Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
Nordic » Mon Jul 13, 2015 6:06 pm wrote:British Columbia seems to be on fire at the moment. Literally.
This whole stupid argument shows exactly what pisses me off about the entire environmental community being manipulated into arguing about one thing -- global warming.
Listen, if Global Warming weren't even on the radar, humans are STILL DESTROYING our very ability to eat, breath, grow good and drink water. We would still be in the midst of a massive extinction event. There would still be Monsanto poisons in our drinking water and breast milk. Fracking would still be destroying our water supply. The rain forests would still be getting mowed down at a suicidal rate.
But no, it's all about this ONE issue now which they've nicely set up so that we can argue about the very existence of it. It's brilliant, really, in a planet destroying, ecodidal, diabolical way.
Lord Balto » Mon Jul 13, 2015 6:22 pm wrote:Nordic » Mon Jul 13, 2015 6:06 pm wrote:British Columbia seems to be on fire at the moment. Literally.
This whole stupid argument shows exactly what pisses me off about the entire environmental community being manipulated into arguing about one thing -- global warming.
Listen, if Global Warming weren't even on the radar, humans are STILL DESTROYING our very ability to eat, breath, grow good and drink water. We would still be in the midst of a massive extinction event. There would still be Monsanto poisons in our drinking water and breast milk. Fracking would still be destroying our water supply. The rain forests would still be getting mowed down at a suicidal rate.
But no, it's all about this ONE issue now which they've nicely set up so that we can argue about the very existence of it. It's brilliant, really, in a planet destroying, ecodidal, diabolical way.
These are all functions of overpopulation. Overpopulation fueled by a religious requirement to breed, breed, breed. It is still a mortal sin in one of the world's major religions to practice birth control, not to mention have an abortion. And then when the next ice age hits, all of the excess population will die out and the planet will right itself. And it always was. Humans just aren't as smart as they think they are.
These are all functions of overpopulation. Overpopulation fueled by a religious requirement to breed, breed, breed. It is still a mortal sin in one of the world's major religions to practice birth control, not to mention have an abortion. And then when the next ice age hits, all of the excess population will die out and the planet will right itself. And it always was. Humans just aren't as smart as they think they are.
Nordic » Mon Jul 13, 2015 8:27 pm wrote:Lord Balto » Mon Jul 13, 2015 6:22 pm wrote:Nordic » Mon Jul 13, 2015 6:06 pm wrote:British Columbia seems to be on fire at the moment. Literally.
This whole stupid argument shows exactly what pisses me off about the entire environmental community being manipulated into arguing about one thing -- global warming.
Listen, if Global Warming weren't even on the radar, humans are STILL DESTROYING our very ability to eat, breath, grow good and drink water. We would still be in the midst of a massive extinction event. There would still be Monsanto poisons in our drinking water and breast milk. Fracking would still be destroying our water supply. The rain forests would still be getting mowed down at a suicidal rate.
But no, it's all about this ONE issue now which they've nicely set up so that we can argue about the very existence of it. It's brilliant, really, in a planet destroying, ecodidal, diabolical way.
These are all functions of overpopulation. Overpopulation fueled by a religious requirement to breed, breed, breed. It is still a mortal sin in one of the world's major religions to practice birth control, not to mention have an abortion. And then when the next ice age hits, all of the excess population will die out and the planet will right itself. And it always was. Humans just aren't as smart as they think they are.
I blame capitalism more than religion.
Morty » Tue Jul 14, 2015 1:30 am wrote:I heard someone explaining the predicted "mini ice age" on television today. In short, the quote marks are appropriate and essential. It isn't an actual ice age, of course, because it will only last 20 or 30 years, if it happens at all. And the "60% reduction in solar activity" is reduction in solar flare activity, and amounts to a 1% reduction in heat the earth would receive from the sun.
Just as all the heat being lost by the Arctic due to the slowing gulf stream gives harsher winters further south, allowing doubters to have a chuckle at the absurdity of global warming, if this solar flare activity prediction comes to pass it will only lull us further into a false sense of security.
Sometimes I think there is a God out there, and he wants to watch humanity go down in as big a ball of flames as possible.
vogonpoet » Mon Apr 23, 2012 1:51 am wrote:I have this feeling it's just another bubble. The grandest one of all...
Get 'em planning for global warming, when you know all along, global cooling
is in store. Nobody is expecting a new Little Ice Age, now are they?
Nobody except those who plan to survive and profit from it...
Lord Balto » Mon Jul 13, 2015 4:31 pm wrote:brainpanhandler » Mon Jul 13, 2015 3:39 pm wrote:82_28 » Mon Jul 13, 2015 2:18 pm wrote:zangtang » Mon Jul 13, 2015 10:45 am wrote:i'll take any mini-ice age i can get.
No shit, right. I have never lived through a winter with no winter before. ZERO winter in the PNW for an entire year. Almost zero precipitation. Since nobody has no sprinklers here, everything is a vast brown wasteland. The trees for the most part are green because they were smart and have more vast root systems.UW researcher finds warm water ‘blob’ in Pacific Ocean, links to unusual West Coast climate
...
Nick Bond, Washington state climatologist and research professor at the UW, found the blob, which formed in 2013, and has been linked to odd weather patterns, including an unusually warm summer and mild winter on the West Coast.
...
http://www.dailyuw.com/science/article_ ... 4d328.html
Oh wait, right. Never mind. Bond is a climatologist and research professor or in other words a climate 'scientist'. I keep forgetting they're all just money hungry, establishment pricks out to bamboozle the taxpayer.
Maybe the sun went through a mini-uptick. That's it. Cause we all know the sun is the only factor worth considering.
Knock over many straw men? Do you really not know how to have a rational discussion free of political posturing?
This really is a religion to you folks, isn't it?
And the damned "climate scientists" are the bishops of that religion. And when it becomes painfully obvious that their end-of-the-world predictions are so much hot air, they will tell you that the old guys forgot to factor in the proper fudge factor, but that NOW they have the real skinny and there's no possibility of their being wrong, THIS TIME.
Lord Balto » Mon Jul 13, 2015 4:13 pm wrote: Scientific truth IS NOT determined by majority vote.Go back and read the reactions to Lyell and Darwin if you want to understand the value of majority opinion. It is worthless and meaningless. And I would remind you that as recently as 50 years ago, the new ice age paradigm was the dominant theory among climate scientists. That's why I said "shifting BACK". Scientific orthodoxy is no more constant than women's fashions. Science is as narrow minded and bigoted as any religion ever was. And this entire debate is being used to push a political agenda.
Hence the introduction of the 97% meme. I challenge anyone to present hard data substantiating that percentage. I suspect it is quite BO-O-gus. You can't even give me a list of all the climate scientists in the world and a definition of what exactly that term even means. Does it include everyone with a meteorology degree or is it confined to published authors with Ph.Ds?
Tell a lie long enough and loud enough and it becomes the truth. I think Goebbels said that.
The findings are being presented by Professor Valentina Zharkova at the National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno.
Presenting a paper at a scientific meeting is tantamount to publication, and normal procedure is to publish the papers after they are given. Do you not know this, or are you just making this up as you go along?
You don't think that humanity is the ultimate driver of climate on this planet?
To listen to the current crop of end-of-the-world zealots, we are about to collectively turn the earth into an inferno.
As I have pointed out above, the current temperate climate is a short-term interruption of a series of ice ages that go back millions of years. Stop complaining and be thankful it's not snowing in Miami.
Morty » Tue Jul 14, 2015 12:30 am wrote:I heard someone explaining the predicted "mini ice age" on television today. In short, the quote marks are appropriate and essential. It isn't an actual ice age, of course, because it will only last 20 or 30 years, if it happens at all. And the "60% reduction in solar activity" is reduction in solar flare activity, and amounts to a 1% reduction in heat the earth would receive from the sun.
This shit about the mini ice age is so fucking ignorant and stupid it hurts. I'll address it for about the twentieth time today. And the last, if all goes well.
The clathrate gun has been fired. There is no way the proposed mini ice age will significantly slow the heating.
Every report I've read about this study misquotes it. Solar *magnetic* activity was evaluated. Media reports are claiming solar *intensity* will decline.
The anticipated 60% reduction in solar magnetic-cycle magnitude translates to a climate forcing of -0.1 W/m2. That's equivalent to a decrease of 8 ppm atmospheric carbon dioxide. The atmosphere currently holds about 400 ppm CO2, with 350 ppm ultimately lethal to humans. Subtracting 8 ppm at this point is analogous to giving a blood transfusion to a dead man.
No, the Earth Is Not Heading for a “Mini Ice Age”
By Eric HolthausSunspots aren't nearly enough to send us into the deep freeze.
A new study and related press release from the Royal Astronomical Society is making the rounds in recent days, claiming that a new statistical analysis of sunspot cycles shows “solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during the 2030s” to a level that last occurred during the so-called Little Ice Age, which ended 300 years ago.
Since climate change deniers have a particular fascination with sunspot cycles, this story has predictably been picked up by all manner of conservative news media, with a post in the Telegraph quickly gathering up tens of thousands of shares. The only problem is, it’s a wildly inaccurate reading of the research.
Sunspots have been observed on a regular basis for at least 400 years, and over that period, there’s a weak correlation between the number of sunspots and global temperature—most notably during a drastic downturn in the number of sunspots from about 1645 to 1715. Known as the Maunder minimum, this phenomenon happened about the same time as a decades-long European cold snap known as the Little Ice Age. That connection led to theory that this variability remains the dominant factor in Earth’s climate. Though that idea is still widely circulated, it’s been disproved. In reality, sunspots fluctuate in an 11-year cycle, and the current cycle is the weakest in 100 years—yet 2014 was the planet’s hottest year in recorded history.
If you look closely at the original press release, the study’s author, Valentina Zharkova, never implied a new ice age is imminent—only that we may see a sharp downturn in the number of sunspots. Yes, the sun is a variable star, but its output is remarkably stable. The amount of energy we receive from the sun just doesn’t change fast enough to cause a rapid-onset ice age in just a few decades.
The root of the problem here may be a poorly worded quote in the press release implying an imminent 60 percent decline in solar activity. Yes, numbers of sunspots can vary by that much or even more on an 11-year cycle, but the sun’s output—the total amount of energy we get—is extremely stable and only changes by about 0.1 percent, even in extreme sunspot cycles like the one Zharkova is predicting.Chris Colose @CColose
reminder for when you're sad- We orbit a rather stable star w changes in output that are very small or very slow. It doesn't cause ice ages
2:37 PM - 12 Jul 2015
But let’s play devil’s advocate: What if Zharkova is right about the decline in solar activity? There’s still no need to worry (or to become complacent about global warming). Even assuming sunspots are in the process of shutting down, as happened during the Maunder minimum and Little Ice Age, it wouldn’t matter much.
An interesting new study published in June showed that a sharp decline in solar activity to record lows could have a relatively large impact on regional climate over a period of decades. But even the return of a Maunder minimum type slowdown in solar activity—an extreme scenario, by any measure—would slow global warming by only about a half-degree in northern Europe. That’s essentially negligible, on a global scale. A half-degree is within the margin of error of predictions for the continued decline in frost-free days in the United Kingdom, for example. Winter will still be a month shorter, on average, by the end of the century. Past research suggests that an extreme decline in solar activity would lead to a shift of just 0.16 degrees Celsius globally—and even that is erased once a more typical solar cycle resumes in a few decades.
For reference, we’ve already warmed the planet by about 0.8 degrees Celsius since 1880 thanks to fossil fuels, and, despite all our decades of discussion about the problem, we’re still on pace for a worst-case scenario of between 3 and 4 degrees of warming by century’s end.
If anything, changes in the oceans—especially the Pacific, our largest ocean—over the last couple of years point to an imminent increase in the rate of global warming. El Niño has already grown to record levels in the Pacific for this time of year, and ocean temperatures in the vast patch of sea from Hawaii to California to Alaska are also without precedent. Similar events have coincided with a 10- to 20-year surge in global temperatures.
No matter what the sun does over the next century, we are not heading in to a new ice age. Why am I so sure about that? It may have something to do with the 110 million tons of carbon dioxide humanity is pumping into the atmosphere every single day. The resulting change to our global climate system is so huge, it overwhelms all natural atmospheric forces, including the sun. There is no other plausible explanation for global warming except us.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 170 guests