Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Russian scientist predicts global cooling

thank you for the link

Who is to say?
Half the life forms on Earth will be recycled in the time frame they discuss. I have always held the view the the Russians were a very innovative race of people worthy of careful study and observation. I like their unmaned space shuttle going back and forth by itself.
jjw

There isn't enough at that link to know whether he is taken seriously or considered a crackpot. So I went to google and looked up references to his work.

I couldn't find a single serious item that referenced him. So short of a trip to the library and a purusal of the citation index no judgement on what he says can be made.

That might be true if he were the only one saying it. He's not. one of the links i found before has said the same thing. That is, there is a good change that with the drop off of solar activity that is expected, we could be looking at a little ice age again.

Uncle Al has been quoting this stuff recently (without citing where he gets the informaion).

well this kind of tells you how much oil the area has to offer...

I expect theres a little oil company funding behind this guys work.

• LOL
• LOL
• LOL

I suppose they will have their air conditioning system up in running in their underground shelters in a few yesrs is what they mean by this...

actually, the work does not come from the oil companies, it comes from nasa. The one problem with the knowledge that solar flares have a lot to do with global warming/cooling is that no one has been able to explain the exact method by which the flares are effecting the global temperature. there is proof that there is a connection, but since no one has been able to explain how it happens, the global warming alarmist have been able to disregaurd it as "unproven". during the middle ages the solar activity was higher than it is now, and the temperature was higher. during the 1400's to 1800's the solar activity reach an almost nonexistant state, during which we had a "little ice age". Yet global alarmist denigh that this actually took place. They site the tree rings of washington state (an area that would have more moderate temperature than the majority of the word anyway) as proof that neither of these existed, despite evidence of them in other places of the world. Go to almost any place in the world and you can find evidence of these two climate changes but that evidence was discarded as unreliable by the IPCC. Instead they relied on tree rings that dont show temperature, but rather growing conditions as proof positive that the higher temperature of the middle ages and the cooler ones of little ice age, did not exist.

the theory that there will be a temperature drop is based on the:
1) there has already been a drop in temperature since 2001

2) the solar activity has dropped since 2001 and is expected to continue to drop until the middle of the century.

what i would like to know is why the people that do the weather models showing global warming, dont take into account the solar flare cycle.

dehammer wrote:
"actually, the work does not come from the oil companies, it comes from nasa."

then dehammer wrote:

"the theory that there will be a temperature drop is based on the:
1) there has already been a drop in temperature since 2001"

Go to:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

It is a NASA web site.

Scroll down to the graph titled:

Annual Mean Temperature Change for Hemispheres

Note the date last modified is May 8, 2006.

Click on the graph which will take you to:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A3_lrg.gif

Show me where the temperature has dropped since 2001.

You've really go to stop making this stuff up dehammer. It is getting embarrasingly easy to catch you making claims that just aren't valid.

And just to make sure you understand this here is NASA's 2005 report.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/

And then there are these:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2005/ann/global-blended-temp-pg.gif
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2005/ann/global.html#Gtemp

There are hundreds, nay thousands, of links easily found that establish your statement as incorrect. Go to google and type in:
"global temperature" and "2006"

Please stop trying to bluff on science.

funny , we are at this moment in an 11 year cycle where solar activity is expected to be 80% greater than the previous cycle.

perhaps you are mistaken or your parasites have led you to believe something wrong.

or perhaps I have traveled into a paralelle universe where pollution is not present , we are not at war for the remaning amounts of oil , and
scientist tell the truth about science not only what they are paid to tell. A GOOGLE SEARCH FOR 11 YEAR SOLAR CYCLE

no we are just past the middle of the cycle. look at your chart. the peak would have happen in 2001, which means we are in the dropping part, not the increaseing part. there is also an 88 year cycle, that we are in the declining part, which i believe (i cant recall which site i read it on) that it peaked in the mid to late 1990's that means it will continue to drop for the next few decades. then there is the 1000 plus year cycle. i dont have any idea where we are in that. add them up and we are going to have a considerably less amount of solar activity in the next few decades esp in the middle of this century.

Few people have ever said that polution is not doing anything. what a lot of people have said, which global alarmist dont want you to hear, is that there is a lot of things happening with the temperature that have nothing to do with polution. things like those we cant do a thing about. In 50 years, its possible that our children will be happy that we warmed the earth up so much before they were born.

What's important is total solar irradiance, which hasn't fluctuated enough to significantly impact global climate within the current interglacial. The article referenced at the top of the thread is essentially useless because if offers no detail as to how this conclusion was arrived at/how this major drop in TSI is being predicted. So far, this looks to be right up there with the claim that the Tunguska event caused the global warming of recent decades, reported on this site without any comment from mainstream climatologists .

yea, right, the solar flare has nothing to do with it? why was the tsi the same during the little ice age and the global warming of the middle ages and the current one. the solar flare events were considerably higher during the last global warming, even though the tsi was nearly the same. the tsi has only be going up a tiny bit for several thousands of years. how does that have anything to do with climate changes in other time periods.

da, please explain why that site only used ground temperature readings, not satilites. perhaps because the satilite readings did not match? also please explain why the temperatures have to be constantly adjusted, not just the current one, but past ones as well.

you almost won. i almost got too tired of the insults and left. but im not going to let you get away this time.

if you give a link, no matter if it backs you up or goes against your side of the arguement, you claim it proves your point. but let some else come up with a site, you first say its not worth reading, then you claim any thing taken from that site is made up by the poster. If you dont accept the links we give then dont even bother posting about their content.

Please look at the following:

First here is what you posted at posted August 27, 2006 12:38 PM
"there has already been a drop in temperature since 2001"

and it is what I addressed by showing it was not true.

Here is your next response:

"the solar activity has dropped since 2001 and is expected to continue to drop until the middle of the century."

I didn't dispute that point. I didn't argue that point at all. Didn't you, or couldn't you, notice that I responded to your Point #1 and you went charging off about Point #2?

Dehammer, dan:
Let's cut the insults. If you can't play nice I'll start deleting instead of editing.

Amaranth
Moderator

I appreciate your opinion here Rose but I am not trying to insult dehammer. And I am not the only person who has pointed out to dehammer that there is an obvious problem with cognition.

He clearly doesn't understand what he is reading and suggesting he see his family physician is intended as sound advise.

If I wanted to insult him I am more than capable of doing so in wholly unmistakeable terms.

da, you did not argue that but al did. that was where i was going with that part. not everything is addressed to your comments. the part i addressed to your comment was that they choose to use only land based urban sites, knowing that the surroundings would raise the temperature. they did claim they adjusted it for it, but how do they know they adjusted it enough? simple, when they had adjusted it just right, it matched their model.

explain this. why do they need to adjust the temperature from earlier readings?

how could you not intend it as an insult when i give you links to where i find things, then you say they are not worth reading. then later, you claim i made it up. that is insulting. very insulting. IF you are not intending it as in insult, please stop doing it.

dehammer: What do you mean by the "last global warming"?

The latest research indicates the little ice age and the medieval warm period weren't globally synchronous events, and were likely heavily influenced by oceanic circulation. Solar flares may produce a brief burst of energy, but how much have they really contributed to average insolation over the last few decades? Not enough to explain most of the warming trend, it would seem. And as I noted on another thread, the satellite temperature record is adjusted for bias from stratospheric cooling, an effect consistent with the amplified greenhouse effect.

Regarding your comment that it's "possible" future generations will appreciate our warming of the planet, your're assuming there will indeed be a major decrease in solar energy - something that seems far from substantiated. Meanwhile, the risks associated with a disruption of the carbon cycle during a long interglacial are great.

Besides, if we were to see a significant and clearly long-term trend of declining insolation, we could relatively easily step up our CO2 emissions in an attempt to avoid a big freeze. Contrast that with trying to put the CO2 genie, and it's feedbacks (including methane outgassing), back in the bottle.

Oh, and "weather models" aren't used in climate study and projection (see the first section after the intro here ), and climate models do indeed factor in total insolation, which includes any input from flares.