Global Cooling will kill us all!

[dogbane]

Readers of the Feb. 14th, 2005 Wall Street Journal may have gotten the impression that RealClimate is in some way affiliated with an environmental organisation. We wish to stress that although our domain is being hosted by Environmental Media Services, and our initial press release was organised for us by Fenton Communications, neither organization was in any way involved in the initial planning for RealClimate, and have never had any editorial or other control over content. Neither Fenton nor EMS has ever paid any contributor to RealClimate.org any money for any purpose at any time. Neither do they pay us expenses, buy our lunch or contract us to do research. All of these facts have always been made clear to everyone who asked (see for instance: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol30 ... atch.shtml).

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... isclaimer/

[SSgtMobley]

Readers of the Feb. 14th, 2005 Wall Street Journal may have gotten the impression that RealClimate is in some way affiliated with an environmental organisation. We wish to stress that although our domain is being hosted by Environmental Media Services, and our initial press release was organised for us by Fenton Communications, neither organization was in any way involved in the initial planning for RealClimate, and have never had any editorial or other control over content. Neither Fenton nor EMS has ever paid any contributor to RealClimate.org any money for any purpose at any time. Neither do they pay us expenses, buy our lunch or contract us to do research. All of these facts have always been made clear to everyone who asked (see for instance: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol30 ... atch.shtml).

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... isclaimer/

All this tells me is that neither EMS nor FC pay them money. It doesn't tell me who does.

[dogbane]

All this tells me is that neither EMS nor FC pay them money. It doesn't tell me who does.

Well, nobody, allegedly (I can't say for sure, not being an insider there). Everthing I've found indicates that someone hosts the site, and these scientists contribute to it on their own time. Apparently, except for the site hosting, nothing of monetary value is contributed or exchanged except time and expertise.

Of course, just because they're doing it for free doesn't mean there's no bias or political agenda, just that it's their own bias and agenda and not some other organization's.

[Zdigger]

Most People have seen this but I love it soo much

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/03/04/weather-channel-founder-sue-al-gore-expose-global-warming-fraud

[gridley]

Now, now, let's not be hard on Al Gore. After all, he invented the internet. Just ask him.

[dogbane]

Now, now, let's not be hard on Al Gore. After all, he invented the internet. Just ask him.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

This thread subject can't help but get political. Climate change should be a verboten subject here.

And all over the world
Strangers
Talk only about the weather.
All over the world
It's the same
It's the same.

The world is getting flatter,
The sky is falling all around.
...
And I never buy umbrellas,
Cuz there's always one around.
-Tom Waits

[SSgtMobley]

Now, now, let's not be hard on Al Gore. After all, he invented the internet. Just ask him.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

This thread subject can't help but get political. Climate change should be a verboten subject here.

And all over the world
Strangers
Talk only about the weather.
All over the world
It's the same
It's the same.

The world is getting flatter,
The sky is falling all around.
...
And I never buy umbrellas,
Cuz there's always one around.
-Tom Waits

Yeah, but "Al Gore Invented the Internet" is funnier.

[dogbane]

Yeah, but "Al Gore Invented the Internet" is funnier.

Okay, then.

[CavemanSam]

This topic has gotten way too political for it's own good.

IBFTL

[andygates]

I'd like to think we can play nice. Crazy weather is a big preparedness issue whatever a person's politics.

Just so we're all clear can you tell us who funds RealClimate?

Sure:

"We wish to stress that although our domain is being hosted by Environmental Media Services, and our initial press release was organised for us by Fenton Communications, neither organization was in any way involved in the initial planning for RealClimate, and have never had any editorial or other control over content. Neither Fenton nor EMS has ever paid any contributor to RealClimate.org any money for any purpose at any time. Neither do they pay us expenses, buy our lunch or contract us to do research."

EMS are: "The EMS/Science Communication Network (SCN), a private non-profit foundation-supported educational organization, is dedicated to encouraging environmental public health scientists and medical practitioners to contribute to public discussions about their work through the media and thereby elevate the quality and quantity of environmental health reporting."

...so they're an environmental science organisation, not an environmental lobbying one (in other words, not Greenpeace).

The contributors to RealClimate are volunteers, working mainstream climate scientists and their profiles are here.

So EMS gives them webspace, and they're climate nerds. That's about it.

Another interesting site for weird weather is weatherunderground.com. Again, weather scientists, but more groovy storm photos.

Edit - also, you will note that while it may be an organization paying to bring skeptics together that doesn't mean they aren't actually still skeptics. Skeptics, especially scientist skeptics, are skeptics for a reason.

I agree, but I'm skeptical about what that reason is. In the case of the "global cooling" story, for example, a quick glance at the averages graphs show that this is a non-story, and a little searching around gives the mechanism for it, "the cooling trend through the year was due to the strengthening La Nina, and the unusual coolness in January was aided by a winter weather fluctuation."

In climate science, single years mean nothing: the regular variation drowns out the trends, which can only be seen in analysis (this isn't partisan, it's ordinary statistical math). In headline-grabbing, single years mean a lot. The "cooling" story plays very well to Fox's core audience despite being untrue. That's good audience figures and happy advertisers.

Regular scientists can also be just plain wrong, or just plain kooks, and of course that's where peer review comes in. But peer review is slow, and headlines and a book deal are a lot faster. Between kooks, glory hounds and crooked reporters playing the public for fools, I have learned to be skeptical about skeptics.

[dogbane]

This topic has gotten way too political for it's own good.

IBFTL

All over the worldwide web, it's the same. It's the same.

IBFTL+1

[Ellie With An Axe]

This topic has gotten way too political for it's own good.

IBFTL

I've tried two or three times since yesterday to add something to the discussion but it's moving into personal politics/hot-button territory and there was nothing I could add that didn't add to the fracas. This thread is about ready to be sent to the deep freeze, with the wooly mammoths.

[mrdbeau]

Regular scientists can also be just plain wrong, or just plain kooks, and of course that's where peer review comes in. But peer review is slow, and headlines and a book deal are a lot faster. Between kooks, glory hounds and crooked reporters playing the public for fools, I have learned to be skeptical about skeptics.

And I've learned to be skeptical about anyone saying anything is going to destroy the world, kill all of us, raise the sea levels by 100 ft, and so on...

The only reason I found the story about global cooling so funny is because the initial "research" which led to the story and concluded a half-degree drop in temperature over the past year was done by a hugely biased group that is doing everything in their power to make people lose their minds over global warming.

But hey, good for them for not just burying research that doesn't agree with their scientific hypothesis.

[Sapient]

This topic has gotten way too political for it's own good.

IBFTL

I've tried two or three times since yesterday to add something to the discussion but it's moving into personal politics/hot-button territory and there was nothing I could add that didn't add to the fracas. This thread is about ready to be sent to the deep freeze, with the wooly mammoths.

Perhaps there is another way. We could avoid arguing too much over suspicions of bias and other political conspiracy theories. Instead we could focus on how best to prepare for the most likely range of projected changes in climate. Some minimal discussion of bias can be good, to help us all sharpen our critical thinking skills and thus avoid being distracted by the less likely predictions of disaster. I think we have stayed on the right side of that line so far in this thread, so this comment is not a criticism of anybody who has posted. I'd like to see this topic survive, so I have a request for anyone who might be interested in continuing the discussion.

First, take your own conclusions about climate change, and then explain how smart individuals can prepare themselves for that.

Second, assume for just a moment the side you most disagree with turned out to be correct about climate change. How would your ideas about preparedness have to be adjusted, if new evidence convinced you that you had been mistaken all along?

Finally, compare the two sets of recommendations you have devised. Is there anything you could do to prepare for both possibilities?

The only way to really know the future is to wait around for it to happen to us. Arguing about it in the meantime can be entertaining, but that's a luxury we can't afford if we haven't taken any steps to prepare for the many possible outcomes we're arguing about.

[SSgtMobley]

This topic has gotten way too political for it's own good.

IBFTL

I've tried two or three times since yesterday to add something to the discussion but it's moving into personal politics/hot-button territory and there was nothing I could add that didn't add to the fracas. This thread is about ready to be sent to the deep freeze, with the wooly mammoths.

Perhaps there is another way. We could avoid arguing too much over suspicions of bias and other political conspiracy theories. Instead we could focus on how best to prepare for the most likely range of projected changes in climate. Some minimal discussion of bias can be good, to help us all sharpen our critical thinking skills and thus avoid being distracted by the less likely predictions of disaster. I think we have stayed on the right side of that line so far in this thread, so this comment is not a criticism of anybody who has posted. I'd like to see this topic survive, so I have a request for anyone who might be interested in continuing the discussion.

First, take your own conclusions about climate change, and then explain how smart individuals can prepare themselves for that.

Second, assume for just a moment the side you most disagree with turned out to be correct about climate change. How would your ideas about preparedness have to be adjusted, if new evidence convinced you that you had been mistaken all along?

Finally, compare the two sets of recommendations you have devised. Is there anything you could do to prepare for both possibilities?

The only way to really know the future is to wait around for it to happen to us. Arguing about it in the meantime can be entertaining, but that's a luxury we can't afford if we haven't taken any steps to prepare for the many possible outcomes we're arguing about.

Or better yet -

ASSUMING Global Warming is true (and that it's too late to stop it) - What do you best do to prepare?

ASSUMING Global Cooling is ture (and that it's too late to stop it) - What do you best do to prepare?

[CavemanSam]

This topic has gotten way too political for it's own good.

IBFTL

I've tried two or three times since yesterday to add something to the discussion but it's moving into personal politics/hot-button territory and there was nothing I could add that didn't add to the fracas. This thread is about ready to be sent to the deep freeze, with the wooly mammoths.

Perhaps there is another way. We could avoid arguing too much over suspicions of bias and other political conspiracy theories. Instead we could focus on how best to prepare for the most likely range of projected changes in climate. Some minimal discussion of bias can be good, to help us all sharpen our critical thinking skills and thus avoid being distracted by the less likely predictions of disaster. I think we have stayed on the right side of that line so far in this thread, so this comment is not a criticism of anybody who has posted. I'd like to see this topic survive, so I have a request for anyone who might be interested in continuing the discussion.

First, take your own conclusions about climate change, and then explain how smart individuals can prepare themselves for that.

Second, assume for just a moment the side you most disagree with turned out to be correct about climate change. How would your ideas about preparedness have to be adjusted, if new evidence convinced you that you had been mistaken all along?

Finally, compare the two sets of recommendations you have devised. Is there anything you could do to prepare for both possibilities?

The only way to really know the future is to wait around for it to happen to us. Arguing about it in the meantime can be entertaining, but that's a luxury we can't afford if we haven't taken any steps to prepare for the many possible outcomes we're arguing about.

Well said. There may be some hope for this threat, yet.

I'll give it a try.

If global warming is indeed happening, there are some things that may change accordingly:
1) more erratic weather patterns
2) more extremes in climates (very hot summers, very cold winters, dry spells, floods)
3) Increase of vector borne diseases as species like Aedes aegypti spread due to warmer weather.
4) Increase range of dangerous/damaging animals: boa constrictors, fire ants, killer bees, wasps, weevils, locust, termites, etc.
5) Increase in sea levels: probably not to the extreme degree, but enough to affect low lying areas: river deltas, flood plains, marshes.
6) Climate sensitive plants may be affect: some potatoes that prefer colder climates may not do as well, fruits that get sweeter after a frost, etc.
7) Increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere means that more CO2 will dissolve into the oceans, which turns into Carbonic acid and makes the oceans more acidic. This pH change may have some negative effects on ocean ecosystems.

How to prepare:
1) Prepare for the worst, even if your region isn't normally hit by strong storms, ice storms and cold weather, tornadoes, or hurricanes. Make sure you have the provisions necessary to deal with these: Plastic sheeting, plywood, a sturdy basement with a sump pump, etc.
2) Again, prepare for the worst. The water shortage with Georgia got pretty ugly. Store water, think about a rainfall collector, or a well. If you are in an area that may be prone to flooding (low lying, or flood plain), research things you can do to protect yourself, your home, and important belongings from flood damage. Think about getting an alternate source of heat for your house (like a fireplace, wood burning stove, electric central heater, etc) since very cold winters means more strain on fuel and higher fuel costs
3) Make sure there isn't standing water on your property. Talk with neighbors about standing water. If it gets bad, stock up on permetherin and get mosquito netting at night. Do what doctors and public health professions say. They are NOT out to get you.
4) Get yearly home inspections. Do something at the first sign, especially with insects. Nip the problem at the bud. Try to minimalize spaces underneath your house where animals could hide. If you are building a house, see if you can incorporate cypress wood, which deters termites and other insects. Look into sustainable ways to combat pests that destroy crops (raising birds that eat weevils and grasshoppers, making an indoor garden, using local strains of crops that are more resilient to local pests and diseases, etc).
5) Get flood insurance if you can. Research your local flood warning procedures and contingency plans. Keep a BOB for you and your family ready so that you can grab it and minimize your evacuation if a flood is eminent. Avoid investing in beach front property.
6) Try to get a hold of different types of vegetables that are more resilient to warmer weather and the pests and diseases that come with it. Try switching to a different crop that is better at growing in the climate.
7) I got nothing.

Many of these preparations are also viable for the preparation for global cooling. Weather patterns may change, temperatures will fall, and crops will be affected. A few hints could be taken from neighbors to the north as to how they cope with colder climates, but if you prepare for the worst, you should have a stable foundation if something happens.

The preparations needed for climate change, whether it's global cooling and global warming are not dissimilar. The group who are in trouble are those who deny that global warming is happening, or that it will ever happen, and thus see no need to make such preparations.

[19kilo]

In before...

But....

I just want to pass a little bit of why I think this man made GW is all about money.

My wife and I have a friend who was/is a meteorologist at accuweather down at State college. She now teahes but still works part time. About six years ago we were all together before her wedding, ( to Director of Systems Engineering at Accuweather) But I asked her about GW. She told me flat out that is was the issue that her peers and professors had finally found that would give them unlimited funding. SHe said that most of the folks she worked with at accuweather said that it was nothing more than weather cycles and that the sun was the reason for the temp rise. I feel hesitant to give her name out, not because she's some big shot, She's now a part time weather girl who teaches middle school science. But PM me and I will let you know.


Now she did tell me that the sun will decrease it's output in a few years and we will cool down for a decade or two. But I don't remember when and I haven't talked to her in a year.

So that is part of the reason I am a little sceptical to toss more money to a government that has shown no discipline with it in the past.

[Zdigger]

Honestly, we have only kept decent records of the earths climate changes since the 60s or 70s, how can we really tell if the climate is dramatically changed by our presence or just following its own natural cycle? As for that matter, since the have changed it from Global Warming to Climate Change now I have heard the term, A Planet in Peril? Please, the planet is not in peril, maybe man's existance on it. But hey when the environment changes, that forces the critters (insects, mammels, hmm zombies?) to adapt to it, so maybe mankind would adapt and end up with something neat, that would be adkin to superpowers to us now. Sorry I apparently listen to way too much talk radio.

[Ellie With An Axe]

Honestly, we have only kept decent records of the earths climate changes since the 60s or 70s, how can we really tell if the climate is dramatically changed by our presence or just following its own natural cycle?

We study and form scientific models via paleoclimatology, dendroclimatology, geologic temperature record, historical climatology, archaeology, anthropology, ship's logbooks, recorded observations by ancient Greeks, Egyptians, and Chinese, statistical algorithms, global climate models, hysteresis, art, orbital variations, palynology, etc.

[CavemanSam]

Honestly, we have only kept decent records of the earths climate changes since the 60s or 70s, how can we really tell if the climate is dramatically changed by our presence or just following its own natural cycle? As for that matter, since the have changed it from Global Warming to Climate Change now I have heard the term, A Planet in Peril? Please, the planet is not in peril, maybe man's existance on it. But hey when the environment changes, that forces the critters (insects, mammels, hmm zombies?) to adapt to it, so maybe mankind would adapt and end up with something neat, that would be adkin to superpowers to us now. Sorry I apparently listen to way too much talk radio.

This thread needs more freaky baby

[SSgtMobley]

Honestly, we have only kept decent records of the earths climate changes since the 60s or 70s, how can we really tell if the climate is dramatically changed by our presence or just following its own natural cycle?

We study and form scientific models via paleoclimatology, dendroclimatology, geologic temperature record, historical climatology, archaeology, anthropology, ship's logbooks, recorded observations by ancient Greeks, Egyptians, and Chinese, statistical algorithms, global climate models, hysteresis, art, orbital variations, palynology, etc.

yes several different sources of material, many of which vary widely from one another and take place in various parts of the world affected by various different elements. With such a cornacopia of disparat information anyone could pick and choose their evidence to fit their viewpoint. While it may be possible to collate the data so that an actual "unbiased" view can be assertained, my faith in the scientific community (all of which requires funding from somewhere or another that requires pandering) is too weak to trust a final outcome on much of anything on the topic without a rather EXTREME degree of evidence of their nonpartisanship.

[Zdigger]

are we using the same scientists that just figured out that Pluto isnt a planet? Hell Walt Disney knew that.

[Molon Labe]

Honestly, we have only kept decent records of the earths climate changes since the 60s or 70s, how can we really tell if the climate is dramatically changed by our presence or just following its own natural cycle?

We study and form scientific models via paleoclimatology, dendroclimatology, geologic temperature record, historical climatology, archaeology, anthropology, ship's logbooks, recorded observations by ancient Greeks, Egyptians, and Chinese, statistical algorithms, global climate models, hysteresis, art, orbital variations, palynology, etc.

yes several different sources of material, many of which vary widely from one another and take place in various parts of the world affected by various different elements. With such a cornacopia of disparat information anyone could pick and choose their evidence to fit their viewpoint. While it may be possible to collate the data so that an actual "unbiased" view can be assertained, my faith in the scientific community (all of which requires funding from somewhere or another that requires pandering) is too weak to trust a final outcome on much of anything on the topic without a rather EXTREME degree of evidence of their nonpartisanship.

Took the words right out of my mouth. And then did much better withthem than I would've. ya bastard.

[Ellie With An Axe]

yes several different sources of material, many of which vary widely from one another and take place in various parts of the world affected by various different elements. With such a cornacopia of disparat information anyone could pick and choose their evidence to fit their viewpoint. While it may be possible to collate the data so that an actual "unbiased" view can be assertained, my faith in the scientific community (all of which requires funding from somewhere or another that requires pandering) is too weak to trust a final outcome on much of anything on the topic without a rather EXTREME degree of evidence of their nonpartisanship.

You don't really need partisanship or funding to go look up records and find correlation between data. The "scientific community" is not comprised solely of partisan, funded research operations. In fact, the government, and all the cookie jars it has its hands in, is the one I'd say is most responsible for making it seem that way. They've been most responsible for releasing "research" that shows that global warming is a complete myth. The public at large likes to be spoon fed and they'll buy it without question, as much as they'll buy the ludicrous idea that you have to trade privacy for security or that "nucular" is a word.

I see this thread going down in flames shortly...