Global Cooling?

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.

How about you defend or withdraw your claim that most serious climate scientists think the warming is natural, and then we can change the subject? You claimed the National Academy of Sciences supports this. I demonstrated it does not. So I will ask again, can you show me even one prominent science organization that agrees with these climate scientists you speak of? I see physicists, engineers, biologists, chemists, geologists, and social scientists on that list. There must be hundreds of thousands of scientists who meet the necessary qualifications to sign ... tens of thousands at least. Why do you think we only see a small fraction of one percent signing?

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.

Well, geez, don't stop there! At one time scientists thought Newtonian physics was correct, but they replaced it with Einsteinian relativity. Hmmmm...At one time scientists thought the continents were fixed, now they believe they move around on tectonic plates. Hmmmm...At one time scientists thought the expansion of the universe was slowing, now they believe it is accelerating. Hmmmm...On the other hand, you could recognize that science is all about expanding and improving our knowledge. As evidence and insight improve so do our knowledge and understanding. This couldn't happen if scientific knowledge were static and unchanging.You might consider what it would mean if we already knew everything, that there was nothing else to learn. Or what it would mean if some scientific body were given the authority to declare that we already know everything and that no one could add to our knowledge. In either case the scientists could all go home and take up knitting.In other words, you're criticizing science for one of its most important and critical qualities, tentativity.As I've said several times, and as one other person has also noted, there are plenty of anti-global-warming websites out there. What matters isn't the number of those sites you can find to quote here, but the scientific evidence supporting your position. If you restrict yourself to legitimate science you'll find it supports a different conclusion.--Percy

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 !!!!!!!!

Let's assume that what you're implying is true, that scientists have no reliable way of establishing average annual global temperatures over the past half century or so. Wouldn't that invalidate claims from both sides of the discussion, since we couldn't know if there is any long term trend up or down in global temperatures? For example, your websites' claims that rising temperatures are due to increased solar activity would be invalidated if there was no way to know the trend in global temperatures.The reality is that there is no longer a debate within science about whether global temperatures are rising. Debate now concerns whether the increase is natural or human-caused, and the gathering consensus is that it is us.--Percy

Too bad about the bandwidth. Did you try to download the MP3? Its 30 megs and took 3 minutes on my connection (DSL), but wouldn't play on my media player The link is on this page. Otherwise you will have to wait for the CDs.

quote:

---

Coming soon: CDs of the programs. For more information, contact feedback@dnafiles.org.

---

Maybe they can email you an MP3 that works. What I was struck by was the amount of evolution that was already taking place to adapt the various plant and animal organisms to the changes in climate, from breeding time to blooming time outside normal boundaries.I think fragmentation is a concern - for fragmented organisms. I expect cockroaches to survive regardless. There will doubtless be extinction, but this is one of the elements that will enable evolution to demonstrate what happens after extinction events, periods that show the most change in the fossil record. You're thinking food chain crashes and other domino effects yes? Again I don't doubt that extinction will occur -- just that it will be the only thing that occurs.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

the evidence of this is wide scale. even now. i can observe it from my front porch. its a definite concern.I'm just wondering can the depth be understood and action taken by a normally very slow political process, that will curb or solve the mess we have all made.in order for science to find a fix, we need the green technologies, and have them implemented. science needs to understand the how, so politics can implement a pertinent action.i was hoping to explore some things in this thread concerning actual fixes, by understanding the actual problem, and also try to determine possible time frames to determine when action will become impossible.keep an open mind for the next things I'm saying, because i'm trying to use logic on something i don't really understand much (climate)actual problem: know the atmosphere layers, the base components, how they interact with each other within the conditions they are subject to, and test different concentrations in a lab to see what effects are possible, : ie:O3 Co2 (nitrogen?) and other gases; reaction to electricity (lightning) reaction to radiation (up to the concentrations of a sunburst and reflective concentrations)i'm aware that scientist know the atmospheric layers, but i don't know if they have measured the depth consistently ie: is the growing layer of CO2 making the water containable space smaller?if a volume of a greenhouse is 200 cubic meters, and water evaporates, the water can be held until it condensates by cooling, or by over saturation of the air mass. if i flood the greenhouse with 10% CO2, and it stays at the top, only 180 cubic meters is left to retain water molecules before it condensates from lack of volume. which means more rain.atmospherically, wind can ride well above the land at much higher speeds than near the ground, and ground winds can be much lighter, but when wind has less space to ride above the earth, because of saturation (clouds) then the wind is stronger on the surface (of course as it is logical to me, id love verification or correction)not sure what more storms and acid rain would do to everything, but from what I've seen so far, it don't look good.Venus: with the US and China spitting out so many carbons, and other countries possibly fixing to follow suit, i'm not sure that the Asian technology thats dragging a big kite through the sky will be enough.i still am concerned about a potential absolute covering like many gaseous planets if interactions of carbon are possible in higher concentrations, for an atmospheric reaction.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

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.

Who are you agreeing with? I certainly never said this, and if you're talking about a scientific consensus, I don't believe such a consensus existed in the 1970's. More accurately, a consensus about the direction of global temperature change began to emerge during the 1990's.As has been noted a number of times now, there are countless anti-global-warming sites out there that you can quote from, just as there are countless anti-vaccine sites people can quote from, and countless conspiracy sites people can quote from, and countless paranormal sites people can quote from. There's no sense responding to people whose posts consist primarily of quotes from such sites, because they could literally go on quoting from them forever. I've pointed this out many times but you haven't stopped, so it's worth noting that according to the Forum Guidelines your posts should consist primarily of your own words, not someone else's.This is a science thread, and the very strong scientific consensus about global warming is that average global temperatures are rising, and the gathering scientific consensus about the cause is that it is due to human activity. A scientific consensus doesn't make something unchallengeable, but it does make it science, and so your arguments should also be based upon science. And they should for the most part be arguments made in your own words, not quotes of someone else's arguments.--Percy

You are making a habit of claiming scientific consesuses that never existed. As Percy has said, there was never a scientific consensus about global cooling. Don't believe me? It's easy to prove me wrong. Just find a single science organization that predicted long term global cooling. Hell, I'll make it easier for you. Find me one single scientific paper (written by a scientist, not a novelist or a journalist, and published in a science journal) since 1970 that predicted long term global cooling or that we were entering an Ice Age. It should be a trivial task if what you say is true.

Percy has already responded to this, but I just want to add to it. A flip-flop would be to claim that the globe was not warming or that humans were not the cause, and then later change to the current scientific consensus. The National Academy did not do this. In 1975, they said they did not know. This makes sense. Back then things were a lot less certain. The science was more poorly understood (feedback loops from clouds, and cooling effects from sulphates), it was harder to disentangle solar effects from atmospheric causes because solar output had not demonstrably leveled off, and they did not have the computing power to grind through all the simulations that are used as supporting evidence today.So to summarize. In the 1970s there was no clear scientific consensus about whether humans were causing global warming. There was also no consensus that we were headed for and ice age. There was insufficient evidence to come to either conclusion. Today the evidence is much stronger, and most legitimate science organizations have stated that the earth is warming and humans are the primary cause.

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, :

Thanks for sticking with it up until now, and sorry if I came across a bit intense at times. I occasionally do get carried away. In the process of responding to your claims and websites, I also learned a lot in this discussion and it was quite valuable for me.As for the article, as usual I am going to have to disagree with New Scientist on this one. I can say "if the sun's power output reduces by 1% we will fall into an ice age". This does not mean I am predicting an ice age. Similarly, Rasool and Schneider said that if aerosols increase temperatures may fall and we may fall into an ice age. Since they have not continued to increase (I think aerosol concentrations have actually been declining) I do not see this as a prediction of an ice age under today’s conditions.

Venus has a runaway greenhouse effect. The reasons are several. First, is its closeness to the sun. Objects near the sun are far hotter than those further from it.Second, which is relative to the first reason, is that Venus doesn't have oceans of water that the Earth has. Venus never had oceans of water. There is a small amount of evidence that shows Venus had maybe 6 feet deep ponds and other small bodies of water, but nothing compared to the oceans we experience here on Earth. The water that was on Venus evaporated very quickly due to Venus' location near the sun.Remember, these oceans act as carbon sinks which absorb the CO2 from the atmoshphere and store it in carbonaceous rocks, such as limestone, at the bottom of the ocean. Without oceans, the CO2 accumulated very quickly and in great amounts.Third, is Venus' mass. Mercury, you will notice, is even closer to the sun than Venus is, but it doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect. Venus has enough mass to hang on to its atmosphere, where as Mercury is not massive enough, and its escape velocity is much lower, allowing the atmosphere to escape into space.