Forget global warming: Welcome to the new Ice Age

[F8L]

Originally Posted by Fibb222

What's specifically wrong with a Kyoto type agreement in principle? Sure it fails when countries like Canada only pay lip service, and the biggest emitters don't sign on in the first place. Costly? Didn't the economic studies say that the cost of mitigating climate change would be less than 2% of the worlds economy and in the long run save money?

The principle behind Kyoto is not bad it is the numbers that are bad. It would not create a significant drop in CO2 output levels even if every country signed onto the protocol. We would need much stricter numbers to achieve a significant drop. That being said the economic costs are not as great as some would like to make them out to be. In fact many studies show that is economically beneficial!

[TimBikes]

Originally Posted by Fibb222

Well again I don't look at the data directly except in a very limited way. I have to rely on the consensus among the scientific community. I put faith in the scientific method. That's the best I can do.

If "Science" tells me that we need less CO2 in the atmosphere in order to save our civilization from tremendous upheaval than I'm going to go with that.

You may be smarter than 95% of all the climatologists put together but I have to go with the majority view that filters down through the media.

While I put my faith in the scientific method I know there are cheaters in science. Some scientists fudge data, for fame, profit, just to stay afloat. I'm still hoping that the majority doesn't and over time we get an accurate picture from research.

I can't say for sure but I think that economically the electrification of transportation won't hurt the economy - new technologies always create new (but different) jobs and more economic activity, but IT WILL change who is profiting. This is a major threat to many people with deep pockets and a great deal of political power.

Considering the huge vested interest in the gigantic fossil fuel based status quo - if there is a conspiracy - my bets are on the researchers that contradict the majority position.

BTW, Timbikes what do you do for a living?

LOL. Well, if by your last sentence you somehow think I'm part of some sort of vast fossil fuel conspiracy, you are wrong. Anyway, I'm not against electrification of transportation. In fact, I applaud it. I have read recently that there is speculation that the solar industry is on the verge of a sort of Moore's Law effect. I think this is stellar news and I can't wait to solarize my lifestyle at a cost that is orders of magnitude less than what I could do it for today. I think we need to drive innovation and diversification of our energy supplies away from fossil fuels. There are just too many problems (political and environmental) with fossil fuels, whether one believes AGW is a threat or not. But, that does not convince me we are due for the CO2 induced crisis that the media, politicians, and many environmental advocacy groups claim.

[TimBikes]

Originally Posted by F8L

The principle behind Kyoto is not bad it is the numbers that are bad. It would not create a significant drop in CO2 output levels even if every country signed onto the protocol. We would need much stricter numbers to achieve a significant drop. That being said the economic costs are not as great as some would like to make them out to be. In fact many studies show that is economically beneficial!

I think my concern also is that the management and accounting of "carbon credits" is fraught with political considerations and compromises. I know no system is going to be perfect, but I think Kyoto has demonstrated many of the problems in determining what is a fair level of emissions for each country, what can be "counted" as a carbon reduction, how an industry's carbon emissions levels are determined etc. Coming from a background in economics, I have always felt that "externalities" should be accounted for. In the case of CO2, the T3 tax strikes me as compelling. In any case, one could argue that the weak dollar has become a de facto carbon tax.

[TimBikes]

[quote=F8L;578308][quote=TimBikes;578216]

Originally Posted by F8L

Tim,

I think we are dancing very close to a similar point. I'll have a look at the aerosol papers again once the semester is over and see if I can come up with a clearer picture of what is going on with them but last I looked that seemed to be the general idea as solar insolation seemed to have gone back up, aerosol count had deceased and sun spot activity had not increased. I admit I have not gone deep into the subject so I could easily be wrong.

I agree with you and lean towards underlying climate drivers may have a greater effect than CO2 alone. This helps explain the lag time when temp increase is followed by CO2 increase for up to a couple thousand years. The important point here is that we know it is an amplifier so in the event we have strong positive temp drivers in action, high CO2 levels will only make these "worse". Depsite the many negative effects of high CO2 levels in the atmosphere, which we've gone over many times before, I think we are in agreement that CO2 is not the primary driver but it is one we have some control over. So in effect, we still have to worry about CO2 levels for reasons other than just warming.

I've been wanting to find more information on the cooling period idea as I've seen this expressed in other areas and not in support or contradiction to global warming debates. The earth is in a warm period of an ice age and that we were at the tail end of this warm period and likely to head back to a colder period. Is this what you are hinting at? If you have more resources on this please link em as I would love to read up on it.

Thanks again for the well researched posts.

I agree - we are close in many respects here. As for the cooling, it is kind of a sneaking suspicion I have from a variety of things I've read, but nothing I would call particularly firm or even that I could say is supported on all sides by undeniable scientific evidence, but a few thoughts (and this is from memory, so the specifics might not be exactly spot on):
- global temps across a wide range of measures have really not increased in any statistically significant way since 1997 (before the strong El Nino of '98)
- more recently (last 6 years) the temp trend is flat to downward for most measures (to Fibbs question, these can still be historically "warm" years -- if we are exiting the end of a warm phase, one would expect them to be -- but the fact that a given year is "warm" does not speak to the present trend). Again, the present trend is not one of continued upward warming, but rather, it looks like we have "peaked", much as in the 1940's and may be coming down the backside of a "hill", so to speak
- given the PDO cycle tends to fluctuate from warm to cold and back (in something like rough 30 year periods), it seems reasonable that we are now exiting a warm PDO phase and entering a cold phase based on timing and again - recent temperatures
- the sun is now in an interesting cycle of diminished activity that has been remarked upon as being reminiscent of a Dalton type minimum
- solar cycle 24 is very overdue, perhaps portending a very inactive cycle (but nobody really knows)
- solar cycle 25 is predicted to be extraordinarily inactive, again, suggestive of longer term cooling

Perhaps I can open a separate posting when I have time to discuss. On the other hand, there is always a news story like this to F#$% up my theory!

Glaciers suffer record shrinkage...

[zeeman]

Originally Posted by amped

I found the claims interesting and the ability of the scientists to apply the Scientific Method to correct assumptions admirable. More testing and data, please, and soon...if funding can be found to test the theory that could impact current funding for competing agendas.

"And remember the Arctic Sea ice? The ice we were told so hysterically last fall had melted to its "lowest levels on record? Never mind that those records only date back as far as 1972 and that there is anthropological and geological evidence of much greater melts in the past."

"But if environmentalists and environment reporters can run around shrieking about the manmade destruction of the natural order every time a robin shows up on Georgian Bay two weeks early, then it is at least fair game to use this winter's weather stories to wonder whether the alarmist are being a tad premature."

"We missed what was right in front of our eyes," says Prof. Russell. It's not ice melt but rather wind circulation that drives ocean currents northward from the tropics. Climate models until now have not properly accounted for the wind's effects on ocean circulation, so researchers have compensated by over-emphasizing the role of manmade warming on polar ice melt.


Forget global warming: Welcome to the new Ice Age

ah, global warming.....

old news of age old agenda, only if you know where to look:


"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill ... All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."

— in

The First Global Revolution

The First Global Revolution
The First Global Revolution

[tripp]

Wtf,o.