Global Warming or Global Cooling?

[Verrocchio]

This could be a jump ball, sports fans. According to some Canadian scientists, the natural environment could serve up a surprise, as the sun may be entering a Maunder Minimum. An MM occurs every couple of centuries, and the previous MM occurred at the time of the Little Ice Age, a period of bitter cold between 1650 and 1715. The result was massive crop failures and famine.

The Sun Also Sets

Back in 1991, before Al Gore first shouted that the Earth was in the balance, the Danish Meteorological Institute released a study using data that went back centuries that showed that global temperatures closely tracked solar cycles.
To many, those data were convincing. Now, Canadian scientists are seeking additional funding for more and better "eyes" with which to observe our sun, which has a bigger impact on Earth's climate than all the tailpipes and smokestacks on our planet combined.
And they're worried about global cooling, not warming.

_______________
If the Minimum occurs and we entered another little ice age, global warming would return with a vengeance when our solar furnace kicked on again. Meanwhile, this Black Swan event would rewrite the economic equation entirely.

[WDCRob]

Re: Global Warming or Global Cooling?

Boy this is an easy topic to demagogue. Just sow a little confusion and away we go.

There is no credible peer-reviewed scientifically-sound research supporting the position that the globe is not warming, or that said warming is not in significant part due to human activity.

There are many unknowns with regard to these facts, including what the outcomes will be, and when. But the basic facts themselves are not in dispute among serious scientists.

To believe otherwise is to believe that virtually every single scientist in the field that's willing to submit to usual research standards, and have their work reviewed by their peers is engaged in a conspiracy of unprecedented scope.

It's also to believe that a handful of mercenaries and cranks, typically working in isolation, are somehow more credible than the 99% of scientists who are willing to adhere to the standards described above.

[Guest]

Re: Global Warming or Global Cooling?

WDCRob - applying rudimentary critical insight with the efficiency of a hydraulic trash compactor.

Boy this is an easy topic to demagogue. Just sow a little confusion and away we go.

There is no credible peer-reviewed scientifically-sound research supporting the position that the globe is not warming, or that said warming is not in significant part due to human activity.

There are many unknowns with regard to these facts, including what the outcomes will be, and when. But the basic facts themselves are not in dispute among serious scientists.

To believe otherwise is to believe that virtually every single scientist in the field that's willing to submit to the usual scientific standards and have their work reviewed by their peers is engaged in a conspiracy of unprecedented scope.

It's also to believe that a handful of mercenaries and cranks, typically working in isolation, are somehow more credible than the 99% of scientists who are willing to adhere to the standards described above.

[Verrocchio]

Re: Global Warming or Global Cooling?

Boy this is an easy topic to demagogue. Just sow a little confusion and away we go.

This post is neither an attempt at demagoguery nor a sowing of confusion, although confusion is admittedly a common result when the topic is the interaction of a complex global weather system with energy received from the sun and the stars.

There is no credible peer-reviewed scientifically-sound research supporting the position that the globe is not warming, or that said warming is not in significant part due to human activity.

There are many unknowns with regard to these facts, including what the outcomes will be, and when. But the basic facts themselves are not in dispute among serious scientists.

To believe otherwise is to believe that virtually every single scientist in the field that's willing to submit to the usual scientific standards and have their work reviewed by their peers is engaged in a conspiracy of unprecedented scope.

Nothing in my post contradicts these statements.

It's also to believe that a handful of mercenaries and cranks, typically working in isolation, are somehow more credible than the 99% of scientists who are willing to adhere to the standards described above.

I do not believe that Canadian solar researcher Kenneth Tapping is a mercenary or a crank. His own observations of the sun cause him to worry about global cooling rather than global warming.


Sunspot activity nearly ceased during the Little Ice Age. Since that time sunspot activity has followed a predictable 11-year cycle. The Solar Maximum in the current cycle was around March 2001, and the solar minimum was January 2005. According to Tapping's observations of the sun with his radio telescope, the sun remains "disturbingly quiet." He believes that another year or two of the same could indicate drastic cooling is on the way.

[Verrocchio]

Re: Global Warming or Global Cooling?

Will pictures help?
Solar Max
Solar Min

[WDCRob]

Re: Global Warming or Global Cooling?

I owe you an apology, Verocchio. Your man Tapping is in fact not a denier. Rather, IBD found a well-known Warming Denier to interpret something that Tapping said that was subsequently posted on a website - attributing quotes to him indirectly.


"when I noticed that the IBD never actually directly quoted Dr. Tapping, and only talked about him (all of the direct quotes come from R. Timothy Patterson, a fairly well-known AGW denier), I decided to do something that the “fine journalists” over at IBD couldn’t be bothered to do: I contacted Dr. Tapping directly and asked him about it. Dr. Tapping responds:

Hi Tom,

Thanks for the message. The stuff on the web came from a casual chat with someone who managed to misunderstand what I said and then put the result on the web, which is probably a big caution for me regarding the future.

It is true that the beginning of the next solar cycle is late, but not so late that we are getting worried, merely curious.

It is the opinion of scientists, including me, that global warming is a major issue, and that it might be too late to do anything about it already. If there is a cooling due to the solar activity cycle laying off for a bit, then the a period of solar cooling could be a much-needed respite giving us more time to attack the problem of greenhouse gases, with the caveat that if we do not, things will be far worse when things turn on again after a few decades. However, once again it is early days and we cannot at the moment conclude there is another minimum started.

Thanks for the heads-up.

Regards,

Ken


My point however, stands. Dig far enough into virtually ANY press denying or minimizing global warming (directly or indirectly) and you'll usually find a similar story. The denier field is populated by half-truths, intellectual whores and people who enjoy standing one v. one thousand more than they dislike being wrong.

[Verrocchio]

Re: Global Warming or Global Cooling?

I'm glad that you followed up with Tapping, WDCRob. The email that he sent you contains a phrase (bolded below) that echoes what I wrote in my initial post.

If there is a cooling due to the solar activity cycle laying off for a bit, then the a period of solar cooling could be a much-needed respite giving us more time to attack the problem of greenhouse gases, with the caveat that if we do not, things will be far worse when things turn on again after a few decades.

If the Minimum occurs and we entered another little ice age, global warming would return with a vengeance when our solar furnace kicked on again.

I am afraid that if the Minimum does occur that the people you call Deniers will indeed take that as a sign that global warming is a dead issue, and it will be more difficult to muster the political and economic resources that are needed to combat it.

[WDCRob]

Re: Global Warming or Global Cooling?

Just to be clear, *I* didn't follow up with him - I only found someone that had. Didn't mean to make it sound otherwise.

[Guest]

Re: Global Warming or Global Cooling?

Verrocchio - I must also apologize if my post here sounded 'brusque'. Certainly no disrespect to you was intended. As far as those photos posted, I was thinking of a 'green tangerine with lots of navels' which may not reflect well on my ability to remain on-topic here. (I may just be losing some of the old grey matter to early onset dementia).

I do also think WDCRob's summary of this issue reiterates my own POV far more succinctly (and therefore more convincingly) than I have ever managed to do.

[santafe2]

Re: Global Warming or Global Cooling?

It may be better to refer to our situation as global climate change. For now we're warming but this severe warming trend may push us toward a new little ice age, (LIA). For example, the North Atlantic Drift Current may subside. No one can point to the outcome, only current data points and extrapolate an outcome that matches their global view from that information.

It seems clear to me that the earth is reacting to our collective presence. How this will play out over the next 20 years, we don't know. We only know that weather has become more contentious and apparently this is a trend we'll have to deal with as we move forward.

At our rate of growth there will be 9B people on earth by 2050. Each person exhaling 5-8 litres of Co2 per minute. Our "green" homes and cars won't even off-set our breathing so I can't imagine how a warming vs. cooling issue is important.

[Verrocchio]

Re: Global Warming or Global Cooling?

It may be better to refer to our situation as global climate change. For now we're warming but this severe warming trend may push us toward a new little ice age, (LIA). For example, the North Atlantic Drift Current may subside. No one can point to the outcome, only current data points and extrapolate an outcome that matches their global view from that information.

I think that Climate Change is a more appropriate term, too.

Our "green" homes and cars won't even off-set our breathing so I can't imagine how a warming vs. cooling issue is important.

Perhaps I can spur your imagination a little. ;)
The direction of climate change (warming or cooling) has enormous implications for many of the topics that we discuss here on iTulip, for example, infrastructure and agricultural commodities.

Also, if we do enter a Little Ice Age, those that haven't had the acumen to develop their own understanding of climate change, as you have, are likely to believe that they have been misled by the warnings about global warming -- and obstruct efforts to reduce our carbon emissions.

Or, do you believe that our fate is already determined, that the planet is doomed to become uninhabitable?

[Guest]

Re: Global Warming or Global Cooling?

The direction of climate change (warming or cooling) has enormous implications for many of the topics that we discuss here on iTulip, for example, infrastructure and agricultural commodities.

Excellent point. The next time anyone objects that "climate change has nothing to do with "FINANCE/ECON" they might take note of this.

[Guest]

Re: Global Warming or Global Cooling?

WDCRob - applying rudimentary critical insight with the efficiency of a hydraulic trash compactor.

Verrocchio - pardon my very frank mode of address - I like to be really straight ahead. The remark above was addressed to that community which WDCRob rather pungently sketched out, as the "deniers" of a very broad community of scientists worldwide who accept peer review and uphold at least the rudiments of the "globe is indeed warming" thesis. I think it's frankly a stretch, to assume the remark ever reflected upon you personally. Yet I have the distinct impression you are now in "not-like" mode in my regard because of this post.

I'm different from a lot of people here. If someone genuinely debunks one of my views, if I am impressed by the evidence of their logic or argument (in this case WDCRob's investigation, not mine!), I in no way percieve the disagreement as a personal slight. It is ALL merely an exchange of ideas, presumably with frequent vigorous disagreements.

When was the last time you read me invite someone here to go "post on some other website" for example? The thought would never cross my mind, but I've received a couple of those invitations here. You know what, I don't even take that personally! To dwell on it seems uninteresting to me.

Meantime, I doo note a number of people on these pages who identify very tightly with their arguments, or cited authors. Thus if one replies with any particular pungency on the merit of that viewpoint, the reply is read as a terrible personal slight.

I think you may agree on reflection, that if we all start putting the "smoothing of feathers" in front of the "challenging of issues" on these pages, these forums would quickly subside into a sleepy and less exciting exercise. Something perhaps with the excitement quotient of a Sunday BINGO session for Grandpa and Grandma.

Further, I've offered you a clear, simple apology for the above "percieved" slight. In my book anyone who comes to me with a flat out apology for any remark they've offered up in my regard is displaying a good degree of forthrightness. I personally admire that kind of sincerity more than any gesture, and I never fail to reply with the corresponding sincerity. When that two way street is working, you get the best of both worlds - ability to strongly disagree (keeps debates exciting), and ability to quickly surpass all the sore feelings.

What's your view? Do you think it's acceptable for ideas on these web pages to ever be stated bluntly? Or do you think it's more important people engage in ritual smoothing of the feathers, with self-deprecation and obseqiousness, so egos never get bruised?

[santafe2]

Re: Global Warming or Global Cooling?

Or, do you believe that our fate is already determined, that the planet is doomed to become uninhabitable?

I don't think earth can accommodate 9B upwardly mobile humans and maintain the same familiar environment we're accustomed to. It will likely serve us well to be prepared for change, be it warming, cooling or simply unpredictable weather.

Global climate change may prove to be a no more than an inconvenience to those of us who are prepared. The more serious issues may be virus and war related. Also don't forget Bill Joy has famously predicted computer systems will have hardware parity with the human brain by 2020 and software parity by 2040. Assistants or competition? Only our grandchildren will know for sure.

The only thing we know for sure about change is that it's happening at a more rapid rate and not all of it will be appreciated by most of us. I try to take nothing for granted and teach this point of view to my children.

[Verrocchio]

Re: Global Warming or Global Cooling?

Verrocchio - pardon my very frank mode of address - I like to be really straight ahead. The remark above was addressed to that community which WDCRob rather pungently sketched out, as the "deniers" of a very broad community of scientists worldwide who accept peer review and uphold at least the rudiments of the "globe is indeed warming" thesis. I think it's frankly a stretch, to assume the remark ever reflected upon you personally. Yet I have the distinct impression you are now in "not-like" mode in my regard because of this post.

I didn't take any of your comments personally, and, at least at this time, I don't have a "not-like" mode for any of the forum participants. If it's germane to this discussion, I'd like to add that I noticed that both you and WDCRob perhaps misunderstood my initial post, but were sufficiently open-minded to reconsider and then offer an apology. That was gracious of you, particularly as any misunderstanding could have been avoided if I had been able to express my thoughts more clearly.

On that point, let me reply to your question about my view on blunt statements vs avoiding the bruising of egos. Effective communication can require either. Sometimes that means stating a view frankly and other times a position is communicated more effectively if approached more tangentially. I reckon that there is room on a forum like this for many different styles of communication.