[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

August layoffs soared to 15-year high, marking a 193% increase from July.

NYPD Faces Uncertain Future Amid New York's Growing Political Crisis

Whitney Webb: Foreign Intelligence Affiliated CTI League Poses Major National Security Risk

Paul Joseph Watson: What Fresh Hell Is This?

Watch: 50 Kids Loot 7-Eleven In Beverly Hills For Candy & Snacks

"No Americans": Insider Of Alleged Trafficking Network Reveals How Migrants Ended Up At Charleroi, PA Factory

Ford scraps its SUV electric vehicle; the US consumer decides what should be produced, not the Government

The Doctor is In the House [Two and a half hours early?]

Trump Walks Into Gun Store & The Owner Says This... His Reaction Gets Everyone Talking!

Here’s How Explosive—and Short-Lived—Silver Spikes Have Been

This Popeyes Fired All the Blacks And Hired ALL Latinos

‘He’s setting us up’: Jewish leaders express alarm at Trump’s blaming Jews if he loses

Asia Not Nearly Gay Enough Yet, CNN Laments

Undecided Black Voters In Georgia Deliver Brutal Responses on Harris (VIDEO)

Biden-Harris Admin Sued For Records On Trans Surgeries On Minors

Rasmussen Poll Numbers: Kamala's 'Bounce' Didn't Faze Trump

Trump BREAKS Internet With Hysterical Ad TORCHING Kamala | 'She is For They/Them!'

45 Funny Cybertruck Memes So Good, Even Elon Might Crack A Smile

Possible Trump Rally Attack - Serious Injuries Reported

BULLETIN: ISRAEL IS ENTERING **** UKRAINE **** WAR ! Missile Defenses in Kiev !

ATF TO USE 2ND TRUMP ATTACK TO JUSTIFY NEW GUN CONTROL...

An EMP Attack on the U.S. Power Grids and Critical National Infrastructure

New York Residents Beg Trump to Come Back, Solve Out-of-Control Illegal Immigration

Chicago Teachers Confess They Were told to Give Illegals Passing Grades

Am I Racist? Reviewed by a BLACK MAN

Ukraine and Israel Following the Same Playbook, But Uncle Sam Doesn't Want to Play

"The Diddy indictment is PROTECTING the highest people in power" Ian Carroll

The White House just held its first cabinet meeting in almost a year. Guess who was running it.

The Democrats' War On America, Part One: What "Saving Our Democracy" Really Means

New York's MTA Proposes $65.4 Billion In Upgrades With Cash It Doesn't Have


Science/Tech
See other Science/Tech Articles

Title: Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh
Source: The Australian
URL Source: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.a ... /0,25197,23583376-7583,00.html
Published: Jun 25, 2008
Author: Phil Chapman
Post Date: 2008-06-25 02:36:28 by RickyJ
Keywords: None
Views: 1315
Comments: 131

THE scariest photo I have seen on the internet is www.spaceweather.com, where you will find a real-time image of the sun from the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, located in deep space at the equilibrium point between solar and terrestrial gravity.

What is scary about the picture is that there is only one tiny sunspot.

Disconcerting as it may be to true believers in global warming, the average temperature on Earth has remained steady or slowly declined during the past decade, despite the continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, and now the global temperature is falling precipitously.

All four agencies that track Earth's temperature (the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California) report that it cooled by about 0.7C in 2007. This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record and it puts us back where we were in 1930. If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over.

There is also plenty of anecdotal evidence that 2007 was exceptionally cold. It snowed in Baghdad for the first time in centuries, the winter in China was simply terrible and the extent of Antarctic sea ice in the austral winter was the greatest on record since James Cook discovered the place in 1770.

It is generally not possible to draw conclusions about climatic trends from events in a single year, so I would normally dismiss this cold snap as transient, pending what happens in the next few years.

This is where SOHO comes in. The sunspot number follows a cycle of somewhat variable length, averaging 11 years. The most recent minimum was in March last year. The new cycle, No.24, was supposed to start soon after that, with a gradual build-up in sunspot numbers.

It didn't happen. The first sunspot appeared in January this year and lasted only two days. A tiny spot appeared last Monday but vanished within 24 hours. Another little spot appeared this Monday. Pray that there will be many more, and soon.

The reason this matters is that there is a close correlation between variations in the sunspot cycle and Earth's climate. The previous time a cycle was delayed like this was in the Dalton Minimum, an especially cold period that lasted several decades from 1790.

Northern winters became ferocious: in particular, the rout of Napoleon's Grand Army during the retreat from Moscow in 1812 was at least partly due to the lack of sunspots.

That the rapid temperature decline in 2007 coincided with the failure of cycle No.24 to begin on schedule is not proof of a causal connection but it is cause for concern.

It is time to put aside the global warming dogma, at least to begin contingency planning about what to do if we are moving into another little ice age, similar to the one that lasted from 1100 to 1850.

There is no doubt that the next little ice age would be much worse than the previous one and much more harmful than anything warming may do. There are many more people now and we have become dependent on a few temperate agricultural areas, especially in the US and Canada. Global warming would increase agricultural output, but global cooling will decrease it.

Millions will starve if we do nothing to prepare for it (such as planning changes in agriculture to compensate), and millions more will die from cold-related diseases.

There is also another possibility, remote but much more serious. The Greenland and Antarctic ice cores and other evidence show that for the past several million years, severe glaciation has almost always afflicted our planet.

The bleak truth is that, under normal conditions, most of North America and Europe are buried under about 1.5km of ice. This bitterly frigid climate is interrupted occasionally by brief warm interglacials, typically lasting less than 10,000 years.

The interglacial we have enjoyed throughout recorded human history, called the Holocene, began 11,000 years ago, so the ice is overdue. We also know that glaciation can occur quickly: the required decline in global temperature is about 12C and it can happen in 20 years.

The next descent into an ice age is inevitable but may not happen for another 1000 years. On the other hand, it must be noted that the cooling in 2007 was even faster than in typical glacial transitions. If it continued for 20 years, the temperature would be 14C cooler in 2027.

By then, most of the advanced nations would have ceased to exist, vanishing under the ice, and the rest of the world would be faced with a catastrophe beyond imagining.

Australia may escape total annihilation but would surely be overrun by millions of refugees. Once the glaciation starts, it will last 1000 centuries, an incomprehensible stretch of time.

If the ice age is coming, there is a small chance that we could prevent or at least delay the transition, if we are prepared to take action soon enough and on a large enough scale.

For example: We could gather all the bulldozers in the world and use them to dirty the snow in Canada and Siberia in the hope of reducing the reflectance so as to absorb more warmth from the sun.

We also may be able to release enormous floods of methane (a potent greenhouse gas) from the hydrates under the Arctic permafrost and on the continental shelves, perhaps using nuclear weapons to destabilise the deposits.

We cannot really know, but my guess is that the odds are at least 50-50 that we will see significant cooling rather than warming in coming decades.

The probability that we are witnessing the onset of a real ice age is much less, perhaps one in 500, but not totally negligible.

All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead.

It will be difficult for people to face the truth when their reputations, careers, government grants or hopes for social change depend on global warming, but the fate of civilisation may be at stake.

In the famous words of Oliver Cromwell, "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."

Phil Chapman is a geophysicist and astronautical engineer who lives in San Francisco. He was the first Australian to become a NASA astronaut.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 113.

#4. To: RickyJ (#0)

Nice job trying to pass off an editorial as a scientific article.

How much does Exxon pay you for all your hard work here?

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-06-25   11:31:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: FormerLurker (#4)

How much does Exxon pay you for all your hard work here?

So, oil companies put a few million into trying to stem the lemming like tide of climate change hysterical bullshit and it's an "evil corporate conspiracy" but the government pours about 103 more money into grants to people biased toward proving it because it'll facilitate their accreation of power and control and that's A-OK...

Here's a hint, if you're going to utilize the logical fallacy that the mere supporters of a side in a debate disprove that sides assertions, then you have to accept the same for the opposition and in this case the Pro-globaloney side has a lot more vested interests backing it and to boot, they don't merely want to make money, they want to take your freedom, control you, and diminish the sovereignity of our nation...

Axenolith  posted on  2008-06-25   14:31:52 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: Axenolith (#19)

Did you know that the article was based on a false premise, and that the author actually lied about the lack of sunspot activity?

Do you find this sort of "info" fascinating and believable?

As far as oil companies, of course they are siding with global warming critics, in fact they are the ones that PAY global warming critics in many cases.

They side with global warming critics because they do not wish to lose the monopoly they have on the world's energy, which is exactly what would happen if alternative sources of energy were developed to a point where oil would become obsolete.

Do you think they are taking sides here because they are just nice guys who actually care about you and your family?

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-06-25   15:00:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#107. To: FormerLurker (#20)

Did you know that the article was based on a false premise, and that the author actually lied about the lack of sunspot activity?

Do you find this sort of "info" fascinating and believable?

I don't even give a shit about the article. My point was that you seem to put a shitload of faith in the good intentions of a bunch of bureaucrats and politicians who have MORE than the vested interests in screwing us than the oil companies ever have, and have REPEATEDLY produced on those screwings.

So the sunspot article was off, or had some inaccuracies. Your side has fruitloops that claim a fraction of a degree of warming is increasing tectonic activity.

The whole discussion is bullshit. The planet's going to be FINE. It's survived 200,000,000 to 500,000,000+ Mt IMPACT events for Gods sake and still harbored life and kept rotating around the sun.

CO2 levels have been nearly 2000 ppm in the past and the planet was a RIOT of life and diversity then. If the stupid NGO-Treehugger-Gobalist crowd had a pound of brains among themselves they'd ROOT for global warming to cull humans and increase diversity. You know why they don't? Because the point is SCREW THE AMERICANS. That's why all the treaty bullshit exempts 3rd worlders, and probably still China and India and then turns around and prohibits us from offsetting with programs like reforestation.

As far as oil companies, of course they are siding with global warming critics, in fact they are the ones that PAY global warming critics in many cases.

You don't say??? Did you freakin' read what I wrote??? The "I believe the sky is falling and the Earth is crying and we need more patchouli oil and compact flourescents" crowd gets paid about 1000X more by governments, foundations and university grants to spout their crap, and while it's no where NEAR settled as to what or how much effect we have and how bad or good it will be, it's become a damn multibillion dollar lobbying and business machine on that side.

They side with global warming critics because they do not wish to lose the monopoly they have on the world's energy, which is exactly what would happen if alternative sources of energy were developed to a point where oil would become obsolete.

Oil and liquid/solid hydrocarbons will NOT BECOME OBSOLETE FOREVER OR AT LEAST UNTIL WE EVOLVE INTO THE NEW AGES "PEACEFUL LIGHT BEINGS" OR JESUS RETURNS AND PUTS HIS FOOT DOWN! It just ain't happening. Aside from the fact that practically EVERY piece of modern technology you ride in, eat off of, play with, shit on, Ad Infinitum... has a hydrocarbon component, liquid hydrocarbons provide the MOST UNIT ENERGY PER VOLUME of any reasonably cheap motive and power producing fuel. Until you can generate or store on a large scale the energy equivalent of a tankfull of hydrocarbons for less than it would cost to actually synthesize liquid hydrocarbons from something like trash and water you're going to use hydrocarbons.

Do you think they are taking sides here because they are just nice guys who actually care about you and your family?

I don't give a shit what they think of my family as long as they produce portable liquid fuel available on demand...

As for the CO2 concentrations as they stand having anything to do with what we actually are observing on the macro scale, there isn't any. None of todays weather phenominon can be connected to a fraction of a degree change in temperature up or down. The WHOLE hysteria about it is NOTHING BUT GOVERNMENT AND VESTED INTEREST BULLSHIT designed to get us to cough up freedom, independance and sovereignity...

Axenolith  posted on  2008-06-26   2:24:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#110. To: Axenolith (#107)

Other than alarmist bullshit and Rush Limbaugh talking points, do you have anything useful to say about this topic?

Do you have any sort of physics background, or any background in earth science to where you even understand the subject matter?

Judging from your post, I wouldn't think you do.

You appear to think we've reached the pinnacle of human development and that oil is the answer to every single energy need, current and future.

That philosophy is no different than those who insisted that if men were meant to fly God would have given him wings. Even then there were superior alternatives to petroleum, namely hemp oil, which would have been an abundent and replenishible energy source. However, pals of yours such as Rockefellar and DuPont saw to it that hemp was made illegal, so that Rockefellar could have his oil monopoly (hence a monopoly on energy) and DuPont could have his monopoly on petroleum based plastics, where his patent wouldn't have covered hemp oil based plastics.

We are currently at the mercy of those who have bought and paid for the laws which have made us as dependent on petroleum as a heroin addict is to heroin.

Being that the those scientists who are predicting climate change have urged the world to seek new sources of energy in order to eliminate fossil fuels, it isn't hard to see why oil companies might have a problem with that idea, and why they pay shills to screech how awful those scientists are and how wonderful things are for us all, even though we are paying out the ass for a product that could fairly easily be replaced with something cheaper, cleaner, and more efficient.

You pretend you care about freedom, independance and sovereignity, where you don't mind being the bitch for the elites who pull the strings of the various governments to maintain their stranglehold over the world's energy supply, which THEY have forced down our throats and made us into junkies with.

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-06-26   8:54:15 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#112. To: FormerLurker (#110)

Other than alarmist bullshit and Rush Limbaugh talking points, do you have anything useful to say about this topic??

I've yet to utilize a "Rush Limbaugh" talking point in this. OTOH, you've provided squat yourself.

Do you have any sort of physics background, or any background in earth science to where you even understand the subject matter?

Ah, hey McFLY, in case you haven't been paying attention for the last few years we've occasionally interfaced here, I'm a GEOLOGIST in the ENVIRONMENTAL INDUSTRY with just shy of 20 YEARS under my belt...

Judging from your post, I wouldn't think you do.

Handily reiterating the fact that your judgement in this instance is about as worthless as tits on boars...

You appear to think we've reached the pinnacle of human development and that oil is the answer to every single energy need, current and future.

Please just STFU with pontificating and get on with demonstrating how it isn't. Tell me what you're proposing we make plastics, fertilizers, fuel, et.al. with... BTW, it's not the answer to every single energy need, there's nuclear, and coal, but when it comes to the passive generating concepts you just can't get the density to run more than ~20% of civilization.

That philosophy is no different than those who insisted that if men were meant to fly God would have given him wings. Even then there were superior alternatives to petroleum, namely hemp oil, which would have been an abundent and replenishible energy source. However, pals of yours such as Rockefellar and DuPont saw to it that hemp was made illegal, so that Rockefellar could have his oil monopoly (hence a monopoly on energy) and DuPont could have his monopoly on petroleum based plastics, where his patent wouldn't have covered hemp oil based plastics.

Hemp oil is FINE by me, it's a LIQUID HYDROCARBON. It fits with EXACTLY what I'm saying. You're still making plastics with oil. I've NEVER said Hemp wasn't a good idea as a resource, it hasn't even been brought up until you decided to just hump it in here.

Hemp oil would probably decrease the US's dependance on foreign oil, our carbon footprint (whatever that's worth in anyones mind) and create a lot of US jobs. Guess what?! THAT'S EXACTLY WHY YOU WON"T SEE IT GET EXPLOITED. It's like the reforestation no no for the US in Kyoto offsets and it doesn't fit the NWO ideal of reducing and eliminating individual nations sovereignity.

We are currently at the mercy of those who have bought and paid for the laws which have made us as dependent on petroleum as a heroin addict is to heroin.

The planet is awash in hydrocarbons. The only ones with ANY remotely demonstrable plateau in quantity are easily extracted light fraction oils. If anything, we're at the mercy of bankers who've corrupted the monetary system so much that there's no true market response to sourcing and utilizing hydrocarbons...

Being that the those scientists who are predicting climate change have urged the world to seek new sources of energy in order to eliminate fossil fuels, it isn't hard to see why oil companies might have a problem with that idea, and why they pay shills to screech how awful those scientists are and how wonderful things are for us all, even though we are paying out the ass for a product that could fairly easily be replaced with something cheaper, cleaner, and more efficient.

How are we paying out the ass for it??? Measured against almost any other commodity it's the same price it was 60+ years ago. And what?, do those scientists get a "bye" on being right merely because it makes you feel good and seems to give your life purpose?

You pretend you care about freedom, independance and sovereignity, where you don't mind being the bitch for the elites who pull the strings of the various governments to maintain their stranglehold over the world's energy supply, which THEY have forced down our throats and made us into junkies with.

To reiterate, you need oil, in any form, for a hell of a lot more than just moving. The providers haven't made anyone their bitches, the bankers have if anything and at this time, in order to keep harvesting the labor and fruits of people the globe over...

Axenolith  posted on  2008-06-26   10:22:39 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#113. To: Axenolith (#112)

"How are we paying out the ass for it??? Measured against almost any other commodity it's the same price it was 60+ years ago"

Well if you don't view $4 or more a gallon as paying out the ass, perhaps when it goes past $5 you'll begin to understand.

Compared to the pre-invasion prices, we ARE paying out the ass. Gas was $1.25 or so a gallon in 2002, and has almost quadrupled since then. You are wrong in your analogy about the price 60 years ago as well, since gas was only $ 0.20 per gallon, and as most things are ten times more expensive today than then, gas should be $2.00 per gallon, not twice that.

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-06-26   15:36:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 113.

#116. To: FormerLurker (#113)

Gas - ~$1.50/gallon in ~2000/01. M3 supply increased an average of about 15% a year since then. 1.50 X 1.15 = $1.72
x 1.15 = $1.98 (2002)
x 1.15 = $2.28 (2003)
x 1.15 = $2.62 (2004)
x 1.15 = $3.01 (2005)
x 1.15 = $3.46 (2006)
x 1.15 = $3.99 (2007)

M3 should hold an approximately 16-18% growth this year, that would put gasoline at an average nationwide 2008 adjusted price of $4.66. Bookmark this and see if it doesn't hold true.

As for the analogy of prices in the past, within a range of approximately $0.18- $0.32, the same amount of 90% silver coinage (undepreciating essentially) buys an identical quantity of gasoline now as it did back then. You can convert it at any time here and follow it. It will be in shortage or some type of problem when it passes and HOLDS for a significant period of time (like a year or so) over ~$0.35- 37/gallon in 90% coinage...

Oil is not going up significantly, your dollars are going DOWN and/or the people taking them for oil perceive it as such...

Axenolith  posted on  2008-06-26 16:10:04 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 113.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]