Global Cooling

I work among the super dorks of the world (engineers and scientists), all of which are former NASA people. Some were even on Von Braun's team, and not a one believes in climate change. To quote one "you show me some real data, and I'll give you a real answer." We don't do anything here that's not 100% accurate and tested. And we test, and test and test and test. If you don't test and prove your theories, they are still just theories. And you can convince all the people you can that your conclusions are accurate, but unless you have real data to back them up, it still doesn't make them true.

All agree on one thing, that the data they've seen that's been presented is false in that it doesn't correlate with what they've gathered over the years. One plots weather as a hobby and has produced a spread sheet to track it. It goes back well over 100 years, and if you look at it, all weather goes in cycles. What's happened lately is not out of the ordinary.

Having said that, I still think we need to protect the earth and keep it as clean as possible, but I think it needs to be done in a responsible manner. Most of what these climate change people really want is power and money. It still falls back to the same old thing.

I don't think anyone is doubting "climate change" as a whole. It's the anthropogenic impact that is in question.

And as I understand it, the difference is, what's happened lately is occurring at a much greater rate than it has in the past.

Considering that the earth has been chugging along just fine for the last few million years and we've only been watching it for a few hundred, we really know SFA about the whole thing.

Shawn

Not to worry, we'll run out of oil before climate change kills us and our subsequent switch over to pure coal will produce a bunch of particulate pollution which will block the sun, assuming nuclear wars don't bring about Nuclear winter.

z31maniac wrote: 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.

GregTivo wrote: Not to worry, we'll run out of oil before climate change kills us and our subsequent switch over to pure coal will produce a bunch of particulate pollution which will block the sun, assuming nuclear wars don't bring about Nuclear winter.

I propose the formation of an 'International Panel on Dystopian-future Predictions'.

Luke wrote: I don't think anyone is doubting "climate change" as a whole. It's the anthropogenic impact that is in question. And as I understand it, the difference is, what's happened lately is occurring at a much greater rate than it has in the past.

There is strong geological evidence that on at least one occasion in the pre-civilization past, global climate changed 7-8 degrees C over the course of a decade... and not too many cavemen around burning oil running the airconditioning in their SUVs then.

In reply to Duke:

now don't go bringing facts into this, only emotions allowed in this discussion.

i always think its funny how peak-oil predictions always peg the next year, or some time in the next five years for when oil production will start to taper off. "see this line here, thats been rising at more or less the same rate for the last 75 years? next year, that will level off and start decreasing. i can feel it"

racerdave600 wrote: Most of what these climate change people really want is power and money. It still falls back to the same old thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Ad_hominem_circumstantial

Luke wrote: I don't think anyone is doubting "climate change" as a whole. It's the anthropogenic impact that is in question.

People still refuse to believe in evolution.

paanta wrote: People still refuse to believe in evolution.

It's difficult to change one's mind, once convinced - just like those that believe in AGW.

People that share my understanding of the issue really seem to have carefully researched climate change and have come to the most reasonable conclusions. Those in opposition to my point of view seem to not even fully understand the questions involved. They go off half cocked based on inconclusive data and reports by a biased media.

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.

Tommy, I think you're right... at least partially right... I don 't doubt in the least that auto exhaust, coal fired electric plants and a bunch of other greenhouse gas producing things are adding to the global warming.... now euphemistically climate change... no doubts at all... but as far as I'm concerned there's one small fly in the soup....

there's compelling evidence of a glacier as far south as Roanoke Va as recently as 10,000 yrs ago... since the nearest glacier is somewhere in northern Canada it seems as though "climate change" has been going on for quite a while... there is even fossil evidence of tropical ferns in the northern states , which indicates to me that this might not be the first time it's happened in the history of the world....

non of this means I advocate we bury our heads in the sand and pretend that this will go away.. it probably will ... just don't think any of us will live long enough to see it..

""

You're right, but what we're causing is going above and beyond the cycles that have happened before. You've admitted that CO2 levels and global temperature have a positive correlation, now look at this:

Nope, I don't think we're doing anything significant. Our CO2 is just a drop in the bucket.....

Also, if you look at the graph, you'll notice that if we are indeed just on a part of the cycle, then CO2 levels should be declining right now.

In reply to Tommy Suddard:

Correlation does not imply causation. I understand greenhouse gasses and how they work - they are real no doubt about that. I think it is reasonable to conclude that dumping a lot of CO2 and methane and others into the atmosphere may impact temperatures. But I also think that when you go back and look at the historical record that CO2 concentrations went up and down because the temperatures went up and down. According to the AlGore powerpoint if you look at his 'proof' it looks pretty certain that over the earth's history temperature has driven CO2 levels not the other way around. What has happened in the last 100 years is a different thing all together.

Your argument is very valid, until you consider that there is way way more evidence that CO2 increases cause temperature increases, versus the opposite.

There is a wealth of scientific research (published, peer reviewed experiments) that proves the greenhouse effect works. Heck, you can even try it. Put a temperature probe inside an empty fish tank, then leave it under a flood light for an hour. Measure the temperature every few minutes, and record what you see.

Then do the same thing again, only this time put a piece of saran wrap over the fish tank. See if the temperature goes up.

Sure, increased global temperature does release some carbon from sinks, but I don't think you can say that as the temperature has increased drastically in the last 100 years, it's caused us to develop a burning (sorry, pun) desire to burn as much oil, coal, and wood as we possibly can to emit more carbon into the atmosphere. I'd say that the carbon we emitted has caused an increase in global temperature.

wbjones, evidence of past glaciers in the American Southeast does not support the economics of the exchange of carbon credits. Therefore, it is not valid.

Tommy, the greenhouse effect most definitely works. We have known about this for a long time. See Venus. The main components of the Venusian atmosphere are carbon dioxide (96%), nitrogen and sulfuric acid. http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/venus_worldbook.html At this time, there has been no measured amount of free oxygen. The question is, how did it get that way? There are no Venusians roaming the planet driving SUVs or burning coal. That indicates it was a natural process.

Then we can go the other way entirely with Mars. The Martian atmosphere is 93% CO2. http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/mars_worldbook.html Yet it is much colder and drier than Earth.

One would think that two planets having similar CO2 densities orbiting the same star would, regardless of distance, show some temperature correlation. But that is not the case.

Then we take Earth. CO2 makes up less than 1% of the atmosphere. http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/earth_worldbook.html 78% is nitrogen, 21% is free oxygen. But Earth falls in a much more comfortable category (for us, anyway) than Venus or Mars despite a much lower CO2 percentage.

That tells me there is much more to climate change, or global warming, or whatever the term du jour is than merely CO2. I personally think it's much more tied to water vapor. But no one is marching with signs screaming 'STOP EVAPORATION NOW!'

I don't think we should keep dumping crap into our environment. This is the only planet we have (at the moment) and it makes no sense to foul our nest. We have made large strides in cleaning things up since the 1960's, when all kinds of stuff was dumped everywhere with no thought as to its effect on future generations.

But I don't think cooking numbers to support a single ZOMG!!!WE ARE ALL GOING TO SLOWLY ROAST!!!! theory is the way to get the populace to go along with needed changes. It needs to be something seen in the back yard (see: NIMBY).

Down here, people near a coal fired electric plant started flipping out when they found black specks in well water, they immediately blamed the coal plant. Turned out it was minute specks of various plant material but there was no coal dust. Still, it raised awareness of the possibility of ground water contamination by coal dust and has made people seriously consider cleaner alternatives such as hydroelectric and nuclear plants. Me, I vote nuc; much simpler to build and sustain.

You're treating the Venus, Earth, and Mars example as if it were an experiment with the variables controlled. But there is a major variable that you didn't think about (or didn't mention). Each of those planets is farther and farther away from the sun, meaning Venus gets the most energy, Mars the least, and Earth just the right amount. The temperature differences can be attributed the vastly different amount of energy each planet receives from the sun, not the slight variations in their atmosphere's carbon content.

Also, there was research done by NASA to determine if it was cost effective to emit more CO2 into Mars's atmosphere, therefore warming the planet and potentially making it habitable.

Oh, and the water vapor arguement.

Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas. It's also one of the world's biggest positive feedback loops. (Santer 2007) As more water evaporates due to increased temperatures caused by increased CO2 levels, the temperature increases even more, and more water evaporates. This loop doubles the effect of the CO2 emitted. Water vapor is one of the reasons CO2 emissions have such a profound effect on global temperature.

I tried to explain that about half the time we record higher than average temperatures to a friend at work. He got worried until I told him that about half the time we record lower than average temps too!

I'm gonna start promoting man made climate stagnation as the next bogieman.

Bruce

My biggest problem is in the 1970s we were supposed to be entering an ice age and we were all going to freeze to death. Lots of money was doled out to research it. It never happened. In the 1990s we were all going to burn up with global warming. The sea was going to rise and drown the coast. Millions of dollars were doled out the research it. It hasn't happened. I don't think is has anything to do with the actual climate. It boils down to money. Climate change isn't so much a science as it is a cash cow. Too many people are playing with numbers and massaging the data to get their charts to say what they want. Not much better than politicians in my book.

Who can say what the temperature the earth is supposed to be. It isn't like a person who you can say is supposed to be 98.6. It takes a pretty arrogant person to decide that the earth is supposed to be a certain temperature and try to make it so.

All the climate change scientists say we are going to warm up and drown. Their computer models say so. Sorry guys, computer models cant even predict the temperature tomorrow much less next century. Computer models can't even predict where a hurricane is going. You think there might be a few more variables in predicting something on a global scale over hundreds of years compared to something on a regional scale over the next week. Climate science is part science and part SWAG. They just don't know the answers to most of the questions they are asked. They aren't going to tell anyone that though. We might cut off their funding.

Do I think we need to quit pissing in the place we live. Yep. Should we bring the economy to a screeching halt in the process. Nope. Should we explore green energy. Absolutely. Is it a realistic option. Not now, and probably not for decades. Unfortunately the only portable fuel we have with any energy density is oil.

You want to know what the temperature is going to be tomorrow. Ask me in the morning. Want it for 9/11/2060. I'll get back to you on that.

Response to the survey question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009) General public data come from a 2008 Gallup poll.

97.4% of Climate scientists support the consensus: Global Climate Change is happening.

"Sorry guys, computer models cant even predict the temperature tomorrow much less next century. Computer models can't even predict where a hurricane is going."

There is a huge difference between weather and climate. Weather is chaotic day to day occurrences, and climate is weather averaged out over time. Although it is hard to predict exactly what the temperature in your neighborhood will be, it's easy to average out what the temperature in your state will be. You can compare it to tossing a coin. No, you can't tell exactly if it will land on heads or tails, but over 50 tosses, I can tell you that there will be roughly 25 tails and 25 heads.

Also, the climate models are accurate. See below: Comparison of climate results with observations. (a) represents simulations done with only natural forcings: solar variation and volcanic activity. (b) represents simulations done with anthropogenic forcings: greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols. (c) was done with both natural and anthropogenic forcings (IPCC).

It's easy to see that the models using only natural forces were correct, until the mid 1950's. After that, in order to create a correct model, you have to add in how much CO2 we're putting into the atmosphere.

Toyman01 wrote: My biggest problem is in the 1970s we were supposed to be entering an ice age and we were all going to freeze to death.

Wrong. The vast majority of scientific papers in the 1970s predicted warming. The media predicted cooling.

From 1965 to 1979, 7 papers predicted cooling. 42 papers predicted warming.

I go with the normal cycle theory. I have lived alot of years on this planet and have seen extremes both ways. In the 40's we had cold, them in '46 we started warming up until in '53 we had record high remperatures. Then Jan 1970 was extremely cold, then gradually things started warming again. When I got up this morning it was 50F. Not normal for early Sept. This is all from personal recollection here in upstate NY. Last winter, albeit short, had colder temperatures than recent winters.

Ugh, I hear that too much. The normal 1500 year cycles (Dansgaard-Oeschger events) happen in the northern hemisphere, and they're always accompanied with cooling in the southern hemisphere.

It's obvious this isn't that natural cycle, because currently temperatures in both hemispheres are increasing dramatically.

Tommy Suddard wrote: Ugh, I hear that too much. The normal 1500 year cycles (Dansgaard-Oeschger events) happen in the northern hemisphere, and they're always accompanied with cooling in the southern hemisphere. It's obvious this isn't that natural cycle, because currently temperatures in both hemispheres are increasing dramatically.

Tommy.. You need to understand two things about climate change.

1. admitting there is a man made part to climate change equates, in most folks mind, to a feeling of "we've being doing something wrong for a long period of time." People do not like to be told they are wrong.
2. People also don't want to change how they live their lives in any way. Admitting there is a problem with the way we live our lives necessitates a change in the way we live our lives. People don't want to change what they are doing.

I'm just waiting for those who don't believe in climate change to die. On average they're older than us.