Interesting disprovement of human produced global warming.
- Thread starter darrel
- Start date
TheButterHashira
Active member
I think we have a minimal impact, and how do we know that the climate right now is the perfect climate for the planet? The normal state of the earth through it's history has been ice age, we have just been lucky enough to have about 8000 years of warm climate.The new york times has predicted drastic climate changes(warmer and cooler) 5 times over the past 120 years. Climate change bullshit isn't new. I still think it's good for people to take care of the earth but it is also wrong to put too strict environmental regulations because that destroys peoples livelyhood. A good example is the tree-hugging pricks who protest logging forests but for some dude cutting down that tree is what is going to feed his kids. Who is some smelly hippy to tell an honest man not to cut that tree down? I guess what I'm trying to get to in the second part of this rant is that we need moderate environmental regulations.
funk.
Active member
^ I have to agree with you on most points there but in regards to the logging example.. If you live near it you definitely see the hippy side. Personally greenie hippy fucks piss me off but the way logging is affecting the mountain sides of Southeast AK is ridiculous. Its not some logger going out and cutting down a tree to build a cabin to shelter his kids.. Its fucking conservative (don't hate because in this situation its true) who don't give a shit, coming through and ripping up as much land as they can to make an extra buck. sorry this is completely off topic.
I'll add something to the thread though
I agree fully with what the creator said. Though if you just look at the smog and shit in big cities.. I'd love to see the pollution go away because it actually IS harming us.
I'll add something to the thread though
I agree fully with what the creator said. Though if you just look at the smog and shit in big cities.. I'd love to see the pollution go away because it actually IS harming us.
Freeskier83
Member
I was reading today on James Clark Ross who first charted the Ross Ice Shelf (Antartica) in about 1840. In 1912, when it was again charted, it was found to have shrank by approx. 1 mile a year. This was before the world was covered with cars and airplanes, and all the modern alleged man made causes of global warming. Just thought it was kind of interesting.
ATLskier
Active member
You do realize that the discovery institute is one huge creationist website. Im sorry, I can't even watch a video by an organization that can't even accept evolution and true science.
DISCOVERY INSTITUTE=INTELLIGENT DESIGN SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION
which,
THAT VIDEO=PROB NOT WORTH WATCHING
THIS ARTICLE BELOW=WORTH WATCHING
Phil Chapman | April 23, 2008
THE scariest photo I have seen on the internet is www.spaceweather.com where you will find a real-time image of the sun from the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, located in deep space at the equilibrium point between solar and terrestrial gravity.
What is scary about the picture is that there is only one tiny sunspot.
Disconcerting as it may be to true believers in global warming, the average temperature on Earth has remained steady or slowly declined during the past decade, despite the continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, and now the global temperature is falling precipitously.
All four agencies that track Earth's temperature (the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California) report that it cooled by about 0.7C in 2007. This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record and it puts us back where we were in 1930. If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over.
There is also plenty of anecdotal evidence that 2007 was exceptionally cold. It snowed in Baghdad for the first time in centuries, the winter in China was simply terrible and the extent of Antarctic sea ice in the austral winter was the greatest on record since James Cook discovered the place in 1770.
It is generally not possible to draw conclusions about climatic trends from events in a single year, so I would normally dismiss this cold snap as transient, pending what happens in the next few years.
This is where SOHO comes in. The sunspot number follows a cycle of somewhat variable length, averaging 11 years. The most recent minimum was in March last year. The new cycle, No.24, was supposed to start soon after that, with a gradual build-up in sunspot numbers.
It didn't happen. The first sunspot appeared in January this year and lasted only two days. A tiny spot appeared last Monday but vanished within 24 hours. Another little spot appeared this Monday. Pray that there will be many more, and soon.
The reason this matters is that there is a close correlation between variations in the sunspot cycle and Earth's climate. The previous time a cycle was delayed like this was in the Dalton Minimum, an especially cold period that lasted several decades from 1790.
Northern winters became ferocious: in particular, the rout of Napoleon's Grand Army during the retreat from Moscow in 1812 was at least partly due to the lack of sunspots.
That the rapid temperature decline in 2007 coincided with the failure of cycle No.24 to begin on schedule is not proof of a causal connection but it is cause for concern.
It is time to put aside the global warming dogma, at least to begin contingency planning about what to do if we are moving into another little ice age, similar to the one that lasted from 1100 to 1850.
There is no doubt that the next little ice age would be much worse than the previous one and much more harmful than anything warming may do. There are many more people now and we have become dependent on a few temperate agricultural areas, especially in the US and Canada. Global warming would increase agricultural output, but global cooling will decrease it.
Millions will starve if we do nothing to prepare for it (such as planning changes in agriculture to compensate), and millions more will die from cold-related diseases.
There is also another possibility, remote but much more serious. The Greenland and Antarctic ice cores and other evidence show that for the past several million years, severe glaciation has almost always afflicted our planet.
The bleak truth is that, under normal conditions, most of North America and Europe are buried under about 1.5km of ice. This bitterly frigid climate is interrupted occasionally by brief warm interglacials, typically lasting less than 10,000 years.
The interglacial we have enjoyed throughout recorded human history, called the Holocene, began 11,000 years ago, so the ice is overdue. We also know that glaciation can occur quickly: the required decline in global temperature is about 12C and it can happen in 20 years.
The next descent into an ice age is inevitable but may not happen for another 1000 years. On the other hand, it must be noted that the cooling in 2007 was even faster than in typical glacial transitions. If it continued for 20 years, the temperature would be 14C cooler in 2027.
By then, most of the advanced nations would have ceased to exist, vanishing under the ice, and the rest of the world would be faced with a catastrophe beyond imagining.
Australia may escape total annihilation but would surely be overrun by millions of refugees. Once the glaciation starts, it will last 1000 centuries, an incomprehensible stretch of time.
If the ice age is coming, there is a small chance that we could prevent or at least delay the transition, if we are prepared to take action soon enough and on a large enough scale.
For example: We could gather all the bulldozers in the world and use them to dirty the snow in Canada and Siberia in the hope of reducing the reflectance so as to absorb more warmth from the sun.
We also may be able to release enormous floods of methane (a potent greenhouse gas) from the hydrates under the Arctic permafrost and on the continental shelves, perhaps using nuclear weapons to destabilise the deposits.
We cannot really know, but my guess is that the odds are at least 50-50 that we will see significant cooling rather than warming in coming decades.
The probability that we are witnessing the onset of a real ice age is much less, perhaps one in 500, but not totally negligible.
All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead.
It will be difficult for people to face the truth when their reputations, careers, government grants or hopes for social change depend on global warming, but the fate of civilisation may be at stake.
In the famous words of Oliver Cromwell, "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."
Phil Chapman is a geophysicist and astronautical engineer who lives in San Francisco. He was the first Australian to become a NASA astronaut.
THIS ARTICLE IS DONE BY REAL SCIENTISTS THAT ACTUALLY SUPPORT TRUE SCIENTIFIC THEORIES...
DISCOVERY INSTITUTE=INTELLIGENT DESIGN SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION
which,
THAT VIDEO=PROB NOT WORTH WATCHING
THIS ARTICLE BELOW=WORTH WATCHING
Phil Chapman | April 23, 2008
THE scariest photo I have seen on the internet is www.spaceweather.com where you will find a real-time image of the sun from the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, located in deep space at the equilibrium point between solar and terrestrial gravity.
What is scary about the picture is that there is only one tiny sunspot.
Disconcerting as it may be to true believers in global warming, the average temperature on Earth has remained steady or slowly declined during the past decade, despite the continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, and now the global temperature is falling precipitously.
All four agencies that track Earth's temperature (the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California) report that it cooled by about 0.7C in 2007. This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record and it puts us back where we were in 1930. If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over.
There is also plenty of anecdotal evidence that 2007 was exceptionally cold. It snowed in Baghdad for the first time in centuries, the winter in China was simply terrible and the extent of Antarctic sea ice in the austral winter was the greatest on record since James Cook discovered the place in 1770.
It is generally not possible to draw conclusions about climatic trends from events in a single year, so I would normally dismiss this cold snap as transient, pending what happens in the next few years.
This is where SOHO comes in. The sunspot number follows a cycle of somewhat variable length, averaging 11 years. The most recent minimum was in March last year. The new cycle, No.24, was supposed to start soon after that, with a gradual build-up in sunspot numbers.
It didn't happen. The first sunspot appeared in January this year and lasted only two days. A tiny spot appeared last Monday but vanished within 24 hours. Another little spot appeared this Monday. Pray that there will be many more, and soon.
The reason this matters is that there is a close correlation between variations in the sunspot cycle and Earth's climate. The previous time a cycle was delayed like this was in the Dalton Minimum, an especially cold period that lasted several decades from 1790.
Northern winters became ferocious: in particular, the rout of Napoleon's Grand Army during the retreat from Moscow in 1812 was at least partly due to the lack of sunspots.
That the rapid temperature decline in 2007 coincided with the failure of cycle No.24 to begin on schedule is not proof of a causal connection but it is cause for concern.
It is time to put aside the global warming dogma, at least to begin contingency planning about what to do if we are moving into another little ice age, similar to the one that lasted from 1100 to 1850.
There is no doubt that the next little ice age would be much worse than the previous one and much more harmful than anything warming may do. There are many more people now and we have become dependent on a few temperate agricultural areas, especially in the US and Canada. Global warming would increase agricultural output, but global cooling will decrease it.
Millions will starve if we do nothing to prepare for it (such as planning changes in agriculture to compensate), and millions more will die from cold-related diseases.
There is also another possibility, remote but much more serious. The Greenland and Antarctic ice cores and other evidence show that for the past several million years, severe glaciation has almost always afflicted our planet.
The bleak truth is that, under normal conditions, most of North America and Europe are buried under about 1.5km of ice. This bitterly frigid climate is interrupted occasionally by brief warm interglacials, typically lasting less than 10,000 years.
The interglacial we have enjoyed throughout recorded human history, called the Holocene, began 11,000 years ago, so the ice is overdue. We also know that glaciation can occur quickly: the required decline in global temperature is about 12C and it can happen in 20 years.
The next descent into an ice age is inevitable but may not happen for another 1000 years. On the other hand, it must be noted that the cooling in 2007 was even faster than in typical glacial transitions. If it continued for 20 years, the temperature would be 14C cooler in 2027.
By then, most of the advanced nations would have ceased to exist, vanishing under the ice, and the rest of the world would be faced with a catastrophe beyond imagining.
Australia may escape total annihilation but would surely be overrun by millions of refugees. Once the glaciation starts, it will last 1000 centuries, an incomprehensible stretch of time.
If the ice age is coming, there is a small chance that we could prevent or at least delay the transition, if we are prepared to take action soon enough and on a large enough scale.
For example: We could gather all the bulldozers in the world and use them to dirty the snow in Canada and Siberia in the hope of reducing the reflectance so as to absorb more warmth from the sun.
We also may be able to release enormous floods of methane (a potent greenhouse gas) from the hydrates under the Arctic permafrost and on the continental shelves, perhaps using nuclear weapons to destabilise the deposits.
We cannot really know, but my guess is that the odds are at least 50-50 that we will see significant cooling rather than warming in coming decades.
The probability that we are witnessing the onset of a real ice age is much less, perhaps one in 500, but not totally negligible.
All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead.
It will be difficult for people to face the truth when their reputations, careers, government grants or hopes for social change depend on global warming, but the fate of civilisation may be at stake.
In the famous words of Oliver Cromwell, "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."
Phil Chapman is a geophysicist and astronautical engineer who lives in San Francisco. He was the first Australian to become a NASA astronaut.
THIS ARTICLE IS DONE BY REAL SCIENTISTS THAT ACTUALLY SUPPORT TRUE SCIENTIFIC THEORIES...
KarmaInitiative
Active member
people hear about protesters and they think, its just one tree, its just 10 trees, its just 100 trees but if its ok to do that, you get thousands of people cuting just one tree and thats whats hurtin the enviroment
guillermolongjon2
Member
i dont understand why whenever environmental issues arise in threads on this site the people who are against logging and other issues that at this moment are slipping my mind are immediately referred to as "hippies"..in other words if you take a stand in what YOU believe in youre just a "smelly hippy".
Mezmerize19
Active member
This guy must be Italian
funk.
Active member
I'm completely against the obliteration of forests. I live in the middle of it and it disgusts me. I support SEACC (Southeast Alaska Conservation Council) and all. When I refer to greenies or hippies I'm talking about the Greenpeace fucks that over due it and strap themselves to heavy equipment and trees and shit. That's what I mean by "hippies".
kepler.
Active member
Wow great post. I hate saying it but +karma.
It's scary to think but we could possibly only have a few hundred more years to make advancements in technology to get the hell off this planet or just figure shit out before we're wiped off the planet. Because you can be sure this world isn't going to address the possible problem addressed in the article until it smacks them in the face.
It's scary to think but we could possibly only have a few hundred more years to make advancements in technology to get the hell off this planet or just figure shit out before we're wiped off the planet. Because you can be sure this world isn't going to address the possible problem addressed in the article until it smacks them in the face.
TheButterHashira
Active member
I understand the danger of people coming in and cutting thousands of acres but if cutting a few trees down is what is going to keep you and your family out of poverty I think you would do it. The rainforest is a bad example because its hard to replant those trees but I live in the east and there are a bunch of pine forests that people grow and cut. They always replant them even though they cut it down again in 10 or so years. People should be allowed to cut trees but they have to replant a certain percentage of the land or all of the land they cut.
funk.
Active member
Growing and replanting.. thats like a farm right? So are trees creating habitat for squirrels, deer and bear? Not in that situation. They need old growth forests with variety in tree ages (between 1 year and 150 years). All the trees are the same height competing for light. Therefore they only leaf out (or produce needles) on the very top and cut out all light to below. This makes for zero undergrowth which is food and habitat for many animals. They are also in such close proximity that it is nearly impossible to walk through. If you selectively cut trees you can avoid most of these. But to me tree "farms" are just as bad as clearcuts.
Wanna see what I live by?
Wanna see what I live by?
The March-May spring season was the 36th coolest on record for the contiguous United States, according to an analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center
in Asheville, N.C. Separately, last month ended as the 34th coolest May
for the contiguous United States, based on records dating back to 1895.
The
average spring temperature of 51.4 degrees F was 0.5 degree F below the
20th century average. The average May temperature of 60.3 degrees F was
0.7 degree F below the 20th century mean, based on preliminary data
in Asheville, N.C. Separately, last month ended as the 34th coolest May
for the contiguous United States, based on records dating back to 1895.
The
average spring temperature of 51.4 degrees F was 0.5 degree F below the
20th century average. The average May temperature of 60.3 degrees F was
0.7 degree F below the 20th century mean, based on preliminary data
It was still a good article. Sunspots arent probably the only cause, but I'd bet play a part of the overall picture.
And to people like Papasteeze that love quoting cold temperature records and such, to me, you're not proving much. Climate change isnt just going to warm, its going to cool areas as well as different climactic patterns emerge as a response to the system being changed. We've been having more and more violent weather patterns over the last years - more hurricanes, tornadoes and cyclones than ever before seen in a season. I really cannot see how one could outright deny that anything is happening. Whether or not humans have contributed to it is still under debate
And to people like Papasteeze that love quoting cold temperature records and such, to me, you're not proving much. Climate change isnt just going to warm, its going to cool areas as well as different climactic patterns emerge as a response to the system being changed. We've been having more and more violent weather patterns over the last years - more hurricanes, tornadoes and cyclones than ever before seen in a season. I really cannot see how one could outright deny that anything is happening. Whether or not humans have contributed to it is still under debate
squibble
Active member
although i do believe in what hes saying the ending is a little fishy, aka very pro industrialism. its always two extremes. theres the al gore types who are SO anti "climate change" and then these guys who are like "all pollution is good for us, praise americans and factorys". to tell you the truth, i dont really care anymore.