Printable View
The mini ice age is coming and it's gonna hurt much much worse than any warming scenario. And guess what? Ain't nothing you can do about it. So listen to your NPR, bitch about Trump, go for a ride on your $7000 enduro, and keep pretending there's political solutions that will "save the world". Oh, and keep ignoring all the true atrocities happening across the globe because ZOMG!, I might have to deal with rising snow levels! THE HUMANITY!!!
lol this is a great take. can I get an eta on that mini ice age? also looking for your compassionate solution to these true atrocities. thanks in advance bro.Quote:
Originally Posted by BGnight
Too bad there is basically no reliable scientific evidence that we are heading into a little ice age.Quote:
Originally Posted by BGnight
But go ahead, keep spewing that Exxon mobile funded think-tank nonsense.
I honestly can't waste my time responding to someone who thinks any scientific evidence for climate change scenarios, that isn't based on AGW CO2 driven warming, must be concocted by big oil. That's very regressive thinking and is politicizing science as much as any right wing nutjob.Quote:
Originally Posted by WTF is dat
You're above that. We're not worthyQuote:
Originally Posted by BGnight
Ok, I'll play. Care to elaborate on the ice age? I'm familiar with the fact that we are in fact supposed to be in the midst of a cooling trend according to the milankovitch cycles. But that wouldn't qualify as a "mini" ice age, nor is that the case since we've long bypassed effects the natural orbital forcings
orbital forcings = skull fucking?
Technically we are in a ice age right nowQuote:
Originally Posted by Bronic
I'm not him but there have been two recent studies which go in this general direction and have accordingly received a lot of publicity. A lot of this publicity was predictably overblown and misrepresents what is in the studies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bronic
One study is about sunspots. Is called "Prediction of solar activity from solar background magnetic field variations in cycles 21-23". It is available in full here. Essentially it presents a regression based mathematical model that predicts patterns in the cycles of the sun/number of sunspots. This model suggests a minimum of solar activity in 15 or so years, comparable to the Maunder Minimum in terms of activity level but shorter. The article does not mention the words ice age, climate, or weather. The authors (who are mathematicians) later made some vague statements about cooling effects of the predicted minimum when questioned about it but appeared to be unaware of a lot of the relevant literature. The bottom line of that literature is that a decline in solar activity as predicted would have a comparatively small effect compared to opposite climate change related effects. Here and here are fairly poignant summaries about how this was an instructional example of poor science communication. Here is a nice sort of general summary on solar activity and recent climate. Here is some commentary related to the above study and similar arguments.
The solar argument comes up in new packaging every so often. This is a little older but still relevant and I find it quite humorous.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adAv...ature=youtu.be
In the other study oceanographers discuss that there may be a model bias towards a stable AMOC (i.e. the gulfstream) in global climate models, which may skew predictions of what will happen to the AMOC and thus the climate under certain circumstances. It is also available in full online. The basic suggestion is that the stability of the AMOC has been overestimated and there may be a tipping point where it collapses. Fresh water entering the oceans as ice melts is a main factor that has the potential to mess it up. Weirdly, this one did not cause as much of a media racket. I personally find it a lot more interesting and it has a lot more potentially significant implications for climate modeling. The authors have repeatedly stressed that there are a lot of uncertainties and the model needs further refinement. Here is some excellent commentary on the implications and uncertainties of this study.
And yes, we are currently in the Holocene, an interglacial of the ongoing ice age.
I came across an interesting article about the demonization of carbon and human caused climate change a couple months ago that might have changed my perspective a bit. I had always followed along with the popular 'human caused climate change' model without knowing the science, but this article has put some doubts into my head. The author has no affiliation to the energy industry. The piece is quite long, with 4 parts and more coming I believe. Anyway, here is the link: http://sacredgeometryinternational.c...monization-co2
I am curious to hear some other people's thoughts on the piece that know more about this than me. My conclusion is that it is not nearly as clear as the mainstream thinks that humans are the driving factor behind climate change.
I have only scanned this but it appears to be a really lengthy way of presenting the ever popular argument "plants seem to grow really well when there is a lot of co2. therefore having a lot of co2 in the atmosphere is a good thing." Here are some details about the flaws in that train of thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by cumicon
This is from the about the author section in your link. Some interesting qualifications but I'm not sure I would call him a qualified climate scientist, exactly.
"Randall Carlson is a master builder and architectural designer, teacher, geometrician, geomythologist, geological explorer and renegade scholar. He has 4 decades of study, research and exploration Into the interface between ancient mysteries and modern science, has been an active Freemason for 30 years and is Past Master of one of the oldest and largest Masonic lodges in Georgia."
BGnight's post reminded me of this guy; Gordon Fulks. His hard on for Al Gore is alomost comical.
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/in...ion.htmleducat
Mind blown.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elkhound Odin
"Mainstream religions have long since made peace with science, recognizing that these two human pursuits can coexist to great mutual benefit, as long as one does not pretend to be the other. Some who study the history of science recognize that religion has been vital to science by teaching the value and necessity of telling the truth."Quote:
Originally Posted by k2skier112
Awesome.
When did climate change become politicized? Oh yeah, when Koch Industries and other polluters spent hundreds of millions in political think tanks to figure out how to make it a wedge issue. So glad we can argue over this so the 1% can double their wealth. They are stoked that so many Americans are easily dubbed.
There are a ton of questions out there about climate change, human and fossil fuel extraction effects on it, but now we are lucky enough to have leaders who not only deny what is going on, but want to pull funding from research so we can get a better grasp on it.
Regardless if this is man made or not (although I lean heavily toward the belief that man is having an effect on the environment) we do need to be creating contingency plans for once sea levels begin to rise.
Kochs live in Kansas, so they give no shits along as they keep accumulating more wealth. The rest of y'all should worry, cause even those in comfortable mid climate 1st world countries will be fucked by a significant change to the climate.
What the fuck are you talking about?Quote:
Originally Posted by BGnight
Jackass.
Disgusting to hear Trump's likely pulling out of Paris. Just keep sticking those heads in the sand, jackasses.
HAHAHA, more like pulling more oil and gas from the sands!!Quote:
Originally Posted by The SnowShow
I love the "consensus or die" rhetoric.......
you guys suck at the science, debate and truth part.
This point should be emphasized, pretty interesting to think about ocean circulation being shut down. Tons of uncertainty in most climate models out there. That being said it's uncertainties in the magnitude, timing, ect or a given effect. NOT uncertainty in "science" behind itQuote:
Originally Posted by klar
Thanks very much for all the links. Do you happen to know of any studies that have repeated and used a similar model for other major circulation patterns out there besides the AMOC?
the amoc is the primary deep ocean (thermohaline) circulation pattern. i would like to have a cocktail with klar - could have some fun conversations.
https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...t=#post3618685
Yeah as Wendigo (I'd like a gin fizz pls) says, the AMOC is the main pattern that more or less governs everything else. This is the one you want to be looking at. Also, what they did is a long way away from something that you can just so apply to smaller, more regional patterns. They don't have a model as such. They applied a correction to how one GCM treats the AMOC, by fiddling with the salt/fresh water inputs. They didn't touch the model physics nor did they develop their own. It is a small and simplistic change that produced a surprisingly big result a few hundred years down the line.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bronic
This article does a good job explaining the basics and also correctly points out that the whole thing is a good example of what the debate looks like when points of discussion arise within the climate science community.
The mysterious "Cold Blob" is another current topic of scientific debate. What goes on in the oceans is not my specific field of expertise but I find it fascinating.
Seriously? Why the fuck are we still having this discussion? You know what, fuck AGW. Sure, global warming is something we should keep an eye on and prepare for mitigating factors but it sure as fuck doesn’t matter to me as far as energy policy is concerned. The simple fact is combustion and heat engines are inherently inefficient. Combustion can never be anywhere close to 100% efficient. Second law of thermodynamics rules that and cannot be changed. Furthermore, combustion of organic fuels spews forth toxic chemicals. Want proof? Get in a sealed room with a combustion car. What will happen? You will quickly die of carbon monoxide poisoning. Now get in a room with an electric car. You will be just fine (until you yourself use up all the oxygen). Try the same thing with coal vs solar panels. Same thing will happen. We should not be burning stuff to power our civilization. Period. Not coal, not oil, not wood, dung, natural gas, or anything else. We should be directly using the primary energy sources of the planet without having to wait for other organisms to first convert those sources to stuff we can burn. That means the energy from the sun, the energy from the movement of the atmosphere, the energy from gravity, the energy from geologic movement, and the energy from atomic forces.
What was used to mine and process the raw materials to build the electric car, batteries and charge the batteries? Quite the rail car(s) of crude oil and coal for the whole process.Quote:
Originally Posted by LegoSkier
The Paris Accord is a treaty. It was not ratified by 2/3 of the senate as required in the Constitution. Therefore it is not in force for the US to participate. Clear and Constitutional. Simple. Done. Finished. No further discussion required.
My rant above has absolutely nothing to do with the Paris treaty. It has to do with the fact that by employing carnot heat engines in general and combustion in particular, we are using energy inefficiently. I view efficient use of energy as a moral imperative. Therefore humans should stop using carnot heat engines and combustion in any way to do work. Whether it is to move a car, mine lithium, forge steel, or whet ever. Done. Finished. No further discussion required.Quote:
Originally Posted by goldengatestinx
No worries. Looks like we're going to be a ok
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.yaho...154523424.html
I've dbl downed and asked for extra snow on my list to santa