Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global COOLING

[Osbourne One-Nil]

He'll probably apologise in thirty years' time.

[The Penguin]

Oh God, that means we'll all need to.

[Red Raven]

Oh God, that means we'll all need to.

Yep but only 30 years from now.

[noggin]

I think you will agree we live in a self-obsessed selfish world where there can only be short term benefits!

Thanks for the clarification, Red Raven.

There is, I think, a growing awareness of the need to be more socially responsible, but there will always be some "people" (I'm being polite :huh: !) who don't ever think beyond themselves. 'Twas ever thus, I suppose, and always will be. Unfortunately!

We must hope that the level of awareness far outweighs the level of selfishness.

Oh, I sound like a preacher!

[laserguy]

To use a famous architects quote we should strive to always "touch this earth lightly". What is wrong with aiming to reduce our carbon footprint if it means a more reliable, politically stable and potentially endless source of energy be produced. We should, and must, be concerned that we as a species are having some effect on the planet as a whole and to be more respectful of our own home is essential. The AGW deniers only lead to a continuation of the buy now, pay later, attitude - it will come crashing down, the world is a finite resource.

No problem with any of that RR,wise words indeed. However,as a 'denier',and as I have frequently pointed out I don't have a buy now,pay later attitude. I've often wagered that my lifestyle is considerably 'greener' than many of the most ardent AGW advocates. My 'problem' is that none of it has anything to do with climate change,but that is cited as the sole reason for reducing 'carbon footprints'. All I want is for governments to come clean about their motives. Is that asking too much,or is that a stupid question?

[PersianPaladin]

No problem with any of that RR,wise words indeed. However,as a 'denier',and as I have frequently pointed out I don't have a buy now,pay later attitude. I've often wagered that my lifestyle is considerably 'greener' than many of the most ardent AGW advocates. My 'problem' is that none of it has anything to do with climate change,but that is cited as the sole reason for reducing 'carbon footprints'. All I want is for governments to come clean about their motives. Is that asking too much,or is that a stupid question?

Governments' motives are often corrupted because of their partnerships with private industries, offshore banks, arms companies, etc. Obviously its mispending of public money at times and the abuse of power. However, we are all responsible for allowing them to get away with it...to a certain degree.

Real 'power' comes from persuasion.

[VillagePlank]

Real 'power' comes from persuasion.

That's what my Mum used to say to me, too. Fortunately, I grew up.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Why do you think the Western world is where it is today? Progres is progress all i agree with is to stop wanton waste/ garbage dumping. As to CO2 or Nuclear ETC ETC its progress and it WILL continue so get used to it. Wind turbines are ugly, ineffective, expensive and of ZERO consequence...and all the boffins really know that..and so do you. If you don't then wake up and smell the coffee. We won't progress on wind turbines!!! And we won't cool because of them either, that has already started

BFTP

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Why do you think the Western world is where it is today? Progres is progress all i agree with is to stop wanton waste/ garbage dumping. As to CO2 or Nuclear ETC ETC its progress and it WILL continue so get used to it. Wind turbines are ugly, ineffective, expensive and of ZERO consequence...and all the boffins really know that..and so do you. If you don't then wake up and smell the coffee. We won't progress on wind turbines!!! And we won't cool because of them either, that has already started

BFTP

Re above, with all the good intentions folk post and try to do...and they are good...we won't make the real difference. Indeed one may only end up 'depriving' oneself because the real 'fatcats' /industrial giants will just continue and continue. I think we must progress and only technology will get us out of this mess....if that is what we are in.

BFTP

[laserguy]

What does everyone make of this? Before some of you get on your high horses and berate me for having the audacity to even post the link (you know who you are!),let me say I'm still getting my head round it too. It's very lengthy and split into five parts,but the final bit is probably not what you expect. Clue: it would make sense to Magpie and GW. I leave it for everyone's dissection and stand back to see what develops. Note to mods: Really no idea which thread this sits best in;feel free to relocate if necessary.

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/th...ine_times_rule/

[Red Raven]

What does everyone make of this? Before some of you get on your high horses and berate me for having the audacity to even post the link (you know who you are!),let me say I'm still getting my head round it too. It's very lengthy and split into five parts,but the final bit is probably not what you expect. Clue: it would make sense to Magpie and GW. I leave it for everyone's dissection and stand back to see what develops. Note to mods: Really no idea which thread this sits best in;feel free to relocate if necessary.

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/th...ine_times_rule/

Very interesting, wish he'd had it proof read first to find the odd missing word. But I think he is right - over consumption by a greedy self-obsessed righteous species will do irrevocable harm to all it touches. As he points out we are in terms of development still in our childhood (maybe young adults, but still teenagers) period and as such arrogant and bereft of any wisdom.

[SnowBear]

Is certainly some food for thought in those pdf's.

The bit I find interesting is about the content of CO2 in the oceans, which inevitably will change over time as temperature changes. That store of CO2 is absolutely huge when you take into account the size of the oceans. Not sure on the maths on it but, say a minute 1% reduction in the store of CO2 in the oceans, once released into the atmosphere would equate to an increase in the percentage in the atmosphere of CO2 of what?

Interestingly the Maya were very very aware and made sure they marked accurately precession and other cycles in the heavens. They flagged the conjunction coming in 2012 and took many hundreds of years calculating it, and many returns to the drawing board before they got it spot on. A lot of work went into making sure it was as a accurate as possible by a peoples whose resources would have been better spent elsewhere, yet, they wanted to make sure the 2012 event was accurate and flagged for the future. Why? They call it a World Change, the doorway to the New World on the evolution of human consciousness and life. If evolution is linked to Ice Ages and other such astronomical events, and they figured it out, and that the next "World" or "fall into the next Ice Age" begins in 2012, that the conjunction is the best marker they found of logging the time for the beginning of the next Ice Age (and before you jump and shout, it is the "beginning of" and wont happen over night), that maybe they had seen from their history an importance that that knowledge was left for future civilisations, then perhaps we are seeing the start of that process.

Today's civilisation is too quick to discredit the wisdom of the ancients as being "stone age" and stupid, and yet their very survival depended on getting many things such as planting times, harvest times, etc absolutely right. Along the way they began to see that larger, more influential cycles were at play too. In time to come, I feel we may owe an apology to the Maya and maybe others and maybe we should have listened a little more instead of being know it all's.

[laserguy]

Is certainly some food for thought in those pdf's.......

You can say that again! All this stuff about 2012,there's so much of it that is clearly nonsensical but,I don't know. Look at the signs all around; apart from government and associated media the climate 'buzz' now is leaning towards cooling due to solar cycles,not warming,resources are fast running out or at least getting harder to secure and a rising world population is feeding ever more voraciously at the dregs. Amongst many other things. This is drifting from the title of the thread so I'll stop. I must say I'm surprised and maybe a little disappointed at the lack of response to my post and the link it contained. More than twenty four hours on and not one AGW advocate has commented. Probably been stunned into silence and feverishly trying to come up with a counter argument. Relax,there isn't one. There,that'll stir things up a bit! I'm not being belligerant or whatever,honestly,just trying to invoke debate over this monumental piece. Surely it's deserving of it?

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

2012 is the believed date of solar cycle 24.  It was anticipated that this would be the busiest, strongest cycle on record...but by whom?  Yes the very vehicles funded/relied on by Govts.  Astrophysicists have been warning that cycle 24 will be quiet and this is leading us into a Dalton/Maunder type minima...this one will be called Gleissberg.  Theodore Landscheidt was one who stated that solar cycle 23 would be quieter than expected..it was...and that 24 could be much quieter...there is arguments whether it has started yet and is at best 12 months late! So another link to 2012...could this be the trigger to a largescale global cool down?  For me there are other factors entering into the equation...perturbation cycle was enterd in Feb 07 [as forecast by Landscheidt] which is the La Nina dominating 36 yr phase....guess what in Feb 2007 the El Nino, predicted by Govt funded science to extend into 2007, suddenly died!  Why?  Because a new cycle started bang on Cue. So where does this lead me?  Very interesting read LG and quite forthright!  There is a train of thought that mass wars, mass disasters happen for a reason...to keep the population down.  Very controversial and maybe an avenue not to be explored...but that train of thought exists.  For me, I think technology is the only way forward...and we must be allowed to go there because if we don't.......well let's wait and see.This isn't doom and gloom from me folks....but we must go forward, that is our only direction.  For me yes near furture generations face an ice age and the most important sentence in the whole paper is that the 'northern icecap melts which triggers the iceage'.

BFTP

Edited March 2, 2008 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[Red Raven]

There is a train of thought that mass wars, mass disasters happen for a reason...to keep the population down. 

BFTP

In its simplest terms thats the daisy world hypothesis - this a java experiment showing how it works http://gingerbooth.com/courseware/daisy.html

Edited March 2, 2008 by Red Raven

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

In its simplest terms thats the daisy world hypothesis - this a java experiment showing how it works http://gingerbooth.com/courseware/daisy.html

Very controversial and maybe an avenue not to be explored

Just to show the rest of the sentence

BFTP

[James M]

Here's what the MetO have to say about it:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadle...ariability.html

[SnowBear]

Well, I for one ain't going to dismiss anything out of hand, many theories may be correct, maybe be very wide of the mark, unfortunately the proof of the pudding is sometime in the future.

I personally don't think CO2 has as much effect as what is said and that bigger things are at play here, but, time will tell.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Here's what the MetO have to say about it:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadle...ariability.html

What they fail to point out or accept, it seems, is that this La Nina is different to the 88/89 episode as that one occurred in the El Nino dominated cycle. This one has started under the perturbation cycle where La Nina will dominate [be more prevalent] and it started bang on cue too and so I don't expect/anticipate continued warming. There are two major phases kicking in at the same time here. The Gleissberg minima approaches too with expected very low sunspot activity....indeed that seems to have started already.

BFTP

[Michael Winston]

Apologies if this is in the wrong thread, but here's an interesting article.....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7287988.stm

Regards,

Mike.

[SnowBear]

"Extreme flooding in the UK is historically rare; but vulnerability to flooding has increased markedly as a consequence of floodplain development," said Mr Marsh.

"This is despite increased resilience to flood risk through improved flood alleviation strategies, and more sophisticated flood warning capabilities."

I remember us commenting on the fact last year, I guess at some point developers, govt etc will get the message.

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...80418112341.htm

Temperature monitors report widescale global what?

[Admiral_Bobski]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...80418112341.htm

Temperature monitors report widescale global what?

As we are constantly reminded, one month - or even one year - does not a trend make.

And when, since we are talking about global warming, did it become acceptable to disregard the majority of the Earth's surface to determine trends?

CB

[memories of 63]

Morning all,

I don't usually post to these threads as I find the constant bickering a little tedious. I came across this article this morning however and think it will provide food for thought.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7376301.stm

Couple this with all other effects and factor in that gases (like CO2) are more soluble in cool liquids rather than warm and it may be interesting over the next 10 - 20 years (as long as I'm around to see it )

[millennia]

Morning all,

I don't usually post to these threads as I find the constant bickering a little tedious. I came across this article this morning however and think it will provide food for thought.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7376301.stm

Couple this with all other effects and factor in that gases (like CO2) are more soluble in cool liquids rather than warm and it may be interesting over the next 10 - 20 years (as long as I'm around to see it )

This is why the science of climate change isn't "settled", we just have so much yet to learn. Whatever the final outcome of the debate this gives us more time, which can't be a bad thing.