Global Cooling

The Farmers Almanac has predicted that a cooling trend will continue with colder temperatures through out the country. It said that the cooler temperatures will offset the warming caused by man made emissions.

Nope, they figured out that we've figured it out.

That's why it's being called "climate change" now instead of "global warming"

Shawn

Doesn't matter - zombies or asteroids will take us out before we drown/freeze

In reply to oldtin:

My bet is on asteroids; we had two near hits this week alone. Both passed within the moon's orbit and one was only about 50,000 miles off target.

A study, also reported-on this week, states that estimates of projected ice shelf losses are woefully wrong - adjusted for never-considered factors, loss is now forecast as less than half of what was claimed in previous studies.

Actually that misestimated loss is loss in a specific area, not overall loss.

Also those asteroids wouldn't have been terribly dangerous if they did enter the atmosphere, because of their small size. The worst-case scenario would have been like a fission bomb going off, and the world survived Hiroshima just fine. Apophis, on the other hand, would dwarf any explosion in recorded history, including Krakatoa, never mind a few measly Tsar bombs. A continent could get really screwed up by that asteroid.

Could an asteroid or nuke then create the zombies that attack us all? Maybe not, but I'm still keeping my shovel sharp and ready!

oldsaw wrote: In reply to oldtin: My bet is on asteroids; we had two near hits this week alone. Both passed within the moon's orbit and one was only about 50,000 miles off target. A study, also reported-on this week, states that estimates of projected ice shelf losses are woefully wrong - adjusted for never-considered factors, loss is now forecast as less than half of what was claimed in previous studies.

And both were small enough that they would have likely burned up in the atmosphere.

That's why I'm preparing for the Apocalypse. I'll just sit in my underground shelter with a years' worth of food and booze, come out and see if it's Mad Max style or everyone has gone back to work.

The zombies are already here. They're just biding their time. I passed several today. No matter if they're walking, sitting, or driving, they have their faces in their cellphones, taking orders from the head zombie, I guess.

z31maniac wrote:

oldsaw wrote: In reply to oldtin: My bet is on asteroids; we had two near hits this week alone. Both passed within the moon's orbit and one was only about 50,000 miles off target. A study, also reported-on this week, states that estimates of projected ice shelf losses are woefully wrong - adjusted for never-considered factors, loss is now forecast as less than half of what was claimed in previous studies.

And both were small enough that they would have likely burned up in the atmosphere. That's why I'm preparing for the Apocalypse. I'll just sit in my underground shelter with a years' worth of food and booze, come out and see if it's Mad Max style or everyone has gone back to work.

The asteroids were mentioned only because they represent a far more realistic scenario than zombies.

Unless, of course, one equates the socially-engineered miscreants from Idiocracy to zombies. If so, we are truly doomed.

Plug - http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/

@Gimp: Global Warming is a NASA conspiracy to get us so freaked out that we throw money at manned space flight in hopes of escaping our dying planet.

So does the Farmer's Almanac say that cooling trend will continue for a looooong time or just a few seasons? Everyone seems to forget that one hot or cold year doesn't mean a damn thing for climate change.

thatsnowinnebago wrote: Everyone seems to forget that one hot or cold year doesn't mean a damn thing for climate change.

Most especially those promoting the theory of manmade climate change. ;-)

thatsnowinnebago wrote: So does the Farmer's Almanac say that cooling trend will continue for a looooong time or just a few seasons? Everyone seems to forget that one hot or cold year doesn't mean a damn thing for climate change.

I had heard a few months ago that someone was looking at the currents or something in the Pacific and predicted the west coast is in for 10-15 years of cooler temperatures.

wcelliot wrote:

thatsnowinnebago wrote: Everyone seems to forget that one hot or cold year doesn't mean a damn thing for climate change.

Most especially those promoting the theory of manmade climate change. ;-)

I thought this was finally being accepted, at least by educated people.

In reply to paanta:

but it buys me autocross

In reply to Tommy Suddard:

The science has been so obscured and bastardized by the giant political movement behind it and against it that the truth is very hard to see. No, in the way it is presented, it is not accepted by all educated people.

Tommy Suddard wrote:

wcelliot wrote:

thatsnowinnebago wrote: Everyone seems to forget that one hot or cold year doesn't mean a damn thing for climate change.

Most especially those promoting the theory of manmade climate change. ;-)

I thought this was finally being accepted, at least by educated people.

I'm pretty educated (and in the hard sciences) and the data publically shared so far appears to still be inconclusive in quantifying man's contribution.

Beyond that the entire field of study itself appears somewhat questionable given the behavior of those in the field toward their critics and toward data inconsistent with their theories. Given the huge amounts of funding pumped into it by Governments who have a vested interest in the outcome, this isn't surprising (at least to anyone who has worked in heavily Government funded research fields), but it does cast some reasonable doubt as to the validty of the research. (Ironic how those in the field are immediately ready to use this same logic to cast doubt on the validty of industry funded research... even though the money from industry is dwarfed by that from Governments)

And while it's admittedly not a scientific observation, the fact that these climate scientists that are making dire predictions about the future are also the most likely of those in a scientific field to oppose the one technology that could best immediately address their CO2 concerns: nuclear.

Replacing coal and gas fired power plants around the world with nuclear power would come close to meeting the recommended CO2 goals in just a few years without any other significant impact to society at all. And yet, it's actively opposed by the same folks setting the goals.

Given the clear track record and pros and cons of nuclear power, if they think nuclear power is more dangerous to us than manmade global warming, then one of two possibilities exist: 1- They aren't very good scientists (unable to look at data and arrive at a logical conclusion of what that data means) , 2- They know that man's role in warming and/or the urgency of action is less significant than they market it as.

But as it is, their recommendations are like telling a starving man to begging for table scraps to refuse any beef he's offered because meat is unhealthy.

I'm not even saying that the theory is wrong (I even accept with the basic theory itself that man indeed has a role), just pointing out that those promoting it as just as likely (if not more likely) to use a single data point to "prove" their theory as those who would do the same to disprove it.

Well said wcelliot. And I do think Nuclear is the way to go, at least at this point.

Trans_Maro wrote: Nope, they figured out that we've figured it out. That's why it's being called "climate change" now instead of "global warming" Shawn

Please stop using this argument. It's been called "climate change" since the "Intergovernmental Panel on CLIMATE CHANGE" was created in 1988. If you're going to attack climate change, please use one of the valid arguments like the lack of tested models, lack of complete atmospheric simulation in models, ignoring/downplaying contradictory data, cherry-picking of data, lack of peer review, etc.

Bob

In reply to Schmidlap:

Not cherry picking data/headlines are you? It was referred to as global warming about 99.9% of the time in the vast majority of media and reports until at least 2000.

meanwhile...

http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/2010/09/jeff-masters-hottest-summer-in-history.html

Schmidlap wrote:

Trans_Maro wrote: Nope, they figured out that we've figured it out. That's why it's being called "climate change" now instead of "global warming" Shawn

Please stop using this argument. It's been called "climate change" since the "Intergovernmental Panel on CLIMATE CHANGE" was created in 1988. If you're going to attack climate change, please use one of the valid arguments like the lack of tested models, lack of complete atmospheric simulation in models, ignoring/downplaying contradictory data, cherry-picking of data, lack of peer review, etc. Bob

Lighten up there scooter, it was a joke.

Trans_Maro wrote:

Schmidlap wrote:

Trans_Maro wrote: Nope, they figured out that we've figured it out. That's why it's being called "climate change" now instead of "global warming" Shawn

Please stop using this argument. It's been called "climate change" since the "Intergovernmental Panel on CLIMATE CHANGE" was created in 1988. If you're going to attack climate change, please use one of the valid arguments like the lack of tested models, lack of complete atmospheric simulation in models, ignoring/downplaying contradictory data, cherry-picking of data, lack of peer review, etc. Bob

Lighten up there scooter, it was a joke.

Aw, c'mon!

For some people climate change is SRS BZNS; just ask Al Gore.

oldsaw wrote:

Trans_Maro wrote:

Schmidlap wrote:

Trans_Maro wrote: Nope, they figured out that we've figured it out. That's why it's being called "climate change" now instead of "global warming" Shawn

Please stop using this argument. It's been called "climate change" since the "Intergovernmental Panel on CLIMATE CHANGE" was created in 1988. If you're going to attack climate change, please use one of the valid arguments like the lack of tested models, lack of complete atmospheric simulation in models, ignoring/downplaying contradictory data, cherry-picking of data, lack of peer review, etc. Bob

Lighten up there scooter, it was a joke.

Aw, c'mon! For some people climate change is A MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR SRS BZNS; just ask Al Gore.

FIFY'd