Global Freezing

[alex_7b]

Did it come true?

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...,944914,00.html

[STEVE IN SO CAL]

Alex...where have you been the last few years...trapped in a glacier??? The earth is WARMING D#mmit !!

So take off your tie-die t shirt and join the NEW party  ::

[Tyrone]

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/trendmaps.cgi

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/trendmaps.cgi

It's not cooling here.

[Tyrone]

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli...g_trendmaps.cgi

The world climate trends.

[redant]

It may.....

NewsTrack - Science  

Published: Aug. 25, 2006 at 9:12 PM E-mail Story | Print Preview | License  

Russian scientist predicts global cooling

MOSCOW Aug. 25 (UPI) -- A Russian scientist predicts a period of global cooling in coming decades, followed by a warmer interval.

Khabibullo Abdusamatov expects a repeat of the period known as the Little Ice Age. During the 16th century, the Baltic Sea froze so hard that hotels were built on the ice for people crossing the sea in coaches.

The Little Ice Age is believed to have contributed to the end of the Norse colony in Greenland, which was founded during an interval of much warmer weather.

Abdusamatov and his colleagues at the Russian Academy of Sciences astronomical observatory said the prediction is based on measurement of solar emissions, Novosti reported. They expect the cooling to begin within a few years and to reach its peak between 2055 and 2060.

"The Kyoto initiatives to save the planet from the greenhouse effect should be put off until better times," he said. "The global temperature maximum has been reached on Earth, and Earth's global temperature will decline to a climatic minimum even without the Kyoto protocol."

[alex_7b]

Wow, Dudes. Those links are just  G R O O V Y !

I like maps with lots of swirling colors.

[NM_PALM_BOY]

You've seen it..you know it..you love it..

Looks warmer here to me!

Ironically, some of the COLDEST years on record here were in the 70's when this article was written, including the -17F in '71.

Doug

[steve 9atx]

Doug

That's odd.  The rest of the planet has cooled off since 1998 (2005 as the "hottest ever" is another Algorelie).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion....op.html

(This is especially true in areas where they have taken seriously the uban heat island affect on temperature measurement techniques)

Some folks even think the whole thing is a joke......

http://www.stuff.co.nz/timaruherald/4064691a6571.html

Steve

[NM_PALM_BOY]

Doug

That's odd.  The rest of the planet has cooled off since 1998 (2005 as the "hottest ever" is another Algorelie).

Hey...just reporting the facts from here. It has been warmer for whatever reason. Whether man-made, natural, caused by Aliens , etc ....we have definitely had a warm stretch lately.

Doug

[Nigel]

(steve 9atx @ May 22 2007,22:26)

QUOTE

Doug

That's odd.  The rest of the planet has cooled off since 1998 (2005 as the "hottest ever" is another Algorelie).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion....op.html

(This is especially true in areas where they have taken seriously the uban heat island affect on temperature measurement techniques)

Some folks even think the whole thing is a joke......

http://www.stuff.co.nz/timaruherald/4064691a6571.html

Steve

And there was me thinking propaganda was dead.

You people really fall for this ??????

[edbrown_3]

I suscribe to the climate as cyclical rather than a trend

Heres a jpeg to put it in perspective. We are in an interglacial period after a sequence of ice ages. More CO2 will offset this but volcanic eruptions and variations in solar activity will trump this.

Best regards

Ed

[sonoranfans]

determinations of global warming/cooling are pseudo science, but very well funded pseudo science, so there are always "results" to report to get more funds.  The main concepts are reasonable, but their weighting in actual climate impact is not.  There are so many variables that are not even tracked or well understood, and the statistics are very difficult to interpret definitively.  These researchers are just like the weatherman, its a good thing their jobs dont depend on accurate prediction or they'd be in the unemployment line.  Science+ politics= pseudo science.  By the way, I do think we as custodians of the earth need to be responsible, but the shrill tone of the radicals is way out of whack with any statistical analysis.  I dont trust any scientist who use extrapolations of nonlinear  models on chaotic processes.  They are mathematical idiots, or funding whores.  Nowdays everyone has a price, apparently even renouned scientists.

[sonoranfans]

note how the uptick in the temp of ED's chart is all predicted in the future.  The band of uncertainly depends on the knowledge of the accuracy of the predictive model, which is unknown as the previous data are all fitted, so the band of uncertainty in this obviously nonlinear model is itself highly uncertain.  This form of predictive mathematics is so difficult to get right, and thats when you understand all the variables that have significant impact on the prediction.  The further into the future you predict, the more difficult it will be to get right.  These guys want to predict 50 years into the future, filling in all the relevant influencing variable.  Maybe I'm jealous, as I have to get results as a scientist, prove out my ideas or be proven wrong trying, none of these guys do, they just predict.

Its all just politics anymore, as the political lobbyists control the funding apparatus.

[osideterry]

Welcome to the IPS forum sonoranfans.

I did notice how relatively level the line is from 10,000 years ago until now. If you were living in that upward "blip" 200 years ago you would have more evidence for catastrophic climate change than we have now.

[edbrown_3]

Oside,

That was my point to... It looks like the Vikings will return to Green land

The graph is Eurocentric too !

[Steve]

Another interesting point is that the logrithmic scale makes the curve look steeper for the present rise in temp because as you move rightward on the graph less and less years are represented in a given length of the line.

The fluctuations for the mini ice age and the time when the Vikings arrived in Greenland would likely look much more extreme if the graph had similar resolution to the time beween 100 years ago and now.

I would agree the extrapolation 100 years into the future is nearly impossible.  I would also seriously question their predicted uncertainty of +/- 1 degree while predicting such a dramatic rise in temp (2.7C).

I do think we should be responsible and continue to try to reduce our impact on the earth through research for new energy sources, and calm education of different possibilites of what impact different activities may have on our environment.  Overpopulation will most certainly be our biggest envrionmental threat in the future.  With the dramatic increase in population, we will need to reduce the amount of pollution per person just as dramatically just to sustain where we are now in total emissions.  There's more people living today than have ever lived and died throughout history.

[sonoranfans]

Terry, I am known as "desertpalm" on daves garden, dont want to be incognito as we know each other already, and I didnt think to use the same name here.  I actually prefer sororanfans( I want more sonoran palmettos)  

My point is that time series modeling is very diffucult for complex chaotic systems like global thermal modeling.  All the upward prediction in that graph is in the future, very suspicious.  I dont debate that deforrestation is a huge issue and that greenhouse gases are significant also (but not as important as deforrestation).  My problem is that the data for this graph are, first incomplete, I'm sure that many variables influencing global thermals that were not measured even 100 years ago are measured now, so its incomplete in the dependent variables used in the forecasting model.  Either the model is simplistic, or there has been alot of data fill(scary guessing).  But worse, they have used an apparently exponential forecasting model that only shows exponential behavior in the future.  That is extremely suspicious, statistically going out on a limb, so to speak.  To then assign an error bar to it is just ludicrous.  Because this topic is so politicized, I think it will hurt the efforts to curb our undesirable behavior on this planet.  The truth is more important than "the ends justifies the means"(exaggeration for a good cause), people are too smart to be fooled for very long by such unsubstantiated claims.

The assumptions in such models vary so widely that russians talk about global cooling and others about global warming.  Because there is so much uncertainly in the assumptions, any model derived is lilkely to be way off, it only take s the failure one perhaps one assumption regarding variable influence on global thermals(example future greenhouse gas generation has a larger impact than future volcanic activity?) to just destroy the accuracy of any model.

I truly believe that deforrestation is the biggest issue, but I could be wrong.  I doubt that all the petrol reserves in the world(<50 years worth) can have nearly the impact of deforrestation.  Make the amazon into a desert, it might not return to a jungle for another few thousand years.  

But you know, green house gases are all the rage, even though there is limited petrol to burn and the presence of trees limits the C02 naturally.  We all exhale C02(16%) with every breath, 6 billion of us, we'd better keep our forrests healthy.