# Global Cooling - The REAL Inconvenient Truth: Part 1



## Sasqui (Apr 3, 2014)

Yes, I know, it's from Yahoo, but there's a lot of food for thought.

http://news.yahoo.com/global-cooling-real-inconvenient-truth-140500879.html



> Three months ago, it snowed in Cairo, Egypt for the first time in 112 years.
> 2013 was the largest one-year temperature drop ever recorded in the United States.
> The extent of the Antarctic sea ice is at record highs.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 3, 2014)

Belongs on General Nonsense where Magibeg will come out of nowhere and slay you with science. 

I'm sure the first thing he would point out is that this not written by climatologists but by an investor/trader looking at economics (oil & gas no less), not climate.

My perspective, and Magibeg would attest to that, is that we don't have enough information to accurately predict anything related to climate.  In previous debates, I also brought up the sun repeatedly which seems to be what this article is about.  The sun is the reason why greenhouse gases are even relevant.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Apr 3, 2014)

They don't say "global warming" any more because there is none. They say "climate change" but it's not like there is such a thing as climate stasis. Here is the bottom line. Any amount of CO2 put into the atmosphere by man is easily handled by Earth. The past 15 years have shown that.


----------



## vega22 (Apr 3, 2014)

Easy Rhino said:


> They don't say "global warming" any more because there is none. They say "climate change" but it's not like there is such a thing as climate stasis. Here is the bottom line. Any amount of CO2 put into the atmosphere by man is easily handled by Earth. The past 15 years have shown that.



do you really think so?

could you please explain who that is possible when the trees which used to do it are now paper, and the forests are now farms?

can you please explain how the algae which also used to remove lots can do it when it no longer flourishes as the temp of the sea has rose? (but its not global warming? the seas not part of the globe any more when they take up two thirds of the planet?

has the globe not warmed up to the point where we now have next to no arctic?

people need to take their head out of their arses and realise that if we do nothing about it today there will be no tomorrow.


----------



## Sasqui (Apr 3, 2014)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Belongs on General Nonsense where Magibeg will come out of nowhere and slay you with science.
> 
> I'm sure the first thing he would point out is that this not written by climatologists but by an investor/trader looking at economics (oil & gas no less), not climate.
> 
> My perspective, and Magibeg would attest to that, is that *we don't have enough information to accurately predict anything related to climate*.  In previous debates, I also brought up the sun repeatedly which seems to be what this article is about.  The sun is the reason why greenhouse gases are even relevant.



I totally agree, particularly with the latter statement.  There are reliable shorter term data (5,000-10,000 yrs), look at the stalactites in the blue sinkholes in the Caribbean, some 100+ below sea level - stalactites only form in air and no evidence that region has any significant form of upheaval.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Apr 3, 2014)

marsey99 said:


> do you really think so?
> 
> could you please explain who that is possible when the trees which used to do it are now paper, and the forests are now farms?
> 
> ...



should we be good stewards of the environment? of course.


----------



## Papahyooie (Apr 3, 2014)

marsey99 said:


> do you really think so?
> could you please explain who that is possible when the trees which used to do it are now paper, and the forests are now farms?
> can you please explain how the algae which also used to remove lots can do it when it no longer flourishes as the temp of the sea has rose? (but its not global warming? the seas not part of the globe any more when they take up two thirds of the planet?
> has the globe not warmed up to the point where we now have next to no arctic?
> people need to take their head out of their arses and realise that if we do nothing about it today there will be no tomorrow.


 
Hm. Im looking out the window at some trees right now...

Also, the artic is still there. Maybe he's not the one with his head up his ass...

Regardless, don't bring this into GN unless you're ready for a storm lol...


----------



## RCoon (Apr 3, 2014)

marsey99 said:


> could you please explain who that is possible when the trees which used to do it are now paper, and the forests are now farms



While I agree with you, the world's entire population of trees account for about 7% of the worlds CO2 to O2 conversion. The rest is done my microscopic plankton on the sea's surface. We could cut down the entire world's trees, and all that will be affected is, you know, the lack of animals without food chains and habitats. CO2 levels however would increase a little.

Plants actually do the reverse conversion when there is no sun (approx 1/2 of the time, during their entire life). When photosynthesis cannot take place because of the lack of sun energy, the plants start turning O2 into CO2. That is why you should never keep a plant in your bedroom.

Day of the Triphids man.

EDIT: I know this sounds farfetched, but I get the impression the earth can do a much better job at fixing itself than humans can. I believe oil/gas reserves inside the earth will probably run out before permanent irreversable damage is done. I know it sounds crazy, but mother nature (oil and gas are part of the earths natural being after all) has a tendency to have balance in all things. We're part of that, so I reckon we might come pretty close to screwing things up pretty bad, but the earth will more than likely be able to take care of itself when we run out of crap to burn.
We can always burn those damn pigeons for fuel. Nobody likes those.


----------



## suraswami (Apr 3, 2014)

Lets build lots and lots of pointless Bitcoin/other coin mining rigs so we can compensate for Sun's weakness!!


----------



## Sasqui (Apr 3, 2014)

suraswami said:


> Lets build lots and lots of pointless Bitcoin/other coin mining rigs so we can compensate for Sun's weakness!!



If only bitcoins were made of carbon.  That's where we could put it all!



RCoon said:


> EDIT: I know this sounds farfetched, but I get the impression the earth can do a much better job at fixing itself than humans can. I believe oil/gas reserves inside the earth will probably run out before permanent irreversable damage is done. I know it sounds crazy, but mother nature (oil and gas are part of the earths natural being after all) has a tendency to have balance in all things. We're part of that, so I reckon we might come pretty close to screwing things up pretty bad, but the earth will more than likely be able to take care of itself when we run out of crap to burn.  We can always burn those damn pigeons for fuel. Nobody likes those.



THIS!  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis

They're so cute.


----------



## erixx (Apr 3, 2014)

Climate is mixed up yes, we don't know shit, yes, but Groenland will soon be groen/green when all the ice is gone ... Snow in Cairo is the worst argument because it is accidental. Like a fart. 
But anyway, something will compensate this drama, maybe we get bigger.... parts... or less hair, for sure haha


----------



## vega22 (Apr 3, 2014)

RCoon said:


> While I agree with you, the world's entire population of trees account for about 7% of the worlds CO2 to O2 conversion. The rest is done my microscopic plankton on the sea's surface. We could cut down the entire world's trees, and all that will be affected is, you know, the lack of animals without food chains and habitats. CO2 levels however would increase a little.
> 
> Plants actually do the reverse conversion when there is no sun (approx 1/2 of the time, during their entire life). When photosynthesis cannot take place because of the lack of sun energy, the plants start turning O2 into CO2. That is why you should never keep a plant in your bedroom.
> 
> ...



the trees do less than that i would bet now dude, and you missed my next line about algea as it this which does do the lions share i agree. but as the water temp changing it is effecting them more now too. they are not thriving in the water now so they "grow" less and have less impact on the air. they and the corral reeves are already in decline around the world. it is a knock on effect. 

nobody knows where we are going but it is not to a future filled with diverse life if you ask me.

you raise the oil/mining/drilling topic and i am glad you did.

what happens to the earth once we have removed the oil and gasses? do you think replacing it with water is going to make no change to it?

for all we know it could be this which is causing the increased frequency of earthquakes and volcanic activity?

we know nothing and the sooner people admit this the sooner we might be able to fix the things we have fucked up.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 3, 2014)

Here comes the fireworks:
http://www.generalnonsense.net/showthread.php?t=15096


----------



## the54thvoid (Apr 3, 2014)

The last Ice Age ended within the past 10-20 000 yrs.  The receding ice led to the northern continental plates rising, sea levels fell away even though water was released to the oceans because the land rose up.  For example Troy was a port city in it's prime (thousands of years ago)- it's now about a mile inland.
Sea level temps are rising and acidification is happening in our oceans - the data is very much there..  We say that 'mother earth' can absorb our damage because we are an incessantly predictable creature that lives in a very brief present in the grand scheme of things.  
Scientific American had a very good article last year pointing out that the climate controversy has a very biased funding ratio with 'skeptics' being heavily funded by the agencies which have the most to lose from radical changes to modern life.  Right wing conservatives, with strong free market views lean heavily on climate change skepticism (note I am not using the word 'denial' as it has overtly strong connotations).

Whatever the highly vocal minority tend to think and like to post - we are very much fucking up our planet.  To refute this is simply nonsense.  There IS a reason the UN has met and agreed certain statements recently and it's not some conspiracy nonsense.  

To counter the point about Antarctic Sea Ice:
_
Moreover, the mere extent of sea ice does not necessarily say something about the volume of the ice, because that also depends on the thickness of the frozen layer. And the vast majority of the Antarctic ice mass is located on the Antarctic continent – and there the ice has decreased in recent years as a whole, particularly in West Antarctica.
 and_

_In contrast to the sharp downward trend in September Arctic sea ice, Antarctic September sea ice has been increasing at 1.1 percent per decade relative to the 1981 to 2010 average. “The *tiny gain* in Antarctica’s ice is an interesting puzzle for scientists,” said NSIDC lead scientist Ted Scambos. “*The rapid loss of ice in the Arctic should be ringing alarm bells for everyone.”*_

What matters is that people are stupid and selfish and those that generally post here and comment on these articles are not scientists and have no background whatsoever.  As much as I cannot comment on the surgical procedure for a coronary artery bypass graft, 99.99% of the people on TPU cannot comment with any authority on climate change without relying on petty bias and popular conspiracy culture.

It is the inane and ill thought out regurgitation of editorial climate articles by one sided hacks that does the immense damage to the climate debate.  And yes, whilst events like Mount Pinatubo did more damage to the atmosphere than man did in 'x' number of years the fact is, man keeps on doing it without stopping.  Nature has lots of brief major events - we do a moderate amount of constant damage.  Nature has a knife - we use paper cuts - the final result will be the same.

That CO2 is massively damaging is *without debate*.  The billions if not trillions being spent on Fusion experiments and the global investment in ITER in France should be enough for even the most hardened skeptic to sit up and take notice.  Governments don't spend that money without good reason and even then they don't like spending it because the rewards lie far outside their short political tenures.

The only compensation we all have is that yes, we'll die long before we see the true devastation caused by relentless pollution and CO2 emissions.  And even then, any number of cataclysmic natural events could wipe us out - mother nature after all has no sense of guilt about extinction events.

But if we have any sense of duty to science and scientific study, for every article you read about climate skepticism you can find another 100 that counter it.   Anyhoo, I've said my piece and I can't come back here - too many lazy Sunday skeptics around to argue with and I don't want beaten down to that level.

Enjoy your nonsense.


----------



## erocker (Apr 3, 2014)

marsey99 said:


> we know nothing and the sooner people admit this the sooner we might be able to fix the things we have fucked up.



With 6 billion+ humans on this planet plus politicians, industries and greed nothing will get "fixed". It comes down to the individual making the correct choices in their lives through what they buy and how they throw stuff away.


----------



## vega22 (Apr 3, 2014)

well yea, maybe, start fixing, or even start trying might of been the better ways to word it


----------



## Easy Rhino (Apr 3, 2014)

maybe more people would take "climate change" seriously if its spokesperson, Al Gore, didn't live in a 10,000 sqft mansion, have a second home on the ocean in California, fly a private jet, and sell his tv network to an oil company!


----------



## insane 360 (Apr 3, 2014)

just because money is spent on studies and research doesn't validate the studies and research, they could spend a trillion dollars...but you have to see where the money came from and where it is going, who is pushing agenda's...just look at nutrition research and the "lipid hypothesis"...50+ years of damage to our health and all we have to show for it is Pharma company's showing enormous profits...

human's are wrecking parts of the world...take the rain forest...its terrible what is happening...take nuke test sites...but also look at the huge cycle that happens to the earth, periods of large warming and ice ages have affected the earth since the dawn of time...the sun with different flares, with distances in our orbit, plenty of variables there...

and Al Gore is a twat...though easy rhino said it better...


----------



## Papahyooie (Apr 3, 2014)

the54thvoid said:


> .  Governments don't spend that money without good reason.


 
That statement invalidates your entire premise.


----------



## vega22 (Apr 3, 2014)

the54thvoid said:


> _In contrast to the sharp downward trend in September Arctic sea ice, Antarctic September sea ice has been increasing at 1.1 percent per decade relative to the 1981 to 2010 average. “The *tiny gain* in Antarctica’s ice is an interesting puzzle for scientists,” said NSIDC lead scientist Ted Scambos. “*The rapid loss of ice in the Arctic should be ringing alarm bells for everyone.”*_




no it's not. really not if you think about it. as the water temp goes up it melts ace. the ice is what made the arctic cold and without more ice the remaining ice gets warmer. this in turn puts more liquid into the global water chain. this is the reason for the increased flooding. this is the reason for the step up in severity of the storms everywhere. we are having back to back records in droughts then rainfall. this is not normal by any means but the worst in recorded history!

weather comes from 3 main things the heat off the sun, the liquid on the planet and the changes in air temps on its surface. with more liquid in the system it is fuelling the more ferocious storms. higher seasonal tides for longer periods and ultimately the antarctica ice growth is in relation to the extra liquid in the system too. it is less effected by the slight rise in sea temps.


----------



## thebluebumblebee (Apr 4, 2014)

Follow the money.  To find the truth in politics, follow the money.  Do I believe that we should be good stewards, of course!
Let me illustrate with ethanol, especially corn based ethanol.  It takes somewhere around a gallon of petroleum to produce a gallon of ethanol which only has 80% of the energy per gallon that petroleum has, but yet we've (in the USA) subsidized the industry with (I'm not sure here with the exact amount) billions of dollars, which we don't have.  I call this the perfect storm.  To the uninformed, ethanol looks like a good thing for the planet, even though environmentalists have said that this will cause great harm to the earth from soil erosion, pesticides, and fertilizer run off.  So the Democrats are for it because it looks "green".  Republicans are for it because it is "pro business".   And since ethanol is "green", it's not PC to criticize it.  Why don't we make those who produce ethanol use only ethanol in its production?


> That CO2 is massively damaging is *without debate*.


NEVER EVER trust a scientist or politician who says that something is not debatable.  If they have the evidence, they should want to present it.  Too many times the results are found to be faulty when examined with scrutiny.  The Washington state climatologist (I'm not sure that was his title) was fired after it was pointed out that he had "cherry picked" data to prove his view.  BTW, if CO2 is so harmful, why don't we just bottle it all up?  How long do you think you'd live?  Also, I've never seen the main stream media talk about the FACT that mankind's production of CO2 is insignificant in comparison to the amount the earth produces naturally.  Look it up.  The evidence is out there.

If you are a scientist, you can get government money to research GW'ing, but not to disprove it.  We get the results that we pay for because the scientists want to keep the money, their jobs, and the fame.  So the only money available to research the validity of that science comes from private funds.  Then those who are pro-GW'ing accuse them of having a hidden agenda.  When I see the billions that have been spent by the governments, I have no problem seeing an agenda.  Money corrupts science, especially when it is given with instructions.

Why is such vitriol thrown at those who simply ask questions?  Reminds me of past socialist regimes.

If the ocean levels are going to rise, and it seems that no matter what we do, we will have very little affect on the outcome, shouldn't we be preparing to help people move away from low lying areas?  I see a time in the future when it is obvious that we need to help people but there will be no money.  Then we'll show them our "green energy" stuff and say "Aren't you proud of us?  Look at all we did to help you.  Sorry you're drowning."

The Oregon State Climatologist was a believer in man made global warming, until he studied the data and reversed his opinion.  He has stated that if the evidence ever shows him otherwise, he will change his opinion.  Sounds like a scientist, no?  Follow the data.  He was famously fired because he was not in agreement with the Governor at the time.  The scientist fired by the PC governor.  The same governor who decreed that all gas in the sate of Oregon must have ethanol, even when it was pointed out to the politicians that ethanol would cause harm in some cases.  People had boat tanks dissolve, but of course the governor did not pick up the tab for the repair bills.

Take the time to talk to someone 80-90 years old.  Ask them what the weather was when they were younger.

Is there climate change?  Duh!  There has always been climate change.

Answer me this.  What affect are these having on the atmosphere? "At the end of 2012 there were 225,000 turbines spinning in 79 countries worldwide."  Think about it.  The atmosphere is an energy system and we are pulling energy from it.  Do we have any idea what effect we are having?  The atmosphere is only 60 miles thick and 2/3 of it is below 14,000 feet.  If you are a baseball player, and you cause a ball to kill a bird, you will be fined.  What about the birds being killed by turbines?  It's not PC to ask that question.

I could go on and on.  The head of the UN's IPCC is not a scientist.


----------



## Steevo (Apr 5, 2014)

Thats a lot of herring.


----------



## Vario (Apr 5, 2014)

thebluebumblebee said:


> Follow the money.  To find the truth in politics, follow the money.  Do I believe that we should be good stewards, of course!
> Let me illustrate with ethanol, especially corn based ethanol.  It takes somewhere around a gallon of petroleum to produce a gallon of ethanol which only has 80% of the energy per gallon that petroleum has, but yet we've (in the USA) subsidized the industry with (I'm not sure here with the exact amount) billions of dollars, which we don't have.  I call this the perfect storm.  To the uninformed, ethanol looks like a good thing for the planet, even though environmentalists have said that this will cause great harm to the earth from soil erosion, pesticides, and fertilizer run off.  So the Democrats are for it because it looks "green".  Republicans are for it because it is "pro business".   And since ethanol is "green", it's not PC to criticize it.  Why don't we make those who produce ethanol use only ethanol in its production?



Not only is Ethanol a colossal waste of money and resources, but ethanol also really damages just about every part in the engine, and ancillary systems from the fuel system to the exhaust.


----------



## Steevo (Apr 5, 2014)

Vario said:


> Not only is Ethanol a colossal waste of money and resources, but ethanol also really damages just about every part in the engine, and ancillary systems from the fuel system to the exhaust.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Model_T

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil

The issue is using corn to produce ethanol, there are much better substitutes for corn, it just happens we grow a lot of it for multiple reasons, and idiots decided to use it. 

Ethanol doesn't damage engines.


----------

