See other Science/Tech Articles
Title: Forget global warming: Welcome to the new Ice Age
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=332289
Published: Feb 25, 2008
Author: Lorne Gunter
Post Date: 2008-02-25 17:02:23 by angle
Keywords: None
Views: 758
Comments: 59
Posted by angle at the request of Cynicom: Snow cover over North America and much of Siberia, Mongolia and China is greater than at any time since 1966. The U.S. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) reported that many American cities and towns suffered record cold temperatures in January and early February. According to the NCDC, the average temperature in January "was -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average." China is surviving its most brutal winter in a century. Temperatures in the normally balmy south were so low for so long that some middle-sized cities went days and even weeks without electricity because once power lines had toppled it was too cold or too icy to repair them. There have been so many snow and ice storms in Ontario and Quebec in the past two months that the real estate market has felt the pinch as home buyers have stayed home rather than venturing out looking for new houses. In just the first two weeks of February, Toronto received 70 cm of snow, smashing the record of 66.6 cm for the entire month set back in the pre-SUV, pre-Kyoto, pre-carbon footprint days of 1950. And remember the Arctic Sea ice? The ice we were told so hysterically last fall had melted to its "lowest levels on record? Never mind that those records only date back as far as 1972 and that there is anthropological and geological evidence of much greater melts in the past. The ice is back. Gilles Langis, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, says the Arctic winter has been so severe the ice has not only recovered, it is actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than at this time last year. OK, so one winter does not a climate make. It would be premature to claim an Ice Age is looming just because we have had one of our most brutal winters in decades. But if environmentalists and environment reporters can run around shrieking about the manmade destruction of the natural order every time a robin shows up on Georgian Bay two weeks early, then it is at least fair game to use this winter's weather stories to wonder whether the alarmist are being a tad premature. And it's not just anecdotal evidence that is piling up against the climate-change dogma. According to Robert Toggweiler of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton University and Joellen Russell, assistant professor of biogeochemical dynamics at the University of Arizona -- two prominent climate modellers -- the computer models that show polar ice-melt cooling the oceans, stopping the circulation of warm equatorial water to northern latitudes and triggering another Ice Age (a la the movie The Day After Tomorrow) are all wrong. "We missed what was right in front of our eyes," says Prof. Russell. It's not ice melt but rather wind circulation that drives ocean currents northward from the tropics. Climate models until now have not properly accounted for the wind's effects on ocean circulation, so researchers have compensated by over-emphasizing the role of manmade warming on polar ice melt. But when Profs. Toggweiler and Russell rejigged their model to include the 40-year cycle of winds away from the equator (then back towards it again), the role of ocean currents bringing warm southern waters to the north was obvious in the current Arctic warming. Last month, Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, shrugged off manmade climate change as "a drop in the bucket." Showing that solar activity has entered an inactive phase, Prof. Sorokhtin advised people to "stock up on fur coats." He is not alone. Kenneth Tapping of our own National Research Council, who oversees a giant radio telescope focused on the sun, is convinced we are in for a long period of severely cold weather if sunspot activity does not pick up soon. The last time the sun was this inactive, Earth suffered the Little Ice Age that lasted about five centuries and ended in 1850. Crops failed through killer frosts and drought. Famine, plague and war were widespread. Harbours froze, so did rivers, and trade ceased. It's way too early to claim the same is about to happen again, but then it's way too early for the hysteria of the global warmers, too.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: angle, Cynicom, *Global Climate Change* (#0)
Just remember it is technically called Global Climate Change - IOW, anything way out of the ordinary could happen. China is having a really bad winter, snow has been reported in the south, where it is unheard of.
'He will make Cheney look like Gandhi.' All of the changes bear watching.
"Just sit back, don't do anything about it and everything will work out. Hahaha." - Deek Jackson
At least this one is rational, no dooms day scenario. And not that long ago Greenland had farmers. Then the ice showed up.
But, but, but, but....all the "climate change" people say the Sun has nothing to do with it! Wankers...
America is not at war. The military is at war. America is at the mall and the Congress is out to lunch.
I don't think the experts say sun spots have no impact, but that there is another factor at play now too.
'He will make Cheney look like Gandhi.' The experts keep saying that Solar Activity has no effect. Its all Greenhouse Gas emissions.
America is not at war. The military is at war. America is at the mall and the Congress is out to lunch.
No they don't, they are just more concerned about the rapid increase in CO2 that's all. Look at that link, it's basic science, and it includes solar activity. Also, we have no control over solar activity, but perhaps we can control some of the CO2.
'He will make Cheney look like Gandhi.' I don't know of anyone who is suggesting that we are heading into another Maunder Minimum yet. Most are suggesting a Dalton type minimum though. That's the problem, what exactly is out of the ordinary?
CO2 has been higher in the past as well as temperatures and we are already moving to cut emissions so what is the problem?
If you believe the data of the ice core samples then the CO2 today is much higher than any in the past. Most scientists to believe it. If it is caused by the burning of fossil fuels, then we could be looking at alternative energy sources. That's a good idea anyway, less dependence on foreign oil and less need for foreign wars.
'He will make Cheney look like Gandhi.' The bears watch all of the changes.
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
Here is a fact; the more CO2 there is, the more green plants there are. Period.
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
I don't. There has been a few recent studies to show they are wrong. Climate and the Carboniferous Period The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming. farmfriend's unnamed experts say otherwise and everything's hunky dory. Don't bring up facts. It just causes rhetorical hysteria.
"Just sit back, don't do anything about it and everything will work out. Hahaha." - Deek Jackson
Bump
"Just sit back, don't do anything about it and everything will work out. Hahaha." - Deek Jackson
Gee, you didn't ask Robin to source her stuff.
How much data over how long a period has there been recorded sun-spot activity?
"Just sit back, don't do anything about it and everything will work out. Hahaha." - Deek Jackson
Climate Change: Incorrect information on pre-industrial CO2 History of study into solar variations Around 1900, researchers began to explore connections between solar variations and weather on Earth. Of particular note is the work of Charles Greeley Abbot. Abbot was assigned by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory (SAO) to detect changes in the radiation of the Sun. His team had to begin by inventing instruments to measure solar radiation. Later, when Abbot was head of the SAO, it established a solar station at Calama, Chile to complement its data from Mount Wilson Observatory. He detected 27 harmonic periods within the 273-month Hale cycles, including 7, 13, and 39 month patterns. He looked for connections to weather by means such as matching opposing solar trends during a month to opposing temperature and precipitation trends in cities. With the advent of dendrochronology, scientists such as Waldo S. Glock attempted to connect variation in tree growth to periodic solar variations in the extant record and infer long-term secular variability in the solar constant from similar variations in millennial-scale chronologies.[9] Statistical studies that correlate weather and climate with solar activity have been popular for centuries, dating back at least to 1801, when William Herschel noted an apparent connection between wheat prices and sunspot records [1]. They now often involve high-density global datasets compiled from surface networks and weather satellite observations and/or the forcing of climate models with synthetic or observed solar variability to investigate the detailed processes by which the effects of solar variations propagate through the Earth's climate system.[10] Uh, what makes you say that? From much of what I've read, the role of the sun is not disputed, it's the matter of not making things worse than they already are..
Where have you read that?
It was about an average winter in this part of Texas. And we had no frozen precip at all. Usually we at least have some sleet or freezing rain. The lowest it ever got was to the upper teens. Usually it gets to the lower teens at least once a winter (or used to until about 20 years ago when I sensed it becoming a bit warmer overall in these parts).
“I would give no thought of what the world might say of me, if I could only transmit to posterity the reputation of an honest man.” - Sam Houston
Just one of a few that have come out recently. 'Sun not responsible for climate change' The problem with this is that solar cycle 23 was extemely active. It peaked in 1998, remember that hot year?
Another fact is, the more CO2 there is, the warmer the atmosphere becomes. The warmer the atmosphere becomes, the more CO2 is generated by the earth. And so forth and so forth... Natural cycles balance out over time, however, with the input of manmade CO2 into the picture, natural cycles are no longer in balance, and can possibly go out of control. It is that possibility that concerns scientists, and certainly qualifies for more extensive scrutiny.
And the lusher the earth becomes. I fail to see any problem with that. Esp. when the so-called problem is being used as an excuse to tax and control rather than address the myrid problem that DO exist. And the first thing that needs to be done is find a replacement for gas engines. Want to bet on that happening?
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
Hmmm. Well now I might just have to rethink my position, as it does appear that the solar output has remained fairly consistent. I do remember looking up that info several years ago and found that solar output had not increased over the past several decades or so. Even with increased sunspot activity, the amount of thermal energy was about the same, from what I remember. However, there might be more solar radiation in terms of X-rays and cosmic rays that aren't being included in the analysis. I'll have to look it up. If I find anything interesting, I'll post it.
That's my take on it. Apparently nothing humans do has any effect according to those who pooh pooh climate change observations. It makes sense to me that if Sudbury Canada causes acid rain in the Fingerlakes New York, more and different releases of a variety of chemicals may have other drastic effects that should be monitored and evaluated.
"Just sit back, don't do anything about it and everything will work out. Hahaha." - Deek Jackson
They already have them. Look at hybrids, or hydrogen fuel engines. In fact, if hydrogen can be produced from sea water, we might have an unlimited source of fuel in the not-so distant future.
Sun spots are associated with UV output. I have asked my climate friends for an analysis of that article just for the hell of it.
The surface of Venus is an example of what could happen. Look it up, the surface temperatures are around 800-900 °F, just a tad bit too hot for the casual sunbather I believe.. Isn't Venus a little closer to the Sun than we are? But I forget; according to global warming "scientists" - the Sun has no effect on warming, which is why, obviously, Pluto is a tropical paradise.... You'll excuse me while I mock the fools.
America is not at war. The military is at war. America is at the mall and the Congress is out to lunch.
Not really. The numbers don't match apparently. I don't have a link handy to back that up. I'll look around for one.
Yes, but it's hotter than the planet Mercury, which is a LOT closer to the Sun than Venus is, and that is due to Venus' carbon dioxide atmosphere reflecting the heat back to the planet as it tries to escape. Look it up. And BTW, Venus is much closer to the Earth than it is to the Sun. Mind you this is from Realclimate which is a well known warmaholics site. You cannot deny the fact that Venus' surface temperatures are largely due to the greenhouse effect.
Here's a little further info on Venus, and what a runaway greenhouse effect really is... From Wikipedia I will give all of you a little clue as to what is going on; stop paying attention to the non-sense that is going around and which is being used to distract you from what is REALLY happening. Kamala just posted the above: I would STRONGLY urge you to read it.... like twice starting RIGHT NOW.
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
And that, my friend, is the real answer. CO2 is nothing compared to water vapor in terms of creating a Greenhouse Effect.
America is not at war. The military is at war. America is at the mall and the Congress is out to lunch.
I did, there is a link that I posted on this thread and referred to again. Also, it has been sourced to you on a number of occasions.
'He will make Cheney look like Gandhi.'
Comments (41 - 59) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
U.S. conservative pundit Pat Buchanan, imagining presidential hopeful John McCain in the White House.
#2. To: robin (#1)
Global Climate Change
#3. To: robin (#1)
#4. To: angle (#0)
we are in for a long period of severely cold weather if sunspot activity does not pick up soon
#5. To: mirage (#4)
U.S. conservative pundit Pat Buchanan, imagining presidential hopeful John McCain in the White House.
#6. To: robin (#5)
#7. To: mirage (#6)
U.S. conservative pundit Pat Buchanan, imagining presidential hopeful John McCain in the White House.
#8. To: angle, robin, *Agriculture-Environment* (#0)
The last time the sun was this inactive, Earth suffered the Little Ice Age that lasted about five centuries and ended in 1850. Crops failed through killer frosts and drought. Famine, plague and war were widespread. Harbours froze, so did rivers, and trade ceased.
Why do we fall sir? So we can learn to pick ourselves up. -- Alfred, Batman Begins
#9. To: robin (#1)
anything way out of the ordinary could happen.
Why do we fall sir? So we can learn to pick ourselves up. -- Alfred, Batman Begins
#10. To: robin, mirage (#7)
No they don't, they are just more concerned about the rapid increase in CO2 that's all.
Why do we fall sir? So we can learn to pick ourselves up. -- Alfred, Batman Begins
#11. To: farmfriend, mirage (#10)
U.S. conservative pundit Pat Buchanan, imagining presidential hopeful John McCain in the White House.
#12. To: angle (#2)
All of the changes bear watching.
#13. To: robin, mirage (#7)
Also, we have no control over solar activity, but perhaps we can control some of the CO2.
#14. To: robin, mirage (#11)
(Edited)
If you believe the data of the ice core samples
There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.
Why do we fall sir? So we can learn to pick ourselves up. -- Alfred, Batman Begins
#15. To: mirage, robin, farmfriend (#6)
The experts keep saying that Solar Activity has no effect. Its all Greenhouse Gas emissions.
#16. To: robin (#11)
If you believe the data of the ice core samples then the CO2 today is much higher than any in the past.
#17. To: angle, robin (#16)
Bump
Why do we fall sir? So we can learn to pick ourselves up. -- Alfred, Batman Begins
#18. To: All, robin (#0)
The last time the sun was this inactive
#19. To: robin, mirage, angle (#11)
If you believe the data of the ice core samples then the CO2 today is much higher than any in the past.
Statement of Prof. Zbigniew Jaworowski
Chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection
Warsaw, Poland The notion of low pre-industrial CO2 atmospheric level, based on such poor knowledge, became a widely accepted Holy Grail of climate warming models. The modelers ignored the evidence from direct measurements of CO2 in atmospheric air indicating that in 19th century its average concentration was 335 ppmv[11] (Figure 2). In Figure 2 encircled values show a biased selection of data used to demonstrate that in 19th century atmosphere the CO2 level was 292 ppmv[12]. A study of stomatal frequency in fossil leaves from Holocene lake deposits in Denmark, showing that 9400 years ago CO2 atmospheric level was 333 ppmv, and 9600 years ago 348 ppmv, falsify the concept of stabilized and low CO2 air concentration until the advent of industrial revolution [13].
Why do we fall sir? So we can learn to pick ourselves up. -- Alfred, Batman Begins
#20. To: angle, robin (#18)
How much data over how long a period has there been recorded sun-spot activity?
The longest recorded aspect of solar variations are changes in sunspots. The first record of sunspots dates to around 800 BC in China and the oldest surviving drawing of a sunspot dates to 1128. In 1610, astronomers began using the telescope to make observations of sunspots and their motions. Initial study was focused on their nature and behavior.[7] Although the physical aspects of sunspots were not identified until the 1900s, observations continued. Study was hampered during the 1600s and 1700s due to the low number of sunspots during what is now recognized as an extended period of low solar activity, known as the Maunder Minimum. By the 1800s, there was a long enough record of sunspot numbers to infer periodic cycles in sunspot activity. In 1845, Princeton University professors Joseph Henry and Stephen Alexander observed the Sun with a thermopile and determined that sunspots emitted less radiation than surrounding areas of the Sun. The emission of higher than average amounts of radiation later were observed from the solar faculae.[8]
Why do we fall sir? So we can learn to pick ourselves up. -- Alfred, Batman Begins
#21. To: mirage (#4)
But, but, but, but....all the "climate change" people say the Sun has nothing to do with it!
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#22. To: mirage (#6)
The experts keep saying that Solar Activity has no effect. Its all Greenhouse Gas emissions.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#23. To: angle (#0)
#24. To: FormerLurker, mirage (#22)
Where have you read that?
By Roger Highfield, Science Editor
Why do we fall sir? So we can learn to pick ourselves up. -- Alfred, Batman Begins
#25. To: richard9151 (#13)
Here is a fact; the more CO2 there is, the more green plants there are.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#26. To: FormerLurker (#25)
Another fact is, the more CO2 there is, the warmer the atmosphere becomes. The warmer the atmosphere becomes, the more CO2 is generated by the earth.
#27. To: farmfriend (#24)
'Sun not responsible for climate change' By Roger Highfield, Science Editor
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#28. To: FormerLurker (#21)
the role of the sun is not disputed, it's the matter of not making things worse than they already are..
#29. To: richard9151 (#26)
And the first thing that needs to be done is find a replacement for gas engines. Want to bet on that happening?
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#30. To: FormerLurker (#27)
However, there might be more solar radiation in terms of X-rays and cosmic rays that aren't being included in the analysis.
Why do we fall sir? So we can learn to pick ourselves up. -- Alfred, Batman Begins
#31. To: richard9151 (#26)
And the lusher the earth becomes. I fail to see any problem with that.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#32. To: FormerLurker (#31)
#33. To: FormerLurker (#31)
The surface of Venus is an example of what could happen.
Why do we fall sir? So we can learn to pick ourselves up. -- Alfred, Batman Begins
#34. To: mirage (#32)
(Edited)
Isn't Venus a little closer to the Sun than we are?
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#35. To: FormerLurker (#31)
The surface of Venus is an example of what could happen.
Although most of the warm surface temperature of Venus is accounted for by its CO2 greenhouse effect, there are suggestions that it is warmer than it should be on the basis of CO2 alone. There are various theories that have been proposed for the source of the additional greenhouse effect, and sorting this out will be one of the major objectives of Venus Express.
Why do we fall sir? So we can learn to pick ourselves up. -- Alfred, Batman Begins
#36. To: farmfriend (#35)
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#37. To: mirage, richard9151, farmfriend (#32)
Studies have suggested that several billion years ago Venus's atmosphere was much more like Earth's than it is now, and that there were probably substantial quantities of liquid water on the surface, but a runaway greenhouse effect was caused by the evaporation of that original water, which generated a critical level of greenhouse gases in its atmosphere.[20]
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#38. To: FormerLurker, mirage, farmfriend, all (#37)
The Worst Is Yet To Come
#39. To: FormerLurker (#37)
evaporation of that original water
#40. To: farmfriend, angle (#17)
U.S. conservative pundit Pat Buchanan, imagining presidential hopeful John McCain in the White House.
.
.
.