The Coming Ice Age:

[Popol Vuh]

At 1:20 in part 1: "Climate experts believe the next ice age is on its way. According to recent evidence it could come sooner than anyone had expected".

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZKtJSlhFsA

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NimH5w_fzM

Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2yHACNPcL4

[Orrex]

1. Given how awful polyester leisure suits were, I'd say that we're definitely cooler 33 years later.

[Warpy]

3. Don't forget nylon pantyhose

which women were expected to wear underneath even those doubleknit polyester pants.

Shedding those suckers for good cooled me off more than moving to Boston did.

[rawtribe]

2. Killing the myth of the 1970s global cooling scientific consensus

http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/10/killing-the-myth-of-the-1970s-global-cooling-scientific-consensus/

[grantdevine]

4. Ah yes, the Newsweek article that all the global warming denier fools

base their assertion that "all the scientists were saying an ice-age was coming in the 1970's, so why should we believe them now?"

Note how the only scientist quoted in the article actually says they no nothing, not even enough to ask the right questions.

It was bad journalism, unfortunately placed at the right moment in history for a band of hucksters and liars to use it for propaganda.

EDIT: Why are you posting it? Don't tell me you're sucked in by the denial community propaganda.

[Popol Vuh]

7. I post it because I don't dismiss information because it doesn't fit

What I previously believe. No credible scientist does that. On the contrary, a credible scientist embraces refuting evidence so that it will either serve to strengthen current beliefs, by, itself, not withstanding examination or because it represents progress in the direction of scientific truth.

That is why I post this information.

[Hanse]

9. You can't talk about credibility and post pseudoscientific garbage.

Credibility doesn't work that way.

[Popol Vuh]

10. Can you show me the scientific peer review of "An Inconvenient Truth"?

n/t

[Hanse]

12. "An Inconvenient Truth" was not a scientific article.

And if you had bothered to watch it, you'd have learned that it discusses scientific literature on the subject.

Of some 800 randomly selected peer-reviewed papers on the subject, not a single one disputed global warming.

You know, it's not that hard to learn about an issue before spouting off about it.

[Popol Vuh]

17. If I had bothered to watch it?

Before spouting off don't you think you should know what you're talking about first before being so presumptuous? In this case incorrectly presumptuous. I saw it in the theater the day it was released and own a copy of the DVD.

So much for that argument. Now maybe if you'd learn not to be so closed minded like the way freepers are you'd have a more open mind instead of being so one sided based on partisanship.

[Hanse]

18. Maybe, then, you should have paid more attention.

I know several people who are Creationists, despite their high school diplomas.

"Now maybe if you'd learn not to be so closed minded like the way freepers are you'd have a more open mind instead of being so one sided based on partisanship."

There's only one side when it comes to global warming.

[Popol Vuh]

19. You presume too much

Your credibility on being impartial on this issue has proved to be about zero.

n/t

[Hanse]

21. You're not in any position to judge credibility.

Given the whole global warming denial business.

[muriel_volestrangler]

22. Red herring - stop trying to derail your own thread

Or didn't you have anything worthwhile to discuss anyway?

[agent007]

5. A Newsweek article is not a peer-reviewed scientific piece

I don't know why it's used as evidence of anything.

[Popol Vuh]

6. The article quotes NOAA and the NAS.

Then there's this information below: I don't know, but, I have to question the carbon argument and review the solar maximum information.

Comparison between the change in the global temperature (red line), the Carbon Dioxide Concentration (blue line), and the sample tree ring (green line) from 800 AD to 2005 (AD). As you can see, what took only 150 years during the Medieval Period of Global Warming has taken 200 years in our Industrial Era. This means that the current Global Warming is rising SLOWER than during the Medieval Age. Besides, our Global Warming is LOWER than that of the Medieval Period. A further characteristic is that the warmest phase in the Medieval Period lasted about 190 years, whereas the warmest period of the contemporary Global Warming lasted merely 3 years (from 1997 to 1998), with its highest point in 1998. This evidence demonstrates that the Global Warming is a cyclic natural phenomenon.



http://biocab.org/Global_Warming.html#anchor_32

This Graph shows that there have been many periods warmer than the present warm period. Actually, our Global Warming is benign compared with prehistoric warming eras. I want you to pay attention on the Ordovician period. During this period, the atmospheric CO2 reached 2240 ppmV (eight times higher than at present); nevertheless, the mean temperature diminished considerably to the extent of causing an Ice Age. We can see also that the Triassic Period was warmer than the Holocene (present Epoch); however, the CO2 concentration was lower than at present. Evidently, there are other factors more efficient than CO2 for warming the Earth.



http://biocab.org/Global_Warming.html#anchor_35

Cosmic Rays are atomic nuclei (generally protons) and electrons that are observed to collide with the Earth's atmosphere with exceedingly high energies. When these nucleons bump with the atmospheric molecules most of their energy is released as heat, warming up the Earth's atmosphere. As it is shown in this graph, the "Global Warming" is not an anthropogenic event, but a natural cycle related to the energy of the Universe, not with an anomalous Greenhouse Effect. It is evident that the He nucleons (blue line) affect directly on the Earth's temperature variations (red line); however, it looks as if there were not a coincidence between the Intergalactic Cosmic Rays (green line) and the Global Warming Variation (GWV). However, in the graph, below these lines, I transferred the gray line that corresponds to the Intergalactic Cosmic Rays (ICR) just 13.7 months, so you can see the conclusive coincidence between the ICR and the Earth temperature oscillations.



http://biocab.org/Cosmic_Rays_Graph.html#anchor_45

The correlation between the Anomaly in the Intensity of the Intergalactic Cosmic Ray (IICR) and the variations in the terrestrial tropospheric temperature is obvious. The present Global Warming does not depend on the concentration of the Greenhouse Gases, but on the Density of the Energy that is incoming from space, so from the Sun as from the interstellar medium. The blue to green bars represent the anomaly of the tropospheric temperature since December 2001 to October 2007. The red to brown bars represent the IICR on real time when the IICR once they have reached the Earth. Observe that the anomaly at the end of the histogram of the ICR climbs up, with a very few declines. However, we lack data for the months after February 2007. If the intensity of the ICR increases, the next year (2008) will be a warmer year; however, if the intensity of the ICR declines, 2008 will be a normal to colder year. The correlation is just the opposite of Dr. Nir Shaviv's hypothesis.



http://biocab.org/Cosmic_Rays_Graph.html#anchor_47

Many people have been confused because they have read from NOAA's page that 2006 has been the warmest year of the decade. Nevertheless, when going through the data provided by the own NOAA, we find that in fact 2006 have been the coldest year of the decade. There is not discrepancy between both reports from NOAA, given that, when talking about the warmest year, NOAA refers only to some states of the United States (Texas and New Mexico) and Southeastern Asia. On the other hand, the data for a local warmer year come from ground weather stations, that is to say, stations located within the cities or “heat islands”, whereas the data that indicate that 2006 has been a global (anywhere in the world) colder year were taken at 1000 meters above sea level, far from “heat islands”.

Comparing both sources of data to see its trustworthiness, the data obtained at 1000 meters above sea level are more reliable than the obtained on ground. It is worth to add that the data from globes agree with the data provided by satellites, which are the most precise figures, while the data from ground stations does not match with reality.

http://biocab.org/Global_Warming.html

[rawtribe]

8. 26 Climate Myths Debunked

http://climateprogress.org/2007/06/27/26-climate-myths-debunked/

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. You know what is ironic?

that is the conveyor belt and if GLOBAL WARMING happens too fast, enough water may melt and stop it... bringing a mini-ice age to Europe and the US

They were onto something, just not why back then

[bean fidhleir]

25. Lovelock says that won't happen, because the amount of heat needed to permanently stop the

Gulf Stream would balance the loss of the GS's heat, making Europe like the similar latitudes in Canada: no ice age.

[clu]

13. clip warning of CO2 and warming from 1950.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lgzz-L7GFg

in search of was cool, but i wouldn't get scientific opinion from star trek

[Blue_In_AK]

14. It seems like ice ages inevitably follow periods of global warming

plus there are all kinds of cosmic variables that we can't necessarily foresee. In the end, we are all at the mercy of nature's unpredictability.

[Hanse]

15. Err... yes.

And following the pattern, we had global warming thousands of years ago, and should now be about due for an ice age.

Assuming nothing artificial interrupts the natural cycle.

Man-made CO₂ for instance

[greenman3610]

23. actually if man were not a factor

the orbital mechanics would be causing a slight cooling trend now,
but no ice age for about 30,000 years. (per ipcc, paleoclimate - chapter 6)

[clu]

16. btw regarding your cites

i skimmed that biocab site and most credible scientific articles reference work from the past several years, not from the 1970s.

[greenman3610]

20. nonsense

The "Global Cooling in the 70s" is one of the most
easily debunked and intellectually lazy denial soundbites.
Sorry, poster, but this isn't even a nice try, it's just bullshit.

President Johnson's science advisory panel in 1965 -
“Man is unwittingly conducting a vast geophysical experiment....”, emissions by the year 2000 could be enough to cause “measurable and perhaps marked” climate change.

The article you post is a distortion of a distortion of an ambiguous
National Academy study published in 1975, of which I have a copy.
It states:
“The onset of (cooling)..could be several thousand years in the future, although there is a finite possibility that a serious worldwide cooling could befall the earth within the next 100 years.”
and then, 2 paragraphs later:
“A leading .... effect is the enrichment of the atmospheric CO2 content by the combustion of fossil fuels, ... Such effects may combine .... to offset a future natural cooling trend, or to enhance a natural warming.”

Jimmy Carter's Global 2000, a distillation of available environmental science in
1977:
“Another environmental problem related to the combustion of fossil fuels....is the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere. Rising CO2 concentrations are of concern because of their potential for causing a warming of the earth.
...a doubling of the CO2 content of the atmosphere could be expected after the middle of the next century; .....the result could be...,a 2 -3 C° rise in temperatures in the middle latitudes of the earth. Agriculture and other human endeavors would have agreat difficulty in adapting to such large, rapid changes in climate.”

The National Academy of Science "Charney Report", 1979,
a meta study of all available 1970s climate info:
"If Carbon dioxide continues to increase, the study group finds no reason to doubt that climate changes will result, and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible....A “wait and see policy may mean waiting until it is too late..”

What predictions existed about cooling in the 70s were based on the idea that atmospheric
particulates would continue to increase, blocking the sun. They
didn't increase, they decreased.
Moreover, early 70s concepts of the timing mechanism of the ice ages were not
as sophisticated as today. A key study published in 1976 made a strong case for the
current view, which is that ice ages are timed by changes in the orbital shape and
axial tilt of planet earth relative to the sun.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-1970s-science-said-about-global-cooling.html
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2008-02-20-global-cooling_N.htm

But Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends.

[stuntcat]

24. Please repost this in the E/E room!!!!!

please oh please????

[ColbertWatcher]

26. LOL! Why? Is it a slow day? n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

27. I was think the 9-11 forum would be the most appropriate place.

[ColbertWatcher]

28. I think the E/E people have alredy dealt with this and want something to play with! n/t