Global Cooling will kill us all!

[gridley]

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Mo ... e10866.htm

"Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming"

This got passed to me - I've never encountered the Daily Tech before, anyone know if they usually do good science reporting?

I'd like to know if I need an inflatable boat for when the ice caps suddenly melt or a parka for when the oceans freeze. :-}

And while I know that it is probably futile, I would prefer to hear comments on the Daily Tech's reliability and the support/rejection of the data cited than any discussion of greenhouse gasses.

[phil_in_cs]

When I was in high school 30 years ago, the 'Coming Ice Age' got almost as much press as 'Global Warming' does these days.

[Sapient]

All it takes is a quick glance at the headlines of the author's previous articles to see that he has already drawn his conclusions about climate issues, and is actively seeking out and promoting only that evidence which supports what he already believes.

The Daily Tech may be a fine source for certain other types of news, but I'd take the views of this particular author with a very large grain of salt.

[Dark Cloud]

+1 on the grain of salt. Use the same sized grain on authors with the opposing viewpoint and similar track records of finding data to support their claims.

But wait, isn't that what science is about. I always get it confused with science fiction.

[andygates]

The *media* were talking about a coming ice age in the 70s. Scientists were not. Hell, the media get paid to flap their jaws. It doesn't mean they're experts. The experts are experts, and they are the consensus too.

Agreed on the grain of salt, Dark Cloud, but in the case of climate change there is a hell of a lot more evidence on the side of it. Most opposed theories ignore some of the data; the consensus models do not.

[Dark Cloud]

No problem about the media. They're brain-dead. But consensus doesn't make something true. Everybody's presuppositional whether self-consciously or not. We all have notions we want to be true for whatever reasons. Scientists are not Immune. And politics and profit margin are just as responsible for what gets published as anything else you can think of, even more so, since money drives research. Unfunded curiousity isn't enough to get a man off the couch to make a sandwich. So you play ball with the guys who form the consensus. Then you can make payroll.

Ever noticed that Kleenex tissues keep popping up after you pull the first one out? There are no batteries, springs or motors in the paper itself, so I think it has something to do with the box. At least taht's what I'm going to report to the Department of Energy. "Think it has something to do with the box. Need another grant to continue research."

[SSgtMobley]

The *media* were talking about a coming ice age in the 70s. Scientists were not.

Ok - so is the coming Global Warming mostly media then now too? Just curious. Cause I've heard scientists on both sides of this one (and in my opinion well paid by one political party or the other in both cases).

[dogbane]

...

[Barbarian Rage]

AL GORE! GET DOOOOOWN!

[phil_in_cs]

For what it's worth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific ... ate_change
"With the July 2007 release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate." [emphasis added]

On the Astro's BBS I follow, there's a guy who likes to say 'If I need to support my argument, I can always quote wikipedia. It either supports my argument, or I can change it to support my argument.'

Indian's walked to North America from Asia 10,000 years ago during an Ice Age. Its been warming up since then. There were glaciers in the Dakota's then. The glaciers are a lot smaller now.

There are many arguments as to why, but you are correct "it's getting warmer" is largely agreed to.

[dogbane]

...

[BethDeath]

Don't you know that in the future nuclear winter will cancel out global warming. Am I the only one here that gets their info on the future from....



??

[dogbane]

...

[Flying Lead]

Should I be up all night worrying about global warming or pissing my pants about the coming ice age?
Will someone please help me here???

[Old_Man]

Well if ice core data is any indication...the earth runs in ~130,000yrs cycles of heating and cooling (certainly nothing says nature needs to follow that..but an interesting note).

[img]<a%20href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/fl_gladesm ... 1"%20/></a>[/img]]

Anthropologic activities have caused CO2 to shoot way up.... its just that temperatures aren't following. Making the assumption that CO2 is THE temperature driver seems to be a leap. Solar output is the real driver.

The latest data of temperature drop is a bit of an eye opener.

"...it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down."

Frankly, I liked the idea of global warming better.

[mrdbeau]

This is a good graph that's tracked "global temperature" (which doesn't really exist):



Edit: Here's the blog link to the article (take it for what it's worth), but the graph is fairly "accurate" in that it is a tracking graph from the Hadley Center for Climate Prediction, which is an (IMO) extremely biased group trying to prove the whole "man is going to destroy the world" thought.

Daily Tech Article

[ReInventor]

The "doesn't really exist" part is probably key in the above post. I think what most people miss is that it is quite possible for Global Warming to cause a cooling effect in the short term, or the long term for that matter. I know that sounds nuts but hear me out. The periodic rise and fall of temperatures has apparently always happened, but the point is that it is currently happening at a more rapid rate, and at a greater amplitude.

Our atmosphere, and thus, our weather system, is huge and vastly complex. The sudden cooling shown in this article could very well have been caused by "Global Warming" in that the greenhouse effect we're causing doesn't necessarily trap heat, but energy, which can manifest as easily in high intensity storms which precipitate temperature drop, as it can in higher temperatures.

Here in Tennessee this year we have had a rediculous amount of storms, rains, tornados, cold spells, etc... which may or may not be attributable to "Global Warming."

I think that Global Warming is a misnomer, as it misses the incredible complexity and interconnectivity of weather on this planet. Global Climate Change is probably more accurate. And that doesn't necessarily mean hotter or colder one way or the other permanantly, but possibly that the steady cycle we've seen in the far past will simply become more extreme and erratic.

I'm not meteorologist, and this isn't a well researched set of ideas either. Just my semi-educated take on the situation.

As far as what to worry about... it's gonna happen whether you like it or not (but buy hybrid!). You can't fight it like zombies exactly.

[Ovationman]

regardless of what the temp is doing we still need to be more sustainable.

[DFWMTX]

I'm sorry, but every time I hear about 'global warming' or 'global cooling' or 'climate change' and how it's gonna kill us all I can't help but think:

A- if you think humanity can keep the world ecosystem in a static state like how you can keep your home thermostat to a constant 72F, then I have some bridges to sell you in San Fransisco and New York.

B- whatever happened to evolution, to the idea that humans can change and adapt and survive? Humans became the dominant form of life on this planet because we could adapt to almost all the planet's enviroments, from the hot to the cold, from the dry to the wet, and everything in between, and succeed and thrive. And now you want to sit down and not change and wait for Mother Nature to kill you off? WTF?

If I need to start wearing thermal underwear to adapt to global cooling, I will. If I need to wear sunscreen, sunglasses, and breathable clothing to adapt to global warming, I will. My $0.02.

[ReInventor]

Um... not to start a debate or anything, but evolution happens when a change in the environment occurs (or migration, etc...) and those of a species who are equiped to survive do, and those who aren't do not. The result is that the unequiped are removed from the gene pool and the remaining selection of genes becomes the norm, rather than the anomoly. Individuals do not evolve, at least not at the level you are refering to.

Luckily we have advanced frontal lobes and thus the ability to reason and forsee our own fate, giving us the advantage over the arbitrary ways of nature. That is why it is worth discussing - it's more or less our only defense.

[Ovationman]

A very good point and if we have anything to do with it then we need to undo it. The world with even a 3 dgreee temp change is not one I want to live in.

[Ellie With An Axe]

Guys, just look up "interglaciation". It's the stage of glacial retreat and advance we're in now. Ie, we're in a warming phase, where the ice melts, and the next stop is a cooling, where the ice comes back.

Here's a quick and dirty analogy: You live in a house with central heating and air conditioning. The thermostat keeps the house at a constant temperature by regularly cycling through warming and cooling phases. One is the natural response to the other. Our natural heating and cooling phases are happening on a planetary scale, so it takes thousands of years to move through the phases to keep the thermostat regulated.

Make more sense?

[Molon Labe]

Guys, just look up "interglaciation". It's the stage of glacial retreat and advance we're in now. Ie, we're in a warming phase, where the ice melts, and the next stop is a cooling, where the ice comes back.

Here's a quick and dirty analogy: You live in a house with central heating and air conditioning. The thermostat keeps the house at a constant temperature by regularly cycling through warming and cooling phases. One is the natural response to the other. Our natural heating and cooling phases are happening on a planetary scale, so it takes thousands of years to move through the phases to keep the thermostat regulated.

Make more sense?

Thankyou, I thought that I was going to hemmorage there, before I read your post.
If one looks at history with an unbiased mind, then one would see that the only constant in nature is chaos. The planet, and all it's inhabitants, are in a constant state of flux and change. That's the balance. To conserve thru static state is to kill off and disrupt that balance. Are we having an impact on the climate? Of course we are, so does geologic activity. The release of gases inside the earth is a pretty common occurence. Volcanic activity causes more damage in one eruption than the entirity of the first world combined, in a whole year. This change in climate, be it cold or hot, is happening no matter what we do. The honest question that one can ask is, "Have we sped up the cycle?". I think we have, just not anywhere near the level that the most would want you to believe.

[GeneralDiscontent]

All I know is that it's been goddamn cold here, and I'm sick of snow.