Adirondack Forum

Adirondack Forum (http://www.adkforum.com/index.php)
-   Environmental Issues (http://www.adkforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=87)
-   -   Global Cooling (http://www.adkforum.com/showthread.php?t=19196)

Pumpkin QAAD 09-08-2013 09:14 PM

Global Cooling
 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...cientists.html

Break out your snowshoes and sub-zero bag for the next couple of decades....

Limekiln 09-09-2013 09:16 AM

According to this article there are 22 cruising boats currently trapped in the North West Passage by ice.

"The Northwest Passage after decades of so-called global warming has a dramatic 60% more Arctic ice this year than at the same time last year...."

http://www.sail-world.com/USA/North-...-caught/113788

Neil 09-09-2013 10:30 AM

How many years make a trend?

I'm neither a believer nor a denier when it comes to GW however, I remember reading that sudden cold snaps and highly variable short-term weather changes can be caused by globally warming climates. They supposedly see this (abrupt climate change) when they study paleo-climate using ice cores and other proxies.

Additionally, a curvier jet stream, due to GW can cause unseasonably cold weather in some places along with warmer weather in others.

l'oiseau 09-09-2013 10:31 AM

This reminds me of something that happened in history that took quite a while to figure out. Some of you might be familiar with the model of the solar system, and the history of how our understanding came to be.

Problem was, well besides the fact that it was possibly figured out centuries before only to be destroyed, that nobody could quite find a model that would fit the data, despite the data being very primitively captured.

It is a very distinct possibility that we don't have a long enough record of data to fully understand the eb and flow of the Earth's temperature. One might say we have records all around us in current glaciers and geology but none of that can show the short scale movement like we have been recording for the past 120 years or so.

And while determining the motion of the planets was a complicated problem, they change much slower than our weather patterns and apparently less affected by chaos than the weather i.e. they are apparently more stable to inputs on our time scale.

I have no doubt that increase and decrease of CO2 in the atmosphere has a major impact on the global weather patterns, that seems quite obvious, although the exact effect coupled with others is a very difficult thing to understand. Weather both long and short term is chaotic, meaning, small changes in the inputs can result in wild variation in the output. Because of this, I doubt we will truly understand these systems anytime soon and even with a long record of data (and the CORRECT data), we may never truly understand the whole system.

But for now, it is easy enough to say, we don't have a model that fits the data. Simply put, we are trying to predict the position of the planets assuming the Sun revolves around the Earth... no doubt we are wrong...

Pumpkin QAAD 09-09-2013 11:31 AM

The extent of summer sea ice appears to have a correlation with air circulation and weather during fall and winter as per this article:

http://www.accuweather.com/en/weathe...and-i/13523356

Regardless if it's weather or climate change we may have a more normal winter this year based on the big ice cube up North. I won't be hunting in BP season in a t-shirt and perhaps some good snow for regular hunting season.

Which would also mean an extended snowshoe/snowmobile/skiing/snowman season.

Chop up some extra wood boys.

l'oiseau 09-09-2013 11:36 AM

The wife and I both have two sets of snowshoes, one for hardpack/ice and one for powder. Bring it ON!

Alpine1 09-09-2013 12:28 PM

Then there's this bit of info floating around.
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...-ice-delusions

Pumpkin QAAD 09-09-2013 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alpine1 (Post 206532)
Then there's this bit of info floating around.
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...-ice-delusions

Doesn't suprise me that any hint at debunking man-made global warming gets met with a wall of shrieks from global-warming scientists.

The record low artic sea ice in the history of mankind(since 1979****), certainly was a well-played piece of propaganda last year.

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...-lowest-extent

Either way, we apparantly have had reversion above the mean and looks like a pretty normal artic sea ice coverage in the history of the universe (since 1979***). Even as antartic sea ice sets new records in size.

Perhaps we'll have a reversion above the mean in terms of winter for cold temps and storm activity.

Of course, this will have no bearing on the carbon credit bonanza currently forecast for the western hemisphere by global warming experts.

Limekiln 09-09-2013 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pumpkin QAAD (Post 206537)
Of course, this will have no bearing on the carbon credit bonanza currently forecast for the western hemisphere by global warming experts.

Exactly, take the financial profit out of the agenda-driven hysteria and it all goes back to cyclical fluctuations that mankind can do nothing about....

l'oiseau 09-09-2013 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neil (Post 206524)
How many years make a trend?

I'm neither a believer nor a denier when it comes to GW however, I remember reading that sudden cold snaps and highly variable short-term weather changes can be caused by globally warming climates. They supposedly see this (abrupt climate change) when they study paleo-climate using ice cores and other proxies.

Additionally, a curvier jet stream, due to GW can cause unseasonably cold weather in some places along with warmer weather in others.

The data we have recorded shows a clear trend in one direction, if one begins in another, then we may see a larger scale pattern... unlikely due to the chaotic nature of these things. A pattern may exist but it may be as 'random appearing' as the stock market, for which no known model exists.

Now as far as the fossil/geological studies. We have no idea what the inputs to the system are or were. Was their a huge solar flare? An asteroid? Volcanic activity? Heck even a disease which reduced the amount of plant or animal life on the planet for a period could show up as an effect on the climate!

We should not be so naive as to use archaeological information as data. There is far too much uncertainty involved.

I feel it is a pretty obvious fact that CO2, methane, other hydrocarbons, particulates, etc have an effect on the weather and short term climate. In what ways it does may not be as obvious we think they are.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Limekiln (Post 206540)
Exactly, take the financial profit out of the agenda-driven hysteria and it all goes back to cyclical fluctuations that mankind can do nothing about....

I think that may be very shortsighted to think that we do not have some impact on weather and climate. In that sense there are certainly things we can do.

You should live your life like you hike. LNT. Impossible, but less impact, the better.

redhawk 09-09-2013 05:30 PM

Ah, delusion, delusion, delusion.

For me the greatest delusion is that any sane person with even the smallest amount of education could possibly believe that the numbers of people, the strain on the resources and the sheer volume of stuff being put into the air could not case negative global effects.

Logically it's impossible to expect otherwise.

Even those of us who do practice LNT and leave as little footprint as possible still leave a footprint. The more people, the larger the footprint.

Now, I challenge anyone to logically debunk that fact.

Hobbitling 09-09-2013 05:37 PM

1 Attachment(s)
two data points is not a trend. look at the past few decades if you want a trend.
Also sea ice volume (not extent) is the better indicator of how much ice there is.

l'oiseau 09-09-2013 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redhawk (Post 206551)
Ah, delusion, delusion, delusion.

For me the greatest delusion is that any sane person with even the smallest amount of education could possibly believe that the numbers of people, the strain on the resources and the sheer volume of stuff being put into the air could not case negative global effects.

Logically it's impossible to expect otherwise.

Even those of us who do practice LNT and leave as little footprint as possible still leave a footprint. The more people, the larger the footprint.

Now, I challenge anyone to logically debunk that fact.

I think you are actually agreeing with me :eek:

And if so, I will agree with you there are too many people. Simple as that.

I will refer to my duck pond theory. What happens when you put too many geese in your duck pond?

It gets full of goose ****! :banghead:

l'oiseau 09-09-2013 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Professor Hobbit (Post 206552)
two data points is not a trend.

While I'm inclined to believe anything Paul Hogan says :confused:

I never claimed a trend. And I will say a trend is nothing more than an incomplete set of data.

Why wait for there to be a problem before we take action?

The time we always waste waiting for a problem to occur and decide if really is a problem is time we could have just used the simple logic that:

Anything in grand proportions will disturb equilibrium.

I didn't need to go to engineering school to learn that. I knew it as soon as I could walk and talk.

Pumpkin QAAD 09-09-2013 10:59 PM

What came first the conclusion or the statistical sample used to prove it?

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/tmp/gistem...1980/nmaps.gif

Regardless, 1979 makes good year for base lining statistical data proving global warming. That point I won't contest.

Believe whatever you want. When it gets cold we all can blame global warming.

How's antartica doing?

Doh........

Pumpkin QAAD 09-09-2013 11:20 PM

I want to reiterate that I think we have a cold couple of winters. But I do not think we will surpass the coldest winters in the recorded history of mankind in North America 1977 and 1979 our favorites dates for base lining global warming data.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-se...tbaseyear=2000

Whatever we did during the 70s we have to repeat because statistical analysis show's that it was really f'n cold.

Get ready for global cooling a direct result of global warming or otherwise known as statistical benchmarking.

redhawk 09-10-2013 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by l'oiseau (Post 206553)
I think you are actually agreeing with me :eek:

And if so, I will agree with you there are too many people. Simple as that.

I will refer to my duck pond theory. What happens when you put too many geese in your duck pond?

It gets full of goose ****! :banghead:

The dam breaks because the DEC won't repair the damn dam.

randomscooter 09-10-2013 04:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redhawk (Post 206573)
The dam breaks because the DEC won't repair the damn dam.

Then the sh!t flows downstream... as always. :)

randomscooter 09-10-2013 04:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neil (Post 206524)
I'm neither a believer nor a denier when it comes to GW

Nor am I. Cooling can be just cooling, or cooling can be part of warming.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neil
I remember reading that sudden cold snaps and highly variable short-term weather changes can be caused by globally warming climates. They supposedly see this (abrupt climate change) when they study paleo-climate using ice cores and other proxies.

Additionally, a curvier jet stream, due to GW can cause unseasonably cold weather in some places along with warmer weather in others.

All this because the Earth is a complex negative feedback system that will attempt to counter the effects of global warming by tapping into it's own air conditioning system (i.e., the ice caps) and distributing that cool air to places that need it. So short-term cooling can be part of the trend.

Problem is that when the AC runs out of coolant it may not be possible to keep things cool anymore.

As for a 60% increase in the Arctic ice cap, such an increase would be easier to accomplish when the ice cap is severely decimated rather than when it's already at full extent. I.e., it's a lot easier for me to increase the amount of ice in my ice cube bucket when the bucket is empty than when the bucket is already full.

I turn on the ice cube maker when the bucket is getting empty so I'll have a reserve on hand when it comes time to prepare my favorite adult beverage. The Earth turns on it's ice maker when it's bucket is getting low so it will have a reserve on hand when things start getting too hot.

cityboy 09-10-2013 05:58 AM

Interesting but it just comes down to trends, cycles and variation.
Being that the earth has cycled in and out of many ice ages over the past millions of years we pretty much know where we are headed. It's just a question of time.
Judging where we are headed based upon a trend of even 150 years would be like predicting where the stock market will be in 100 years based upon 1 days trading.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:47 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.