Our cooling world

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
I'm a convert Walt! I just read an article that says the glaciers are reforming as we speak!

Ocean levels will drop dramatically as the water is reclaimed by freezers atop the worlds highest peaks. Our problem won't be flooding but the challenge of paving roads across the sea bottom. Luckily we have the Athabaska tar sands to help!

Man I sure am glad I read that article and can now jump on board with Walt the gatekeeper of moral values!
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,825
70
48
I'm a convert Walt! I just read an article that says the glaciers are reforming as we speak!

Ocean levels will drop dramatically as the water is reclaimed by freezers atop the worlds highest peaks. Our problem won't be flooding but the challenge of paving roads across the sea bottom. Luckily we have the Athabaska tar sands to help!

Man I sure am glad I read that article and can now jump on board with Walt the gatekeeper of moral values!
The saying, "Less is more" rings true in the case of exclamation marks. One will suffice for almost any occasion, and forming a small army of exclamation marks to attack your reader with excruciating force is entirely unnecessary. Another appropriate analogy would be the boy who cried exclamation mark. If you use it all the time then people will begin to realize that you really don't have anything to exclaim. They will probably assume you have become addicted to their use and can't stop. One of the worst cases I have ever seen of exclamation excess was in the greeting from a personal ad. Every single sentence ended with an exclamation mark. One would think that generally, people want to make a good impression, but shouldn't that be even more true in a personal ad? What kind of person has so much exuberance bubbling from them that everything they say is an exclamation?

Excerpted from: http://dan.hersam.com/opinions/exclamation.html
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,825
70
48
A cold spell soon to replace global warming


13:54|03/ 01/ 2008


MOSCOW. (Oleg Sorokhtin for RIA Novosti) – Stock up on fur coats and felt boots! This is my paradoxical advice to the warm world.
Earth is now at the peak of one of its passing warm spells. It started in the 17th century when there was no industrial influence on the climate to speak of and no such thing as the hothouse effect. The current warming is evidently a natural process and utterly independent of hothouse gases.
The real reasons for climate changes are uneven solar radiation, terrestrial precession (that is, axis gyration), instability of oceanic currents, regular salinity fluctuations of the Arctic Ocean surface waters, etc. There is another, principal reason—solar activity and luminosity. The greater they are the warmer is our climate.
Astrophysics knows two solar activity cycles, of 11 and 200 years. Both are caused by changes in the radius and area of the irradiating solar surface. The latest data, obtained by Habibullah Abdusamatov, head of the Pulkovo Observatory space research laboratory, say that Earth has passed the peak of its warmer period, and a fairly cold spell will set in quite soon, by 2012. Real cold will come when solar activity reaches its minimum, by 2041, and will last for 50-60 years or even longer.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
149
63
Any reason why you're duplicate posting, or did you forget you cut and pasted this already, and only 4 days ago?
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,825
70
48
Any reason why you're duplicate posting, or did you forget you cut and pasted this already, and only 4 days ago?
Alzheimers; only need one book in my library; always meeting new people every morning at breakfast.
 

YoungJoonKim

Electoral Member
Aug 19, 2007
690
5
18


I hope I'm not blind
Wait wait..maybe I got the date WRONG...
Er...er...it sure is cooling!
 

YoungJoonKim

Electoral Member
Aug 19, 2007
690
5
18
So..what's that graph suggesting specifically?
Anomaly of the ice in the South pole?
 
Last edited:

jimshort19

Electoral Member
Nov 24, 2007
476
11
18
22
Zurich
Walter, "Will today’s Conservative government ignore scientists again and implement unfounded policies that lead to the destruction of Canadian agriculture?"

Really Walter? Are you serious about this?
 

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
51
Oshawa
Prepare for Cooling, not Warming
By Dr. Tim Ball Friday, October 5, 2007


By Dr. Tim Ball and Tom Harris
The world is cooling. Global temperatures have declined since 1998 and a growing number of climate experts expect this trend to continue until at least 2030. This, happening while carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions continue to rise, is in complete contradiction to the theory of human-induced (anthropogenic) global warming (AGW). The CBC and other die-hard AGW proponents respond by publicizing selected glacial melts and the impact of dramatic but improbable sea level rises, the only warming issues that seem to grab public attention.


Climate change campaigners are frightened that, if the lid is lifted off the Pandora’s Box of modern day climate science, the vast uncertainties and contradictions in the field will become apparent and public support for multi-billion dollar climate change schemes will quickly die.”Canadian politicians simply follow along, parroting scientifically unjustified AGW rhetoric while lamenting that “climate change is real!” They either don’t know, or hope the public don’t know, that climate changes all the time no matter what we do.
For most of the world’s plants and animals, humanity included, cooling is a far greater threat than warming. This is especially true for Canada where energy usage, and consequently pollution levels, will rise as temperatures drop. More importantly, if we prepare for warming and it cools, Canada’s food supply is seriously at risk since we are already at the northern limit to agriculture.
Even a small amount of cooling would necessitate increased genetic engineering of crops and animals to sustain ourselves and further cooling still would end much of today’s farming in Canada.
Yet, if we prepare for cooling and it warms, we simply adopt farming practices used to the south of us. It is the case in most parts of the world that adaptation to warming is far easier than adapting to cooling. Canada’s situation is just that much worse due to our latitude.
Despite this very real threat of continued cooling, our leaders still press for developed nations to dramatically curb CO2 emissions to counter possible warming. That the forces driving this backwards policy have little to do with protecting the environment was revealed last week at the UN high level climate summit in New York City. Developed nations were chastised for their emissions record in the opening speech by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon while he had no criticism for developing countries that are responsible for most of the recent growth in worldwide emissions. What is now needed, Ban Ki-moon recommended, is “enhanced leadership by the industrialized countries on emission reductions.” Developing nations are merely to be given “incentives… to act, but without sacrificing economic growth”, he said. China’s foreign minister clearly agreed and advised the forum, “Developed countries should meet their emission reduction targets under the Kyoto Protocol,...and continue to take the lead in reducing emissions after 2012.”
But Canada and other developed nations accepted severe targets in 1997 with the understanding that developing countries would follow after the protocol expires in 2012. Now, this is highly unlikely. The next round of UN negotiations starting in December in Bali, Indonesia will undoubtedly formalize new emission restrictions only for the one fifth of the world’s population who live in the developed world. Is it any wonder Osama Bin Laden promotes a UN climate process that threatens to cripple the West, but no one else?
The UN’s approach to climate hasn’t really been about science or ‘saving the planet’ since their Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988. Its goals were firmly positioned in the political and emotional arena at the Rio Conference in 1992. Canadian politicians assume the public overwhelming accepts the IPCC’s AGW claims even though polls show this is increasingly not the case. For example, a March 2006 Ipsos Reid poll revealed that 39% of Canadians believe recent climate change to be natural.
Nevertheless, global warming remains a massive, taxpayer-funded ‘industry’ in Canada. Most of the money goes to institutes, policy centers and government departments that effectively block proper scientific investigation. Scientists who study the impact of hypothetical warming are given significant support even though their research is based on the faulty assumption that AGW is proven. In a frightening circular argument their research is then listed as ‘proof’ of the hypothesis. Dissenting science is also excluded from government hearings, the most recent being the Commons committee hearings into the Kyoto Implementation Bill and the Clean Air Act where only AGW-supporting scientists were permitted to testify.
In the late 1980s, the Mulroney government ignored scientists’ advice that fishing quotas should be drastically cut and so implemented policies that led to the depletion of the cod stock with the resultant loss of 40,000 jobs in Newfoundland’s fishing industry. Will today’s Conservative government ignore scientists again and implement unfounded policies that lead to the destruction of Canadian agriculture?
In 2006, sixty-one climate experts asked Prime Minister Harper to order open, unbiased climate science hearings, something that has never happened in Canada. Like Jean Chretien and Paul Martin, Harper ignored their request. He must no longer. It is time to finally lift the lid off the Pandora’s Box of modern day climate science and let the public hear what scientists are really concluding about this complex and immature discipline. With billions of taxpayer dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs at stake, not to mention the future of our food supply, there is no other ethical choice.

Firstly.....

At the time, 1998 was a record high year in both the CRU and the NASA GISS analyses. In fact, it blew away the previous record by .2 degrees C. (That previous record went all the way back to 1997, by the way!)
According to NASA, it was elevated far above the trend line because 1998 was the year of the strongest El Nino of the century. Choosing that year as a starting point is a classic cherry pick and demonstrates why it is necessary to remove chaotic year-to year-variability (aka: weather) by smoothing out the data. Looking at CRU's graph below, you can see the result of that smoothing in black.


Clearly 1998 is an anomaly and the trend has not reversed. (Even the apparent leveling at the end is not the real smoothing. The smoothed trend in 2005 depends on all of its surrounding years, including a few years still in the future.) By the way, choosing the CRU analysis is also a cherry pick -- NASA has 2005 breaking the 1998 record, though by very little.
Now, this is an excusable mistake for average folks who do not need the rigors of statistical analysis in their day jobs. But any scientist in pretty much any field knows that you cannot extract meaningful information about trends in noisy data from single-year end points. It's hard to hear a scientist make this argument and still believe they speak with integrity in this debate -- seems more like an abuse of the trust placed in them as scientists. Bob Carter is just such a voice, and was the first to trot out this argument in an article in the Daily Telegraph. Since then it has echoed far and wide and been used by Richard Lindzen as well as a host of skeptic websites.
Interestingly, Bob Carter seems to know what he is doing. He tries to pre-empt objections in his article by insinuating that any choice of starting point (say, 1978) will just be a cherry pick with the opposite motive! But cherry picking is about choosing data for the sole purpose of supporting a pre-conceived conclusion. It is not the simple act of choosing at all. One must choose some starting point. In the case of his example year, 1978, it's often chosen simply because it is the first year that satellite records of tropospheric temperatures were available.
So what choices are there? What are the reasons for those choices? What conclusions we can draw from them?
  1. As mentioned above, you could choose to examine the last 30 years -- that is when both surface and tropospheric readings have been available. We have experienced warming of approximately .2 degrees C/decade during this time. It would take a couple of decades trending down before we could say the recent warming ended in 1998.
  2. You could choose 1970 in the NASA GISS analysis -- the start of the late 20th century warming, and as such a significant feature of the temperature record. The surface temperature over this period shows .6 degrees C warming.
  3. You could choose 1965 in the CRU analysis -- when the recent warming started in their record. It shows around .5 degrees C warming of the smoothed trend line.
  4. You could choose 1880 in the NASA record -- it shows .8 degrees C warming.
  5. You could choose 1855 in the CRU record -- it shows .8 degrees C warming. As with the trend above, we can not say it is over without many decades more data indicating cooling.
  6. You could choose to look at the last 500 years in the bore hole record analysis -- that is its entire length. It puts today about 1 degree C above the first three centuries of that record. In that kind of analysis, today's record will be hidden from view for many decades.
  7. You could choose to look at the last 1,000 years, because that is as far back as the dendrochronology studies reliably go. Then the conclusion is:
    Although each of the temperature reconstructions are different (due to differing calibration methods and data used), they all show some similar patterns of temperature change over the last several centuries. Most striking is the fact that each record reveals that the 20th century is the warmest of the entire record, and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.​
  8. You could choose to look at the entire period of time since the end of the last ice age, around 10,000 years ago. Then the conclusion is that GHG warming has reversed a long and stable period of slight downward trend, and we are now at a global temperature not experienced in the history of human civilization -- the entire Holocene. It will be many centuries until such a long view of today's climate is available. The situation is a bit more urgent than that!

That about covers any period of time relevant to today's society. "It has stopped warming" is only supported by selecting a single year out of context and using a seven-year window to look at multi-decadal trends in climate. That's a classic cherry pick.



Secondly.....

Ball and the oil industry
Ball is listed as a "consultant" of a Calgary-based global warming skeptic organization called the "Friends of Science" (FOS). In a January 28, 2007 article in the Toronto Star, the President of the FOS admitted that about one-third of the funding for the FOS is provided by the oil industry. In an August, '06 Globe and Mail feature, the FOS was exposed as being funded in part by the oil and gas sector and hiding the fact that they were. According to the Globe and Mail, the oil industry money was funnelled through the Calgary Foundation charity, to the University of Calgary and then put into an education trust for the FOS.
Ball inflates credentials
Ball and organizations he is affiliated with have repeatedly made the claim that he is the "first Canadian PhD in climatology." Even further, Ball once claimed he was "one of the first climatology PhD's in the world." As many people have pointed out, there have been many PhD's in the field prior to Ball.
Ball and the NRSP
Ball is listed as an "Executive" for a Canadian group called the "Natural Resource Stewardship Project," (NRSP) a lobby organization that refuses to disclose it's funding sources. The NRSP is led by executive director Tom Harris and Dr. Tim Ball. An Oct. 16, 2006 CanWest Global news article on who funds the NRSP, it states that "a confidentiality agreement doesn't allow him [Tom Harris] to say whether energy companies are funding his group."
DeSmog recently uncovered information that two of the three Directors on the board of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project are senior executives of the High Park Advocacy Group, a Toronto based lobby firm that specializes in “energy, environment and ethics.”
Ball's research history
Ball retired from the University of Winnipeg in 1996 and a search of 22,000 academic journals shows that, over the course of his career, Ball has published 4 pieces of original research in a peer-reviewed journal on the subject of climate change Ball has not published any new research in the last 11 years.

Ball sues researcher and Calgary Herald newspaper
On Sept. 1, Ball, launched a libel suit against Dr. Dan Johnson, a current Professor of Environmental Science at the University of Lethbridge and a Tier 1 Canada Research Chair in Sustainable Grassland Ecosystems. Here are the original Statements of Claim and Defence.


......should be a interesting case and will further expose how Ball is just a hired hand for the energy sector.

Pwnd:lol:
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,825
70
48
Walter, "Will today’s Conservative government ignore scientists again and implement unfounded policies that lead to the destruction of Canadian agriculture?"
Canadian agriculture would benefit from higher temperatures.
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,825
70
48
Ice returns as Greenland temps plummet






16.01.2008 Residents insist Greenland's freezing temperatures don't mean global warming has been called off While the rest of Europe is debating the prospects of global warming during an unseasonably mild winter, a brutal cold snap is raging across the semi-autonomous nation of Greenland.
On Disko Bay in western Greenland, where a number of prominent world leaders have visited in recent years to get a first-hand impression of climate change, temperatures have dropped so drastically that the water has frozen over for the first time in a decade.
'The ice is up to 50cm thick,' said Henrik Matthiesen, an employee at Denmark's Meteorological Institute who has also sailed the Greenlandic coastline for the Royal Arctic Line. 'We've had loads of northerly winds since Christmas which has made the area miserably cold.'
Matthiesen suggested the cold weather marked a return to the frigid temperatures common a decade ago.
Temperatures plunged to -25°C earlier this month, clogging the bay with ice and making shipping impossible for small crafts, according to Anthon Frederiksen, the mayor of the town of Ilulissat, where Disko Bay is located.
'On the other hand, it's an advantage for fishermen who rely on dogsleds for transportation,' Frederiksen said.
The mayor cautioned against thinking that the freezing temperature indicated that global warming claims were overblown. He noted that a nearby glacier had retracted more in the past two decades than in recorded history.
'We Greenlanders have acclimated to changing conditions over the past 1100 years,' said Frederiksen. 'Temperatures change at regular intervals.'
Although Greenland's capital, Nuuk, and much of the island saw temperatures drop below -25° C yesterday, milder temperatures appeared to be on the way in the near future.
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,825
70
48
Russia Warns of Emergency as Siberian Temperatures Dip to -55C

By Sebastian Alison and Helena Bedwell
Jan. 16 (Bloomberg) -- The Russian region of Siberia faces plunging temperatures over the next week, the Emergencies Ministry warned, advising regional officials to be prepared for heating systems to break down in the extreme cold.
Worst hit will be the Siberian region of Evenkiya, where night-time temperatures will be as low as minus 55 degrees Celsius (minus 67 degrees Fahrenheit), the Emergencies Ministry said today in a ``special warning'' posted on its Web site. Temperatures to Jan. 21 are expected to be 12 degrees to 15 degrees Celsius below the long-term average, it said.
In the former Soviet republic of Georgia, famed for growing wine, tea and citrus fruits in a subtropical climate, Lake Paliastomi in the west of the country froze for the first time in 50 years, Rustavi-2 television reported. Temperatures plunged to as low as minus 35 degrees Celsius, Rustavi said.
In the Georgian capital, Tbilisi, the temperature fell below minus 13 degrees last night, the coldest in 14 years, Rustavi-2 said. The city is ill-prepared for prolonged cold: During a Jan. 5 presidential election, Tbilisi was covered in snow, and motorists slithered along roads untreated with grit or sand.
 

jimshort19

Electoral Member
Nov 24, 2007
476
11
18
22
Zurich
Walter, "Canadian agriculture would benefit from higher temperatures."

I can easily believe that, but your statement that anti-warming measures by government "lead to the destruction of Canadian agriculture" is as yellow as sensational claims that global warming threatens world war and global famine.
 

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
51
Oshawa
Old Walt talks out of both sides of his mouth. He'll rant about how climate change isn't happening by being selective on what he presents by the denier buisness but if that fails will tell you it's good for us.

Nothing but weak munded blather coming from the ole chap.:lol: