Home > Global Cooling, Global Warming, News > Global Warming to Global Cooling?

Global Warming to Global Cooling?

Last year, I had posted asking whether we were switching from global warming to global cooling. My post is here

Check out the first part of FoxNews Special Report with Brit Hume’s 4 January 2008 Political Grapevine segment:

The Heat Is Off

A researcher at Russia’s oceanology institute says global warming has peaked — and the planet is now headed for a cooling period that will last through the end of the century.

Oleg Sorokhtin is a fellow of the Russian academy of natural sciences. He writes in an article for the Russian news and information agency that a cold spell will set in by 2012. H believes an even colder period will begin as solar activity reaches a minimum in 2041 — and that it will last 50 to 60 years.

Sorokhtin says warming and cooling are entirely natural processes — independent of human activity. He says the current warming trend is due to changes in things like solar activity, ocean currents, and salinity fluctuations in Arctic waters.

Meanwhile, British weather experts say 2008 will be the coolest year since 2000 because of a drop in sea surface temperatures off the western coast of South America — known as La Nina. But they say this year will still be one of the 10 hottest years on record.

Trusting this scientist and probably others later in this new year, I may be right that the pendulum has shifted from warming to cooling, even though weather experts think it will be a hot year.  But, when have they be right in predicting the 3 day forecast let alone the 30 to 90 day forecast?

This may also confirm that Algore and his minions are truly spreading falsehoods about our impact on our climate.  Apparently, their religion may come to an end.

But, in the end, we must become better stewards of this earth.  How? By taking responsibility for our own actions.  However, this is something most of us do not do or may never do.

Advertisements
  1. k0k0koko
    8 January 2008 at 11:32

    Unfortunately, people who don’t believe in climate change are in denial and are making it hard for real science to be understood.

    Truth: we are pumping vast, measurable amounts of CO2 into the air. More and more of this CO2 means more warming. This doesn’t mean on a daily, weekly, yearly timescale. We’re talking about long-term effects. More importantly, warming is only one of many effects. Acidification of the oceans harms marine life. Increased rainfall and snowfall are serious consequences in some regions; desertification and drought are consequences in others. The point is that there is a natural system which is being thrown way off balance.

    Truth: climate change will cause different effects in different places. Scientists are exploring these questions (not spending time trying to determine whether CO2 is causing climate change).

    Truth: weaning ourselves off fossil fuels is actually a win-win in many ways: it will reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources, deliver us from astronomical oil prices, and reduce pollution. Think of the positives: new jobs, new economy, lower costs, less waste.

    Staying the course (business as usual) is basically good for companies but is bad for everyone who has to pay the consequences.

    It should also be said that humans are doing many other destructive things in addition to pumping out CO2. These actions should also merit major concern.

    Don’t be a climate change denier!

  2. 8 January 2008 at 18:36

    I did not mention in my post about denying anything. I stated I do not share Algore’s opinions on the subject. I do not deny climate change is happening. It happened yesterday and it is happening right now. But, no man on this planet controls it.

    My problem is that there is not one scientist who understands all the complexities of how our climate works. Our climate is controlled by our sun, not us. Whether or not your stated truths are true, we are not “THE” major cause of global warming. To say we have a consensus that global warming is man made and the debate is over, is pure silliness. Its the politicians trying to take our money to spend on their thrills.

    The articles I have been posting here are pointing out that the debate is really not over. But, Algore does not want to debate it. I believe that scientists do have a lot of research to do in order to fully understand how our climate works. From what they learn, they may be able to teach us how we can be better stewards of this earth.

    In fact, everyone might need to begin focus again on global cooling. Some scientists say that the earth is heading for a cooling trend that may last a while. This is cyclical occurrence.

    By the way, the last time we discussed global cooling was in the 1970s. What an interesting occurrence. 😉

  3. k0k0koko
    8 January 2008 at 20:16

    Sorry if I strayed from your intended message, and thanks for the correction. Now, if I understand you, one of the issues at hand is the role of humans in affecting climate change.

    I agree with you that scientific debate and additional research on the issue/degree of human effects on climate will continue into the future, and that such things transcend a single individual. In fact, the scientists of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change speak about effects, they do not deal in absolutes. They express findings in terms of “high confidence”. In fact, scientists generally do not say that they cannot be proven wrong. Science is about gaining a preponderance of evidence. I’m not sure what you mean when you say Gore wants to stop debating – I’m new to reading these postings – but I don’t think it’s fair to say that he discourages scientific debate. He is a messenger for the voices of many others.

    Let’s return to the big picture. Certainly the scientific consensus agrees that natural, non-human-caused climate shifts do occur in cycles over geologic time (we’re talking a scale of hundreds of thousands of years); however, this is clearly a separate concept from suggesting that global cooling will likely begin in a specific year, for instance 2012 (doesn’t the specificity sound a bit odd to you?). I would hesitate before putting a lot of faith in this supposed assertion – however, as I have yet to see the data cited by Dr. Sorokhtin, I can’t comment further. Who else is backing this up? Until I see more evidence, this Sorokhtin appears to be a lone individual opposing a far greater body of evidence.

    Now, with regards to the question of whether action is a good idea. There is an important reason for taking action now, despite a lack complete certainty regarding the human influence question. This reason is precaution. Let’s hypothetically pretend the chances that humans are influencing the climate are 50 %, and that that the effects of increased CO2 are long-lived, lasting for generations? What if it is possible to reduce the negative impacts of climate change (here we are talking about real and costly dangers like extreme weather, sea level rise, etc.) by taking action in advance? One can disagree with the idea of the precautionary principle, but you would certainly want to be very, very sure before wanting to defend that stance.

    Similarly, you may wish to argue that humans can’t have a big enough positive impact if they cut down on fossil fuel usage. To me, this argument is hollow. At the worst, you’ve improved public health by reducing pollution and you’ve also reduced our country’s dangerous dependence on foreign oil. At the best, you’ve decreased the vulnerability of our nation (and many more impoverished ones) in the face of climate change. I personally think that embracing innovation, including using technological advances to reduce emissions, makes a lot of sense. In just a few decades, the internet completely revolutionized our means of communication. Certainly similar revolutions must be within our reach in terms of energy sources.

    “Its the politicians trying to take our money to spend on their thrills.” – I have to raise an objection to this comment. How do we citizens feel paying for oil at $100+ per barrel, while oil executives accrue massive profits? Let’s remember who lines whose pockets in Washington. I don’t really think most of the country’s public servants are getting bought out by the Green Party, right? But I might have misinterpreted your comment.

    Thanks for providing thought-provoking issues on this blog.

  4. 11 January 2008 at 17:39

    I would hesitate before putting a lot of faith in this supposed assertion – however, as I have yet to see the data cited by Dr. Sorokhtin, I can’t comment further. Who else is backing this up? Until I see more evidence, this Sorokhtin appears to be a lone individual opposing a far greater body of evidence.

    This is recent information and there are other scientists who agree with Sorokhtin. These other articles supporting Sorotkhtin should be published in the near future. But, anyone, who is interested in this information, will have to look for it. The MM will not publish anything like this because they have bought into the global warming talk. Just like they did in the 1970s with global cooling.

    Similarly, you may wish to argue that humans can’t have a big enough positive impact if they cut down on fossil fuel usage. To me, this argument is hollow.

    Then, we agree to disagree. I do not believe that cutting our usage of fossil fuels will make the great impact that all the experts are saying it will. If they do not full understand the complexities of our climate, how can they say by doing such and such this will happen? How will they know if we made a difference 20 years from now? But, as footnote, the US does a better job of controlling emissions than any other nation due to the technology we use. So, to say that the US is the worst polluter and we must do more, is not a valid argument.

    How do we citizens feel paying for oil at $100+ per barrel, while oil executives accrue massive profits? Let’s remember who lines whose pockets in Washington.

    Remember the oil companies do not set the price of oil, the market do.

    So, if you are worrying about the huge profits the oil companies are making, please do not forget about the another entity who makes more money than oil company does for a gallon of gasoline and plays no part in the production of gasoline. This entity is called our government.

  5. 11 January 2008 at 17:46

    Its the politicians trying to take our money to spend on their thrills.

    In regards to this statement I made in this comment, I would like to clarify it.

    The politicians just want more of our hard earned money to waste another bureaucratic program which will balloon out of control. I do not think we need this type of government waste. Nor do I think we need the nations of world telling us to spend money on such program.

  1. 6 January 2008 at 12:47

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: