Global cooling

[swchandler]

"The fish are smarter than you think. They will move to where the weather suits them."


Does that mean that the other animals waiting for their arrival will get the picture? Change has consequences.

[mac]

Bard--it is hard not to be sarcastic when you say something as foolish as:

[techno900]

The whole issue on global warming, both pro and con is important, but the real issue is money. If indeed there is global warming and it means that the well being of man, animal and plant life will be significantly impacted, then what do we do? Spending trillions to reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gases may be a good thing if there is enough impact to actually change the outcome (reduce or stabilize warming). I would guess that there are some serious questions regarding what if any change we (the world) are capable of making, assuming that the sun's cycles are playing a roll in global warming. If it is not the sun and it's the CO2, can we really make a change that will slow or stop the warming?

But what if the warming has reached a peak and we are stable or heading into a cooling cycle? Go ahead and spend the money when it could be pretty much a waste?

What is the risk of waiting a few years to see if can get a better handle on where global warming/cooling is headed?

Haven't we doing quite a bit to reduce greenhouse gases over the last couple of decades? It's not like we are ignoring the benefits of controlling/reducing pollution. If China and other newly industrialized nations don't buy into cleaning the air, are we just spinning our wheels?

Lot's of questions and not so many definitive answers in my opinion, so my suggested approach is keep on the same path, but don't go BONKERS with solutions that may or may not have an impact, especially if BONKERS means a significant negative economic impact.

[nw30]

Agreed, we could spend quadrillians only to have it all wiped out by the Earth herself.

[mac]

Just for you Bard. You would have to buy the magazine to get the whole story, but I'll give you a tidbit:

[GURGLETROUSERS]

The Permian catastrophic extinction is still considered to have been triggered by a major impact event.

This impact probably caused massive volcanism which drastically affected the climate and composition of the atmosphere and oceans, obliterating something like 90% of life both on land and in the seas.

This extinction was not solely due to warming.

[GURGLETROUSERS]

Just to be cheerful, and put our tiny earth in perspective; NASA announced some months ago that they had recorded the biggest ever explosion in in the universe. A super nova at an incredible 3.7 billion light years away had 'let fly'. (i.e. it had exploded 3.7 billion years ago and the light had only just reached earth.)

It must have been an absolutely massive and relatively short lived main sequence star so powerful that, had it been in our own Milky Way galaxy, it would totally have sterilised earth and destroyed all life for ever.

All of which has little to do with global warming, but it does show the random chance nature of life. Had there been any earth like planets perhaps with developing life forms in that stars galaxy, that would have been it.

Sort of makes you realise that it's a contradiction to suppose life has any purpose or meaning, if it's so susceptible to chance, and physics.

Life just is.

[mac]

This has been coming for some time. Those who do the actuarial numbers on damages from climate change--the insurance companies--are recalculating the costs for disaster insurance. Those who make money from carbon-based energy and want to maintain their market share and avoid mitigation fees assure the public that everything is fine--and cherrypick one fact out of many to argue that the globe is not warming. Fools believe the latter.

Check this out: http://science.time.com/2013/10/01/the-hard-math-of-flood-insurance-in-a-warming-world/

[GURGLETROUSERS]

And insurance companies, unlike evil oil barons, are dedicated to truth and light, and wouldn't dream of cheery picking that which allows them to maximise their profits!!!

Fact. Met Office recorded mean temperatures (HadCet ) for the U.K., from 1772 to 2013 show a rapid rise from 1980 to 2000 followed by an EQUALLY RAPID decline from 2000 to 2013. (Mean Central England Temp Annual Anomalies 1772 to 2013.)

The 2013 mean temperature is now back down to slightly below the peaks of the 1940's and 1950's. This gives the lie to the claim that global warming is STILL advancing inthe U.K., at anyrate.

In fact, one might even suspect (sarcasm) that we may be sliding down into a period of global cooling!

[mac]

Ah, but GT, the question is what is the total change in temperature over the period in which we have reliable numbers. I don't know the UK numbers, but for the world the period is from about 1880 to present, and the rise is about 1.2 degrees, plus or minus about 0.4 degrees.

Good statistical practice is to smooth data with a running average, typically five years, to smooth out short term anomalies. The conclusion that I reach from what you posted is that the run up between 1980 and 2000 may have been an anomaly. We already know that the high point in many global temperatures was an unusual El Nino--in fact an anomoly.

Had to laugh about your line about insurance companies. Surely they will overcharge if they can get away with it. But the link I posted was for the long-delayed increases in actuarial rates for the Federal Flood Insurance program in the US. That program has been recovering only about $0.30 on a dollar in losses. One of the ways that we subsidize development in risky areas--and one of the programs few "conservatives" are willing to put on an actual actuarial basis. So profit motive is not involved.