A 10 Year Cooling Trend Predicted?

[thirdworld19 0]

How dedicated are you? CO2 is manufactured during the fermentation of the sugars in the brewing of beer and other alcoholic beverages. Are you willing to give that up to help save the planet?

[thirdworld19 0]

Does anyone remember the global cooling scares of the 70s? What about the global cooling scares of the 1950s? And before that there was another warming scare in the 1930s. And in the 20s there was a cooling scare. Before that, back in 1895, there was a cooling scare.

[thirdworld19 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I do, and it's quite irrelevant to the point. LOTS MORE MONEY is being made off the status quo than is being made by anyone warning about GW.

Gore is laughing all the way to the bank. The status quo you speak of is being protected by our inept politicians on both sides of the aisle.

Compare the total $$ supposedly made by Gore and others who are claimed to benefit from GW, with the total $$ known to be made by those who gain from preserving the status quo, and report back to us which is bigger.

Let's see:

Quote

It is also worth noting that tens of thousands of interested persons benefit directly from the global warming scare—at the expense of the ordinary consumer. Environmental organizations globally, such as Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and the Environmental Defense Fund, have raked in billions of dollars. Multi-billion-dollar government subsidies for useless mitigation schemes are large and growing. Emission trading programs will soon reach the $100 billion a year level, with large fees paid to brokers and those who operate the scams. In other words, many people have discovered they can benefit from climate scares and have formed an entrenched interest. Of course, there are also many sincere believers in an impending global warming catastrophe, spurred on in their fears by the growing number of one-sided books, movies, and media coverage.

Quote

The nations of the world face many difficult problems. Many have societal problems like poverty, disease, lack of sanitation, and shortage of clean water...Any of these problems are vastly more important than the imaginary problem of man-made global warming. It is a great shame that so many of our resources are being diverted from real problems to this non-problem. Perhaps in ten or 20 years this will become apparent to everyone, particularly if the climate should stop warming (as it has for eight years now) or even begin to cool.

[billvon 3,116]

> Does anyone remember the global cooling scares of the 70s?

Yep. Yet another case of the media blowing a pretty good report on high altitude sulfates all out of proportion. Akin to a study by a doctor showing that kids are on average ten pounds heavier than they were ten years ago - resulting in a newspaper headline "DOCTORS PREDICT CHILDREN WILL WEIGH 500 POUNDS BY THE YEAR 2500!"

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

How dedicated are you? CO2 is manufactured during the fermentation of the sugars in the brewing of beer and other alcoholic beverages. Are you willing to give that up to help save the planet?

It's not the release of CO2 that is the problem. CO2 is naturally cycled in and out of the atmosphere. The problem is the introduction of CO2 that has long been out of the cycle. That's what occurs when we burn fossil fuels.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Let's see: …

Would you care to provide sources for your quotes? They appear rather dubious.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[rushmc 23]

Quote

> Does anyone remember the global cooling scares of the 70s?

Yep. Yet another case of the media blowing a pretty good report on high altitude sulfates all out of proportion. Akin to a study by a doctor showing that kids are on average ten pounds heavier than they were ten years ago - resulting in a newspaper headline "DOCTORS PREDICT CHILDREN WILL WEIGH 500 POUNDS BY THE YEAR 2500!"

Sound very similar as todays GWing hype.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,116]

>Sound very similar as todays GWing hype.

I agree. Which is why it's wise to avoid both global warming hype and denier lies and read the science instead. Not as much fun, and a lot harder to understand, but in the long run more fruitful.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Sound very similar as todays GWing hype.

I agree. Which is why it's wise to avoid both global warming hype and denier lies and read the science instead. Not as much fun, and a lot harder to understand, but in the long run more fruitful.

IF, there was any science that would be a good thing. Since there are only predictions that got lucky and denials of cooling cycles, (which like warming cycles are normal) we have the hype only (which you support)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,116]

>IF, there was any science that would be a good thing.

There is, tons of it. You just won't find it on Newsmax or Rush.

>Since there are only predictions that got lucky . . .

And direct observations of solar insolation, CO2 levels and temperature.
And experiments showing the effects of CO2 on the re-radiation of longwave IR.
And historical records showing temperature proxies.
And observations of the effects changing temperature is having on the world.

You can ignore all that, of course, and stick with the latest denier line. I particularly liked the one you posted about how massive undiscovered undersea volcanoes are secretly heating up the oceans and will cause the next ice age. They are definitely more exciting.

(BTW looks like 2007 tied 1998 as warmest year ever. Isn't it about time for another post? "There's only one problem with global warming - it stopped in 2007!")

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>IF, there was any science that would be a good thing.

There is, tons of it. You just won't find it on Newsmax or Rush.

>Since there are only predictions that got lucky . . .

And direct observations of solar insolation, CO2 levels and temperature.
And experiments showing the effects of CO2 on the re-radiation of longwave IR.
And historical records showing temperature proxies.
And observations of the effects changing temperature is having on the world.

You can ignore all that, of course, and stick with the latest denier line. I particularly liked the one you posted about how massive undiscovered undersea volcanoes are secretly heating up the oceans and will cause the next ice age. They are definitely more exciting.

(BTW looks like 2007 tied 1998 as warmest year ever. Isn't it about time for another post? "There's only one problem with global warming - it stopped in 2007!")

See, I say "hype" and you post it

and you are also good at keeping up the twists to my posts, or should I say lies

Not saying I did not not make posts related to the topics but, You know the context they were in, you just need to twist them dont you?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,116]

>See, I say "hype" and you post it

If you think CO2 measurements are hype, then you have placed yourself 100% in the political realm and have left the realm of science far behind.

>and you are also good at keeping up the twists to my posts, or should I
>say lies . . .

If you say so. Are all your posts lies, then, or just the ones on climate change?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>See, I say "hype" and you post it

If you think CO2 measurements are hype, then you have placed yourself 100% in the political realm and have left the realm of science far behind.No, dont think the "measuremnts" I have no problem with. It is the temp CO2 conclusion (guess prediction) I have a problem with. Then, a scientist predict a 10 year cooling trend and that is a temp interuption to global warming? Now that is funny. Seems if we can have 10 year cooling trends 10 year heating trends could happen to. YOU THINK?

>and you are also good at keeping up the twists to my posts, or should I
>say lies . . .

If you say so. Are all your posts lies, then, or just the ones on climate change?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,116]

>Then, a scientist predict a 10 year cooling trend . . .

Yep. He might even predict that it will be warm in the summer and cold in the winter! That would completely disprove global warming.

But wait - temperatures are supposed to hit record highs here this weekend. Global warming is therefore a proven FACT!

That's the problem in taking short term trends and thinking they define long term phenomena. Heck, if you look at the past 30 years, no one (even you) disagrees that the climate has been warming. But if you take 8 year trends, 5 of them were NEGATIVE! (see attached) Does that mean it's been cooling for the past 30 years? Nope. It means that climate is chaotic, and you have to get data over decades to make sense of it.

Fortunately, we now have data over decades, and there's no question that the climate is warming. Even you yourself have admitted this, even in light of the fact that there have been several 8 year averages that have shown declines in temperature.

So will this guy's prediction for a 10 year cooling cycle come to pass? I doubt it. Will there BE an 8 year cooling cycle superimposed on the warming signal, as there has been several times in the past 30 years? Almost without a doubt. Does that mean the climate is cooling overall? Nope.

Edited to add - I would mention that he is not predicting a "cooling trend" he is predicting a slower rise in temperature. His words:

“Just to make things clear: we are not stating that anthropogenic climate change won’t be as bad as previously thought. What we are saying is that on top of the warming trend there is a long-periodic oscillation that will probably lead to a to a lower temperature increase than we would expect from the current trend during the next years."

[piper17 1]

How many "ice ages" have there been during the existence of the earth?? Scientists seem to know of at least five...each of which was followed by a warm period. "Ages" and "periods" are not measured in days, weeks, months or years. Rather, they are measured in thousands of years.

This has been going on much longer than man has been walking the face of the earth. That being the case, what was the cause of all the previous periods of global coolings or global warmings?

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

[billvon 3,116]

> How many "ice ages" have there been during the existence of the earth?

Four major ones.

>...each of which was followed by a warm period. "Ages" and "periods" are
>not measured in days, weeks, months or years. Rather, they are
>measured in thousands of years.

Agreed. This one is happening in decades instead of thousands of years due to our increased CO2 emissions.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Then, a scientist predict a 10 year cooling trend . . .

Yep. He might even predict that it will be warm in the summer and cold in the winter! That would completely disprove global warming.

But wait - temperatures are supposed to hit record highs here this weekend. Global warming is therefore a proven FACT!

That's the problem in taking short term trends and thinking they define long term phenomena. Heck, if you look at the past 30 years, no one (even you) disagrees that the climate has been warming. But if you take 8 year trends, 5 of them were NEGATIVE! (see attached) Does that mean it's been cooling for the past 30 years? Nope. It means that climate is chaotic, and you have to get data over decades to make sense of it.

Fortunately, we now have data over decades, and there's no question that the climate is warming. Even you yourself have admitted this, even in light of the fact that there have been several 8 year averages that have shown declines in temperature.

So will this guy's prediction for a 10 year cooling cycle come to pass? I doubt it. Will there BE an 8 year cooling cycle superimposed on the warming signal, as there has been several times in the past 30 years? Almost without a doubt. Does that mean the climate is cooling overall? Nope.

Edited to add - I would mention that he is not predicting a "cooling trend" he is predicting a slower rise in temperature. His words:

“Just to make things clear: we are not stating that anthropogenic climate change won’t be as bad as previously thought. What we are saying is that on top of the warming trend there is a long-periodic oscillation that will probably lead to a to a lower temperature increase than we would expect from the current trend during the next years."

Warming? Ya, a natural trend. Man made? You have NO PROOF.

The time span you use is less than a blip on any scale. The "data" is prediction come true for political reasons.

Then you decades of "data" but a predicted "decade" cooling trend means nothing???

A joke of huge implications.

I understand your distress as you religion is being debunked right in front of you.

One thing I did say, 2007 is the beginning of the end of the global warming bs. Might take a few years but as more comes out, the better I feel about the statement

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

>Then, a scientist predict a 10 year cooling trend . . .

Yep. He might even predict that it will be warm in the summer and cold in the winter! That would completely disprove global warming.

But wait - temperatures are supposed to hit record highs here this weekend. Global warming is therefore a proven FACT!

That's the problem in taking short term trends and thinking they define long term phenomena. Heck, if you look at the past 30 years, no one (even you) disagrees that the climate has been warming. But if you take 8 year trends, 5 of them were NEGATIVE! (see attached) Does that mean it's been cooling for the past 30 years? Nope. It means that climate is chaotic, and you have to get data over decades to make sense of it.

Fortunately, we now have data over decades, and there's no question that the climate is warming. Even you yourself have admitted this, even in light of the fact that there have been several 8 year averages that have shown declines in temperature.

So will this guy's prediction for a 10 year cooling cycle come to pass? I doubt it. Will there BE an 8 year cooling cycle superimposed on the warming signal, as there has been several times in the past 30 years? Almost without a doubt. Does that mean the climate is cooling overall? Nope.

Edited to add - I would mention that he is not predicting a "cooling trend" he is predicting a slower rise in temperature. His words:

“Just to make things clear: we are not stating that anthropogenic climate change won’t be as bad as previously thought. What we are saying is that on top of the warming trend there is a long-periodic oscillation that will probably lead to a to a lower temperature increase than we would expect from the current trend during the next years."

Warming? Ya, a natural trend. Man made? You have NO PROOF.

The time span you use is less than a blip on any scale. The "data" is prediction come true for political reasons.

Then you decades of "data" but a predicted "decade" cooling trend means nothing???

A joke of huge implications.

I understand your distress as you religion is being debunked right in front of you.

Try living in the "real world" for a change. Your claims are so absurd as to defy description. I can't imagine that anyone besides yourself takes you seriously on this topic.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,116]

>Warming? Ya, a natural trend.

Ah, I see you have flopped back again to type II. It seems like only yesterday that you were claiming we were in a cooling cycle.

>Man made? You have NO PROOF.

Other than thousands of peer-reviewed studies.

Of course, you have NO PROOF gravity will be there next time you jump out of an airplane, either. But I suspect you will still use a parachute - even though the theories of gravity are only unproven models.

>The time span you use is less than a blip on any scale.

Really? If you were thrown in jail for, say, 50 years, would you shrug it off because "that's a blip on any timescale?" Or do you care what happens to you over the next 50 years? I suspect you do.

Me and my kids will see the results of what we are doing now, because humans live on a human time scale, not a geologic one. Sure, in a few billion years the sun will expand and destroy everything. I'm more interested in the world I leave to my kids, as most humans are.

>Then you decades of "data" but a predicted "decade" cooling trend
>means nothing???

He didn't predict a decade cooling trend. Once again you have your conservative blinders firmly covering your eyes, and read what you wanted to read instead of what he said.

>One thing I did say, 2007 is the beginning of the end of the
>global warming bs.

Cool! Maybe in 10 years you can claim "there's only one problem with global warming - it stopped in 2017!"

[rushmc 23]

You and kallend must go regularly to get your necks fixed at your local bone crackers from looking down your nose at all who do not agree with you huh

You flip and flop your position as to what I am more than anything I have seen.

the more we exchange the more confident I am in my position. Why??? because neither of you can constant on a point

You spend more time telling ME what my position is than explaining why YOU believe what you believe

Dam(n) this is fun

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,116]

>the more we exchange the more confident I am in my position. Why?

Because you believe in it with all the fervor of a Jesuit.

>You spend more time telling ME what my position is . . .

Honestly, some times it's hard to tell what your position is, since you often say the opposite of what you mean, and often can't spell the words associated with the science.

>Dam(n) this is fun

Good to see you are having fun!

[rushmc 23]

You too.

I just chose not to be an ass about it.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

You too.

I just chose not to be an ass about it.

Ummm - no!

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[miked10270 0]

Quote

"DOCTORS PREDICT (American) CHILDREN WILL WEIGH 500 POUNDS BY THE YEAR 2500!"

And in 2004 Dubbie stood with a banner that said "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!"

But... Getting back to the whole Global-Warming thing... I feel very cheated with this latest news.

When I first became aware of Global-Warming in the early 1980's I think, I was promised that by 2010 Scotland would be a major wine producer with a sub-tropical climate while France would be a barren desert (with no oil reserves)!!... AND... All I had to do was buy gas-guzzling cars, leave lights on, & get food flown from the other side of the world.

So I bought the gas-guzzler, and filled it up at British prices! I left all my lights & stuff on! I even bought loads of Kiwi-Fruit (didn't eat any - there's something innately suspicious about an oversized hairy grape). I did this on the strict understanding that by now I'd be in my back garden in Scotland, lounging in a hammock slung between two palm trees, knocking back a rum cocktail, thinking Jamaican thoughts and watching my Ganja crop mature in the vegetable patch while my kids tread in the start of a nice Merlot!


I paid a fecking fortune for my global warming... I want to know why those lying two-faced politicians & so-called scientists haven't delivered it to me yet!!!

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[thirdworld19 0]

Quote

>...each of which was followed by a warm period. "Ages" and "periods" are
>not measured in days, weeks, months or years. Rather, they are
>measured in thousands of years.

Agreed. This one is happening in decades instead of thousands of years due to our increased CO2 emissions.

This is assuming we know when the trend will stop and cooling will begin. Perhaps this is the beginning of a thousand year trend. Is there information available as to how quick the temps rose in the last global warming? Then we can compare what is happening now.