global warming or a new ice age?

Post Reply New Topic

OK.

... I don't know numbers on that. ... I would like to know the percentages of open access online publications, paid access online publications and not-online (printed only) publications...

I think you're looking at this too simplistically. Even if temperatures were relatively stable over a decade, any warming caused by human activity is superimposed on trends that occur naturally. In other words, to take it to the other extreme, you could get short-term cooling but because of our input that cooling may be less than otherwise would occur. But that would also mean that warmer times in any natural cycle would see temperatures higher than usual. It's a complicated system, and getting complete proof is impossible. To suggest we need it shows your overall ignorance of what we're discussing and of basic risk management. The long and short of it is that science has identified a potential threat, although there is a great deal of uncertainty as to the magnitude of that threat. It is possible, however, to present worst and best case scenarios. It's up to politicians to then decide what they'll do about it. If you don't like that then blame the politicians, not the science.


As you weren't explicit in that last post with regard to the situation referred to, I assumed you were commenting on the recent happenings at the university of East Anglia. My quote above refers to that, how that's been portrayed by the media, and the context within which you appeared to be using it in your post. I referred to other disciplines as you seemed to imply by use of "in this particular branch of science" that this area of study was somehow separate and subject to different standards.

The Dead Zone at the mouth of the Mississippi River has been growing for decades, it reaches Texas, and kills everything. That is just the part the winds push back along the coast, most goes farther out, deeper, and does just as much damage.

Acid, Oxygen starved, and 900 times as dense as air.

The Weatherman is mostly wrong, and has a Degree in Climate.

The Climate Department has produced many Degrees in Global Warming, who all agree, the field should be funded because there are few Weatherman jobs.

Since no climate models have ever worked, short or long term, and The National Weather Service gives away the best data, they now seek to Regulate the Weather, by Regulating the people who they claim produce the weather.

It would take a NAWP, National Association of Weather Professionals with a budget equal to NASA, to employ the mis educated products of Degree Programs.

We do have a National Atmospheric and Oceanigraphic that is fuly staffed, and does nothing we can tell.

For all we spend, in what applications there are, mostly rainfall and crop yields, they are just as wrong as the local TV weatherman.

Twenty-five years ago we were sold Pollution, How we had to fund the cleanup of Superfund Sites, which were produced by private industry, we have a massive staff at work at great expense, but very few sites have been cleaned up.

Love Canal is still there, the homes were bought, fences built, and watchmen hired. I imagine they will be there forever. The Mississippi Dead Zone is still there, Corporate Farming still dumps in the river, as do all the cities and towns along it's banks.

So now comes the Warm Panic Attack, "It will get warmer!"

By all the projects that can be measured, nothing got done, lots of money was spent, and we supported a generation of Government Scientists, who did and do nothing.

Every ton of carbon regulated in the US will move to China, India, Mexico.

All of the workplace regulations should come with travel folders.

So before we believe Global Warming, do something about Love Canal, The Mississippi, the Dead Zone, and other projects we have paid for.

The real problem is the Universities who continue coming up with Degree Programs that have no jobs.

Now that we are in a downturn that might last a few generations, these dreams of people who have never been in the world, they taught, about how a group of educated students could go forth and regulate the weather through taking control of all industry, and people, and making the lab coat the uniform of the Master Race, will have to be put aside.

The under 25 have 50% employment, in the ones who are looking for work, plus lots still hiding in school, and there are less jobs, we just lost 15 million, and in good times add 2 million a year. Regulating the last jobs out of the country will get you lynched.

From the title of the post, all of the signs do point just as strongly to a new ice age.

The main claim of Global Warming is the Arctic is warming, it is, that the ice is melting, it is, which is fresh water that floats on salt. That is the water that will flow out, and the salt below it is very cold. When it rises to the surface, that is the trigger for an ice age.

Warming happens slowly, ice ages in a year, it just starts snowing, and never stops. All of the conditions are right. Warm oceans, barren rock exposed in the north, and when the cold and salty Arctic rises to the surface, one very cold winter starts the conveyor, The Gulf Stream, warm and moist air moving over deep frozen north Europe, the new winter wonderland. A meter a week falls for a few months, and it is over. The Copenhagen Ice Sheet.

It grows till it reaches the Urals.

I vote for the ice age. The world has been cooling for the last ten years and sunspots have stopped.

The climate over the last few million years has been mostly ice ages with a few warm periods of about 10,000 years in between ice ages.

Well the last big ice age finished about 10,000 years ago so we are due for another "big one".

Or we could have another "little ice age" as happened from the 1600s to the 1800s.

Or it might be nothing. Who cares? We didn't cause it. We can't change it either way.

Primitive people said. "The volcano god is angry with us. We must throw half our crops and a few virgins into the volcano or the volcano god will kill us all"

Are we really still THAT stupid?

LOL yep.

It seems a lot of people are, they just listen to what the media or the authority said. I don't know whether I should laugh or cry.

I'm no expert but I've noticed that Pennsylvania & California's climates are switching. I've been to Palm Springs, CA 3 times over the summer (at ages 5, 13, and 17) and have lived in PA my whole life. The seasons are mixed in PA now & the shifts are very extreme (went from summer-fall in a week-back to summer-winter in a few weeks this semester at my college). In CA, I noticed it has been getting cooler each time I went over the summer. Hotter/more extreme in PA & cooler/calmer is southern CA from the little I've noticed. Though humidity stayed the same. Yay, Palm Springs remains a pretty desert (but PA's still fairly humid...).

Here's what came out of the Copenhagen climate summit:
Key powers reach compromise at climate summit

I think it's better than no deal at all.
But we'll have to see how this deal will work out.

I don't know to what level humans are causing global warming or a next ice age or if global warming will cause or delay a next ice age...

But I still think we shouldn't cause too much pollution and we should take care of the Earth.

... the snowy weather at the moment looks more like a new ice age is coming than a global warming

We agree to issue a press release and go home.

Through Ice Ages and warm periods, the tropics show the least change. Why should they be paid off?

So they burned off their land, and took goats out to eat evey blade of grass, just like Texas. The result is grassland becomes desert, and that was human caused, with the help of cattle and goats.

They are not the first culture to turn productive land to sand, very few have not. Global Warming has nothing to do with it, except deserts do make it warmer and drier.

Most of the observed rise is at the poles, where few peope live. The last two times the Arctic was ice free, an Ice Age followed.

Logging, slash and burn, and non native species grazing account for most of the damage.

Methane from cattle is the leading greenhouse gas. Reducing the herds by half would be the best and fastest way to restore the Earth.

Biology is not about heat, many factors combine, something will grow just about everywhere, and that is what should grow there.

Nature was not an error to be corrected, but humans are.

Amen to that.
We haven't exactly been thoughtful about what, and how much of it, we dump in the oceans.

The problem is the data is homogenized, adjusted for inaccuracies and systemic biases, by a formula that is supposed to be applied when some very specific rules were met, and many data points were adjusted when those rules were not met. HOMOGENEITY ADJUSTMENTS OF IN SITU ATMOSPHERIC CLIMATE DATA: A REVIEW demonstrates the various techniques used.

OK, that's possible, but then the interpretation of the data is wrong.

You are applying a moral judgment that simply does not exist in nature. Raw physical nature is not sentient. It is as dumb as a bag full of anvils. In biological nature the figure of merit is reproductive success. By that standard, bacteria and cockroaches are better at it than humans.

There have been living things on this planet for the last three and a half billion years (at least). Humans have come back from the brink of extinction several times (that last major challenge was the explosion of Mt. Toba, a supervolcanoe, which nearly finished our species off). Anything that succeeds is, by definition, not an error.

ruveyn

The Terminator films are fiction....in reality the robot wanted to warn us of global warming....see thats what happens with artistic liberties

Extinctions other than volcanic, meteor impact, which is most species that have lived, follow the same pattern, they are few that find conditions where they become many, then they vanish. They overrun the food supply.

The fault is in their math, the population doubles, then doubles again, in less time. When it reaches the max carying ability, is when it doubles the fastest. 13 billion in seven years, 26 billion in five more, and 2020 is just not going to be able to deal with it. I expect them to starve through another twenty years, still increasing the population, but by 2040, there is nothing to eat but people.

60,000 years ago, people were food, avoiding being eaten seems to be the goal that lead to development.

It is a hopeless case, preserve the earth, they just have a bit longer, the sooner it crashes, the quicker the earth recovers.

Warmer or colder, the demise of humans is at hand.

f**k the Earth. I want to see the human race survive as long as possible.

We need to treat the Earth well enough to ensure our own survival. Other species are of importance to the extent that WE need them. For example, the birds, who eat a lot of bugs which would otherwise destroy our food supply.

Earth itself has no inherent value. If we could move to another planet and thrive their, then burn the land and boil the sea.

ruveyn