NationStates Jolt Archive

Kenneth Tapping, a solar researcher and project director for Canada's National Research Council, is among those looking at the sun for evidence of an increase in sunspot activity.

Solar activity fluctuates in an 11-year cycle. But so far in this cycle, the sun has been disturbingly quiet. The lack of increased activity could signal the beginning of what is known as a Maunder Minimum, an event which occurs every couple of centuries and can last as long as a century.

Such an event occurred in the 17th century. The observation of sunspots showed extraordinarily low levels of magnetism on the sun, with little or no 11-year cycle.

This solar hibernation corresponded with a period of bitter cold that began around 1650 and lasted, with intermittent spikes of warming, until 1715. Frigid winters and cold summers during that period led to massive crop failures, famine and death in Northern Europe.

Tapping reports no change in the sun's magnetic field so far this cycle and warns that if the sun remains quiet for another year or two, it may indicate a repeat of that period of drastic cooling of the Earth, bringing massive snowfall and severe weather to the Northern Hemisphere.

. . . .

R. Timothy Patterson, professor of geology and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Center of Canada's Carleton University, says that "CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales."

Rather, he says, "I and the first-class scientists I work with are consistently finding excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations of the sun and earthly climate. This is not surprising. The sun and the stars are the ultimate source of energy on this planet."

Patterson, sharing Tapping's concern, says: "Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth."

"Solar activity has overpowered any effect that CO2 has had before, and it most likely will again," Patterson says. "If we were to have even a medium-sized solar minimum, we could be looking at a lot more bad effects than 'global warming' would have had."

In 2005, Russian astronomer Khabibullo Abdusamatov made some waves — and not a few enemies in the global warming "community" — by predicting that the sun would reach a peak of activity about three years from now, to be accompanied by "dramatic changes" in temperatures.

A Hoover Institution Study a few years back examined historical data and came to a similar conclusion.

"The effects of solar activity and volcanoes are impossible to miss. Temperatures fluctuated exactly as expected, and the pattern was so clear that, statistically, the odds of the correlation existing by chance were one in 100," according to Hoover fellow Bruce Berkowitz.

The study says that "try as we might, we simply could not find any relationship between industrial activity, energy consumption and changes in global temperatures."

The study concludes that if you shut down all the world's power plants and factories, "there would not be much effect on temperatures."

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175

So what is the significance of this observation? Is Tapping right? Or is this just another scientist "in denial", as Al Gore and his followers might say?

This is gonna be good.

*pulls up sofa, makes popcorn and drinks readily available to anyone interested*

I would hardly call an editorial from a financial journal the most reliable source. Maybe if you can find a primary source, such as a copy of this report in a scientific paper.

At any rate, assuming it's true, I wouldn't be surprised. It's obvious that something is affecting the climate, and everyone has a different theory. Some scientists believe we can alter the climate changes by manipulating the atmosphere (i.e. reducing carbon dioxide emissions or whatever gets all the publicity these days); others don't believe it's possible for us to do so. Personally, I think that as "climate change" is bound to have an adverse effect on everyone -- crops will fail, leading to famines etc.; sea levels might rise, swamping coastal areas, or fall, causing drought and drying up food sources; islands might be submerged; et cetera. Therefore, as we have the technology to change the atmosphere and return it to pre-climate change levels of water vapour, carbon dioxide, etc., we should do so whether we cause it or not. If climate change is really so severe, we should be actively trying to reverse it, not closing down our factories and hoping it'll go away.

I grew up in the 70's when a new "Ice Age religion" was around and now witnessed a new "Global Warming religion" in the new century. As I do in politics I stay in around the middle. How about we just settle on the fact that the world's weather is changing and will change as long as humans walk on this planet. Best thing to do is prepare for either problem. However I think in the near future religion will be surpassed by economic and resources as our reasons for conflict.

So what is the significance of this observation? Is Tapping right? Or is this just another scientist "in denial", as Al Gore and his followers might say?

Global Cooling is inevitable. As candidates drop out of the US Presidential Nominee race, the amount of hot air and disturbance caused by Americans and Amerikans yapping and "woo-hooing" decreases. In a few years however the cycle will begin again and tempreatures will rise.

How convenient, the OP goes offline right after posting.

Gigantic Leprechauns, meet New Mitanni. New Mitanni, this is....

er, New Mitanni?....

Oh, forget it.

lol

How convenient, the OP goes offline right after posting.

Gigantic Leprechauns, meet New Mitanni. New Mitanni, this is....

er, New Mitanni?....

Oh, forget it.

I grew up in the 70's when a new "Ice Age religion" was around and now witnessed a new "Global Warming religion" in the new century. As I do in politics I stay in around the middle. How about we just settle on the fact that the world's weather is changing and will change as long as humans walk on this planet. Best thing to do is prepare for either problem. However I think in the near future religion will be surpassed by economic and resources as our reasons for conflict.

Exactly.

What? Global warming and this phenomenon are unrelated. What makes you think that evidence for one disproves the other? Holy false dilemma, Batman! You fail.

And this has what do do with Al Gore, exactly?
"Al Gore" is the word for "Canadian" in the tongue of those most affected - the Inuit.

And this has what do do with Al Gore, exactly?

Everybody was hating on me for my big gas guzzling truck...now yall will have to worship me for the "blanket" effect its exhaust has when this new "global cooling" happens

Canada has scientists?

This is gonna be good.

*pulls up sofa, makes popcorn and drinks readily available to anyone interested*

*takes some popcorn and a soda*

*puts the song "Here We Go Again" on plunks down on the sofa*

Everybody was hating on me for my big gas guzzling truck...now yall will have to worship me for the "blanket" effect its exhaust has when this new "global cooling" happens

Surely you're not suggesting that climate change will somehow negate this 'global cooling' business?

Ilike how the editorial doesn't actually quote Tapping, but paraphrases him. Here (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4248062.html?do=print) are his real words.

The planet’s climate is a messy picture, with all sorts of influences and feedback cycles that need to be taken into account. In order to build more accurate computer models, scientists need to understand both anthropogenic factors and the link between the sun and our planet....To understand our role in climate change, we need to understand the natural process.

To me, it looks like he's saying that sun activity is one factor among many, and that human industry is also a factor.

Patterson and his science seem completely on the level. I'll give you that one, Mitanni.

Wow. I've been here three years, read countless global warming threads, and that's the second climate expert I've seen who does not believe humans are having a significant impact on the global climate. Well done. Maybe you'll find a third in the next eighteen months.

This Berkowitz fellow is definitely not one of them.

"The effects of solar activity and volcanoes are impossible to miss. Temperatures fluctuated exactly as expected, and the pattern was so clear that, statistically, the odds of the correlation existing by chance were one in 100," according to Hoover fellow Bruce Berkowitz.

http://www.hoover.org/bios/berkowitz.html

Bruce Berkowitz
Research Fellow

Expertise: National security affairs, defense and intelligence policy, technology issues

How does a military geek all of a sudden become an expert on climate change? And the Hoover Institute has no one on its staff who could do any sort of climate study. I'm going to call bullshit on this study until I see it.

well since this potential problem will rear its ugly head (or not) in the next few years i would suggest that we continue preparing for the longer term problem (co2 emmissions leading to global climate change).

we arent anywhere near where we would need to be to have an effect on "global warming" but the things we are doing have great side effects on energy savings, air quality, and development of new energy resources.

these global warming measure are not contributing to the cooling of the world so there is no real downside to continuing them.

Back in the Biblical Days, New Mitanni would have been the one telling Noah "Global Flooding? Where did you get that shit from, Al Gore?"

:D

I've heard this before. What I have gathered is that we are currently at the end of a warm spell in the middle of an ice age. Our entire civilization existed within this period. Human-caused global warming is increasing the temperature - and doing so pretty damn quickly - but if global warming is completely reversed, we will see gradual global cooling, with a full-blown ice age coming within a million years. At which point, it might make sense to turn up the greenhouse gas emissions again.

FFS, why do people fail in life so much?

Global climate change, is climate change, whether it is warming or cooling. The point of the whole debate is to get humans to stop putting crap in the atmosphere that doesn't need to be there.

Let me use this analogy:

Humans need water. A certain amount of water is required for humans to live properly. If you have little amounts of water, you can dehydrate, OR if you put too much into your system, you can die from basically flooding your body. The same applies with the earth. There is a certain amount of CO2 that the earth does need, in order to trap some heat from the sun. We know this. But then if we put too much in the system, it will kill us. It doesn't matter if its global cooling or warming. Its a global climate change that is causing mass extinction at a rate not seen in all the history of the earth, causing people to lose their homes to outrageous storms/acts of nature, and will continue to get worse until we balance the system out.

Back in the Biblical Days, New Mitanni would have been the one telling Noah "Global Flooding? Where did you get that shit from, Al Gore?"

:D

I am so sigging that.

Btw, does the OP always do this kind of thing?

I am so sigging that.

Btw, does the OP always do this kind of thing?

Posters of his type usually do. Its the old "post something which I know i can't debate and then leave before any one posts" tactic.

Posters of his type usually do. Its the old "post something which I know i can't debate and then leave before any one posts" tactic.

Heh, figures.

I would hardly call an editorial from a financial journal the most reliable source. Maybe if you can find a primary source, such as a copy of this report in a scientific paper.


http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/eng/education/astronomy/tapping/2007/2007-10-10.html

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4248062.html

Official site:

http://www.drao-ofr.hia-iha.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/icarus/www/sol_home.shtml

Best I've come up with so far, but I'm still looking for links to journal publications.

This is gonna be good.

*pulls up sofa, makes popcorn and drinks readily available to anyone interested*

Make room for one more!

*Grabs handful of popcorn and Vanilla Coke*

Has anyone seen this before?

http://www.viewzone.com/milkyway.html

Global Cooling is inevitable. As candidates drop out of the US Presidential Nominee race, the amount of hot air and disturbance caused by Americans and Amerikans yapping and "woo-hooing" decreases. In a few years however the cycle will begin again and tempreatures will rise.

Another profound observation from your bottomless well of wisdom. :rolleyes:

When it comes to hot air, perhaps you're volunteering to compensate for any decrease on our part?

BTW: your deliberate misspelling is offensive.

Posters of his type usually do. Its the old "post something which I know i can't debate and then leave before any one posts" tactic.

Well here I am, wise guy, so take your best shot. :p

Well here I am, wise guy, so take your best shot. :p

I, for one, am shocked to see you back! ;)

Another profound observation from your bottomless well of wisdom. :rolleyes:

When it comes to hot air, perhaps you're volunteering to compensate for any decrease on our part?

BTW: your deliberate misspelling is offensive.

I think your sarcasm meter is set to stun...

This is gonna be good.

*pulls up sofa, makes popcorn and drinks readily available to anyone interested*

Make room for one more; I do love to watch a climate change blood bath.

*grabs handful of popcorn and a Vanilla Coke*

Oh, has anyone seen this before?

http://www.viewzone.com/milkyway.html

I, for one, am shocked to see you back! ;)

I've said it before: If I don't hang around for extended periods or answer every post, it's usually because other things come up that require attention, like WORK, I've said what I wanted to say, or the poster is on my IL. Not an exclusive list . . . .

I think your sarcasm meter is set to stun...

Yeah, I toned it down from kill :D

Ilike how the editorial doesn't actually quote Tapping, but paraphrases him. Here (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4248062.html?do=print) are his real words.



To me, it looks like he's saying that sun activity is one factor among many, and that human industry is also a factor.

Patterson and his science seem completely on the level. I'll give you that one, Mitanni.

Wow. I've been here three years, read countless global warming threads, and that's the second climate expert I've seen who does not believe humans are having a significant impact on the global climate. Well done. Maybe you'll find a third in the next eighteen months.

This Berkowitz fellow is definitely not one of them.



http://www.hoover.org/bios/berkowitz.html



How does a military geek all of a sudden become an expert on climate change? And the Hoover Institute has no one on its staff who could do any sort of climate study. I'm going to call bullshit on this study until I see it.

Thank you for doing the work for me. I knew there was something rather fishy about this.

Though was I the only one to notice that the proposed reason for the cooling was different from the proposed reasons in the original theory in the seventies? Wasn't that one about pollutants acting like a gigantic blackout curtain that would prevent the sun's energy from penetrating the atmosphere? This one has to do with the sun's overall activity dimming a wee bit.

...Hey wait a second...wasn't there some television movie about this? I distinctly remember some moronic television movie about a global ice age being caused by sun activity dropping. I wonder if it was related to this in some way.

In any case, New Mitanni is once again arguing out of his depth.

the things we are doing have great side effects on energy savings, air quality, and development of new energy resources.

If Algore and his minions furled the green banners, climbed down out of their pulpits and focused on these concrete, provable results, they might be surprised at the results. Even I support saving money and developing new energy resources. ;)

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175

So what is the significance of this observation? Is Tapping right? Or is this just another scientist "in denial", as Al Gore and his followers might say?Do you have a scientific article to back up his assumptions?

Particularly the false ones:

For instance, researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar Research in Germany report the sun has been burning more brightly over the last 60 years, accounting for the 1 degree Celsius increase in Earth's temperature over the last 100 years.
Der zeitliche Verlauf der Sonnenaktivität weist eine Ähnlichkeit mit der Entwicklung der mittleren Temperatur auf der Erde auf. Daher rücken diese Forschungsergebnisse den Einfluss der Sonne auf das Erdklima und insbesondere ihren möglichen Anteil an der globalen Erwärmung im 20. Jahrhundert in den Brennpunkt des Interesses. Forscher des MPS haben aber auch gezeigt, dass die Sonne höchstens für einen kleinen Teil der Erwärmung der letzten 20-30 Jahre verantwortlich sein kann.Sourcy (http://www.mpg.de/bilderBerichteDokumente/dokumentation/pressemitteilungen/2004/pressemitteilung200408021/)

Translated:

The progress of solar activity shows similarites with the development of the average temperature on Earth. Due to this, these research results push the influence of the sun on the Earth's climate, particularly its part in global warming in the 20th century, into the center of attention. However, researchers of the MPS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Planck_Institute_for_Solar_System_Research) have also shown that the sun can only be responsible for a small part of warming in the last 20-30 years, at most.

Also:
A Hoover Institution Study a few years back examined historical data and came to a similar conclusion.

"The effects of solar activity and volcanoes are impossible to miss. Temperatures fluctuated exactly as expected, and the pattern was so clear that, statistically, the odds of the correlation existing by chance were one in 100," according to Hoover fellow Bruce Berkowitz.

The study says that "try as we might, we simply could not find any relationship between industrial activity, energy consumption and changes in global temperatures."

The study concludes that if you shut down all the world's power plants and factories, "there would not be much effect on temperatures."

They're still hanging on the debunked volcano theory? And why does the Hoover Institution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Institution) have any credibility concerning this subject?

Let's take a look at the Russian scientist, Khabibullo Abdusamatov:
As for Abdussamatov’s claim that solar fluctuations are causing Earth’s current global warming, Charles Long, a climate physicist at Pacific Northwest National Laboratories in Washington, says the idea is nonsense.

“That’s nuts,” Long said in a telephone interview. “It doesn’t make physical sense that that’s the case.”Sourcy (http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html)

And
Abdussamatov's work, however, has not been well received by other climate scientists.

"His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University.

"And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report."

Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations."
Sourcy (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html) (Note that the first sentence of the quote is on the page linked to. You have to click "Next Page" for the rest.)

Now, I wasted plenty of time to show that the editorial isn't worth reading. This kids, is why editorials do not make good evidence. It's also incidentally why I usually reject them without bothering to read them.

http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/eng/education/astronomy/tapping/2007/2007-10-10.htmlThis tells us what exactly about climate change?
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4248062.html
I love it when you pwn yourself with your own sources:
Just how much influence the sun has on global temperatures has been the subject of sometimes acrimonious debate. While an upswing in solar activity may cause a warming trend, it was discounted in the mid-1990s as the sole driver of current climate change. And for anyone hoping that a solar downswing might bail us out of our current dilemma: Solar influence on climate is slight compared to the impact of man-made greenhouse gases, a National Academy of Sciences report concluded in 1995.

The planet’s climate is a messy picture, with all sorts of influences and feedback cycles that need to be taken into account. In order to build more accurate computer models, scientists need to understand both anthropogenic factors and the link between the sun and our planet, Tapping says. To help get at the sun’s influence, he and other researchers connect Earth’s temperature with historic sunspot records of sky watchers from Europe and China, as well as with carbon-14 isotopes*—residue from cosmic rays delivered by the sun’s magnetic field—found in tree rings. To understand our role in climate change,” he says, “we need to understand the natural process.”Highlights by me.

Tapping doesn't deny climate change or anthropogenic influence in the least.

Official site:

http://www.drao-ofr.hia-iha.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/icarus/www/sol_home.shtml

Best I've come up with so far, but I'm still looking for links to journal publications.Again, this tells us what exactly?

Again, this tells us what exactly?

That you, as opposed to the OP, knows how to read and do research? :)

I grew up in the 70's when a new "Ice Age religion" was around and now witnessed a new "Global Warming religion" in the new century. As I do in politics I stay in around the middle. How about we just settle on the fact that the world's weather is changing and will change as long as humans walk on this planet. Best thing to do is prepare for either problem. However I think in the near future religion will be surpassed by economic and resources as our reasons for conflict.

You realise that the 'ice age' thing was driven by articles in popular magazines and newspapers, right?

And not by articles in peer reviewed journals, right?

And that the near-universal reaction from scientific organisations was "it might be true, but we need more study before we can draw any conclusions", right?

As opposed to today, when global warming articles are published in peer-reviewed journals, it's the deniers who write in the popular press, and pretty much every scientific organisation in the world agrees that we have sufficient evidence to conclude that greenhouse gases are driving global climate change?

The 'compromise' fallacy is one of the silliest around: if one person says "let's round up all the kittens and feed them into a grinder", and another person says "What the hell! No! That's a stupid idea!" then saying "Let's compromise and feed half the kittens into a grinder" doesn't make you a 'sensible centralist': at best, it makes you slightly less insane than the advocate of universal kitten grinding...

If Algore and his minions furled the green banners, climbed down out of their pulpits and focused on these concrete, provable results, they might be surprised at the results. Even I support saving money and developing new energy resources. ;)

If you ended your little crusade against Al Gore and did the same thing then you might be equally surprised to find that he is not the be all and end all of Climate Change.

BTW: your deliberate misspelling is offensive.

BTW, your racist, bigoted, hostile, mindlessly arrogant, deliberately ignorant bullshit posts are offensive too. I guess when you're done crying about the slight to Amerikans you can think about what a stuffed-up hypocrite you look like right now.

or the poster is on my IL. Not an exclusive list . . . .

Of course it isn't. How could you possibly get by on this forum, with all these facts and ugly truths (such as..... YOU'RE FUCKING WRONG. AGAIN.), without silencing that which displeases you and shakes up your convenient, narrow bias? You couldn't.

Your OP is a joke, and I rather think you mean to be as well.

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175

So what is the significance of this observation? Is Tapping right? Or is this just another scientist "in denial", as Al Gore and his followers might say?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, WHAT GLOBAL WARMING? There are natural cycles of the earth, and solar system, that affect our climate and there is nothing we can do about it. I really like this quote from the article;

"The study says that "try as we might, we simply could not find any relationship between industrial activity, energy consumption and changes in global temperatures."

The study concludes that if you shut down all the world's power plants and factories, "there would not be much effect on temperatures."

I would hardly call an editorial from a financial journal the most reliable source. Maybe if you can find a primary source, such as a copy of this report in a scientific paper.

Perhaps this will help you find some peer reviewed papers by Dr. Tapping

Dr. Kenneth F Tapping (Ken) - DRAO
Research Officer

National Research Council of Canada
Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics
PO Box 248
Penticton BC V2A 6J9

Expertise

Solar physics, solar influence on climate change, disruptions of technology, solar and space plasma physics, general radio astronomy, and frequency protection for radio astronomy.

http://www.hia-iha.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/staff/tapping_e.html

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, WHAT GLOBAL WARMING? There are natural cycles of the earth, and solar system, that affect our climate and there is nothing we can do about it.

Do you really think just repeating that kind of thing is as persuasive as the (http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm) evidence (http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm)?


"The study says that "try as we might, we simply could not find any relationship between industrial activity, energy consumption and changes in global temperatures."

Try as I might, I find it hard to accept at face value unqualified statements reported third hand in a nonscientific political website.

The study concludes that if you shut down all the world's power plants and factories, "there would not be much effect on temperatures."

...and dumbass "conclusions" like that are but one reason.

Perhaps this will help you find some peer reviewed papers by Dr. Tapping

Dr. Kenneth F Tapping (Ken) - DRAO
Research Officer

National Research Council of Canada
Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics
PO Box 248
Penticton BC V2A 6J9

Expertise

Solar physics, solar influence on climate change, disruptions of technology, solar and space plasma physics, general radio astronomy, and frequency protection for radio astronomy.

http://www.hia-iha.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/staff/tapping_e.html

The same Dr. Tapping that doesn't discount anthropogenic influences on the global climate change btw...

"The study says that "try as we might, we simply could not find any relationship between industrial activity, energy consumption and changes in global temperatures."

And what a splendid, scholarly source we have. The introduction to the article reads:

Climate Change: Not every scientist is part of Al Gore's mythical "consensus." Scientists worried about a new ice age seek funding to better observe something bigger than your SUV — the sun.

The same Dr. Tapping that doesn't discount anthropogenic influences on the global climate change btw...

Quiet you! Don't frighten the poor deniers with facts.

"The study says that...
The study of questionable credibility, from a foundation without any connection to climatology or science (well, they've got a physician as a research fellow) that recieves donations from for example:
# Boeing-McDonnell Foundation
# Chrysler Corporation Fund
# Exxon Educational Foundation
# Ford Motor Company Fund
# General Motors Foundation

Quiet you! Don't frighten the poor deniers with facts.

Sorry, sorry... I keep forgetting that :(

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, WHAT GLOBAL WARMING? There are natural cycles of the earth, and solar system, that affect our climate and there is nothing we can do about it. I really like this quote from the article;

"The study says that "try as we might, we simply could not find any relationship between industrial activity, energy consumption and changes in global temperatures."

The study concludes that if you shut down all the world's power plants and factories, "there would not be much effect on temperatures."Celtlund, if you'd have read the thread, you'd know that :

A) this is not an article, but an editorial, i.e. a written opinion;
B) the study was done by a group that's both pro-business (i.e. their alliegances lie with the polluters) and not well versed in climatology or solar science (i.e. they don't know what the fuck they're talking about);
and C) the phenomon we are talking about is called Climate Change, renamed specially for those too dumb to tell the difference between Global and Local Warming.

Celtlund, if you'd have read the thread, you'd know that :

A) this is not an article, but an editorial, i.e. a written opinion;

Yes, it written opinion about a scientific study. A scientific study that refutes the Al Gore (he's an expert right :rolleyes:) Theory of Global Warming. So you would throw out the study?

B) the study was done by a group that's both pro-business (i.e. their alliegances lie with the polluters) and not well versed in climatology or solar science (i.e. they don't know what the fuck they're talking about);

Not well versed in climatology or solar science? The guy has a PhD and has Expertise;Solar physics, solar influence on climate change, disruptions of technology, solar and space plasma physics, general radio astronomy, and frequency protection for radio astronomy. I guess we should only accept studies from institutions like Berkley, UCLA, etc. because everyone know they don't receive funds from any groups that have political agendas. :rolleyes:


and C) the phenomon we are talking about is called Climate Change, renamed specially for those too dumb to tell the difference between Global and Local Warming.

The only reason they changed from calling it "Global Warming" to Global Climate Change" is to cover their ass. If it turns out there is no global warming but instead we enter into a period of global cooling they can say, "See we were correct, the climate is changing."

Yes, it written opinion about a scientific study. A scientific study that refutes the Al Gore (he's an expert right :rolleyes:) Theory of Global Warming. So you would throw out the study?What are you talking about? There's two studies mentioned in the editorial: Tapping's (which you, NM, and the author claim refutes Global Warming, let alone anthropogenic influence, contrary to reality) and the one done by the Hoover Institute (which is dubious due to their entanglement in polluting industries).



Not well versed in climatology or solar science? The guy has a PhD and has Expertise;Solar physics, solar influence on climate change, disruptions of technology, solar and space plasma physics, general radio astronomy, and frequency protection for radio astronomy. I guess we should only accept studies from institutions like Berkley, UCLA, etc. because everyone know they don't receive funds from any groups that have political agendas. :rolleyes:You're confusing Tapping's study with a study that actually disproves anthropogenic influence on Global Warming.

The only reason they changed from calling it "Global Warming" to Global Climate Change" is to cover their ass. If it turns out there is no global warming but instead we enter into a period of global cooling they can say, "See we were correct, the climate is changing."Hardly. It's a PR thing because some people think that having a cold winter means that the world isn't getting warmer. Climate is changing because its getting warmer, globally. This will in turn lead to some places getting colder, locally. It's still Global Warming, some people are just too stupid to understand the concept.

The only reason they changed from calling it "Global Warming" to Global Climate Change" is to cover their ass. If it turns out there is no global warming but instead we enter into a period of global cooling they can say, "See we were correct, the climate is changing."

Actually, no, they renamed it because people are not very smart, and because a good deal of new evidence has been uncovered since the phenomenon was first named. And as I recall, the theory of global warming indicates that the world may get colder overall before getting warmer -- the greenhouse gases will initially lower the world's temperature, before the sun's heat penetrates and warms the earth to a greater degree causing all the "Statue of Liberty underwater!" sensationalist-media scenarios. Or something. I cba to research.

Yes, it written opinion about a scientific study. A scientific study that refutes the Al Gore (he's an expert right :rolleyes:) Theory of Global Warming. So you would throw out the study?
I defy you to find one peer reviewed scientific paper on anthropogenic climate change written by Al Gore. Yeah, he made a movie, a movie that you and those who share your opinions about climate change have gone over with a fine-toothed comb and found every single inaccuracy and paraded them around like they'd just come back from the moon. We get it. The point that you seem to be doing your level best to ignore is that nobody but you and yours give a shit about that movie.

None of us went to see 'An Inconvenient Truth' and then suddenly became enlightened and began to worship at the altar of Gore, no more than you are just in denial because you don't want to start paying taxes on your huge SUV collection.



Not well versed in climatology or solar science? The guy has a PhD and has Expertise;Solar physics, solar influence on climate change, disruptions of technology, solar and space plasma physics, general radio astronomy, and frequency protection for radio astronomy. I guess we should only accept studies from institutions like Berkley, UCLA, etc. because everyone know they don't receive funds from any groups that have political agendas. :rolleyes:
Yes, I'm sure a physicist who focuses on the sun could tell us a whole lot about the effects of excess CO2 in the atmosphere.



The only reason they changed from calling it "Global Warming" to Global Climate Change" is to cover their ass. If it turns out there is no global warming but instead we enter into a period of global cooling they can say, "See we were correct, the climate is changing."

That's how science works. You change your hypothesis when new information becomes available. You don't just give up and throw away lots of time and effort just because you weren't exactly right the first time around.

Yes, it written opinion about a scientific study. A scientific study that refutes the Al Gore (he's an expert right :rolleyes:) Theory of Global Warming. So you would throw out the study?
Try focusing on the science instead of the messenger for a change.


Not well versed in climatology or solar science? The guy has a PhD and has Expertise;Solar physics, solar influence on climate change, disruptions of technology, solar and space plasma physics, general radio astronomy, and frequency protection for radio astronomy. I guess we should only accept studies from institutions like Berkley, UCLA, etc. because everyone know they don't receive funds from any groups that have political agendas. :rolleyes:
Try not to mix up the two reports.


The only reason they changed from calling it "Global Warming" to Global Climate Change" is to cover their ass. If it turns out there is no global warming but instead we enter into a period of global cooling they can say, "See we were correct, the climate is changing."
Try not to make yourself look silly with statements such as this.

...the theory of global warming indicates that the world may get colder overall before getting warmer --

Boy does that sound very Al Gorish. I was for it before I was against it or maybe I was against it before I was for it. With statements like that is it any wonder people know the scientists don't know what the hell they are talking about? :confused::confused:

Boy does that sound very Al Gorish. I was for it before I was against it or maybe I was against it before I was for it. With statements like that is it any wonder people know the scientists don't know what the hell they are talking about? :confused::confused:

Scientists also say that sometimes light acts like a particle and sometimes it acts like a wave and they're not 100% sure why or how the two states of affair relate to each other.

The difference seems to be that most people aren't arrogant enough to assume that they understand physics better than the scientists who have been studying it most of their lives after reading a few newspaper articles.

When Canadians are worried about it getting colder, you know we have problems.

Don't you get tired of this every once in a while?

Don't you get tired of this every once in a while?

Guess not.

Boy does that sound very Al Gorish. I was for it before I was against it or maybe I was against it before I was for it. With statements like that is it any wonder people know the scientists don't know what the hell they are talking about? :confused::confused:

First of all, you're confusing Gore with that other guy... can't remember his name... The Waffler... face like a horse? Drew Carrey or John Kerry?

Secondly, that's why we should let scientists do the work and not trust non-scientific journals and magazines.

First of all, you're confusing Gore with that other guy... can't remember his name... The Waffler... face like a horse? Drew Carrey or John Kerry?

Secondly, that's why we should let scientists do the work and not trust non-scientific journals and magazines.

That's not very kind to horses, is it?

Yes, it written opinion about a scientific study. A scientific study that refutes the Al Gore (he's an expert right :rolleyes:) Theory of Global Warming. So you would throw out the study?


And yet here you are, denying scientific studies that go against what you want. But oh look, the ones that most make you comfortable are the ones you support. Nevermind that it's disputed. It must be the TRUTH. Hypocritical much?


Not well versed in climatology or solar science? The guy has a PhD and has Expertise;Solar physics, solar influence on climate change, disruptions of technology, solar and space plasma physics, general radio astronomy, and frequency protection for radio astronomy.

Which has about as much to do with planetary climate effects as you to intellectual honesty. Which is to say, none at all.

I am just going to put up links to JunkScience.com and DemandDebate.com. Now I am going to set back and watch the show.:)

I grew up in the 70's when a new "Ice Age religion" was around and now witnessed a new "Global Warming religion" in the new century. As I do in politics I stay in around the middle. How about we just settle on the fact that the world's weather is changing and will change as long as humans walk on this planet. Best thing to do is prepare for either problem. However I think in the near future religion will be surpassed by economic and resources as our reasons for conflict.
Good post.

I am just going to put up links to JunkScience.com and DemandDebate.com. Now I am going to set back and watch the show.:)

Do you want a refresher course? I could hook you up.

that's why we should let scientists do the work and not trust non-scientific journals and magazines.
Fixed the size there. :)

Try focusing on the science instead of the messenger for a change.



Try not to mix up the two reports.


Try not to make yourself look silly with statements such as this.

It was an extremely trying post, wasn't it?

Global Cooling is inevitable. As candidates drop out of the US Presidential Nominee race, the amount of hot air and disturbance caused by Americans and Amerikans yapping and "woo-hooing" decreases. In a few years however the cycle will begin again and tempreatures will rise.

Yeah, but now we have CNN, Fox news, CNBC, MSNBC, C-SPAN, etc. 24/7. We're doomed.

Yeah, but now we have CNN, Fox news, CNBC, MSNBC, C-SPAN, etc. 24/7. We're doomed.
You should add the exacerbation of the election year.

You should add the exacerbation of the election year.

Obviously. But 50 years ago we had 3 years of rest between presidential elections, and the election season didn't start 16 months before the actual election. Shorter election cycles and no cable news meant the earth could recover from the mild shock. Now, the election cycle is expanding to the point of never ending, and the news networks need to spew hot air all day long, all year. the end will come soon.

Obviously. But 50 years ago we had 3 years of rest between presidential elections, and the election season didn't start 16 months before the actual election. Shorter election cycles and no cable news meant the earth could recover from the mild shock. Now, the election cycle is expanding to the point of never ending, and the news networks need to spew hot air all day long, all year.A different color is needed for the current threat level, it would appear.
the end will come soon.

If you can't tend to your own planet, you don't deserve to live here.

I am just going to put up links to JunkScience.com and DemandDebate.com. Now I am going to set back and watch the show.:)What for? I've never heard of DemandDebate, and Junk Science is... well, Junk Science, funded by the tobacco industry.

Edit: Okay, looking at demand debate, the only argument I can see going for it is that it's some kind of "Teach the Controversy" crap like Creationism.

They might not come back on that one ... they also haven't shown any interest in my remark to them. :(Meh. It wouldn't be trolling if it wasn't posted simply to encourage inflammatory remarks.

What for? I've never heard of DemandDebate, and Junk Science is... well, Junk Science, funded by the tobacco industry.

They might not come back on that one ... they also haven't shown any interest in my remark to them. :(

Obviously. But 50 years ago we had 3 years of rest between presidential elections, and the election season didn't start 16 months before the actual election. Shorter election cycles and no cable news meant the earth could recover from the mild shock. Now, the election cycle is expanding to the point of never ending, and the news networks need to spew hot air all day long, all year. the end will come soon.

And still anthropogenic. :p

What for? I've never heard of DemandDebate, and Junk Science is... well, Junk Science, funded by the tobacco industry.

Edit: Okay, looking at demand debate, the only argument I can see going for it is that it's some kind of "Teach the Controversy" crap like Creationism.

It's set up by the same person, IIRC.
Usual load of rubbish, anyway.

cooling, warming; its large scale chainges in relatively perminent weather PATERNS that are adversely affecting species diversity among other things, rearrainging the demographics of disease vectors among others, and really on and on. quibbling over what to call this massive scale chainge in much shorter period then is historically probable ever in earth's history, driven primarily by the use of combustion to generate energy and propel transportaion multiplied by human overpopulation doing it, isn't going to conveniently make it go away.

other ways of doing things aren't all that hard. overcomming the emotional attatchments to familiar ways that are lining the pockets of the few at the expence of the many to do so is the stumbling block and obstical. the only one really.

=^^=
.../\...

Not well versed in climatology or solar science? The guy has a PhD and has Expertise;Solar physics, solar influence on climate change, disruptions of technology, solar and space plasma physics, general radio astronomy, and frequency protection for radio astronomy.


Which has about as much to do with planetary climate effects as you to intellectual honesty. Which is to say, none at all.

Solar physics, solar influence on climate change, and solar and space plasma physics have nothing to do with planetary climate change?

There is not a single undergraduate student, let alone expert, in the field of planetary climate change who would support that statement.

An old saying goes, "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak up and remove all doubt."

You have just spoken up.

Try learning something about a topic before you post on it.

Yes, I'm sure a physicist who focuses on the sun could tell us a whole lot about the effects of excess CO2 in the atmosphere.

Since the sun is the primary influence on the Earth's climate, yes, he could tell us a whole lot about its effects on planetary climate. Focusing on CO2 alone misses the forest for the trees.

Alright, everyone you know what we have to do.

*Gets in car and drives in circles for hours. Then digs a hole into the ground and sets a coal vein on fire and lets all the gases go into the atmosphere.*

MARTIAN WARMING IS OCCURRING!!!

The polar ice caps on Mars are shrinking. Those d*** capitalist Americans aren't content with destroying Earth, they're sending probes to destroy the Red Planet, too! Venus is already suffering from massive Venusian warming due to noxious layers of mile-thick clouds, so we must have moved our entire civilization of humanity from that planet eons ago - see how we obviously are following in our alien ancestors' footsteps? We're even getting a head start on the next planet before we even get there!

<crazed babbling off> Warming has occurred throughout the solar system. We don't know what causes it, how it can be stopped, or if it can be stopped. I suspect it's a cycle. I have read books from the 70's that warned of global cooling. They appear to have been mistaken. I think Gore is also mistaken. Common sense is that we take reasonable steps to conserve without going overboard until more data is available. Both sides - alarmists and deniers - have agendas. I don't really trust either of them. I do what I can, within my budget and within reason.

It doesn't matter if its global cooling or warming. Its a global climate change that is causing mass extinction at a rate not seen in all the history of the earth, causing people to lose their homes to outrageous storms/acts of nature, and will continue to get worse until we balance the system out.


Actually this extinction is minor compared to most of them. 251 MY ago — at the Permian-Triassic transition, Earth's largest extinction (the P/Tr or Permian-Triassic extinction event) killed 53% of marine families, 84% of marine genera, about 96% of all marine species and an estimated 70% of land species (including plants, insects, and vertebrate animals). The "Great Dying" had enormous evolutionary significance: on land it ended the dominance of mammal-like reptiles and created the opportunity for archosaurs and then dinosaurs to become the dominant land vertebrates; in the seas the percentage of animals that were sessile dropped from 67% to 50%. The whole late Permian was a difficult time for at least marine life — even before the "Great Dying", there was level of extinction large enough to be included in the "Big Five".

The current holocene extinction is just a bit fast.

Meh,if true we outsource farming to tropical places , being 2008 I doubt its a huge issues for us in the west however maybe wanna get stock in hydroponic farming... and winter coats

the market will adapt

Actually this extinction is minor compared to most of them. 251 MY ago — at the Permian-Triassic transition, Earth's largest extinction (the P/Tr or Permian-Triassic extinction event) killed 53% of marine families, 84% of marine genera, about 96% of all marine species and an estimated 70% of land species (including plants, insects, and vertebrate animals). The "Great Dying" had enormous evolutionary significance: on land it ended the dominance of mammal-like reptiles and created the opportunity for archosaurs and then dinosaurs to become the dominant land vertebrates; in the seas the percentage of animals that were sessile dropped from 67% to 50%. The whole late Permian was a difficult time for at least marine life — even before the "Great Dying", there was level of extinction large enough to be included in the "Big Five".

The current holocene extinction is just a bit fast.

The Permian-Triassic extinction was a wee bit more gradual than the current one. Actually, the only mass extinction event I can think of that had a faster rate than the current one is the K-T event, which involved a massive hypersonic cloud of burning, acidic debris moving completely across North America, as well as a good portion of the Indian subcontinent exploding.

And this has what do do with Al Gore, exactly?

Because everything has something to do with Al Gore, like World War III and Global Warming, and, of course, he caused himself to lose the election.

http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/1999/gore_war_2614.html
http://www.bapfelbaumphd.com/Negative_Self_Talk.html
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message341039/pg1

After all, that makes as much sense as scientific taking information from Investor's Business Daily.

I love Al Gore.

Try learning something about a topic before you post on it.

Oh the irony. It itches! :D

Solar physics, solar influence on climate change, and solar and space plasma physics have nothing to do with planetary climate change?

You can't read can you? Maybe you've got an advanced form of factually deficient dyslexia?

The study of the sun won't tell you squat about how the climate would work on a biosphere. And if it did, that is not the be all and end all of everything to do about planetary climates. If anything, at best, it would be one factor out of a dozen, equally significant, factors.

If and when the sun becomes a bigger factor, that's because it's undergoing it's secondary fusion stage, in which case, climate effects cease to be important because the Earth will be sitting pretty INSIDE the sun.


An old saying goes, "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak up and remove all doubt."

You have just spoken up.


Being the OP, I thought you would have applied that to yourself by now. But being a troll makes being a fool a prerequisite I guess.

Try not to make yourself look silly with statements such as this.
too late there for Celt. Far, far, too late.

Exactly.

yep. they scared me silly in grade school with horror stories of the ice age running amok and crushing Chicago under a mile of ice. Now they are scaring my nephews silly with horror stories of rising sea levels and drowned port cities.

yep. they scared me silly in grade school with horror stories of the ice age running amok and crushing Chicago under a mile of ice. Now they are scaring my nephews silly with horror stories of rising sea levels and drowned port cities.
Which, just like conservat-ism and liberal-ism, that generational divide will never see eye to eye, regardless of the available information at the time.
The onus is on the group that is using the most research and available information.
Every generation
Blames the one before
And all of their frustrations
Come beating on your door
..
Crumpled bits of paper
Filled with imperfect thoughts
Stilted conversations
I'm afraid that's all we've got

You say you just don't see it
He says it's perfect sense
You just can't get agreement
In this present tense
We all talk a different language
Talkin' in defense
..
So we open up a quarrel
Between the present and the past
We only sacrifice the future
It's the bitterness that lasts

So Don't yield to the fortunes
You sometimes see as fate
It may have a new perspective
On a different date
And if you don't give up, and don't give in
You may just be O.K.

Because everything has something to do with Al Gore, like World War III and Global Warming, and, of course, he caused himself to lose the election.

http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/1999/gore_war_2614.html
http://www.bapfelbaumphd.com/Negative_Self_Talk.html
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message341039/pg1

After all, that makes as much sense as scientific taking information from Investor's Business Daily.

I love Al Gore.
Every single packet you scrutinize & otherwise has the faint hint of Gore, ma'am.
;)

Meh. It wouldn't be trolling if it wasn't posted simply to encourage inflammatory remarks.
True. So few people are so great at that ... except on these and religion threads.

Try learning something about a topic before you post on it.Physician, cure thyself. Or, to put it in biblical terms: "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"
Since the sun is the primary influence on the Earth's climate, yes, he could tell us a whole lot about its effects on planetary climate. Focusing on CO2 alone misses the forest for the trees.Source, not influence. Similarly, the sun is the primary source for your food, but it isn't the primary influence.

yep. they scared me silly in grade school with horror stories of the ice age running amok and crushing Chicago under a mile of ice. Now they are scaring my nephews silly with horror stories of rising sea levels and drowned port cities.
Well, I for one am glad that teachers these days take their information from places such as the IPCC and not Newsweek, as apparently the teachers you had did back in the 1970s.

Well, I for one am glad that teachers these days take their information from places such as the IPCC and not Newsweek, as apparently the teachers you had did back in the 1970s.
It's amazing how hard it is for some of those people to come to terms with the relative ease of finding information these days ... instead of back then. :(

something like Day after tomorrow?

When Canadians are worried about it getting colder, you know we have problems.

LOL! I agree- that's why I hope (and think) this study is wrong. Our winters are already too cold...I don't want them to get colder (and longer). :(