Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

Global cooling

  • Thread starter Thread starter lartinos
  • Start date Start date
L

lartinos

Guest
Someone else posted this elswhere, figured I'd steal it.

Global Cooling: Alaskan Glaciers Grow For First Time In 250 Years

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Friday, October 17, 2008

Plans to implement a worldwide carbon tax in the name of saving the planet from global warming have taken another blow after it was revealed that Alaskan glaciers have grown for the first time in 250 years after an abnormally cool summer.

Temperatures 3 degrees below average caused winter snow to remain for longer, prompting the increase in glacial mass, reports the Daily Tech.

“Since 1946, the USGS has maintained a research project measuring the state of Alaskan glaciers. This year saw records broken for most snow buildup. It was also the first time since any records began being that the glaciers did not shrink during the summer months,” according to the report.

The biggest shrinkage witnessed in the region occurred between 1741 and 1900, during which the glaciers lost about 15 per cent of their total mass as the earth began to exit the climatological period coined the Little Ice Age.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but CO2 spewing cars and jumbo jets were not too prevalent in the 18th and 19th centuries.

And now that the planet has naturally exited a warming trend and is heading towards a new “big chill,” as evidenced by the near complete halt in sunspot activity, the glaciers are expanding once again.

Years more growth in the Alaskan glaciers “might mark the beginning of another Little Ice Age,” notes the report.

The expansion of the glaciers follows a similar occurrence in the Arctic, which has undergone an ice cover growth twice the size of Germany in the past year, a gain of about thirteen percent following a colder than usual year.

Man-made global warming adherents have attempted to downplay such instances as aberrations that defy a wider warming trend, but in reality no global warming has been observed since at least 1999 or even 1995, as University of Finland professor Jarl R. Ahlbeck maintains.

Evidence that the planet is tip-toeing towards the onset of a new mini ice age continues to present itself following unprecedented ice storms in Kenya as well as Sydney experiencing its coldest August for 60 years.

The cold snap arrives on the back of the Sun reaching a milestone not observed in nearly 100 years - the entire month of August passed without a single sunspot being noted.

Lack of solar activity in 2008 has coincided with evidence of a cooling trend across the world.

Earlier this year, China experienced its coldest winter in 100 years while northeast America was hit by record snow levels and Britain suffered its coldest Easter in decades as late-blooming daffodils were pounded with hail and snow on an almost daily basis. The British summer also left many yearning for global warming, with temperatures in June and July rarely struggling to get over 16 degrees and on one occasion even dropping as low as 9 degrees in the middle of the afternoon.

Many parts of the U.S. suffered their coldest April on record. Canada had its third coldest April since 1970.

“Summer heat continues in short supply, continuing a trend that has dominated much of the 21st Century’s opening decade,” reports the Chicago Tribune. “There have been only 162 days 90 degrees or warmer at Midway Airport over the period from 2000 to 2008. That’s by far the fewest 90-degree temperatures in the opening nine years of any decade on record here since 1930.”

According to an Associated Press report, The Farmers Almanac is now also predicting “below-average temperatures for most of the U.S.” The publication boasts of an 85 per cent accuracy rate for its forecasts which are given two years in advance.

According to a report from the World Meteorological Organization last month, the first half of 2008 was the coolest for at least five years, adding that it may actually be the coolest since 2000.

Man-made advocates have been losing credibility in recent months on the back of bizarre proposals to fight climate change that include blocking out the sun with spaceships as well as eviscerating pristine old growth forests, despite wider evidence of a cooling trend that is just beginning to manifest itself.
 
I've always called bullshit on the global warming. It's normal to have flucuations in the temp. We had a mini ice age during the middle ages for example.
 
But is this cyclical cooling more than normal. This is the first year in the last 100 that the Sun has had zero sunspot activity. Jury is still out on climate change and our effects upon it. Until all the variables and the degree of the variables are identified, I can't make an informed opinion. If the climate is shown as a function, would the effects of the sun and cosmic rays be x^300y^250 and auto emissions be a second degree variable? I don't know. I opt for being proactive by conserving energy, reducing pollution, etc. But I do not condone the radical leftist views of the Kyoto accord.

There is anecdotal evidence that in the history of men there are large changes in mean temperature. Caves in passes in the Alps that show stone age implements and paintings, but have been covered be sheets of ice for recorded history, etc. Really, I think environmental science is a relatively new field and is troubled by not having codified rules, theorum and hypotheses. I also think both sides of the political aisle have attempted to use science to achieve their own aggrandizement.
 
I've always called bullshit on the global warming. It's normal to have flucuations in the temp. We had a mini ice age during the middle ages for example.


I've always called bullshit on people who call bullshit on global warming. It's normal to give merit to that which is unanimously agreed upon by scientists everywhere, for example.



:cow:
 
I've always called bullshit on people who call bullshit on global warming. It's normal to give merit to that which is unanimously agreed upon by scientists everywhere, for example.



:cow:

Yeah, I remember that TV special where they melted polar glacial ice and did an HPLC type test to show the chemicals in the ice.

It was shown if you melt the ice deep enough, you'd stop finding chemicals from industrial emissions in the ice.

Seemed pretty irrefutable to me
 
Yeah, I remember that TV special where they melted polar glacial ice and did an HPLC type test to show the chemicals in the ice.

It was shown if you melt the ice deep enough, you'd stop finding chemicals from industrial emissions in the ice.

Seemed pretty irrefutable to me

And? Yes it shows the presence of the chemicals in the ice, but what does that have to do with the price of k-y jelly in Indonesia?
 
Yeah, I remember that TV special where they melted polar glacial ice and did an HPLC type test to show the chemicals in the ice.

It was shown if you melt the ice deep enough, you'd stop finding chemicals from industrial emissions in the ice.

Seemed pretty irrefutable to me


Really? I haven't heard of that one. Do you know what chemicals?

One common thing is to drill x meters into the glaciers and test CO2 amounts that form over decades and centuries. But in the same way that gas/CO2 bubbles form, they could HPLC for other stuff as well.

And to emphasize once again: global warming is a misnomer. It's about global extremes, in which heating is but one manifestation.



:cow:
 
Really? I haven't heard of that one. Do you know what chemicals?

One common thing is to drill x meters into the glaciers and test CO2 amounts that form over decades and centuries. But in the same way that gas/CO2 bubbles form, they could HPLC for other stuff as well.

And to emphasize once again: global warming is a misnomer. It's about global extremes, in which heating is but one manifestation.



:cow:

I'm looking for the TV special now. The industrial gasses were greenhouses gasses as well as CO2 clearly embedded in glacial ice. Once they dud in the glacier some 10-12 feet , then the concentrations of such gasses were reduced
 
I'm looking for the TV special now. The industrial gasses were greenhouses gasses as well as CO2 clearly embedded in glacial ice. Once they dud in the glacier some 10-12 feet , then the concentrations of such gasses were reduced


Yeah, I never saw how people think it's far-fetched to think that the industrialization of the human species has had an impact on the global environment.

Unfortunetly, global warming seems to be a topic too entrenched in politics for many people to openly analyze.



:cow:
 
All I know is we got LOTS of snow early this year and I'm stoked. OMG! Maybe a new Ice Age has begun. :rolleyes:
 
I'm subscribing to the whole theory that our galaxy axis is tilting. This brings extremes on both sides of the weather spectrum, meaning it would get really hot in summer and really cold in winter plus extreme weather systems like increased hurricanes and other storms. We have just started to experience this in the past couple of years and apparently it is only going to get worse for the next couple.
 
I've always called bullshit on people who call bullshit on global warming. It's normal to give merit to that which is unanimously agreed upon by scientists everywhere, for example.



:cow:

You mean "most" scientists right bro?
 
The counter argument I heard from a scientist is that the polar ice caps along with currents are just infact what will cause an eventual cooling trend. These warming and cooling trends have been around long before man. Basically the melting of the caps "cools" the water temperature around the world which in turn causes climactic changes of course. Alot simplier and not as fancy I guess so people don't like that explanation.
 
Your views on the topic?



:cow:

To tell ya the truth Samoth,i don't know what to believe.
Regardless, what ever it takes to get us to be totaly renewable ,energy independent,recycling, what have you, is nothing but a good thing.
 
if the climate is shown as a function, would the effects of the sun and cosmic rays be x^300y^250 and auto emissions be a second degree variable? I don't know. I opt for being proactive by conserving energy, reducing pollution, etc.

But i do not condone the radical leftist views of the kyoto accord.

Really, i think environmental science is a relatively new field and is troubled by not having codified rules, theorum and hypotheses.

I also think both sides of the political aisle have attempted to use science to achieve their own aggrandizement.
+ 1, +10, +1, +1000000000
 
I too those pics at home in dec. 07 - jan. 08 and lemme tell you something, there aint no global warming around here lol

global_warming.jpg


snow_storm.jpg


snow_storm2.jpg
 
Really? I haven't heard of that one. Do you know what chemicals?

One common thing is to drill x meters into the glaciers and test CO2 amounts that form over decades and centuries. But in the same way that gas/CO2 bubbles form, they could HPLC for other stuff as well.

And to emphasize once again: global warming is a misnomer. It's about global extremes, in which heating is but one manifestation.



:cow:

Over a very long period of time, shouldn't polar ice thickness be a random walk process anyway? So if you drilled deep enough into the ice, you'd find the depth where the process had not "walked" since the industrial age?
 
You mean "most" scientists right bro?


So few scientists deny climate change that you can assume all.

The debates are what's causing the bulk of climate change and to what degree humans are playing.

No one out there is saying that nothing is happening. Maybe you hear stuff on internet news sites or from scientist blogs or something, but in the real world of science and journals, no one is denying that stuff's happening.



:cow:
 
So few scientists deny climate change that you can assume all.

The debates are what's causing the bulk of climate change and to what degree humans are playing.

No one out there is saying that nothing is happening. Maybe you hear stuff on internet news sites or from scientist blogs or something, but in the real world of science and journals, no one is denying that stuff's happening.



:cow:

I'm sure humans can have some effect, just maybe a bit overblown though.
 
I'm sure humans can have some effect, just maybe a bit overblown though.


Why do you say that?

Have you jumped on a university site or something with access to scientific journals?

Seriously, take a look. Ignore the media and politics. The science is all that matters, and it's rather interesting. A degree or two makes a big difference in the north atlantic conveyer. Water -- the oceans -- have huge heat capacities.

It's not whether or not it's snowing in Canada that matters to GW, it's the bigger stuff.



:cow:
 
Over a very long period of time, shouldn't polar ice thickness be a random walk process anyway? So if you drilled deep enough into the ice, you'd find the depth where the process had not "walked" since the industrial age?


I don't think I'm following your use of the word "walk" here. I'm not sure what you mean.



:cow:
 
I'm subscribing to the whole theory that our galaxy axis is tilting. This brings extremes on both sides of the weather spectrum, meaning it would get really hot in summer and really cold in winter plus extreme weather systems like increased hurricanes and other storms. We have just started to experience this in the past couple of years and apparently it is only going to get worse for the next couple.

Yep I think that's the problem. TOO.
 
So what would the explanation be as to why a shift to the earth cooling? And if it stays like this for a few years, you would bail on the whole thing right? Probably not ut, I'm sure many would...
 
I've read a lot of people who are smart enough to know better confuse climate and weather to support their own hypotheses regarding climatological changes.

I don't think we've had technology sensitive enough to collect pertinent, reliable data on climate for a long enough period of time to conclude anything regarding climate. Weather, sure. Climate, nope.


BTW, Al Gore has a really big house everybody.
 
So what would the explanation be as to why a shift to the earth cooling? And if it stays like this for a few years, you would bail on the whole thing right? Probably not ut, I'm sure many would...


It all has to do with hydrodynamic variations and the thermohaline circulation -- the meridional overturning circulation -- primarily in the north atlantic.

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Book_chapters/Rahmstorf_EQS_2006.pdf

Global warming is not about global "warming" -- it's about climatary extremes, i.e. extreme hot, extreme cold, extreme precipitation, etc., all of which are influenced by the oceans' great heat capacities.



:cow:
 
I've read a lot of people who are smart enough to know better confuse climate and weather to support their own hypotheses regarding climatological changes.

I don't think we've had technology sensitive enough to collect pertinent, reliable data on climate for a long enough period of time to conclude anything regarding climate. Weather, sure. Climate, nope.


BTW, Al Gore has a really big house everybody.

lol. Houses are one of the biggest polluters. Or so I hear.
 
It all has to do with hydrodynamic variations and the thermohaline circulation -- the meridional overturning circulation -- primarily in the north atlantic.

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Book_chapters/Rahmstorf_EQS_2006.pdf

Global warming is not about global "warming" -- it's about climatary extremes, i.e. extreme hot, extreme cold, extreme precipitation, etc., all of which are influenced by the oceans' great heat capacities.



:cow:

Ya, I thought I just said that in my layman terms up above from what I heard a scientist say.
 
By the way a mini Ice Age would be a bad thing for economic future of the world.
The mini ice age of the middle ages (dark ages) was one of the contributing factors in the slowing of human development economic and otherwise.
 
By the way a mini Ice Age would be a bad thing for economic future of the world.
The mini ice age of the middle ages (dark ages) was one of the contributing factors in the slowing of human development economic and otherwise.


That ice age was actually caused by excess ice in north america melting and draining into the north atlantic MOC, effectevely shutting it off.

(Top center blue and red lines of http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...on_2.png/400px-Thermohaline_Circulation_2.png)

This is the same reason scientists are freaking out about melting ice caps and greenland -- their efffect on the MOC up there.



:cow:
 
lol. Houses are one of the biggest polluters. Or so I hear.


Buildings account for about 48% of CO2 emissions according to the lecturer I saw last week, with the remaining split pretty evenly between transportation and businesses.



:cow:
 
I don't think I'm following your use of the word "walk" here. I'm not sure what you mean.



:cow:

Let's say the ice at time "zero" (somewhat arbitrary) is x meters thick. Some years it will grow thicker, some it will wear thinner. But at any given time, it's thickness would be described by a random walk process. So wouldn't that mean if we drilled deep enough into the ice we'd expect to find a certain point that contained environmental pollutants and eventually reach a thickness where we don't find any?

Random walk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Biggest thing to remember is that things on Earth always change. Idiots don't realize this. We may speed it up or slow it down, but it's gonna happen.

1 of my fav sayings ever "this Earth is just gonna shake us off like a bunch of fleas......" George Carlin.
 
Let's say the ice at time "zero" (somewhat arbitrary) is x meters thick. Some years it will grow thicker, some it will wear thinner. But at any given time, it's thickness would be described by a random walk process. So wouldn't that mean if we drilled deep enough into the ice we'd expect to find a certain point that contained environmental pollutants and eventually reach a thickness where we don't find any?

Random walk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Interesting. I don't think I've heard of that before by that name.

I wouldn't think this would apply here. It's rather linear, not random: the further down they drill, the less CO2 they find. This is how they determine what CO2 levels are hundreds, thousands, or millions of years ago.

The freezing process isn't just a matter of maintaining a thickness of x +/- some variation sigma. The process is cumulative -- snow falls, melts a bit, and becomes compressed into ice on a yearly basis, which freezes the air bubbles containing CO2 and other information. They can track how long ago the levels are at y depth of ice, not entirely unlike counting rings on a tree to determine age.



:cow:
 
Biggest thing to remember is that things on Earth always change. Idiots don't realize this. We may speed it up or slow it down, but it's gonna happen.

and by that time, i'll already be dead so I couldnt care less about global warming. I might even buy a Dodge Challenger just to speed up the process !

dodge-challenger-srt8-27.jpg
 
and by that time, i'll already be dead so I couldnt care less about global warming.


I think this is they underlying issue. People don't care about the future or what doesn't specifically impact them right now.

... but I suppose that's an underlying issue for much, much more than just global warming...



:cow:
 
It all has to do with hydrodynamic variations and the thermohaline circulation -- the meridional overturning circulation -- primarily in the north atlantic.

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Book_chapters/Rahmstorf_EQS_2006.pdf

Global warming is not about global "warming" -- it's about climatary extremes, i.e. extreme hot, extreme cold, extreme precipitation, etc., all of which are influenced by the oceans' great heat capacities.



:cow:

Yes
I was under the impression el nino and la nina had variable warming and cooling trends.
 
I think this is they underlying issue. People don't care about the future or what doesn't specifically impact them right now.

... but I suppose that's an underlying issue for much, much more than just global warming...



:cow:


First off, lead in the layers of ice is a true sign of humans. Ever since humans started using and smelting metals on a wide scale there has been an increase in lead in the air so it ends up in the ice.

As far as impact you think the Russians care about gobal warming? How about Canada? Both those countries would benefit from a warmer cilmate. Crops would be just grown more north of where they are now. In fact the rain forests would just move more North or South depending on your hemisphere. Same with deserts.

People living on the ocean will have a problem but buildings have a useful life and cities will simply keep moving back from the ocean.

Nothing last forever and there has been mass movement of animals and people since the beginning of time.
 
As far as impact you think the Russians care about gobal warming? How about Canada? Both those countries would benefit from a warmer cilmate. Crops would be just grown more north of where they are now. In fact the rain forests would just move more North or South depending on your hemisphere. Same with deserts.

Whoa there. Absolutely false. One of the biggest factors in GW is extreme precipitation, which does not lead to happy crops -- it leads to erosion and destruction of good farmland.

Global warming is not just about everywhere turning into sunny California.

Jeez. This isn't exactly rocket science, but how simple do you think thermodynamics and climatology are? The reason there's debate is because it's incredibly complex and, at many levels, beyond modeling capabilities.



:cow:
 
Whoa there. Absolutely false. One of the biggest factors in GW is extreme precipitation, which does not lead to happy crops -- it leads to erosion and destruction of good farmland.

Global warming is not just about everywhere turning into sunny California.

Jeez. This isn't exactly rocket science, but how simple do you think thermodynamics and climatology are? The reason there's debate is because it's incredibly complex and, at many levels, beyond modeling capabilities.



:cow:

Your problem is you said "useful farmland". The rain patterns will not be the same everywhere and where the land is not useful for farming right now it will be if temps go up. Also some places that don't get enough rain for crops will get enough and those that get the right amount might not get enough.

You also don't understand agriculture. The amount of rain and the type of soil is important. Sandy soil can take a lot of rain no problem where as clay is useless with heavy rain fall. It also depends on what crops you are growing.

You also get into ocean currents and tropical effects. Good luck figuring those out.

It can't be predicted what will happen but your
mind is closed to the fact that land that isn't farmed now, can be farmed with better conditions.

BTW the riches areas of plant life are where it rains every heavily. The land doesn't simply wash away.
 
I'm on a rant. California is not a good place for crops except the sun. They have to irragate the crap out of place to make things grow and long term many people are very worried about the water reserves running out. They always have big problems if they don't get enough snow fall in the mountains. They also built that place on cheap Mexican labor.
 
Your problem is you said "useful farmland". The rain patterns will not be the same everywhere and where the land is not useful for farming right now it will be if temps go up. Also some places that don't get enough rain for crops will get enough and those that get the right amount might not get enough.


I won't pretend to understand agriculture, but you seem to think that everywhere that is currently not ideal for farming will suddenly become so when the climate becomes more unstable and extreme. I see no reason for such an unfounded assertion.

How long does it take for soil and good farmland to become usable? How quickly do current models predict dramatic change? The timeframes are vastly different.




:cow:
 
If gobal warming seriously changes the climate around the world it will take a while. If that change sticks which is questionable.

Doesn't matter, Ag. doesn't take up that much land. I can't come up with a % of land under Ag. use right now but it's not that high. In fact it's almost simply a matter of latitude, position of mountains and large bodies of water. Change in temps just moves that around. As far as rain the west side of any mountian range will be dry compared to the east side.

Look at the Northeast for a quick example. Lots of farmland that is idol because cheaper places beat them on cost of production. Up state NY with a temp rise of 10 degrees would be a very high producing place for crops. Just a matter of labor. Our food is grown in places because it's the cheapest place to produce food not that its the best place.

Corn belt. Just move that 300 miles North. Simple as that.

As far as every inch of planet getting more rain? Don't think that's true but there are many places that are marginal and produce enough crops for the locals. Add 20 inches of rain extra a year and they can become commerical farmers.


All comes down to social economic factors. People aren't going anywhere but they may have to move. Ask people who come here from mexico why they left. Life is better here because the US is rich. Ag. moves and Canada may be the AG rich place. Who knows but the whole gobal warm thing comes down to the US wants to be the biggest exporter of food in the world because it gives us power. Don't do what we want and we'll strave your ass. That is what this is really about. Power.

Some day some virus that can't bestopped is going to kill off something like 30% of the planet any ways. I would be more worried about that.
 
Short answer. You can grow commerical crops anywhere you have high temps,sun and enough water. Can grow them on pure sand if you want. Just need enough fertilizer. Think AZ. That's how they do it there.
 
Short answer. You can grow commerical crops anywhere you have high temps,sun and enough water. Can grow them on pure sand if you want. Just need enough fertilizer. Think AZ. That's how they do it there.


What percentage of crops are grown there?

How are billions going to be fed on crops grown on sand? If it was that easy, why do Africa and other 3rd world nations have so many problems feeding their people?



:cow:
 
What percentage of crops are grown there?

How are billions going to be fed on crops grown on sand? If it was that easy, why do Africa and other 3rd world nations have so many problems feeding their people?



:cow:

They don't have the money to farm like that. They don't have the population with money to buy the food that's farmed like that.

AZ produces a large amount of fruit which isn't isn't a staple crop like wheat or rice something like that. Poor people can't afford more than basic grains.
 
They don't have the money to farm like that. They don't have the population with money to buy the food that's farmed like that.

AZ produces a large amount of fruit which isn't isn't a staple crop like wheat or rice something like that. Poor people can't afford more than basic grains.

Some of these countries would have government controlled farming area. You're assuming every country is democratic. In Africa this is definitly not the case
 
I think this is they underlying issue. People don't care about the future or what doesn't specifically impact them right now.

... but I suppose that's an underlying issue for much, much more than just global warming...

:cow:
+1

Financial crisis or GW, it's all the same.

That's why I burn tired for my energy and kill endangered animals. I hate the movies coming out of California and hate SNL. If GW hits, both those places are going under!
 
Top Bottom