A cold spell soon to replace global warming

A cold spell soon to replace global warming

en.rian.ru

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.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Please try to be objective and polite. Unfortunately the belief in global warming has become an almost religious issue for some......

en.rian.ru
(visit the link for the full news article)

Personally, I think that mankind is much too greedy and ignorant. That most human beings are so wrapped up in their personal dramas that they can care less about their carbon emissions. I have read all sorts of theories about warming, cooling, ice ages, and the like. To a degree, I can see where Global Warming denials have certain points. But I also think it is ridiculous the lengths that people will go to try to make themselves feel better about the wholesale destruction of the planet.

For some reason, there are a few, very rich and powerful families that want to milk this planet for every natural resource that it contains in order to further their power and influence. They gain profits from every move that we in the serfdom make. They give us media reports that try to keep us destroying our planet. And at some point, when the resources start to disappear, so will we. Our overlords will decide that they need to keep the rest for themselves, and a majority of the planet will die off from acts taken upon them, or by lack of support during a crisis.

There is also the possibility that once all the Carbon Dioxide heats up our atmosphere via Global Warming, and melts the icecaps, which release more Carbon into the atmosphere, eventually releasing so much that a 'nuclear winter' occurs.

I don't know what will happen. But I do know that those who are making energy policy, pollution policy, pretty much all our wasteful, self indulging policies, they all need to wake up and realize that an economy based on nothing but growth eventually runs out of gas, literally. We need leadership that works towards sustainability running the economy, not growth.

As to an article debating the religion of Global Warming, but countering with a theory about Global Cooling.... not really feeling it. I don't see this topic as anything but a political lightning rod for citizens to debate until their ears bleed, while the President's cronies and frat brothers see their pockets swell up like popcorn kernels.

I think Global Warming is a serious issue, but I also think that there are too many Born Again Christian families of 5-7 people who cannot 'survive' without their big SUVs and McMansions for anything to be done. Until these sheeple can be forced to use cleaner cars, and live a less wasteful lifestyle, the earth is doomed. For every couple that lives a sustainable lifestyle, with one or two children, there are ten times as many 'robotic' procreation teams, telling you to wait until marriage, but have as many kids as you can once you are married. Then to support that swarm, buy them processed foods and drive them around at 8 miles per gallon.

The sustainable couple, teaches their children their morals, and the procreation swarms teach their children as well. The Sustainable Family grows up recycling, driving a hybrid vehicle, and eating wholesome, non processed foods. The Procreating Juggernaut grows up driving Excursions, eating out at Applebees, and throwing all their waste in a landfill. Each new generation takes what their parents taught them, and teaches their own children. The only problem, the Sustainable family has one or two kids to carry on, and spread a sustainable way of life. The Juggernauts of waste, have 3-5 or more kids, and they all will spread the morals they were raised with.

If we can't raise the awareness of the society of the whole to the point where we stop wasting our grandkids future, it won't matter if it is way too hot or way too cold. This article that you presented is a start, but you also said yourself that the issue has become way too polarized. Hopefully we can get some elected officials who actually are interested in our future together, instead of just the future for their connected friends...

Sustainability over Profitability
DocMoreau

reply to post by DocMoreau

Very well put. I am still on the fence about global warming and have not decided 'which side is right'. However I have always felt that even if we do not affect the temperature globally, our effect on the nature is still devastating. So what if CO2 does not heat up Earth? We should still do our best to reduce our impact on the environment.

DocMoreau.. your post was very well put and I enjoyed it. Thanks.

reply to post by Alphard


No, thank you! Hopefully we can all take the knowledge that we learn here at ATS and put it to good use in the real world.

We need to stop ignoring the problem while politicians dance around the issue.
DocMoreau

reply to post by DocMoreau


Good post

I recently watched a documentary series on the BBC, the title escapes me, covered the various cycles of the planet - the final episode concluded that although we are depleting the planet of its resources and therefore creating a potentially toxic environment, that because of it's cyclic nature the Earth will survive. Humanity though may not. The more we take and fail to repair the greater our chance of extinction becomes. Because of our inherent inability to adapt to this reality we will also ensure that the majority of life on the planet will also become extinct. The Earth though will regenerate and life will re-emerge and prosper.

It is little comfort in my opinion, in fact it is an utter failure that, we as theoretically the only sapient beings on this planet cannot comprehend that the way in which we have developed our lives is wrong. From the ground up to the top of the heap we should be changing.

As you so rightly put it, only with the end of profiteering will future generations enjoy the wonder that is this planet, but we need to remember that it is us that keeps buying the products, it takes every single one of us to stop. I, in gradual increments, have released myself from consumerism by the simple thought of, I may want it but do I need it. Invariably the answer is no.

I may be looked down upon because I choose to wear my shoes and clothes until they fall off but it is these two groups of raw (leather and textiles) that create the greatest impact on our planetary resources and I also know that if everyone did the same things would start to change.

Global warming is not the entire answer to climate change but that doesn't mean that if we ignore it it will go away. Earth will take care of itself but if we as a species want to continue then once again, we must adapt to the very changes we have created.

Originally posted by DocMoreau
Personally, I think that mankind is much too greedy and ignorant. That most human beings are so wrapped up in their personal dramas that they can care less about their carbon emissions. I have read all sorts of theories about warming, cooling, ice ages, and the like. To a degree, I can see where Global Warming denials have certain points. But I also think it is ridiculous the lengths that people will go to try to make themselves feel better about the wholesale destruction of the planet.

Alas (for you), if only your thinking about an issue would make it fact. A common elitist error.

For some reason, there are a few, very rich and powerful families that want to milk this planet for every natural resource that it contains in order to further their power and influence. They gain profits from every move that we in the serfdom make. Our overlords will decide that they need to keep the rest for themselves, and a majority of the planet will die off from acts taken upon them, or by lack of support during a crisis.

Al Gore and his supporters come to mind here ...

There is also the possibility that once all the Carbon Dioxide heats up our atmosphere via Global Warming, and melts the icecaps, which release more Carbon into the atmosphere, eventually releasing so much that a 'nuclear winter' occurs.

You saw it written here first. A possibility, not a fact

I don't know what will happen.

My, but you sure sound like you think you do. And are so ready to tell the rest of us what we must do based on your not knowing what will happen.

But I do know that those who are making energy policy, pollution policy, pretty much all our wasteful, self indulging policies, they all need to wake up and realize that an economy based on nothing but growth eventually runs out of gas, literally. We need leadership that works towards sustainability running the economy, not growth.

But tell us why, based on the possiblities you state you are unsure about, should we make any changes that just as easily could do more harm than good?

As to an article debating the religion of Global Warming, but countering with a theory about Global Cooling.... not really feeling it.

Now you ask us to base policy on how you "feel", or not about an issue?

I don't see this topic as anything but a political lightning rod for citizens to debate until their ears bleed, while the President's cronies and frat brothers see their pockets swell up like popcorn kernels.

And realize that many more feel that this whole global warming (caused by mankind) issue is nothing but a political lightning rod being used by the eco-nazis to force their agenda on the rest of us through the use of fear. Eco-terrorism, anyone?

I think Global Warming is a serious issue, but I also think that there are too many Born Again Christian families of 5-7 people who cannot 'survive' without their big SUVs and McMansions for anything to be done.

Al Gore, again ...

Until these sheeple can be forced to use cleaner cars, and live a less wasteful lifestyle, the earth is doomed. For every couple that lives a sustainable lifestyle, with one or two children, there are ten times as many 'robotic' procreation teams, telling you to wait until marriage, but have as many kids as you can once you are married. Then to support that swarm, buy them processed foods and drive them around at 8 miles per gallon.

Step back and listen to yourself. That's almost a direct quote from the eco-nazi manefesto. The rest of us need to be "forced" into following your line of feeling (not thinking) on this issue. That sounds way more robotic to me than your example.

The sustainable couple, teaches their children their morals, and the procreation swarms teach their children as well. The Sustainable Family grows up recycling, driving a hybrid vehicle, and eating wholesome, non processed foods. The Procreating Juggernaut grows up driving Excursions, eating out at Applebees, and throwing all their waste in a landfill. Each new generation takes what their parents taught them, and teaches their own children. The only problem, the Sustainable family has one or two kids to carry on, and spread a sustainable way of life. The Juggernauts of waste, have 3-5 or more kids, and they all will spread the morals they were raised with.

Just feeling the issue again, or do you have a source for all that blather?

If we can't raise the awareness of the society of the whole to the point where we stop wasting our grandkids future, it won't matter if it is way too hot or way too cold. This article that you presented is a start, but you also said yourself that the issue has become way too polarized. Hopefully we can get some elected officials who actually are interested in our future together, instead of just the future for their connected friends...

Sustainability over Profitability
DocMoreau

No need to raise awareness if you are "forcing" everyone else to follow your eco-nazi doctrine. They'll have no "choice".


[edit on 1/3/2008 by centurion1211]

If I may start with a joke - It's a good thing Global Warming will cancel out Global Cooling.
Now seriously - If we were to disappear, the Earth would eventually recover. Since we are not due to disappear for awhile, we are kind of screwed long term. I don't believe in Global Warming or Global Cooling, but rather Climate Change. It moves whether we are here or not. Is the excess CO2 a problem, maybe. Should we be environmentally efficient, energy efficient, recyclers and overall good stewards of this planet? Absolutely! If not for our generation, the next few to come. But we don't have to force it down everyone's throat. Slowly, over time, the demand for energy efficient devices will be the only things available (if the demand is great enough, thats all that will be available).
If the danger is global cooling, we better make sure all our housing for anyone not in the tropics is energy efficient so we do not waste alot of energy in the winter. If it is global warming, the same is true for air conditioner use in the summers.
My old boss built a giant house for him, his wife and his kid. The house needed 2 furnaces to heat the thing and 3 giant AC units to cool it. That is the definition of waste. The house could easily take care of 3 families. It's over the top, but it was his choice. When it costs $500 a month for electricity and heating, he can't complain to anyone.

The Russians have long laughed at the global warmists; they say that the planet is cooling not warming. Sadly, no one wants to look at the issue in an apolitical way, the way science is supposed to work. I don't believe in predominantly human caused global warming because of a lack of true facts. The scientific method does not support anthropogenic global warming, so neither do I. We scientists must have the integrity to report all of the facts we know, even those that disprove our theories. We must be the first to doubt the results of our own work before anyone else does. Our honesty must be beyond reproach, and skepicism encouraged, not punished. Consensus is not science.

CO2 is not a pollutant, it is a substance necessary for life to exist on this planet. Most of the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from natural sources. I frequently see global warming and pollution lumped together in posts here.



[edit on 1/3/2008 by TheAvenger]

Originally posted by TheAvenger
CO2 is not a pollutant, it is a substance necessary for life to exist on this planet. Most of the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from natural sources. I frequently see global warming and pollution lumped together in posts here.

I agree with all that you say, how could I not? The issue though is not whether global warming is fact or fiction - not to me anyway - the issue is that we are creating a toxic environment. Toxic to us and to the other animal life on the planet. This is what needs to change. While CO2 may not be considered a pollutant there are plenty of chemicals that seep into the food chain that are pollutants.

We should not be producing the level of waste that we are producing - chemicals, packaging and plastics, are the true driving force of the petro-chemical industry and they are completely extraneous to our need to survive. While we may need fossil fuels for energy (and I stress may), we do not need them to homogenise, sterilise and envelope our food - and practically every other consumable.

While CO2 may not be a pollutant, the industries that emit that gas and the massive corporations that control those industries, are responsible for the deforestation to accommodate their factories, of the intensive farming required to feed the communities that serve those factories and for the toxic waste that they pour into the water etc etc.

We are all a part of this world and whether Global Warming is hype or not does not detract from the fact that if we continue on the route that we are taking humanity will reach a point where by it can no longer be sustained on this planet. Centuries from now perhaps, but even so we can stop the rot if we begin to change now.

The planet will survive without us, we cannot kill the planet (in this way) but humanity and all other mammalian life with it is not sustainable if we do not implement change now.

reply to post by DocMoreau


Was the standard global warming diatribe really necessary?

The topic is a coming cold period, which will be directly and unmistakable tied to solar activity, yes?

This report makes a Hell of a lot more sense than the rants being spewed by the GW econazis. How about addressing some of the conclusions presented rather than ranting about how we're destroying the planet with our SUVs?

There's a million other global warming threads comprised of, "Man is evil!" "Yeah, I agree! Man sucks!" "Yeah I agree too! Screw us!" Let us try to not turn this into yet another one, hmm?

What the article really seems to say is there are 2 major solar cycles that take place an 11 year and a 200 year that are major determiners of our overall worldwide weather trends. I have yet to hear enough about the 200 year cycle and what it does to totally throw out the global cooling theory. It does seem to have some basis in scietific observations. Time will tell, as they say.


We tend in this attention span shortened age to just look at the most recent data and try to determine the trends longterm, that almost always regardless of the thing being observed, is a recipe for wrong predictions wether it be the stock market, weather, gambling ect.

So, we have a russian scientist making predictions of prolonged solar cooling to come, so all the septics 'sceptics' jump on it with little real evidence of its validity shouting about eco-nazi's and stuff, but they dispute validated predictions of warming from GHGs.

Fascinating...

If a reduction of solar activity was approaching, could only be a good thing as it would ameliorate the warming induced by GHGs and other forms of human activity. But, of course, Abdusamatov says the greenhouse effect doesn't exist at all.

I have some snake-oil here, it says on the label 'spread libertarianally over warm spots for immediate cooling and lower taxes'. Going cheap-cheap. Only $50.

[edit on 3-1-2008 by melatonin]

I'll give you $3.50.

Nice. So if this report is correct, when the average temperature starts to drop in a few years, Man is still the bad guy. Or rather, all those who don't bow down to the econazis are the bad guys. I wouldn't expect anything else.

reply to post by melatonin


Melatonin, I respect your opinons and research. Do the 11 and 200 year solar cycles exist? If so, do they influence worldwide weather patterns? It seems weather tends to follow a somewhat random yet predictable longterm pattern, these two competing cycles could explain some of the variances ie for example, at the low end of both cycles I would imagine you would see the lowest overall temps either that year or the years following that event. You seem to have the knack for finding out data in this area, please let us know what you find.

Oh no!
What will the poor little penguins do now?

Originally posted by apc
I'll give you $3.50.

$25.37, I'll cover postage?

Nice. So if this report is correct, when the average temperature starts to drop in a few years, Man is still the bad guy. Or rather, all those who don't bow down to the econazis are the bad guys. I wouldn't expect anything else.

I don't get the eco-nazi stuff. Does that include anyone who accepts that scientific viewpoint? I'm actually all for building nuclear power stations, I'd rather radiate the world a different way.

Anyway, who knows if the average temp would start to drop. Firstly, we don't even know such cooling would be significant. If it was, then it would need to outweigh the warming from other sources to ultimately induce cooling. Then, as soon as solar activity rose again, we'd be back where we started.

What I'm surprised at is how easy you guys jump on anything that is even in the vicinity of your ball-park. This dude is well out there on many issues, but only time will tell if he's on the right track here. Even if he is, it doesn't negate the science on GHGs.

Originally posted by apc
I'll give you $3.50.

Nice. So if this report is correct, when the average temperature starts to drop in a few years, Man is still the bad guy. Or rather, all those who don't bow down to the econazis are the bad guys. I wouldn't expect anything else.

That's why it's called "climate change" now instead of global warming. People can blame whatever happens: warm, cold, wet or dry on poor old CO2 molecules no matter what.

I, however, will not let the alarmists forget their predictions when the global warming egg is on their faces and they need a jacket. I will be very pleased with myself.....



[edit on 1/3/2008 by TheAvenger]

Originally posted by pavil
Melatonin, I respect your opinons and research. Do the 11 and 200 year solar cycles exist? If so, do they influence worldwide weather patterns?

Yeah, both do. There's also an 87 year one, and possibly a 1470 year one.

If we are talking about temperature then the 11-year cycle has little effect really. It's actually quite a small min-max. We have enough data for the 87 and 210 year changes, and the changes in global climate are not so great, maybe enough to temporarily take the edge of current warming.

I think the maunder minimum (late 1600s) appeared to be only a small drop in temps (0.1-0.2'C; about 0.5'C cooler than mean 20th century) over the northern hemisphere, something similar for the Dalton (1800s).

So, at most, we would expect a similar change give or take a bit. The funny thing is that predictions of the extent of solar cycles are very poor, but some want to rely on them more than more reliable predictions of GHG-induced warming, heh.

ABE: here you go, pavil. This is a post on tamino's blog (a good one by the way) on which Leif Svalgaard (a NASA dude who makes solar cycle predictions) posts in the comments.

tamino.wordpress.com...

He also thinks cycle 24 will be of fairly low activity, but he doesn't make grand claims like this russian dude. He basically says, yeah, there could be a maunder-type event in the near future, but no-one really knows.

[edit on 3-1-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
I don't get the eco-nazi stuff. Does that include anyone who accepts that scientific viewpoint?

Not technically, no. Anyone who tries to use that viewpoint to force a particular agenda, yes. Like the scientists who claimed the Jews had smaller brains than Aryans.

Pick your controversy. It's not uncommon for some elements to attempt to use science to force their will on people. Those in this context are Econazi. Scientists like Abdusamatov, as all the others, are the Einsteins - disgusted with the insult to science they are surrounded by. Unfortunately there's nowhere to flee this time.