Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page 1, 2  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 2
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 1:11 am    Post subject: Time for Global Cooling Reply with quote

Better start building more coal fired power plants...

Quote:
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.


http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080103/94768732.html
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 1:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

But.... the science is in!! What does Gorezuki say about this? ;)

-Mac
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 1:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I tend to think it's better to leave nature alone to do it's thing, rather than try to change our environment. Look what happened when Australia tried to get rid of the Cane beetle...

So, trying to avoid dumping huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere sounds good to me...
Bill_in_Calgary





Joined: 18 Jun 2007
Posts: 27
Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5

PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Space Weather News for Jan. 4, 2008
http://spaceweather.com

Solar physicists have been waiting for the appearance of a
reversed-polarity sunspot to signal the start of the next solar cycle. The
wait is over. A magnetically reversed, high-latitude sunspot emerged
today. This marks the beginning of Solar Cycle 24 and the first step
toward a new solar maximum. Intense solar activity won't begin right
away. Solar cycles usually take a few years to build from solar minimum
(where we are now) to Solar Max (expected in 2011 or 2012). It's a slow
journey, but we're on our way!

Visit http://spaceweather.com for pictures of the new sunspot and updates.


Will we get a strong or weak solar max in a few years? That's the BIG question.

For now we have the lingering effect of a solar minimum with high cosmic ray flux at sea level (more cloud) and a La Nina expected to last into March. I don't know what this exactly will do to global temps but I have a good idea. Continued slow decline.
JBG





Joined: 03 Oct 2007
Posts: 823
Reputation: 93.1Reputation: 93.1
votes: 8
Location: NYC Area

PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 9:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bill_in_Calgary wrote:
Will we get a strong or weak solar max in a few years? That's the BIG question.

For now we have the lingering effect of a solar minimum with high cosmic ray flux at sea level (more cloud) and a La Nina expected to last into March. I don't know what this exactly will do to global temps but I have a good idea. Continued slow decline.
Signing the Kyoto treaty should cause a weak solar max.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 10:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
I tend to think it's better to leave nature alone to do it's thing

So, trying to avoid dumping huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere sounds good to me...


I totally agree. Nature will adapt to whatever we throw at it. So we should stop trying to influence it.
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 12:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
I totally agree. Nature will adapt to whatever we throw at it. So we should stop trying to influence it.

How are we trying to "influence" it? Do you think emitting huge amount of carbon dioxide isn't going to influence the environment?
Nature may adapt, but not necessarily in a good way. Again, look at cane toads in Australia for an example of how nature adapts.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 12:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
Craig wrote:
I totally agree. Nature will adapt to whatever we throw at it. So we should stop trying to influence it.

How are we trying to "influence" it?


By REDUCING our emissions we are trying to influence it. I agree with you - we shouldn't try to influence it.

Quote:
Nature may adapt, but not necessarily in a good way. Again, look at cane toads in Australia for an example of how nature adapts.


Squirrels have adopted quite well to urbanization. You can't use the cane toad example as a reason why we better act against global warming. We will be saved by negative feedback loops and other exogenous factors.
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
By REDUCING our emissions we are trying to influence it.

No. Not doing anything (ie not emitting carbon dioxide) is not influencing it. When we do something that affects the environment (ie emitting carbon dioxide) we are influencing it. Reducing emissions means we are influencing it LESS.
Quote:
Squirrels have adopted quite well to urbanization. You can't use the cane toad example as a reason why we better act against global warming.

I'm not saying we should act against global warming. I am saying we shouldn't act, in other words we shouldn't emit huge amounts of carbon dioxide. Just as Australians shouldn't have acted against the cane beetle.
Quote:
We will be saved by negative feedback loops and other exogenous factors.

What are these negative feedback loops?


Last edited by gc on Sun Jan 06, 2008 2:48 pm; edited 1 time in total
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 2:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
No. Not doing anything (ie not emitting carbon dioxide) is not influencing it.


I just farted. I guess I'm influencing global warming? Sorry, I'll hold it in next time.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 2:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
What are these negative feedback loops?


There are many. One example of a negative feedback loop is increased cloud cover. As temperature increase so does evaporation and the capacity of air to hold moisture. As a result cloud cover increases. This blocks sunlight causing a reduction in radiative warming at the surface (higher albedo) thereby reducing temperature.

Another example of a negative feedback loop is increased vegetation as a result of warmth and increased CO2. Most of this increase would be in the oceans. The capacity of the oceans to hold and absorb CO2 increases with temperature.

If negative feedback loops didn't exist then previous warmings would have run wild. They are what results in cycles. There is no reason to believe they won't kick in this time.
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 2:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I repeat:

Quote:
we shouldn't emit huge amounts of carbon dioxide


That must have been one pretty big fart...
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 3:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
There are many. One example of a negative feedback loop is increased cloud cover. As temperature increase so does evaporation and the capacity of air to hold moisture. As a result cloud cover increases. This blocks sunlight causing a reduction in radiative warming at the surface (higher albedo) thereby reducing temperature.

This would actually be an example of a positive feedback loop. Water vapour is a greenhouse gas. More water vapour in the atmosphere means greater global warming.
Quote:
Another example of a negative feedback loop is increased vegetation as a result of warmth and increased CO2. Most of this increase would be in the oceans.

This would be counteracted by loss of vegetation. For example, deserts would increase in size. Other species might die because it is too warm.
Quote:
The capacity of the oceans to hold and absorb CO2 increases with temperature.

The solubility of a gas (ie carbon dioxide) in a liquid (ie water) actually decreases with temperature. Not to mention that carbon dioxide reacts with water to form carbonic acid, making the ocean more acidic.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 3:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
I repeat:

Quote:
we shouldn't emit huge amounts of carbon dioxide


That must have been one pretty big fart...


6.5 billion people. It adds up...

And don't get me started on cows...
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 3:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
Craig wrote:
There are many. One example of a negative feedback loop is increased cloud cover. As temperature increase so does evaporation and the capacity of air to hold moisture. As a result cloud cover increases. This blocks sunlight causing a reduction in radiative warming at the surface (higher albedo) thereby reducing temperature.

This would actually be an example of a positive feedback loop. Water vapour is a greenhouse gas. More water vapour in the atmosphere means greater global warming.


From a professor at the University of Colorado (one of the most respected climatology institutions in the world)...

Quote:
The global general circulation models which simulate significant amounts of human-induced warming are incorrectly structured to give this positive feedback loop.

Their internal model assumptions are thus not realistic.

Mainstream opinion believes that pollution contributes to climate change
As human-induced greenhouse gases rise, global-averaged upper-level atmospheric water vapour and thin cirrus should be expected to decrease not increase.

Water vapour and cirrus cloudiness should be thought of as a negative rather than a positive feedback to human-induced - or anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases.

No significant human-induced greenhouse gas warming can occur with such a negative feedback loop.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_.....023334.stm

Quote:
This would be counteracted by loss of vegetation. For example, deserts would increase in size.


Historically speaking, as temperature rises the amount of vegetation on this planet has increased.


Quote:
]
Quote:
The capacity of the oceans to hold and absorb CO2 increases with temperature.

The solubility of a gas (ie carbon dioxide) in a liquid (ie water) actually decreases with temperature. Not to mention that carbon dioxide reacts with water to form carbonic acid, making the ocean more acidic.


The ocean is both a solubility pump and a biological pump. The biological pump is what increases with temperature.

You have history working against you. If there weren't negative feedback loops the planet would have burned up long ago.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 2

Goto page 1, 2  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Time for Global Cooling

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB