PDA

View Full Version : Canadian scientists worried about global cooling



finswin56
02-08-2008, 11:41 PM
Back in 1991, before Al Gore first shouted that the Earth was in the balance, the Danish Meteorological Institute released a study using data that went back centuries that showed that global temperatures closely tracked solar cycles.
To many, those data were convincing. Now, Canadian scientists are seeking additional funding for more and better "eyes" with which to observe our sun, which has a bigger impact on Earth's climate than all the tailpipes and smokestacks on our planet combined.
And they're worried about global cooling, not warming.
http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175

padre31
02-09-2008, 12:34 AM
The streets shall flow with the blood of the deniers...err..wait a minute:foundout:

One of the things that has struck me about the Rise of the Internet, and the parallel rise of Man Centered Global Warming Consensus is the fragile nature of Environmental Catastrophe and the short sightedness of informational dissemination (or is that obfuscation?).

If the Net were humming along in say 1973, we would be quoting articles of prestiges Scientists about the coming global cooling, and instead of Carbon Taxes, the discussion would be spreading ashes over a pole to speed warming and melting of the ice....

Meanwhile, in a unnamed River in PA, the sewage that is being dumped in the river (treated beforehand of course) contains so many female hormones, that fish are literally going hermaphradititic (sp).

Nice, but there are no Nobel's in saving lunker Bass....

ch19079
02-09-2008, 01:47 AM
I think the main scientific opinion in the 70s and 80s was that more clouds would be formed, which would block out the sun more, and thus decrease the average global temp.

In the end, I dont really think anyone has a full understanding of just how complex the world/nature really is.

unluckyluciano
02-09-2008, 02:09 AM
I think it's a reference to the little ice age which from what I understand scientists believe was caused by the sun. I believe the sun would have a bigger impact then global warming in the short term, but long term how do you come back from a shift in the poles, atmosphere, death of ecosystems etc.

FINintheMOON
02-12-2008, 09:38 PM
The thing that you are not hearing about is the results of fresh water being introduced into the oceans...

There was a movie out a few years ago called "The day After" or something along those lines... The plot of the movie was that the Gulf Stream and the entire ocean currents failed once too much fresh water was introduced into the seas. This is a very REAL thing. You shut down the ocean currents, it creates another ice age!

The way this works is that the warm and saline rich flows of the currents travel to the cooler regions of the planet and then sink as they are cooled. The heavy water sinks once cooled... The water is heavy because of the salt content... Now when you disturb this salt content by introducing more fresh water, it no longer sinks and the flow is disrupted... Once the flow is disrupted, there are no longer the temprate environments that Great Britian enjoys as well as Nova Scotia and much of the northern coast of Canada and the US and the same affect happens to all the world!

Mother EARTH has all the checks and balances in place... Thing is, do we adapt or do we die?

emeraldfin
02-14-2008, 11:53 AM
Maybe I'm wrong about this but from what I was led to believe in 3rd year geography was that the North Atlantic Drift turns into fresh water every 10,000 years, causing an ice age?

Eshlemon
02-14-2008, 03:25 PM
Al Gore will state the debate is over and Canadians are part of a lunatic fringe small minority not credible opposition dummy heads.

FINintheMOON
02-14-2008, 09:22 PM
Maybe I'm wrong about this but from what I was led to believe in 3rd year geography was that the North Atlantic Drift turns into fresh water every 10,000 years, causing an ice age?

I have been debating the global warming thing for 2+ years now... I have done extensive research into this over those years. For every argument out that that supports global warming, there is another that says it is bunk...

Those supporting it is focusing on what is happening now. The want mankind to become more evironmentally friendly. This isn't a bad thing though in the long run... I mean, oil resources will eventially run out as well as coal. And in an effort to get away from that dependence, well it can only help us in the long run. This is more political than you would think... And to keep to the forum rules, I will no mention it any further...

Those denying the effects of mankind being the primary cause of global warming are those that look at the bigger picture... These are the ones that understand the effects of not only the sun's cycle, but the solar cycle and celestial cycle of our planet as well...

Our planet has a wobble in it's rotation that takes approximately 26,000 years to complete 1 full rotation. The 26,000 years is an estimate and not GOSPEL... This 26,000 cycle has a 4 season effect on the various hemispheres on earth. It is broken down into 4 celestial cycles. The same same cycles that we experience on and annual basis on earth, Spring, Summer, Fall and Winter... The 26,000 year celestial cycle works the same way...

When you stated 10,000 years, your are not far off as we know the last ice age was approximately 11,000 years ago... Well if you break that up into the 6,000 year celestial cycle, the Spring Cycle took 6,000 years so that puts us in the final years of the Summer celestial cycle... That is the Summer to Fall change and everyone knows that August is typically the hottest month for our hemisphere...

Now you may ask why I identified a hemisphere and here is the reason... The tilt of our earth is such now where the northern hemisphere is getting the bulk of the sun... Also remember the northern hemisphere is where all the mankind evolved and began creating records of change... However, I digress...

While the Artic is shrinking and there are reports of the Antartic's demise as well, noone is mentioning the fact that the western part of the Antartic is growing in size and is compensating for the loss elsewhere in the continent...

I guess the point I am trying to make is that the northern hemisphere is getting more direct sunlight than it has in the past 11,000 years. This is a BIG contribution to what we are seeing in the Artic melt and the glaciers around the world in this hemisphere melting away...

Has mankind accellerated it? Yes, but we are talking about a 1 second accelleration in a 100 year event...:up:

emeraldfin
02-15-2008, 05:52 AM
I have been debating the global warming thing for 2+ years now... I have done extensive research into this over those years. For every argument out that that supports global warming, there is another that says it is bunk...

Those supporting it is focusing on what is happening now. The want mankind to become more evironmentally friendly. This isn't a bad thing though in the long run... I mean, oil resources will eventially run out as well as coal. And in an effort to get away from that dependence, well it can only help us in the long run. This is more political than you would think... And to keep to the forum rules, I will no mention it any further...

Those denying the effects of mankind being the primary cause of global warming are those that look at the bigger picture... These are the ones that understand the effects of not only the sun's cycle, but the solar cycle and celestial cycle of our planet as well...

Our planet has a wobble in it's rotation that takes approximately 26,000 years to complete 1 full rotation. The 26,000 years is an estimate and not GOSPEL... This 26,000 cycle has a 4 season effect on the various hemispheres on earth. It is broken down into 4 celestial cycles. The same same cycles that we experience on and annual basis on earth, Spring, Summer, Fall and Winter... The 26,000 year celestial cycle works the same way...

When you stated 10,000 years, your are not far off as we know the last ice age was approximately 11,000 years ago... Well if you break that up into the 6,000 year celestial cycle, the Spring Cycle took 6,000 years so that puts us in the final years of the Summer celestial cycle... That is the Summer to Fall change and everyone knows that August is typically the hottest month for our hemisphere...

Now you may ask why I identified a hemisphere and here is the reason... The tilt of our earth is such now where the northern hemisphere is getting the bulk of the sun... Also remember the northern hemisphere is where all the mankind evolved and began creating records of change... However, I digress...

While the Artic is shrinking and there are reports of the Antartic's demise as well, noone is mentioning the fact that the western part of the Antartic is growing in size and is compensating for the loss elsewhere in the continent...

I guess the point I am trying to make is that the northern hemisphere is getting more direct sunlight than it has in the past 11,000 years. This is a BIG contribution to what we are seeing in the Artic melt and the glaciers around the world in this hemisphere melting away...

Has mankind accellerated it? Yes, but we are talking about a 1 second accelleration in a 100 year event...:up:

Excellent post mate, top quality.

Its not too often I read an un-biased and well researched opinion on the subject of climate change. One question though, I have heard of global, dimming and cooling and their affects, what I would like to know is are these genuine and logical occurences that need particular concern or are they just more enviromentalist propoganda?

FINintheMOON
02-15-2008, 10:16 PM
Excellent post mate, top quality.

Its not too often I read an un-biased and well researched opinion on the subject of climate change. One question though, I have heard of global, dimming and cooling and their affects, what I would like to know is are these genuine and logical occurences that need particular concern or are they just more enviromentalist propoganda?

While the topics are real, as well as the research done behind them, you need to draw that conclusion for yourself.

In another post I pointed out that the Artic melt will affect the Gulf Stream and the overall flow of the oceans. The way these flows work in the oceans around the world is that warm waters keep the flow going due to it's saline content. As the flows reach the cooler parts of the world, the saline content, salt water to be more specific, cools and sinks to provide the return into the overall flow of the oceans... Here is a link that will help you understand that flow...

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/GRAPHIC0/Oceans/OceanCurrents.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/EnvSC102Notes/102HowEarthWorks.HTM&h=373&w=493&sz=12&tbnid=3zDwrCY98l76_M:&tbnh=98&tbnw=130&prev=/images%3Fq%3Docean%2Bcurrents%26um%3D1&start=1&sa=X&oi=images&ct=image&cd=1

Based on the flows, the saline content is the driving factor... However, you start pumping in billions of gallons of fresh water into that flow, it will slow significantly and/or stop...

Now while that doesn't seem to be much, it will change the ENTIRE world as we see it today! I referenced the movie "The Day After" as an example in the other post as well... I could spend an hour typing the events and transitions of the world that this will cause, or you can watch the movie... Now the movie takes it to the extreme but you can expect an overall cooling of the planet. The severity is unknown...

Bottom line is the more fresh water introduced into the ocean flows, the slower they get. And the slower they get, the colder the world gets... So to answer your question... Yes it is a genuine and logical concern...

Coral Reefer
02-16-2008, 04:22 AM
I've done quite a bit of studying on this as well.

All I'll say is that it truly does amaze me that people really believe the added stresses we undeniably put on areas of this planet will have minimal to zero effect on it.

As a poster himself on here has stated for every study supporting Global Warming there's one that contrasts it. All you're basically saying is that the scientific community is split on a very important issue. That's certainly not enough to laugh any of this issue off as everyone loves to do.

It's a puzzle with a rather horrid ending attached to it if all those that are so eager to pass it off as bunk are wrong.

phinfan3411
02-16-2008, 11:40 AM
I've done quite a bit of studying on this as well.

All I'll say is that it truly does amaze me that people really believe the added stresses we undeniably put on areas of this planet will have minimal to zero effect on it.

As a poster himself on here has stated for every study supporting Global Warming there's one that contrasts it. All you're basically saying is that the scientific community is split on a very important issue. That's certainly not enough to laugh any of this issue off as everyone loves to do.

It's a puzzle with a rather horrid ending attached to it if all those that are so eager to pass it off as bunk are wrong.

I think the point you are missing is that many people including myself are frustrated about is the way that man made global warming is handled by the mass media like it is gospel, there are not two sides to it. My niece, and nephew were shown Gore's movie, again with no explanation as to there being another "side", and this really bothers me.

I also would take it a little more seriously if the guy didn't live in a huge mansion, fly in private jets, and drive around in limo's.

http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/NussbaumOnDesign/archives/2007/02/gores_carbon_fo.html

I guess, I am more carbon footprint responsible than the hippocrate Al Gore, without even trying, I live in a tiny 1200 sq foot house, I haven't flown anywhere in three years, and my car gets 25mpg, where's my nobel??

Don't you think open discussion about all sides of this topic in schools, the media, and at least in this forum, will make for a more educated populace?

FINintheMOON
02-19-2008, 08:08 PM
I've done quite a bit of studying on this as well.

All I'll say is that it truly does amaze me that people really believe the added stresses we undeniably put on areas of this planet will have minimal to zero effect on it.

As a poster himself on here has stated for every study supporting Global Warming there's one that contrasts it. All you're basically saying is that the scientific community is split on a very important issue. That's certainly not enough to laugh any of this issue off as everyone loves to do.

It's a puzzle with a rather horrid ending attached to it if all those that are so eager to pass it off as bunk are wrong.

I made a statement that there are those out there that consider the scare tatics of global warming is BUNK... I never stated that myself... However, this world will continue to warm regardless of what we do as human beings...

Granted... We are responsible for the accelerated effect, and this is not by much in REAL WORLD VS UNIVERSE scenario. It may seem fast to us because we are living it!!! Earth science is limited as is solar science and other sciences. However, if you would go beyond the single topic and take under consideration of all the findings of as many of these sciences that you can, you will find that there are many other events, out of man's control, that are involved with our current situation on our planet...