More on Global Warming & Arctic Ice

I've posted links here before, ice is growing, not shrinking, means no global warming.

 

Oh, donnA, haven't you been reading that the increase in Arctic ice is proof that global warming is getting worse? And all this cold wintry weather is just more proof. And that black really means white?

 

YES, it is the latest craze.

YES, there will be new crazies with new crazes in the future. You can take that to the bank.

NO, as long as there is political power and money to be gained it will be around for a long time like darwinizooooom.

We were taught of the impending new ICE AGE in the 1970's. Yes I said "ice age" not "global cooling". It is all Doom and Gloom. Now give them more $$$$$$ so they can continue to study!

 

I do believe I read that somewhere before.

Common sense has taken a a walk and hasn't come back.

 

Ed calls: 1970's ice age

RalphIII: // We were taught of the impending new ICE AGE in the 1970's. //

Strange, I don't remember it. 1970-May73 I was a school teacher in Pauls Valley - Math & Physica. June73-dec75 I was taking Electrical Engineering at the university of Oklahoma. Jan76-dec79 I was an Electrical Engineering Trainee. Strange, I don't remember people saying there was an Ice Age coming.

I did do an in-depth study of about how long it would take before we burned half the petroleum (oil) in the world. That looked like it hapen about AD 2000 back then.

I have yet in 2008-2009 to see any source MADE IN THE 1970s, by a reputable scientist or even technition WITH EVIDENCE that shows the world will cool off by 2012 say. I have seen some evidence that Mayan scholars thing the world may come to a grinding halt come 2012. But the Mayan calendar ending there seems to be due the technicians reaching the end of their rock

Maybe there is some confusion with the discussion about NUCLEAR WINTER -- exploding a lot of nuclear bombs over cities in the world would cause a lot of dust (laden with cancer causing stuff, like asbestos) to rise in the atmosphere causing a cooling called 'Nuclear Winter.' but even a nuclear winter should be cleardrd up in 3½ to 7 years.

 

You must have had your eyes closed all through the 70's. Truth is those involved in the arming hysteria are now working overtime to discredit the hysteria of the 70's. What you just posted is all over the internet right now. Looks like a whole lot of koolaid.

 

I was a kid in the 70's and even I heard about the impending doom of a new ice age.

 

I was in my 20's in the 70's, and I do remember hearing about a cooling trend, and that it might possibly lead to a new ice age. Seems like there was an article in Time or Newsweek or Life magazine, as I recollect.

 

It seems the climate change hystericals are working overtime to discredit the movement of the 70's. As Ed did they are all saying the cliams for the 70's about cooling was never made by anyone credible. Which is the same claim they are making about anyone who opposes their hysteria now.

 

Does anybody know how to research the archives? Every NewsWeek ever made is probably on-line somewhere. Note that in the 1970s i lived in Central Oklahoma. In Central Oklahoma we are sitting atop active oil fields. We like oil prices to GO UP. (more money circulating in the economy - trick down effect, more taxes for building roads, schools, Indian gambling casino parking lots, paved roads with curbs & gutters up to County Commissioners houses, bridges torn down by barges driven by drunks, etc.) I really think if 'Global Cooling Climate Change' was considered a real threat, I'd have been asked to donate (or like tends to happen more in America - forced to donate to a cause I don't support) to the relief of 'the problem'.

Alternatively, maybe i'm spending so much time aching with arthritis that I can't remember warth a darnma?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

// Although most studies focus on the period up to 2100, warming is expected to continue after 2100, even in the absence of new emissions, because of the large heat capacity of the oceans and the lifespan of CO2 in the atmosphere. //

I do know this, if we insist on burning the other half of the oil in the years 2012-2062 then we will leave the world without much oil and the average world temp will probably be about 6-degrees-C warmer than the past 50 years.

This is as a result of my own calculations i made in the 1970s. (only I though we would reach the ½-the-world's-oil would be burn off by 2000) Due to the efforts (fundamentalist Christians dragged their heels all way) to cut back some on oil usage.

BTW, this world is NOT my home, so I don't care if you do poop in it - ain't my house.

- Ed Edwards,
Ambassador General from Heaven,
Another off-world Ambassador for conservation of YA'LLs oil

 

This is an issue that really puzzles me. My college is "green" in many ways: urging recycling and the usage of dishware made out of corn somehow (?) and I've heard so much about the dire urgency of global warming. Then, from others, I hear it's either not as big as problem as its made out to be, or is just a hoax. Is there are scientific data available that I could read? I don't want to laugh off a serious problem, but I also don't want to be panicked about sometihng that isn't even a threat.

Guess I'll keep praying about it either way. :flower:

 

CORNingware?

 

It does not appear to be true.
The NSIDC (National Snow and Ice Data Center) Fall 2008 report (pdf) says artic ice levels reached the 2nd lowest levels since 1979 at 4.67 million square kilometers (1.80 million square miles). The previous lowest levels were recorded in 2007.

 

ah, yes...wikipedia, the paragon of official, unbiased information...

 

Any of you remember the Los Angeles smog problem 30 years ago? Was It solved because the Big Three auto makers voluntarily cleaned their exhaust emissions? Is the entire US worse off because of the EPA regulations? Any of you remember when a major river in Pennsylvania (?) caught on fire because of the pollution? Did the good Republican factory owners voluntarily clean up their act? Any of you good Republican Libertarians going to argue that we need more pollution from coal in order to combat global cooling? Bottom line, do we need a complicated reason to cut air and water pollution? Isn't clean air and water reason enough?

 

// Isn't clean air and water reason enough? //

Amen, Brother Billwald -- preach it! :thumbs:

Indeed clean air and clean water is enough reason.