Russian Expert Predicts Global Cooling from 2012

the_professor · Post by **the_professor** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 12:40 pm

Before you read this, be advised that corporate joe, the self-appointed all-knowing judge of what is or is not a valid source for global science, has not yet condemned my reference.

So I will add his condemnation myself (already heard ad-nauseum on this forum): "This scientist is probably employed by Exxon, as are all those people with dissenting opinions on global warming."

http://www.mosnews.com/news/2006/02/06/globalcold.shtml

North Shore · Post by **North Shore** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 2:08 pm

Peer-reviewed study? Corroborating evidence? Area of academic expertise? Until then, I'm with Al, Corporate joe, and the ~95% of climatologists who disagree with Ivan....

the_professor · Post by **the_professor** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 2:34 pm

North Shore wrote:Peer-reviewed study? Corroborating evidence? Area of academic expertise? Until then, I'm with Al, Corporate joe, and the ~95% of climatologists who disagree with Ivan....

lemmings.com

Idriveplane · Post by **Idriveplane** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 3:27 pm

Great Scott! Are we going back in time to the 70's again? Climate forcasting is a joke, we can't even figure out tomorrow's weather with accuracy, let alone the next 50-100 yrs.

Walker · Post by **Walker** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 4:04 pm

So.... Ahhhhhh Professor.... whats your PhD in again?

the_professor · Post by **the_professor** » Sun Mar 11, 2007 11:15 am

Walker wrote:So.... Ahhhhhh Professor.... whats your PhD in again?

I am a student of reality, and not scientific data that has been skewed in order to give the scientists, media, and politicians free rein to fearmonger about the Next Big Crisis.

There always has to be a looming crisis to distract the population.

Just as the terrorism card starts to lose its shine, we magically discover the Next Big Crisis is global warming. Or is it global cooling? In that case it depends on which decade and which distraction you choose to focus on, I guess.

Falken · Post by **Falken** » Sun Mar 11, 2007 11:43 am

Anyone really interested in the subject should read 'State of Fear' by Michael Crichton (author of Jurassic Park, Timeline, etc.).

The book is really excellently researched (and all facts are sited, just like a paper) and will put anyones fears to rest about global warming. I started reading as a firm believer in what I was hearing in the media, and finished with a much more open mind. The storyline and characters are ficticious, but the book is firmly based on fact.

I wouldnt be suprised if it turned into a movie sometime soon with all this hype over global warming.

Walker · Post by **Walker** » Sun Mar 11, 2007 12:16 pm

student of reality, Gotchya……

ANYWHO……..

Yes Crichton, all cited and such WOW really? Just like dem der Edjmacatered Dhoc-tors! so excellently researched that the guy he based a his numbers on wrote this: http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/antarctic_cooling.html

The great and almighty SciFi author, who could dare question such a man!
LoL yes sorry I find it rather funny, just to clarify something to people out there who never did the uni thing, its not all about citing your research. Proper scientific/medical/engineering etc… papers are of course cited BUT they are also peer reviewed, meaning a panel of peers must examine the paper and conclude if its trollop or not. Then if it passes it can be used in other peoples work as citations. IE you cant cite a wikipedia article or some paper coming out of a lobby group.

the_professor · Post by **the_professor** » Sun Mar 11, 2007 12:27 pm

Canadian Tim Ball, PhD and climatologist, one time climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg is one of the lone voices of reason in this debate. He is not a nut. Google his name and you'll see a lot of info. In this article he discusses how dissenting opinions cause the marginalization of those expressing them. He details the behaviour in his field that is also mirrored by many of those on this forum.

I will be posting many more of his irrefutable points.

"I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.

Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling."

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/glo ... 020507.htm

the_professor · Post by **the_professor** » Sun Mar 11, 2007 12:33 pm

Tim Ball in an interview with the Frontier Centre:

FC: How advanced is our ability to understand weather patterns at all, least of all to predict changes in them? Do we have the tools to model climates?

TB: We don’t have the tools. If you look at Environment Canada’s website right now they do 0–3 months, 3–6 months forecasts. Click up any of their own analyses of their previous forecasts using computer models for a smaller area and you will see that in 90% of the country they are less than 50% accurate. In other words, it is less than chance, yet these are the same people who quite blindly with a computer model tell you that it is going to be warmer a hundred years from now. The fact is that the computer models don’t work. The fact is that we don’t understand even a fraction of the mechanisms of climate and so for anybody to tell you that they can forecast climate is wrong. In fact, one of the hopes for the forecasters and all of these people, is that chaos theory is right and climate really isn’t predictable at all.

http://www.fcpp.org/main/publication_de ... ?PubID=864

Walker · Post by **Walker** » Sun Mar 11, 2007 12:52 pm

Dude…. He heads NRSP what the hell do you expect???

the_professor · Post by **the_professor** » Sun Mar 11, 2007 1:01 pm

Walker wrote:Dude…. He heads NRSP what the hell do you expect???

What's your point?

Falken · Post by **Falken** » Sun Mar 11, 2007 1:17 pm

Walker wrote: Yes Crichton, all cited and such WOW really? Just like dem der Edjmacatered Dhoc-tors! so excellently researched that the guy he based a his numbers on wrote this: http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/antarctic_cooling.html

The great and almighty SciFi author, who could dare question such a man!
LoL yes sorry I find it rather funny, just to clarify something to people out there who never did the uni thing, its not all about citing your research. Proper scientific/medical/engineering etc… papers are of course cited BUT they are also peer reviewed, meaning a panel of peers must examine the paper and conclude if its trollop or not. Then if it passes it can be used in other peoples work as citations. IE you cant cite a wikipedia article or some paper coming out of a lobby group.

Haha.. well first of all, I would say that while I didn't bother to follow up on his research and check all of his sources (none of which are from the internet.. besides the NASA ones), I would imagine that its highly unlikely that hes completely lying about them. The fact that such sources exist, only prove that nobody really knows whats going on. If you've got 100 people saying yes and 100 people saying no, and they're all respected scientists, then who do you believe?

FYI, I did the "uni thing", I am an engineer.. and I have a little bit of knowledge about / experience with real research. So, no, I didnt check that all of his sources were peer reviewed, etc... and no, I didnt pour over the books to justify this... but then, I wasnt trying to prove my point to a panel of climatologists... simply recommending a book for those interested in the subject matter. I'll admit I said it was well researched. By the standards for fiction books, I would say that it is.

I admit that I said it would put 'anyones' fears to rest, which is probably an overstatement. However, I would say that it will definately bring into question the validity of other opinions.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Sun Mar 11, 2007 1:47 pm

Global Warming has become a religon with preachers like the Revernd Al Gore, they even have a tithing scam just like some churches,,,,buy carbon credits.

Amazing the gullibility of the average person in society.

Driving Rain · Post by **Driving Rain** » Sun Mar 11, 2007 2:22 pm

Cat Driver

buy carbon credits.

So I take it you won't be buying any? Too bad because I'm selling the ones I just printed on my inkjet cheaper than anyone else out there. Sutable for framing. When you think about it it's an even better gig than prostitution. It's not regulated, no chance of catching a nasty desease or having to get in bed with a client.

How I do it is, I count the trees I didn't allow to burn over the last 27 years and offer them to my client group. All strictly legit you understand.

http://www.grapheine.com/bombaytv/index ... c4c482c361

Walker · Post by **Walker** » Sun Mar 11, 2007 4:38 pm

As a point of interest look at SO2 credits in the US...

grimey · Post by **grimey** » Sun Mar 11, 2007 4:58 pm

the_professor wrote:in 90% of the country they are less than 50% accurate. In other words, it is less than chance, yet these are the same people who quite blindly with a computer model tell you that it is going to be warmer a hundred years from now. The fact is that the computer models don’t work.

Someone doesn't understand what the @#$! he's talking about with respect to chance. Weather forcasts arn't right or wrong, they accurate to a certain degree, and that accuracy goes down over time. If I'm making general guesses at 2 aspects of weather (termperature less than or greater than average, precipitation above or below average), I have a 25% percent chance of being right, not a 50 percent chance. Environment Canada's accuracy, on all long term forcasts, is significantly better than that.

I'm not arguing one way other the other about whether humans cause global warming. It has been observed steadily over the last 100 years, however. And this guy is talking out of his ass in this case.

grimey · Post by **grimey** » Sun Mar 11, 2007 5:00 pm

Falken wrote: I'll admit I said it was well researched. By the standards for fiction books, I would say that it is.

That's awesome.

grimey · Post by **grimey** » Sun Mar 11, 2007 5:16 pm

FC: Could you summarize the evidence that suggests the world is cooling slightly, not warming up?

TB: Yes, since 1940 and from 1940 until 1980, even the surface record shows cooling. The argument is that there has been warming since then but, in fact, almost all of that is due to what is called the “urban heat island” effect – that is, that the weather stations are around the edge of cities and the cities expanded out and distorted the record. When you look at rural stations – if you look at the Antarctic, for example – the South Pole shows cooling since 1957 and the satellite data which has been up since 1978 shows a slight cooling trend as well.

Translation: The world is cooling if you ignore the places that arn't.

Yea, antarctica may show a cooling trend. The arctic show the exact opposite. The northern polar ice cap has been shrinking consistently for decades.

If someone is only willing to look at evidence which supports their cause, their opinion isn't worth trusting.

grimey · Post by **grimey** » Sun Mar 11, 2007 5:50 pm

Oh, and Tim Ball lies about his credentials:

http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.de ... efence.pdf

He was never a Climatology Professor at the University of Winnipeg. He didn't get a doctorate in Climatology, he got a doctorate in Geography, based on a thesis examining the climate in 18th and 19th century North America.

corporate joe · Post by **corporate joe** » Sun Mar 11, 2007 7:46 pm

I am truly happy to see that the majority of people in these forums have a great dose of common sense, education and rational. There are excellent points brought that show more than a simplified “understanding” of the situation, and a true desire for knowledge and debate.
Others however, show the same simplistic ignorance through a panoply of subjects. It’s always the same thing; uneducated guesses, simplification and categorization. Facts are non-existent or just regurgitated vulgarized prejudices. The unfortunate thing with that, is that these members have a tendency to speak louder and more often on subjects they know nothing about, when compared to the others who possess common sense, an education and a rational mind. The same way little annoying dogs feel the need to bark louder to compensate for their size, these people feel the need to share their opinions and state them as facts. For some reason, these people believe that the more they opinionate the smarter they look and feel. My guess is they feel the need to compensate the lack of quality arguments with a large quantity of ignorant statements.
But the worst part is that someone reading these forums once in a while could actually think that these members’ ignorance coupled with their simplified reality represent the majority of the people on these forums.
The reality is that the stench that comes from such ignorance is enough to keep most sensible members away from even wasting time debating with these people. Others, like myself for example, feel it is necessary to balance idiocy with a modest attempt at bringing some sort of intelligence back into the verbal vomit that plagues certain topics on this part of the forums (always from the same posters). I guess it’s the price to pay for freedom of expression, and I think we all agree we are willing to pay it. Unfortunately it sometimes means getting dirty in the process, but what the heck, for certain serious subjects it’s worth it (imho). Sometimes it’s necessary to speak louder than ignorance even though in the end you can’t educate someone who does not want to (or can’t) be educated.
I am just relieved to see that other members also have the desire to put some rational back into a shallow post devoid of any credible substance (mirror image of the poster?) while at the same time allowing us to learn new and interesting facts in the process.

the_professor · Post by **the_professor** » Sun Mar 11, 2007 8:59 pm

grimey wrote:
the_professor wrote:in 90% of the country they are less than 50% accurate. In other words, it is less than chance, yet these are the same people who quite blindly with a computer model tell you that it is going to be warmer a hundred years from now. The fact is that the computer models don’t work.
If I'm making general guesses at 2 aspects of weather (termperature less than or greater than average, precipitation above or below average), I have a 25% percent chance of being right, not a 50 percent chance. Environment Canada's accuracy, on all long term forcasts, is significantly better than that.

I think Ball was referring to temperature forecasts, since the topic is whether the earth is warming or cooling. And EC is wrong a horrendous percentage of the time if you're talking about anything farther ahead than a couple of days. And, as Ball states, their performance is worse when longer timeframes are considered.

the_professor · Post by **the_professor** » Sun Mar 11, 2007 9:04 pm

grimey wrote:Oh, and Tim Ball lies about his credentials:

http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.de ... efence.pdf

He was never a Climatology Professor at the University of Winnipeg. He didn't get a doctorate in Climatology, he got a doctorate in Geography, based on a thesis examining the climate in 18th and 19th century North America.

grimey, you are full of sh*t. I attended U of W while Ball was still a professor there.

the_professor · Post by **the_professor** » Sun Mar 11, 2007 9:07 pm

Once again, a well-known source is cited in Ball, but because he presents a dissenting opinion he is automatically discredited by corporate joe, who then paints all dissenters as being "ignorant", lacking education, etc, etc.

joe, why don't you move to China or Iran? Your attitude towards dissent would fit in very well with their culture.

To the rest of you who may not be as closed-minded, do yourself a favour and read what is being said on the other side. Unless of course you are happy being spoon-fed whatever happens to be the politically correct flavour of the month, in which case you should only listen to joe and his infalliable legion of copycat scientists.

goates · Post by **goates** » Sun Mar 11, 2007 10:06 pm

professor,

I found a video you might be interested in.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... ndle&hl=en

Haven't finished watching it myself yet though.