Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh »
Posted By bobo-in-texas 1 year, 6 months ago in Science & TechnologyDisconcerting as it may be to true believers in global warming, the average temperature on Earth has remained steady or slowly declined during the past decade, despite the continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, and now the global temperature is falling precipitously.
Read Full Story at theaustralian.news.com.au »
637 Views Share Story 48 Comments Report
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 196 of 217 Comments (view all)
-
Neutral
bobo-in-texas1 year, 6 months ago
-
Neutral
HannibalBarca1 year, 6 months ago
-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned3 Replies
-
-
Neutral
HannibalBarca1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
LOGIC????????WTF.
Tell you what genius, on a hot sunny summer day in Texas go to the beach and walk barefoot, now try it on asphalt, DUH which it hotter, natures sand, or mans road. ROTFLMFAO.
Right man has little impact with his concrete jungles, cutting down of forests, wiping out fishing stocks, polluting our fresh water.....but hey lets argue about CO2 and that will determine the answer....MORONS
Reply -
Neutral
quackpot1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
BOGUS ARTICLE ALERT
Has anybody taken the time to check the accuracy of the article?
One of the authors sources says the OPPOSITE of what the author claims:
From NASA Goddard: "Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2007 tied with 1998 for Earth's second warmest year in a century." http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20080116/
Might check the other data sets he mis-quotes as well
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
tbkennedy531 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I have to say yes we have an impact. I try to conserve when I am able to without extreme cost. Many of the folks are suggesting we have to totally alter all we do to avoid disaster. I believe we need to make rational choices after hearing all the facts. There are still many many unknowns on this subject.Just my 2 cents.
Reply -
Neutral
bill29361 year, 6 months ago
-
Neutral
simonsez1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
A cooling planet would be a much larger problem ... loss of cultivatable land, shorter growing seasons, loss of fresh water freezing and a true round of extinctions.
We wouldn't have caused that either, but it would be of major concern.
Reply-
Neutral
injest1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"A cooling planet would be a much larger problem ... loss of cultivatable land, shorter growing seasons, loss of fresh water freezing and a true round of extinctions."
Wait a minute here, aren't those the same prediction for Global Warming?
Reply
-
-
Neutral
icono11 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I agree with capecoral principally.
However IMHO:
As long as global warming causes a shift or ripple in the geopolitical climate, then yes, man is affecting the climate of the earth.
But if we look to science without the DC politics, sun-spots or the lack thereof will have an effect on the earth's climate more than man.
I prefer to believe in unbiased science instead of a grandstanding politician that has a personal agenda to promote.
Reply -
Neutral
Thinker221 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, this is unbiased science:
http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/17.htm
The chart there shows the trend in average global temperature during the last 150 years. Every one of us can judge this data to his/her liking.
Reply-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned3 Replies
-
Neutral
digthepast1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's not unbiased, due to the limited selection of the data it presents.
It only shows the last 140 years of a 2,400-year cycle. It got colder from AD 150 to the 1850s, after which it started getting warmer.
The chart picks up in 1860. Thus it only shows the warming, not the 1700 years of cooling that preceded it!
Reply -
newbie0420Comment removed: Hard Banned5 Replies
-
-
-
-
Neutral
PresidentBuckheadd1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"It is generally not possible to draw conclusions about climatic trends from events in a single year, so I would normally dismiss this cold snap as transient, pending what happens in the next few years."
I do hope global warming stops.
Reply-
Neutral
Thinker221 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
> I do hope global warming stops.
Elementary thermodinamics tell us that in order to keep thermal equilibrium a planet must give up the same amount of heat it receives and produces. A planet can only give up heat by radiating it. The amount of radiation depends on the surface area, the properties of the surface and athmosphere, and the temperature. The amount of heat Earth receives from the Sun as well as energy produced by geological events does not change on a long time scale. The surface area of Earth does not change also. The amount of heat produced by humans increases exponentially as everything we do is using energy and 100% of it is converted to heat. In addition, the greenhouse effect causes more heat radiated from the surface to be reflected back instead of being radiated into space. As a result, a new equilibrium can only be reached by increasing the average surface temperature and it will continue to rise until equilibrium is reached.
Reply -
-
-
ranchhandComment removed: Retracted by user
-
Neutral
chevydog1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Must confess that I'm just as skeptical about global cooling as I am about global warming. The data we have are just blips on a geologic time scale.
That having been said, this is the first relatively normal winter in my area for maybe 6-7 years. It never got really cold, but it was looong. Maybe that ground hog is more powerful than we think.
Reply -
Neutral
canadianrancher571 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I looked at the title of this story and the first thing that came to mind was a bunch of old farts sitting in a coffee shop talking about something just to put in time, this comment goes to those who promote the other side as well. Reasearchers get paid to do studies and I feel that they say and do anything to keep the money coming, and then there is the press where people make a living by selling stories for us to read and argue about. I'm against polluting our planet but this never ending debate might be a way to put in time, but I see it as a complete waste of money and resources and time. This topic is just about a crazy as paying people money to tell us that the earth is going to get hit by a big rock, like I really need to know that.
In case you can't tell I had a bad day.
Reply -
Neutral
wtagg1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What is crazy is paying $4.00 a gallon for gas to countries we consider as potential enemies. That alone should be the inspiration to remove ourselves from foreign oil.
We should be beating down the door to alternatives that not only remove us from foreign oil dependence, but propel us to the front of the global market place for that type of technology. There is money to be made in being *green*.
Reply-
Neutral
ArgoNunya1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Our biggest suppliers of oil are not our enemies. Canada and Mexico. What we should do is use our own, which comes from the same tank as both countries. We can drill in Alaska and the Gulf Of Mexico. But for some reason, the environmentalists, that have enough influence to prevent us, prefer that we buy it instead from the Canadians and Mexicans, who drill it in both places anyway. Go figure...
Reply
-
Neutral
NoWayMan1 year, 6 months ago
-
Neutral
chevydog1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No Way--
I guess they are melting--we are constantly being told so and shown pictures. But the article also says that Anarctic ice is at record area. Maybe the truth depends on what one is predisposed to believe.
Personally I'm skeptical of both. Based on trend, one would think we'd be warming; we're just coming out of the "Little Ice Age." But that's bound to turn at some point. I know that runs against the belief that man can "wreck" the earth by his actions. But maybe that belief is just what some want to believe. Go figure.
Reply -
newbie0420Comment removed: Hard Banned5 Replies
-
-
Neutral
quackpot1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
BOGUS ARTICLE ALERT
Tha Hadley data set that the author quotes as one of his sources actually shows a continued WARMING trend although 2007 was a bit cooler than 2006 (La Nina).
"The annual time series illustrates the increase since the 1850s in global mean temperatures. This increase is much larger than the known sources of error. The warming has occurred in two main phases: 1920-40 and particularly since the mid-1970s. Research at the Met Office Hadley Centre using state-of-the-art climate models has shown that this behaviour can only adequately be accounted for by a combination of natural and human factors: the latter dominate."
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycent...
Reply -
-
Neutral
digthepast1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually, cyclic variations based on a few decades are pretty meaningless. We are still on our way out of the "Little Ice Age" which began in 150 AD and reached its coldest in 1850 AD. So it WILL get warmer, probably peaking about 3500 AD. Then it will get cold again. Then warm, and so on into the next ice age, which should be in full swing by about 5000 AD. This is governed by Milankovitch cycles, and varies with how much sunlight reaches northern hemisphere land masses, where glaciers form.
Should we be throwing all those hydrocarbons into the atmosphere? Hell no. Air pollution is a bigger threat than global warming. But it will go on as long as energy companies buy political candidates (even Obama's paid for) until the fossil fuels run out. Then the cycle will catch up. So sell that beachfront property and buy upland.
Source: Pielou, E. C., 1991, After the Ice Age: The Return of Life to Glaciated North America, U. Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, pp. 14-15, 305.
Reply -
Neutral
djn3nunez31 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We cannot really know, but my guess is that the odds are at least 50-50 that we will see significant cooling rather than warming in coming decades.
The probability that we are witnessing the onset of a real ice age is much less, perhaps one in 500, but not totally negligible.
Reply -
Neutral
tryingtofindmyway1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm not listening to any more "scientists" or politicians on the issue of climate change. The reality is, modern science is in over its head in the attempt to predict climate change. They're overstepping the bounds of their abilities. Why, I'm sure I don't know. Maybe for political reasons, maybe for money, maybe for attention. I'll just deal with what comes when it comes.
Reply -
Neutral
digthepast1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The UNEP chart only looks at 140 years of a 2,400 year cycle. The Little Climatic Optimum (LCO) was a warm peak in about 150 AD. Then came the Little Ice Age (LIA), which had a significant impact on the Middle Ages and reached its coldest in the 1850s, after which it started getting warmer again. The UNEP chart only shows the warming. Remember, in AD 1000 or so, there were Norse colonies in Greenland. Global cooling put them out of business by the 1400s.
One could easily argue that development of an economy based on fossil fuels was a response to the waning days of the LIA. Anyway, we're now on the way to the next LCO, so drink up.
Reply -
-
Neutral
TexasMan1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The concept of a "Green House Gas" violates the laws of Physics and Thermodynamics. It is wrong on so many levels (Gas Laws, Laws of Thermodynamics, Conservation of Momentum, Conservation of Energy, etc.) that it would take volumes to adequately cover all of the mistakes. However here is a link to an article by two German Physicists that gives many of the EQUATIONS that are needed to disprove the existence of "Green House Gases". The translation from German to English is a little rough in places but the concept is correct.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Falsification_o...
Reply-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
LOL
The polish scientist working for NOAA was fired for trying to prove this. He went elsewhere and finished his work. It is under peer review by scientists now. It is politically incorrect to say these things and although it is getting a little better now scientists can still lose money etc. for saying those things.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Cityslicker1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Gullible Warning causes Global Cooling , Ice caps melt cooling the Oceans thus causing a cooling trend and cooler weather , more Snow and cooler temps .
Gullible Warning cause droughts thus causing more rain , so the Gullible Warning crowd said once .
8* degrees below average temp .
Keep your stick on the Ice .
Reply -
More News
Download Squad
Engadget
Apple TV 3.0.1 update prevents data from 'temporarily disappearing'
Canon EOS 7D gets high marks all around
Best Buy stocking Nokia's Booklet 3G on November 15th
Inspiron Zino HD now configurable, available to order on Dell's website
Zune HD v4.3 firmware out now: fixes playcount bug, adds lots of great things (video)
Science Daily
Drunken Fruit Flies Help Scientists Find Potential Drug Target For Alcoholism
1930s Drug Slows Tumor Growth: Gonorrhea Medication Might Help Fight Cancer
New Computer Simulator Helps Design Military Strategies Based On Ants' Movements
New Way To Attack Inflammation In Graves' Eye Disease
Magnetic Nanoparticles To Simultaneously Diagnose, Monitor And Treat
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.