Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums

You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members, upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, access other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisements in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!

  1. Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
Dismiss Notice
Have you liked us on Facebook to get our updates? Please do. Click here for our Facebook page.
Dismiss Notice
Do you get the weekly newsletter that Podiatry Arena sends out to update everybody? If not, click here to organise this.

Global Cooling?

Discussion in 'Break Room' started by drsarbes, Jan 8, 2014.

  1. drsarbes

    drsarbes Well-Known Member


    Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.
    Not hearing much about Global Warming lately. Maybe we have the opposite problem. Global Cooling.

    How can we possibly have the "coldest January 7th on record" for the average temps of all 50 states if we are in the middle of Global Warming? I'm sure there is some fuzzy politically induced science out there to explain this.

    "US weather: all 50 states fall below freezing
    All 50 of America’s states recorded temperatures below freezing at some point on Tuesday and even the polar bear at Chicago zoo spent most of the day indoors, as bitterly cold air gripped the country.....US authorities declared it the coldest Jan 7 on record."


    hmmmmmmmm

    Steve
     
  2. Unfortunately, Steve, we are currently in the driest year ever recorded here in Sacramento....no rain for the last two months...getting very scary and water rationing is already being discussed. I've never seen anything like it in my 53 years here in Sacramento. Something is definitely changing and since global warming is already well documented and acknowledged by those who can be objective about it, I would say the record drought we are having here in California must be due to something other than "fuzzy politically induced science".
     
  3. drsarbes

    drsarbes Well-Known Member

    Hi Keven:

    But I love "fuzzy politically induced science"...........it IS another term for Global Warming, isn't it?

    Dry in Sacramento. Interesting. The global warming crowd (objective as they are!!!) point out the increase in atmospheric H2O...( a whopping 4% increase) as one of the signs of global warming. Increased rain fall. You know, what goes up must come down, and how much water can the atmosphere hold anyway??? (No one mentions that atmospheric water accounts for something like .0001 % of all water on mother Earth)

    And why is it when things ARE warmer than normal it's a trend and it's our fault and it's "Global warming"....but when it's colder than normal it's just one of those things that happens. No one's fault. It's just the weather you know, it does vary. (or better yet, colder than normal is part of global warming! I love that)

    In any event..my big complaint with all of this is that a large percent of the global warming crowd blames Humans for it.

    Now I don't know if we continue to take temperature reading throughout the globe for another 100 years if it will continue to show a warming trend or not, but I DO have a problem being accused of causing some type of weather change because I don't live in a 3rd world country (nor do I live like I do) in addition to the fact that we all seem to accept these world wide temperature reading as gospel. From what I have read, they are fairly variable and very "UN" scientific in their collecting (objectively speaking of course)

    My OTHER big problem with the global warming crowd is that when someone disagrees with them it's because we are either "stupid" or we are ignoring the "facts".....(you know...we are too subjective!) If you feel you are correct, argue your point with facts, don't try to disallow an opposing view point by merely discrediting their level of education or "objectiveness'

    My 2 cents....gotta go warm up my car, it's minus 18 degrees here (that the true temp, not the wind chill!!!!!)

    Steve
     
  4. markjohconley

    markjohconley Well-Known Member

    Yep, ~ 97% of scientists associated with climate science.

    Love some references for this one

    The deniers claim the scientists are 'cheating', 'it's all a conspiracy', some members of both 'sides' guilty there.

    Facts, feel free to mention as many as you like,
    mark
     
  5. drsarbes

    drsarbes Well-Known Member

    Fact: right now it's -19. Normal is +25.
    Observation: see fact above
    Objectively: 45 degrees below normal
    Subjectively: I'm freezing my ass off.....

    I'm not a climate scientist. I depend on those that are for factual input. I merely find all of this very very curious.

    Steve
     
  6. Lab Guy

    Lab Guy Well-Known Member

    Here is a recent article:

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/what-catastrophe_773268.html

    Global warming is Big business, just ask Al Gore how much he has made so far. I am inclined to think that global warming caused by man is the most sophisticated snake oil that we have bought. Now I may be wrong but when I see so much money changing hands I would think its hard to be objective.

    Steven
     
  7. markjohconley

    markjohconley Well-Known Member

    Goodaye Steven, Lindzen, doesnt' deny anthropogenic global warming, he claims the temperature increases are exaggerated.
    AGW denial is even bigger business, do some reading, exxon, the conservative think tanks, some other business groups "Global Climate Coalition" and "Donors Trust" being 2 examples, yep big business, and..
    You mention Gore, what about how much money the imposter Monckton is making. Please note Steve Arbes I am labelling Monckton an imposter, as he has falsely "claimed' to have been the scientific adviser to Margaret Thatcher and claims he has published a peer-reviewed article. The publication is a mouthpiece for an organisation monckton is a prominent member of and the article isn't peer reviewed it's in the form of a letter to the editor and was edited for style not content. \
    And Steven when you read an article in a neo-conservative publication like the 'Weekly Standard" the articles may be a bit biased as this article is,
    otherwise all the best, mark
     
  8. Lab Guy

    Lab Guy Well-Known Member

    Thanks for the info, Mark.

    Steven
     
  9. andymiles

    andymiles Active Member

    it may not be a rainy night in Georgia but that doesn't necessarily mean it's not raining elsewhere in the world, as the multitude of British families flooded out of their homes over Christmas would testify
     
  10. horseman

    horseman Active Member

    don't try jogging then, I read a very leg crossing artical about penis frost bite among joggers, apparently it's quite common. BTW it's about 8'C and raining here. floods all over the place:sinking:
     
  11. DAVOhorn

    DAVOhorn Well-Known Member

    Dear All,

    The history of the world over the millennia is that it has had hot periods and intensely cold periods. This is normal.

    We had a mini ice age not that long ago where many rivers in Europe froze over for months.

    We have also had periods where the temps in Europe were very much higher leading to droughts.

    America right now is freezing and frozen.

    Perth in Australia right now is having a very vicious heat wave with over 44c days and over 29c nights. There are very many serious fires in that part of Aus.

    Here in Suffolk it is a beautiful sunny day of about 8c which is quite comfy. But the weather forecast is for temps to drop and snow to occur. So far this winter we have had 3 frosts and they have been mild. but we have had a few weeks of ferocious storms with heavy rain and massive flooding.

    So looking at all the buzz words for the climate I go for WEIRDING as the climate and weather seem to be all over the place. Also HK is having severe smogs thanks to the smoke being blown in from China. This lasted a few days and now as the wind has changed direction HK is sunny again.

    Also there is quite a bit of Volcanic activity in the world leading to enormous smoke and dust discharges.

    So what can one deduce. In the last 300 years has man made that much difference. Certainly the appalling smoke pollution from industrial coal burning and domestic coal burning has gone from most of Europe so the smogs of my childhood no longer happen.

    Cars and trucks are very clean today, but NOx and CO2 and CO are still products of burning fuels.

    Also as everything today is electrical our energy usage has gone through the roof over the last 20 years.

    So I do not believe Al Gore and his cronies.

    The climate of the earth has always changed Hot - Cold - Hot - Cold ad infinitum.

    The sun and its changes will affect our little planet more markedly than anything we can do.

    One decent volcanic eruption will give us a nuclear winter or two.

    Remember The UK used to be parked between Argentina and Africa but today is parked in the Atlantic just off France. No doubt it will continue to shuffle around this part of the world as the tectonic plates move around slowly.

    Also if a couple of movies come to reality a decent meteor / comet strike would cause us some distress too.

    So really we as a species may have an impact over a couple of hundred years, it pales into insignificance over a couple of million years.:butcher:

    David :drinks
     
  12. markjohconley

    markjohconley Well-Known Member

    David, you haven't said anything which disproves 'Anthropogenic global warming' (climate change occurring as a result of man's recent industrialisation). Sure there are cycles, however we should only consider the period homo sapiens have been around. What isn't 'normal' is the sudden increase in the world's (note have to consider the total earth system) energy. Why do you mention Gore? Forget Gore, and Monckton and all those idiotic media mouth's, just restrict to authors of peer reviewed articles in journals of high impact factor, there is no bigger 'elephant in the room' this is it, query who is pushing this denier nonsense, please, mark
     
  13. drsarbes

    drsarbes Well-Known Member

    This is interesting.

    A "survey" on the human cause of global warming looked at research or other such papers on global warming done between '91 and 2001 then decided to question the authors on what they felt the cause of global warming was.

    http://www.theguardian.com/environm.../may/16/climate-change-scienceofclimatechange

    "Based on our abstract ratings, we found that just over 4,000 papers took a position on the cause of global warming, 97.1% of which endorsed human-caused global warming......... "

    Thus....obviously the vast majority of climate experts think that humans are the cause of global warming.

    "Given the importance of the scientific consensus on human-caused global warming in peoples' decisions whether to support action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and the public lack of awareness of the consensus, we need to make people aware of these results".

    Question: Is this the "accurate" and "unbiased" conclusion one would arrive at?

    Yikes.
     
  14. Steve

    There is an excellent article published on the BBC today about our inherent ability to ignore some painful truths about our world today. The article is predominately concerned about Iraq and the Financial Crisis - but could equally apply to a whole series of issues - from 9/11 to our impact on the environment and climate change. It's worth considering, if for no other reason than to appreciate humanity's real weakness.

    Kindest
    Mark

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25680144

     
  15. daisyboi

    daisyboi Active Member

    Hi mark
    I confess to knowing nothing worthwhile about the climate debate and I suspect, as with every issue, there are vested interests on both sides, both making money out of the argument. One thing that is a bug-bear of mine though was in your statement "just restrict to authors of peer reviewed articles in journals of high impact factor,". This irks me a little as we seem so focused on High impact factors for no good reason. The impact factor is easily and regularly skewed by a small number of papers, even those of poor science. For example, you may remember the MMR vaccine debacle. If such a poor piece of research were to appear in a journal with a moderate impact factor it would be cited by many other authors, perhaps for its unbelievable claims initially and then subsequently for its poor science. This would have the result of sending the impact factor of that journal through the roof - thanks to bad science. Anyway, I know its a digression from the topic but I don't think that sticking to high impact journal articles is the only way forward and in another thread maybe we could examine the worth of impact factor and how it stifles the creativity of journals. Interesting debate though everyone, I'm learning a lot. Thanks for the input.

    Kindest regards

    Dave
     
  16. markjohconley

    markjohconley Well-Known Member

    I definitely stand corrected; so frustrated with the gullibility out there; all the best, mark
     
  17. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Articles:
    8
    go figure .... here in Melbourne we expecting the next 4 days to be >40 degrees; thats a record .... global cooling? .... I don't think so.
     
  18. markjohconley

    markjohconley Well-Known Member

    This isn't a conclusion; this isn't a peer reviewed article. Their opinion is stating the obvious.
    Jeez.
     
  19. drsarbes

    drsarbes Well-Known Member

    "This isn't a conclusion;..."

    Well yes, it is a conclusion.

    The obvious point that can be made by this SURVEY is ONLY that climate change, "probably" caused by human actions, is a very popular topic to write about. Period.
    When someone writes an opposing opinion, they get crucified.

    Very few are going to challenge the pro anthropogenic group if for no other reason than it's professional suicide to do so - NOT necessarily because it's incorrect.

    And Mark. IF you are suggesting that those who do not fully accept the anthropogenic view point are perhaps "ignoring a painful truth", then I'll fully accept this as an insult to my intellect......... as well as suggesting an obvious technique of discrediting an opposing view by attacking your opposition personally rather than strengthening your argument.. (and, I'm not saying you ARE doing this...only pointing out how it COULD be received)

    Steve
     
  20. markjohconley

    markjohconley Well-Known Member

    Steve, this is an opinion piece so the concluding statement does not have to be 'accurate and unbiased' as in a conclusion in an article in a peer reviewed journal. Mind you I heartily concur as the deniers have far more 'media' time than their misinformation would justify.
    "Ignoring a painful truth", "putting one's head in the sand", "being gullible", yes, I would label any intelligent person who denies the anthropogenic effect on the world's climate to be described as. There are plenty of sheep out there that swallow the 'garbage' trolled out by media mouth's like Rush Limbaugh etc., there's no excuse for any 'intelligent' person (without an agenda) to do same.
    mark
     
  21. drsarbes

    drsarbes Well-Known Member

    We'll Mark...there you go again.
    Of course I Could make the same "sheep" analogy to you, but I won't.
    I do have to comment on your Rush Limbaugh being a mouthpiece for the media.
    What media are you referring to? I have rarely ( if ever quite frankly) heard or read anything in the popular media suggesting global warming NOT caused by industrialized countries.

    Apparently you enjoy the media reinforcing your opinions.
    Hmmmmmm....
    What was that about sheep?

    Respectfully

    Steve
     
  22. drsarbes

    drsarbes Well-Known Member

    What are we suppose to do with this information?

    http://climatechangereconsidered.org/


    Summary of above link:
    .....A group of 50 international scientists released a comprehensive new report on the science of climate change that concluded that evidence now leans against global warming resulting from human-related greenhouse gas emissions.
    The report, which cites thousands of peer-reviewed articles the United Nations-sponsored panel on climate change ignored, also found that "no empirical evidence exists to substantiate the claim that 2°C of warming presents a threat to planetary ecologies or environments" and no convincing case can be made that "a warming will be more economically costly than an equivalent cooling." The U.N.'s panel is scheduled to release its next report next month.
    The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, or NIPCC, which produced the report, is described as "an international panel of scientists and scholars who came together to understand the causes and consequences of climate change." Unlike the "United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is government-sponsored, politically motivated, and predisposed to believing that climate change is a problem in need of a U.N. solution," NIPCC "has no formal attachment to or sponsorship from any government or governmental agency" and is "wholly independent of political pressures and influences and therefore is not predisposed to produce politically motivated conclusions or policy recommendations.".....................
     
  23. markjohconley

    markjohconley Well-Known Member

    It's so easy to misread another person's post, their intent; I didn't mean you as one of the 'sheep' I meant you as being one of the intelligent that don't have an excuse, I apologise if my post wasn't clearer?

    Again, misunderstood, I never said Rush was a 'mouthpiece', as in spokesperson, although right-wing big MOUTHS like him seem to be everywhere.

    Good for you, obviously your choice of 'popular media' is to be applauded.

    How did you make that assumption? Re-read my post....

    See above.
    I have certainly formed my opinion(s) from the media, whether directly or from their references, how do you form yours, sitting in a cave meditating? A good example is Podiatry-Arena; thanks to PA I have learnt most of the little I know about podiatry,
    mark
     
  24. drsarbes

    drsarbes Well-Known Member

    We'll need to agree to disagree.
    Obviously you lean towards the left, and I the opposite.
    Which brings up my original intent to all this...our opinions on this subject really should NOT be at all effected by our political views.

    Perhaps we should ask why the opposing views? Who has something to gain here with these study results. Who may not be objective? Who are environmentalists. What is the UNs agenda. Who may benefit by impossing financial penalties?

    Is the science of Global climate change really science as we feel science should be?


    Respectfully
    Steve
     
  25. efuller

    efuller MVP

    To assess if there is global warming one should not look at ones thermometer. One should look at all the thermometers in the world and average them.
    On a recent daily show there they played clips of fox News talking heads making fun of global warming because it was cold outside. It appears they were only looking at their own thermometers. And perhaps they have an agenda.
     
  26. drsarbes

    drsarbes Well-Known Member

    Of course Fox has an agenda, they are conservatives. The fact is Fox is not publishing studies on climate change.

    We can cut and paste clips of studies supporting our respective positions forever.
    So what.
    My point is these studies are driven by politics. Probably on both sides.
    This is not science.
    What is the truth?
    Steve
     
  27. markjohconley

    markjohconley Well-Known Member

    Fair enough, only wish you were right, our kids, grandkids future .....

    I'm certainly left of right

    Definitely agree

    That is the problem no one will gain from AGW, some will gain from not doing anything about it though


    exactly


    Not with you here Steve, are you implying something is wrong in being an environmentalist?


    I love this twist in the deniers argument, a straw man if ever there was one. Question is who benefits from no action.

    They are limited in that models for the future and proxies for the past have to be used, thermometers haven't been around for long (i realise you would appreciate this Steve, just in case a 'sheep' should read this post), mark
     
  28. markjohconley

    markjohconley Well-Known Member

    Misinformation.
    Lead author, Prof. Fred Singer, well known for many things including, "his questioning of the link between UV-B and melanoma rates, and that between CFCs and stratospheric ozone loss,... his public denial of the health risks of passive smoking" (Wikipedia)

    see this response,
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/not-the-ipcc-nipcc-report/

    and for info/referrals,
    http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=RC_Wiki
     
  29. drsarbes

    drsarbes Well-Known Member

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-nipcc-report/

    Again, this is not science, so please stop sending links. They are all tainted as far as I'm concerned. There is no objectivity when it comes to the Climate Change debate. There is just way too much money that can be gained (or lost) for pure science to see the light of day.

    Mark, I'm not a kid. I've lived through things like this before. According to the experts... AIDS was going to wipe out the majority of the worlds population and those that weren't dead would be carriers. Population explosions, water shortages, meteor collisions, solar radiation, acid rain.....on and on and on.... I took a course in undergraduate college almost entirely dedicated to the world wide famine that was "unavoidable" by 1975.

    Don't you ever get tired of these "projections" of the end of humanity?

    I'm not a climatologist (and I suspect you are not either) - you and I are not going to come to a conclusion on this based on "the truth" since our boots are not high enough to wade through it all.

    As far as right versus left....I am for the individual, self empowerment, human dignity, family, individual rights, self responsibility, freedom to choose a religion/spouse/way of life/place to live/ career. I believe man can overcome just about anything if he so desires and strives to do so, or he can be a lazy slob. We all have free will. If that makes me a conservative, then so be it. If that makes me a liberal, I'm OK with it.

    Labels. Just a simple way to pre judge someone.

    Steve
     
  30. markjohconley

    markjohconley Well-Known Member

    Come again, you've sent me a link to garbage, adulterated science, i've given you a link that links to the reasons why your link is garbage, ie not science, and then you go me for exactly what you have been guilty of, steve, mate, unbelievable

    I take it you mean both sides, in your opinion?

    You've lived through an AGW before?

    yes, AGW is very depressing

    correct, and correct





    Good on you Steve, running for politics. Concern for the those less able?

    Yep i thought you would, got to disagree big time

    True, some of us are born with IQ's of single digits, some are born with gross physical deformities; some are born into poverty and slavery; some are born to drug addict parents; many are born to parents without the intellect to support an income to provide equivalent health and educational standards to them, and so on ....
     
  31. markjohconley

    markjohconley Well-Known Member

    Come again, you've sent me a link to garbage, adulterated science, i've given you a link that links to the reasons why your link is garbage, ie not science, and then you go me for exactly what you have been guilty of, steve, mate, unbelievable

    I take it you mean both sides, in your opinion?

    You've lived through an AGW before?

    yes, AGW is very depressing

    correct, and correct

    Good on you Steve, running for politics. Concern for the those less able?

    Yep i thought you would, got to disagree big time

    True, some of us are born with IQ's of single digits, some are born with gross physical deformities; some are born into poverty and slavery; some are born to drug addict parents; many are born to parents without the intellect to support an income to provide equivalent health and educational standards to them, and so on ....
     
  32. drsarbes

    drsarbes Well-Known Member

    Mark
    I get the feeling you actually enjoy hitting your head against the wall.

    ...your last statement....are these situations, in your opinion, excuses for underachieving or were you trying to make some other point concerning our lot in life.

    Apparently I believe in mans ability to overcome a bit more than you do. The best way to make sure he is not successful is to take away his incentive to be so.

    Steve
     
  33. markjohconley

    markjohconley Well-Known Member

    Only out of frustration

    Your choice of 'underachieving', if that means not having the gifts/opportunities to achieve, yep
     
  34. trevor

    trevor Active Member

    Here is a different point of view.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcAy4sOcS5M

    You may also like to google the Maunder minimum and its believed causes.
    We are currently at the peak of sunspot cycle 24, the lowest in over 100 years.
    So low that some think that cycle 25 may not occur at all.
    If you live in the Northern hemisphere be best to stock up on long underwear.
     
  35. drsarbes

    drsarbes Well-Known Member

    "Your choice of 'underachieving', if that means not having the gifts/opportunities to achieve, yep...."

    Please. I'm sure in Australia, as here in the USA, most ANYONE can achieve (whatever that means to them)

    We shouldn't find excuses for failure, it just reinforces it. Hey, we had a black man born in Hawaii (apparently) raised by his Grandmother who ended up US Senator of Illinois then President of the United States. Why are we still having this conversation?

    Perhaps you can forward your post to Stephen Hawking.

    And Trevor....please try not to post ANYTHING that may support a non arthropogenic cause of climate change.
    Obviously we are much too "stupid" to even discuss the subject.

    Save yourself and stick to feet.

    Steve
     
  36. markjohconley

    markjohconley Well-Known Member

    'apparently' ? you sure get suckered in; great example, incredibly intelligent person born into middle-class USA, not
    Why ? Mr Hawking seemed to have been born and raised with all the 'gifts / opportunities'.
    Steve, a 'repeat' of the Maunder minimum is not an argument for 'non-AGW'.
     
  37. drsarbes

    drsarbes Well-Known Member

    "incredibly intelligent"
    Really????? You haven't heard him speak without reading a tele-prompter....Oh right...Columbia and Harvard. Bush went to Yale and Harvard (but he's an idiot of course)

    I'm sure Stephen Hawking feels very lucky! Yikes.

    And I guess discussing the effects of the SUN as it relates to our WEATHER is not considered important relative to global temperatures!
    Really? I never knew that. Thanks for the information.

    I do hope this is still in the bantering stage (good humored) - we will always have a difference of opinion on just about everything socio-economical, which is fine with me. It's too bad global warming falls into this category.

    What world would we have if we all agreed all the time?


    Steve
    (Born into a family so poor we they couldn't afford to give me a middle name!)
     
  38. efuller

    efuller MVP

    Yesterday there were record high temperatures in the San Francisco Bay area. Not that it matters to our current discussion. Are we debating the existence of global warming or that there is warming and we are debating whether it is man made? The existence shouldn't be that hard to prove. You go look at the recorded temperatures and average them. Who keeps that information, NOAA. These studies are not all driven by politics. What source do you have that global warming is not occurring?
    Eric
     
  39. markjohconley

    markjohconley Well-Known Member

    "graduating with a J.D. magna cum laude[42] from Harvard", I'm impressed

    ..steve, you win this point,

    Re-read my posts, again a misunderstanding.

    The sun has nearly everything to do with our weather, just NOTHING to do with AGW.

    Too true the insidious oil lobby!
     
  40. drsarbes

    drsarbes Well-Known Member

    Hi Mark:

    Well..since it is SO F-ING COLD here in Wisconsin, I've decided to investigate, first hand, an area perhaps more affected by Global Climate Change.

    So, tomorrow I'm leaving for Ixtapa, Mexico. I can assure you, if there is ANY evidence of anthropogenic Global Warming at the BEACH, by the POOL, on a GOLF COURSE or in a BEACH BAR...I WILL FIND IT!!!

    I will report back to you on my return (unless I decide to stay there)

    Steve
     
Loading...

Share This Page