How can you believe in Global Warming, but not Global Cooling?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Scorpio Wild Card
  • Start date Start date
S

Scorpio Wild Card

Guest
I have noticed most people who believe in GW, they don't believe in Global Cooling, wouldn't it be wise to believe in both...
It wouldn't make sense to be believe in only one.
It would be like saying, "Oh there's a Sun, but no Moon!"
I, Myself believe the Earth will start cooling.
 
It has happened before so therefore I believe in global cooling? I also know global cooling isn't happening right now and I know you have no proof that it is.
 
Actually, the correct term is Climate Change.
And you're right, some parts of the earth cool down, and others warm up.
 
of course we believe in global cooling.
that's happened many times in the past.
it's just not what's happening at the moment.

there are many things that cause warming and cooling.
extraordinary volcanic eruptions, like Mt Pinatubo have effects that last a year or 2.
Pacific Decadal Oscillation (el nino / la nina) can have effects that last 1-2-5, sometimes a few more years.
the 11 year solar cycle has some effect.
there are other, longer, effects, that have cycles in the thousands, or tens of thousands of years.

however, the CO2 that has been released into the atmosphere, and possibly the methane released from intensive cattle raising, are causing rising temperatures at the moment.

now, my ego is not such that i'm prepared to tell folks that i know more about climate than the majority of the scientific community.
many other folks apparently don't suffer from that same shortcoming.
the majority of the scientific community is clearly stating that AGW is a problem.

NAS, NOAA, NSF, NASA, EPA, MIT, UCLA all agree. AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) is a serious problem.

http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer

"May 19, 2008: The National Academies have released the 2008 edition of "Understanding and Responding to Climate Change," a free booklet designed to give the public a comprehensive and easy-to-read analysis of findings and recommendations from our reports on climate change."

http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate_change_2008_final.pdf <== here's a good description.
http://www.funnyweather.org/ <== this is a more lighthearted link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect <== and one with too much detail.
http://www.sciencefriday.com/videos/watch/10125 <== Michael Oppenheimer, a member of the Nobel Peace Prize-winning Intergovernmental Committee on Climate Change and professor at Princeton

http://www.lenntech.com/greenhouse-effect/global-warming-history.htm <== btw this is not a new idea.

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/home.html
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/perspectives.html

http://www.exploratorium.edu/climate/ <== not regulated by the government.
 
We cannot be certain because atmosphere-ocean system is a chaotic system.

See :
http://sansteknologi.blogspot.com/
 
Scorpio, you know that's a ridiculous question.

But it is an topic of interest to me so I'll treat you to my professional opinion. I think that multiple inputs to the climate system operate at different frequencies. For the last 10,000 years, we've been in a warm period (Holocene) that combined with the preceding Pleistocene and its 4 major glaciation episodes together make up the Quaternay Period - the last 2,000,000 or so years of the earth's geologic history.

I'll spare you the grizzly details, but I see something like the following: 1. There is a lower frequency input of major cooling-warming episodes that is a function of solar energy and variability in the earth's big physical properties (e.g., tilt and wobble along the north-south axis).

2. There is (are) higer frequency (shorter cycles) signals driven by variability in atmospheric physics and physical geography. These lay on top of the low frequency input and although distinct from it, their variability is also partially a product of variablility in the more powerful low frequency input.

(Just picture 2 overlapping sine waves with different frequency-space domains.)

And, from that I'll leave it to your imagination to see how there can be simulataneous global warming and cooling cycles operating at multiple frequencies that can mainifest themselves at any particular moment in time differently depending on where each is in its own cycle and where the secondary signal lies relative to the other.

Hypotheically, then, global cooling may be the thing that saves us from global warming.
 
It's not the belief in the temperature.

It's the belief that human beings are having an evil effect on the planet.

Especially if what they do involves hurting trees, or supporting unfavored companies, such as oil companies, coal companies, or any technology that is out of favor with "green" thinking.

Look at the issue in that context and it will suddenly make sense to you why they think what they do.
 
Back
Top