# ice age- Global cooling



## Tirediron (Jul 12, 2010)

A couple of threads have had references to Global cooling/ ice age mostly based on the research of John L Casey which seems to be based on real science. I did some searching around, Casey presents a case for the sun becoming less active and thus cooling our planet (very summarized ) 
The main stream is pushing Global warming/ climate change/ some new name. 
I found a you tube video 



that seems to collaborate this until it gets to the present day and then they seem to spin it as caused by global warming (caused by human CO 2 ) even though they mention an earlier period of cooling caused by a less active sun.

Anyway it may be something to look at prep wise


----------



## cqp33 (Apr 2, 2012)

I watched something a while back that was one of the scientist studying 'global warming'. He was fired because he didn't support the CO2 theory, he stated that since the beginning of the industrial age there were 2 carbon molecules per 1,000 units we are not even to 3 carbon molecules per 1,000 units. So he couldn't support the claim so he was fired. I personally think that a change of less than one/one thousandths could not have that big of an impact, I just don't feel that the earth is that delicate. After all if CO2 was such a bad thing how would trees/plants live? Isn't that how we get O2? Tress/plants turning CO2 into O2? Or has common core changed that too?

I believe that we should be good stewards of the planet but I also feel we are like ants on this rock! We are at an infancy when it comes to predicting weather and therefore we don't know much about the patterns of this rock ride we are on called earth. Yeah they can guess at the past through core samples but without thousands of years of historical data IMO it's a guess at best.


----------



## Woody (Nov 11, 2008)

cqp33 said:


> I believe that we should be good stewards of the planet but I also feel we are like ants on this rock! We are at an infancy when it comes to predicting weather and therefore we don't know much about the patterns of this rock ride we are on called earth. *Yeah they can guess at the past through core samples but without thousands of years of historical data IMO [it's a guess at best/U]*.




Agreed. Warming, cooling, changing... The earth's climate has been changing since it formed. The Settled science even knows how it began and how 'old' it is! If you look at graphs of their "best guess" as to what the climate was like over whatever amount of time, it varies. The graph goes up! It gets hotter!! All of a sudden it drops back down for a bit... Will it go back up.. or will it continue to drop??? Was that the peak?? A prediction is just a guess, there is no possible way of knowing for sure what it will do. OR... What will cause it to do so.

IMHO, man is pretty arrogant. At whatever point in time you choose, we knew it all. We knew how everything worked, we figured it all out. The science was settled.

The planets revolve around the earth! The science is settled, this is how it is. All the 'great minds' of the time agreed... except for one or two. They were ridiculed for going against the settled science.

The world is flat! The science is settled, everyone knows this as fact. Well...

Man cannot fly! The science is settled, everyone knows this as fact. Well...

In order to cure diseases you need to get rid of bad blood, leaches are the wonder cure! The science is settled, everyone knows this as fact. Well...

Pick any point in human history. We knew it all, everything. Do you really think we are any different today? Sure we have a lot more expensive toys to settle the science with now. But how does that make the actual science any different?

And 'concepts' of science and reality. We use our current beliefs to define things. Not that long ago "atoms" did not exist. Well, they existed but not in our science. DNA, how long has it existed in our science look at things?

The "Big Bang" and the beginning of everything! EVERYTHING in all the universes started from one little tiny speck, you could not even see under a microscope. Can we not grasp the concept that maybe things have just always existed, had no beginning? Time itself is something WE created. Time is just a concept.

There is only one real 'science is settled' fact on our planet, with life as we know it. Sooner or later your physical form will die. Will the sun rise tomorrow? Well, based on past trends I'd have to say yes. Does that mean 'the science is settled' that it WILL in fact rise tomorrow?

It would be fun to come back in a few hundred years to see what they think about the 21st century. They thought what??? HAHAHAHAHA!!!


----------



## Elinor0987 (May 28, 2010)

I've always thought global warming was a scam. There's plenty of historical and scientific evidence that illustrates a global cooling cycle that comes up every 200 years or so. The trouble is that the government can't easily tax the people over a naturally occurring cycle for which people have no control. Instead they change the narrative and go in the opposite direction and accuse people of what they once called global warming and now have to call it climate change because present day reality contradicts their ideology. I'm not saying that people aren't responsible for any of the damage done to the planet but the impact we have is miniscule.

Here's another interview with John Casey. It starts at the 34:00 mark:


----------



## UncleJoe (Jan 11, 2009)

Woody said:


> IMHO, man is pretty arrogant. At whatever point in time you choose, we knew it all. We knew how everything worked, we figured it all out. The science was settled.
> 
> The planets revolve around the earth! The science is settled, this is how it is. All the 'great minds' of the time agreed... except for one or two. They were ridiculed for going against the settled science.
> 
> ...


Very well said. :congrat: :kiss:

I find it to be the epitome of human arrogance to believe that our species has changed the entire global environment in 150 years after the billions of years of changing climate that came before us. :nuts:


----------



## cnsper (Sep 20, 2012)

> Pick any point in human history. We knew it all, everything. Do you really think we are any different today?


About 40 years ago when I was 17, I knew it all. As I have gotten older, my dad got smarter and I got dumber. Now I am getting smart again.


----------



## Tacitus (Dec 30, 2012)

cnsper said:


> ...Now I am getting smart again.


We'll be the judge of that.


----------



## Grimm (Sep 5, 2012)

Tacitus said:


> We'll be the judge of that.


----------



## NaeKid (Oct 17, 2008)

On this topic ...

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2014/12/20141209-072840.html

*This should be fracking good news!*



EZRA LEVANT said:


> Everyone is so excited about the global warming conference in Lima, Peru!
> 
> OK, not everybody. But the thousands of professional diplomats, bureaucrats and media stenographers that make up the bulk of the global warming industry are. They love these annual get-togethers. And they're almost always at an exotic, far-away location - dream vacation spots that they would never get to on their own budgets.
> 
> ...


Oh ya ... I just love this guy! Would it be called a bromance?


----------



## Woody (Nov 11, 2008)

Just one observation on the article... Ok two.

First" "That technology has made natural gas so plentiful and cheap in the United States that it has replaced coal as the fuel of choice for many American power plants." Tell that to folks whose gas bills doubled last winter.

Just because we produce it here, does not mean we are getting it cheaper or easier. Gas, like oil produced here, is sold on the world market at market prices.

And a secret third observation. Hydraulic Fracturing for the savior natural gas may be reducing the dreaded CO2, but what are the actual costs? Is pumping millions and millions of gallons of toxic waste 'deep into the earth under pressure' worth not producing as much CO2? Isn't it similar to the nuclear revolution? The clean energy savior! Nuclear energy!!! Produces no evil CO2!!! YEAH!!! The waste?.. Uhh.. we'll just store it in location or better yet dig a big hole and put in deep in the earth. We won't have to worry about it for a hundred years, and by then we will have a solution it. How is that working out for us?


----------



## Gians (Nov 8, 2012)

cqp33 said:


> I watched something a while back that was one of the scientist studying 'global warming'. He was fired because he didn't support the CO2 theory, he stated that since the beginning of the industrial age there were 2 carbon molecules per 1,000 units we are not even to 3 carbon molecules per 1,000 units. So he couldn't support the claim so he was fired. I personally think that a change of less than one/one thousandths could not have that big of an impact, I just don't feel that the earth is that delicate. After all if CO2 was such a bad thing how would trees/plants live? Isn't that how we get O2? Tress/plants turning CO2 into O2? Or has common core changed that too?
> 
> I believe that we should be good stewards of the planet but I also feel we are like ants on this rock! We are at an infancy when it comes to predicting weather and therefore we don't know much about the patterns of this rock ride we are on called earth. Yeah they can guess at the past through core samples but without thousands of years of historical data IMO it's a guess at best.


Burning tropical forests releases huge amounts of carbon into the atmosphere, resulting in fewer trees to absorb the extra CO2 and release O2.


----------



## cqp33 (Apr 2, 2012)

Gians said:


> Burning tropical forests releases huge amounts of carbon into the atmosphere, resulting in fewer trees to absorb the extra CO2 and release O2.


I agree that burning tropical forest to "clear the land for farming" or whatever other uses is not a good thing. However I still don't think that CO2 levels are causing our weather patterns to change. Like I said, I believe we should be good stewards of the planet! I for one own some acreage of forest (woods as we call down here in TN) and I won't clear cut mine. I will however manage it by cutting the large or mature trees for harvest (lumber/firewood/land management) to allow younger trees to grow back in their place. I do select trees to cut every couple of years and yes I do select the trees that remain based on selfish reasons. For example I don't let pine trees grow because they kill everything else, I limit the amount of maple I let grow mainly because my "woods" are mostly red and white oak so I let the hardwood grow. If I let the pine grow it would eventually kill everything but other pines. I have several red and white oaks that are over 100 years old guessing from their size, a few it would take 3 adults touching finger tips to reach around them. These larger trees are on the edge of the field behind my house so we like them as the trees that meet us when look towards the woods. I don't normally let oak trees grow that large because the middle of them rots and dies, usually the best time to cut them is at about 60-80 year old range. It is amazing to watch the younger trees grow and fight for space once a larger one is cut to make room.
This may not be what some think is right but for me it was I choose to do on the land that I own. I have also planted many trees, fruit, walnut, pecan and many others. I am also planting some hybrid poplars to see how they work out for sustainable fire wood production. I will not cut my trees just for firewood, there is enough dead fall and limbs off of mature trees cut to make room to keep the fire wood pile filled. I also get the cut off slabs from a local saw mill that i use for fire wood.
I have been offered a lot of money for my trees based on their lumber value, I passed because I feel that select cutting is the best way to utilize and preserve the land.


----------



## HardCider (Dec 13, 2013)

cnsper said:


> About 40 years ago when I was 17, I knew it all. As I have gotten older, my dad got smarter and I got dumber. Now I am getting smart again.


For me, the older I get, the less I seem to know. Climate change is very real. It's a lot colder today than it was yesterday. :laugh:


----------



## BillM (Dec 29, 2010)

*Static*

Static

There are no static conditions in nature.

The climate is constantly changing , regardless of our influence.

Those who believe that they can prevent it from changing , live in never never land with Peter Pan and the Boys.

Man's ability to adapt has been the deciding factor in his survival, not his ability to prevent the climate from changing.


----------



## LincTex (Apr 1, 2011)

cqp33 said:


> I limit the amount of maple I let grow mainly because my "woods" are mostly red and white oak so I let the hardwood grow.


The Maple used to make guitar necks is VERY hard wood. Is yours a different kind?


----------



## Tirediron (Jul 12, 2010)

So did anybody actually look into the reports of sun spot activity and the correlation to planet wide average temperature drops,:scratch or Did  just help with the Sheeplism , vract: 

One hint is these guys actually put numbers on both axis of their graphs, unlike Gore et al and the scaleless graphs to show the inconvenient (un)truth


----------



## LincTex (Apr 1, 2011)

Tirediron said:


> One hint is these guys actually put numbers on both axis of their graphs, unlike Gore et al and the scaleless graphs to show the inconvenient (un)truth


Nearly any graph in the world can be skewed to have it show what you want it to show by simply altering the scale. 
Gore, sadly - goes one step further by leaving the numbers off, as you noted!!


----------



## Woody (Nov 11, 2008)

LincTex said:


> The Maple used to make guitar necks is VERY hard wood. Is yours a different kind?


I took that to mean Red Maple, not Sugar/Rock Maple.


----------



## Marcus (May 13, 2012)

Gians said:


> Burning tropical forests releases huge amounts of carbon into the atmosphere, resulting in fewer trees to absorb the extra CO2 and release O2.


*Except in the US,* since there are now more trees growing here than at any time in recorded history. It's another of those inconvenient truths that the Enviro-wackos try to hide.

The timber companies re-plant trees in the areas that they harvest. They do that so they'll have a crop to harvest in another 30 or 40 years. Nor do they just plant willy-nilly, but instead rely on proven scientific methods like farmers do in order to maximize their return.

The US Forest Service OTOH, no longer clears underbrush from the areas they manage. Thus there is more fuel for wildfires. They argue is it more 'natural' for these fires to occur since the ash replenishes the soil. I suppose that's okay unless your house is one of those that gets burned down due to the policy.

Now the Amazon and other tropical forests are a different story, but they're also different countries. I learned a long time ago to not expect third world countries to have the same priorities as first world countries.


----------



## mosquitomountainman (Jan 25, 2010)

Marcus said:


> *Except in the US,* since there are now more trees growing here than at any time in recorded history. It's another of those inconvenient truths that the Enviro-wackos try to hide.
> 
> The timber companies re-plant trees in the areas that they harvest. They do that so they'll have a crop to harvest in another 30 or 40 years. Nor do they just plant willy-nilly, but instead rely on proven scientific methods like farmers do in order to maximize their return.
> 
> ...


Thank you! Good points you brought up. Kind of interesting as well that much of the forest fire problems in the US are due to envirowackos and their war against harvesting timber. The resultant poor health of forest lands out West results in more, larger and hotter fires that are even more damaging to the eco-system. On top of that we (US taxpayers) now pay people to go out and clear some of those forests. Something the loggers used to pay us to do. :nuts::brickwall:


----------



## TheLazyL (Jun 5, 2012)

Marcus said:


> *Except in the US,* since there are now more trees growing here than at any time in recorded history. ..


?

The states of Ohio and Indiana were 100% forest at one time in history. Now they are mostly farm land.


----------



## BillM (Dec 29, 2010)

*When Europeans*

When the first Europeans arrived, they found large fields of meadow land and woods with nut and fruit bearing trees growing abundantly . In one description, the author described riding his horse at full gallop through the Forrest.

The Indians , annually burned the meadows and Forrest to cause green grass to grow and draw in the Buffalo and deer.

This cleared out the undergrowth .

Unfortunately the first Europeans also brought Smallpox and other illnesses to which the Indians had no immunity and 90% of them died in the first 20 years.


----------



## Marcus (May 13, 2012)

TheLazyL said:


> ?
> 
> The states of Ohio and Indiana were 100% forest at one time in history. Now they are mostly farm land.


http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wi...-trees-than-there-were-100-years-ago-its-true

The difference is that managed forests have a higher density of trees per acre than occurs naturally.

One of the responses to the Dust Bowl of the 1930s was planting tree belts on the Great Plains in an effort to control erosion caused by wind.

Another factor is the use of steel, aluminum, and fiberglass in the construction of modern boats and ships. https://www.wou.edu/las/socsci/history/senior_seminar_papers/2012/Melby, Patrick.pdf

Even houses use less raw wood per unit of size since more of the former waste wood is used in laminate products like particleboard, plywood, and manufactured beams. Furthermore, sheathing materials have been developed to optimize heat retention and reflection. Most of these products are not wood-based.

Even ranchers have greatly reduced their use of wood products since steel fence posts are cheaper and easier to install than wood posts.


----------



## crabapple (Jan 1, 2012)

Woody said:


> I took that to mean Red Maple, not Sugar/Rock Maple.


Are they Japanese Mapless, like the "Red Dragon", which cost as much as some large oak trees.


----------



## mosquitomountainman (Jan 25, 2010)

Marcus said:


> http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wi...-trees-than-there-were-100-years-ago-its-true
> 
> The difference is that managed forests have a higher density of trees per acre than occurs naturally.
> 
> ...


And the surviving sawmills use modern (expensive!) technology to maximize the lumber cut from every tree.


----------



## Gians (Nov 8, 2012)

Marcus said:


> *Except in the US,* since there are now more trees growing here than at any time in recorded history. It's another of those inconvenient truths that the Enviro-wackos try to hide.
> 
> The timber companies re-plant trees in the areas that they harvest. They do that so they'll have a crop to harvest in another 30 or 40 years. Nor do they just plant willy-nilly, but instead rely on proven scientific methods like farmers do in order to maximize their return.
> 
> ...


Ya I was referring to the ones near the equator, like Brazil and Indonesia.
______________________________________________

LincTex, got a much-maligned 79 Strat with a three bolt Maple neck, it has aged better than I have.


----------



## cnsper (Sep 20, 2012)




----------



## cqp33 (Apr 2, 2012)

LincTex said:


> The Maple used to make guitar necks is VERY hard wood. Is yours a different kind?


Mine is all sugar maple so no it is not "hard maple". I do tap them for syrup and am letting a few more grow for this purpose but it takes a lot of sap to make syrup (40 to 1) ratio is about what the norm, 40 gallons of sap to make 1 gallon of syrup at the right consistency. If I am lucky I can get 35 gallons to make a gallon of syrup. tapping the tree at the right time of the year is the key to getting good sap production. I would let all the red maple grow that came around but not the case here.


----------



## cqp33 (Apr 2, 2012)

Marcus said:


> http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wi...-trees-than-there-were-100-years-ago-its-true
> 
> The difference is that managed forests have a higher density of trees per acre than occurs naturally.
> 
> ...


Those steal fence posts last a whole lot longer and are a heck of lot easier to put up too! However I still use wood posts as "pull posts" at the corners, top and bottom of hills and every couple hundred feet. Cement them in so I can pull the fence tighter. But I am a big fan of 'T-post fence posts!!!!:beercheer:


----------



## behindprepper918 (Nov 3, 2014)

heating and cooling of ocean floor

http://www.onr.navy.mil/focus/ocean/habitats/vents1.htm

http://www.onr.navy.mil/focus/ocean/habitats/vents2.htm

http://www.onr.navy.mil/focus/ocean/habitats/vents3.htm


----------

