's Prof David Koroly - maybe you watched them as well 

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=277521&highlight=carter#post277521

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=277528&highlight=carter#post277528

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=277569&highlight=carter#post277569

For the best summary of all ( imo) watch the first 3m30s of this one ...  

"Nick Rowley, Climate Change Strategist" - of UK gives a great summary...
balancing the risks of getting this wrong





> on the subject of observed global warming , if you look at the great bulk of the world's climate scientists, around 98% of them really accept that basic science, - that is as close to certain - almost - as you can get - in relation to science.
> 
> Yet there are uncertainties, essentially about the future - and a future prediction is always going to be uncertain - and that's why, when you look at the IPCC reports, you have scenarios - lower, middle, and upper scenarios - and for mine, I very much hope they are wrong .
> 
> ...


----------



## metric (26 April 2008)

noirua said:


> The polar icecaps are not decreasing everywhere. Infact, they are increasing in places.
> When the ice age cometh everyone will have left Planet Earth by then, and most planets will have declared their Independence.





im for a commonwealth of planets, a monarchy, and the westminster system. with one change. i want paris hilton as queen.....


----------



## 2020hindsight (26 April 2008)

Plasmo said:


> Wow you've gone from knowing nothing about sunspots to being an expert on what they can and can't do in the space of 30 seconds googling for any articles you can find to support the preexisting opinion you held.  I bow to your wisdom and expert knowledge.
> 
> Show me where.




My existing opinion of this argument is that it's going nowhere - you don't seem to want to tell me what you know about anything  - 

also it's a bit like the two old cricketers arguiing - 

"what's the most runs you ever made ?
"124"
"ahh - I got 128 once  - what about the most wickets you got bowling... "
"ahaha - no way, this time I go first". 

PS are you talking solar radiance?
are you talking cosmic rays?
are you talking freckles?- who knows.


----------



## 2020hindsight (26 April 2008)

I posted this on another thread where people were asked "global warming -how valid and serious?" - where incidentally 83% (at least) agreed that we should act to do something about global warming.

Nice summary of the science.
BUT even if you don't believe the manmade contribution to GW, I still think we should follow Sterns and Garnaut - call it the cautious route (and probably least expensive in the long term).  and/or follow Nick Rowley (back a couple of posts) who says it is now about security. 

 Sir David Attenborough: The Truth About Climate Change

Garnaut :- "There will be winners and losers out of the big changes we are going through - We can make ourselves winners if we embrace innovation .... if we prepare ourselves for it - and that involves education planning strategic thinking.. good policy...

"Australia has not done particularly well over the last decade.  Fortunately the States kept moving on climate change policy, even when the Federal Govt went through a period of scepticism (under Howard)."  

 Professor Ross Garnaut - Victorian Climate Change Summit


----------



## Smurf1976 (26 April 2008)

The whole greenhouse effect / global warming / climate change / coming ice age thing has ceased to be a legitimate scientific debate quite some time ago in my opinion. 

It is now a _political_ debate just like ends up happening with every other environmental issue - for practical purposes the science stops the day it hits the headlines and politics takes over.

It's been exactly the same with every major environmental issue I can think of with one notable exception (ozone). Other than that, it's always the same. The science starts, then the media gets hold of it and from that point on any scientific or other factual argument is totally irrelevant. Pulp mills, forests, dams, uranium - all the big environmental debates have gone this way with politics taking over from science and the climate issue has now gone exactly the same way.


----------



## metric (26 April 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> The whole greenhouse effect / global warming / climate change / coming ice age thing has ceased to be a legitimate scientific debate quite some time ago in my opinion.
> 
> It is now a _political_ debate just like ends up happening with every other environmental issue - for practical purposes the science stops the day it hits the headlines and politics takes over.
> 
> It's been exactly the same with every major environmental issue I can think of with one notable exception (ozone). Other than that, it's always the same. The science starts, then the media gets hold of it and from that point on any scientific or other factual argument is totally irrelevant. Pulp mills, forests, dams, uranium - all the big environmental debates have gone this way with politics taking over from science and the climate issue has now gone exactly the same way.





sounds like youve found a cure smurf!!!


----------



## 2020hindsight (26 April 2008)

metric said:


> 1. considering todays weather patterns are much cooler than in previous times in history, some 6 deg cooler, GW (even if it was true) is of no consequence to the survival of the bears.
> 
> 2. otherwise, why havent they died out in the many tens of thousands of years when it was hotter than now? are they not genetically adapted to handle warmer conditions??? of course!!! but the GW deciples love to keep throwing the polar bear image at us.....




1. "much cooler than in previous times in history, some 6 deg cooler" (??)   what the hell have you been smoking metric.?  It is about as hot, possibly hotter now than in the last 2000 years (at least). 

2. (they will probably survive as a species - albeit they'll be decimated -  therefore stop "throwing the polar bear image at us !" 

3. ..."insufficient reason to think that the polar bear was at imminent risk of extinction,"  - yeah, very comforting..

4. "That's not to say that it's not in trouble.  A special-concern species....at risk.. requires legislative action."  - ok - I think he's conceding some potential unease here - I think he's still saying there's nothing to worry about -  (provided enough greenies heed the cause and overcome a pathetically apathetic public, and/or the gun lobby).  

4. "Disappearing summer sea ice is causing a decline in numbers in some areas, but other regions are stable and in some the population is rising."  I read recently that the areas that are increasing are where hunting has been restricted.     
....
5.  "Environment Minister : " Ottawa should not wait until the animal got a "threatened" designation."  - "Let's take action now, and that's exactly what we're going to do," he said, standing in front of a stuffed polar bear at the Canadian Museum of Nature in Ottawa. "

A much less ambiguos statement yes?  Let's take action - presumably before thousands more are also stuffed. 

6. "We don't want to simply wait another five years for another report to say that proactive measures and action is needed. Obviously today's report says we need to do that now."  .. Here Here. - gee whiz, 5 years to get some action would be brilliant - took Howard and Costello 10 years to even say the words "Climate Change"  :2 twocents

"The stronger "threatened" status, if adopted, would have required prohibitions like bans on hunting and destruction of habitat" .... makes sense to me. - on both grounds, less hunting, and more habitat. 
.....
7.  "The US Geological Survey said last September that two-thirds of the world's polar bears could be gone by mid-century if predictions of melting sea ice hold true. " - hell only 2/3rd gone! - what are we worried about?.  

8. "The Canadian environmental group David Suzuki Foundation ... The western Hudson Bay population declined by 22 per cent between 1987 and 2004, it said. (other areas protected by scaled down hunting).  The group called for tougher action to combat global warming in addition to a formal listing under the Species at Risk Act"

Once again, David Suzuki shines out amongst men. 
(just as when he recently said that politicians who didn't act on GHG and GW should be held legally liable). 



> Arctic specialist Mark Serreze said, following the record low in 2007,[102] "If you asked me a couple of years ago when the Arctic could lose all of its ice then I would have said 2100, or 2070 maybe. But now I think that 2030 is a reasonable estimate




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png


----------



## 2020hindsight (26 April 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> The whole greenhouse effect / global warming / climate change / coming ice age thing has ceased to be a legitimate scientific debate quite some time ago in my opinion.
> 
> ..  It's been exactly the same with every major environmental issue I can think of with one notable exception (ozone).



smurf - how do you know it's not another ozone?

PS just as well CFC's were (sorta) banned - or else we'd really be in a pickle on the GHG stuff


----------



## 2020hindsight (26 April 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> 1. "much cooler than in previous times in history, some 6 deg cooler" (??)   what the hell have you been smoking metric.?  It is about as hot, possibly hotter now than in the last 2000 years (at least).




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
the light blue line shows results from a Greenland ice core -   so for the purpose of discussing polar bears I suppose we should use that for comparison - and it seems it was hotter about 2500 years ago.

However it would seem that the mean Earth surface temperature (the dark line) has not been this hot for a long long time - i.e. 10,000 years and some - way back before the last ice age. 



> (light blue) GISP2 ice core, interpreted paleotemperature, Greenland: [abstract] [DOI] Alley, R.B. (2000). "The Younger Dryas cold interval as viewed from central Greenland". Quaternary Science Reviews 19: 213-226.




http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Holocene_Temperature_Variations_Rev_png


----------



## 2020hindsight (26 April 2008)

numbercruncher said:


> .. I do find it interesting that everyone here is agreeing with this guy's theory.
> 
> I really don’t find this very reasurring ....
> 
> ...



numbercruncher, spot on. 
I notice this bloke advised Ronald Reagan on “Star Wars” (Strategic Defense Initiative) and that has since been virtually disbanded as a pipe dream. 


metric said:


> I am a member of many forums as my interests are diverse. hunting forums, boxing, religious, shares, metal detecting, fishing, (or anything i want to learn)  etc. like here, many subjects are covered.
> an observation i have made is that the shares forums have the most intelligent posters. and also the most members that are sceptical of media and government actions.....  good stuff!



Are you saying there are a lot more greenies amongst boxers ? – and amongst hunters yes?  In which case, why aren’t you a greenie as well?


----------



## 2020hindsight (26 April 2008)

kennas said:


> Anyone who has read State of Fear will agree that the global warming threat caused by human related CO2 emissions is a furphy. Even though it's a novel.




kennas, and anyone who has read Alice in Wonderland will know that you shouldn’t claim expert knowledge after reading a fictional novel. 



> State of Fear is a 2004 novel by Michael Crichton published by HarperCollins on December 7, 2004. Like most of his novels it is a techno-thriller, this time concerning eco-terrorists who attempt mass murder to support their views. Unlike his other novels, the book contains many graphs and footnotes, two appendices, and a twenty page bibliography, all combining to give an actual or fictional impression of scientific authority.[1][2][3][4][5]
> 
> However, the consensus of many prominent climate scientists is that this use of scientific data is *inaccurate and misleading*.[6][7][8][9][10]
> 
> ...



So Crichton wants the scientists to keep researching - just in case they were right all along  - by which time it will be too late to achieve what we can achieve if we started now.  

and he's also in favour of wilderness management which is about to start happening at an accelerated rate, thanks to environmental issues rising to the fore. 

PS I prefer the IPCC description of our options here :- (refer jpeg)


----------



## 2020hindsight (26 April 2008)

Julia said:


> For myself, I'm just pretty sick of hearing about it all, and tend to sigh when yet another news item comes on the radio, or is printed in the paper, and flick over to something else.  Anything which smacks of fanaticism just turns me right off.



Julia
yep, I sigh too, - 
here are a couple of examples 
let me know if these items turn you off?

heck, as an ex-Kiwi, who knows,  you might at least read the one(s) about Tasman Glacier 

http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20082404-17232.html


> Tasman Glacier is melting fast
> Thursday, 24 April 2008
> Massey University
> 
> ...




http://www.stuff.co.nz/4494061a7693.html


> Tasman Glacier could go in 20 years
> By JOHN KEAST - The Press | Thursday, 24 April 2008
> The Tasman Glacier in Mount Cook-Aoraki National Park is retreating at an alarming rate and will ultimately disappear, experts at Massey University warn.
> 
> ...



gotta feeling the very top of the glacier might hang around a bit longer than 20 years, but who nose. 

And here's the situation in the Arctic ...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/13/2117735.htm


> Arctic ice melt worse than predicted: scientists
> By Barbara Miller
> 
> Posted Thu Dec 13, 2007 11:22am AEDT
> ...




but youre probably right - all fanaticism ...
back to the knitting !


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (26 April 2008)

*Re: comming ice age. canberra scientists*



Smurf1976 said:


> One thing I've certainly been thinking is that, in a scenario very familiar to share traders, the whole global warming thing does seem to have undergone a parabolic rise and possible blow off top in the past year or so. That it came amidst falling temperatures does reek of a desperate "now or never" stance being taken.
> 
> IMO 10 years from now the issue will be largely ignored no matter what the evidence or science. Oil shortages will be the focus then and that one is real.
> 
> As for the Greens, they're busy organising a 25 years later party in honour of their "greatest moment" aka saving the Franklin. Fair enough, but there's a limit to how long they can keep flogging that one. Time to achieve something else, preferably in a democratic manner without frightening small children.




I agree completely.

I've always found it comfortable to avoid the extreme ideas of those types. Greenpeace, Sea whatever it is, Al Gore and all the hairy nosed men and hairy legged feminists who are fellow travellers of these zealots. They need to find proper jobs in mining, power generation or building houses for young people who want to work and where there are shortages.. 

It doesn't surprise me one whit that the scientists are now saying an ice age is more likely than global warming. 

What will they do now.??, protect the cane toad probably.

gg


----------



## 2020hindsight (26 April 2008)

smurf said:
			
		

> As for the Greens, they're busy organising a 25 years later party in honour of their "greatest moment" aka saving the Franklin. Fair enough, but there's a limit to how long they can keep flogging that one.



and smurf
there's also a limit on how long you can keep flogging the Franklin on GW threads


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (26 April 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> and smurf
> there's also a limit on how long you can keep flogging the Franklin on GW threads




ps I agreed with saving the Franklin by the way, before you dissect me 2020, a great victory for common sense, not necessarily any one group.

gg


----------



## 2020hindsight (26 April 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> ps I agreed with saving the Franklin by the way, before you dissect me 2020, a great victory for common sense, not necessarily any one group.gg



gg, don't worry about me m8 , lol
Smurf might tear you to pieces though


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (26 April 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> gg, don't worry about me m8 , lol
> Smurf might tear you to pieces though




Sorry mate, as I said I avoid all this climate argy bargy , so I'm not up with whos what in Green posting, keep up the posts , I enjoy them immensely.

gg


----------



## wayneL (26 April 2008)

2020,

You are starting to add some ad hominem sarcasm/attacks to your posts. Don't do it.

You criticize Smurf for mentioning the Franklin too often in your opinion, yet fail to see your own constant restatement of questionable science. A barrage of information from the same vested interests does not add weight of fact.

Stick to the real science and a bit of logic.... please.


----------



## skint (26 April 2008)

Hi all,

I'm often amused by references to those that are mindful of the threats posed by climate change as "extremists" and "dogmatists". They don't seem to have twigged that they themselves have become the extremists. Overwhelmingly, the scientific community has concluded that the climate is changing, and that after accounting for sunspots, volanic activity and so on, human activity plays a major role. Seriously, does it make more sense to listen to the thousands of climatologists, their data and conclusions, or a grab bag of hairdressers, stockbrokers or any other Joe, claiming to know better. If I went to a thousand mechanics and almost every one told me my head gasket was buggered, there's a good chance my head gasket was buggered. If a couple of the thousand said its the rings that are shot, it's possible they're right, but highly improbable. Similarly, suppose someone goes to the doctor and was told they had a serious but treatable disease. This is followed up with second, third, fourth opinions and so on. Should the person listen to the doctors or the bloke he was talkng to down at the supermarket?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (26 April 2008)

skint said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I'm often amused by references to those that are mindful of the threats posed by climate change as "extremists" and "dogmatists". They don't seem to have twigged that they themselves have become the extremists. Overwhelmingly, the scientific community has concluded that the climate is changing, and that after accounting for sunspots, volanic activity and so on, human activity plays a major role. Seriously, does it make more sense to listen to the thousands of climatologists, their data and conclusions, or a grab bag of hairdressers, stockbrokers or any other Joe, claiming to know better. If I went to a thousand mechanics and almost every one told me my head gasket was buggered, there's a good chance my head gasket was buggered. Similarly, suppose someone goes to the doctor and was told they had a serious but treatable disease. This is followed up with second, third, fourth opinions and so on. Should the person listen to the doctors or the bloke he was talkng to down at the supermarket?





Its a reasonable point skint, however you wouldn't get Al Gore or the local Centrelink clients to picket your doctor's clinic if she said she wasn't sure about the diagnosis, or attempt to close down the mechanics Christmas party if they weren't sure if it was a gasket. 

We all know that there is some global warming, we just don't know if its a natural phenomenon or a result of industrialisation. There are those who say it is and those who say it isn't. In my experience hairdressers say its not and stockbrokers say it is, unless they work for Opes in which case they say its both.

gg


----------



## 2020hindsight (26 April 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> ... We all know that there is some global warming, ....



gg, I would respectfully suggest that the topic of this thread is obviously in denial on that point. 

The problem now is a new ice age apparently


----------



## wayneL (26 April 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> gg, I would respectfully suggest that the topic of this thread is obviously in denial on that point.
> 
> The problem now is a new ice age apparently



Interesting wording revealing a cognitive bias. 

Let's say it's contesting science, not denial.


----------



## Agentm (26 April 2008)

every now and again the world needs fear to driven in it..


the same old one just revist themselves.. over and over

world food shortage
armageddon
volcanic catastrophy
overpopulation
the cold war
sars
bird flu
meteor strike
global warming
terrorism
korea nuclear war
ice age

please feel free to add the others if you want!


in my life i am the luckiest guy in the universe, having "survived every type of global doomsayers spruiking "   for decades now..  i know i have survived 2 ice ages, two glogbal warmings, countless meteors and i must be one lucky guy hey!

i am thinking a new thread needs to be spawned by me, maybe title it

i bet i survive this and all of todays and future doomsday fearmongers garbage.   


anyone can research these endless mindless and pointless fear capaigns, but why not look at it a little deeper and see them for what they are..

just my own opinion..dyor and always look for the hook!!

good luck in your journeys for the "truth"


----------



## 2020hindsight (26 April 2008)

wayneL said:


> Interesting wording revealing a cognitive bias.
> 
> Let's say it's contesting science, not denial.




wayne, why else would you be proposing digging up the Siberian snow if you weren't in denial about warming? 

PS he's probably been misquoted - no one could be that stupid 



> Dr Chapman has proposed preventive, or delaying, moves to slow the cooling, such as bulldozing Siberian and Canadian snow to make it dirty and less reflective.


----------



## wayneL (26 April 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> wayne, why else would you be proposing digging up the Siberian snow if you weren't in denial about warming?
> 
> PS he's probably been misquoted - no one could be that stupid




I'm not proposing it, just posted it for interest and as a counterpoint.

But for the record, ploughing up the permafrost is a ludicrous idea... IMO.

But have you ever heard of brainstorming? Look it up.


----------



## skint (27 April 2008)

Agentm said:


> every now and again the world needs fear to driven in it..
> 
> 
> the same old one just revist themselves.. over and over
> ...




I agree, there are those who inflate "issues requiring attention" to mean "the end of civilisation as we know it." At the other exreme are those that unrealistically minimise a threat, or worse, propose ignoring a threat entirely. Of the issues you posted, some are indeed the stuff of movies but some are occuring now:


world food shortage - happening now and there are people starving as a result. Not the end of the world for you and I, but a problem to be addressed nonetheless.  

armageddon - nutters will always be peddling this one. A mate of mine (sane) some years back rang me up and invited me to the "end of the world" as predicted by some guru of a cult (not so sane). The "end of the world" gathering was just down the road, so we packed a thermos (we were driving there and for some strange reason felt a return journey may be necessary) and headed off to see the 'faithfuls' reaction at the alotted time. They seemed to be genuinely dissappointed when we all didn't disappear in a puff of Elvis. Turned out the guru had futures or investments that didn't mature until after the event.

volcanic catastrophy - hadn't heard that one. Needless to say I don't think many would take it seriously.

overpopulation - another one where the effects may not spell the end, but an issue needing serious attention.

the cold war - the Cuban crisis was a bit of a worry, but it's also true that the cold war threat was inflated for political purposes.

sars & bird flu - another two that didn't threaten to wipe us all out, but couldn't be ignored, in the same way diseases such as polio in Australia couldn't be ignored. These diseases seem to be relatively contained at the moment, and no doubt at considerable expense. Imagine the costs now if the world had taken a "she'll be right attitude."

meteor strike - a big meteor will, at some stage in the next few million or billion years, hit the earth with major consequences. Just a probability event. Given the infrequency of big meteors hitting the earth, the chances of it occuring in our lives is miniscule.

global warming - evidenced based, occuring and worsening now. Another one whereby the human race is unlikly to come to a screaming halt, but where the effects are still more than sufficient to warrant addressing the issue for both economic and social reasons.

terrorism - terrorism is designed to strike fear and it seems to be achieving its end. The actual threat when compared to other threats to life are indeed remote.

korea nuclear war - that crazy whacky Kim Jung! Wouldn't have a clue, to be honest, what his capability or intentions are or were.

ice age - contrary to GW and climate change, there is no evidence to date that an ice age is imminent.



My point is that whilst there will always be those who catastrophise events and paint unlikely doomsday scenarios, it is a also true that when there is substantial evidence of significant consequences, it's equally dopey to stick one's head in the sand. Most of the issues you mentioned can easily be placed in the "Plum Loco" pile and ignored or the "that's a bit of a worry pile" and attended to. Plonking them all in together, and surrounding real issues with the loopey ones, is an old strategy oft employed by the pollies as a counter to something they don't agree with, but in reality it doesn't change the facts. Events and issues that are of genuine concern most often reside somewhere _between_ the end of humanity at one extreme, and no need to do anything at all at the other.


----------



## skint (27 April 2008)

Further to my last post, I should include the obligatory caveat and waiver.

"I am not a qualified soothsayer, and those intending to make preparations for the end of the world, should always first seek the counsel of a qualified nutter."


----------



## metric (27 April 2008)

skint said:


> Further to my last post, I should include the obligatory caveat and waiver.
> 
> "I am not a qualified soothsayer, and those intending to make preparations for the end of the world, should always first seek the counsel of a qualified nutter."





or one of the many 'survivalist' web site online.


----------



## 2020hindsight (27 April 2008)

skint said:


> 1. I agree, there are those who inflate "issues requiring attention" to mean "the end of civilisation as we know it."
> 
> 2. At the other exreme are those that unrealistically minimise a threat, or worse, propose ignoring a threat entirely. Of the issues you posted, some are indeed the stuff of movies but some are occuring now:
> 
> ...




skint 
1. but you agree that it requires attention yes?
2. totally agree.  Bludy worry.  
3. Personally I'm not making preparations for the end of the world - I'm trying to minimise the damage.

So many threads on this now 
"Global Cooling?"
"The Great Global Warming Swindle"
etc 

So back about Dec 2007 I started that poll.  .."Global Warming How Valid and Serious"
The results ? 83% think it makes sense to act. (even if not all are convinced it's manmade). 

simple. - let's act. 
If you don't like corrective action for the sake of the planet, or the critters - then look on it as an economic opportunity.  

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9058&highlight=global


----------



## 2020hindsight (27 April 2008)

wayneL said:


> I'm not proposing it, just posted it for interest and as a counterpoint.
> 
> But for the record, ploughing up the permafrost is a ludicrous idea... IMO.
> 
> But have you ever heard of brainstorming? Look it up.




we call them summits these days. 

http://www.australia2020.gov.au/topics/economy.cfm


> Simply put, our current energy mix is too carbon intensive for the era of global warming. For instance, hydro and other forms of renewable power make up only around one-tenth of our energy use. Despite this, we are well positioned to succeed in areas where demand is set to increase through the introduction of an emissions trading system.
> 
> *So new ideas will be needed to exploit our potential in areas like: carbon capture and storage; geothermal, solar and other renewable energy sources; and eco-system services – all of which have huge export and job creation potential that can benefit every Australian*.


----------



## skint (27 April 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> skint
> 1. but you agree that it requires attention yes?
> 2. totally agree.  Bludy worry.
> 3. Personally I'm not making preparations for the end of the world - I'm trying to minimise the damage.
> ...



Hey 20/20,

1. Damn straight.
2.Very BIG bludy worry.
3. Agree. Things can pretty ugly without humanity becoming extinct etc.. As you point out, it doesn't really matter whether the effects of climate change are viewed from an economic, social, humanitarian or purely environmental perspective. We have a situation that needs addressing.

Perhaps you could re-post the Youtube clip with David 'Rabbitborough'. The one where he is on a basketball court and discusses two overlaid graphs. The first of historic global temperatures, and the second of historic temperatures after controlling for known influences of temperature such as sunspots and volcanos. The two graphs almost perfectly correlate until the 1970's. Bit thick. Not sure how to post it.


----------



## Happy (27 April 2008)

I am happy either way, I try to make my footprint smallest I can.

Irrespective of warming or cooling, looks that food will be bigger problem than it is now.

If anything I would reopen euthanasia debate including forced one not to mention birth control after abolishing baby bonus of course.


----------



## 2020hindsight (27 April 2008)

skint said:


> ... the Youtube clip with David 'Rabbitborough'. The one where he is on a basketball court and discusses two overlaid graphs. The first of historic global temperatures, and the second of historic temperatures after controlling for known influences of temperature such as sunspots and volcanos.



I posted it back there at #75 - but what the heck , here it is again .. He has apparently done a brilliant series on this - there will no doubt be more youtubes in the future. And he originally came at the problem with a healthy Doubting Thomas scepticism. 

 Sir David Attenborough: The Truth About Climate Change

The other thing that doesn't get mentioned enough are the various feedback effects....

The more CO2 the higher the temperature,  -  the more heat the more CO2 ; it's a two-way dependence.

Likewise the more melting of the (highly reflective) icecaps, the more absorption of heat in the ocean, thence more melting, more absorption, etc . 

The more melting of ice, the more methane is released (currently locked) - yet another GHG - more feedback - etc.  

This is a long term stategy here.!
IPCC say if we can reduce CO2e emmissions by 1.9% per annum then we will avoid increasing the earth's temp by more than 2 deg C.    That is do-able. 

But if we wait seven years, (maybe 10 years I forget) - we will have to reduce by 2.5% per annum, and that will start to bite pretty hard.


----------



## skint (27 April 2008)

Cheers m8, Limiting the increase in temp to 2 degrees is the figure that is consistently put forward due to the feedback/snowballing effects you mentioned. We agree on the situation needing to be dealt with in a serious way, but are you an optimist or pessemist, given the glacial rate of change on these issues globally? Maybe we shold run a poll on people's expectations of the chances of sufficient and successful interventions.


----------



## 2020hindsight (27 April 2008)

skint said:


> 1.  are you an optimist or pessemist, given the glacial rate of change on these issues globally?
> 2. Maybe we shold run a poll on people's expectations of the chances of sufficient and successful interventions.




1. I'm more of an optimist since Howard was "promoted sideways" 
Also since that poll that showed that the majority are in favour of action - despite the more numerous posters being against it. 

2. There already is a thread / poll out there - intended to check if people had the determination to take the IPCC message FULLY on board ...   "Which IPCC Scenario is your guess? "

it concludes "middle road" ,   2.8 degC - 
better than nothing I guess.   

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9468&highlight=ipcc



> The A1B scenario is a more integrated world approach.
> Rapid economic growth.
> A global population that reaches 9 billion in 2050 and then gradually declines.
> 
> ...




This A1B scenario gives the 2.8degC rise I mentioned.
Mind you, A1F1 is more or less the same except that fossil fuels are allowed free reign - so despite a coordinated effort, we still get 4degC with that option.


----------



## wayneL (27 April 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> simple. - let's act.
> If you don't like corrective action for the sake of the planet, or the critters -



I agree with that, but as mentioned ad nauseum previously, wrong focus. 

The other thing I see is that the AGW alarmists don't actually do anything themselves, only want the peons to act. There even those who absolve themselves of responsibility because they are "spreading the word" One of our members here even admitted to this. Pfffft 

They continue to have a large footprint, work for companies with huge footprints etc. 

...unless of course there is $,000,000s involved.

Excuse me while I have a cynicism attack.

There are big problems, but I think there is a causation error/separate agenda in the whole debate... and the science is woeful in its bias.

Why? ==>> $$$$$$$$$$$

Follow the money


----------



## Julia (27 April 2008)

Could some knowledgeable person kindly list the reasons why we are having/going to have a worldwide shortage of food?

Here in Qld there are presently considerable drops in food prices, following higher than usual prices throughout most of summer.  I haven't noticed anything other than the usual cyclical variations.


----------



## Smurf1976 (27 April 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> gg, don't worry about me m8 , lol
> Smurf might tear you to pieces though






2020hindsight said:


> and smurf
> there's also a limit on how long you can keep flogging the Franklin on GW threads



For the record, I've seen the river and I'd prefer it flowing naturally rather than trough turbines from a purely conservation perspective.

There is only one reason for mentioning it and it's NOT advocating that the dam be built. It's this:

We use fossil fuels, particularly oil and gas, only because they are the easy option. You just build the factory, power station, car or whatever and buy fuel to run it. Easy. And there's no radioactive waste to store, minimal non-CO2 air pollution and not even any ash to dispose of. Oil and gas are easy in every way.

But oil and gas are limited and that's the problem. They also add a lot of CO2 to the atmosphere. If we're going to use ANYTHING else then there's a downside somewhere.

Coal - Even more CO2 plus ash, smoke and all the rest.

Renewables - The ALL have a _conservation_ downside just like the Franklin. Clean power for sure, and that is all the Franklin was ever about, but it comes at a price in terms of something else.

Wind turbines could very well lead to outright exitinction of some bird species. That's a rather big price to pay for some intermittent power generation.

Solar pollutes massively in manufacture. It isn't seriously a clean option at all.

Hydro - we all know what that involves and indeed it literally started the world's first Green party.

Biomass - Do the math and you'll realise it just doesn't work unless we're talking about native forest clearfelling to fuel power stations which is hardly what I'd call a good alternative to anything.

Wave - Just wait until the Greens start about the coast line.

Tidal - That's just a dam built at sea level.

Nuclear - Again, the greens don't want that either.

Geothermal - that means lots of long distance transmission lines. These are, of course, opposed by the greens.

ALL POWER POLLUTES. ALL. And Every non-oil / gas option involves some form of pollution that is far more visible than CO2 whether it be dead birds, dams, clearfelled forests or transmission lines running everywhere.

Bottom line is that we will not fix the CO2 problem unless we accept some other form of environmental impact instead or end the notion of constant growth. With mainstream environmentalists opposing any form of non-CO2 impact and not pushing for an end to growth, it just doesn't work.

As has been said many times in relation to _that_ dam, either we develop renewables in _some_ form or it's a triple F - Fossil Fuels Forever.

People support cutting CO2 in principle. Just wait until they realise what it actually involves. Odds are many of the anti-CO2 people will be out there protesting wind farms, transmission lines, diesel cars, nuclear all forms of hydro power and everything else that could actually help the situation.

The Franklin is by far the best example of all of this and that's why I refer to it. Consider for a moment if that debate were being held today - it wouldn't be dams versus the wilderness but climate change versus a river. I don't know anyone, conservationists included, who is confident what the outcome of such a debate would be. Practically every single issue that was relevant last time isn't relevant now so it would be a _very_ different debate.

In my opinion fear of that is why the Greens themselves keep mentioning it every few months - to shore up the position that it's saved. Not that anyone's proposing to dam it, but it's clear to all that there's a massive shift afoot in underlying community attitudes towards energy and the environment in general, the implications of which are not clear for that specific issue.

It's sustainability versus conservation. If you do not accept some modification of the natural environment beyond that which is already happening then you can't develop any significant renewable energy. And if we don't develop renewables then we're stuck with fossil fuels. Hence the issue I have with conservationists opposed to everything - the Franklin is simply by far the best known example, a bit like saying "Detroit" when you really mean the US car manufacturing industry in general.


----------



## The Once-ler (28 April 2008)

Julia said:


> Could some knowledgeable person kindly list the reasons why we are having/going to have a worldwide shortage of food?
> 
> .




There's about 3 threads going already about food and food supply, so your being a bit lazy.


However, these are some reasons.


Oil.
Oil is food. Food takes fertilizer, chemical and energy, all derived from oil, so food is rising with oil.

Water.
Water is being over used for irrigation, especially in India, China and the Middle East. Water aquifers are dropping. Rivers are drying up.

Climate change.
It's getting wetter in the wet spots and dryer in the dry spots, but grain is mainly grown in dryer areas, so grain yields are struggling to keep up to demand.

Population.
The worlds population is growing exponentially and is headed for 9 billion. Food production growth is starting to level out.

Biofuels.
A lot of grain and sugar is now being turned into fuel.

Global wealth.
The developing world is getting wealthier. So they are eating more meat, eggs, milk, which all needs grain.


Few other reasons, but that should keep you happy.


----------



## metric (28 April 2008)

good picture of al gore and global 'warming' .

www.rense.com


----------



## Julia (28 April 2008)

The Once-ler said:


> There's about 3 threads going already about food and food supply, so your being a bit lazy.



The Once-ler, No, I wasn't being lazy.  Yes, I should have posted the question in the Food Shortage thread.  I apologise for putting it here.
I asked the question because what I'd read in the other threads didn't really make clear to me (just stupid, perhaps) exactly why there was so much of a doomsday scenario being forecast.  

As a species, we seem to have an immense talent for predicting disaster and focusing on all that can be negative.  Therefore, I can't help wondering whether this is more of the same.

Thank you for your clearly set out reasons.  I appreciate your time and trouble.


----------



## 2020hindsight (28 April 2008)

wayneL said:


> I agree with that, but as mentioned ad nauseum previously, wrong focus.
> 
> The other thing I see is that the AGW alarmists don't actually do anything themselves, only want the peons to act. There even those who absolve themselves of responsibility because they are "spreading the word" One of our members here even admitted to this. Pfffft
> 
> They continue to have a large footprint, work for companies with huge footprints etc.



wayne, Well ‘wrong focus’ may be your opinion, but if 95% of your field of view is positive, (more reforestation, less destruction of habitat, less pollution of all types), and the other 5% is questionable (carbon capture etc) – but not damaging -  then I’m not gonna get excited about the 5%. (especially as I'm convinced by the arguments in any case). 

Hell just to get the concept of sustainability into everyone’s consciousness is a major achievement – even if it’s miles out in the future. 

Had to look up “peon” ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peon


> peon: In its obsolete usage in Spain itself, the word denoted a person who travelled by foot rather than on a horse (caballero).



Obviously I don’t have a problem with the peons – nor those who travel on horseback.  On the contrary, the people who are gonna have to change their ways are the ones who drive unnecessarily big cars around the suburbs – and the car companys who sell them in preference to a small 4 cyl car. 

More importantly, the changeover to sustainable energy demand and supply.
- The Americans who selfishly insist they are entitled to produce heaps more CO2e per capita than some poorer countries, and refuse to ratify Kyoto.

- The Australians likewise – in fact we use even more per capita than the US  does - (but at least we’ve ratified Kyoto) – and considering we have a trivial amount of manufacturing, we sure manage to generate a lot of CO2e. – i.e. all we do is dig up the ore, and then we criticise the manufacturing member of the team ( i.e. China) for turning it into steel. 

If I was in govt there would be a carbon tax on 4x4s for instance.  Not that I don’t have a lot of mates who drive them.  If the concept of a “carbon tax” jarrs due to ‘wrong focus’ whatever, then call it a pollution tax, or a resource tax – exactly the same thing in the long run.  

One person who is ‘spreading the word’ is your mate David Suzuki.  (he who wants to hold politicians who ignore global warming legally liable.)

http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=290513

In fact he puts the first of 10 “things you can do to counter GW” as follows 

“1. Get informed and get involved, watch films and newspapers about GW, then tell your neighbours co-workers friends family and community groups about ways to reduce global warming .…

2. Fly less
3. Take public transport , car pools
4. recycle trash
5. energy efficient home.
etc”

btw, I emailed David Suzuki and invited him to contribute to the forum, but his office says you have to write snail mail - 
So I figured he's hardly likely to email back


----------



## 2020hindsight (28 April 2008)

http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=290513


> Craig Offman, National Post  Published: Thursday, February 07, 2008
> David Suzuki has called for political leaders to be thrown in jail for ignoring the science behind climate change.
> 
> At a Montreal conference last Thursday, the prominent scientist, broadcaster and Order of Canada recipient exhorted a packed house of 600 to *hold politicians legally accountable for what he called an intergenerational crime. *
> ...




Kyoto maybe?


> Yet there could be a better blueprint for Dr. Suzuki's legal scenario.
> 
> *The Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, a Liberal-sponsored private member's bill that passed and was given Royal Assent last year*, legally requires the Conservative government to abide by the international pact's short-term environmental targets.
> 
> ...


----------



## wayneL (28 April 2008)

2020,

The real solution would involve trashing both the economy in its current form, and indeed the whole monetary system itself.

There will be fiddling around the edges, as long as there is a profit/gu'mint revenue motive, but nothing addressing the core problems.

Self interest is a more powerful motive than community interest, hence the actions of the likes of Al Bore.... make money by "spreading the message" but still live an indulgent, unsustainable lifestyle; hypocrisy of the highest order.

Big Al would never have become a messenger if there wasn't $$$$ in it.

At least Suzuki walks the walk (as far as I know) to some extent, even if wrong on AGW.


----------



## disarray (28 April 2008)

wayneL said:


> Big Al would never have become a messenger if there wasn't $$$$ in it.




i think you're being a bit rough on Al Gore. ok now he's in the media waving his flag around and collecting $$$ and all that stuff we are so cynical about (and rarely believe a word of), but i think the measure of the man is very telling.

i saw a doco and checked his wiki and, without knowing the guy, he seems to be quite visionary and a man of principle. 



			
				wiki said:
			
		

> Gore's senior thesis at Harvard explored the impact of television on the conduct of the presidency. This thesis essentially stated that television had an inherent bias towards individuals over institutions which would bring more attention to the president than the other branches of governments. The thesis furthermore argued that the ability to communicate well visually was becoming crucial to governing






			
				wiki said:
			
		

> Gore opposed the Vietnam War and could have avoided serving overseas by accepting a spot in the National Guard that a friend of his family had reserved for him, or by other means of avoiding the draft. Gore has stated that his sense of civic duty compelled him to serve in some capacity. He enlisted in the United States Army on August 7, 1969. After basic training at Fort Dix, Gore was assigned as a military journalist writing for The Army Flier, the base newspaper at Fort Rucker. With seven months remaining in his enlistment, Gore was shipped to Vietnam, arriving on January 2, 1971. He served with the 20th Engineer Brigade in Bien Hoa.






			
				wiki said:
			
		

> According to The Concord Monitor, "Gore was one of the first politicians to grasp the seriousness of climate change and to call for a reduction in emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouses gases. He held the first congressional hearings on the subject in the late 1970s."






			
				wiki said:
			
		

> Gore has been involved with the development of the Internet since the 1970s, first as a Congressman and later as Senator and Vice-President. Internet pioneers Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn stated in the 2000 article "Al Gore and the Internet", that Gore was "the first political leader to recognize the importance of the Internet and to promote and support its development." His High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991 (often referred to as the Gore Bill) was passed on December 9, 1991 and led to the National Information Infrastructure (NII) which Gore referred to as the "information superhighway."




i don't mean to spam wiki quotes but compared to the dross we have serving in state parliaments lately his history paints him as principled, civic minded and getting started on environmental issues almost 40 years ago. for sure he's playing the media game (he must have re-read his graduate thesis) but if you want anything in america you have to use and exploit the media.


----------



## 2020hindsight (28 April 2008)

wayneL said:


> 2020,
> 
> 1. The real solution would involve trashing both the economy in its current form, and indeed the whole monetary system itself.
> 
> ...



1. well Stern and Garnaut disagree I suspect.
2. what core problems ? - are you admitting something or speculating?   - 

maybe you're referring to general pollution? hell , we have to try. 

3. wayne
I haven't mentioned Al Gore for yonks -  Ever since you started using his alleged hypocrisy as reason enough to dismiss any message he may or may not have – and objected to his winning the Nobel Peace Prize.

So instead, I refer to the IPCC (the other half of that Nobel Prize) and the likes of Suzuki. 

4. And you're right, I'd probably trust Suzuki much more than I'd trust Gore. 

PS
5. As for people who support companies with large environmental footprint – I guess that would apply to shareholders who hold BHP – and let’s not even mention the Ok Tedi disaster.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ok_Tedi_Environmental_Disaster

Would I still put my money on BHP if I thought their price was gonna go up?  Course I would.  (unless they did another Ok Tedi) .  And *concurrently* vote in a govt that might ratify Kyoto and /or incentives to reduce their effect on the environment.  Maybe BHP will be incentivated to get into cleaner technology and make a fortune selling it as world leaders.  (as Aus potentially could be here if we wished … if you believe Garnaut anyways ).


----------



## wayneL (28 April 2008)

Big Al may have good some points. But I'm not being too hard on someone with a $30,000 p/a power bill.

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/national_world&id=5072659

PS Wiki => lol 

Politicians very actively edit their own wikis


----------



## 2020hindsight (28 April 2008)

PS allegedly John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama have all promised to go with CO2 limits becoming law ....   "and the market for carbon offsets would probably grow exponentially."

hell why doesn't that ring "opportunity"?!


----------



## 2020hindsight (28 April 2008)

wayneL said:


> Big Al may have good some points. But I'm not being too hard on someone with a $30,000 p/a power bill.
> 
> http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/national_world&id=5072659
> 
> ...



probably two sides (or three maybe?) to every story ..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore#cite_note-100



> In February 2007, critics stated that "a report by the Nashville Electric Service revealed that Mr Gore's mansion in Nashville consumed between 12 and 20 times more electricity than the average family home and that his electricity consumption had risen since the film's release in 2005.
> 
> "[91] WKRN-TV reported that the Gore family obtains their power from the Nashville Electric Service's "renewable energy initiative", The Green Power Switch program.[92] The Detroit Free Press also noted that "*Gore purchased 108 blocks of 'green power' for each of the past three months, according to a summary of the bills*.
> 
> ...




"Gore purchased 108 blocks of 'green power' for each of the past three months, according to a summary of the bills"
you could ask I guess , "why only the last 3 months" ?


----------



## wayneL (28 April 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> 2. what core problems ? - are you admitting something or speculating?   -
> 
> maybe you're referring to general pollution? hell , we have to try.
> 
> ...




IMO


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 April 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> Renewables - The ALL have a _conservation_ downside just like the Franklin. Clean power for sure, and that is all the Franklin was ever about, but it comes at a price in terms of something else.
> 
> Wind turbines could very well lead to outright exitinction of some bird species. That's a rather big price to pay for some intermittent power generation.
> 
> ...



smurf
good summary - my point was probably that you are at risk of equating the tasmanian greens with IPCC.   IPCC would I'm sure be happy to discuss nuclear for instance. (plenty of graphs already presented) 

Personally I believe Aus - like most of the world - will be nuclear within 100years ((just as France is 75% nuclear as we speak).  But in the meantime, (cos that ain't gonna happen yet it seems) let's look at clean energy options, even the carbon capture stuff I guess (though I have reservations, despite the wholehearted embrace of the Aus Coal Industry). 

PS All POWER POLLUTES ?
does that mean that ABSOLUTE POWER POLLUTES ABSOLUTELY? 



			
				wayneL said:
			
		

> BHP shareholders vs BHP and their contractors



As for BHP in say the iron ore industry .... where all of Australia rides on the miners' backs these days ...

If you could charge them (which you strictly can't) with the "sins" of the Chinese smelters because they are in the same industry - then their footprint would be much larger. 

But likewise they mine uranium, which is one of the cleanest of all energies - and the only practical one imo for the power requirements of a modern world - 

so with that approach, - averaging across those two - they probably come out looking pretty good.  

Simply mining the stuff (either coal, oil, or uranium) is the clean end of the chain. 



			
				metric said:
			
		

> this thread



Hey if a 2 or 3 month delay in the arrival of the first solar sunspot is gonna herald a mild 11 year solar cycle (bold claim) maybe two (bolder still) then that would indeed be a major cause for celebration.  Bludy unlikely it would trigger an ice age you'd think - but might buy us some time to get our act together here on Earth with some sustainability instead of a lemming-like charge into a pretty sick looking future.


----------



## Smurf1976 (1 May 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> smurf
> good summary - my point was probably that you are at risk of equating the tasmanian greens with IPCC.   IPCC would I'm sure be happy to discuss nuclear for instance. (plenty of graphs already presented)
> 
> Personally I believe Aus - like most of the world - will be nuclear within 100years ((just as France is 75% nuclear as we speak).  But in the meantime, (cos that ain't gonna happen yet it seems) let's look at clean energy options, even the carbon capture stuff I guess (though I have reservations, despite the wholehearted embrace of the Aus Coal Industry).
> ...



The Tasmanian Greens are a proxy for the Green movement in general much like McDonalds is for take away food. Love them or loath them, the Tasmanian Greens are simply the current version of what was the world's first Green political party. 

In the Australian context, that party, Bob brown and the Greens in general are, politically, the dominant face of the Australian environmental movement.

The primary problem I have with them is their focus on dams, forests, pulp mills and so on. All of which are examples of substantially or totally reversible damage. Meanwhile they support the constant growth of aviation, the ulitmate example of permanent damage to the environment. Hence I see it as conservation (dams, forests, pulp mills) on one side, sustainability (aviation, oil, gas etc) on the other. 

The Australian environmental politicians focus almost exclusively on conservation, often at the expense of sustainability. The general pattern being save the river / forest or whatever and develop mass tourism as an economic alternative. That's an awful lot of aviation fuel they're burning and CO2 produced in order to conserve something that could be restored far more easily than oil can be put back in the ground or CO2 taken from the air.

As for nuclear power, to be perfectly honest I think we'll end up using every power source that works. That's certainly the track we're on. We'll drill, dam, mine, farm and react everything we can to keep the lights on and the wheels turning. I'm not advocating it, but I think it will happen as we won't give up on constant growth easily given that the entire economic system depends on it.


----------



## doogie_goes_off (1 May 2008)

> For the record, I've seen the river and I'd prefer it flowing naturally rather than trough turbines from a purely conservation perspective.
> 
> There is only one reason for mentioning it and it's NOT advocating that the dam be built. It's this:
> 
> ...





SMURF - you are flogging a dead horse somewhat and for my i've seen the Franklin 8 times by water and 2 times by air, for what it's worth I think Gordon below Franklin would not have been a disaster, just a shame that we all would have had to live with to support our power hungry lifestyle. Anyway it's protected, get on with the rest of the debate.

Forget conservation for conservations sake, it needs justification. The real debate is more broadly sustainability v's recognisable capacity. If CO2 emissions are unsustainable (no real evidence yet) then we need to look at relatively "sustainable" energy options like some of those you mentioned ie: harness energy from things with long term potential energy.

My preference is for geothermal, however, will this ultimately lead to heating the atmosphere and encouraging a greenhouse effect (no study done yet that I've heard of - one for the environmental scientists). My other preference is for modern tidal. No you don't need a dam, that's old school, we are talking propellers in the current and if housed properly no dead fish (better than killing migratory birds).

Basically we need very long term solutions not short to medium term cycle solutions such as biofuel (short) and dams (medium term).

Note - all power generation needs metal whether it be steel for pipes or copper wire for transmission. If you want power, heat, hot water, lights and the occasional electric massage ACCEPT THE CONSEQUENCES.

Also - you can become part of the solution - how? by micro-power generation, start your own windmill, it may not be totally efficient like a 65m tall three bladed monster but just harness some energy locally. Also consider the creek nearest you, does it run very often, do you have a right to plonk a small paddle wheel in it? Consider heating water on your north facing roof before it goes into your hot water cylinder etc. BECOME PART OF THE SOLUTION IF YOU REALLY CARE.


----------



## disarray (1 May 2008)

nuclear is the best option by far. modern plants are very safe and efficient, we have an abundance of uranium, and plenty of wide open spaces to store the waste. and the waste won't be an issue for long anyway as we'll just be able to send it into the sun. i don't understand the objections to nuclear power when we compare it to our current situation and options.


----------



## nioka (1 May 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> The Tasmanian Greens are a proxy for the Green movement in general much like McDonalds is for take away food. Love them or loath them, the Tasmanian Greens are simply the current version of what was the world's first Green political party.
> 
> In the Australian context, that party, Bob brown and the Greens in general are, politically, the dominant face of the Australian environmental movement.
> 
> ...



 The greens have done more to damage the enviroment than they have done to save it.

 By the pressure to save forests they have saved some and caused the ruin of many others. Every time the timber harvesting forestry department did a good job or managing forests the greens  protested at any logging and had the forest taken from the forestry and placed in the hands of the national parks. This has caused the forestry to concentrate on clear felling and mono culture forestry. A lot of the national parks that I visit now are in worse condition now than they were when they were regularly logged. A lot of national parks could easily be managed better with some timber harvesting. A lot of the forests would have been better for the enviroment and biodiversity if managed as native forests.

 As far as dams are concerned the benefits far outweigh the disadvantages. Visit any dam in Australia and you will find a scenic visiting spot with boating, fishing and camping which will out do any of the previous natural facilities. That is before you look at the financial  employment and lifestyle benefits that the management of the water creates. I say damn the greenies and dam some more rivers.


----------



## Smurf1976 (1 May 2008)

doogie_goes_off said:


> SMURF - you are flogging a dead horse somewhat



As I said, I'm *NOT* advocating building that or any other dam. Just making the point that if you want power then something somewhere suffers some sort of impact. If you don't want that impact to be CO2 then you have to accept some other impact be it nuclear, dams, wind or whatever. 

There ain't no free lunch and there ain't no pollution free power. All that changes is who pays and what form the pollution takes.


----------



## spooly74 (1 May 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> As I said, I'm *NOT* advocating building that or any other dam. Just making the point that if you want power then something somewhere suffers some sort of impact. If you don't want that impact to be CO2 then you have to accept some other impact be it nuclear, dams, wind or whatever.
> 
> There ain't no free lunch and there ain't no pollution free power. All that changes is who pays and what form the pollution takes.




Somewhat off topic but the attached video is a lecture by Craig Venter, a biologist involved in genetics.
He talks about his research into "fourth-generation fuels" (amongst other things ) -- biologically created fuels using CO2 as their feedstock.
Basically, he sees a future of taking captured CO2 from sites and converting it to methane to drive the process in real time.
Thinks they might have the first 4th generation fuels in 18 months.



> Limited only by a biological reality and their imagination




Welcome to the future of genetics :hide:

Over a 30 min video - relevant from about 10 - 15 mins.


----------



## numbercruncher (1 May 2008)

Sounds pretty exciting.

But isnt Methane one of the worst greenhouse gases ? maybe after its combusted it becomes something nicer ? I cant seem to get my sound working so cant listen to story ):


----------



## numbercruncher (1 May 2008)

Yah heres some bad news re methane ...



> WASHINGTON (AFP) ”” Global greenhouse gas emissions including main offender carbon dioxide rose in 2007 despite efforts to curb them, a US government agency said.
> 
> Atmospheric CO2 increased by 0.6 percent or 19 billion tonnes over 2006 levels, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said in preliminary data from its annual update to its greenhouse gas index.
> 
> ...




http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hWQzGPVOi1jaokoAG24HLH2tU61w


----------



## spooly74 (1 May 2008)

numbercruncher said:


> Sounds pretty exciting.
> 
> But isnt Methane one of the worst greenhouse gases ? maybe after its combusted it becomes something nicer ? I cant seem to get my sound working so cant listen to story ):




Methane is a major part of natural gas.

"By using methane produced by bacteria as a fuel source, we can reduce the amount released into the atmosphere and use up some carbon dioxide in the process!"

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071210103934.htm


----------



## metric (12 May 2009)

> Russia Prepares for an ice age
> 
> A Cold War That Russia Can Win
> 4 Feb 09 - In January, Secretary of State designate Hillary Clinton announced
> that she would use the office to fight global warming. As she spoke, the Russian government was preparing to release a massive study much more concerned with the prospect of a global ice age.



http://www.eworldvu.com/international/2009/2/4/a-cold-war-that-russia-can-win.html




> Russian scientist says Earth could soon face new Ice Age
> 22 Jan 08  (Excerpts) Temperatures on Earth have stabilized in the past decade, and the planet should brace itself for a new Ice Age rather than global warming, a Russian scientist said in an interview with RIA Novosti Tuesday.



http://en.rian.ru/science/20080122/97519953.html



> Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age
> 11 Jan 09- Pravda - The data from paleoclimatology, including ice cores, sea
> sediments, geology, paleobotany and zoology, indicate that we are on the verge of entering another Ice Age, says Russian scientists. The data also shows that severe and lasting climate change can occur within only a few years.



http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/106922-2/



> Global Cooling: The Coming Ice Age
> Short video (6 minutes) about the coming ice age.
> I especially agree with climatologist George Kukla, an ice-age alarmist
> since the early 1970s, who still thinks an ice age is imminent.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttLBqB0qDko



> Global warming laws could cost every family a staggering £20,000 (US$40,000)
> 6 May 09 - "Sooner or later, even our loathsome media are going to put two
> and two together. Then, those idiot politicians who have embraced the global
> warming scam are going to look even more stupid than they do already. The
> reckoning may be delayed, but it will come.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ds-global-warming-law-cost-20-000-family.html


----------



## Happy (12 May 2009)

On a positive side, global warmers if they start their carbon schemes, for a while will be able to blow their trumpets that they saved the Earth from the catastrophe of global warming.


----------



## metric (13 May 2009)

remember the below article...? well its a year later, and STILL NO SUNSPOTS.......

and nearly every country on earth has either recorded a record for cold or snow.....




> Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh
> 
> Phil Chapman | April 23, 2008
> Article from:  The Australian







> THE scariest photo I have seen on the internet is www.spaceweather.com, where you will find a real-time image of the sun from the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, located in deep space at the equilibrium point between solar and terrestrial gravity.
> 
> What is scary about the picture is that there is only one tiny sunspot.
> 
> ...




http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23583376-5018542,00.html


.


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 May 2009)

metric said:


> remember the below article...? well its a year later, and STILL NO SUNSPOTS.......
> 
> and nearly every country on earth has either recorded a record for cold or snow.....



I'd have to say it's been quite noticeable locally. For the first time in years, the Autumn "rain hole" hasn't happened this year and the grass is green everywhere you look.

Coincidence maybe but I do not that the "rain hole" emerged in line with rising temperature globally and seems to have disappeared when it fell. That's a multi-decade trend and not a one off annual event.

Rain hole? That's the near total disappearance of Autumn rain in much of Tas when the planet was heating up. Not 5 or 10% down, but truly massive declines compared to historical averages. This year's been pretty wet so far though.


----------



## Soft Dough (13 May 2009)

metric said:


> remember the below article...? well its a year later, and STILL NO SUNSPOTS.......
> 
> and nearly every country on earth has either recorded a record for cold or snow.....
> .




http://www.solarcycle24.com/

Well not NO sunspots, just no solarcycle 24 sunspots.

It is interesting that the predicted peak seems to be decreasing iirc.

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml


----------



## Pat (13 May 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> I'd have to say it's been quite noticeable locally. For the first time in years, the Autumn "rain hole" hasn't happened this year and the grass is green everywhere you look.
> 
> Coincidence maybe but I do not that the "rain hole" emerged in line with rising temperature globally and seems to have disappeared when it fell. That's a multi-decade trend and not a one off annual event.
> 
> Rain hole? That's the near total disappearance of Autumn rain in much of Tas when the planet was heating up. Not 5 or 10% down, but truly massive declines compared to historical averages. This year's been pretty wet so far though.



What is the Autumn "rain hole"?

Isn't La Nina the explanation for the wet?


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 May 2009)

Pat said:


> What is the Autumn "rain hole"?
> 
> Isn't La Nina the explanation for the wet?



In short, it is a sharp, consistent trend of declining Autumn rainfall (total March - May) across most of Tasmania commencing since the mid -1970's. 

On a 5 year chart it is an almost perfect linear trend in many locations. A cumulative annual loss of about 1.5% of pre-1975 rainfall seemingly unaffected by changes in El Niño / La Nina cycles, cloud seeding or any other known natural or man-made non-temperature occurrences. 

It does however correspond fairly well with changes in global temperature, particularly the starting in the 1970's when temperatures started to rise.

The actual form has generally taken that of a period centred on March - April of close to zero rain with a sharp ramp to normal on either side. In recent years it has at times persisted into Winter. Hence the "hole" - it's as though someone just turns off the rain and then turns it back to normal again.

The annual loss is less than 10% but in Autumn it had reached over 40% and rising in many key areas of the state. 

Practical effects thus far have been on agriculture, water supply and power generation. An outright fortune has been and is planned to be spent on irrigation schemes, urban water supply, fuel for thermal power stations and the like to offset the effects. 

There's no real explanation for this other than that it does correspond very much with changes in the earth's temperature. And sure enough, now that the temperature has dropped the rain seems to have come back.  

A similar situation occurred in SW WA decades ago with an abrupt, literally in the space of months, huge permanent reduction in rainfall there. That wasn't at all gradual, high rainfalls just basically stopped in WA and thus far they haven't come back. Given that it's been a few decades, it's assumed to be permanent.

New Zealand also seems to have experienced an increasing frequency of low Autumn rains judging by the effects on water storage etc. I don't have hard data for the actual rainfall, but they've certainly had more trouble with it than they did historically.


----------



## metric (14 May 2009)

aaaahhh...just leave them there.!!!!







> Arctic Global Warming Activists to be Rescued
> __________________
> 
> 1
> ...


----------



## metric (14 May 2009)

Soft Dough said:


> http://www.solarcycle24.com/
> 
> Well not NO sunspots, just no solarcycle 24 sunspots.
> 
> ...





we usually have 50,000 sunspots per year. and just like during the maunder minimum we are at less than 50 (!) for the year passed.......and right now, NO sunspots.



> Days since last "official" sunspot: 12
> 
> From the Space Weather Prediction Center
> Updated 2009 May 12 2201 UTC
> ...




http://www.solarcycle24.com/index2.htm


----------



## Soft Dough (14 May 2009)

metric said:


> and right now, NO sunspots.




um no, and there were sunspots reported.

"The Cycle 24 plage region has finally produced a small sunspot. It has received the number 1017 by NOAA. This area of magnetism remains very quiet.

The solar flux reached a high of 74 on Tuesday (75.5 adjusted). As small as that seems, that is the highest it has been in just over 1 year. To learn more about the solar flux and what the "adjusted" solar flux is, click Here

Two Cycle 24 plage regions (Wednesday)"


----------

