Global Cooling - new IceAge coming.

nozh2002

nozh2002

BANNED
Joined
Jun 9, 2003
Messages
5,736
Translation from Russian news:

"Scientists urge people of Earth to be ready for Global Cooling almost at any time.

St.Petersburg 03.01.06
-------------------------
Global Cooling may appear any time, sad Valentin Dergachev vice director of Phisycal Technical Institute of Academy of Science of Russia (nozh2002 - state scientist organization).

Nobody know when "small iceage" will started, but it will in the future.

Now we live at the maximum of 10 years cycle of Solar activity, but it may end any time - may be 500 years, may be 1000 maybe earlier. Then average temperature will lower on 10C.

Small Iceages happen on Earth at minimal Soalr activity every 10.000 years. Now we are at the beginning of 11th thousand, right at the end of such cycle, sad V.Dergachev."
 
There was a mini ice age about 4-5 hundred years ago, +/-. It lasted 100 years, aprox.

I was looking forward to global warming as I dislike cold. So much for the enviro terrorists BS. All promises, no action.;)

Leonard Nimoy used to host a program on strange phenomenon years ago, and I remember one where there were 28 leading weather scientists all saying we were heading for an ice age:eek:. This was about 1983-5, somewhere in there.

The series was rerun on the History channel around 1996 when I was recovering from some surgeries and catching lots of daytime TV.
 
I just finished Micheal Crichtons book "State of Fear" Which although the story is fiction very pointedly addresses the entire environmental movement.

His research and scientific documentation in the course of the book basically debunk the entire global warming theory. Although the media and the left have no accepted this as fact. The scientific community cannot prove that our planet is actually getting warmer. For example Glaciers are melting in Greenland but this is part of a natural 500 year cycle and that the Ice in the Poles is actually growing at a faster rate than glaciers melting in Iceland and Greenland. Hmmmmmm

One thing I thought was interesting was the whole DDT debacle. In the subsequent banning of use of DDT world wide which was pushed heavily by environmental groups. Incidence of Malaria worldwide has risen resulting in over 50 million deaths since the ban. The equivalent of about 5 world war II s

amazing...all to save the brown pelican...

I suggest reading the book..it will change your views on environmental ecology.
 
Ren the devils trailboss said:
One thing I thought was interesting was the whole DDT debacle. In the subsequent banning of use of DDT world wide which was pushed heavily by environmental groups. Incidence of Malaria worldwide has risen resulting in over 50 million deaths since the ban. The equivalent of about 5 world war II s

amazing...all to save the brown pelican...
Click to expand...

There's no question that DDT was harmful to lots of species besides the insects. It is still having some deleterious effects on migratory birds. The failure of the DDT policy is that they went for an outright ban which may be contributing to the increased malaria incidence, rather than trying to develop responsible guidelines for its use. Another example of excessive zeal leading to unforeseen results.
 
It's estimated that 50-60 million people, +/-, died in WWII. I think you're referring to the death toll in WWI, which was about 10-11 million, +/- .
 
James Muehlner said:
I hope you're not saying that Michael Crichton books are scientifically accurate...
Click to expand...
Of course not ..the story is fiction. In this book he foot notes many scientific journals and websites with current research debunking the current paranoia of global warning. Read the book. its fascinating.
 
James Muehlner said:
I hope you're not saying that Michael Crichton books are scientifically accurate...
Click to expand...

Funny way to ask questin, isn't it?
Sounds like:

"I hope you're not saing that you are not true beliver..."

Like it is something wrong with someone who has doubts in "commonly accepted" doctrine. Especially this is trrible way in scientific world, where it is suppose to question anithing. I doubt that Academy of sciense of Russia is less scientific then other science world, so I think it is good reason to question what other scientists telling.

Thanks, Vassili.
 
My experience is, Russian scientists are very serious about weather. This is not a joke. They have real experience and not just behind a desk.

It is true, though, that not so many years ago, the coming ice age was a growing part of the conventional wisdom. Now we are in the midst of glowball warming. Except the new term seems to be "climate change" sicne global warming is hard to sell in the middle of winter.

bluemarbleearth.jpg

We may have an effect. But we are VERY small.​
 
A lot of people mix together science and politics, as it clearly happen with global warming. In result any scientist who question it, came under political pressure , but it is nature of science to question everything even if it is holyest cow today.

However "global cooling" concept in Russia also has some "political flawour", as I understand - West pressure to Russia to raise internal prices on oil and Russian saing - with Russian weather they naturally need more oil and gas then any Western state (winter is much colder then in Scandinavia), so increasing oil and gas prices to european level make cost of live in Russia much higher then in Europe - cold is best friend in that talks. Also coming Ice age make Russia as an major energy supplier now even more important. So this is why mass media in Russia made it current agenda. You should be carefull with any massmedia. However they still presents very interesting facts and points of view.

Thanks, Vassili.
 
Threat analysis requires that we take the worst-case scenario most seriously. If the world is warming, we can deal with many of the problems it might cause. If the world is cooling, Russia could become uninhabitable. So they have to prepare carefully, and if it doesn't happen, they can still sell the oil elsewhere.

Even in case of alternating climate cycles, global warming changing to another Little Ice Age and back again, each half of the cycle will last hundreds of years, so it has to be dealt with practically speaking as if it will last forever.
 
What I was referring to in my earlier comment, not having read this book, is to Prey. That must have been of the silliest books I have read in some time.

First off, he had a camera made out of nano-particles, that freely blew around in the wind. OK, we'll give him a break on that one. But the main character of the book was a programmer who wrote this "pred prey" program, which modeled the behavior of these camera nano-particles on a predator-prey relationship. Now that's fine and dandy until you consider where exactly this program is running. Each of the nano-particles was supposed to be extremely simple and small, interacting with the others through extremely simple interactions.

None of the nano-particles was even supposed to be carrying a computer around that could run a complicated program. That leaves nowhere for the program to actually run, and therefore the entire premise of the book (that this program made the nano-particles evil, and even take over people's bodies) is flawed.

This book was supposed to be about the "dangers" of nanotechnology. Of course, the whole book was just absurd. You can probably see why I have a low opinion of the scientific content of Michael Crichton books, scientifically, anyway.
 
IMNSHO, the book was really to point out the absurdity that through “science,” we can make “nature” stand up and do tricks.

Crichton has always stated that the BOOK is a work of fiction. He also points out, however, that ALL of the data, charts, tables, diagrams, etc. are correct and taken from the noted (accepted as standard) sources.

As far as our in depth understanding of climate science, let me pick a book and read you a sentence or even a paragraph. Then, WITHOUT reference to the book (or internet) tell me the proceeding, and/or preceeding, words, paragraphs, etc. To help out, I’ll give a few additional random words or letters from other places in the book… As much as no one wants to admit it, this is the state we’re in trying to figure out the climate.


This is a very divisive area in both science and politics. We tend to focus on CO2, but methane and sunspots seem to have as great an effect.

BTW. We cannot possibly compete with volcanoes for co, co2, so2, and particulates…

The ozone hole was a real biggie for a long time. Then a glaciologist pulled samples from glaciers in Antarctica and Iceland. He found that the ozone hole had been here, shrinking and expanding, for more than 10,000 years.

I've noticed, in two publications specifically (Nat'l Geo, Scientific American), that the scale they choose for their temperature graphs tend to exaggerate the change. One I noted in Nat’l Geo (why I stopped taking it) the actual change was smaller than the line width in the graph.

I see this as much the same problems we’re having in the courts with juries. There was a rape case where genetic evidence was presented that showed (IIRC – this is off the top of my head) that the genetic evidence from the crime scene and the person they were trying would only occur one in 120,000,000 times. The prosecution brought up that there was ONLY one other person in the US that could match this profile. The defense pounced on this. The prosecution wasn’t able to convince the jury that the likelihood of that one other person leaving any DNA at the scene was truly astronomical. The jury acquitted.

As laymen, we want to trust the “experts.” But who are the experts? Hell. Just ask an expert, he’ll tell you.
 
I'm not a lawyer, but given no other convincing evidence, other than the statistics reported, even if the odds are 2 in 250,000,000, how do you choose between the two? Similarly, on the temperature issue, in the absence of any definitive evidence (in my opinion none has yet been presented), how can we possibly make an informed decision? just my opinion.
 
Experts: people who know more and more about less and less.

Arthur C. Clark wrote that there's no such thing as garbage -- just material we haven't learned to use properly yet. When our industries spew heat and pollutants into the atmosphere, this may not have catastrophic effects on Earth's climate. i don't think it does. But clearly we are wasting that heat and those gases.

The more we retain, the less raw material we need, the cheaper the manufacturing process, the greater the miles per gallon, the cleaner the air.

Unfortunately, disingenuous environmentalists have polluted and corrupted the serious argument they should be making by concentrating on hyperbole and scare tactics.
 
Man us up here in Winnipeg are gonna get wacked if it does happen. During early/mid January it commonly dips below -45 degrees C! cold enough for rubber hockey pucks to shatter when they hit a post! to top it off we get very large snowfalls. If your not in snowshoes in the open prairies your probably gonna sink to your waist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top