Global warming? I am more worried about global cooling.

[charles brough]

It seems to me that unless you are an expert on the subject, the rational thing to do is accept the scientific consensus. On the environment, the consensus is not only global warming but that we are causing it.

 

However, as an expert in another field, I should point out that global cooling is also an ominous threat because of the presence of from 15,000 to 20,000 nuclear bombs and missiles divided up in the world.

 

Just the atomic explosions from the nuclear missiles on one Trident Submarine could create a series of fire storms that could blanked the world for a year or two and turn it cold.

 

What makes it such a threat is that the people who believe in the major world religions have come to exert more influence on their societies during the last forty years. Fortunately, here in the US, the grip the old faith had on public opinion has faded for the time been, but it comes back every time we feel threatened and each time it exerts more control than the last time. The point is that these old faiths divide us and make the growing competition for the Earth's dwindling resources all the more intense. It can get very ugly in the decades to come. . .

[BrianG]

...Just the atomic explosions from the nuclear missiles on one Trident Submarine could create a series of fire storms that could blanked the world for a year or two and turn it cold...

 

There is a difference, the effects of atmospheric nuclear bursts on climate have been tested in the atmosphere hundreds of times: Nuclear weapons testing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[CraigD]

However, as an expert in another field, I should point out that global cooling is also an ominous threat because of the presence of from 15,000 to 20,000 nuclear bombs and missiles divided up in the world.

 

Just the atomic explosions from the nuclear missiles on one Trident Submarine could create a series of fire storms that could blanked the world for a year or two and turn it cold.

There is a difference, the effects of atmospheric nuclear bursts on climate have been tested in the atmosphere hundreds of times: Nuclear weapons testing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Charles is, I believe, referring not to the direct effects of a nuclear weapon on climate, but to a hypothesized effect known as “nuclear winter”. According to this hypothesis, the many fires that would be started and burn to exhaustion of their fuel as the result of a large (in the initial description from the 1970s and 80s, an all-out US-USSR war was assumed) or moderate (in work since 2007, a war in which each side exploded 50 warheads or bombs each of 15 kilotons TNT equivalent – each about equivalent to the 6 Aug 1945 bomb exploded over Hiroshima – was considered) nuclear war would create a thick, long-lasting smoke that would almost instantly reduce surface temperatures from 10 to 22 C in tropical through temperate latitudes, causing world-wide agricultural failure and consequentially many very bad things.

 

Needless to say, though several nations’ have tested many nuclear weapons by exploding them in open air, none have conducted a “real world” test of the nuclear winter hypothesis by exploding a hundred or more bombs and allowing them to cause extensive unchecked fires, so the hypothesis continues to rely on computer models for testing. These models and their predictions are controversial, and were especially when, in the 1980s and 1990s, various models made very different predictions.

 

This controversy was diminished somewhat when in 1991, supporters of a paper known as TTAPS (for its authors Turco, Toon, Ackerman, Pollack, Carl Sagan) predicted that massive oil fires started in by the Iraqi army during their rout from Kuwait would produce long-lasting smoke severely disrupt agriculture throughout South Asia, and possibly, the world. To the region and the world’s relief, Iraq’s scientifically unsanctioned “experiment”, however, falsified the TTAPS predictions, when the smoke was lower, less widespread, less long-lasting, and produced less of a temperature drop than predicted. The present-day scientific consensus is that even a moderate or large-scale nuclear war would not cause a dramatic “nuclear winter” – though obviously it would cause many other kinds of human and environmental catastrophes.

 

PS: If I recall correctly, Brian was actually at the burning Kuwait oil fields in 1991, or at least close enough to see the tremendous smoke.

[BrianG]

When my infractions expire, I'll post pictures.

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

[Zythryn]

And this would be?

Are you suggesting GW isn't happening because of weather extremes?

If so, would a drought convince you it is happening?

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

And this would be?

Are you suggesting GW isn't happening because of weather extremes?

If so, would a drought convince you it is happening?

And now my response adapted to the maturity level indicated by your response.....

 

No I'm suggesting GW is complete BS as the whole warming part has yet been quite the opposite here, and in fact it has been getting colder. It was all of 17DEG.F here this morning. A miserable super cold winter following a colder than usual summer though the past three summers were cold so I guess "usual" will have to be updated.

 

A drought would not be convincing as I've seen long dry spells in the cold of winter.

 

I would be convinced if oddly enough the temperature outside was .......wait for it............drum roll......GETTING WARMER!!!

 

Your shocked aren't you?

I bet your shocked...

Global warming with actual warming !!! Unheard of!!! Absolutely shocking!

[Zythryn]

DD, there is a difference between 'global' and 'regional' or 'local' climate, as well as a difference between weather and climate.

If you refuse to recognize that, I don't see that there is much to discuss.

However, if you would like to discuss why you think your local temperature extremes disprove GW, I am more than happy to.

 

I'll start it off. None of the theories about GW state that the regional weather patterns, in every area of the globe, will always increase in temperature.

Average surface temperatures for the globe were the 4th warmest on record in January (NOAA: Global Average Surface Temperatures in January are 4th Warmest on Record | WWF Climate Blog) according to the NOAA.

The trend continues to point towards a warming globe. Depending upon what this does to the atlantic currents, it may result in cooling europe (especially NW europe).

Climate mechanics are incredibly complicated. So seeing your backyard thermometer cool down, doesn't necessarily mean GW isn't happening.

Likewise, seeing it go up doesn't necessarily mean it is happening either.

This is why global averages and long term trends are important.

[REASON]

No I'm suggesting GW is complete BS as the whole warming part has yet been quite the opposite here, and in fact it has been getting colder.

 

Yeah, and earthquakes are total BS too as I've never felt a single vibration in the ground where I live.

 

Dude, it's winter. Winter cold. Find me a climatologist claiming that there should be no winter as a result of global warming. :coffee_n_pc:

 

It is clear (or should I say unclear) that you have a very myopic point of view with this topic.

[Buffy]

I guess it's necessary to reiterate that the virtually all of the scientists who might be colloquially characterized by the mass media as on the "con" side of the "global warming debate" *agree* that the world is getting warmer, they just argue that the warming is not *man-made*.

 

There really isn't any data that any real scientist could point to that says that the Earth's *climate* is not in fact warming up.

 

It does not matter what Rush or Fox News or any anti-science/anti-reality Republican says on teevee.

 

So. A rich little man with white hair died. What has that got to do with the price of rice, right? And *why* is that woe to us? Because you people, and sixty-two million other Americans, are listening to me right now. Because less than three percent of you people read books! Because less than fifteen percent of you read newspapers! Because the only truth you know is what you get over this tube, :coffee_n_pc:

Buffy

[TheBigDog]

I guess it's necessary to reiterate that the virtually all of the scientists who might be colloquially characterized by the mass media as on the "con" side of the "global warming debate" *agree* that the world is getting warmer, they just argue that the warming is not *man-made*.

 

There really isn't any data that any real scientist could point to that says that the Earth's *climate* is not in fact warming up.

 

It does not matter what Rush or Fox News or any anti-science/anti-reality Republican says on teevee.

Anecdotal evidence is used by both sides of the argument. All those lovely pictures of polar bears floating out to sea somehow indicating that things are worse at the poles than they have ever been. Or the 2005 hurricane season being evidence of change due to man. Bad science is not favored more by any political party; they all use it liberally in their rhetorical attacks on the opposition and in justification of their own position.

 

Bill

[REASON]

Anecdotal evidence is used by both sides of the argument. All those lovely pictures of polar bears floating out to sea somehow indicating that things are worse at the poles than they have ever been. Or the 2005 hurricane season being evidence of change due to man. Bad science is not favored more by any political party; they all use it liberally in their rhetorical attacks on the opposition and in justification of their own position.

 

Bill

 

Which is why I choose to base my opinion in the matter on the work of field scientists as opposed to political hounds, talking heads, spin masters and science prostitutes. Plus, I expect to have to deal with realities and truths that may be distasteful or objectionable.

[TheBigDog]

There really isn't any data that any real scientist could point to that says that the Earth's *climate* is not in fact warming up.

Here are two papers that discuss the methodology of measuring global temperature and raise significant questions about it. They are both older papers, but they are good food for thought. After reading them I wonder if there has been a more recent study and what its results may show. They do not call into question the warming, but they do call into question the amount of warming that is being reported.

 

The jist is that the locations and nature of the temperature stations tend to bias the readings, and that when those factors are accounted for a different picture emerges.

 

http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr2004/26/c026p159.pdf

http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr/10/c010p027.pdf

 

Bill

[Buffy]

Here are two papers that discuss the methodology of measuring global temperature and raise significant questions about it. They are both older papers, but they are good food for thought. After reading them I wonder if there has been a more recent study and what its results may show...

One reason may be the fundamentally limited nature of their claim. While this paper is widely touted among "warming deniers"--as opposed to "man-caused warming deniers" who stand on a bit firmer ground--the problem is that these folks jump to the conclusion that the paper refutes *all* warming data which it does not:

 

From Real Climate:

McKitrick and Michaels (2004' date=' or “MM04″) argue that non-climatic factors such as economic activity may contaminate climate station data, and thus, may render invalid any estimates of surface tem*perature trends derived from these data. They propose that surface temperature trends may be linked to various local economic factors, such as national coal consumption, income per capita, GPD growth rate, literacy rates, and whether or not temperature stations were located within the former Soviet Union. If their conclusions were correct, this would hold implications for the reliability of the modern surface temperature record, an important piece of evidence indicating 20th century surface warming. However, numerous flaws with their analysis, some of them absolutely fundamental, render their conclusions invalid...

 

...there are a number of issues that they did not address that logically must must be addressed for their conclusions to be tenable. MM04 failed to acknowledge other independent data supporting the instrumental thermometer-based land surface temperature observations, such as satellite-derived temperature trend estimates over land areas in the Northern Hemisphere (Intergovernmental Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Third Assessment Report, Chapter 2, Box 2.1, p. 106) that cannot conceivably be subject to the non-climatic sources of bias considered by them. Furthermore, they fail to reconcile their hypothesis with the established large-scale warming evident from global sea surface temperature data that, again, cannot be influenced by the local, non-climatic factors they argue contaminate evidence for surface warming. By focusing on thermometer-based land observations only, and ignoring other evidence conflicting with their hypothesis...[/quote']

 

This critique came out right after their paper was published, and it's notable that their basic defense has been to point out that they "never claimed this proved there was no global warming," something for which they should be commended.

 

Yet their paper continues to be incorrectly used to support an unsupportable proposition because it is politically popular.

 

It would be nice to think that there's no way that our grandkids will be able to swear on our graves because we collectively pretended that the evidence "just has to be false."

 

There's a big difference between arguing the interpretation of inconclusive data, versus knowingly promoting positions that are provably false because it's personally, politically or financially more convenient to do so.

 

Truth is so obscure in these times and falsehood so established that unless one loves the truth, he cannot know it, :D

Buffy

[Fletcher]

science has predicted some decades of cooling, and it is said it doesnt contradict with the science of global warming. the cooling will come then pass, the warming is a perpetuated long term trend. But i dont care either way, co2 should not be taxed. It doesnt matter if it cools or warms the planet or does nothing.

 

the cooling will change things politically and in the public, as cooling with the expectation of warming will not go down well.

 

while the warming propganda is at its weakest and the government is under pressure then is the right time to swap co2 tax over to particulate and NOx related tax on vehicle emissions.

<oh no you don't>