Is Gobal Cooling a Continuing Threat?

[ibjamming]

LOL! It's human nature to believe in future events that may never occur.

Remember when the media picked up on Nostadamus? 1999 was supposed to be the end of life as we knew it and Christ was to reappear....or something like that. It never happened, but the media had the global population on edge waiting for it.

There was the UFO craze that was rampant for so many years, with news articles and movies. Ever see one?

The age of aquarius? Oceans rising? Nuclear winter? Turkey flu pandemic? Vampires? Werewolves? Santa Claus? Easter Bunny?

Here's a big secret that I'll let you in on. When you read a book or an article, when you watch a TV show, when someone is giving a presention....we all fall into a state of either semi or total hypnosis. Sound like fiction? It's completely true! The mind must create all of the images itself in order to understand the material.

When the brain creates these images over and over again each time we read or hear about them, it becomes a mental reality. It may be completely untrue, but it becomes part of our reality because our brain has recorded it.

This is the technique used by religions, TV and radio commercials, books, newspaper article, even the internet. The more we are exposed to these ideas, even though they may be completely untrue, the more they become part of our reality.

Think about this the next time you read an article, a book or hear a commercial. You are being programmed to think and act in a way that you may have no control over. We begin to see and hear things in our daily routines that seem to reinforce these ideas. We are now a victim of the system that is designed to control our thoughts and our behavior.

The only way to avoid being a victim of the propagandists that are out there trying to control you, is to question and require proof of everything. Never believe anything you hear or read, and only half of what you see!

So true...and I've said the very same many times. There are PROFESSIONALS who study, develop techniques, and COACH people on what and HOW to say things. How to use cadence to tire peoples minds and make them more susceptible. They use fragrance, color, sound, all to INFLUENCE your decisions. Spin doctors...they ARE real...and they're out to get into your brain!

Keep 'em frightened...keep 'em controlled...same old game.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

How on earth did they map the surface temperature from that long ago?

Obviously you didn't read.
Not surprising, in fact, completely par.

Prior temperature reconstructions tend to focus on the global average (or sometimes hemisphere averages). In this study, more than 1000 tree-ring, ice core, coral, sediment and other assorted proxy records spanning both hemispheres were used to construct regional temperature change over the past 1500 years.

Here is more for yo to ignore, and then later pretend never got posted:

Past regional cold and warm periods linked to natural climate drivers

Intervals of regional warmth and cold in the past are linked to the El Niño phenomenon and the so-called "North Atlantic Oscillation" in the Northern hemisphere's jet stream, according to a team of climate scientists. These linkages may be important in assessing the regional effects of future climate change.

"Studying the past can potentially inform our understanding of what the future may hold," said Michael Mann, Professor of meteorology, Penn State.

Mann stresses that an understanding of how past natural changes have influenced phenomena such as El Niño, can perhaps help to resolve current disparities between state-of the-art climate models regarding how human-caused climate change may impact this key climate pattern.

Mann and his team used a network of diverse climate proxies such as tree ring samples, ice cores, coral and sediments to reconstruct spatial patterns of ocean and land surface temperature over the past 1500 years. They found that the patterns of temperature change show dynamic connections to natural phenomena such as El Niño. They report their findings in today's issue (Nov. 27) of Science.

Mann and his colleagues reproduced the relatively cool interval from the 1400s to the 1800s known as the "Little Ice Age" and the relatively mild conditions of the 900s to 1300s sometimes termed the "Medieval Warm Period."

"However, these terms can be misleading," said Mann. "Though the medieval period appears modestly warmer globally in comparison with the later centuries of the Little Ice Age, some key regions were in fact colder. For this reason, we prefer to use 'Medieval Climate Anomaly' to underscore that, while there were significant climate anomalies at the time, they were highly variable from region to region."

The researchers found that 1,000 years ago, regions such as southern Greenland may have been as warm as today. However, a very large area covering much of the tropical Pacific was unusually cold at the same time, suggesting the cold La Niña phase of the El Niño phenomenon.

This regional cooling offset relative warmth in other locations, helping to explain previous observations that the globe and Northern hemisphere on average were not as warm as they are today.

Comparisons between the reconstructed temperature patterns and the results of theoretical climate model simulations suggest an important role for natural drivers of climate such as volcanoes and changes in solar output in explaining the past changes. The warmer conditions of the medieval era were tied to higher solar output and few volcanic eruptions, while the cooler conditions of the Little Ice Age resulted from lower solar output and frequent explosive volcanic eruptions.

These drivers had an even more important, though subtle, influence on regional temperature patterns through their impact on climate phenomena such as El Niño and the North Atlantic Oscillation. The modest increase in solar output during medieval times appears to have favored the tendency for the positive phase of the NAO associated with a more northerly jet stream over the North Atlantic. This brought greater warmth in winter to the North Atlantic and Eurasia. A tendency toward the opposite negative NAO phase helps to explain the enhanced winter cooling over a large part of Eurasia during the later Little Ice Age period.

The researchers also found that the model simulations failed to reproduce the medieval La Nina pattern seen in the temperature reconstructions. Other climate models focused more specifically on the mechanisms of El Niño do however reproduce that pattern. Those models favor the "Thermostat" mechanism, where the tropical Pacific counter-intuitively tends to the cold La Niña phase during periods of increased heating, such as provided by the increase in solar output and quiescent volcanism of the medieval era.

The researchers note that, if the thermostat response holds for the future human-caused climate change, it could have profound impacts on particular regions. It would, for example, make the projected tendency for increased drought in the Southwestern U.S. worse.

###
Other researchers on the project were Zhihua Zhang, former postdoctoral fellow in meteorology now at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Scott Rutherford, Roger Williams University; Raymond S. Bradley, University of Massachusetts; Malcolm K. Hughes and Fenbiao Ni, University of Arizona; Drew Shindell and Greg Faluvegi, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and Caspar Ammann, National Center for Atmospheric Research.

and here is the actual paper which explains the answer to your question in detail.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) describes itself as "a small research institute" that studies "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging." It is headed by Arthur B. Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war.
In 1998 the OISM circulated the Oregon Petition, a deceptive "scientists' petition" skeptical of global warming, in collaboration with Frederick Seitz.

The International Climate Science Coalition is a recycling of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, an organisation of 'climate sceptics' which was caught lying about temperature trends * and tried to smear top scientists *.

This is completely typical of the sources deniers trust. Once their lies and fake data gets exposed and refuted, they rename themselves, repackage their tired debunked lies and fake data, and hit it again.

Funny how the pseudoscience AGW deniers trust in is constantly being refuted, and the science which they rail against stands firmly irrefutable.

Also funny how those who pretend to rail against big corporations and religion buy into the propaganda bought and paid for by those same groups.

Look into the funding of all these "skeptics" groups... as you all are so fond of saying... "follow the money". It'll all lead back to big oil and the religious right.

 

[maryj315]

LOL! It's human nature to believe in future events that may never occur.

Remember when the media picked up on Nostadamus? 1999 was supposed to be the end of life as we knew it and Christ was to reappear....or something like that. It never happened, but the media had the global population on edge waiting for it.

There was the UFO craze that was rampant for so many years, with news articles and movies. Ever see one?

The age of aquarius? Oceans rising? Nuclear winter? Turkey flu pandemic? Vampires? Werewolves? Santa Claus? Easter Bunny?

Here's a big secret that I'll let you in on. When you read a book or an article, when you watch a TV show, when someone is giving a presention....we all fall into a state of either semi or total hypnosis. Sound like fiction? It's completely true! The mind must create all of the images itself in order to understand the material.

When the brain creates these images over and over again each time we read or hear about them, it becomes a mental reality. It may be completely untrue, but it becomes part of our reality because our brain has recorded it.

This is the technique used by religions, TV and radio commercials, books, newspaper article, even the internet. The more we are exposed to these ideas, even though they may be completely untrue, the more they become part of our reality.

Think about this the next time you read an article, a book or hear a commercial. You are being programmed to think and act in a way that you may have no control over. We begin to see and hear things in our daily routines that seem to reinforce these ideas. We are now a victim of the system that is designed to control our thoughts and our behavior.

The only way to avoid being a victim of the propagandists that are out there trying to control you, is to question and require proof of everything. Never believe anything you hear or read, and only half of what you see!

Let me let you in on a secret.

The study AGW has evolved over thirty years and includes science institutions and scientists from around the globe.
Each partaking in their own piece of peer reviewed science literature that adds to the evidence that this current warming trend is a result of high c02 levels.

I, however, do agree with your Different Point Of View that you point out the method being used to reach out to your political base does sadly seem to be very effective concerning AGW.

Mj

 

[Ben Tokin]

Here's an example of deprogramming for you. Mentally accept the opposite of something you are anal about, such as AGW. When you come to grips with the reality that AGW is completely bogus and a creation of the looney left, do some google searches on things like, "global cooling" or "lies about global warming" or "reality check global warming" or "december 2010 global warming myths propaganda".

You get the message. This is not a joke. Do the opposing research on anything that you firmly believe. You will find very convincing arguments for either point of view.

Then, come back to this thread and tell us all about your convictions. Later!

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Here's an example of deprogramming for you. Mentally accept the opposite of something you are anal about, such as AGW. When you come to grips with the reality that AGW is completely bogus and a creation of the looney left, do some google searches on things like, "global cooling" or "lies about global warming" or "reality check global warming" or "december 2010 global warming myths propaganda".

AKA: how to find the faked science by the energy company funded propaganda tanks like greensub sussed out earlier...


(if you're going to follow this advice, then I suggest you also dig into each of the organizations responsible for the 'skeptical perspective' you find by doing those searches, suss out the source of their funding and the persons on their 'board'... then you'll find out that googling "lies about global warming" takes you to sites that are lying about global warming)

One quick google of 'climate change denier funding' and similar phrases will make it plainly obvious that:

Since the late 1980s, this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change. Through advertisements, op-eds, lobbying and media attention, greenhouse doubters (they hate being called deniers) argued first that the world is not warming; measurements indicating otherwise are flawed, they said. Then they claimed that any warming is natural, not caused by human activities. Now they contend that the looming warming will be minuscule and harmless. "They patterned what they did after the tobacco industry," says former senator Tim Wirth, who spearheaded environmental issues as an under secretary of State in the Clinton administration. "Both figured, sow enough doubt, call the science uncertain and in dispute. That's had a huge impact on both the public and Congress."

For once I agree with something ibjamming said... "follow the money"

 

[maryj315]

Here's an example of deprogramming for you. Mentally accept the opposite of something you are anal about, such as AGW. When you come to grips with the reality that AGW is completely bogus and a creation of the looney left, do some google searches on things like, "global cooling" or "lies about global warming" or "reality check global warming" or "december 2010 global warming myths propaganda".

You get the message. This is not a joke. Do the opposing research on anything that you firmly believe. You will find very convincing arguments for either point of view.

Then, come back to this thread and tell us all about your convictions. Later!

Since you choose to debate from the perspective of your point of view rather than actual facts, then I guess there is no debate.
Mj

 

[Ben Tokin]

AKA: how to find the faked science by the energy company funded propaganda tanks like greensub sussed out earlier...


(if you're going to follow this advice, then I suggest you also dig into each of the organizations responsible for the 'skeptical perspective' you find by doing those searches, suss out the source of their funding and the persons on their 'board'... then you'll find out that googling "lies about global warming" takes you to sites that are lying about global warming)

LOL! I'm making a point about any convictions obtained from media or other. The object of the exercise is to enable you to see for yourself that most unprovable ideas have an opposing side. You then get to choose for yourself which is most accurate based upon your own research and not have to face an inconvenient embarrassment.

 

[sac beh]

LOL! I'm making a point about any convictions obtained from media or other. The object of the exercise is to enable you to see for yourself that most unprovable ideas have an opposing side. You then get to choose for yourself which is most accurate based upon your own research and not have to face an inconvenient embarrassment.

I thought he posted already about how years ago he was more of the denier persuasion, and that with education came the realization that that position couldn't be reasonably maintained, that the weight of the facts overwhelmed any ideological or political commitments that may have been pulling him to the denier position.

In other words, if you're concerned about teaching people to do balanced, open-minded research, you're worried about the wrong guy.

 

[maryj315]

LOL! I'm making a point about any convictions obtained from media or other. The object of the exercise is to enable you to see for yourself that most unprovable ideas have an opposing side. You then get to choose for yourself which is most accurate based upon your own research and not have to face an inconvenient embarrassment.

I can accept those terms of your exercise. Now would you kindly show us your peer reviewed science literature that proves AGW is not real.

Mj

 

[Ben Tokin]

I can accept those terms of your exercise. Now would you kindly show us your peer reviewed science literature that proves AGW is not real.

Mj

I have no verifiable information either way. Neither do you or the other guy posting here.

I can read from scientific opinions, but they are just that, opinions. Everything I read on the subject has a caveat, a "maybe", a "could happen", a "may occur" or a "think about this".

I can find no raw data with verifiable proof either way. I cannot see into the future. I can, however, see recorded historical information.

The historical information states that this is deja vu, all over again!

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

LOL! I'm making a point about any convictions obtained from media or other. The object of the exercise is to enable you to see for yourself that most unprovable ideas have an opposing side. You then get to choose for yourself which is most accurate based upon your own research and not have to face an inconvenient embarrassment.

but... it is only the 'opposing side' that is creating the illusion of a credible 'other side'. The vast preponderance of verifiable evidence clearly demonstrates AGW is happening.

anyhow... good thing my position is based on the science, not the medias portrayal of the science.

I have already done as you suggested, I started out as a skeptic, and doing as you suggested enlightened me as to the veracity of the AGW claim. I have no fear of embarrassment, I've thoroughly researched this topic, have done so for years, and will continue... It did not embarrass me when I found out I was wrong in the basis for my skepticism... I simply stopped being wrong, and started being right.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

I have no verifiable information either way. Neither do you or the other guy posting here.

Your ignoring the verifiable information, does not make it cease to exist. The evidences demonstrating the factuality of AGW are completely verifiable.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

The historical information states that this is deja vu, all over again!

No it doesn't. Deniers state that.
All the history does is prove that the climate is sensitive to energy imbalance.

it is naive to imagine that only one thing can affect climate, and every climate fluctuation has always been the same thing.

Study up, you'll find completely different reasons for each major fluctuation...

What everyone should know about Climate Sensitivity:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/detailed-look-at-climate-sensitivity.html
I'll post up the full text once you've all had opportunity to ignore the link.

 

[HippyJohnny]

Great posts on both sides so far, solid debate flaring here. Let's take a pause though and just use a metaphor that hopefully we all can relate to being that we are on a fucking GROW site.

So, when we build a room to create an ideal climate for our plants and fruits we try to dial in all factors so there are no environmental complications such as high humidity, mold, insects etc......let's use the plants as a correlation/parallel to us as humans and the room constructed as the earth/environment......just deducing from this simple metaphor----we should be able to posit that when the environment goes to shit there are consequences........plants die, grow retarded, hermie, and make the environment hazardous...

let's apply that to the emissions, plastic, oil, waste, all being dumped down our grow room/environment and we should be able to come to a conclusion transcending the stats....just my approach.

Best response I saw after reading this whole long thread.

While reading this it felt like reading a prohibitionist reaction when the word science comes up.

To me what is happening is the very word "science" is under attack.

The art of propaganda is super refined and gets better day by day.

We wont have to burn the books, just delete them from Google or edit as needed.

Ever ph your mix and at first it takes a good amount to get in the ball park, then a small drop blows it out the wrong way?

Sure hope the climate isn't like that.

Man is natural and so are termites.

 

[maryj315]

I have no verifiable information either way. Neither do you or the other guy posting here.

I can read from scientific opinions, but they are just that, opinions. Everything I read on the subject has a caveat, a "maybe", a "could happen", a "may occur" or a "think about this".

I can find no raw data with verifiable proof either way. I cannot see into the future. I can, however, see recorded historical information.

The historical information states that this is deja vu, all over again!

Again your logic is based on your Point Of View that you do not think our current peered review system that has been in place for over a hundred years.

That it maybe insufficient in regard to the study of global warming.

That is a Point Of View not a fact based on any research.

Mj

 

[sac beh]

If any of you were students or doing any kind of research 10-15 years ago, you'll remember that libraries were the best source of information. And at a library, you have to have thought out your ideas a bit before reading sources. You need to know if you're looking for peer-reviewed studies from journals, and which journals, or if you're looking for non-fiction books you need to understand the topic first to know where to look, and when you find some hits, you need to be able to discern the quality of the work.

Simply going to a library taught research and investigation skills. For many, the internet is just a quicker, easier way to do the same research, but if you don't understand basic research concepts like separating scientific articles from news/media articles, typing shit into google and agreeing with the first result you find that appeals to you is a common mistake.

The same problem some of you have with separating a political discussion of topic A from a scientific discussion of the same topic A is only exacerbated by internet research done without the ability to discern between political/media sources and scientific sources.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

If any of you were students or doing any kind of research 10-15 years ago, you'll remember that libraries were the best source of information. And at a library, you have to have thought out your ideas a bit before reading sources. You need to know if you're looking for peer-reviewed studies from journals, and which journals, or if you're looking for non-fiction books you need to understand the topic first to know where to look, and when you find some hits, you need to be able to discern the quality of the work.

Simply going to a library taught research and investigation skills. For many, the internet is just a quicker, easier way to do the same research, but if you don't understand basic research concepts like separating scientific articles from news/media articles, typing shit into google and agreeing with the first result you find that appeals to you is a common mistake.

The same problem some of you have with separating a political discussion of topic A from a scientific discussion of the same topic A is only exacerbated by internet research done without the ability to discern between political/media sources and scientific sources.

One of my favorite teachers in high school always gave open book tests, under the philosophy that : Knowing how to find the answers is more important than memorizing the answers.


Back when the only thing any 'computers' had to do with any of the research papers I turned in, is that some of them were done on a 'dedicated word processor'. the internet was a long way off, and Apple was selling the Apple II, and the government was still denying AGW.

 

[HempKat]

See - the tree ring BS is not irrelevant. Much of M. Mann's BS science is based on the selected tree rings he used to prove climate during medieval times. Science is NOT selective. Sorry you didn't know that. There's much you don't know it appears.

Yeah but you keep missing the point repeatedly made that the tree rings don't prove or disprove Global Warming, they're just one of many things that support the theory, even if only hand picked trees were used. You also seem to miss the point that Global Warming is real and not needing to be proved. The only thing up for debate is what is causing it.

 

[HippyJohnny]

One of my favorite teachers in high school always gave open book tests, under the philosophy that : Knowing how to find the answers is more important than memorizing the answers.

I recall many times sitting in a room with all of my sons teachers arguing "I don't want you to teach him what to to think, just how to think". usually met with red faces and knitted brows.

Education at least in my limited experience does not seem to focus much attention to critical thinking anymore. If you can think, you can self educate too much. Now every electronic piece of knowledge you look at is logged, hope you pick the right topics.

I don't have to understand gravity nor believe in it or even be able to see it, yet I am profoundly affected by it.

Allot like climate change.