Comments for Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh »
Posted By bobo-in-texas 1 year, 8 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 »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 216 of 217 Comments
-
Neutral
bobo-in-texas1 year, 8 months ago
-
Neutral
HannibalBarca1 year, 8 months ago
-
-
Neutral
HannibalBarca1 year, 8 months ago
-
Neutral
bobo-in-texas1 year, 8 months ago
-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned38 Replies
-
-
-
-
-
capecoralMComment removed: Retracted by user5 Replies
-
-
-
Neutral
ArgoNunya1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Whatever "experts" say, the facts are the facts. Take the time to watch this movie:
The Truth About Climate Change: http://tinyurl.com/3xeokp
Reply -
Neutral
injest1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"I am not talking about Gore or science, just plain common sense.
Do you believe that man has no impact on this earth.?"
Of cource we have an impact the earth, everything has an impact on the earth. That's nature.
In fact global warming is soooooooooo bad Al Gore had to use computer generated image from the movie "The Day after tomorrow" to make the point.
Sure it was fake but also true! cause we compared it to other computer generated image that clearly show the ice cap HAS retreated!
Reply-
Neutral
RickyDawkins1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Here is the 2008 graph:
http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2...
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
quackpot1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ANOTHER BoBo BLUNDER
This article is yet another in a long list of FALSE articles that BoBo in Texas has sponsored.
This one is FALSE because, as detailed in my comments below, the author of the article seriously MIS-QUOTES his sources.
This article is FALSE and should be rejected.
Reply-
-
Neutral
quackpot1 year, 8 months ago
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned3 Replies
-
-
Neutral
HannibalBarca1 year, 8 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, 8 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
Endoscopy1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
How about a few facts. (You live up to your name.)
Russian scientists have stated that the earth is going into a new ice age.
The earth and the moon have the same average temperature.
The antarctic ice is growing even though that big chunk is breaking away. Probably got too heavy.
Temperature over the last decade is flat until this past year of a slight decrease.
The Hundreds of sensors placed 2000 meters down in the oceans to get better and more accurate water temperature, speed, and direction show a very slight drop in temperature.
A polish scientist has done a proof that greenhouse gass don't have greenhouse effects. His work is now being reviewed by other scientists.
Major scientists in most countries while believing that the earth might be going through a warming cycle believe also that human impact is very very minimal.
Reply-
-
Neutral
quackpot1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Endoscopy,
The point is the the article that BoBo posted WRONG in that the author of the article SERIOUSLY MIS-QUOTES his sources.
The points that you make, even if true do not negate the SERIOUS misquotes that are in the aticle of discussion.
Reply-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hate to burst your bubble but the facts are correct even if the quotes are wrong. Of course to a true Goreabite it is complete false.
The problem is true science is based on looking at all facts and drawing a conclusion. As more facts are known the better the conclusions. Gore went off on a fantasy trip way beyond what the scientists who were pushing the human global warming idea went.A large group of scientists feel that nothing people have done is causing the global warming. Another large group of scientists think that people have a very small effect on global warming. A small but vocal group says that people have a significant role in global warming. In point of fact there has never ben proof either way. The liberals took hold of this idea just like they did with freon. They had laws passed. Now it has been proven that freon didn't do what was theorized. They are trying to do the same here.
Reply-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The problem in North America is Mexico. The problem in Asia is China and India. Africa is a problem and some of the places in south America.
Nothing we do in the US and Canada will have any impact because of what the rest of the world is doing. So does it make sense to do anything in the US and Canada?
Reply
-
-
-
-
lovermanComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
-
Neutral
tbkennedy531 year, 8 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, 8 months ago
-
Neutral
HannibalBarca1 year, 8 months ago
-
Neutral
bobo-in-texas1 year, 8 months ago
-
Neutral
HannibalBarca1 year, 8 months ago
-
Neutral
bobo-in-texas1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
He got into office in 2006 what happened when the enlightened Liberal government from 1998 when they signed it until 2006?
BTW, the why should we argument works well vis a vis the USA and India/China. Why don't you morally advanced and principled Canadians lead the way.
For the children.
Reply-
Neutral
HannibalBarca1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
no a better way is we clean our mess, and you clean yours, for the children, but we know you won't because you are an American, and as such you think you walk on water, and this directed at you B & K, no one else, or the spinning will begin
Reply-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We cleaned up our mess.
In the 80's LA had a smog index. I would drive over the mountain from LA to Lancaster, CA and go into clear air. When I drove back I would see the brown haze I would go into. On bad days you could see the brown gunk spilling over the mountain range. Today the air is clear.
The lakes and rivers were dangerous places to even get near. Lake Erie was considered to be dead and the worst of the lot. The Mississippi River was called the colon of America. The water has been cleaned up and it has more fish than before. We have cleaned up the land etc.
The environmental wackos keep trying to make people think that things are a bad as the 70's were. We have made great strides and the environment is much nicer and cleaner.
Reply-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This nonsense about greenhouse gases is a theory and not fact. Scientists are now trying to find out the truth. Look at freon. Thought to destroy the ozone layer. Now proved to be false. Yet environmental wacko's convinced the government to change the law and now we have an inferior product that is caustic, dangerous, and less efficient.
Reply-
-
-
-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hughs sent up Satellites to study the issue and found that the problem was mostly due to sunspots. The hole also opens up when a volcano blows its top but closes up in a couple of years. When that happens more chlorofluorocarbons and other garbage is thrown into the atmosphere than mankind has done in its history. If natures tantrums can't do it with more stuff spewed, how do you think man can do better?
Think.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
injest1 year, 8 months ago
-
-
-
-
-
eyesopenComment removed: Abusive
-
-
-
Neutral
simonsez1 year, 8 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, 8 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, 8 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, 8 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, 8 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-
Neutral
Thinker221 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
> The chart picks up in 1860. Thus it only shows the warming, not the 1700 years of cooling that preceded it!
Of course! Why didn't you show us the data supporting this revelation? After all, everyone knows that Earth temperature was monitored and recorded using sophisticated computerized equipment since the Biblical times...
Reply -
Neutral
digthepast1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Fair enough... But no "computerized records." Just redundant pollen sequences from contexts all over the world.
"The most recent respite [in the neoglaciation] was the Little Climatic Optimum, which peaked at 1.8k B.P. [i.e., AD 150]. It was the last warm spell before the current one, which began somewhat more than 100 years ago. In between was the Little Ice Age. The unusual cold of the Little Ice Age... came to an end with the climatic warming that began in the middle of the 19th century; this warming persisted into the 1940s, at which time a cooling trend set in that seems to have reversed itself around 1970" (Pielou 1991: 14, 305).
Serious cooling between AD 150 and 1850, followed by an equivalent period of warming. The chart shows only the warming, not the previous cooling. It should warm for another 1,550 years or so, then cool down again.
Pielou, E.C., 1991, After the Ice Age: The Return of Life to Glaciated North America. U. Chicago Press.
Reply
-
-
newbie0420Comment removed: Hard Banned5 Replies
-
-
-
-
Neutral
PresidentBuckheadd1 year, 8 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, 8 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, 8 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, 8 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, 8 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, 8 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
wtagg1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Could you please point out where I dispute this? We buy oil from other sources than the 2 countries you have mentioned, which are #1 and #3 respectively. The other three in the top five produce about 13% more oil imports into our country than Canada and Mexico. These are countries that are either unstable politically or are at odds with us culturally, religiously, or politically.
My point is that our energy needs should not be reliant on others. We should be leading and having others purchase from us their energy needs, not the other way around. We are now followers and that is not the America I was brought up believing in.
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
wtagg1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Canada #1 1880000 barrels light crude
Saudi Arabia 1614000 " " "
Mexico 1231000 " " "
Nigeria 982000 " " "
Venezuela 932000 " " "
Figures are barrels per day for Feb 08
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/da...
If you would like to dispute the numbers and can provide a source other than an opinion of where we get our oil, I'd like to see where your information comes from.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
NoWayMan1 year, 8 months ago
-
Neutral
chevydog1 year, 8 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-
-
-
Neutral
chevydog1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No reason not to believe you. But also note that this article is from Down Under (I can't spell the country) and their climate people have very good reason to keep close track of the Anarctic. So I guess the melting is occurring in the Northeren Hemisphere (??).
One of the (many) things that bothers me is that this seems to have become so politicized. I'm an engineer by education and trade and am inclined to believe data. But I'm likewise inclined to avoid precipitous action and action that causes major disruptions to existing systems. It seems like that's exactly what some of the zealots say we have to do, so my natural inclination is to resist. After all, given time and a few sheets of semi-log graph paper, there is no end to the list of silly conclusions that can be drawn. (My favorite was one way back when that predicted by Year X the average car would carry 0.8 people.) Extrapolation is tricky business.
Reply-
Neutral
NoWayMan1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
extrapolation is tricky business indeed. but we're in a situation where sitting around and waiting could be detremental to us as a species. mind you, I said could be, not will be.
my instinct is to err on the side of safety. so why not go solar righ now since we know we're going to have to do it eventually anyway?
then, if all the global warming theroists are wrong, we'll still have a cleaner planet. to adapt now is a win win.
and I've seen glaciers disappearing in both hemishperes, north and south.
Reply-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You have gone to the glaciers and north and south poles to look I take it.
The northern hemisphere is warmer and the ice is melting. The southern hemisphere is colder and the ice is increasing. Averages out. This winter they both were colder.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
newbie0420Comment removed: Hard Banned5 Replies
-
-
Neutral
quackpot1 year, 8 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, 8 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, 8 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, 8 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, 8 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, 8 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, 8 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, 8 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 -
-
Neutral
CRYMTYPHON1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I like David Chapman (the scientist in the article); he is kinda goofing around taking the devil's advocate position in a science debate. He is no idealogue.
But you do realize, don't you, that he is basing his claim on the count of sunspots? With no explanation of what sunspots have to do with the weather?
And correlating that with sunspots counted in the 1700s, and matching that with a global temperature change
most other climate scientists attribute to ocean currents?
And that he puts the odds of entering an ice-age at 1 in 500?
Or were we not supposed to actualy read the article?
Reply-
Neutral
joeblowe1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I've heard about this on the radio the last couple of days. The correlation of sunspots with global temperature is: fewer sun spots : lower temperature. The solar MINIMUM for sunspots in the 11 year cycle was last June (if I remember correctly). Hence, the extremes of cold this last winter. The really troubling PROBLEM is that the sunspot activity has NOT picked up again as expected. THIS is what is driving the talk about a trend towards a cooling period.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
SFCGuyW1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There is a paradox concernint Global Warming. As the CO2 rises there is less reflection of sun rays by the atmosphere, causing the polar regions to begin melting, further lowering reflection of harmful rays. It also increases the fresh water dumped into the ocean, disrupting the currents & killing many of the ocean plants that are needed to convert CO2 to oxygen. Eventually the whole system breaks down, oceans rise and the earth begins to correct itself. Unfortunately, that correction usually results in an Ice Age and has even resulted in a shift in the magnetic field of the planet. This could mean that NY city or someplace else could become the planet's northern polar zone.
Reply -
Neutral
bluenote15221 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The name calling in this thread is counter productive. Global Warming is not man made. Period. I would elaborate but once I say what I said the libbies ain't listening any way. I have a degree in Climatology and I am not saying I am an expert but for the last thirty years I have heard it all. Stand back folks. There are serious matters at hand and we are being distracted by Chicken Littles. If someone wants to clean up the planet, great. If someone wants alternative fuels, wonderful. If someone wants to say Humans cause every problem on Earth, okay (crazy, but okay). But please don't use Global Warming as the proverbial gun to the head, because, franky, your shooting blanks.
Reply-
-
Neutral
bluenote15221 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Quack, I have spoke on this and attached many examples in the past. It is religion to some folks and they don't want the other side of the discussion. I'm not endorsing this article and I am not dodging your question. Just asking everyone to step back, prioritize, and work on the things we can change.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
Neutral
PainGoddess1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Its April 24 and today it is snowing at my house. It was 32 degrees this morning and not expected to warm up. Maybe tomorrow. Guess where?? Utah. I tend to go on the side of the global cooling theorists. But it is only a theory like electricity, evolution, creation, and other bull forums. Of course we have made an impact. 20 billion people will. We cannot change the cycles of the planet any more than we can change the moon from moving away from us. Lets change our driving habits, eating habits, those things we can deal with. I have been GREEN since the 70's and I am sure there was no impact from my measly attempts to save the planet. Lets save ourselves first.Thanks for a little sanity bluenote
Reply-
Neutral
digthepast1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Cooling and warming cycles are demonstrated by redundant pollen sequences from contexts all over the world.
"The most recent respite [in the neoglaciation] was the Little Climatic Optimum, which peaked at 1.8k B.P. [i.e., AD 150]. It was the last warm spell before the current one, which began somewhat more than 100 years ago. In between was the Little Ice Age. The unusual cold of the Little Ice Age... came to an end with the climatic warming that began in the middle of the 19th century; this warming persisted into the 1940s, at which time a cooling trend set in that seems to have reversed itself around 1970" (Pielou 1991: 14, 305).
Serious cooling between AD 150 and 1850, followed by an equivalent period of warming. It should warm for another 1,550 years or so, then cool down again, into the next ice age.
Pielou, E.C., 1991, After the Ice Age: The Return of Life to Glaciated North America. U. Chicago Press.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
THOMNH621 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
good story about an issue that has been known for a while. Many scientific agencies have come forward with data suggesting that temperatures in the last 9 yrs have fallen at an alarming rate compared to the previous 100 yrs. No media is running with this because Global Warming has become an industry created to tax the american people and make the elite uba rich. Al Gore is a business man sort of a flim flam man, don't ask him any questions though because then your anti planet, the truth is cow farts produce 4 times as much co2 than humans do.
Reply-
newbie0420Comment removed: Hard Banned
-
Neutral
bluenote15221 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
thom, I am optimistic that with improper diet and lack of exercise we humans could give those cows a run for their money on that flatulence thing. I'm willing to do my part and at least try. McDonalds here I come!
Let's not just blame the cows. Go up to a friend and pull his finger, TODAY!
Reply-
newbie0420Comment removed: Hard Banned1 Reply
-
-
-
-
-
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.