Global cooling

[mrgybe]

GT, If these make it across the North Sea, icebergs may not be the only reason to stay out of the water.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/sweden/10234986/Swedish-men-told-to-beware-testicle-munching-fish.html

[keycocker]

Those with the strongest opinions on global warming are not scientists considering all data.
They are those who know little, have formed their views based on politics, and seize on every cooling event as a gotcha.
One thing those who propose global warming have made clear about their model is that there are sure to be cooling cycles, even those as big as an ice age.

[MalibuGuru]

[GURGLETROUSERS]

That does it. Thanks for the warning Mr. G.

One of those Medieval gentlemans lower body enhancers (to put it politely) to wear beneath my wet suit, goes on order. Not that there'd be any element of boasting, you understand, but it's bad enough when non essential bits and pieces start dropping off with age, so I'm damned if I'm going to lose my marbles!

Mind you, I did learn the instantaneous water start from any conceivable position, in Loch Ness.

[isobars]

It's more common in tropical waters.
Here's one variety you wouldn't want in your pants:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zfd4iysk_GY

And here's another variety you wouldn't want in your entire neighborhood:

The arabian sea ballfish.

[GURGLETROUSERS]

K.C.

In tardy response to your last post and your insistence that the consensus is correct, I'd appreciate your expert scientific opinion ( I can just be airily dismissed as a non scientific denier) on the following apparent contradiction.

The consensus claims are based on best scientific factors, one of which is interrpretation of the importance of solar cycles. Their conclusion has been that these solar cycles only influence world climate to a relatively minor degree. i.e. human contributing factors are much more decisive.

The Russian Science Academy, along with others now studying solar cycles , (all of whom you appear to dismiss as not proper scientists studying all of the data) now claim otherwise.

(will continue - usual computer glitch.)

[GURGLETROUSERS]

(continued.)

They are claiming that solar cycles are of far greater significance than previously allowed for (by the consensus) and the effects of such have been badly underestimated.

The consensus (minor effect) and the Academy (major effect) cannot both be correct, and the future world climate (for the next century or further) will be decided by who has got it right!

Would you please address this contradiction, but it won't do just to dismiss them as mere computer number crunchers (as though the consensus has never done any such thing), they are much more than just that. I'd appreciate a scientific explanation of why you think the consensus is correct, and the Academy are mistaken.

Incidentally, one of the telling points in their favour (for me) is that they are NOT denying global warming factors, but simply claiming that the looming and imminent solar cycle (mini ice age in popular parlance) will be the more powerful driving force, which will be PARTIALLY mitigated by the warming factors.

[techno900]

As I have said a few times before, the earth has gone through a vast number of heating and cooling cycles before man hand any impact on climate change.

Wouldn't any logical thinking human narrow down the issue to either geological, solar or foreign body impact as possible causes of global heating or cooling before the industrial revolution?

Now that volcanos and asteroid hits are not likely the cause at this time, I wonder what is left to consider? Yes, man is a likely consideration, but before we go off the deep end, why not be sure? I am betting on solar.

Damn, I bet I could have gotten a million dollar research grant from the government to come up with this theory.

[KGB-NP]

In reality much of science is unproven theories and highly speculative. Detailed recorded data on our climate has only been kept for some two hundred years. If you believe in either creation or evolution then that information is really only a very small glimpse of time to speculate from. From an creation view it would be less than 2% and an evolution view it .001% (or less ). Really it's like filling a swimming pool with smarties and trying to guess how many are in there from how many you got in a cup full. So are you not in essence arguing who's theory or speculation you believe in?
That said, anything we can do to stop from polluting this beautiful planet is a good thing, and really I don't want to find about whose right or wrong the hard way.

[GURGLETROUSERS]

Your religious views are out of place, and an impediment to the truth and reality of an understanding of climate change science.

Please remove them from this thread, and desist. Thank you.