The coming ice age?

[2020hindsight]

.. I do find it interesting that everyone here is agreeing with this guy's theory.

I really don’t 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, etc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_K._Chapman

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.

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]

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]

According to Crichton, three years were spent studying the themes of the book, and he included a statement of his views on global climate change at the end of the book. He states his belief that the cause, extent, and threat of climate change is largely unknown and unknowable. Crichton warns both sides of the global warming debate against the politicization of science.

He provides an example of the disastrous combination of pseudo-science and good intentions, in the early 20th-century idea of eugenics. He finishes by endorsing the management of wilderness and the continuation of research into all aspects of the Earth's environment.

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]

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

The Tasman Glacier is retreating faster than ever and will ultimately disappear, glaciologists at Massey University are warning.

Dr Martin Brook, lecturer in physical geography in the School of People, Environment and Planning, says that in 1973 there was no lake in front of the Tasman Glacier, while new measurements taken last week indicate the lake is now seven kilometres long, two kilometres wide and 245 metres deep. The lake has been formed as the ice which makes up the glacier melts.

“In the last 10 years the glacier has receded a hell of a lot,” Dr Brook says. “It’s just too warm for a glacier to be sustained at such a low altitude, 730 metres above sea level, so it melts rapidly and it is going to disappear altogether. Significantly, the deeper the lake, the faster the retreat of the glacier.”

Dr Brook says the lake can only grow to a length of about 16 kilometres, which would mean a further nine kilometres of glacier retreat.

“Using the empirical relationships between water depth and glacier retreat rate we could expect further retreat of between 477 and 822 metres each year. At these rates it would take between 10 and 19 years for the lake to expand to its maximum.”

His work indicated that an extreme scenario for the future retreat of the Tasman Glacier, developed by Dr Martin Kirkbride in the 1990s, was correct.

“The last major survey was in the 1990s and since then the glacier has retreated back 180 metres a year on average.

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.

Dr Martin Brook, lecturer in physical geography, said that in 1973 there was no lake in front of the glacier, but new measurements last week indicated the lake was now 7km long, 2km wide and 245m deep.

The lake is formed as ice in the glacier melts.

"In the last 10 years the glacier has retreated a hell of a lot. It's just too warm for a glacier to be sustained as such low altitude, 730 metres above sea level, so it melts rapidly and it is going to disappear altogether.

"Significantly, the deeper the lake, the faster the retreat of the glacier.''

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
year ago US scientists caused alarm when they predicted the Arctic Ocean could be free of summer ice by 2030, but now researchers say those estimates were too conservative.

A US-based team has told a conference in California that the northern polar waters could be ice-free in summer by 2013.

This year's northern summer melt in the Arctic reduced the ice cover to just over 4 million square kilometres, the smallest ever amount recorded in modern times.

It is this kind of data that has led researchers to say previous estimates of when the Arctic waters will be completely free of ice in summer are far too conservative.

Professor Wieslaw Maslowski from the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey in California says scientists are now moving the date closer.

He has been presenting his work to a meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU).

"We're just moving this date closer and closer to us simply because I believe what is happening, the system in the Arctic Ocean is very complex and from a mathematical point of view, it's non-linear," Professor Maslowski said.

"So there is a feedback loop that may accelerate this harder in a linear sense ... which is simply where you remove ice, you heat, you warm the ocean, which can melt more ice even further, and those kind of feedbacks are actually in place in Arctic right now, which is possibly causing this accelerated melt."

...
But the trouble is, it looks increasingly like it may already be too late.

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

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

... 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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"

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]

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]

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]

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:

3. 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."

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