Posted on 02/13/2008 7:53:28 AM PST by Rurudyne
To this I would add that all historical evidence is that warm is good.
By this I mean that in historical times past when we can infer that when it has been generally warm (sometimes warmer than now) that human civilization has flourished; also, when times have been cooler, never mind outright ice ages, things have been generally bad for civilization.
Since agrarian people are tied closely to the fortunes of nature in general, it really isn’t a stretch to say that warm has also been good for nature too just as cold has been universally bad.
Possibly the most fraudulent aspect of “global warming” isn’t really the man-made panic over man-sourced pollution, but the total dishonestly of the truth of if it is bad to be warmer at all
To listen to the AGW crowd you would have to imagine that Rome’s rise on the back of her stable agriculture (that fed the legions) and her decline as her native agriculture became unreliable had nothing to do with the weather.
Likewise to see the rise of both a prosperous Europe and of the Mississippian peoples (as examples) during the “little optimum” and their subsequent woes (or collapse) during that little cold snap we came out of only 150-160 years ago had nothing to do with the weather.
Yes, I’ll say it loud and strong: global warming is good. Or, put another way, what did those poor polar bears do to survive during the little optimum when there weren’t any Democrats to worry about them?
But as for the sun’s performance, you are right to say we don’t know what it will do despite our reasonable expectations about what it might do based on what we’ve observed in the past.
Absolutely correct. Before there was “technology” and our current (and recently passed) ages of Information and Industry basically permitted people to remain PUT, mass exoduses of people around the world from region to region occurred.
There have been several studies of where people lived, and how they migrated across Europe. One of those studies showed that most people are descended from a few people in a recent past (several thousand years ago now) and that there was some kind of disaster that killed most people on the planet. (I would guess it was an asteroid or something).
Still, those people survived because they moved to warmer climates apparently.
It’s thought that modern man lived through and became what we are today, while the Neanderthal race of humans died because they were more adept at living in COLDER climates, while modern man moved to and took over warmer climates. As the Ice Age climates fell back so did Neanderthal - whom eventually failed.
At least that’s the theory. There’s starting to be a bit of evidence to show this was probably the case.
Even so, warm IS good, and it allows us to grow more, feed more, create more population... and to me, this is a good sign we should be pushing for the Stars sooner, than later. While we have the technology and abilities, and while we can advance our human race on the planet, we should be pushing to move beyond this planet eventually.
PERHAPS we won’t go the way of the dinosaur and 99% of everything that’s already lived on this planet, huh?
Gosh, how did I know that FReepers would know what I was referring to?
We’re an eclectic bunch...
I always liked that film, and it was recently released on DVD.
Just for fun, look at the new Johnny Depp film “Sweeny Todd” and the makeup job he wears. Look just a little like Dr. Emilio Lizardo?
Heh!
Under normal circumstances that would be a very uncontroversial observation. However, given the current hysteria over global warming, we might discover that the political benefits of global cooling outweigh the economic costs.
In other words, a continuing belief in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming will have enormous worldwide long-term economic costs as CO2 emissions are regulated, and equally enormous political costs as our various freedoms (including freedom of speech in opposition to global warming orthodoxy) are suppressed.
Whereas a significant and irrefutable reduction in current global temperatures, along with credible predictions of future temperature declines as the sun's output diminishes and we enter a Maunder Minimum, will discredit the global warming alarmists. It will take awhile, and they won't go down easily, but it will become harder and harder for them to maintain that anthropogenic global warming is going to destroy the earth when the earth keeps getting cooler.
If this derails the agenda of Gore acolytes, it may well compensate for the economic disadvantages of cooling. After all, we have the technology to keep ourselves warm. I like living in sunny southern California, but I was born and raised in Wisconsin and I can survive in a colder climate. Improved nuclear power and other advanced energy sources will be developed long before the slow pace of cooling can have a drastic impact on our lives.
What’s the TAX we need to pay to stop this???
Flux Density Values in sfu for 20:00 on 2008:02:13We may not have bottomed out JUST yet.
Julian Day Number : 2454510.322
Carrington Rotation Number : 2066.717
Observed Flux Density : 0070.5
Flux Density Adjusted for 1 A.U. : 0068.7
URSI Series D Flux, Adj. x 0.9 : 0061.8
This story is a significant exageration.
Solar flux is low, of course, like it always is at the bottom of the solar cycle but the current figures are not that unusual.
This cycle is a long one. There is definitely some correlation with declining global temperatures and longer solar cycles so that makes it important. But it isn’t significantly longer than the average yet.
Before articles like this appear, the lack of a new cycle starting would have to be played out for another 6 months or more.
If that does happen, however, then we should start worrying because there will likely be crop failures and colder temperatures like the last drops in solar activity in the early 1800s and Maunder Minimum in the 17th century.
But solar cycle 24 will probably start in a few more months.
If so, wasn’t the original predictions for cycle 24 supposed to have it starting (going through this minimum period) around the middle of April LAST year?
How long do we have before we start seeing a reduction in temperatures?
I think we are seeing them now, but we have people like Hansen cooking the books.
I agree, but never underestimate the ability of the AGW alarmist to lie. Remember there are trillions in $$ and a religion at stake.
Just look at 2007, the oceans cooled (That's 75% of the "global" in global warming right there), Antarctica froze to record levels, and whole southern hemisphere suffered through one of it's worst winters in a century and it seemed every week there was a post here on freereublic of record cold or snow somewhere.
Yet despite that, they claim 2007 was the 5th warmest year recorded, or even worse that fraud James Hansen at the GISS claimed 2007 was the 2nd warmest year (though to give credit where credit is due, even most alarmist don't take him serious anymore)
The simple fact is even if it does get colder, they can just lie. Even during the Little Ice Age there were still heat waves, hurricanes and droughts, so all they have to do is to continue highlight the warm/extreme events while dismissing/ignoring the cold ones and the sheepe will still buy it. Especially if Hillary or Obama get in there, then expect record temps every year no matter what is really happening.
A cooling event like between 1945-1976 or even the cool temps of the late 1800's - early 20th century won't do, it's probably have to take a Maunder Minimum type climate to discredit AGW in most people's brainwashed eyes.
JustDoItAlways ... I understand and you are right, it isn’t –yet– time to invest in a portfolio entirely of canned beans and shotgun shells. Not by a long shot.
But rummaging around in Kozak’s link produced some interesting comments by those posters (aside from calling any possible minimum the “Gore Minimum” ... which would be choice).
“For instance, the first spotless day after solar maximum occurred in January 2004. Since that day, 46 months have elapsed and there is still no minimum at hand. This is an unusually long period (from first spotless day to minimum) compared to the last eight cycles, SC16-23. The average period for those cycles was 33 months with a standard deviation of +/- 5 months.” Harold Vance 10/27/07
John A had written earlier: “DR if that was supposed to be the start of the new cycle all the way back in 2006, then someone turned the machine back off.”
So it would seem that it isn’t just that cycle 24 is slow starting but that we’ve been extra slow getting here.
If indeed the observed normal maximum duration has been 38 months before now (33 +/- 5), it’s the length of the extra time that is “unusual” (now at 49 and sputtering according to our own Robert Cook). And since this is sunspot activity they are talking about here we have a few more than 50 years worth of data we are dealing with ... about just enough so any conclusions we might draw are NOT ENTIRELY SPURIOUS. –.^
Still, it could be bad if the cycles are getting longer.
I got the rope, we have already seen some unexpected weather (seriously, snow in Bagdad of all places?) and it only has to continue into late spring to seriously hurt some population groups (especially those poor saps around the world living without the benefits of liberty ... they always seem to be living closer to the edge).
And dpweiner, we must not forget that it was the little ice age that helped to inspire all this socialist lunacy in the first place. While we might hope for some sanity in relief of AGW politics in the short term, if things do get bad I can hardly imagine anything worse than a new minimum in a world already ravaged by socialism, communism and relativism.
It reminds this Christian be a bit too much of a story where world government gains power amidst terrible famine.
ctually since 1998.
I knew you were talking about Gore. I was being funny too! :)
Ah, you’re RIGHT, I DO remember reading that it was Toba. Just forgot I guess. Actually, I was thinking it had something to do with an asteroid because of something I was watching on TV the other night, but the two incidents were millions of years apart and I must have muddled them up in my head somewhere.
(The thing I was watching a couple nights ago was talking about an extinction of 99% of the currently living species at the time and brought about the RISE of the dinosaurs, rather than the fall).
Discovery Channel has a big special coming up, I think this weekend, called 6 Degrees changing the world. Or something like that. IT IS pure propaganda. From what I see on their advertisements, 2 degrees melts the ice caps, 4 degrees turns the Amazon into sand dunes, and 6 degrees puts NY City under 200 feet of water.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.