Global Cooling Predicted

[billcoe]

Link

 

"Old Farmers Almanac: Global cooling may be underway

 

 

By David Tirrell-Wysocki, Associated Press Writer

DUBLIN, N.H. — The Old Farmer's Almanac is going further out on a limb than usual this year, not only forecasting a cooler winter, but looking ahead decades to suggest we are in for global cooling, not warming.

 

Based on the same time-honored, complex calculations it uses to predict weather, the Almanac hits the newsstands on Tuesday saying a study of solar activity and corresponding records on ocean temperatures and climate point to a cooler, not warmer, climate, for perhaps the next half century.

 

"We at the Almanac are among those who believe that sunspot cycles and their effects on oceans correlate with climate changes," writes meteorologist and climatologist Joseph D'Aleo. "Studying these and other factor suggests that cold, not warm, climate may be our future."

 

It remains to be seen, said Editor-in-Chief Jud Hale, whether the human impact on global temperatures will cancel out or override any cooling trend.

 

"We say that if human beings were not contributing to global warming, it would become real cold in the next 50 years," Hale said."

 

....more

[marc_leclerc]

great, the ice had better be good this winter.

[prole]

[hafilax]

I recently read a paper that also predicts a cooling trend for a decade or so based on new ocean current data. This isn't going to be good for the global warming debate.

 

I still stand by the conviction that we must reduce consumption regardless of climate change arguments.

[AlpineK]

Overall supply as far as I know is on its way down no matter how much new stuff we drill. That certainly is a good reason to reduce consumption to hold on to what we have.

[billcoe]

 

I still stand by the conviction that we must reduce consumption regardless of climate change arguments.

 

I think all rational people agree with this. I find it stunning that this debate and the balance the budget debate as well hasn't hit center stage in the US Presidential elections.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

I still stand by the conviction that we must reduce consumption regardless of climate change arguments.

 

I think all rational people agree with this. I find it stunning that this debate and the balance the budget debate as well hasn't hit center stage in the US Presidential elections.

 

Issues? It's much more important to dump hate on Palin because of her personal choices, family life, religion, and whatever else doesn't sit well with a vitriolic libturd. Politics of personal destruction, baby!

 

BTW, I saw Obama on O'Reilley last night and was very impressed by how he handled the interview and badgering. I like to see these guys off their talking points and more "real".

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Presidential elections are cultural street theatre; a form of non-violent tribal warfare, not a debate about the issues. The issues really don't matter much. Rush Limbaugh had it right when he said that Americans are not an intellectual lot. What matters is who you perceive your friends and enemies to be. Is the guy in the cowboy hat one of us or one of them?

 

Americans respond positively to perceived 'strength'. Palin scores points because she stands by her convictions. Those convictions are utter disasters, dishonest, even unConstitutional and therefore un-American, but nonetheless she proclaims them as proudly as ever. Bush is a fucking moron, but half of America bought into his self confidence, regardless of the disastrous direction he'd taken the country in after his first four years.

 

We respond this way because, individually, by and large, we are weak, and a weak people require a strong leader. We're overfed, over comfy, and weak minded with regards to history and the world around us. We're all too willing to buy into a variety of myths, both religious and secular, but none having anything to do with reality or where the world is headed. And we've developed the greatest sense of entitlement in the world. In a sense, we're children with a very large (but shrinking) allowance.

 

If we were stronger individually, we'd want someone to do our bidding; more of a glorified factotum.

 

Personally, I want a weak president, and a weak federal government. The federal government has long since ceased to serve us well. It has placed an overly expensive military ill fitted for true national defense on our collective backs, burdened us with a tremendous debt that has given us nothing in return, attempted to quash various state level experiments in drug policy, healthcare, education, marital right, infrastructure development, and environmental policy, and reduced the level of political debate to a comic book strip. It's leadership of late has been a fucking sad joke.

 

A predictable few of you will immediately jump on the "universal health care...hypocrit!" bandwagon, but a weak federal government does not mean no federal government. It means dismantling much of our unneeded and overly expensive military heroin addiction, the cessation of interfering in states rights issues that are not in violation of the U.S. constitution and a return to more local control, the cessation of federal farm subsidies of all kinds, a rollback of federal attacks on our constitutional rights, and the ending of stupid, expensive foreign adventures. The federal government should continue what it (can be) good at: some of which include strong environmental and financial regulation, ensuring health care for all, upholding the constitution, and establishing policies to address global issues such as climate change that cannot be entirely resolved at the state or local level.

 

Right now, America is getting a well deserved ass kicking; militarily, economically, and with regards to our international influence. The country has been practically begging for it; some of us have been voting for this outcome every step of the way, primarily out of sense of entitlement to power, for decades. Well, the power America once had is largely gone now, so perhaps it's time to try some new myths on for size.

Edited September 10, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[akhalteke]

"Personally, I want a weak president"

 

I can see why you support B-Ho.

[tvashtarkatena]

Ah, the young. So in need of approval, so obsessed when they don't receive it.

[billcoe]

Presidential elections are cultural street theatre; a form of non-violent tribal warfare, not a debate about the issues. The issues really don't matter much. Rush Limbaugh had it right when he said that Americans are not an intellectual lot. What matters is who you perceive your friends and enemies to be. Is the guy in the cowboy hat one of us or one of them?

 

Americans respond positively to perceived 'strength'. Palin scores points because she stands by her convictions. Those convictions are utter disasters, dishonest, even unConstitutional and therefore un-American, but nonetheless she proclaims them as proudly as ever. Bush is a fucking moron, but half of America bought into his self confidence, regardless of the disastrous direction he'd taken the country in after his first four years.

 

We respond this way because, individually, by and large, we are weak, and a weak people require a strong leader. We're overfed, over comfy, and weak minded with regards to history and the world around us. We're all too willing to buy into a variety of myths, both religious and secular, but none having anything to do with reality or where the world is headed. And we've developed the greatest sense of entitlement in the world. In a sense, we're children with a very large (but shrinking) allowance.

 

If we were stronger individually, we'd want someone to do our bidding; more of a glorified factotum.

 

Personally, I want a weak president, and a weak federal government. The federal government has long since ceased to serve us well. It has placed an overly expensive military ill fitted for true national defense on our collective backs, burdened us with a tremendous debt that has given us nothing in return, attempted to quash various state level experiments in drug policy, healthcare, education, marital right, infrastructure development, and environmental policy, and reduced the level of political debate to a comic book strip. It's leadership of late has been a fucking sad joke.

 

A predictable few of you will immediately jump on the "universal health care...hypocrit!" bandwagon, but a weak federal government does not mean no federal government. It means dismantling much of our unneeded and overly expensive military heroin addiction, the cessation of interfering in states rights issues that are not in violation of the U.S. constitution and a return to more local control, the cessation of federal farm subsidies of all kinds, a rollback of federal attacks on our constitutional rights, and the ending of stupid, expensive foreign adventures. The federal government should continue what it (can be) good at: some of which include strong environmental and financial regulation, ensuring health care for all, upholding the constitution, and establishing policies to address global issues such as climate change that cannot be entirely resolved at the state or local level.

 

Right now, America is getting a well deserved ass kicking; militarily, economically, and with regards to our international influence. The country has been practically begging for it; some of us have been voting for this outcome every step of the way, primarily out of sense of entitlement to power, for decades. Well, the power America once had is largely gone now, so perhaps it's time to try some new myths on for size.

 

I'm guessing that you sleep in a bedroom painted the deepest shade of black in the color pallet, your water glasses are never more than 1/2 full and the future is utterly depressing as you wait for the inevitable horror that is the future starts to appear around the corner. Keep the metal away from your temple dude, it's not that bad.

[akhalteke]

Ah, the young. So in need of approval, so obsessed when they don't receive it.

 

Nailed that one on the head boss. I aint that young anymore and I have no need to prove myself. Already have.

[tvashtarkatena]

Um, America's getting the ass kicking. I couldn't be having a better time myself, but thanks for asking, Bill.

[akhalteke]

Actually the whole world is. Good news is that oil will be back to $80/bbl again soon.

[tvashtarkatena]

I aint that young anymore

 

You fooled me there.

[akhalteke]

I aint that young anymore

 

You fooled me there.

 

Its all relative lapushka.

[Fairweather]

TTK repeats here the lines his therapist plants inside his confused mind. Kind of like a sleepwalker mumbling about that slice of ham in the 'fridge.

[Braydon]

 

wow...so thats what the 80's were like.

[ivan]

 

I still stand by the conviction that we must reduce consumption regardless of climate change arguments.

 

I think all rational people agree with this. I find it stunning that this debate and the balance the budget debate as well hasn't hit center stage in the US Presidential elections.

how'd mondale do in '84 when he rightly said the only way to reverse the massive national debt reagan was creating would be to raise taxes?

 

politicians can't talk about the budget or GCC or anything of that sort precisely b/c the only solutions will involve the electorate suffering, and we only hire leaders who reassure us that our shit smells like buttercups and our cocks are big as louisville sluggers

[billcoe]

we only hire leaders who reassure us that our shit smells like buttercups and our cocks are big as louisville sluggers

 

 

True dat, but Clinton ran under the "It's the economy stupid" and was elected with one of his primary ideas that we can and must keep our economy strong by borrowing and spending less. Too his great credit (I know I know- this dude had faults and failures, we all know it, for instance -he pitched a .50/cent a gallon gas tax that was well done and dropped it like a hot potatoe when he saw the political opposition starting to form against it) he succeed in fixing that issue, along with some other important and large ones as well.

 

 

 

Personally, I want a weak president, and a weak federal government. The federal government has long since ceased to serve us well. It has placed an overly expensive military ill fitted for true national defense on our collective backs, burdened us with a tremendous debt that has given us nothing in return, attempted to quash various state level experiments in drug policy, healthcare, education, marital right, infrastructure development, and environmental policy, and reduced the level of political debate to a comic book strip. It's leadership of late has been a fucking sad joke.

 

A predictable few of you will immediately jump on the "universal health care...hypocrit!" bandwagon, but a weak federal government does not mean no federal government. It means dismantling much of our unneeded and overly expensive military heroin addiction, the cessation of interfering in states rights issues that are not in violation of the U.S. constitution and a return to more local control, the cessation of federal farm subsidies of all kinds, a rollback of federal attacks on our constitutional rights, and the ending of stupid, expensive foreign adventures. The federal government should continue what it (can be) good at: some of which include strong environmental and financial regulation, ensuring health care for all, upholding the constitution, and establishing policies to address global issues such as climate change that cannot be entirely resolved at the state or local level.

 

 

I so totally agreed with this part of your diatribe.

[billcoe]

It starts....

 

http://www.swissinfo.ch

 

Switzerland, the land of the Schweitz- burrrrrr!

 

 

 

"October 30, 2008 - 9:00 AM

Record snow storm triggers delays

 

Snow flurries throughout the night and early morning caused numerous delays for travellers using Switzerland's rail system on Thursday.

 

A heavy, wet snow snapped trees, which fell across tracks. The most affected regions included Zurich, Schaffhausen in the north and the areas around the Gotthard pass in central Switzerland.

 

Passengers moving between Spiez and Interlaken south of Bern were forced to take buses when rail service there was interrupted around 7am. Broken branches and trees blocked roads.

 

Farmers in the Bernese Oberland also awoke to snow-related problems. Damaged fences allowed their cows to wander freely.

 

According to MeteoNews, the Swiss lowlands received the most snow for any October since records began in 1931. Zurich received 20cm, beating a record of 14cm set in 1939"

[JBo6]

Read about climate versus weather. To me it is hard to apply dramatic weather events to climate cooling/warming. Want something spooky read about ocean acidification.

[STP]

Change in fauna/flora. Should favor siliceous secreting microorganisms over calcareous plankton.