Russian scientist predicts global cooling

United Press International ^ | 8/25/2006 | UPI

[steelyourfaith]

Imagine this. A Russian scientist and his colleagues have had the gall to study solar emissions and then use that data to predict the onset of global cooling --- as if variations in the activity of that tiny orb in the sky could even remotely trump my huge SUV's impact on the climate. Sheesh.

[markman46]

I really hate to disapoint you but.. that was not the LA basin you drove into over the Cajon Pass, that was the Inlans Empire,and it's always been Smogy from Trains and Semi that load and unload. La is now where near as smoggy as it was even 30yrs ago.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

I'm not disaapointed; I'm glad L.A. has cleared up its air.

[cogitator]

Good context. Thanks!

[cogitator]

Was an imminent Ice Age predicted in the '70's? No

Breaking the Ice

[LIConFem]

I wish all these "scientists" would come to a consensus, already. I'm sick of buyin' a whole new wardrobe every time one of 'em spouts off.

[cogitator]

It's too bad that all of his arguments are rehashed skeptical arguments which are easily debunked. His Ice Age stuff is ridiculous; nary a whiff of discussion of Milankovitch forcing.

[cogitator]

No matter what happens, it's global warming.

Oh really. Do explain.

[cogitator]

Now comes the revelation that the glaciers are actually increasing...and, of course , they jump in and say that the increase was due to global warming [it's a religion].

I underlined the statement so I can ask: how many, how much, and where?

[zek157]

Turn off nature???

Shut down the carbon cycle now.

[cogitator]

Within the next year, I predict a drastic drop in temperature, a mini-ice age of short duration, followed by another period of global warming.

Will this actually be applicable globally, or is it a hemispheric phenomenon? See, I've heard of this thing called "seasons"...

[kabar]

Not by Fire but by Ice THE NEXT ICE AGE - NOW!

[cogitator]

The Day After Tomorrow

[palmer]

No matter what happens, it's global warming.

Oh really. Do explain.

My depiction of the alarmists' views would be: no matter what happens it's either global warming or a negligible hiccup in the global warming trend. In many cases the GW theory adapts to the observations so that the new theory matches. In the latest case as you know from realclimate.org, less snow in Antarctica means that some temporary phenomenon decreased the snow. Less snow there than predicted means sea levels rise more than predicted which equals scary global warming pulp for the masses via the media, so either way it helps the cause.

If it resumes snowing there or new measurements show that is has snowed more there, then that will be a confirmation of global warming. The fact that they can't model the weather properly (way too shallow on persistent trough) doesn't seem to matter. The physicists who run that site and dominate most of the AGW debate don't really care about weather even though weather is climate.

[cogitator]

As long as there is variability, there will always be downturns when an upturn is expected, or vice versa. But if there is an actual trend, then the trend will assert itself -- eventually. If there isn't a trend, then variability will ultimately dominate.

Currently under discussion: ocean heat content.