Global Cooling?

If you look at this chart it does look like solar increases have sort of stabilized since 1985 however since 1880 however it shows global warming follows solar increases and not industrial pollution.In the absence of some other agenda, in America Politics are using models that are based on assumptions rather than knowledge about what the professionals call the critical climate processes: water vapor, feedbacks, clouds, aerosols, ocean currents, and solar variability, etc...However worse than McCain and Leiberman proposal would be if Hiliary or Obama would gain the presidency and sign the perverted kyoto treaty either way though appears politics and the media have their candidates positioned to misinterprete the Lockwood premise, that is unless Huckabee by some miracle would gain the republican nomination and the Presidency. Temperature correlates with the Sun "NOT" Hydrocarbon Use . +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Since the United States does not intend to participate in the Kyoto Protocol, McCain and Lieberman advocate a mandatory program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They assert that nothing short of mandates is sufficiently responsive to the envisioned threat. Their scheme is deeply flawed.To begin with, it presumes a conclusion about climate change that is not supported by science. The National Academy of Sciences, along with most serious climate scientists, say it is not possible to distinguish potential human impacts from natural variability, and that a significant portion of warming that has occurred in recent decades could be natural.In addition, the projections of catastrophe these Senators rely on are the result of simulations from computer models that have not been validated scientifically. In the absence of some other agenda, it is difficult to understand why the Senators would put so much faith in models that are based mostly on assumptions rather than knowledge about critical climate processes: water vapor, feedbacks, clouds, aerosols, ocean currents, and solar variability. Knowledge of these processes would seem to be necessary to understand past climate change, to produce realistic models, and to provide a basis for credible projections into the future.Page Not Found - Marshall StreetEdited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

I'm not to concerned about it because Venus has much more Co2 96 percent and closer to the sun. I agree the other planets including Venus seem to be showing they too like the earth are being affected by the suns recent rise in solar energies.The EPA has Co2 safe up to 5,000 ppm we got a long way to go before Co2 would be a threat to human health, etc...P.S. They are trying to use Fear to push their agenda through its not about Co2 never has, etc...+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Historically, increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations have often followed rather than preceded warm periods.Conclusion. According to government mine safety regulations, atmospheric CO2 would have to rise as high as 5000 ppm before it posed a direct threat to human health. Since no scientist predicts a rise of this magnitude in the next century, the anticipated rise in CO2 levels should be viewed as beneficial. Even if temperatures increase slightly, life on earth will thrive.http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=enviro...Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

What you have is climatic scientists disagreeing with bypassing science in favor of Fear.P.S. Faith is a funny thing unless its in Christ would not base it on data that's based on Fear!+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++akjv Gen 8:22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.

Matthew Huber, an assistant professor of earth and atmospheric sciences in Purdue University's College of Science is questioning the mechanisms that feed back onto global warming are poorly understood and not well represented into our current generation of models. He said that this should be of great concern and will continue to be debated and explored in future research.P.S. You have evidence Co2 was once 2000 ppm and tropical life was thriving in the artic circle as well as the tropics. Co2 is only around 380 ppm and everyone is afraid for the world, etc...Why? The media pressed "Fear" in the 1970 about global cooling and they are pressing fear about global warming today. The media disagree'd with the professionals then and the media disagree today, etc.... Its all about FEAR (chicken little the sky is falling) not science, etc... Its like going to the doctor and some accountant at an HMO deciding if what the doctor deems necessary is medically necessary, etc... I believe its faith in Christ and not faith in the world or yourself. I however think Satan wants the fear due God thus you have the world fearing global warming, etc...God has already promised global warming or cooling will not affect the seasons, seedtime and harvest, hot and cold, while the earth remaineth ,etc... akjv genesis 8:22++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++North Pole's ancient past holds clues about future global warmingThe concentration of carbon dioxide in today's atmosphere is about 380 parts per million, whereas the concentration 55 million years ago was about 2,000 parts per million."We now have a pretty good correlation between records of past warmth and higher carbon dioxide concentrations," Huber said.While the climate models had predicted that researchers would discover the Arctic Ocean's freshwater past, the models have consistently underestimated by at least 10 degrees how hot the Earth would have been during that time, Huber said.The models fail to explain another puzzling fact. The temperature difference between the North Pole and the equator today is about 45 degrees C. But the difference appears to have been much smaller during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum time frame. Otherwise, it would have been too hot for vegetation to survive in equatorial latitudes."We still haven't explained why the tropics stayed cool," Huber said. "Somehow, we have to explain how you can warm the poles up to 23 degrees Celsius without having the tropics rise to at least 50 degrees, which is 10 degrees too hot for plants to carry out photosynthesis."He said the implications are troubling because current models may be providing optimistic predictions."Today's models underpredict how warm the poles were back then, which tells you something disturbing - that the models, if anything, aren't sensitive enough to greenhouse gases," Huber said. "At the same time, it is possible that other forces in addition to higher-than-normal greenhouse gas concentrations were involved, otherwise we can't explain how the tropics maintained livable conditions.http://www.physorg.com/news68305951.html++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Sunday, December 30, 2007100 Prominent Scientists Disagree with UN Secretary General on Global WarmingPage not found - The National CenterHere is an article talking about 100 Prominent Scientists that disagrees with the United Nations Secretary General on Global Warming. That global warming is only a natural phenomenom not affected by greenhouse gases. That curbing greenhouse gases will only hurt the populations of the earth and some scientists are concerned we might be moving towards global cooling.The first Earth Day was celebrated on April 22, 1970, amidst hysteria about the dangers of a new ice age. The media had been spreading warnings of a cooling period since the 1950s, but those alarms grew louder in the 1970s... In 1975, cooling went from "one of the most important problems" to a first-place tie for "death and misery." The claims of global catastrophe were remarkably similar to what the media deliver now about global warmingWhat were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s? Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

I actually enjoyed the link but one thing bothers me is that they are using satellight to measure the temp of the atmosphere being used to average the temperature of the earth!!!!!!!Are they not using satellight data to determine atmospheric temperature now and using that to say the earth is heating up? My question is like in 1950 how did they determine the average air temperature of the earth and in 2007 how did they determine the temperature of the earth? Its easy to fudge data !!!!!!!! etc...Is the earth actually really still heating up????????? No massive hurricanes in america last year. This winter I'm getting a whole lot more snow in my neck of the woods and much colder than last year and last year colder than the previous year in spite of those saying the earth is heating up, etc...One theory is that
melting ice caps could
“freshen” the water in the North
Atlantic, shutting down the natural
ocean circulation that brings warmer
Gulf Stream waters to the north and
cooler waters south again (see Figure 7).
This shutdown could make it much
cooler in northern Europe.http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate-change-final.pdf++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++What about this link over 100 scientists confronting the united nations disagreeing that man is responsible.Page not found - The National Center++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Obviously not all agree with the political correct view point but here are the names of those willing to put their john henry on the dotted line they disagree.Home | The National Post Home Page | National Post++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++I heard there were two cycles to the sun just thought it interesting from the russian scientists that are not affected by the political correct point of view.----------------------------------------------------------------------Thursday, January 3, 2008MOSCOW. (Oleg Sorokhtin for RIA Novosti) - Stock up on fur coats and felt boots! This is my paradoxical advice to the warm world.Earth is now at the peak of one of its passing warm spells. It started in the 17th century when there was no industrial influence on the climate to speak of and no such thing as the hothouse effect. The current warming is evidently a natural process and utterly independent of hothouse gases.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.Blog not found++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Kate Ravilious
for National Geographic NewsFebruary 28, 2007
Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural”and not a human-induced”causeHabibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...0228-mars-warming.htmlEdited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

They did the bigger question why the flip flop?The most comprehensive study on the subject (and the closest thing to a scientific consensus at the time) was by the US National Academy of Sciences. Their basic conclusion was " . we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate . "I find it interesting how just a change of attitude they did a flip flop disregarding the most comprehensive study on the issue and now understand the climate machine. Hmmmm..........National Academy of Sciences - now and thenWhat were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++From your point of view mike lockwood is not a climatologists either. He teaches PH420 Space Plasma Physics so lets toss out his study. It would be like a chemistry professor trying to teach special relativity. right???????? Mike Lockwood is not a climatologist!!!!!!!If you look at the list you see related science people with PhD's that disagree. Timothy Ball is a climatologists on the list that caused Yuri A. Izrael Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to agree that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change ,etc...++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
By Timothy Ball
Monday, February 5, 2007Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was one of the first Canadian Ph.Ds. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening.And, recently, So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Global DimmngHere is where enter the greenhouse effect, who is more is used to promote the theory of the global warming. But there is emptiness in that theory that was not taken into revision: When existing great amounts of gases located in the atmosphere, this is denser, so the clouds that form there. The clouds at the moment have greater amount of polluting agents than in the past, which causes that these are white and flat, which, ironically, reflects the light that come from the Sun, not allowing its entrance to the Earth.http://library.thinkquest.org/...English/causes_dimming.htmlEdited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

I just find it interesting that pollution is believed to increase cloud reflecting heat upwards away from the surface of the earth.I have already asked the question where are they measuring the air temperature increase 1950 verses 2007 ?"If" they are now measuring the troposphere, stratosphere via satellight more pollution more heat being reflected from the troposhere to the stratosphere and not reflective of heat being absorbed by the earth, etc...????????P.S. If air temp is now being taken now by satellight of the troposphere stratosphere to determine the average temp of the earth they are spinning the data to support a wrong conclusion !!!!!!!!

I agree in the 1970's the concensus was global cooling, then in the 1990's the consensus changed to global warming.P.S. The reality according to Timothy Ball a climatology professor is that the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
By Timothy Ball
Monday, February 5, 2007Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was one of the first Canadian Ph.Ds. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening.And, recently, So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htmEdited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

Here's one 1971 by Stephen Schneider a climate researcher at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. However by 1975 he recanted and by 1980 the Carter Administration already predicted there would be a warming by 2000. By the 1990's the consensus was global warming was the consensus or that Co2 was overriding aerosols. However now we have the sun being excessively quiet as the opening post suggested that if the sun does not get more active were moving towards another cooling. I too thought we were still heating up but the evidence to me suggest otherwise that is if the sun does not become more active were moving into a global cooling phase.Looking at it all from when I was a kid in 1968 told my dad were causing global cooling because that was what I was being taught in science. He actually understood what was happening and said Son its a scam they want to tax gasoline there is nothing to global cooling the earth is heating up not cooling when I was your age we had snow higher than those telephone poles.For a moment though back in 1968 I too was taken in by what I was being taught in school that we were moving into global cooling and if we did not do something we were going to enter an ice age.P.S. I'm pretty much done with this thread and would like to thank fgarb personally for helping me understand the evidence though we still disagree. I've changed my opinion that were now moving from a global warming period into a global cooling stage that the sun is cooling presently and if the sun doesn't get more active the earth's going to cool.++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++One of the sources of this idea may have been a 1971 paper by Stephen Schneider, then a climate researcher at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland, US. Schneider's paper suggested that the cooling effect of dirty air could outweigh the warming effect of carbon dioxide, potentially leading to an ice age if aerosol pollution quadrupled.http://environment.newscientist.com/...limate-change/dn11643Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, :