Another Interesting Read

[BamaDuke]

Dark Winter  by John L. Casey

As a ham radio operator, I have been paying attention to the Sunspot cycles for a long time.  As a Mother Earth News reader from way back, I remember the prognostications of the '70s regarding global cooling.  The latest Man-Made Global Warming hypothesis leaves me skeptical, as I understand the cycles of CO2 in the atmosphere, and their dependence on the oceans.  Mr. Casey is a NASA scientist, and is not working on a grant from anyone.  He noticed, from 400 years of sunspot observations, some interesting patterns.  After more research, he published his findings. 

In short, Mr. Casey is suggesting that we are in for another Dalton or Maunder Minimum, as regards the sun's activity.  This points to a slight reduction in solar output, and a corresponding cooling on Earth.  The last time there was such a minimum, there were increases in volcanic and earthquake activities.

I recommend the book, as it does tie together the actual climate data over the past decade in a model that more closely follows the actual data, versus the expected data from the AGW theory. 

Bama Duke

 

[kyonu]

Indeed Global Warming is another touchy spot among a lot of viewers. My main concern with it is that the data shows it's there, but people choose to ignore it and cite bogus facts to deny it. There was an interview a couple years back with the Ex-CEO of General motors against Neil Degrasse Tyson... And he thought he had a good argument, which Neil told him otherwise several times.

Neil also gets a lot of flack for not being a climate scientist thus has no where near enough authority, but yet people quote the ex-CEO of a vehicle company which is known to "make large donations" to climate groups in order to alter their hypothesis? Yeah, sure. The thing is, physics is physics. Astrophysics isn't much different than climate physics. The numbers are numbers, and if you crunch them, you get the same outcome.

An interesting note: Over the millions of years of the earth (in times where ice-ages are common), it goes up and down. The carbon dioxide in the atmo increase causing warmer climates (over a period of 10's or 100's of thousands of years) and then drop back down to an ice age where the carbon is trapped within the ice. What people don't realize is, we are accelerating that climate growth by a huge factor. So instead of 100,000 years, (if we go the way we are going) it will be about 50,000 years. We are nearing the top of this spike, so within maybe a few hundred years it will get too hot for anyone to stop, and it will never freeze again (which is a bad thing).

Other individuals like to claim CO2 is good for the atmosphere... Which it is, in very minor parts per million. Trees need it to make oxygen, but too much of it kills trees due to heat. It's a delicate balance that lots don't understand. This is followed by the fact we're eliminating germination from pollen and spores which in turn prevents new tree growth, causing less CO2 to be swallowed and converted.

An interesting topic for sure, and a topic I beg anyone "skeptical" to look into. There's a lot of data, but be careful of your sources.


Sorry if this is a bit off topic from the OP, but unfortunately, our acceleration of the climate change as a race will over-exceed the sunspot's ability to create a "minimum", as soon the ice won't be able to captivate the CO2 and will melt very quickly.

That last bit is my own conclusion from following this issue for nearly a decade and reading up on all the credited published papers.

 

[BamaDuke]

Thank you for the reply, K.

I, too, have read much of the information, and still find myself skeptical. In my high school chemistry class, we verified many of the laws of chemistry. One of these is the solubility of CO2 in seawater. The largest sink of CO2 on the planet is the oceans. Solubility is inversely proportional to temperature. That is, when seawater warms, it releases CO2. The ice core samples that show cycles of warming coinciding with higher CO2 levels over thousands of years is indeed strong evidence, but from basic chemistry we know that a small amount of warming of the oceans will release tremendous amounts of CO2. Why then, do we think that the CO2 increase causes the warming, and not the other way around?

I am intellectually interested in all of the theories of climate change. As you indicated, there have been hundreds of ice ages in the past, none of which would have allowed the world's current population to survive. During the interglacial periods, of which the current climate is an example, many animals flourished, only to perish in the next ice age. Wooly mammoths, perhaps, being the best known example.

Another skeptical book you might wish to tickle your neurons with was Art Bell's The Coming Global Superstorm, made into a movie I cannot recall at the moment. His question to a professor regarding how many BTUs of cooling would be required to flash freeze an elephant was the basis for the book. Intellectually interesting to be sure.

Perhaps one day we can sit and discuss this over a beer or a tall glass of sweet tea. I think I would enjoy that

Bama

 

[highdesertranger]

well this thread could get ugly. a geologist once told me that change is normal, there is no normal or average temp that our planet should be, it is always changing. is the temp rising? maybe. is this normal? if you study the earth over eons you would say yes. if the temp was stable then it would be time to worry. so what is the other option, global cooling? so lets face it staying stable is not normal the temp is either going to be trending up or down. pick your poison. btw I was told this way back when we were going into an ice age, according to the experts of the day. highdesertranger

 

[SternWake]

One other forum, I forget which, this topic , even the mention of global warming in an unrelated thread, and the thread was closed, locked, deleted.


I feel our reliance on fossil fuels is kind of foolish, and I feel that a lot of resistance to the idea that AGW is possible, and occurring, is because it keeps the status quo, the rich, rich, the powerful, powerful.

I tend to wonder what happens when we toxify everything in the environment and atmosphere, just to keep this status quo.  

If our star's output does decrease, seems that many would use this as an excuse to just go nuttier in their quest to burn every fossil fuel locked in the crust, and screw everybody and everything who lives after our short lifetimes end.  

If there was an unlimited non polluting energy source available, which were easy to harness and apply to all human's energy needs, I doubt it would be implemented.

Humans are just too shortsighted, and too greedy.
There is too much money to be made.

 

[LeeRevell]

My view is that of course Global Climate Change occurs - it's called "weather". It is cyclical. There are a LOT of variables that go into it. There can be unusual warmth in one part of the world with unusual cold in another part, happening concurrently. NOTHING I have yet seen in all the studying I have done indicates any of this being due to Man. Man's contribution is so tiny as to be negligible. Pollution - that is a different matter altogether.

 

[ccbreder]

I am with Ronald Reagen on this. Mankind is changing the climate for the worse. The only question is it too late to care.

 

[Wabbit]

The evidence\science that supports climate change is overwhelming. The people who deny it is happening, are either purposely ignoring the facts, or they don't understand the evidence. I do not talk to people about climate change other than to say that it is happening. There is more than enough supported evidence out there that is accessible to anyone who is interested in finding out the facts. However, one needs to stick with reliable sources. beforeitsnews.com is prob not the place you want to get your information from on climate change. lol No offense to anyone who doesn't believe in climate change though, I understand it gets very convoluted when you have everyone on the TV's and the internet screaming different stories.

 

[akrvbob]

While you can find a few individual scientists who deny man-made Global Climate Change, every single institution of science on the planet accepts it.

Of course the response is "But they are funded by the government so they are forced to lie to get funding."

The great majority of science done in the last century was paid for the government, virtually all data about the climate comes from them.

If we're going to knee--jerk reject all data and science that is government financed, that doesn't leave us with much to talk about.

The science is overwhelming; Climate Change, is real, man-made and happening much faster than all the early projections proposed.

Science no longer debates if it's true, the great consensus is that it is true. The question that's being debated now is if it's too late to stop it.

 

[Tinman74]

akrvbob
As long as there is money to be made from using fossil fuel nothing will ever get done to help the global warming situation. I saw this in a book I just finished reading, I think you will appreciate it.

Hand painted sign by the side of the road in Bhutan, from the book, The geography of Bliss/Eric Weiner.
When the last tree is cut,
When the last river is emptied,
When the last fish is caught,
Only then will man realize he cannot eat money.
Bob

 

[akrvbob]

Tinman74, I totally agree! Until the evidence is overwhelming we aren't going to make any serious changes. Almost certainly by then it will be too late to do anything. It probably already is.

Oh well, whatcha going to do?!
Bob