Global Cooling

[trousers]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2004535/The-new-Ice-Age-Climate-change-slow-sun-simmers-down.html

 

"The last time the sun went to sleep, there were frost fairs on the Thames and ice extended for miles into the North Sea.

 

Now scientists have unearthed evidence that the sun is poised to enter its first period of ‘hibernation’ since the Little Ice Age of the early 1700s."

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2004463/Cooler-Earth-The-Ice-Age-coming--dont-panic.html

 

The Ice Age is coming... don't panic!

 

At last, some good news for polar bears. The world is about to enter a mini Ice Age. Scientists working for the American Astronomical Society are predicting a significant drop in solar activity over the next decade.

 

Last time this happened, between 1645 and 1715, global temperatures plummeted and the River Thames froze over every winter.

 

While climate change alarmists insist we are heading for meltdown, the truth is that the world has actually been getting cooler in recent years.

 

Although the findings from the National Solar Observatory in New Mexico are bad news for the global warming industry, they are not necessarily good news for the rest of us. Politicians are bound to exploit the new evidence for their own purposes . . .

 

Britain will lead the world in tackling global cooling, the Prime Minister announced today. Unless we act now, he warned, the planet could soon freeze over.

 

He was speaking after the emergency United Nations climate change summit at the exclusive Cool Runnings ski resort in Jamaica. A new Global Cooling Bill will be brought before the next session of Parliament, aimed at increasing carbon emissions by 60 per cent.

 

The Energy Secretary has given the green light to a modern generation of peat-fired power stations and ordered an increase in drilling for North Sea Oil. Fossil fuels are believed to hold the key to reversing the drop in temperatures.

 

Alternative energy companies will be given billions of pounds in grants to dismantle wind turbines. These will be smelted down and converted into giant mirrors designed to reflect the sun’s rays in an attempt to reopen the hole in the ozone layer.

Thousands of these mirrors will be erected in areas of outstanding natural beauty all over Britain.

 

Landfill sites will be converted into vast open-air incinerators, operating around the clock in an attempt to maximise carbon output. Town Halls are to introduce twice-daily dustbin collections to provide the raw materials to keep the home fires burning, although this is expected to lead to a 300 per cent increase in council tax.

 

Households which fail to produce sufficient combustible material will face heavy fines. Anyone using more than one dustbin will go to prison for five years.

 

Those people who have installed solar panels, double glazing and loft insulation will have to pay higher taxes. This is necessary to recoup all the money spent in the past subsidising the installation of solar panels, double glazing and loft insulation.

It is hoped that by 2025, every home in Britain will be heated by a wood-burning stove.

 

The Transport Ministry is encouraging people who have brought hybrid vehicles to switch to petrol- and diesel-driven cars. Road tax on electric cars will rise to £5,000 a year. London’s congestion charge zone will be scrapped, except for bicycles and low-emission vehicles.

 

Cyclists and drivers of the Toyota Pious will be charged £100 a day to enter the capital. The Mayor said the money raised will go towards a new fleet of motorcycles, powered by two-stroke engines, which will replace the current Boris Bikes.

 

The Prime Minister praised Lord Prescott, the EU’s special rapporteur on climate change, for setting an example. If we all drove two Jags, global cooling would be reversed within weeks.

 

The forthcoming high-speed rail link through the Chilterns will coincide with the reintroduction of steam trains throughout the country.

 

Aslef leaders welcomed the decision and immediately announced plans for a nationwide strike ballot in support of demands for a 30 per cent pay rise, the reintroduction of footplatemen and an end to flexible rostering.

 

Defence industry sources said Britain’s two new aircraft carriers, due in 2020, will be powered by coal.

 

A major expansion of air travel is also planned, with a sixth terminal being built at Heathrow at a cost of £100 billion. This will be funded by a new air passenger tax designed to replace the old air passenger tax.

 

The smoking ban introduced by the last government is to be scrapped. Cigarettes have been shown to make a significant contribution to greenhouse gases. Ministers believe the threat of a new Ice Age far outweighs any minor concerns about public health.

 

Several new quangos are being established to enforce the new rules, including the Global Cooling Executive, which will employ 5,000 civil servants and will be given sweeping powers to increase carbon emissions.

 

Local councils have already begun to place adverts in the Guardian for a new army of global cooling advisers on salaries of up to £100,000 a year, plus a gas-guzzling car of their choice.

 

The Prime Minister has been deeply influenced by Senator Al Gore’s latest film, Ice Station Zebra, about the perils of global cooling. One memorable scene features a lonely zebra shivering to death in Tanzania. This film will be shown to every schoolchild in Britain over the coming weeks.

 

If the drop in temperatures continues, there are fears that dangerous species once thought to be extinct could soon reappear.

The spectre of mastedons, woolly mammoths and sabre-toothed tigers wandering the streets of Tunbridge Wells in search of prey is very real, the Prime Minister warned.

 

He was asked why Britain was rushing ahead in setting tough new targets for increasing carbon emissions, at a time when China was going nuclear and closing coal-fired power stations at the rate of one a day.

 

The Prime Minister said the future of the planet was at stake. We owe it to our children not to repeat the mistakes of the past."

Edited 17 June, 2011 by trousers

[TopGun]

[Spudders]

Ths is surely all moot, as the world is going to end (again) towards the end of this year.

[GenevaSaint]

Relatively amusing for the mail, the question is though, what happens when sunspot activity starts rising alongside the huge amounts of CO2 we'll have pumped in by then?

[OldNick]

we just have to accept that we are animals and really have little control over the worlds weather systems. Yes the emissions do have an effect but we cannot stop any of the forces of nature however less we drive

[Saintandy666]

Well, the Mail has a very anti-greenhouse effect agenda, but of course this doesn't mean that this report is wrong.

 

The facts are as followed:

 

1. The greenhouse effect is fact. Without it, the average temperature on earth would be below zero and no life could exist at all.

2. The more greenhouse gases there are in the environment, the more enhanced the greenhouse effect becomes.

3. Currently, there is a higher concentration of greenhouse gases in the environment than there has been for quite some time.

4. Therefore, we should be worried about what could happen.

5. However, obviously the greenhouse effect isn't the only factor which affects the Earth's temperature, but it is a major one.

6. Therefore, it would be foolish to ignore and dismiss our greenhouse emissions as trivial.

[Verbal]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2004535/The-new-Ice-Age-Climate-change-slow-sun-simmers-down.html

 

"The last time the sun went to sleep, there were frost fairs on the Thames and ice extended for miles into the North Sea.

 

Bugger. I've just bought a house by the Thames.

[trousers]

Bugger. I've just bought a house by the Thames.

 

You don't like skates then...? ;-)

[dune]

Really good article in todays Daily Express too.

 

Man made global warming is ********. It's all to do with sun spots (as i have repeatedly said). We are heading for another mini Ice Age.

 

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/253210/Why-do-we-pretend-to-understand-climate-change-

[Verbal]

Really good article in todays Daily Express too.

 

Man made global warming is ********. It's all to do with sun spots (as i have repeatedly said). We are heading for another mini Ice Age.

 

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/253210/Why-do-we-pretend-to-understand-climate-change-

 

Is this news just in from dr dune the atmospheric chemist?

[Saintandy666]

Really good article in todays Daily Express too.

 

Man made global warming is ********. It's all to do with sun spots (as i have repeatedly said). We are heading for another mini Ice Age.

 

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/253210/Why-do-we-pretend-to-understand-climate-change-

 

So you post a link to an article saying that we don't understand what causes climate to change.

 

However, within your post you confidently assert the reason why it happens. You can't have it both ways. Either you know or you don't.

 

As I said in my earlier post:

 

1. The greenhouse effect is fact. Without it, the average temperature on earth would be below zero and no life could exist at all.

2. The more greenhouse gases there are in the environment, the more enhanced the greenhouse effect becomes.

3. Currently, there is a higher concentration of greenhouse gases in the environment than there has been for quite some time.

4. Therefore, we should be worried about what could happen.

5. However, obviously the greenhouse effect isn't the only factor which affects the Earth's temperature, but it is a major one.

6. Therefore, it would be foolish to ignore and dismiss our greenhouse emissions as trivial.

 

As said in that, there are of course more factors that control our climate other than the greenhouse effect, but the greenhouse effect is a major one. The evidence for it is overwhelming, the evidence sun spots have an effect is less so.

 

However, if sun spots do affect our climate, and I guess it is a good bet to say that they do in some way... it does not mean the greenhouse effect is made redundant. Yes, it may get colder because of sun spots, but this natural cycle would be disrupted by our synthetic contribution to the greenhouse effect.

 

We need act now to reduce our emissions.

[1976_Child]

Really good article in todays Daily Express too.

 

Man made global warming is ********. It's all to do with sun spots (as i have repeatedly said). We are heading for another mini Ice Age.

 

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/253210/Why-do-we-pretend-to-understand-climate-change-

 

Dune has repeatedly said something so it must nullify the huge peer-reviewed body of evidence compiled by 1000s of climate scientists the world over.

[The Cat]

Always worth reading the end of Mail articles because they normally bury the important quotes there due to the fact they know most of their readers are blinkered simpletons who can't manage more than 3 paragraphs before getting outraged at whatever the Mail want them to be outraged about.

 

Lo and behold the last 2 paragraphs of that first link are:

 

However, Joanna Haigh, professor of atmospheric physics at Imperial College London, said: ‘In a future grand minimum, the sun might again cool the planet by up to one degree. Greenhouse gases, on the other hand, are expected to raise global temperatures by between 1.5C and 4.5C by 2100.

 

‘So even if the predictions are correct, global warming will outstrip the sun’s ability to cool.’

[badgerx16]

However, Joanna Haigh, professor of atmospheric physics at Imperial College London, said: ‘In a future grand minimum, the sun might again cool the planet by up to one degree. Greenhouse gases, on the other hand, are expected to raise global temperatures by between 1.5C and 4.5C by 2100.

 

‘So even if the predictions are correct, global warming will outstrip the sun’s ability to cool.’

 

I think there is a lesson in there for some of us, don't quote the Daily Mail without actually reading the entire article.

 

:lol:

[Whitey Grandad]

As said in that, there are of course more factors that control our climate other than the greenhouse effect, but the greenhouse effect is a major one. The evidence for it is overwhelming, the evidence sun spots have an effect is less so.

 

However, if sun spots do affect our climate, and I guess it is a good bet to say that they do in some way... it does not mean the greenhouse effect is made redundant. Yes, it may get colder because of sun spots, but this natural cycle would be disrupted by our synthetic contribution to the greenhouse effect.

 

We need act now to reduce our emissions.

 

That much is known and accepted. William Herschel noticed a direct correlation between the price of wheat and the number of sunspots. What is not known is the method by which they affect the climate. Because there is no science about this it cannot be incorporated into the climate models. Until there is more research the debate goes on... http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0927/p13s03-sten.html

[dune]

Dune has repeatedly said something so it must nullify the huge peer-reviewed body of evidence compiled by 1000s of climate scientists the world over.

 

I think you'll find people care less about what you say than what I say and no-one gives a **** about what I say. In fact if there was a popularity contest between me, you and hypo, i think i might not come bottom.

[Verbal]

I think you'll find people care less about what you say than what I say and no-one gives a **** about what I say. In fact if there was a popularity contest between me, you and hypo, i think i might not come bottom.

 

I hate to break it to you, but...

 

Now, back on topic, can you post your chemistry diploma on here?

[dune]

I hate to break it to you, but...

 

Now, back on topic, can you post your chemistry diploma on here?

 

ha ha, you're hardly Mr Popular.

[Verbal]

ha ha, you're hardly Mr Popular.

 

Diploma please. Or any evidence that you didn't flunk your chemistry GCSE.

[mack rill]

Hmmm sounds like a lot of hot air to me, Oh and my daughter has spots as well,

[scotty]

I think there is a lesson in there for some of us, don't quote the Daily Mail without actually reading the entire article.

 

:lol:

Are you seriously suggesting anybody should read an entire daily mail article?? Shame on you.

[dune]

Diploma please. Or any evidence that you didn't flunk your chemistry GCSE.

 

 

 

http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?30828-To-settle-an-argument-Who-do-you-like-the-bestest-out-of...

[ecuk268]

That much is known and accepted. William Herschel noticed a direct correlation between the price of wheat and the number of sunspots. What is not known is the method by which they affect the climate. Because there is no science about this it cannot be incorporated into the climate models. Until there is more research the debate goes on... http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0927/p13s03-sten.html

 

Indeed, a great many things correlate but one rule that was stressed when I did my statistics stuff many years ago was "Correlation does not imply causality".

[Doctoroncall]

Hmmm sounds like a lot of hot air to me, Oh and my daughter has spots as well,

 

Don't you mean your son's spots!

[Saintandy666]

That much is known and accepted. William Herschel noticed a direct correlation between the price of wheat and the number of sunspots. What is not known is the method by which they affect the climate. Because there is no science about this it cannot be incorporated into the climate models. Until there is more research the debate goes on... http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0927/p13s03-sten.html

 

Yes, there has been research and evidence, but not to the degree of the greenhouse effect... we know that that is fact. I'm not trying to deny that sun spots have an effect by the way, I'm just saying even if they did have an effect does not take away the fact that the greenhouse effect is absolutely humongous.

 

Did you know that without the greenhouse effect the temperature on earth would be -18C and instead it is about 15C, that's 33C difference!!! It is a very powerful effect and one we ignore at our peril.

[dune]

UKIP's Lord Monkton making the tree huggers look silly.

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvufOvneJMk

Edited 17 June, 2011 by dune

[Jonnyboy]

Shock horror. Lord Monkton speaks to foreigners in English and they struggle to reply properly in his language.

[Whitey Grandad]

Indeed, a great many things correlate but one rule that was stressed when I did my statistics stuff many years ago was "Correlation does not imply causality".

Very true, but this is a whapping great correlation and points you in the right direction to start looking for further evidence.

[1976_Child]

UKIP's Lord Monkton making the tree huggers look silly.[/Quote]

 

'Lord' Monkton (he is only hereditary, does not sit in the House of Lords) has absolutely NO scientific training whatsoever. His 'claim to fame' was, for a very brief time, to be one of Thatcher's scientific advisers. He studied classics at university and has never published a peer-reviewed scientific paper in his life.

 

Quite simply put he is not in any position to comment on the science. He is just a self-publicist, nothing more.

 

Frankly, dune, the fact you quote him says a lot about you!

[1976_Child]

I hate to break it to you, but...

 

Now, back on topic, can you post your chemistry diploma on here?

 

Shhhh! Don't be silly! Global warming deniers don't need to know anything about science! So long as they stamp their feet enough and say that it is not happening then it must be true!

 

Like children who put their hands in front of their eyes and say 'Nah nah na nah nah! You can't see me!'

[Saintandy666]

The greenhouse effect isn't just some 'correlation'... it's hard solid fact that if it was wrong then pretty much all the science we practice would also be wrong. It's all to do with bonds in certain molecules being at the correct energy level to become excited upon absorbing IR radiation. This is not some... oh look there's more CO2 and it's hotter correlation(though that correlation does exist too).

[Special K]

It was chilly at the Rose Bowl on Friday, if that helps.

[trousers]

I think there is a lesson in there for some of us, don't quote the Daily Mail without actually reading the entire article.

 

 

Indeed. Selective article quoting would never work on here.... ;-)

[1976_Child]

The greenhouse effect isn't just some 'correlation'... it's hard solid fact that if it was wrong then pretty much all the science we practice would also be wrong. It's all to do with bonds in certain molecules being at the correct energy level to become excited upon absorbing IR radiation. This is not some... oh look there's more CO2 and it's hotter correlation(though that correlation does exist too).

 

Well said.

 

It never ceases to amaze me how many people have zero understanding of the scientific process. Yet they are surrounded by a technologically advanced world which simply would not exist if not for the tireless objective research by scientists. To many people science is 'just another opinion' - an article of faith. Well no. Scientific knowledge is not just 'opinion'.

[TheCholulaKid]

Well said.

 

It never ceases to amaze me how many people have zero understanding of the scientific process. Yet they are surrounded by a technologically advanced world which simply would not exist if not for the tireless objective research by scientists. To many people science is 'just another opinion' - an article of faith. Well no. Scientific knowledge is not just 'opinion'.

 

Good post.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Yes, there has been research and evidence, but not to the degree of the greenhouse effect... we know that that is fact. I'm not trying to deny that sun spots have an effect by the way, I'm just saying even if they did have an effect does not take away the fact that the greenhouse effect is absolutely humongous.

 

Did you know that without the greenhouse effect the temperature on earth would be -18C and instead it is about 15C, that's 33C difference!!! It is a very powerful effect and one we ignore at our peril.

 

You put too much faith in Science. Science changes regularly it evolves as does our understanding of the world itself.

 

I mean do you really believe that the figure of -18 is accurate? How on earth do they know? It is all estimation, formulas and assumptions. In all probability it is way out.

[Saintandy666]

You put too much faith in Science. Science changes regularly it evolves as does our understanding of the world itself.

 

I mean do you really believe that the figure of -18 is accurate? How on earth do they know? It is all estimation, formulas and assumptions. In all probability it is way out.

 

Yes, I'm aware that science isn't infallible. Indeed, I have looked into reasons why it is infalliable. If you look up Heisenberg's principle which is horrendously complicated there's one good reason there.

 

However, your whimsical cynicism does not match up to the gigantic mass of evidence behind the greenhouse effect. If the greenhouse effect is wrong, then so is everything else that our science is based upon so I am willing to bet that we are right on this. I have seen for myself in experiments the proof that the greenhouse effect is fact.

[Saintandy666]

You put too much faith in Science. Science changes regularly it evolves as does our understanding of the world itself.

 

I mean do you really believe that the figure of -18 is accurate? How on earth do they know? It is all estimation, formulas and assumptions. In all probability it is way out.

 

Oh and you can know that it would be around -18.

 

1. You know how much energy and at what frequency each bond in greenhouse gases can absorb.

2. Therefore, if you can measure greenhouse gases concentrations within the atmosphere, you can work out how much energy they trap within our atmosphere.

3. From that you can work out how much they warm the earth's atmosphere.

 

The greenhouse effect doesn't have to be a terrible thing. In fact, one of the big greenhouse gases is water! However, the problem with CO2 and CH4 etc is that they absorb in what is known as the infra red window which should allow infra red to leave our atmosphere without being absorbed and re-emitted allowing some sort of liveable temperature to arise.

 

Science is a wonderful thing.

Edited 20 June, 2011 by Saintandy666

[trousers]

Science is mankind's attempt to understand what's around them.

[Thedelldays]

global warming..now global cooling...what will it be in 5 years time..?

[Jonnyboy]

Science is mankind's attempt to understand what's around them.

 

a far better attempt than any other method

[trousers]

a far better attempt than any other method

 

Sadly or thankfully we'll never know if that statement is true or not

[Jonnyboy]

Sadly or thankfully we'll never know if that statement is true or not

 

trust me, it's true.

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13796479

 

"If the oceans die, we die." What is happening to the world's oceans is disgusting and needs reversing rapidly!

[badgerx16]

global warming..now global cooling...what will it be in 5 years time..?

There have always been elements of both at work, it's the balance between them that is the problem.

[Saintandy666]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13796479

 

"If the oceans die, we die." What is happening to the world's oceans is disgusting and needs reversing rapidly!

 

Yep, ocean is a big absorber of CO2.

 

And CO2 reacts with water to form carbonic acid. While this is fine to a degree, if we push the balance too far the pH of the ocean will drop and everything will die.

 

We are in the middle of a mass extinction at present. All over the world, in all habitats on an unprecedented scale and it's all our fault.

[Thedelldays]

Yep, ocean is a big absorber of CO2.

 

And CO2 reacts with water to form carbonic acid. While this is fine to a degree, if we push the balance too far the pH of the ocean will drop and everything will die.

 

We are in the middle of a mass extinction at present. All over the world, in all habitats on an unprecedented scale and it's all our fault.

bet it isnt...

[Saintandy666]

bet it isnt...

 

Do you know how much rainforest is destroyed on an annual basis? What about the coral reef destruction? What about the changing pH of the oceans? Three examples there. Directly related to human activity. It really is our fault.

[aintforever]

The sun spot thing is good news, might actually buy us enough time to sort man made climate change out, probably not though.

[trousers]

Yep, ocean is a big absorber of CO2.

 

And CO2 reacts with water to form carbonic acid. While this is fine to a degree, if we push the balance too far the pH of the ocean will drop and everything will die.

 

We are in the middle of a mass extinction at present. All over the world, in all habitats on an unprecedented scale and it's all our fault.

 

Maybe that's how it's supposed to be? A species destroying most life on the planet so that new life can be re-born again. A bit like the growth of new plant life after being destroyed by massive bush fires (for example)

 

How do we know whether our 'destruction of the planet' isn't pre-ordained by mother nature (afterall, the human race is simply a collection of molecules grouped together in a certain way)