the coming ice age

[xort]

From Investors Business Daily...

On July 9, 1971, the Post published a story headlined "U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming." It told of a prediction by NASA and Columbia University scientist S.I. Rasool. The culprit: man's use of fossil fuels.

The Post reported that Rasool, writing in Science, argued that in "the next 50 years" fine dust that humans discharge into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel will screen out so much of the sun's rays that the Earth's average temperature could fall by six degrees.

Sustained emissions over five to 10 years, Rasool claimed, "could be sufficient to trigger an ice age."

Aiding Rasool's research, the Post reported, was a "computer program developed by Dr. James Hansen," who was, according to his resume, a Columbia University research associate at the time.

So what about those greenhouse gases that man pumps into the skies? Weren't they worried about them causing a greenhouse effect that would heat the planet, as Hansen, Al Gore and a host of others so fervently believe today?

"They found no need to worry about the carbon dioxide fuel-burning puts in the atmosphere," the Post said in the story, which was spotted last week by Washington resident John Lockwood, who was doing research at the Library of Congress and alerted the Washington Times to his finding.

Hansen has some explaining to do. The public deserves to know how he was converted from an apparent believer in a coming ice age who had no worries about greenhouse gas emissions to a global warming fear monger.

This is a man, as Lockwood noted in his message to the Times' John McCaslin, who has called those skeptical of his global warming theory "court jesters." We wonder: What choice words did he have for those who were skeptical of the ice age theory in 1971?

People can change their positions based on new information or by taking a closer or more open-minded look at what is already known. There's nothing wrong with a reversal or modification of views as long as it is arrived at honestly.

But what about political hypocrisy? It's clear that Hansen is as much a political animal as he is a scientist. Did he switch from one approaching cataclysm to another because he thought it would be easier to sell to the public? Was it a career advancement move or an honest change of heart on science, based on empirical evidence?

If Hansen wants to change positions again, the time is now. With NASA having recently revised historical temperature data that Hansen himself compiled, the door has been opened for him to embrace the ice age projections of the early 1970s.

[retclt]

I'm all for global cooling. Six degrees would be fine for me, especially if we could get the whole six in Texas.

I was on the way to a full blown ulcer listening to all the crap spewing from all quarters of the media. When NASA got on board the Global Warming bandwagon (about funding time for them) I thought, that’s it, all hope lost. We tell the kids not to believe anything (I used to say everything) they hear. Columbia University, isn't that where Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will be guest of honor this week? Hmmmmmmmm . . . I'll be sure to believe what comes out of there.

[camaraderie]

...and lets convert to biofuels and raise food prices around the world too!
**************
Britain's Times reported Saturday :

Rapeseed and maize (CORN) biodiesels were calculated to produce up to 70 per cent and 50 per cent more greenhouse gases respectively than fossil fuels. The concerns were raised over the levels of emissions of nitrous oxide, which is 296 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Scientists found that the use of biofuels released twice as much as nitrous oxide as previously realised. The research team found that 3 to 5 per cent of the nitrogen in fertiliser was converted and emitted. In contrast, the figure used by the International Panel on Climate Change, which assesses the extent and impact of man-made global warming, was 2 per cent. The findings illustrated the importance, the researchers said, of ensuring that measures designed to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions are assessed thoroughly before being hailed as a solution.

Maybe they just might wanna re-think the whole thing!

[sailingdog]

Don't forget that NOx contributes to global warming and acid rain... not a good choice IMHO, since Nitric acid is far stronger and more destructive than carbonic acid...

[PBzeer]

Let's see now ..... evolution is suppose to be fact, which involves adaptation, so ....... why are we to think that the earth doesn't adapt?

Currently at 38 58 36 N 76 29 07 W, Annapolis City Docks, MD

[tdw]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

Let's see now ..... evolution is suppose to be fact, which involves adaptation, so ....... why are we to think that the earth doesn't adapt?

Currently at 38 58 36 N 76 29 07 W, Annapolis City Docks, MD

It does. Ergo polar icecaps melting , sea levels rising, species extinction.

One of these days might even spit us out .

If it had any sense that is.

Sometimes I wonder if there is a single solitary thing that homo sapiens has ever done that was to the benefit of the planet as a whole .

Any suggestions ?

[camaraderie]

polar icecaps melting , sea levels rising

Dear Wombat...not to argue with your overall sentiments..BUT....

If all of the ice on the North Pole goes away, the sea levels will not rise....just as your drink does not spill over as the ice cubes melt.
If the ANTARCTIC decided to melt, that WOULD be a problem since that is ice on top of land. Fortunately that land based ice is GAINING mass and the sea ice in the Antarctic is growing as well.

As to real pollution, saving rain forests etc....we are on the same side. I just don't like junk science and $$ grab scams.

[Valiente]

Originally Posted by camaraderie

polar icecaps melting , sea levels rising

Dear Wombat...not to argue with your overall sentiments..BUT....

If all of the ice on the North Pole goes away, the sea levels will not rise....just as your drink does not spill over as the ice cubes melt.
If the ANTARCTIC decided to melt, that WOULD be a problem since that is ice on top of land. Fortunately that land based ice is GAINING mass and the sea ice in the Antarctic is growing as well.

As to real pollution, saving rain forests etc....we are on the same side. I just don't like junk science and $$ grab scams.

Technically, you are correct about the North Pole. But Greenland (actually two large islands) is glaciated about a mile deep, and that, too, is melting rather rapidly. The contra-instinctual result of sending all that fresh water down the Davis Strait into the Labrador Current could mean a real change in the North Atlantic's salinity and the good possibility that the Gulf Stream might divert, stall or do something else that won't be pleasant.

If that happens, much of Northern Europe will realize it's north of 45 N and will not only continue to have blistering summers, but freezing winters, for which they are NOT prepared. Much of Britain's plumbing, for instance, is on the OUTSIDE of houses. If northern France started to have the climate of mid-Norway, it would get ugly fast.

Global warming is one of the poorest monikers ever, because it implies an increase in total warmth. The increase in heat energy in the atmosphere simply increases the potential for chaotic weather which could come in the form of cold when we don't expect or want it, heat the same, and precipitation that is out of step with out crop schedules and hybridization histories.

Today in Toronto, it is 31 C (about 88F) breaking the previous record from the '60s by 3 degrees. It's September 25. We've had about 1/3 the expected rain this summer, on top of the heat and our farmlands are officially in drought conditions. Lake Superior is down two feet, the other lakes are varying.

It's getting a bit beyond "the weather isn't what it used to be". The weather is different every year, and is no longer "average" very much.

This is the real threat, and while we can bicker about the causes and the solutions, there is no arguing with the empty larders poor food harvests produce.

[sailingdog]

Yes, the fresh water may stop the North Atlantic's ability to pump heat from the Caribbean to Northern Europe, since it could possibly stall the Gulf Stream or kill it completely. France, Great Britain, Iceland and thre rest of Northern Europe would be in for a really rude awakening. Not only would a lot of the pipes freeze, their heating bills would skyrocket.

Originally Posted by Valiente

Technically, you are correct about the North Pole. But Greenland (actually two large islands) is glaciated about a mile deep, and that, too, is melting rather rapidly. The contra-instinctual result of sending all that fresh water down the Davis Strait into the Labrador Current could mean a real change in the North Atlantic's salinity and the good possibility that the Gulf Stream might divert, stall or do something else that won't be pleasant.

If that happens, much of Northern Europe will realize it's north of 45 N and will not only continue to have blistering summers, but freezing winters, for which they are NOT prepared. Much of Britain's plumbing, for instance, is on the OUTSIDE of houses. If northern France started to have the climate of mid-Norway, it would get ugly fast.

Global warming is one of the poorest monikers ever, because it implies an increase in total warmth. The increase in heat energy in the atmosphere simply increases the potential for chaotic weather which could come in the form of cold when we don't expect or want it, heat the same, and precipitation that is out of step with out crop schedules and hybridization histories.

Today in Toronto, it is 31 C (about 88F) breaking the previous record from the '60s by 3 degrees. It's September 25. We've had about 1/3 the expected rain this summer, on top of the heat and our farmlands are officially in drought conditions. Lake Superior is down two feet, the other lakes are varying.

It's getting a bit beyond "the weather isn't what it used to be". The weather is different every year, and is no longer "average" very much.

This is the real threat, and while we can bicker about the causes and the solutions, there is no arguing with the empty larders poor food harvests produce.

[tdw]

Cam - I wasn't necessarily equating ice caps melting with rising sea levels and/or species extinction although to a large extent they do go together.

The reality is that sea levels are rising. This is going to cause extinctions and the destruction of habitat. The Great Barrier Reef is a good example. Coral can exist within a very limited tidal range. Expose it permanently to sunlight, reduce water clarity or increase overal sea level and it will die, taking with it all those marine organisms that rely on the reef for habitat.

The reality is that the Polar Ice Caps are melting. Take away the ice caps and you take away untold species. Polar Bears and Penguins being only two examples. Concerns are also being expressed about the reduction in the amount of krill in the polar seas and the effect this may have on the species that rely on that krill to survive. Example, take away the krill and you take away the clams, take away the clams and it's tata walrus. Penguin populations in the Antarctic are showing a drastic fall in numbers and Polar Bear size is shrinking. Whether this is caused by climate change, overfishing or a combination of both is unknown, yes, but does it really matter ?

Sadly it has taken until the shiny suit brigade could figure out how to make a quick buck out of it for climate change to be taken seriously in some quarters but it is real. It is happening. Its not going away.

I'm not a scientist. I cannot debate the science of climate change. ultimately I have to rely on those who do understand the science and trust in their judgement or not as the case may be and when someone of the standing of Tim Flannery, 2006 Australian of the Year, and a man of immense knowledge when it comes to the science of weather, climate change and sustainability expresses his concern , I for one am happy to believe him. http://www.theweathermakers.com/about/

Only today the Australian government has been forced to the unhappy conclusion that large tracts of land in , particularly, western NSW can no longer be considered suitable for farming after nearly ten years of virtually unbroken drought. The government is paying farmers to walk off their land.
Now the way I figure it, their are certain things we all do that cannot be considered good for the planet as a whole. Oh, they may well have been harmless when the population of this planet was half what it is today but surely no one can believe that if we continue to increase the amount of garbage we pump out each day that the planet will remain healthy.

Its estimated that the worlds population will exceed nine billion by the middle of this century. That alone requires that we adjust our way of living and if the worlds population continues to increase at that rate christ only knows what will happen if per capita pollution levels are not reduced. Its not just life that matters you know, its quality of life.

So call it whatever you like, even those in near total denial must surely be able to see that something is going on and something has to be done about it. OK, so the causes are not certain, OK so we don't know that reducing pollution is the answer but what in heavens name is wrong with trying to keep the air clean, the seas alive, the land productive ? If the cost of that is a reduction in the size of the engine in my car then I for one don't give a toss. If it means that the cost of running a multi engined stink boat goes through the roof, I'll not lose any sleep over it. If it means that I wear a cardigan inside my home because the heating has been turned down, big deal. If I have to keep all the doors and windows open in summer rather than pay a fortune for airconditioning , ho hum. I'll still be able to crack open a good bottle of wine, eat a piece of meat that has some flavour left in it, have fish that is naturally fit with nice firm flesh rather than that mushy crap that comes from most farmed fish and watch the world go by at 5 knots. Oh the sacrifices , how on earth will I cope.

There comes a time when you have to weigh up what evidence is available and take some action. Carping criticism achieves nowt. Denial simply for the sake of disagreeing with the great unwashed is not going to get us anywhere.


(this was not a dig at you Cam. Only the first line was an attempt to clarify my previous post. )