Stratovarius Community

Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh---maybe. Is this part of Global Warming?

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/st ... %2C00.html

We cannot really know, but my guess is that the odds are at least 50-50 that we will see significant cooling rather than warming in coming decades.

The probability that we are witnessing the onset of a real ice age is much less, perhaps one in 500, but not totally negligible.

A whole article about how global warming is wrong and then it says there's a 50 percent chance that it's right.


I wonder why standardized tests don't seem to go well in the earth temperature community. So many scientists leading one way with one set of tests and so many others with a different set of tests and different conclusions. Now I guess I’ll have to find a sight that compared methods and the accuracy of those methods.

I wonder what the young earth people say about all this since time periods of 10000 years don't exist to them.

Well, anyway. I've already bought my supply of propane for the Winter. Some of which has already been delivered to my tank. So, come what may hopefully I'll stay alittle warm.

The Farmers Almanac is forcasting a colder than usual Winter for the Southern USA, so given the uncanny accuracy of these predictions from the Almanac, I am glad I got prepared!

Oh, one more thing. I paid $3.19 a gallon for my supply at a pre-season discount. My sources tell me Propane may go as high, or higher as $5.00 a gallon!
I also have a small kerosene heater as back-up. Given the expense of kerosene I don't know if I'll use it or not!

Yep im glad i live in california. no cold here.

Nice article, BEG!
It really bothers me that the global-warming advocates harassed us for years with their carbon offsets (and more idiots even bought them), trying to get everyone involved in their hysteria. The problem is, this global warming fiasco was nothing more than a fad, a way for the average joe to feel superior to others because they're so environmentally conscious, and everyone else is so ignorant. That always bothered me..

The problem is that the environmentalists are going to come up with some more nonsense and people are going to enthusiastically buy into it as usual

I'd give Gore a truckload of carbon credits to drop by here (Stratoforum) to debate global warming with me, and not to mention ask how many millions he's made off of all of his bullshit books, movies, and speaking engagments. He's just a bitter bastard that he lost the election, and not to mention, an attention whore.

Don't worry about an ice age- there are a lot more real threats going on that are not so theoretical.

AAAAAAAAAA wrote:The problem is, this global warming fiasco was nothing more than a fad

Global warming is a fact, ok? Whether it's man-made or not has never been completely sure. IPCC's guess is that global warming is man-made with 90% certainty.

It sounds "redneck", but at this point I do trust The Farmers Almanac more than any of Al Gore's books.

Don't these Global Warming fanatics know that weather&climate tends to run in cycles?
Whe I was a kid in early '60s we'd be wearing heavy coats in early October.
Then, when I was in my early twenties, we had some 90 degree days in December!
Our Summers in the South have always been hot, but in the past 20 years or so, they have been almost unbearable----until this past summer-2008-it was hot, but it never got to 100°F like the past Summers did.
I checked the temp a few minutes ago&it was 55°F! It feels good, but for the past 20 years or so it never got this cool at night until around mid-October.

I'm not saying Global Warming is a total myth, but I'm just saying climates seem to tend to run in cycles, like clockwork. A person just has to observe, and maybe talk to an older person who remembers these things.

browneyedgirl wrote:I'm not saying Global Warming is a total myth, but I'm just saying climates seem to tend to run in cycles, like clockwork. A person just has to observe, and maybe talk to an older person who remembers these things.

I'm not an expert on climatology. But it's enough for me if the majority of scientists who study climate say that it's very likely that global warming is man-made. Not taking any actions is not worth the risk.

Global warming is not supposed to be even; there are places that remain the same, there are places that get slightly colder. I trust more studies than memories of old people. Moreover, a human life spans a century at most.

If I would ask old people here in Finland, global warming would seem very extreme. Even I can notice a difference. Winters have been incredibly mild, while summers tend to be cooler. Whether these are just abnormalities or the result of carbon dioxide emissions, I cannot tell.

http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/news/freeze.html

Let’s start this off with the thesis of global warming can cause global cooling by the changes caused by weather patterns.

The fuck it dry and infertile and then move on approach to me is not the most efficient use of resources. Now with that little phrase of “make your money work for you”, this needs to be applied to other resources instead of the rush to consume for quick gain without long term responsibility for the resources.


. http://personals.galaxyinternet.net/tunga/OSGWD.htm

Just putting this here for me to read since it’s got millions of links

Carcass wrote:

browneyedgirl wrote:I'm not saying Global Warming is a total myth, but I'm just saying climates seem to tend to run in cycles, like clockwork. A person just has to observe, and maybe talk to an older person who remembers these things.

Global warming is not supposed to be even; there are places that remain the same, there are places that get slightly colder. I trust more studies than memories of old people. Moreover, a human life spans a century at most.

Exactly, I think that northern countries can percieve global warming changes more easily because of the stations, Winter-Summer temperatures, etc. And that varies from place to place.

Here, for example, it's getting hotter that usual, 20-30 years ago you couldn't go out to the city in the morning without at least a coat, now it's kind of suicidal to wear a coat at any time of the day (At least it is for me); we got more rain in the past, now some months are really desertic; in those years we got some fog almost every day in the mornings and afternoons, now it's rare to see them around midnight, even in high places!. But as BEG said these "changes" might be just some natural weather cycles, after all, no human could see how life was a century ago, if someone could, he would probably see the same changes we all are experiencing right now.

icecab21 wrote:http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/news/freeze.html

Let’s start this off with the thesis of global warming can cause global cooling by the changes caused by weather patterns.

The fuck it dry and infertile and then move on approach to me is not the most efficient use of resources. Now with that little phrase of “make your money work for you”, this needs to be applied to other resources instead of the rush to consume for quick gain without long term responsibility for the resources.

. http://personals.galaxyinternet.net/tunga/OSGWD.htm

Just putting this here for me to read since it’s got millions of links

that's great, so basically we need to contaminate and create a greenhouse effect in order to save humanity?. It works for me, I'll burn some government buildings tomorrow to contribute with the cause...

Hey, I used to trust the Kyoto protocol, so the US did a good thing not signing after all??

I have a little problem with using mandates and regulatory power over arguments and education. Letting everyone make their case through emotional and logical argument is important to me. Each subject deserves cycles of attack and defense until conclusions can be deducted. A lot of this is just not a clear science where we can calculate the objectable factors that are a direct cause and their true consequences. A lot of “science” seems to be throwing a bunch of variables against a wall and then creating a result that will fit the hypothesis by any non scientific method necessary. Like in polling, we are getting some of these conclusions with a very low confidence level and a very high margin of error.

Yes, global warming has become a profitable subject so we couldn't tell if it's true or not. Truth is a matter of opinion nowadays.

Even if the global warming wasn't happening (and I do strongly believe it is) would it really hurt anyone if we, you know, didn't pollute the world this much?

Edit: global warming

Mormegil wrote:Even if the global warning wasn't happening (and I do strongly believe it is) would it really hurt anyone if we, you know, didn't pollute the world this much?

Good point. I once saw an inteview with a skeptic scientist who said that CO2 emissions should be cut no matter what your stance on this issue is. Injecting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at an increasing rate may have unexpected consequences.

Atmospheric sciences are not simple book-keeping: there's going to be an ice age, so let's increase CO2 emissions! It doesn't work like that, there's a lot of ins and outs. Nobody really knows what's going to happen. But our top scientists think they at least have a clue.

Carcass wrote:

Mormegil wrote:Even if the global warning wasn't happening (and I do strongly believe it is) would it really hurt anyone if we, you know, didn't pollute the world this much?

Good point. I once saw an inteview with a skeptic scientist who said that CO2 emissions should be cut no matter what your stance on this issue is. Injecting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at an increasing rate may have unexpected consequences.

Atmospheric sciences are not simple book-keeping: there's going to be an ice age, so let's increase CO2 emissions! It doesn't work like that, there's a lot of ins and outs. Nobody really knows what's going to happen. But our top scientists think they at least have a clue.

But, as far as I understand, some scientists say that if we don't have that greenhouse effect on earth a Global Freezing effect will be our new concern, so would that make human pollution acceptable?

No matter what, some human pollution can't be seen as a good thing. The waste from nuclear power plants and other non disposables are something that we need to work on to create cleaner sources and methods. The more renewable and reusable resources we have the better. The more fertile ground and safe places for harvestable production there are the better. It’s better to have a constant or exponential level of food and energy than a decreasing level. Part of the irony becomes when the extreme left blindly creates barriers that prevent the ability for alternative energy to be produced. Too many stories of even greater damage being created from false facts and bad methods from both extremes. We can work harder for less or smarter for more. One problem is the big globalised corporation that has no interest in land as a long term investment. If big government is a problem, I don’t see what would make huge powerful corporations anything of something better. With the way the bands and the stock market works for short term over the long term, complete deregulation can be as much of a problem as big central hierarchal governmental bureaucracys.

AGAG wrote:

Carcass wrote:

Mormegil wrote:Even if the global warning wasn't happening (and I do strongly believe it is) would it really hurt anyone if we, you know, didn't pollute the world this much?

Good point. I once saw an inteview with a skeptic scientist who said that CO2 emissions should be cut no matter what your stance on this issue is. Injecting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at an increasing rate may have unexpected consequences.

Atmospheric sciences are not simple book-keeping: there's going to be an ice age, so let's increase CO2 emissions! It doesn't work like that, there's a lot of ins and outs. Nobody really knows what's going to happen. But our top scientists think they at least have a clue.

But, as far as I understand, some scientists say that if we don't have that greenhouse effect on earth a Global Freezing effect will be our new concern, so would that make human pollution acceptable?

Life on this planet depends on greenhouse gases, they sort of keep the warmth from the sun between the surface of the Earth and the atmosphere. But too much is too much.

Carcass wrote: But too much is too much.

Pretty much like eating, or anything basically.

We do need greenhouse gases, which are produced naturally because of volcano eruptions and other stuff, my real question is: does the human polution is necessary to keep earth warm enough to contain life?

miditek wrote:I'd give Gore a truckload of carbon credits to drop by here (Stratoforum) to debate global warming with me, and not to mention ask how many millions he's made off of all of his bullshit books, movies, and speaking engagments. He's just a bitter bastard that he lost the election, and not to mention, an attention whore.

Don't worry about an ice age- there are a lot more real threats going on that are not so theoretical.

Hehe, I know this has been discussed here many times before. I just cannot resist to answer this with some thoughts of mine:
You know, you are probably right about saying Gore is an "attention whore". But despite his character/person, climate change indeed is a threat to everyone on this planet. Unfortunately it's so abstract that almost nobody is willing to see the connections between all factors. People in the 3rd world suffer for many years now under affects of climate change (of course you can say they have indeed "real" problems to be solved, like corrupt governments or the large vampire industry companies and global players like IWF, driving them into bankrupt and dependence), but the increase of hurricanes, zyklones and other phenomenas is no coincidence. Yes, climate is changing without mankind's influence as well. But we are worsening it. I don't care about Al Gore. But if you only take a little bit of your time and imagine the fragile biological system that our precious planet is, you cannot deny the facts.

Btw, the coherence between global warming and Ice Age is not so far-fetched. Just watch the satellite pictures of the Arctis. You know what this can do to the gulf stream (and: no, I'm not refering to "Day After Tomorrow" ).

miditek wrote:I'd give Gore a truckload of carbon credits to drop by here

stratohawk wrote:Btw, the coherence between global warming and Ice Age is not so far-fetched. Just watch the satellite pictures of the Arctis. You know what this can do to the gulf stream (and: no, I'm not refering to "Day After Tomorrow" ).

But wouldn't that just be a local ice age? Not affecting, say, Australia. Oh well, like I said before, I don't believe any scientist can say anything definite on these matters...