- comment
CR UVa - body
- Personally, I am more inclined to believe this than global warming (though my thoughts have always been that this "warming" may have been to factors beyond our control). Now how will the global warming nuts go if these actions come to pass?
- comment James E. Martin
- body
- If you remember your European History, the last mini ice age was known as 'the dark ages'.
Lets hope he's wrong.
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- Was the last "mini-ice age" during the Dark Ages? I thought it was during the 14th century (early Renaissance)?
- comment Lucy Jones
- body
- So it will be really cold and dark? Sounds like the beginning of another baby boom to me...
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- LOL! Good point...
- comment James E. Martin
- body
- I only got a 4 on ap euro, give me a break:-)
(BTW i got a 5 on US, had to mention that)
- comment bruce roemmelt
- body
- Shaun,
"most of the scientific community seems rather split regarding the causes and effects..." ?
if you mean split over whether it's for sure or definate, ok.
slam dunk or move to higher ground. i beleive it.
but i sense you beleive that that global wharming is not real.
science does not. it's not about a NYC being under 8' of water in a year. it is about using science to... here are some links to divided opinions.
Pew Center--
http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/
Wikipedia--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
National Research Council--
http://www4.nationalacademies.org/onpi/webextra.nsf/web/climate?OpenDocument
Union of Concerned Scientists--
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/
Huston Chronicle--
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/3640749.html
Kyoto Protocol/UN--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol
the point is that the author is right. changes are an ordinary phenomon, but that was prior to the world pumping trillions of tons of CO2 into the fragile protection we have.
this is serious stuff...
b
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- but i sense you beleive that that global wharming is not real
Jokes aside about seances and mind-reading, "global warming" has typically held connotations of the fragile Earth being destroyed by rapacious humans, etc.
What we know is that something is going on. What we don't know is why. The wild jumps to hysterical conclusions (on either side) are what amuse me.
- comment art (kenney 3.0)
- body
- We can find just as many organizations of similar credibility that said int he 70s and 80s that we were going to have an Ice Age due to industrial output. Now, it's global warming...
It is a point of constant amazement to me how many of the organizations that say that science proves that global warming is a threat blatantly ignore a scientific process in making these conclusions. They tend not to look at the sources first. They look towards the effect, the rising heat, then find causes that fit what they want to see. Very few people have looked at the root cause.
Easily the largest factor int he heating of the Earth is the Sun (obvious, yes, but stay with me here). The heat we receive is based on the luminosity of the Sun, which we have tied to sunspot activity. More sunspots = more heat. Sunspots have a generally accepted 11 year cycle. Every 11 years or so we see increased heat. This can explain a good deal of the warming that is observed.
There may also be a larger cycle involved, as some recent data is showing. New satelite data is showing that there may be more the the 11 year sinusoidal luminosity. We already know about one larger sinusoidal trend, on the order of 78 years, called the Gleissberg cycle. There may be another cycle with a peroid of 200 years.
Refer to http://personal.inet.fi/tiede/tilmari/sunspot5.html#200years
for more.
To be fair, there is no concensus on these findings. But, if there are larger cycles, then they could easily explain the eras of warming and cooling we see geologically. At best science can only state that they do not know the cause of the problem.
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- To be fair, there is no concensus on these findings. But, if there are larger cycles, then they could easily explain the eras of warming and cooling we see geologically. At best science can only state that they do not know the cause of the problem.
Precisely.
Art needs a blog!
10 Comments:
Lets hope he's wrong.
(BTW i got a 5 on US, had to mention that)
"most of the scientific community seems rather split regarding the causes and effects..." ?
if you mean split over whether it's for sure or definate, ok.
slam dunk or move to higher ground. i beleive it.
but i sense you beleive that that global wharming is not real.
science does not. it's not about a NYC being under 8' of water in a year. it is about using science to... here are some links to divided opinions.
Pew Center--
http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/
Wikipedia--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
National Research Council--
http://www4.nationalacademies.org/onpi/webextra.nsf/web/climate?OpenDocument
Union of Concerned Scientists--
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/
Huston Chronicle--
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/3640749.html
Kyoto Protocol/UN--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol
the point is that the author is right. changes are an ordinary phenomon, but that was prior to the world pumping trillions of tons of CO2 into the fragile protection we have.
this is serious stuff...
b
Jokes aside about seances and mind-reading, "global warming" has typically held connotations of the fragile Earth being destroyed by rapacious humans, etc.
What we know is that something is going on. What we don't know is why. The wild jumps to hysterical conclusions (on either side) are what amuse me.
It is a point of constant amazement to me how many of the organizations that say that science proves that global warming is a threat blatantly ignore a scientific process in making these conclusions. They tend not to look at the sources first. They look towards the effect, the rising heat, then find causes that fit what they want to see. Very few people have looked at the root cause.
Easily the largest factor int he heating of the Earth is the Sun (obvious, yes, but stay with me here). The heat we receive is based on the luminosity of the Sun, which we have tied to sunspot activity. More sunspots = more heat. Sunspots have a generally accepted 11 year cycle. Every 11 years or so we see increased heat. This can explain a good deal of the warming that is observed.
There may also be a larger cycle involved, as some recent data is showing. New satelite data is showing that there may be more the the 11 year sinusoidal luminosity. We already know about one larger sinusoidal trend, on the order of 78 years, called the Gleissberg cycle. There may be another cycle with a peroid of 200 years.
Refer to http://personal.inet.fi/tiede/tilmari/sunspot5.html#200years
for more.
To be fair, there is no concensus on these findings. But, if there are larger cycles, then they could easily explain the eras of warming and cooling we see geologically. At best science can only state that they do not know the cause of the problem.
Precisely.
Art needs a blog!
Post a Comment
Home