Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Merry Christmas to you as well Bob.
More Global Cooling/Warming/Change hoax.
- Thread starter lonesomebob
- Start date
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
White Christmas 2012
Have a look at this photo of the Northern Hemisphere snow cover. The light grey is snow cover, the white is permanent glacial ice, and the shades of purple to orange and yellow are the sea ice.
In the last Ice Age the northern ice cap covered North America down to the Great Lakes. Look at the snow cover now. Canada and Russia are almost completely frozen, as are Norway and Sweden.
See: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.004.png
From: Gabriele Steinhauser, The Associated Press Tuesday, 20 December 2011 (thanks to Gordon Fulks
Have a look at this photo of the Northern Hemisphere snow cover. The light grey is snow cover, the white is permanent glacial ice, and the shades of purple to orange and yellow are the sea ice.
In the last Ice Age the northern ice cap covered North America down to the Great Lakes. Look at the snow cover now. Canada and Russia are almost completely frozen, as are Norway and Sweden.
See: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.004.png
From: Gabriele Steinhauser, The Associated Press Tuesday, 20 December 2011 (thanks to Gordon Fulks
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Jim, I think you will find it is the permanent snow/ice cap of the Rockies which does or can become glacial. Go to google earth on the date and zoom in.
Pete, no use, the flat earthers will never change their mind until they are told to do so.
I watched a recent documentary regarding the global warming and the effect it is having on the Russian permafrost in Siberia. Seems the permafrost is not so "perma...", as the global rise in planetary temperature is melting the permafrost. This might not seem like such a problem, but the tundra in Siberia is made of a very "organism rich" mixture, which naturally decomposes over time and creates methane gasses as part of the decomposition process.
THAT is the issue....if the Siberian permafrost disappears, ALL that methane (also known as "greenhouse gasses") stored in the tundra will escape into the atmosphere....MORE greenhouse gasses than the total amount produced by man so far since the beginning of the industrial revolution!
We as a species may not be able to stop it...but one individual figured out how to do so. He had to bulldoze down all the trees on his property to encourage the growth of the natural grasses, then pasture sheep on the property to "pack" the remaining snow into the ground. HIS little piece of property in Siberia seems to be holding onto the permafrost just fine....certainly too little, probably too late.
We ought to be worried about the big stuff, guys...releasing all that methane into the atmosphere all at once might well be TOO MUCH for the earth to tolerate, too much for it to absorb and process into harmless waste.
This is certainly NOT a man-made issue, those organisms in the frozen tundra were placed there by periodic flooding resulting from previous freezing/thawing cycles throughout history...but, if not adequately addressed by mankind, it might be mankind's downfall.
Doug
THAT is the issue....if the Siberian permafrost disappears, ALL that methane (also known as "greenhouse gasses") stored in the tundra will escape into the atmosphere....MORE greenhouse gasses than the total amount produced by man so far since the beginning of the industrial revolution!
We as a species may not be able to stop it...but one individual figured out how to do so. He had to bulldoze down all the trees on his property to encourage the growth of the natural grasses, then pasture sheep on the property to "pack" the remaining snow into the ground. HIS little piece of property in Siberia seems to be holding onto the permafrost just fine....certainly too little, probably too late.
We ought to be worried about the big stuff, guys...releasing all that methane into the atmosphere all at once might well be TOO MUCH for the earth to tolerate, too much for it to absorb and process into harmless waste.
This is certainly NOT a man-made issue, those organisms in the frozen tundra were placed there by periodic flooding resulting from previous freezing/thawing cycles throughout history...but, if not adequately addressed by mankind, it might be mankind's downfall.
Doug
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Since that charts has Montreal, Detroit, Buffalo, Toronto, Calgary, Edmonton and others covered in "glacial ice," you might want to rethink who is the "flat earther."
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Jeff, I was in upper Minnesota (Park Rapids) last summer, it was very, very hot and I did not notice any glaciers, but that must have been before the "ice age" began!
I guess we will have to cancel any Canadian Grand Prix plans, as Montreal has been swallowed up by the "perminant glacial ice"
Last edited:
Rick Muck- Mark IV
Supporter
I am concerned as I live in Buffalo. We only have about a inch of snow where I live, but it was 3 degrees F last night so perhaps my house WILL soon be swallowed by a gigantic glacier. I will sit on my back porch at night and watch for it!
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Last edited:
Amen to that.
Rick Muck- Mark IV
Supporter
Rick, I picture you sitting in a rocking chair, with a blowtorch cradled in you lap
Blowtorch hell! I'm gonna use napalm!!!!
Hi,
Really difficult decision as to whether to post this or let sleeping dogs lie, but in any debate it is important to get the story from both sides so here goes. Also, I believe we have had a period of global warming reduction in glaciers etc, but this was mainly down to the natural heating and cooling of the earth over the millennium.
It is one opinion albeit, opposed by other experts (as the article points out) an interesting one with no proof as to who the "experts" are, and it is "The Daily Mail"!!!!.
So children please keep any debating civil please. and hopefully Mike will not read this.
We may have had a mild winter so far, but new figures suggest that we could be heading for a mini ice age of the type that hasn't occurred since the 17th century.
New figures issued by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit indicate that the planet has not warmed for the last 15 years.
This means that we could experience a dramatic drop in temperature of the type not seen since the late 1600s.
The Daily Mail reports that the sun is now heading towards a 'grand minimum' in its output, which means we are likely to experience cold summers, freezing winters and a shortening of the season available for growing food.
Experts say that we are now at the peak of 'Cycle 24' - which is why last week's solar storm resulted in sightings of the aurora borealis much further south than usual.
But sunspot numbers are running at less than half of those seen during cycle peaks in the 20th century and experts at NASA believe that Cycle 25, which is due to peak in 2022, will be considerably weaker.
According to a paper published by the Met Office, there is a 92 per cent chance Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak, or weaker than, the 'Dalton minimum' of 1790 to 1830. During this period, temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C.
It is also possible that the solar energy slump could be as deep as the 'Maunder minimum' between 1645 and 1715, the coldest part of the 'Little Ice Age' when the Thames and the canals of Holland froze solid.
So far there is no evidence of this happening but, even if it does, the Met Office claims that the consequences would be minimal because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide.
However, solar experts believe that the effects could be more dramatic.
Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark's National Space Institute, says: "World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more.
"It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that the sun is important. It may well be that the sun is going to demonstrate this on its own, without the need for their help."
Really difficult decision as to whether to post this or let sleeping dogs lie, but in any debate it is important to get the story from both sides so here goes. Also, I believe we have had a period of global warming reduction in glaciers etc, but this was mainly down to the natural heating and cooling of the earth over the millennium.
It is one opinion albeit, opposed by other experts (as the article points out) an interesting one with no proof as to who the "experts" are, and it is "The Daily Mail"!!!!.
So children please keep any debating civil please.
and hopefully Mike will not read this.We may have had a mild winter so far, but new figures suggest that we could be heading for a mini ice age of the type that hasn't occurred since the 17th century.
New figures issued by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit indicate that the planet has not warmed for the last 15 years.
This means that we could experience a dramatic drop in temperature of the type not seen since the late 1600s.
The Daily Mail reports that the sun is now heading towards a 'grand minimum' in its output, which means we are likely to experience cold summers, freezing winters and a shortening of the season available for growing food.
Experts say that we are now at the peak of 'Cycle 24' - which is why last week's solar storm resulted in sightings of the aurora borealis much further south than usual.
But sunspot numbers are running at less than half of those seen during cycle peaks in the 20th century and experts at NASA believe that Cycle 25, which is due to peak in 2022, will be considerably weaker.
According to a paper published by the Met Office, there is a 92 per cent chance Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak, or weaker than, the 'Dalton minimum' of 1790 to 1830. During this period, temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C.
It is also possible that the solar energy slump could be as deep as the 'Maunder minimum' between 1645 and 1715, the coldest part of the 'Little Ice Age' when the Thames and the canals of Holland froze solid.
So far there is no evidence of this happening but, even if it does, the Met Office claims that the consequences would be minimal because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide.
However, solar experts believe that the effects could be more dramatic.
Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark's National Space Institute, says: "World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more.
"It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that the sun is important. It may well be that the sun is going to demonstrate this on its own, without the need for their help."
Last edited:
Well done, Nick, I applaud your honesty and willingness to entertain the other side of the story. My money has always been on the immense power of the sun in deciding our temperatures here on puny little earth!
Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again) | Mail Online
Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again) | Mail Online
Terry Oxandale
Skinny Man
I guess I can fall into those that dislike being categorized as a "flat earther" considering science (physical, not political) is the other topic (asside from automotive excess) in my life that I enjoy spending time on.
the site 'Skeptical Science' is a nice place to gain some insight more into the debate, as well as the science behind those debates. It won't change anybody's mind being it appears that only those facts favorable to one's argument are the only 'factual' facts. Being that, I felt I'd throw this out to those that want to read more about the topic of climate change, and to those that can grab snippets that support their side (one or the other), and ignore the equally damning evidence on the other side of the arugument.
Global Warming and Climate Change skepticism examined
the site 'Skeptical Science' is a nice place to gain some insight more into the debate, as well as the science behind those debates. It won't change anybody's mind being it appears that only those facts favorable to one's argument are the only 'factual' facts. Being that, I felt I'd throw this out to those that want to read more about the topic of climate change, and to those that can grab snippets that support their side (one or the other), and ignore the equally damning evidence on the other side of the arugument.
Global Warming and Climate Change skepticism examined
Terry, if this is all "science," why does one side of the debate keep getting caught with falsified data?
Terry Oxandale
Skinny Man
Bob,
I think (unfortunately) science, like every other aspect of life, has been touched by the 'us versus them' mentality that is pervasive with our politics and society these days. First it was ideological disagreements that where agreed upon, but not used as a focal point of determining the value of someone. Then somewhere along the path, the end started justifying the means, and before long, anything that could be labeled (tree hugger, flat-earther, and even 'liberal') was given a negative connotation, and anything connected with that connotation was attacked almost without forethought, evaluation, fact, and in some cases, mercy. BTW, I didn't intend to use the above examples as only of the 'left', but I'm trying to come up with slanderous terms (perhaps 'birther'?) for the right-leaning folks, but none come to mind (in fact, I always thought flat-earther was a slanderous term for the right, until you used it to describe the left). An example or the meaness that seems to be gaining acceptance was in recent news in which a dismembered cat, with 'liberal' painted on it, was delivered to someones doorstep. I would love (only for the sake of fairness in this note) to find examples of the left demonstrating that same visible level of hatred toward the right , but I'm at a loss with that).
Anyway, back to my point. Like everything else, science doesn't have an 'immune' pill it can take to completely avoid the above trend which appears to have saturated society. Just as it was prior to the enlightenment, science has those within that feel the appearance of science and actual science are separate things, and hiding one justifies the other. The good thing is that this effect is minimalized by the fact that all scientists believe in the scientific principal, which will ameliorate much of this very slow trend of politicking in science. Unfortunately, the general public does not subscribe to these objective ways (scientific principals) in determining the truth or falsehood of events in their lives, and instead fall back on subjective ways, led by their beliefs and emotion in determining the truth, and stopping at that. Sure it's much easier to do that, but why sell myself short by not seeking what is truthful before I open my mouth. Is it so important that I throw out a comment on something that I may not know enough about to make an intelligent comment on in the first place? I am amazed at how often I hear folks talk about something they know so little about, all based on a small snippet of third-hand information (yes, I'm guilty of that as well). Emotions and faith are wonderful human traits, but allowing it in science brings science down to a level no better than typical bar-room banter.
Sorry about making a simple answer (scientists are human as well) so drawn out.
I think (unfortunately) science, like every other aspect of life, has been touched by the 'us versus them' mentality that is pervasive with our politics and society these days. First it was ideological disagreements that where agreed upon, but not used as a focal point of determining the value of someone. Then somewhere along the path, the end started justifying the means, and before long, anything that could be labeled (tree hugger, flat-earther, and even 'liberal') was given a negative connotation, and anything connected with that connotation was attacked almost without forethought, evaluation, fact, and in some cases, mercy. BTW, I didn't intend to use the above examples as only of the 'left', but I'm trying to come up with slanderous terms (perhaps 'birther'?) for the right-leaning folks, but none come to mind (in fact, I always thought flat-earther was a slanderous term for the right, until you used it to describe the left). An example or the meaness that seems to be gaining acceptance was in recent news in which a dismembered cat, with 'liberal' painted on it, was delivered to someones doorstep. I would love (only for the sake of fairness in this note) to find examples of the left demonstrating that same visible level of hatred toward the right , but I'm at a loss with that).
Anyway, back to my point. Like everything else, science doesn't have an 'immune' pill it can take to completely avoid the above trend which appears to have saturated society. Just as it was prior to the enlightenment, science has those within that feel the appearance of science and actual science are separate things, and hiding one justifies the other. The good thing is that this effect is minimalized by the fact that all scientists believe in the scientific principal, which will ameliorate much of this very slow trend of politicking in science. Unfortunately, the general public does not subscribe to these objective ways (scientific principals) in determining the truth or falsehood of events in their lives, and instead fall back on subjective ways, led by their beliefs and emotion in determining the truth, and stopping at that. Sure it's much easier to do that, but why sell myself short by not seeking what is truthful before I open my mouth. Is it so important that I throw out a comment on something that I may not know enough about to make an intelligent comment on in the first place? I am amazed at how often I hear folks talk about something they know so little about, all based on a small snippet of third-hand information (yes, I'm guilty of that as well). Emotions and faith are wonderful human traits, but allowing it in science brings science down to a level no better than typical bar-room banter.
Sorry about making a simple answer (scientists are human as well) so drawn out.
Last edited:
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Come on Terry you couldn't find any examples of Liberals hate of the right?
A quick Google search will find plenty. Hint! Google Palin or Tea Party.
A quick Google search will find plenty. Hint! Google Palin or Tea Party.
Terry, you've absolutely swerved off the highway. No name calling here. The Left has declared global warming caused by man is going to cause world wide mayhem, and the discussion is over, its time to act. The action is the redistribution of wealth, which means the USA is going to get penalized for being successful, again.
I'm again asking; how can one side get away with altering data to get the results they want win????
I'm again asking; how can one side get away with altering data to get the results they want win????
Bob,
What a load of old codswallop, it is not just the left you cannot blame it one one political party. As usual it's not that black and white.
FROM
The Conservative Party | Policy | Where we stand | Climate Change and Energy.
Climate Change and Energy
The Government believes that climate change is one of the gravest threats we face, and that urgent action at home and abroad is required. We need to use a wide range of levers to cut carbon emissions, decarbonise the economy and support the creation of new green jobs and technologies. We will implement a full programme of measures to fulfil our joint ambitions for a low carbon and eco-friendly economy.
We will work towards an ambitious global climate deal that will limit emissions and explore the creation of new international sources of funding for the purpose of climate change adaptation and mitigation.
We will push for the EU to demonstrate leadership in tackling international climate change.
Ostensibly not enough to try it yourself
However, I have learnt a lesson of whether it was a good idea to post or not .