Utopia Talk / Politics / Global Cooling

Hot Rod Member	Tue Sep 22 07:42:50 Scientists see signs of global cooling Monday, 21 September 2009 Read more: http://www...ng-14502380.html#ixzz0Rq22nsVA I notice some medical experts are alarmed that global warming may have an effect on health. I am not a medical expert, but I am a scientist dealing in climate facts - not suppositions. The four major global temperature-tracking outlets (Hadley UK, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, University of Alabama-Huntsville and Remote Sensing Systems, Santa Rosa) have released updated information showing 2007 global cooling, ranging from 0.65C to 0.75C, a value which is large enough to erase nearly all the global-warming recorded over the last 100 years. This occurred in a single year (click www.climaterealists.com). In addition, the alarm of some people over the Arctic ice-caps is misplaced. In the Arctic, some 10 million square kilometers of sea ice melts each summer. Each September, the Arctic starts to freeze again. The extent of the ice now is 500,000 sq km greater than it was this time last year, which was in turn 500,000 sq km more than in September 2007. By April next year, after months of darkness, it will be back up to 14m sq km or more. As regards Antarctica and Greenland, most of their ice sheets are growing, rather than shrinking. TERRI JACKSON Director, Independent Climate Research Group, Bangor http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/letters/scientists-see-signs-of-global-cooling-14502380.html
Ninja Member	Tue Sep 22 12:37:56 Regardless of global warming or global cooling, we need to get our CO2 emissions under control as the increased levels are increasing the acidity of the oceans screwing with all sorts of marine ecosystems and fish populations.
Hot Rod Member	Tue Sep 22 12:42:42 What we do won't fix the problem unless China and India commit too and so far they have told us to kiss their ass.
saiko Member	Tue Sep 22 13:02:41 Would one more generation be enough to take care of the Luddites?
yankeessuck123 Member	Tue Sep 22 13:06:27 I'm actually taking a course on global climate change now. And the professor has made it clear that pretty much every scientist in the field who isn't a hack recognizes that we are contributing to increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, and that these increases lead to increasing temperature. The only debate is about how much damage will be done, how much of it can be stopped/reversed, and what the timeframe will be.
Clitoral Hood Member	Tue Sep 22 13:09:33 yank, that's all good and everything, but. what makes you think HE knows what he's talking about? it's very possible he's wrong. you should realize this by now. scientists usually get it wrong the first few times. first it was cooling in the 70's. now it's warming. some people still say cooling. since scientists haven't come up with a theory that everyone supports, I'm working on the basis that they're all fucking wrong.
Ninja Member	Tue Sep 22 13:33:44 "since scientists haven't come up with a theory that everyone supports" " pretty much every scientist in the field who isn't a hack recognizes that we are contributing to increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, and that these increases lead to increasing temperature. " *shrug*
Ninja Member	Tue Sep 22 13:43:36 "What we do won't fix the problem unless China and India commit too and so far they have told us to kiss their ass. " A) We don't help the problem when we outsource all our manufacturing to them, if we really wanted to even try to make a dent we (and other countries) would have to pressure companies to demand certain things of their suppliers. B) it's hard to try and convince them when morons are sitting here listening to these hacks, pretending like there is something to debate. CO2 increases in our atmosphere is a real problem with or without global warming.
CrownRoyal Member	Tue Sep 22 13:44:16 what happened today ------------------------------------------ John Heilprin United Nations - Associated Press Last updated on Tuesday, Sep. 22, 2009 01:19PM EDT .At the U.N.'s highest-level conference yet on climate change, China on Tuesday pledged ambitious plans to plant enough forest to cover an area the size of Norway and use 15 per cent of its energy from renewable sources within a decade. Chinese President Hu Jintao also promised "determined and practical steps" to boost its nuclear energy, improve energy efficiency and reduce "by a notable margin" the growth rate of its carbon pollution as measured against economic growth. "At stake in the fight against climate change are the common interests of the entire world," Mr. Hu said. "Out of a sense of responsibility to its own people and people across the world, China fully appreciates the importance and urgency of addressing climate change." Much attention was fixed on U.S. President Barack Obama's first U.N. speech, where he said the United States is "determined to act." "The threat from climate change is serious, it is urgent, and it is growing," Mr. Obama said, after receiving loud applause. "And the time we have to reverse this tide is running out." China's more specific ambitions topped the lofty speechmaking as U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called on presidents, prime ministers and other leaders "to accelerate the pace of negotiations and to strengthen the ambition of what is on offer" for a new global climate pact at Copenhagen, Denmark in December. "Failure to reach broad agreement in Copenhagen would be morally inexcusable, economically shortsighted and politically unwise," Ban warned. "The science demands it. The world economy needs it." Tuesday's U.N. summit and the G20 summit in Pittsburgh later this week seek to add pressure on rich nations to commit to a deal in Copenhagen for mandatory greenhouse gas cuts starting in 2013, and to pay for poorer nations to burn less coal and preserve their forests. But China and some other major fast-developing economies will not agree to binding greenhouse-gas cuts. Developing nations "should not ... be asked to take on obligations that go beyond their development stage," Mr. Hu said. Leaders said that with only about three weeks left for negotiations the likelihood was fast-growing for something less than a full-blown treaty at Copenhagen. "We are on the path to failure if we continue to act as we have," French President Nicolas Sarkozy cautioned. Mr. Obama said the U.S. is doubling the generating capacity from wind and other renewable resources in three years, launching offshore wind energy projects and spending billions to capture carbon pollution from coal plants. Mr. Obama has announced a target of returning to 1990 levels of greenhouse emissions by 2020. But with the U.S. lagging on climate legislation, more specific and ambitious plans were expected from China, India and other major economies. China and the U.S. each account for about 20 per cent of all the world's greenhouse gas pollution created when coal, natural gas or oil are burned. The European Union is next, generating 14 per cent, followed by Russia and India, which each account for 5 per cent. The EU is urging other rich countries to match its pledge to cut emissions by 20 per cent from 1990 levels by 2020, and has said it would cut up to 30 per cent if other rich countries follow suit. But the Paris-based International Energy Agency expects global carbon emissions will drop by 2.6 per cent this year, the biggest such decrease in more than 40 years, because of the world's recession that is slowing industrial activity, according to projections first reported Monday by The Financial Times. Even with the economic slowdown, the dangers of climate-altering heat waves, droughts, melting glaciers, loss of the Greenland ice sheet and other calamities are fast approaching, said Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that shared the Nobel Peace Prize with former vice-president Al Gore in 2007. "The science leaves us with no room for inaction now," he said. Mr. Pachauri said major greenhouse gas cuts must be made by 2015 to avoid many of these dangers. Japanese's prime minister, whose nation generates more than 4 per cent of the world's greenhouse gases, said his nation will seek a 25 per cent cut in greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels by 2020. "I will now seek to unite our efforts to address current and future climate change with due consideration of the role of science," said Yukio Hatoyama, six days after taking office. "I am resolved to exercise the political will require to deliver on this promise." Mr. Hatoyama also said Japan is ready to contribute money and technical help for poorer countries to cut emissions. He called for a "fair and effective international framework" that allows all countries to make cuts. The United States, under former President George W. Bush's administration, long cited inaction by China and India as the reason for rejecting mandatory cuts in greenhouse gases. India sees it the other way around, says Jairam Ramesh, India's environment minister, believing it isn't part of the problem but is willing to be part of the solution. "The crisis today on climate change is the inability of the United States to put on the table credible emissions reduction targets for 2020," he told reporters Monday night. China's ambition to grow quickly but cleanly soon may vault it to "front-runner" status - far ahead of the United States - in taking on global warming, the U.N. climate chief said Monday. "China and India have announced very ambitious national climate change plans. In the case of China, so ambitious that it could well become the front-runner in the fight to address climate change," U.N. climate chief Yvo de Boer told The Associated Press. "The big question mark is the U.S."
purvis Member	Tue Sep 22 15:54:52 Shortsighted greedy fucking US far right extremists. How long are we going to let them wreak death and poverty on innocent people and the planet?
Seb Member	Tue Sep 22 16:18:52 Hot Rod: India and China have both agreed to make significant cuts in their carbon intensity. Obviously, they can not agree to make absolute cuts in their total emissions as it stands without an enormous commitment to technology transfer and investment by the developed world, as that would be a requirement for them to accept permanent poverty.
Hot Rod Member	Tue Sep 22 16:34:44 "agreed to make significant cuts in their carbon intensity." "they can not agree to make absolute cuts in their total emissions..." Sounds like a contradiction to me.
licker Sports Mod	Tue Sep 22 16:40:55 ys- why would anyone care what a professor at DeVrys has to say about climate change?
purvis Member	Tue Sep 22 16:42:10 That must be because youre completely illiterate as well as shockingly stupid. Try to understand the difference between significant and absolute. Use a dictionary, fucko.
Devry Graduate Member	Tue Sep 22 16:42:15 I have more clout than you.
swordtail Anarchist Prime	Tue Sep 22 16:43:18 ^ good one.
Clitoral Hood Member	Tue Sep 22 16:51:56 " pretty much every scientist in the field who isn't a hack recognizes that we are contributing to increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, and that these increases lead to increasing temperature. " CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so when there's more of it in the air, more heat should be trapped on the planet. I get it. But when we release more co2 into the atmosphere, we don't GAIN atmosphere, so the co2 is clearly replacing something else. "the CO2 humanity is putting out is significantly contributing to global warming." ok, but why should we take 1 professors word? Especially with all the bullshit that has occurred with global warming. And it's human nature to assume other people are retarded or hacks when they don't agree with something that you see as blatantly obvious. if there was clear cut proof that CO2 was the driving force behind man made global warming, it wouldn't be a topic of discussion. Not to mention the clear trend of cooler temperatures in the past few years.
Average American New Member	Tue Sep 22 16:55:36 The corrupt, money-worshipping of the USA and its bad influence rippling outwards from its borders has proven that facts are no longer EVER clear cut, ever since USA tobacco companies taught us that killing yourself by smoking their cigarettes were good for you.
Clitoral Hood Member	Tue Sep 22 16:58:10 there's a difference between stupidity and scientific uncertainty. one that you clearly don't understand.
Average American Member	Tue Sep 22 17:06:37 Try telling that to the american far right liars, birthers and reality ignoring fucktards.
licker Sports Mod	Tue Sep 22 17:07:24 He is trying to, but you're not capable of understanding.
Average American Member	Tue Sep 22 17:12:37 Im an american far righter? Ooo, c-lev-er. No, that would be you, fucktard.
Clitoral Hood Member	Tue Sep 22 17:14:47 when people show the kind of stupidity that can't be taught, I don't try and correct them. it's a waste of time.
licker Sports Mod	Tue Sep 22 17:22:30 awww.... another multi is pissed off, what a shock.
ehcks Member	Tue Sep 22 17:41:38 "CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so when there's more of it in the air, more heat should be trapped on the planet. I get it. But when we release more co2 into the atmosphere, we don't GAIN atmosphere, so the co2 is clearly replacing something else." All you need to do is look at the chemical formulas. Generally, we burn hydrocarbons. Lots and lots of hydrocarbons. This burns with oxygen to form water and carbon dioxide, and heat energy. What this means is that we're removing oxygen and replacing it with carbon dioxide and water vapor. Much like normal respiration, except in much higher volumes than nature is able to handle right now.
Average American Member	Tue Sep 22 17:43:52 "awww.... another multi is pissed off, what a shock. " Ooo, c-lev-er. No, that would be you, fucktard.
Clitoral Hood Member	Tue Sep 22 17:46:29 yes, licker is a multi. ehcks. nature always balances herself out. why are we supposed to assume that she can't do so now?
ehcks Member	Tue Sep 22 17:49:16 Because what we're doing isn't natural. Humans have single handedly produced enough CO2 to push the rate of input of it into the atmosphere past the rate it's being removed.
Average American Member	Tue Sep 22 17:50:20 Oh nature may well balance itself out. if we become extinct during that though is no skin of natures nose.
Ninja Member	Tue Sep 22 17:55:48 "if there was clear cut proof that CO2 was the driving force behind man made global warming, it wouldn't be a topic of discussion." Unless people with deep pockets that only care about making money ASAP fund people to make shit up, rile up the morons in society and make it a public issue rather than a scientific one. "ehcks. nature always balances herself out. why are we supposed to assume that she can't do so now? " Nature doesn't have to balance it out in a timespan conducive to Human survival, especially in a manner able to sustain our current population. See Ice Ages....
yankeessuck123 Member	Tue Sep 22 19:02:48 This professor is explaining that this is the agreed-upon consensus in the field. It's pretty much settled upon. CO2 leads to warming, we're significantly adding CO2 to the atmosphere, global warming isn't a lie.
Rugian Member	Tue Sep 22 19:10:13 "This professor is explaining that this is the agreed-upon consensus in the field." Your professor is a hack. Considering that he comes from Massachusetts, a state whose government openly claims that its first priority is to serve The Party (see: Senate vacancy rule change), this is not a surprise.
yankeessuck123 Member	Tue Sep 22 19:47:14 He's from like Colorado or something stupid. Lose the cognitive dissonance and accept reality.
licker Sports Mod	Tue Sep 22 22:59:09 Colorado is the Massachusetts of the Rockies.... This professor is spewing nonsense because he is probably too much of an idiot to actually discuss the actual evidence. Making blanket statements like that is utterly irresponsible anyway, unless you're taking some useless fucking poli sci class, in which case, seriously, no one gives a fuck what your devry professor has to say about climate change. Not that anyone remotely denies global warming anyway, but put an 'A' in front of it... and well, that's a different story I suppose.
yankeessuck123 Member	Tue Sep 22 23:05:06 Yes, I'm we should reject the views of an expert in the field, in favor of our own beliefs on the subject.
talon121 Member	Tue Sep 22 23:07:16 CO2 does not produce warming. Warming produces CO2. This generation will be laughed at in 100 years when there have been many recorded dips and bumps in the temperature.
licker Sports Mod	Tue Sep 22 23:10:05 If he's a fucking expert give his name and list some publications he's had on the topic. Otherwise as far as I know, he's just some hack at devry spewing the usual Al Gore spoon fed bullshit.
Eikeys Ghost Sports Mod	Tue Sep 22 23:15:06 "CO2 increases in our atmosphere is a real problem with or without global warming. " Then plant a fucking tree you retard. 200+ years ago Much of the US was covered by forest. Now it's mostly covered by asphalt, and you think returning carbon to the atmosphere is the biggest issue regarding the environment? fricking amazing how the brainwashing of people is going. But the goal seems to be working. Get to the Youth. They are fucking idiots and will accept anything a 'teacher' tells them. Especially one fucking idiot that still seems to tow the company line of ALGore that has mostly been proven to be a steaming pile of horseshit.
Ninja Member	Tue Sep 22 23:20:43 " and you think returning carbon to the atmosphere is the biggest issue regarding the environment? " You don't think oceanic acidification is a huge problem?
Eikeys Ghost Sports Mod	Tue Sep 22 23:25:25 I'll worry about the actual pollution in the ocean, thanks. Clear that up, and lets see what happens. i'm pretty sure an island the size of texas made of plastic in the Pacific is more of an issue. But hey, lets spend multi-billions to research every little thing that affects plant food. And again, if you are worried about it, plant a fucking tree.
yankeessuck123 Member	Tue Sep 22 23:35:20 "Warming produces CO2." Other way around homey. Look up chemical weathering. In other news, you guys are glorious. If facts clash with my perceptions, they must be brainwashing! GET OUT MY HEAD! *puts on tin hat*
licker Sports Mod	Tue Sep 22 23:41:34 You've yet to actually provide any facts though. Do you get that? It's not hard to do actually, but 'my professor told me' isn't going to get you anywhere. Oh, and 'warming produces CO2' is actually a fact, something to consider honestly in your hypothesis about what the effects of adding CO2 to the atmosphere actually does.
roland Member	Tue Sep 22 23:43:10 "warming produces CO2" for example?
yankeessuck123 Member	Tue Sep 22 23:44:39 It's the 3rd week of classes, I'm hardly a pro on the subject :P But as far as warming producing CO2, my understanding is that warmer climates lead to increase chemical weathering, the process by which carbon is sequestered in rocks and such and thusly removed from the atmosphere.
licker Sports Mod	Tue Sep 22 23:50:08 ""warming produces CO2" for example? " Basic chemistry? What's the largest carbon sink on the planet?
MrPresident07 Member	Wed Sep 23 00:12:31 "What's the largest carbon sink on the planet?" Oceans. When it gets hotter, the more the oceans give off and vice versa.
talon121 Member	Wed Sep 23 01:42:39 YS if you looked at past data closely you would notice that carbon increases as a result of higher temperatures. Not the other way around which is what global warming alarmists use as their base argument. Look at ice core samples. They clearly support what I'm saying. That's what I find so funny. And yes. Basic chemistry also answers that question. Most people now a days say people are cooky if they don't believe in global warming but all I'm seeing is minor fluxuations that have obviously been going on for a very long time. Brainwashing is the new common sense I guess. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
talon121 Member	Wed Sep 23 01:44:04 carbon = CO2*
saiko Member	Wed Sep 23 01:59:29 "warming produces CO2" And CO2 causes warming.
saiko Member	Wed Sep 23 02:01:38 Oh, and "nature balances itself" is meaningless.
roland Member	Wed Sep 23 02:02:11 http://www.../the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/
talon121 Member	Wed Sep 23 14:42:50 I think most people here just can't understand how large the ocean is and just how far water travels. Scientists all over observe that CO2 is entering to ocean at a huge rate and then is deposited in the ocean floor. Silly humans are like ants to the world. Most just can't comprehend cycles longer than a few decades.
talon121 Member	Wed Sep 23 14:46:04 Oh and funny how in the last 3 years ice shelfs have been growing at an alarming rate. Stupid global warmist crazies just post articles in the warm seasons when ice shelves ALWAYS shrink.
Seb Member	Wed Sep 23 17:07:54 HotRod: Carbon intensity is the amount of CO2 emmited per dollar GDP earned. Decrease in carbon intensity at a rate faster than economic growth and emissions are cut. Decreasing carbon intensity faster than 9% or whatever Chinas trend growth rate would be impossible without massiver investment and technology transfer from external sources. For the west however, it may well be possible to cut carbon intensity faster than growth, thus leading to absolute reductions in emissions. talon: "Not the other way around which is what global warming alarmists use as their base argument." No, what they use as their argument is the indisputable physical fact that CO2 is a really good absorber of infrared radiation, a fact that was first pointed out in the 1800's. "Scientists all over observe that CO2 is entering to ocean at a huge rate and then is deposited in the ocean floor." At a lower rate, however, than we are putting it in. If the hole in the bottom of the bucket emits water at a slower rate than the tap at the top puts it in, the water level will still rise. "Oh and funny how in the last 3 years ice shelfs have been growing at an alarming rate." Funnily, many of the large ice shelves have been breaking up. Incidentally, what do you think it is that causes ice shelves to grow? faster glaciers movement, caused for example by warming of the glaciers leading to faster movement, and increased precipitation following increased evapouration of sea water. Ice shelves will of course grow as long as there is a greater supply of water and temperatures are below the freezing point.
Cloud Strife Member	Wed Sep 23 17:29:33 `200+ years ago Much of the US was covered by forest. Now it's mostly covered by asphalt,' Eikey wins the retarded statement of the day.
saiko Member	Thu Sep 24 07:10:43 Yeah, I wasn't really sure how to call him on that one. It's wrong on more levels than he can count.
licker Sports Mod	Thu Sep 24 09:44:59 Meh... He worded it poorly, but clearly there is more asphalt on the ground than there was 200 years ago.
saiko Member	Thu Sep 24 12:12:05 Yes, but carbon-wise that's a relatively good thing in itself.
licker Sports Mod	Thu Sep 24 12:52:26 How so? And that neglects the temperature effects of asphalt, which was I think his point. Urban heat island effects are fairly well documented are they not?
saiko Member	Thu Sep 24 12:58:27 Asphalt locks up carbon that might otherwise end up in the atmosphere.
licker Sports Mod	Thu Sep 24 14:46:15 Really? Asphalt is a petroleum product, it is not sequestering more carbon than the trees it was alluded to having replaced.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: