Do we need to be preparing for Arctic cruising strategies because of Global Cooling

[Foozinator]

Originally Posted by exMaggieDrum

I rented and just watched a DVD: "Kingman the Secret Service"...

Instead of all this talk about culling and killing, how about getting a decent space program and starting other colonies?

1. We'll be forced to learn how to take care of our environment, since these colonies would almost always have to be closed-loop.
2. There will be many more places for the explorers and pioneers to go.
3. Our species will have a backup, since it's not just extinction events that threaten our standard of living, here. "Asteroids are nature's way of asking 'How that space program going...?'"

EDIT: The population growth may be leveling out, mainly as third world nation families get out of poverty and more and more women get a decent education. We really only need time to get that improvement out to its practical end, so it's not like we'd necessarily be overpopulating everything.

[exMaggieDrum]

Originally Posted by Foozinator

Instead of all this talk about culling and killing, how about getting a decent space program and starting other colonies?

1. We'll be forced to learn how to take care of our environment, since these colonies would almost always have to be closed-loop.
2. There will be many more places for the explorers and pioneers to go.
3. Our species will have a backup, since it's not just extinction events that threaten our standard of living, here. "Asteroids are nature's way of asking 'How that space program going...?'"

EDIT: The population growth may be leveling out, mainly as third world nation families get out of poverty and more and more women get a decent education. We really only need time to get that improvement out to its practical end, so it's not like we'd necessarily be overpopulating everything.

Well, one big problem is that the populations (even in the US) have greatly exceeded the steady state sustainability of our usable resources, especially ground water but also food sources, minerals, energy, etc. We can't put enough amps back in to recharge our batteries as fast as we are consuming the amps. Colorado is now taking water from farmers to supply drinking water to the cities. Forget about using it for industrial purposes (although it would be hell to pay if Coors did not get enough water to make beer).

As far as space travel: (1) right now current technology would use more energy to get one person just in to space let alone anywhere else than they could possibly use in a lifetime, (2) current tech in propulsion would put a hell of a lot of chemicals in to the atmosphere - far more than a Rabbit diesel over several lifetimes, (3) ain't enough money in the world to do it for even a fraction of the cost, (4) aren't any places to go that anyone knows of which will support bacteria let alone people.

You're just pulling our collective legs aren't you?

[senormechanico]

Originally Posted by jackdale

From The Stanford Solar Center

From your chart it looks like the earth has warmed up about a half degree since 1960 almost exclusively from volcanic eruptions.

[Udacha]

Originally Posted by jackdale

You were miseducated.

The MSM predicted cooling in the 70's. Science was 6:1 warming cooling.

A few climate scientists have now scanned through the research literature of the time. For 1965 to 1979, they found seven articles that predicted cooling, 44 that predicted warming and 20 that were neutral. The results were published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

Newsweek in a particular had it really wrong. Peter Gwynne, the reporter, admits it.

We have a 4 Billion per day, 1.5 Trillion a year monster called "Climate Change" and you are telling me that there really wasn't a big hole in the ozone letting out carbon gasses and all of the scientist of the day were wrong.

Just a year or two ago it was called "Global Warming" and now it's "Climate Change" because it might be getting hotter or it might be getting cooler. Well guess what the planet goes through cycles and will continue to change. $ 4 Billion dollars a day is nuts. How about throwing 1 Billion a day at cancer, probably money well spent. Maybe make sure the 3rd world countries have good water to drink maybe even a little medicine. There are many places or things better to spend that kind of money. I probably wouldn't be far off the mark if most of the Trillions of dollars end up on Wall Street,

I think it is far more likely you have been " miseducated"

[Foozinator]

Originally Posted by exMaggieDrum

As far as space travel: (1) right now current technology would use more energy to get one person just in to space let alone anywhere else than they could possibly use in a lifetime, (2) current tech in propulsion would put a hell of a lot of chemicals in to the atmosphere - far more than a Rabbit diesel over several lifetimes, (3) ain't enough money in the world to do it for even a fraction of the cost, (4) aren't any places to go that anyone knows of which will support bacteria let alone people.

You're just pulling our collective legs aren't you?

1. That one is hard to solve, I agree
2. Actually, current tech (Space Shuttle main engines) burns hydrogen/oxygen mix, resulting in steam. That said, the SpaceX Falcon series burns kerosene.
3. The cost is coming down, and SpaceX (among others) is already planning on going.
4. That's what I meant when I said they'd have to be closed-loop.

Didn't say it would be easy, but I do think it's important.

[jwcolby54]

Originally Posted by Going Walkabout

So like you, the data that I have read is also leaning me to think we are entering a cooling period brought on by slowing solar activity. Chaya

And that may be entirely the case, which does not in any way mitigate the problems created by carbon release on the environment. Yes, it lowers the temperature but what about the effects of carbon being absorbed by the oceans, the resulting microorganism bloom and so forth.

It isn't entirely clear that a micro bloom is a bad thing as they are the bottom of the food chain, however anything in excess causes something else.

So to say that global warming (or whatever) caused by too much carbon being released isn't happening because of sun cycles is simply ignoring (or trying to paint as false) one thing because of some other completely unrelated thing.

BOTH things may be (probably are) happening simultaneously. And when the sun cycle swings back (as we both kinow it will) and we have continued on blithely pumping waaaay to much carbon into the environment...

Then what?

Warming is only one effect of carbon pollution.

BTW using the phrase "government hacks" tends to cause an otherwise reasoned response to seem.. well.. hackish.

[Foozinator]

Originally Posted by Udacha

We have a 4 Billion per day, 1.5 Trillion a year monster called "Climate Change"

I seriously doubt that any one entity is spending that much. Most likely, that figure is mostly from consumer/commercial spending.

In other words, I think you're describing market forces, not government spending.

[Foozinator]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

From your chart it looks like the earth has warmed up about a half degree since 1960 almost exclusively from volcanic eruptions.

I'm pretty sure the Mauna Loa reference is talking about a NOAA station that is located there.

Monthly global trend (from Mauna Loa/NOAA)

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Udacha

We have a 4 Billion per day, 1.5 Trillion a year monster called "Climate Change" and you are telling me that there really wasn't a big hole in the ozone letting out carbon gasses and all of the scientist of the day were wrong.

Just a year or two ago it was called "Global Warming" and now it's "Climate Change" because it might be getting hotter or it might be getting cooler. Well guess what the planet goes through cycles and will continue to change. $ 4 Billion dollars a day is nuts. How about throwing 1 Billion a day at cancer, probably money well spent. Maybe make sure the 3rd world countries have good water to drink maybe even a little medicine. There are many places or things better to spend that kind of money. I probably wouldn't be far off the mark if most of the Trillions of dollars end up on Wall Street,

I think it is far more likely you have been " miseducated"

The IPCC has been around since 1988. Care to guess what the CC stands for.

And from 1975

Wallace Broecker, "Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?" Science, vol. 189 (8 August 1975), 460-463.

++++++++++++++++

You can thank the GOP for the politicization of "climate change."

Frank Luntz Memorandum to Bush White House, 2002

"A compelling story, even if factually inaccurate, can be more emotionally compelling than a dry recitation of the truth."

"As with those other issues, the first (and most important) step to neutralizing the problem and eventually bringing people around to your point of view on environmental issues is to convince them of your sincerity and concern." Once you can fake sincerity, you have it in the bag.

"Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field."

"The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science."

" It’s time for us to start talking about “climate change” instead of global warming

1. “Climate change” is less frightening than “global warming.” As one focus group participant noted, climate change “sounds like you’re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.” While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge. "

“Straight Talk” Memorandum written by GOP consultant Frank Luntz [ he who invented The Contract With America in 1994]. The Memo’s ideas have apparently been utilized by Republican congressional and executive leaders since approximately the end of 2002. These pages 131-146 constitute the wide-ranging memorandum’s section on environment."

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

From your chart it looks like the earth has warmed up about a half degree since 1960 almost exclusively from volcanic eruptions.

Volcanoes have a short term net cooling effect.

Humans emit 135 times more CO2 than all volcanic activity.

Mauna Loa is a the CO2 monitoring station established by Charles Keeling.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Can we see some evidence that it is bogus?

I will make it easy:

- provide 1 science academy on the planet that disputes the conclusions of the IPCC.

- provide 1 science academies on the planet that endorses the Heartland funded NIPCC.

Bang!

Good, you've shot the messenger.

Now about the message....???

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

Bang!

Good, you've shot the messenger.

Now about the message....???

The message from science is pretty clear.

All was well and natural cycles did their part of keeping CO2 levels between 180 and 300 ppm for over 800,000 years. During that time human beings evolved and domesticated plants suitable to that environment. During that time natural cycles like the Milankovitch cycles, would trigger warming releasing CO2 resulting in a positive feedback loop. We had a nice Goldilocks world, "controlled by a natural "thermostat"

NASA GISS: CO₂: The Thermostat that Controls Earth's Temperature


Then in the mid 18th century we increased anthropogenic carbon emissions from 3 million tonnes per annum to almost 10 billion tonnes per annum. We were the trigger that added CO2. That increased CO2 levels by about 40% to over 400 ppm, a level not seen for for 3 - 5 million years. Using carbon isotope analysis that 40% increase can be traced directly to burning fossil fuels.

We messed with Mother Nature, and she bats last.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by jwcolby54

And that may be entirely the case, which does not in any way mitigate the problems created by carbon release on the environment. Yes, it lowers the temperature but what about the effects of carbon being absorbed by the oceans, the resulting microorganism bloom and so forth.

It isn't entirely clear that a micro bloom is a bad thing as they are the bottom of the food chain, however anything in excess causes something else.

So to say that global warming (or whatever) caused by too much carbon being released isn't happening because of sun cycles is simply ignoring (or trying to paint as false) one thing because of some other completely unrelated thing.

BOTH things may be (probably are) happening simultaneously. And when the sun cycle swings back (as we both kinow it will) and we have continued on blithely pumping waaaay to much carbon into the environment...

Then what?

Warming is only one effect of carbon pollution.

BTW using the phrase "government hacks" tends to cause an otherwise reasoned response to seem.. well.. hackish.

Geologically speaking, we are still in a CO2 deprived environment. Why do you think that is an optimal situation?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

Geologically speaking, we are still in a CO2 deprived environment. Why do you think that is an optimal situation?

The 180 - 300 ppm that existed for the past 800,000 years, to which our food crops have adapted quite nicely, is probably a good range.



Increased CO2 in open environments leads to:

1) Increased predation by pests
doi: 10.1073/pnas.0800568105

2) Compromised nutritional value in food crops
doi:10.1038/nature13179

The last study was conducted at 550 ppm CO2.

Those high CO2 levels to which you refer were suitable for dinosaurs and their food sources.

[jwcolby54]

Originally Posted by StuM

Geologically speaking, we are still in a CO2 deprived environment. Why do you think that is an optimal situation?

lol optimal for who (or what)?. There is the world, which doesn't give a crap about mankind, and there is mankind which doesn't give a crap about the world. The temperatures can swing wildly and the world will go on. CO2 can swing wildly. Hell atmospheric acid rains or acidic oceans just don't mean anything to the earth. The earth has (as you correctly pointed out) has seen wild fluctuations of all kinds of things.

As things swung wildly most of life died out (several times) and spent millions of years coming back. It seems logical that man should attempt to not be the cause of the next mass die off. Although if you look at the numbers of organisms that mankind has directly caused the extinction of, it is already too late.

I am assuming from your responses that you simply do not believe that mankind has any observable effect on the state of the earth. A somewhat bizarre belief.

One thing that has long puzzled me, is how one can bury ones head in the sand without inhaling the stuff?