Global Cooling?

[imind]

I can't believe imind you are questioning this cooling trend, you should do some research.

i have, and can find no peer reviewed papers that have successfully found evidence linking sun cycles to climate. could you provide them?

also, and has been said, you've got one year of data and calling it a 'trend'.

 

[imind]

your post really does nothing more than showcase your ignorance of the subject if it was intended as sincere commentary.

 

[Greatcloud]

Here is a legitimate scientist who believes there is evidence for global cooling. And if you look outside you can see he is right.

ST. PETERSBURG, August 25 (RIA Novosti)- Global cooling could develop on Earth in 50 years and have serious consequences before it is replaced by a period of warming in the early 22nd century, a Russian scientist said Friday.

Environmentalists and scientists today focus on the dangers of global warming provoked by man's detrimental effect on the planet's climate, but global cooling - though never widely supported - is a theory postulating an overwhelming cooling of the Earth which could involve glaciation.

"On the basis of our [solar emission] research, we developed a scenario of a global cooling of the Earth's climate by the middle of this century and the beginning of a regular 200-year-long cycle of the climate's global warming at the start of the 22nd century," said the head of the space research sector of the Russian Academy of Sciences' astronomical observatory.

Khabibullo Abdusamatov said he and his colleagues had concluded that a period of global cooling similar to one seen in the late 17th century - when canals froze in the Netherlands and people had to leave their dwellings in Greenland - could start in 2012-2015 and reach its peak in 2055-2060.

He said he believed the future climate change would have very serious consequences and that authorities should start preparing for them today because "climate cooling is connected with changing temperatures, especially for northern countries."

"The Kyoto initiatives to save the planet from the greenhouse effect should be put off until better times," he said, referring to an international treaty on climate change targeting greenhouse gas emissions.

"The global temperature maximum has been reached on Earth, and Earth's global temperature will decline to a climatic minimum even without the Kyoto protocol," Abdusamatov said.

Ok here is the word about the coming cold from NASA. If you don't believe them then you are a zealot/denier.

http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=2659



CO2

 

[Greatcloud]

Here is confirmation from NASA, hope this is good enough for you.





Changes in the Sun’s Surface to Bring Next Climate Change
2008 01 13

From: spaceandscience.net

Today, the Space and Science Research Center, (SSRC) in Orlando, Florida announces that it has confirmed the recent web announcement of NASA solar physicists that there are substantial changes occurring in the sun’s surface. The SSRC has further researched these changes and has concluded they will bring about the next climate change to one of a long lasting cold era.

Today, Director of the SSRC, John Casey has reaffirmed earlier research he led that independently discovered the sun’s changes are the result of a family of cycles that bring about climate shifts from cold climate to warm and back again.

“We today confirm the recent announcement by NASA that there are historic and important changes taking place on the sun’s surface. This will have only one outcome - a new climate change is coming that will bring an extended period of deep cold to the planet. This is not however a unique event for the planet although it is critically important news to this and the next generations. It is but the normal sequence of alternating climate changes that has been going on for thousands of years. Further according to our research, this series of solar cycles are so predictable that they can be used to roughly forecast the next series of climate changes many decades in advance. I have verified the accuracy of these cycles’ behavior over the last 1,100 years relative to temperatures on Earth, to well over 90%.”

As to what these changes are Casey says, “The sun’s surface flows have slowed dramatically as NASA has indicated. This process of surface movement, what NASA calls the “conveyor belt” essentially sweeps up old sunspots and deposits new ones. NASA’s studies have found that when the surface movement slows down, sunspot counts drop significantly. All records of sunspot counts and other proxies of solar activity going back 6,000 years clearly validates our own findings that when we have sunspot counts lower then 50 it means only one thing - an intense cold climate, globally. NASA says the solar cycle 25, the one after the next that starts this spring will be at 50 or lower. The general opinion of the SSRC scientists is that it could begin even sooner within 3 years with the next solar cycle 24. What we are saying today is that my own research and that of the other scientists at the SSRC verifies that NASA is right about one thing – a solar cycle of 50 or lower is headed our way. With this next solar minimum predicted by NASA, what I call a “solar hibernation,” the SSRC forecasts a much colder Earth just as it has transpired before for thousands of years. If NASA is the more accurate on the schedule, then we may see even warmer temperatures before the bottom falls out. If the SSRC and other scientists around the world are correct then we have only a few years to prepare before 20-30 years of lasting and possibly dangerous cold arrive.”

When asked about what this will mean to the average person on the street, Casey was firm. “The last time this particular cycle regenerated was over 200 years ago. I call it the “Bi-Centennial Cycle” solar cycle. It took place between 1793 and 1830, the so-called Dalton Minimum, a period of extreme cold that resulted in what historian John D. Post called the ‘last great subsistence crisis.’ With that cold came massive crops losses, food riots, famine and disease. I believe this next climate change will be much stronger and has the potential to once more cause widespread crop losses globally with the resultant ill effects. The key difference for this next Bi-Centennial Cycle’s impact versus the last is that we will have over 8 billion mouths to feed in the next coldest years where as we had only 1 billion the last time. Among other effects like social and economic disruption, we are facing the real prospect of the ‘perfect storm of global food shortages’ in the next climate change. In answer to the question, everyone on the street will be affected.”

Given the importance of the next climate change Casey was asked whether the government has been notified. “Yes, as soon as my research revealed these solar cycles and the prediction of the coming cold era with the next climate change, I notified all the key offices in the Bush administration including both parties in the Senate and House science committees as well as most of the nation’s media outlets. Unfortunately, because of the intensity of coverage of the UN IPCC and man made global warming during 2007, the full story about climate change is very slow in getting told. These changes in the sun have begun. They are unstoppable. With the word finally starting to get out about the next climate change, hopefully we will have time to prepare. Right now, the newly organized SSRC is the leading independent research center in the US and possibly worldwide, that is focused on the next climate change. Some of the world’s brightest scientists, also experts in solar physics and the next climate change have joined with me. In the meantime we will do our best to spread the word along with NASA and others who can see what is about to take place for the Earth’s climate. Soon, I believe this will be recognized as the most important climate story of this century.”

More information on the Space and Science Research Center is available at: www.spaceandscience.net

The previous NASA announcement was made at: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10may_longrange.htm

Article from: http://www.spaceandscience.net/id16.html
Related: An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change
SUV's On Jupiter? - Solar System Warming
The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame


Here is another scource for the coming cooling trend.


http://news.scotsman.com/opinion/Cool-times-coming.3644881.jp


















</IMG>

 

[christianchris21]

I agree. Here in reno nevada, we have gotten ALOT of snow, and we are in desert

 

[IisJustMe]

Here is confirmation from NASA, hope this is good enough for you. ...

So much for Al Gore's "consensus" that all the global warming proponents keep insisting is fact. This is the issue the opponents to the "human-caused global warming" bandwagon have been saying all along, that none of the politically slanted computer models consider solar flux activity in their "research." These "non-consensus" researchers have been showing proof for in their opposing papers, that solar flux is far more influential on the earth temperature cycle than anything man could ever do.

 

[imind]

Here is confirmation from NASA, hope this is good enough for you.

that is NOT confirmation from NASA. the links you provided from NASA comment only on the sun cylces, and NOT on the affect they will have on climate. NASA's own website confirms that the consensus among climatologists is that anthropogenic climate change is real. from the NASA website...

Climatologists (scientists who study climate) have analyzed the global warming that has occurred since the late 1800's. A majority of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming. Human activities contribute to global warming by enhancing Earth's natural greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect warms Earth's surface through a complex process involving sunlight, gases, and particles in the atmosphere. Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are known as greenhouse gases.

NASA

i had asked you to provide a peer reviewed study linking solar cycles to climate, and you have not done that. links to press releases don't cut it. you need to provide the science to substantiate your claims.

So much for Al Gore's "consensus" that all the global warming proponents keep insisting is fact. This is the issue the opponents to the "human-caused global warming" bandwagon have been saying all along, that none of the politically slanted computer models consider solar flux activity in their "research." These "non-consensus" researchers have been showing proof for in their opposing papers, that solar flux is far more influential on the earth temperature cycle than anything man could ever do.

lol. sorry, but even NASA argues the consensus believes otherwise. again from the NASA website...

A small number of scientists argue that the increase in greenhouse gases has not made a measurable difference in the temperature. They say that natural processes could have caused global warming. Those processes include increases in the energy emitted (given off) by the sun. But the vast majority of climatologists believe that increases in the sun's energy have contributed only slightly to recent warming.

NASA

but you're more than welcome to maintain your fantasy.

 

[IisJustMe]

i had asked you to provide a peer reviewed study linking solar cycles to climate, and you have not done that. links to press releases don't cut it. you need to provide the science to substantiate your claims.

I am really tired of people such as yourself falsely stating that no peer-reviewed research has been offered as proof to our contentions. You are being intellectually dishonest. One last time, here is the Friis-Christensen and Lassen research on solar activity and it's influence on climate change and global warming.

Long-Term Variations in Solar Activity and Their Apparent Effect on the Earth's Climate

In addition, I refer you to this limited access book on the role of the sun in climate change by Douglas V. Hoyt and Kenneth H. Schatten. Feel free to use this Google Library link:

Role of the Sun in Climate Change

Though some of the research is omitted by Google due to copyright issues, much of the gist of the arguments against a lack of consensus on global warming is readily available. Google provides a search bar on the right said that will allow you to look for specifics. Lack of consensus on this controversial (and primarily political, rather than scientific) issue is readily apparent to anyone who has the objectivity to look for it.

 

[Greatcloud]

that is NOT confirmation from NASA. the links you provided from NASA comment only on the sun cylces, and NOT on the affect they will have on climate. NASA's own website confirms that the consensus among climatologists is that anthropogenic climate change is real. from the NASA website...

Director of the SSRC, John Casey this is a recent article about recent events. And director Casey is NASA.

Today, the Space and Science Research Center, (SSRC)
SSRC I think they know what they are talking about.
in Orlando, Florida announces that it has confirmed the recent web announcement of NASA solar physicists that
NASA solar physicists I think they know what they are talking about.
there are substantial changes occurring in the sun&#8217;s surface. The SSRC has further researched these changes and has concluded they will bring about the next climate change to one of a long lasting cold era.
These scientists conclude a long lasting cold era, here is your effect on climate.

There, you have two scientific agencies saying we are going to have a long lasting cold era.

If you would take the time to read the post you would see that.

Climatologists (scientists who study climate) have analyzed the global warming that has occurred since the late 1800's. A majority of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming. Human activities contribute to global warming by enhancing Earth's natural greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect warms Earth's surface through a complex process involving sunlight, gases, and particles in the atmosphere. Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are known as greenhouse gases.

And the above post is an outdated standard statement about AGW. Nowhere does it say what NASA believes is true. All it says is what is generally known to be true. NASA has long believed that solar forcings as well as AGW have caused warming. Anyone could have said that.

But the vast majority of climatologists believe that increases in the sun's energy have contributed only slightly to recent warming.

Again this is an outdated statement and does not take into account the recent global cooling of which there is no doubt. This statement will be updated in the coming months i'm sure,because the sun is obviously effecting global climate more then slightly.


CO2







</IMG>

 

[Avatar]

So does this mean I can give dirty looks to people who DON'T drive SUV's now?

 

[IisJustMe]

So does this mean I can give dirty looks to people who DON'T drive SUV's now?

Not me. I drive an Escape Hybrid -- I like 40 MPG.

 

[Avatar]

Not me. I drive an Escape Hybrid -- I like 40 MPG.

I wish. Can't fit my family into one of those though.

 

[IisJustMe]

I wish. Can't fit my family into one of those though.

From the looks of your flag there, I don't see how you could get your family into an Excursion!

 

[imind]

There, you have two scientific agencies saying we are going to have a long lasting cold era.

no, you have one agency saying this. you have NASA saying what is happening on the sun, and you have the SSRC claiming what impact it will have on climate. the SSRC website even confirms that NASA has released no such statement...

NASA has not yet announced their correlation between the coming solar minimum and its potential impacts on the Earth's temperatures or climate.

link

as to it being outdated? nonsense. NASA's long range solar forecast was concluded in 2006, and that last page update for what you claim is outdated was a full year and several months after, in 2007. to claim its outdated and will be updated is complete rubbish. and Casey is NOT NASA. look at his bio on the SSRC website. he doesn't even work for NASA anymore.

to re-iterate NASA's view on global warming...

Climatologists (scientists who study climate) have analyzed the global warming that has occurred since the late 1800's. A majority of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming. Human activities contribute to global warming by enhancing Earth's natural greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect warms Earth's surface through a complex process involving sunlight, gases, and particles in the atmosphere. Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are known as greenhouse gases.

The main human activities that contribute to global warming are the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) and the clearing of land. Most of the burning occurs in automobiles, in factories, and in electric power plants that provide energy for houses and office buildings. The burning of fossil fuels creates carbon dioxide, whose chemical formula is CO2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas that slows the escape of heat into space. Trees and other plants remove CO2 from the air during photosynthesis, the process they use to produce food. The clearing of land contributes to the buildup of CO2 by reducing the rate at which the gas is removed from the atmosphere or by the decomposition of dead vegetation.

A small number of scientists argue that the increase in greenhouse gases has not made a measurable difference in the temperature. They say that natural processes could have caused global warming. Those processes include increases in the energy emitted (given off) by the sun. But the vast majority of climatologists believe that increases in the sun's energy have contributed only slightly to recent warming.

there is no way around this.

itsjustme, i will need a second post to deal with your 'evidence'.

 

[IisJustMe]

itsjustme, i will need a second post to deal with your 'evidence'.

If you didn't pay attention to it the first time, why should I post it a second? If you ask for something and it is given, it's your responsibility to acknowledge it.

 

[imind]

If you didn't pay attention to it the first time, why should I post it a second? If you ask for something and it is given, it's your responsibility to acknowledge it.

by that i meant that i, personally, would have to make a second post to comment on what you have provided.

I am really tired of people such as yourself falsely stating that no peer-reviewed research has been offered as proof to our contentions. You are being intellectually dishonest. One last time, here is the Friis-Christensen and Lassen research on solar activity and it's influence on climate change and global warming.

this is the first study presented to me. though you'll find that it has been refuted, thoroughly, and even the authors themselves have admitted so.

Long-Term Variations in Solar Activity and Their Apparent Effect on the Earth's Climate

i'm pressed for time, but the link below will provide a pdf detailing specifically the many problems with their work. if you cannot open a pdf, an html version is available, but will not show the actual charts...

as pdf
as html

also, see here, here, here, and here for more information why solar influences have been dismissed.

here is also a link purportedly refuting the sun as influential, but i have not found a free source for it yet. feel free to look for it or i will when i return in a couple of hours. toodle-loo!!

A study has confirmed that there are no grounds to blame the Sun for recent global warming. The analysis shows that global warming since 1985 has been caused neither by an increase in solar radiation nor by a decrease in the flux of galactic cosmic rays

link

 

[Avatar]

From the looks of your flag there, I don't see how you could get your family into an Excursion!

It's a Suburban (very similar to an Excursion). My oldest daughter is 20 and on her own, so that leaves nine of us. Everyone gets a seat belt.

 

[IisJustMe]

It's a Suburban (very similar to an Excursion). My oldest daughter is 20 and on her own, so that leaves nine of us. Everyone gets a seat belt.

My mom's parents had 10 kids, but there was 28 years from the oldest to the youngest. In the days of the Packard and the DeSoto, I don't know how they could have done it if they were more closely spaced.

 

[Avatar]

My mom's parents had 10 kids, but there was 28 years from the oldest to the youngest. In the days of the Packard and the DeSoto, I don't know how they could have done it if they were more closely spaced.

10 kids? 28 YEARS!?! That's 50 years with kids in the house! How did they survive?

 

[Greatcloud]

John Casey and SSRC

http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=2659

Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin highly credentialed Russian scientist

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/01/top_russian_scientistglobal_co.html

These scientists are predicting a coming minimum with extremely cold temperatures globally. They say it will start in 2012.

That the sun is slowing down and we are due for a minimum, is not disputed. I think these two scientists are wrong, I think the coming minimum started in 2007.

imind, you are nit picking this is hard science supporting global cooling which is now happening. Global cooling will most likely continue,its not a passing phase, the sun is slowing down. Do the research, then look out your back door (front door too) ,its worldwide.