| Big Govt | Breitbart to AG Holder: Investigate ACORN or We’ll Release More Tapes Just Before 2010 Election |
0 |
| Politico | 0 | |
| Ras. Reports | 0 | |
| Patterico | L.A. Times Columnist Uncritically Quoted Star of Latest ACORN Video |
0 |
| ABC News | Major Hasan’s E-Mail: ‘I Can’t Wait to Join You’ in Afterlife |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
Which is it? Global warming or global cooling?
I want to prepare for the impending doom I’m being warned about regarding global warming … but now I’m confused because what actually may be happening is global cooling.
So what do I need in my underground bunker? A lifetime supply of winter coats and blankets, or a lifetime supply of summertime apparel and an infinite supply of generators to help keep my secret stash of ice cold?
Paging The Goracle, paging The Goracle.
Update: ST reader RedWinged Blackbird emails a scan of the April 1975 Newsweek report on “global cooling.” Pricless!
Flashback:
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
41 Responses to “Which is it? Global warming or global cooling?”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
Sis,
We’ve made a full circle now. I have a PDF scan of a 1975 Newsweek article called “The Cooling World”. It’s on its way to your inbox.
It’s called “Global Profiting”. Who could have sold this scam to tax the masses years ago, with a theory that humans by their everyday lives cause “Global Warming” or “Climactic Change”. You can’t apply the scientific method to this hustle, because you can’t either shut down Human activity to see if the Planet cools, or accelerate it to see if the Planet warms. All you do is find useful idiots who buy “Carbon-Shares”, and by the time they have realized they’ve been had, ALGORE is happily ensconced in his mountain lair, chuckling.
Cooling… warming doesn’t matter. It’s climate “CHANGE” now. “cause they can’t prove either one. So it’s both.
Come on now, let’s all chant Gaia, Gaia… All the while fleeced by OwlGore.
Climate Changeâ„¢.
Sort of a “one size fits all” theory…
Cooling, warming, let’s not get bogged down in details. As altruists such as Al Gore have stated before, we can’t wait until all the evidence is in before we act. There’s only one solution, regardless of the actual specifics of the crisis: cripple the world’s most productive economies and place everything under centralized control. After all, the sterling record of the Communist world is all the proof you need of the human and environmental benefits of a command economy.
Oh, and democracy is part of the problem. We can’t afford it if we’re going to save the planet.
Let’s see … the ice has grown so thick in Greenland that the Polar Bears are going into the towns to find food. The Polar Bear population is increasing. The Pack Ice in the Arctic is thicker than it’s been in years. The Antarctic Ice Sheet is larger than it’s been in years and continues to grow. The Chinese are experiencing the coldest Winter in decades. Snow falls in the Middle East beyond the living memory of those living there.
I’d say we are leaving the mini-Warming period following the Little Ice Age and are getting back to normal – cold! Let’s breath heavily, people, and get the CO2 out there for the trees to breath!
Global Warming, my chilled buttocks!
*Sigh*. There’s alot of possible outcomes. Basically science is saying that changes are having very quickly, and they’re are a couple of different theories of what may happen if a significant deposit of glaciars melt.
One of those changes is millions of pounds of cold,clean glacial water dropping into the ocean and affecting oceanic currents. This currents are believed to be responsible for weather, and is predicted to dramatically affect weather patterns across the planet. This theoretically could cause a freeze.
Alot of climatology is based on predictions from complicated matrices. It’s an evolving science and far from perfect. Still, most climatologists I’ve met are considerably freaked out that a major climate change will occur in the next 50-100 yeras, and since they’ve spent their entire life studying this issue, I’m more inclined to share their concerns than your skepticism.
Okay, alchemist, tell us the cause and cure. If you’re a down the line lefty, you’ve already got it all picked out, plus a whole raft of solutions for it.
I refuse to take lifestyle advice from the same statists that have been peddling this collectivist twaddle for generations and now think changing weather patterns is their key to seizing power.
And why are we having this discussion? Eco-fascists like Gore have been droning on and on for the past decade that the science is settled, the debate is over. If you’re going to get cold feet and reopen the debate just because your scenarios aren’t working out and the data refuse to follow your preexisiting conclusions, where the hell have you people been all this time?
Oh, right, demonizing skeptics. Comparing those who don’t buy into anthropomorphic climate change with Holocaust deniers. Advocating suspension of civil rights.
Too late now to pretend you want a free and open debate, you shut that door long ago.
Mistress, if I made an appearance at your underground bunker, and loaded down with Mandarin chocolates, would you turn me away?
Since our beloved host ST lives in North Carolina, I thought she might be interested in this little piece on NC temperature trends:
Linky
There is no “cure”. There is no easy solution. And I disagree with those who think they’re will be. We can certainly do some things to slow those changes down. Using cleaner sources of fuel would certainly help, as would using less fuel per person. Both would also help our dependence of ME oil sources, which would also make me happy. Won’t stop what is about to happen in China though.
They’re are many different options, but most are in their infancy. Hydroelectric power works well when available, Solar and wind are in their infancy, but progressing nicely. Biodiesel is interesting, but limited. Hydrogen engines, in their current form, are not plausible. In 5-10 years, these technologies will
be much more effecient. In the meantime, emphasis should be placed on reducing energy output. One option would be to give household tax breaks for low energy consumption, buying insulation etc.
Steve: I don’t compare climate skeptics to halaucaust deniers. Most of the time it’s simply people who are not familiar with the research. Which is understandable, most of the research is very dense and complicated. Most counter-arguments I have seen come from misreading the research, or are gathered from out-dated or flawed studies. In scientific fields, the debate that things are changing is over. The debate on exactly what will happen, and how quickly it will happen is still occurring.
The most dangerous sign (I see) is the melting of glaciers faster than scientists previously predicted. This is likely to have the most dramatic effect on ocean temperature, weather patterns, and shoreline disappearance over the next 100 years.
Severian: You would expect that some places will not dramatically change temperature. In some places, weather will not be affected. And in some places, weather will be affected dramatically. In some places, it may appear to look opposite of global warming. From my understanding this is expected from changing weather pattern. Still, if you look at the global average temperature, temperatures have risen 1.5C in the last 100 years (fairly large change by climate standards), and most of that change has occurred since WWII.
alchemist wrote, “Still, if you look at the global average temperature, temperatures have risen 1.5C in the last 100 year”
Where is your source for that?
Can you state for us when most of the [accurate not claimed by you] temperature rise took place in the last 100 years and then square that with CO2 increases and why they don’t correlate?
You’re picking the wrong person to try and sell anthropogenic global warming to alchemist. I’m a physicist, and I spend a significant amount of time each week reading papers and looking at much of the underlying data behind this AGW myth.
At best, and these are limited, but the best you can say about the AGW proponents arguments are that they are one view, and there are other views, it’ll take time to tell. At worst, and this involves a significant amount of the case for AGW, there are indications of negligence, incompetence, and even outright fraud. Most particularly in the ground based temperature measurements, which apply adjustments to cool the early part of the century, and ignore the effects of UHI heating on the measurements, which makes the temp trends worse than they really are. Add to this evidence of fraudulent data practices with respect to sea level measurements by the IPCC and outright fabrications regarding the data from stations in China and other ROW locations, and you don’t have a confidence inspiring picture.
Ground based temperature measurements are, at best, a + or – 2-5 degree “instrument” being used to predict and measure tenths and hundredths of a degree temperature predictions.
I’d suggest you start monitoring Anthony Watts’ http://www.surfacestations.org and Steve McIntyre’s http://www.climateaudit.org carefully. After you look over the archives, and follow the discussions, for a month or so, come back and let us know if you’re still so confident that the temperature is rising so rapidly or much.
And it’s less than 1 deg C, about 1.5 deg F, at least get your units right if you’re going to claim the sky is falling.
BTW, currently Watts has surveyed about 42% of the US surface stations used to record temperature for climate predictions. Only 13% of these stations meet the US requirements for being properly sited, that is without microsite issues that make temperature measurements inaccurate to the point of being useless for climate prediction. That leaves 87% of the stations that Hansen and his cohorts use contaminated beyond the point where their data is useless.
Sev wrote, “And it’s less than 1 deg C, about 1.5 deg F, at least get your units right if you’re going to claim the sky is falling.”
That’s what I was sayin’
I didn’t give it away. 
BTW 2, you do realize that a single number for “global temperature” is a meaningless metric don’t you? Look up the arguments against this.
And, try and stay away from Real Climate, I’ve seen them both outright lie and distort things, and block comments that that point out the serious problems with their party line.
OMG OMG OMG The temperature change was 20 degrees not in one hundred years, but ONE DAY!!!
That’s right, our low was 25 and our high was 45 today. Please explain how the world can handle a 20 degree change in a 12 hour period but will be totally destroyed by a one half of one degree change over a hundred yr period?
And alchemist, if we try to stop warming, that will make cooling worse if it is cooling. And if we try to stop cooling, won’t that make the warming worse? So your mantra of “we gotta do “SOMETHING” now or we’re all doomed. doesn’t make sense.
After all, leave St Louis and drive east, are you getting to Los Angeles? NO? But wait, you’re doing something aren’t you? It’s not “do something”, it’s DO THE RIGHT THING!
Global Cooling of last year wipes out 100 years of warming.
Funny how the media has yet to report on the new data coming out that shows the Earth has cooled down so much in the past year the it wiped out an entire century of warming.I guess Al Gore will claim that global warming is causing this.
Actually, sev, I am angered by alchemist’s pose of objectivity. Perhaps he personally does believe there is still interpretation to be made, and data to be collected. That isn’t what we’ve been hearing from his allies on the left the past decade. What we’ve been getting is intellectual thuggery and soft fascism, coupled with bizarre fantasies from the more excitable members of the leftist echo chamber of concentration camps and revocation of civil rights. And I didn’t make up the holocaust denier comparison either, however much alchemist claims he didn’t buy into it. But “reasonable” members of the left like he can always say “I never, personally made that comparison.”
And now that the wheels are coming off the AGW bandwagon, apparently we need more study. Well, I expected these folks to be shameless, based on their past behavior. That doesn’t mean I have to accept it.
But coming from a group that still accepts the laughable claims of the consistently and spectacularly wrong Paul Erlich, therte’s no honesty or integrity to be expected.
Agree completely Steve S. These mindless ramblings by the church of the coming global apocalypse both anger and insult me. Being lectured to about science from the kind of mouth breather who swallows this crock hook, line, and sinker is particularly galling.
Solar cycle 24 still hasn’t started. It’s over a year overdue by some computations. There was a surge of excitement a few weeks ago when the sun finally grew it’s first sunspot, but that was as short lived as the spot was, it only lasted a few days. So, we’re still waiting. The longer it is before cycle 24 starts, the more likely it is that the sun is entering at least a Daulton Minimum, if not a Maunder one. If that occurs, and if on top of that we’ve let these alarmists convince us to shift a significant portion of world agricultural production into making fuel instead of food, then you’re going to see a really nasty situation develop. Cold is infinitely worse for the human race than hot is. Every temperature peak for the past few thousand years has coincided with upsurges in human civilization, from the Babylonians, to the Greeks and Romans, to the Renaissance, and the downturns were uniformly brutish, nasty, war torn, and pestilence and famine ridden.
Sacrificing our ability to produce cheap energy, and keeping the Third World from developing cheap energy, is not the way to approach either warming or cooling. Adaptability is key, our ability to control or even influence the global environment is nothing but an egotistical pipe dream.
And, something that really irks me, is that all this hysteria about CO2 and Global Warming is taking all the attention and money away from real pollution issues, things we can have a beneficial impact on. Like, oh, say, mercury pollution, which we’re about to drastically increase with all the compact fluorescent bulbs, which despite wishful thinking on the greenies part, most people will not dispose of properly.
Let’s see, insignificant energy and “greenhouse” gas emission gains on the one hand, guaranteed spike in mercury pollution on the other. Decisions, decisions.
So, based on the zig-zagging mean temps of this article’s graph, ST will be writing this same post every couple years, and every couple of years. Apparently no one in this corner of the www understands the concept of climate fluctuation. LOOK AT THE TREND LINES, not a one-year period!
Can you GW deniers explain this?http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/
After you stop using the word denier maybe we can have a discussion tom….
till then you are closed minded..
Tom, don’t even pretend to argue a scientific point. Your insulting and snide post says it all, really. This is about the same tired old leftist posturing and moral grandstanding. From screaming “chickenhawk” to denouncing AGW heretics, it’s all about stifling a discussion your side is too immature to enter.
Your emperor has no clothes. How’s that hockey stick graph working out? And the hottest year on record again, was, what?
To tom’s link I’d say, so what? It shows essentially what we’ve already discussed, and what Sev has already debunked, in this thread: that temperatures have risen by all of 1 degree C over the past 120 years, and that’s proof of AGW.
If tom is so enamored of NASA data, maybe he can explain why global warming is also happening on Mars and even on the outer planets. Too many Martians driving around in SUVs? Not enough little green men installing compact fluorescent bulbs? Wait, no…I’ve got it. It’s George Bush’s fault!!
Here’s a hint, tom…the next really clear day you have, go outside and look at that big bright thing in the sky. Then consider how that thing (we call it the SUN) might have something to do with temperatures.
Tom, spend some time looking at the myriad of errors and problems and suspicious and poorly (or un-) documented mysterious “adjustments” that NASA/GISS performs on the raw data, and take a look at how bad the stations are collecting the raw data, then get back with us. Measuring tenths and less of a deg of temp “anomaly” with the GISS network is like measuring the inches with a stick a meter long with no markings. Inaccurate and imprecise.
It all looks pretty cyclical to me. Honestly, what did we do in the 1920s and 30s to stop the Global Warming trend then?? Build Hoover dam?? Even the sun irradance seems to be cyclical. I think like most liberal trickery, this is much ado about nothing. This is the latest thing to allow scientist to feel important. But to appease the GW Fanatics, so they don’t hunt me down, I am going to plant at least 3 trees on my property, and a couple of new shrubs.
– Lorica
Ok, so something about me means I only get time to comment when I’m in a bad mood, really tired or rushing. So sorry for misreading people or misquoting data. I’ve just been doing alot of that lately…. which explains the C/F thing. Just rushed without a paying attention.
Actually, sev, I am angered by alchemist’s pose of objectivity
I’m sorry that you’re angered by how I think. I’m not a climate expert, I only know what I read. And what I read is primarily academic papers in science & nature (or academic blogs). You do what you know I guess. But I am here to learn, (or at least develop better arguments). On that note:
Interesting links on the surface stations. Unfortunately, I don’t have time to dig through all of it, but I have saved the sites, and will visit periodically to keep myself updated. I also looked at different arguments on sites like Atomoz and Real Climate, just to get some give and take.
Sounds like there is some real debate going over the surface stations and their accuracy. Especially the Urban Heat Island effect, which has developed several papers with opposite conclusions. Still, RealClimate claims that most the national heat change would be found in alaska or Canada. I would think there would be less encroachment there (& possibly better data), but I can’t find much data on Northern weather stations. Nor on their age & accuracy.
Still, as I said in my previous post, I am most concerned with landlocked melting glaciers. I can’t find anything that suggests that landlocked glaciers are growing (on average) faster than they are shrinking. There are definitely individual cases where this is true, but most GW-webites claim the tips of these glaciers tend to be withdrawing, and give links to papers that I’ll have to track down later.
Do you have any links that gives data that worldwide glacial size is increasing? thanks, Alchemist.
Real Climate is mostly take and not give, they edit and refuse to post any comments that deviate too far from the party line. It’s sad, and does not help their credibility at all. Compare this to Watt’s and McIntyre’s comment policies, which are open and snip only for snide and inconsiderate language/behavior, not for technical content, and you can get a real insight into who has the most confidence in their own arguments.
And, glaciers have been melting at about the same rate ever since the end of the Little Ice Age, data that supports the claim of rapid increases just ain’t there. And glaciers shrink for reasons other than temperature, lack of precipitation is a much larger issue.
A prime example of this is Mt. Kilimanjaro, Real Climate would have you believe, like Al Gore, that Global Warming is what’s causing it to disappear. Unfortunately, there are at least three different peer reviewed papers pointing out that the temp is either static or decreasing at the summit, and that local land use changes have led to drastically less rain and snow fall, which is the real cause (deforestation around the mountain is a major cause).
This is part of what I really dislike about the CO2 BS, local land use changes swamp the effects of CO2, and are something you can do something about, but they are largely ignored, even though they result in more climate forcing than CO2 ever will. Pielke’s blog (www.climatesci.org) has a lot about this.
So, to summarize, the magnitude of the warming is overstated, and there is little evidence that CO2 is causing the majority of it, and even less that human emitted CO2 is the cause, but that’s not the way to a green socialists heart, so it gets swept under the rug.
Interestingly enough, if we start getting temperature decreases, and the glaciers start growing, this would be seriously worse for areas that rely on glaciers and snow melt to supply water to lakes and rivers for human use. More snow, less melting, less water, not exactly what you’d think.
I think, alchemist, you’ll find the threads and discussions on the sites mentioned interesting in both their openness and their rationality as opposed to the usual RC and AGW everything is settled now STFU sites.
I like how Alchemist thinks. He’ll read all the sites that support his conclusion but dosen’t have the time to read the opposing view to see what they have to say. A closed mind? You decide.
He’ll read all the sites that support his conclusion but dosen’t have the time to read the opposing view to see what they have to say.
I went through climate audit, i went through climatesci.org, watt’s surface stations, and googled a number of other blogs that I didn’t agree with (but not many good pro/con breakdowns either) in addition to reading all articles linked above. What else do you want me to read?
Alchemist wrote this:
This quote is so darned full of errors.My eyes are sore.
For one thing.There has been no warming trend from 1940-2008.
Most AGW’s actually state that the warming since 1880’s is about .70 degrees F. Your 1.5C claim is baloney.Maybe a deliberate lie since it is so far off the mark.
This part is gibberish since you can say the same exact words if it was a worldwide cooling trend:
Weather is different 60 minutes later.
Climate from month to month.From Year to year is always different.That means it is always changing.Not static.
Your “understanding” claim are so freaking insane that Al would be proud of you.
At my forum we have a running clock on Gore’s insane doomsday pronouncement.The very same dude who has been lying to heyoka’s like you for years.Raking in the millions in the process.
Why let a lying scumbag like him drag you down?
Tom’s attempt at a cogent post:
Climate always change.Did I just break a lightbulb?
The point of that chart flew right over your head.You need to see the BIG picture to understand why the big cooling is such a big deal.
AGW’s for a LONG while now toot loudly that CO2 is THE driver of the warming.Well did you know that there has been NO WARMING TREND SINCE 1998? Now we see after 7 years later of flatline temperature trend.A big dive in temperature the greatest since the 1800’s for a single year.
So where is that awesome warm forcing power of CO2 greenhouse gas? How is it that for nearly 7 years there has been ZERO warming at all.All during the time CO2 atmospheric gas increased by another 15 ppm or so.
How do you explain that?
Gary that is not quite correct.
It wiped out the 1961-1990 ANOMOLY warm trend.NOT the last 100 years of warming.
I think you are B.Sing us.Because Climate Audit won the best in science blog award for 2007.
Not only that.From what I have read from you is basically gibberish.While Steve McIntire and Anthony Watts write clearly and intelligently.
Do you have any idea what I go through with Gavin Schmidt? I asked him questions and he replies with gibberish just like you do.He is a 35 year scientist veteran and he answers my questions with gibberish!.
What is your excuse?
LOL,
I have invited many AGW’s in the last year to join my forum and provide counterpoints on Global Warming.I have made it clear that I expect reasonable civil behavior for EVERYONE.
So far exactly zero AGW’s has joined.Amazing since the forum is 90% about global warming.
I have jousted with them at youtube recently.They are foulmouthed and stupid in their replies.I had one who sent me messages directly foaming at the mouth.But not a dribble fell with real science.Just environmentalist twittle.
So many of these people are so ignorant.That they do NOT realize they know next to nothing about global warming issues and that they are being controlled through mental masterbation.
It is sad.
Keep in mind that the current LA-NINYA could be causing 100% of this cooling trend.
I suggest that you wait a while before getting carried away with ice age speculation.
The IPCC makes that mistake with their 50-100 year temperature projections based on a trace gas.That has never been demonstrated to promote any significant warming.
His choices for information is predicated on what he believed beforehand.
It would be better if he went with the evidence instead.
Such that there has been no warming trend since 1998.
Referring to post # 34.
I post this to show that La-Ninya of just 9 years ago was even colder than this current one:
LINK 1
Taken from this PDF link:
LINK 2
Wow this thread id dead.
Just like Global warming is.