30-Year Cold Spell Strikes Earth

[lebanon]

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/11/378.jpg

The earth, he says, is cooling, and cooling fast.

Climatologist: 30-Year Cold Spell Strikes Earth (http://www.Newsmax.com/Headline/dark-winter-cold-global-cooling/2014/11/16/id/607672/#ixzz3JLaC0AQp)

[Eevo]

from the article:


Casey says the evidence is clear that the earth is rapidly growing colder because of diminished solar activity.

He says trends indicate we could be headed for colder temperatures similar to those seen in the late 1700s and early 1800s when the sun went into a "solar minimum" — a phenomenon with significantly reduced solar activity, including solar flares and sunspots.


hard to argue with him, the data does show the solar activity is decreasing. question is, is solar activity the primary factor in global temperature?

[Ausfree]

from the article:




hard to argue with him, the data does show the solar activity is decreasing. question is, is solar activity the primary factor in global temperature?

I guess if you switch off the sun, you would soon find out.........(clue) it would be pitch black and we would freeze.

[incisor]

where was it on the weekend?

:D:D:D

[Hall]

There is one other factor that controls our weather. The way the earth moves back and forth on it`s axis. At the present moment we are starting the journey back to a ice age tilt. Will only take a few thousand years. So I would not worry too much. Might be a good idea to get the green house effect happening to keeps some of the heat in. But there are those that say the green house effect will cause more cloud cover that will reflect more sunlight and so not raise temperatures as much as first thought. Will be interesting if this is the latest climate trend and how as it become more obvious the climate change/ warming believers react to it. Going to be some good spin to back away from what they where so passionate about with out losing to much face.
Cheers Hall

[Eevo]

[/B]
I guess if you switch off the sun, you would soon find out.........(clue) it would be pitch black and we would freeze.

i agree, however thats an extreme example.
if we instead say drop the suns output by 1%, what would be the result on earths global weather?

[Eevo]

There is one other factor that controls our weather. The way the earth moves back and forth on it`s axis. At the present moment we are starting the journey back to a ice age tilt.

are you talking about earths orbit in relation to the ecliptic?

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Now don't get me wrong doesn't the increased CO2 and other GW gases act like a big doona for the Earth? In spite reduced incoming Solar radiation the planet will retain a greater proportion of the heat normally lost and in particular lost during the previous cold periods (like the 1700s) when we didn't have such a big CO2 doona?

[Eevo]

Now don't get me wrong doesn't the increased CO2 and other GW gases act like a big doona for the Earth? In spite reduced incoming Solar radiation the planet will retain a greater proportion of the heat normally lost and in particular lost during the previous cold periods (like the 1700s) when we didn't have such a big CO2 doona?

i know thats what i was taught at school and it was named the greenhouse effect but since then there has been research casting doubt on that theory.

in the distant past when earth was warming up, co2 levels only rose hundreds of years AFTER the warming, not before. this might indicate that the greenhouse effect doesnt work like we thought it did. what i understand its not conclusive though, it just points to something not being correct in the current greenhouse theory.

[KarlB]

Casey is a nutter and scammer, and you would be equally nuts to believe any of his nonsense. Here are a couple of links about him and the rubbish he pushes:

Tea Party Welcomes Global Cooling Theorist/Earthquake Predictor John L. Casey | New Times Broward-Palm Beach (http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/pulp/2014/09/tea_party_welcomes_global_cooling_theoristearthqua ke_predictor_john_l_casey.php)
Hoft runs with global cooling "warning" from "scam artist" | Blog | Media Matters for America (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2010/05/15/hoft-runs-with-global-cooling-warning-from-scam/164798)

There are plenty more on the net. Just do a Google search. You certainly won't find reference to any papers by him in any peer reviewed scientific journals!

Cheers
KarlB
:)

[Eevo]

Casey is a nutter and scammer,

i agree, but that doesnt change the science.

[Homestar]

i agree, but that doesnt change the science.

If the science is correct and it's not all just cherry picked data to back up his case.

[Mick_Marsh]

A quote from Lucie Green (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucie_Green), a Royal Society fellow at the Mullard space facility:

It will have a small cooling effect, but from speaking to people who do climate studies, the cooling effect is not going to be able to outweigh the global warming that we have at the moment. So yes, the Sun, when it gets dimmer it will not be providing us with as much energy, so the consequence of the Earth from that will be cooling, but then you got all these other factors playing out as well; greenhouse effect, trapping of radiation. So I don't think that the cooling of the Sun will in any way counteract the global warming we have.

[Eevo]

If the science is correct and it's not all just cherry picked data to back up his case.

absolutely. cherry picking is just bad science.

[Eevo]

A quote from Lucie Green, a Royal Society fellow at the Mullard space facility:


It will have a small cooling effect, but from speaking to people who do climate studies, the cooling effect is not going to be able to outweigh the global warming that we have at the moment. So yes, the Sun, when it gets dimmer it will not be providing us with as much energy, so the consequence of the Earth from that will be cooling, but then you got all these other factors playing out as well; greenhouse effect, trapping of radiation. So I don't think that the cooling of the Sun will in any way counteract the global warming we have.

this, im not so sure is clear cut. there is so much about the sun we dont know.

[Mick_Marsh]

this, im not so sure is clear cut. there is so much about the sun we dont know.
Eevo, do not attribute that quote to me. I did not say it.
I would say I would probably be right if I were to say Lucie Green knows more about the sun than anyone on this forum.

[Eevo]

Eevo, do not attribute that quote to me. I did not say it.
I would say I would probably be right if I were to say Lucie Green knows more about the sun than anyone on this forum.
sorry, i did it like that so i dont lose it. and edited

i dunno, i did stellar evolution at uni :p
but yes, i have knowledge but am no expert.
having said that, even if Lucie Green knows more about the sun than anyone else in the world, that doesnt mean he knows everything. there is plenty of unknown and undiscovered knowledge out there, especially about the sun.

[Mick_Marsh]

sorry, i did it like that so i dont lose it. and edited

i dunno, i did stellar evolution at uni :p
but yes, i have knowledge but am no expert.
having said that, even if Lucie Green knows more about the sun than anyone else in the world, that doesnt mean he knows everything. there is plenty of unknown and undiscovered knowledge out there, especially about the sun.
From reading your post, Eevo, I get the impression you didn't fully explore my post.
You seem to have missed a rather important bit of information I offered.

[Ausfree]

are you talking about earths orbit in relation to the ecliptic?

Eevo can you explain what you mean. I am to understand the Ecliptic is the apparent path the Sun traces against the background stars,as viewed from the Earth. I am trying to figure out what that has to do with the Earth warming up or cooling down?????:)

[bob10]

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/11/378.jpg

The earth, he says, is cooling, and cooling fast.

Climatologist: 30-Year Cold Spell Strikes Earth (http://www.Newsmax.com/Headline/dark-winter-cold-global-cooling/2014/11/16/id/607672/#ixzz3JLaC0AQp)


I don't know this fellow, he may be bright, or not, but it seems a cheap trick to hide his face,, as he has. Just a small thing, but snake oil salesmen in the past used cheap tricks, to con the public. Bob

[Eevo]

From reading your post, Eevo, I get the impression you didn't fully explore my post.
You seem to have missed a rather important bit of information I offered.

ive reread both your posts. what bit are you referring to?

[Eevo]

Eevo can you explain what you mean. I am to understand the Ecliptic is the apparent path the Sun traces against the background stars,as viewed from the Earth. I am trying to figure out what that has to do with the Earth warming up or cooling down?????:)
im trying to work out what Hall was talking about. it sounded like he was describing the ecliptic but that doesnt make sence, so im trying to clarify.

what i should of asked, is if he was referring to the inclination of orbit relative to the sun's equator

[Mick_Marsh]

ive reread both your posts. what bit are you referring to?
The link to the bit that clearly shows Lucie Green is a woman (and other information about Lucie). This leads me to suspect you have not fully explored my post and only "cherry picked" for your response.
Hey, there is nothing wrong with that but, knowing you have achieved certain academic achievements, I would have thought you would have been interested in the academic achievements of someone whose opinion you appear to be dismissing.

[Eevo]

The link to the bit that clearly shows Lucie Green is a woman (and other information about Lucie). This leads me to suspect you have not fully explored my post and only "cherry picked" for your response.
Hey, there is nothing wrong with that but, knowing you have achieved certain academic achievements, I would have thought you would have been interested in the academic achievements of someone whose opinion you appear to be dismissing.

i only read what you posted, i didnt look at the link.
and i wouldnt say im dismissing it. im keeping an open mind that it might not be the only information/theory available.
120 years ago physicists thought we knew everything about physics. newtonian mechanics was the final answer. we now know better.

[Ausfree]

im trying to work out what Hall was talking about. it sounded like he was describing the ecliptic but that doesnt make sence, so im trying to clarify.

what i should of asked, is if he was referring to the inclination of orbit relative to the sun's equator

Now, that makes more sense!!!!:)

[Ausfree]

i only read what you posted, i didnt look at the link.
and i wouldnt say im dismissing it. im keeping an open mind that it might not be the only information/theory available.
120 years ago physicists thought we knew everything about physics. newtonian mechanics was the final answer. we now know better.



Yes, an even SOME of Einsteins theories (brilliant they may be) are starting to get a wobble up. But science is progressing all the time.:)

[bob10]

Any chance of this cooling happening soon?, Bob

[lr110qld]

I however didn't study stellar evolution at uni, so I'm happy to be corrected.


i agree, however thats an extreme example.
if we instead say drop the suns output by 1%, what would be the result on earths global weather?
I would think only a small percentage of the sun's output reaches the earth. Say for arguments sake that was 1% (you should enlighten us as to the true amount). Then if the sun's output was reduced by 1% the reduction seen on earth would be 0.001%, would it not?



i know thats what i was taught at school and it was named the greenhouse effect but since then there has been research casting doubt on that theory.

in the distant past when earth was warming up, co2 levels only rose hundreds of years AFTER the warming, not before. this might indicate that the greenhouse effect doesnt work like we thought it did. what i understand its not conclusive though, it just points to something not being correct in the current greenhouse theory.
Not necessarily so! I think your logic is flawed.

The conclusions I would draw are, from only considering what you have posted:

1. the rise in temperature in that distant past event you cite, had some cause possibly not related to CO2 levels.

2. that particular pre-historical event doesn't make warming due to increased levels of CO2 unlikely. I don't see how you conclude that it does, or the current theory incorrect.

[AndyG]

I however didn't study stellar evolution at uni, so I'm happy to be corrected.


I would think only a small percentage of the sun's output reaches the earth. Say for arguments sake that was 1% (you should enlighten us as to the true amount). Then if the sun's output was reduced by 1% the reduction seen on earth would be 0.001%, would it not?



Not necessarily so! I think your logic is flawed.

The conclusions I would draw are, from only considering what you have posted:

1. the rise in temperature in that distant past event you cite, had some cause possibly not related to CO2 levels.

2. that particular pre-historical event doesn't make warming due to increased levels of CO2 unlikely. I don't see how you conclude that it does, or the current theory incorrect.

No if the Sun output reduced by 1% we would get 1% less than previously,

I think the point is there are many variables to Global Warming or Cooling, C02, Water vapor, Sun activity, axis of the earth, volcanic activity, (e.g Krakatoa) so its not cut and dried to say CO2 is the culprit, although it is probably the biggest induced human factor, although i would not discount RFC's (?) and the damage they did.

[Ausfree]

]No if the Sun output reduced by 1% we would get 1% less than previously,
[/B]
I think the point is there are many variables to Global Warming or Cooling, C02, Water vapor, Sun activity, axis of the earth, volcanic activity, (e.g Krakatoa) so its not cut and dried to say CO2 is the culprit, although it is probably the biggest induced human factor, although i would not discount RFC's (?) and the damage they did.

That 1% reduction in the Sun's output is the total output that is radiated into space for 360 degrees around the Sun. The Earth does not completely surround the Sun in only occupies a small quadrant. Therefore the reduced amount it would receive would be far less than a 1% reduction as suggested by an earlier poster.:)

[AndyG]

That 1% reduction in the Sun's output is the total output that is radiated into space for 360 degrees around the Sun. The Earth does not completely surround the Sun in only occupies a small quadrant. Therefore the reduced amount it would receive would be far less than a 1% reduction as suggested by an earlier poster.:)

I don't see that, we would receive a constant percentage of the suns output as the size of our receiving surface does not change, so if the sun cranked up by 10%, it would out put 10% more in all directions and we (the Earth) would get 10% more on our unchanged surface.

I am sure Eevo could prove it mathematically, but not this wood duck.

[bee utey]

That 1% reduction in the Sun's output is the total output that is radiated into space for 360 degrees around the Sun. The Earth does not completely surround the Sun in only occupies a small quadrant. Therefore the reduced amount it would receive would be far less than a 1% reduction as suggested by an earlier poster.:)
Does this mean that the Earth shrinks when it cools down? Must do according to your geometry lesson. :p And I didn't know that a sphere's area is measured in degrees, I thought that was for circles or something...:angel:

[StephenF10]

That 1% reduction in the Sun's output is the total output that is radiated into space for 360 degrees around the Sun. The Earth does not completely surround the Sun in only occupies a small quadrant. Therefore the reduced amount it would receive would be far less than a 1% reduction as suggested by an earlier poster.:)

No. The output of all emitted radiation would reduce by 1%, including the bit that affects the earth.

[rangietragic]

Lets not forget that it is no longer called"global warming" but "climate change"due to the fact that their computer models were wrong and the earth is in fact cooling a little

[vnx205]

.... ..... ..... the earth is in fact cooling a little

Who told you that? Alan Jones? :D

These sites disagree with you.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
The top ten global warming 'skeptic' arguments answered | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/may/06/top-ten-global-warming-skeptic-arguments-debunked)
‘Some sites show cooling’–But you can’t draw global conclusions from individual*sites | Grist (http://grist.org/climate-energy/some-sites-show-cooling/)

[boa]

Australia moves 1 inch north from memory every year due to tectonics plate movement. As well as other things if you move something from one place to another it changes things. Do the computer models allow for this. Also can't find it now but I think it was the planet Mercury has had a change in its environment recently. From the story I read they were not sure why. If the sun has changed we would not be the only planet to experience a change in its environment?

[D110V8D]

1: Convince the population of a crisis.

2: Convince the population they can make a change

3: Population is convinced they have created the problem and they need to change.

4: Population works hard to change, spends heaps of money on change, feels good about change. Those who don't change are rejected.......so they change too.

5: Worlds elite rub hands together and sit back watching bank accounts grow further.

6: UN's Agenda 21 is implemented, without protest, because population is convinced (has convinced itself) it's a good thing.

7: NWO

:):twisted:

For the record I listen to 2gb, 3aw podcasts and Jon Faine (ABC) each and everyday for a balanced diet. :angel:

[nugge t]

Who told you that? Alan Jones? :D

These sites disagree with you.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
The top ten global warming 'skeptic' arguments answered | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/may/06/top-ten-global-warming-skeptic-arguments-debunked)
‘Some sites show cooling’–But you can’t draw global conclusions from individual*sites | Grist (http://grist.org/climate-energy/some-sites-show-cooling/)

Greenpeace co-founder Dr Patrick Moore..


Greenpeace Co-Founder Dr. Patrick Moore: (http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/07/09/greenpeace-co-founder-dr-patrick-moore-i-fear-a-global-cooling-rips-obama-for-hollow-climate-claims/)


Of course the ABC couldn't quite manage to fit him onto their tight schedule but luckily most other media outlets did/

[kenleyfred]

Dr Patrick Moore had a lengthy interview with Steve Austin on the ABC about a week ago or so.
Much of his argument was pooh pooed by Dr Karl yesterday.
Not saying I agree with either, just pointing out that Dr Moore did get ABC airtime.
Kenley

[TerryO]

A quote from Lucie Green (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucie_Green), a Royal Society fellow at the Mullard space facility:


It will have a small cooling effect, but from speaking to people who do climate studies, the cooling effect is not going to be able to outweigh the global warming that we have at the moment. So yes, the Sun, when it gets dimmer it will not be providing us with as much energy, so the consequence of the Earth from that will be cooling, but then you got all these other factors playing out as well; greenhouse effect, trapping of radiation. So I don't think that the cooling of the Sun will in any way counteract the global warming we have.


If someone has to ask other people in another field to be able to comment on a topic then they are not an expert in that field. They are just another punter (well educated one in this case) trying to quote someone else on a topic they have an interest in. Being an expert in solar studies doesn't mean they know anymore about climate change than the average punter who reads a lot.

I have no doubt that we are going through a time of climate change and it more than likely is because of humans, but unless all the major emitters (worlds biggest country's) all agree on introducing the same expensive measures to curb it at the same time then if we mainly go it alone not only will it make no difference to the rate of climate change but our economy will be wrecked. We have a choice do little until all the rest do and stay a wealthy country or be at the front of the que and introduce expensive changes and run the risk of undermining our economy if our major trading partners don't follow.

Until all the worlds major economies agree to change then in my opinion we have no choice but to stay doing what we are right now and protect our economy.

[Eevo]

(you should enlighten us as to the true amount).
not sure i know the correct amount. if fact i was deliberately non descriptive.
i said output. the sun outputs many things. heat, particles, uv rays, x rays, light etc. and not on constant or consistent amounts.


:


1. the rise in temperature in that distant past event you cite, had some cause possibly not related to CO2 levels.correct, possibly solar. possibly something else.




2. that particular pre-historical event doesn't make warming due to increased levels of CO2 unlikely. I don't see how you conclude that it does, or the current theory incorrect.

im not trying to prove or disprove either. just keeping an open mind.

[Eevo]

I think the point is there are many variables to Global Warming or Cooling, C02, Water vapor, Sun activity, axis of the earth, volcanic activity, (e.g Krakatoa) so its not cut and dried to say CO2 is the culprit, although it is probably the biggest induced human factor, although i would not discount RFC's (?) and the damage they did.

i've never heard this explained so well.
all of the above factors may or may not change co2 levels.
having said that, humans do change co2 levels. humans dont really change water vapor levels, or change the suns activity or cause volcanoes.

[Eevo]

The Earth does not completely surround the Sun


not yet

Dyson sphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere)

hopefully one day

[nugge t]

Dr Patrick Moore had a lengthy interview with Steve Austin on the ABC about a week ago or so.
Much of his argument was pooh pooed by Dr Karl yesterday.
Not saying I agree with either, just pointing out that Dr Moore did get ABC airtime.
Kenley



Wasn't aware of him being on the radio so thanks for that. I was meaning TV and I heard several mentions on commercial stations that he wasn't on the ABC in that regard.


Both sides seem to do a lot of pooh poohing which just makes it even more difficult for the rest of us to gauge where the reality is. With all due respect, Dr Karl is on the ABC teat and the ABC is obviously pushing one side of the debate. If the ABC had had Dr Moore on the show to debate it with Dr Karl that might have been more informative.


Fox had Moore debating a bloke from the Climate Council and it was like a heavy weight fighting an amateur. If that was the best the Climate Council could supply either they are understaffed or their argument is lightweight.


Cheers

[Ausfree]

not yet

Dyson sphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere)

hopefully one day

Being an interested amateur, I have read up on Dysons Spheres before.....interesting concept!!:)

[AndyG]

i've never heard this explained so well.
all of the above factors may or may not change co2 levels.
having said that, humans do change co2 levels. humans dont really change water vapor levels, or change the suns activity or cause volcanoes.

What I meant was global warming could be due to human factors, Co2, CFC, a real baddie in my book, look at the ozone layer, water vapor from cooling towers, which has been put forward, plus nature's own changes, volcanoes, solar activity, the tilt of the earth, a bit worry are the methane ponds in the arctic that are letting go, due to humans or nature. Personally I think CO2 is hyped up as there is a lot of money to be made. Why does Gore push various forms of wealth transfer, ie buy sell carbon credits.

[Greatsouthernland]

I don't see that, we would receive a constant percentage of the suns output as the size of our receiving surface does not change, so if the sun cranked up by 10%, it would out put 10% more in all directions and we (the Earth) would get 10% more on our unchanged surface.

I am sure Eevo could prove it mathematically, but not this wood duck.

More specifically, it needs to be said that "we" are assuming that all of the (energy - 1%) STILL reaches the earth, as the energy is a factor in how far it travels, it would be safer to say - if the amount of energy "reaching" the earth was reduced 1%, then ....

[Mick_Marsh]

Being an interested amateur, I have read up on Dysons Spheres before.....interesting concept!!:)
Have a read of "Ringworld".
An old SciFi novel. Winner of the "Hugo" and "Nebula" awards I think.

No, Andy, it's not about the microbes living in your butt.

[Ausfree]

Have a read of "Ringworld".
An old SciFi novel. Winner of the "Hugo" and "Nebula" awards I think.

No, Andy, it's not about the microbes living in your butt. No, not much of a novel reader, I'm afraid.

[AndyG]

Have a read of "Ringworld".
An old SciFi novel. Winner of the "Hugo" and "Nebula" awards I think.

No, Andy, it's not about the microbes living in your butt.

Harsh,
Larry Niven, thanks for the reminder, just downloaded to the Kindle to join the other unread collection

[Mick_Marsh]

Harsh
No. It was not directed at you. It was for another Andy that Jim and I know only too well.

There is a sequel, "Ringworld Engineers" I think from memory.

[Ausfree]

No. It was not directed at you. It was for another Andy that Jim and I know only too well.

There is a sequel, "Ringworld Engineers" I think from memory.

Sure do!!!!!:)