How Bad Is Global Warming?

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby 82_28 » Mon Jul 13, 2015 6:40 pm

This was just posted on The Stranger about how weather fucked the PNW and BC are:

http://www.thestranger.com/food-and-dri ... ocal-farms

The jet stream has changed for a bit, but last week I couldn't keep myself from constantly tearing up (I was crying all week -- not from sadness) and being congested -- baby's first allergy. Rain and snow cannot come soon enough. Since there is no AC anywhere for the most part in Seattle, I relented and bought one.

Yes, BC sounds to be completely on fire given the early nature of this weather.
There is no me. There is no you. There is all. There is no you. There is no me. And that is all. A profound acceptance of an enormous pageantry. A haunting certainty that the unifying principle of this universe is love. -- Propagandhi
User avatar
82_28
 
Posts: 11194
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:34 am
Location: North of Queen Anne
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Lord Balto » Mon Jul 13, 2015 7:22 pm

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.
User avatar
Lord Balto
 
Posts: 733
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2007 5:34 pm
Location: Interzone
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Nordic » Mon Jul 13, 2015 8:27 pm

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.
"He who wounds the ecosphere literally wounds God" -- Philip K. Dick
Nordic
 
Posts: 14230
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:36 am
Location: California USA
Blog: View Blog (6)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby KUAN » Mon Jul 13, 2015 11:01 pm

Any way ya look at it, we're fucked

.....and I feel fiiiiiiiine

:P

http://podcast.radionz.co.nz/mnr/mnr-20 ... us-048.mp3
KUAN
 
Posts: 889
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 5:17 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby 82_28 » Tue Jul 14, 2015 12:55 am

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 hear ya. But I was kinda thinking the opposite. BC does have a big city in Vancouver but BC is deffo not overpopulated it's just so vast and there has been basically no rain or snow this year on the west coast of north america. Thus all those dry forests who have been driven into fire for whatever reason. You could probably fit 100 Marylands into BC with a mere fraction of the population that actually lives there.
There is no me. There is no you. There is all. There is no you. There is no me. And that is all. A profound acceptance of an enormous pageantry. A haunting certainty that the unifying principle of this universe is love. -- Propagandhi
User avatar
82_28
 
Posts: 11194
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:34 am
Location: North of Queen Anne
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Morty » Tue Jul 14, 2015 1:30 am

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.
User avatar
Morty
 
Posts: 422
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 10:53 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Lord Balto » Tue Jul 14, 2015 5:06 am

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.


As with the need for ever expanding markets? But is this need satisfied directly by the images projected by the corporations of "normal" happy nuclear families, or is it satisfied indirectly through an unholy alliance between religion and business?
User avatar
Lord Balto
 
Posts: 733
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2007 5:34 pm
Location: Interzone
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Lord Balto » Tue Jul 14, 2015 5:23 am

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.


Historically, this "God" of yours is the sun. And I assure you the sun has no agenda in regard to humanity. The personification of natural forces has a long history in the minds of humans.

As for mini ice ages, they may only last for a short time, but their effects can be catastrophic. Take, for example, the event of 535-536. This led to the emergence of the bubonic plague in East Africa that ultimately wiped out one third of the population of the Old World. Imagine what would happen to our highly leveraged, highly technical civilization after only a few years. Even a couple of years could wipe hundreds of years off of human progress.

And remember, even if the cause of this mini ice age lasts for only a few years, there could very well be self-reinforcing effects. Think about what would happen if there were a major reduction in human population. Fewer gasoline burning cars, less coal- and oil-fired energy production, fewer cows emitting greenhouse gases, all would reduce the amount of warming on a planetary scale. Before you knew it, the government could be giving incentives to convert from electric cars back to the internal combustion engine to slow the freeze.
User avatar
Lord Balto
 
Posts: 733
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2007 5:34 pm
Location: Interzone
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Lord Balto » Tue Jul 14, 2015 6:41 am

Just to put this discussion in context:

Image

I previously listed most of these events, the appearance and disappearance of which I have elsewhere identified with the presence of a large comet-like object near the earth, but this illustration makes the pattern more visually understandable. Note that the Little Ice Age lasted for 300 years and not just a single solar cycle.
User avatar
Lord Balto
 
Posts: 733
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2007 5:34 pm
Location: Interzone
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby vogonpoet » Tue Jul 14, 2015 8:18 am

Typical media info mangling. The original article (linkage via Slashdot) never predicted a "Mini Ice Age" - merely a possible repeat "Maunder minimum." (Micro Ice Age?) I don't know, but I still have this feeling...
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...
User avatar
vogonpoet
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 6:35 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby brainpanhandler » Tue Jul 14, 2015 11:35 am

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?


If by 'political posturing' you mean preemptive sarcasm? well, I like to save the rational discussion for the rational people.

This really is a religion to you folks, isn't it?


The theory of anthropogenic global warming? There are some superficial similarities, but no.

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.


Unworthy of any real response. Presumably you already know better.
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Martin Luther King Jr.
User avatar
brainpanhandler
 
Posts: 5114
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 9:38 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby brainpanhandler » Tue Jul 14, 2015 12:25 pm

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.


Blah, blah, blah.

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?


I'll not waste my time quibbling over minutiae.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Tell a lie long enough and loud enough and it becomes the truth. I think Goebbels said that.


Godwin's law.

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?


"Normal procedure" is to wait until the paper is published and reviewed before making any serious claims about the veracity or implications of the contents.

You don't think that humanity is the ultimate driver of climate on this planet?


No. Unless, you are playing word games and only mean by "on this planet" terrestrial forces.

To listen to the current crop of end-of-the-world zealots, we are about to collectively turn the earth into an inferno.


"ultimate driver of climate" must mean different things to you and me. I'm not even sure I could pick an "ultimate driver of climate".

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.


You can lens out to vast sweeps of time if that makes you feel better, but it doesn't change the harsh, brutal reality here and now one iota.
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Martin Luther King Jr.
User avatar
brainpanhandler
 
Posts: 5114
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 9:38 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby stillrobertpaulsen » Tue Jul 14, 2015 3:18 pm

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.


Thanks for pointing this out, Morty. Guy McPherson elaborated a bit more about this on his Facebook page:

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.


Personally, I find this whole episode quaint; I thought 90s nostalgia was in and 70s nostalgia was out. But no, that's why you're seeing this on television - the media loves a debate, even if it's just one yet-to-be-peer-reviewed study that constitutes the "other" side.

No, the Earth Is Not Heading for a “Mini Ice Age”
By Eric Holthaus

ImageSunspots 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.
User avatar
stillrobertpaulsen
 
Posts: 2414
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 2:43 pm
Location: Gone baby gone
Blog: View Blog (37)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Lord Balto » Tue Jul 14, 2015 3:20 pm

Image
User avatar
Lord Balto
 
Posts: 733
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2007 5:34 pm
Location: Interzone
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Rory » Tue Jul 14, 2015 3:34 pm



OH SNAP! There's no way the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming doom-mongering conspiracy theorists are coming back from this, comrade Balto
Rory
 
Posts: 1596
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 169 guests