Is Gobal Cooling a Continuing Threat?

[SilverSurfer_OG]

Also while i have your attention please answer my question.

Where did the majority of human produced co2 and other greenhouse gases in our atmosphere actually come from? Can you give a solid answer?

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

When you see a sick plant, you have to give your best guess in order to diagnose it... but since you know things that people who have never grown a plant don't know, you're able to make a fairly accurate guess.

Just because something had to be estimated, does not mean it is 95% uncertain. You can just as easily have estimates that are 95% certain.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Also while i have your attention please answer my question.

Where did the majority of human produced co2 and other greenhouse gases in our atmosphere actually come from? Can you give a solid answer?

Burning fossil fuels contributes the majority of human produced CO2.




read both the basic and intermediate tabs.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions-intermediate.htm

and this:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions-intermediate.htm

and this:
http://www.strom.clemson.edu/becker/prtm320/commons/carbon3.html

 

[maryj315]

I'm sure you've seen this before:

Now please show us some of the peer reviewed literature that backs up their claims. Should be real easy given the fact they claim AGW is a hoax, fraud etc.

Mj

 

[SilverSurfer_OG]

Right. You are comparing something you can hold and see to something that occured, worldwide, hundreds of years ago. Science is not based on guesswork. Therefore the maps you provided are an example of pseudo-science.

Yesterday i was at a workshop on 'building carbon in soil'. It was funded by the Australian govt. and the Organic federation of Australia. The speaker was Tim Marshall. He is a renowned organic farmer/certifier, compost maker, author and consultant on climate change and the role of organic farming in solving the problems associated. It was an excellent presentation and i learned a lot.

It was all based on solid science and the main theme was if we use no-till techniques and cover crops ("100% cover, 100% of the time" ) we can sequester enormous amounts of carbon from the atmosphere. We will regrow the fungi network in the soil and produce vastly superior crops and contribute greatly to a better environment for all. Growing humus and biodiversity in the soil is the key.

The delicious irony hasnt escaped me.

Anyway. Tim asserted that the majority of carbon in the atmosphere actually comes from carbon released from the soil due to intensive farming techniques. The burning of fossil fuels was actually the "driver" in this process and not the root source.

Take that as you may. I am going to email him and ask for sources to back up his claim. I didnt go there to debate him on climate change so didnt make a fuss. Regardless the methods he advocates are obviously the way forward to healing our planet for a wide variety of reasons. It deals with soil erosion, polluting of the water table, water efficiency, the threat of GM crops and peak phosphorous.

I will add he advocates a carbon tax. In his words we need to raise the price of fuels to levels that "really hurt" in order to affect change. I doubt it will really hurt the profits of big oil...

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

The analogy was accurate enough.
Educated guesses... guesses based on mathematical knowns and based on tangible data... are far more certain than you pretend. The guesses in that paper are at least as credible as anyone else's MWP guesses. But we could give in and pretend that there is good evidence the world was as warm as now, and it still would not negate any of the evidences I've posted up that the world is currently warming driven by increased CO2.

Mr. Marshall has an interesting philosophy.
I agree with some of what he said, so it would be interesting to see the data he bases his assertions on.


It would definitely hurt big oil... that's why they pour $$$ into denial propaganda... How much $$$ did they just spend in CA fighting CO2 regulation this last election cycle?

 

[HippyJohnny]

Status quo demands no adjustments for O&G just keep on the money pump.

If the cost is painful, real solutions will be found. The solution could be something... I think this guy Jack Herrer wrote and spoke about couple of ideas.

Try to find new and recent information about commercial hemp and the "books/files papers" cost is staggering (300 -1000). Think about that for a minute.

Nothing much in the worldwide press either. Puzzling.

 

[ronbo51]

I just can't believe anyone would actually use anything coming from the IPCC and Micheal Mann as proof of anything other than stupidity. The whole climate change apparatus has been thoroughly debunked when they were caught RED HANDED lying and making up data and then emailing each other trying to keep their stories straight and STILL insisting that they could be trusted when they were so obviously lying about the most basic of premisis regarding their arguments. You can try to run that IPCC shit up the flagpole but don't expect me to salute. And of course call me a science "denier", like that makes you somehow more intelligent or right. Shutup and go live your lives the way you say we should, and after you live in yurts and burn goat dung and eat turnips and NEVER drive or fly again, and don't use fossil fuels or shop at the market or anything that uses anything other than wind or solar then you have the moral authority to command the heights you claim. Otherwise you are all hypocrites who want to control our lives so that you can assuage your guilt.

 

[HippyJohnny]

I just can't believe anyone would actually use anything coming from the IPCC and Micheal Mann as proof of anything other than stupidity. The whole climate change apparatus has been thoroughly debunked when they were caught RED HANDED lying and making up data and then emailing each other trying to keep their stories straight and STILL insisting that they could be trusted when they were so obviously lying about the most basic of premisis regarding their arguments. You can try to run that IPCC shit up the flagpole but don't expect me to salute. And of course call me a science "denier", like that makes you somehow more intelligent or right. Shutup and go live your lives the way you say we should, and after you live in yurts and burn goat dung and eat turnips and NEVER drive or fly again, and don't use fossil fuels or shop at the market or anything that uses anything other than wind or solar then you have the moral authority to command the heights you claim. Otherwise you are all hypocrites who want to control our lives so that you can assuage your guilt.

I can't believe someone would post an opinion about a thread without taking time to read it first.

Whats wrong with eating turnips?


BTW Our lives are already controlled, that isn't even debatable. Ever heard of credit?

 

[SmilinBob]

Shutup and go live your lives the way you say we should, and after you live in yurts and burn goat dung and eat turnips and NEVER drive or fly again, and don't use fossil fuels or shop at the market or anything that uses anything other than wind or solar

Oh how I wish. The world would be a much better place. If people actually appreciated what they have.

Never drive? What about hydrogen? Solar? Even wind.. Sail car is better than walking.

 

[Ben Tokin]

I don't know about you, but I'm completely confused!

Why Earth may be entering a new Ice Age

by Terrence Aym

All data points to the sun as the primary source of short-term and long term climate change on Earth. While volcanic eruptions such as the current one in Iceland can affect short-term weather conditions over a region, planetary climate is governed by solar activity-or lack of it.

The first inkling that something had changed with the sun was the recognition of an abnormal sunspot cycle. Then, astronomers noted that all the planets were heating up-even little Pluto on the outskirts of our solar system.

While climatologists on Earth massaged the data to make it seem like man-made global warming was real, major climate changes were occurring on Mars.

During the peak of the global warming debate, the prestigious National Geographic Magazinepublished a ground-breaking article by Habibullo Abdussamatov in 2007, "Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says."

Habibullo Abdussamatov, an astrophysicist and head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, stated that solar activity caused the climate change on Earth and that observations of Mars revealed the shrinking of the carbon dioxide ice caps at the Martian South Polar region.

In that article, Abdussamatov explained: "The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars." The scientist, accurate in past predictions, has recently pronounced his belief that Earth will enter a "little Ice Age: as early as 2014 and lasting as long as two centuries. The last one occurred between 1650 and 1850 and accounted for many crop failures, outbreaks of famines and mass migrations.

Abdussamatov contends, "Long-term variations in the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth are the main and principal reasons driving and defining the whole mechanism of climatic changes from the global warmings to the Little Ice Ages to the big glacial periods."

If his theory is true—and the International Space Station will be testing parts of it over the next six years—then use of hydrocarbon technology should not be diminished, but increased. Only through technological applications in growing economies would humanity be able to "to maintain economic growth in order to adapt to the upcoming new Little Ice Age in the middle of the 21st century," he asserts.

Whereas global warming would be a good thing (despite the gloomy forecasts) a mini-Ice Age could be disastrous: growing seasons would be shortened, more energy must be extended to stay warm, and food shortages may lead to breakouts of regional warfare.

"Observations of the sun show that as for the increase in temperature, carbon dioxide is not guilty." The Russian scientist is concerned about this move towards an extending cooling period. He states, "and as for what lies ahead in the coming decades, it is not catastrophic warming, but a global, and very prolonged temperature drop."


If Abdussamatov's calculation is true—and the observable and historical data seem to support it—then the countries of the world are moving exactly in the wrong direction to deal with an impending Ice Age. Al Gore notwithstanding, global cooling is much more dangerous than global warming.

"The observed global warming of the climate of the Earth is not caused by the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gasses, but by extraordinarily high solar intensity that extended over virtually the entire past century," Abdussamatov wrote. "Future decrease in global temperature will occur even if anthropogenic ejection of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere rises to record levels.

"Over the past decade," Abdussamatov warns, "global temperature on the Earth has not increased; global warming has ceased, and already there are signs of the future deep temperature drop."

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

So is Terrence Aym.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

I don't know about you, but I'm completely confused!

I'm not, but methinks your confusion is voluntary.

First off... you ignore the lesson about checking your sources
and quote people like Terrance Aym.

Then, here's the information explaining why the assumptions made in that article fall short.
(everything underlined is a link)

First:
We are not heading into another little ice age.


Second:
The sun's cycling is not the major driver of the energy imbalance.
Advanced Explanation

Simple Explanation

Additional Information:
Jupiter
Mars
Neptune

Solar Cycle Length

Do Solar Cycles cause Global Warming

Also 2009 was the warmest year on record, but the sun is at its coolest in a century.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

This game reminds me of Whack A Mole... and h3ad's got eight arms.

 

[sac beh]

This game reminds me of Whack A Mole... and h3ad's got eight arms.

If you were to compile all of his posts on the topic over 3 identical threads in the last year, you could fill a shelf in a respected climate science library with the information posted.

Unfortunately you could probably also fill a few shelves with all the noise and repeated myths accompanying those threads.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Yeah, it's amazing how not up-to-date skeptics are with denier news.

 

[ronbo51]

Oh yeah, aren't you global warming nuts just so smugly sure of yourselves. Just using the word denier conjures up the image of flat earthers. And all your cut and paste psuedoscience bullshit from the completely discredited global warming academic "community" still adds up to the same old thing: You've got nothing. You cant prove that atmospheric carbon causes squat. And all your models and tree rings and ice cores can't prove the essential core of your foolish premise. You can cheerlead for your team all you want. Quoting proven liars and betrayers of academic trust just shows how deeply your contempt for real science is. And, oh by the way, I have read every post on this thread. And almost all of it is recycled papers by known and publicly proven liars. And another thing, almost everyone in these forums whines about "freedom" and "the man", and the horrors of government, yet you are willing to embrace the most jackbooted thuggery that would be required in setting up the enforcement of ANY global warming redistribution scam. Why are you willing to empower governments that have proven nothing but how much power they want and how much of our money it will take to implement another insane progressive fantasy. I mean really, you have the NERVE to claim the output of the sun is not a factor in the earths temperature. Wow.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

nobody claimed the sun was not a factor, the deniers are the only one's quoting proven liars... If you're referencing the "much ado about nothing" 'climategate' thingy... Nobody lied about anything, Nothing was nefarious or deceptive, everyone was repeatedly exonerated by every body that investigated...If you think climategate was about someone lying or covering up fraud, then you do not comprehend what it was really all about. You should chill out quit ranting and raving, and get up to speed on the issue.

 

[Ben Tokin]

Well, I've read many articles from many sources over the years. I have yet to see any consistant or verifiable information that proves climate change one way or the other. Historically, climate is dynamic and unpredictable.

I have seen verifiable evidence of fraud associated with the AGW groupies. I have seen none concerning those that do not see AGW. There much talk of income redistribution and social change with the AGW crowd and none of that with others.

The AGW groupies seem to ignore history. This tells me there is more to their agenda than trying to save mankind.

I'm am in no way a skeptic. There is nothing I would enjoy more than a little AGW right now. When I see graphs being used to show climatic temperature change, and it's always stated in tenths of a degree over the span of more than a century, I never see more that half a degree difference. If the temperature in my house varied 1/2 of a degree, I doubt I would notice it.

So there you have it, if the graphs presented to prove AGW were stated in full degrees only, you would not even see a change over the last century. So, yes I am aware of the manipulation of facts and figures in an attempt to convince people that something is larger than it really is.

Try showing the same graph stated in full degrees and tell me how impressed I should be.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Well, I've read many articles from many sources over the years. I have yet to see any consistant or verifiable information that proves climate change one way or the other. Historically, climate is dynamic and unpredictable.

I have seen verifiable evidence of fraud associated with the AGW groupies. I have seen none concerning those that do not see AGW. There much talk of income redistribution and social change with the AGW crowd and none of that with others.

The AGW groupies seem to ignore history. This tells me there is more to their agenda than trying to save mankind.

Additionally... history supports AGW science by clearly demonstrating climate sensitivity.

I'm am in no way a skeptic. There is nothing I would enjoy more than a little AGW right now. When I see graphs being used to show climatic temperature change, and it's always stated in tenths of a degree over the span of more than a century, I never see more that half a degree difference. If the temperature in my house varied 1/2 of a degree, I doubt I would notice it.

So there you have it, if the graphs presented to prove AGW were stated in full degrees only, you would not even see a change over the last century. So, yes I am aware of the manipulation of facts and figures in an attempt to convince people that something is larger than it really is.

Try showing the same graph stated in full degrees and tell me how impressed I should be.

Post up evidence of fraud amoung agw acknowledgers. I call bullshit, and challenge you to back it up with something more tangible than rhetoric... Like I repeatedly have done.

Please do tell how you imagine AGW acknowledgers ignore history... or was that to empty rhetoric? You mean the past fluctuations that demonstrate climate sensitivity? Contrary to your misinformation, scientists are very aware of history, and completely account for it.

Additionally evidence of denier fraud has already been presented a couple few times in this thread alone... If you've never seen evidence of denier fraud, you've never looked for it.