• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
I was inspired to post this based on some of the ramblings on the Election 2015 thread. This article from Wired UK is an example of both how scientific research turns the "narrative" on its head and a hilarious example of how the "church of Global Warming" will try to ignore evidence standing squarly in its face. The prediction that the reduction of solar activity will trigger a "Little Ice Age" in the 2030's cannot be squared with the paragraph in the same article :

Such events are in no way linked to climate change, with fluctuations in solar activity having a far smaller impact than global warming.

Either the change in solar activity will cause a change in the global climate, or it will not. Saying it will cause a little ice age but is in no way linked to climate change is sucking and blowing at the same time in the worst way, and trying to do it in the same article is incredibly stupid as well:

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-07/13/mini-ice-age-earth-sunspots

Mini ice age could bring freezing temperatures by 2030
13 July 15 /by James Temperton

A mini ice age could hit the Earth in the 2030s, the first such event to occur since the early 1700s. New mathematical models of the Sun's solar cycle developed at Northumbria University suggest solar activity will see a "significant" drop, causing temperatures on Earth to plummet.

The last mini ice age occurred between 1645 and 1715 and caused temperatures in northern Europe to fall dramatically, with London's River Thames freezing over during winter and sea ice extending for miles around the UK. The prolonged cold snap, known as the Maunder Minimum, has been linked to a reduction in the number of sunspots, as observed by scientists at the time.

Such periods were thought to be driven by convecting waves of fluids deep within the Sun, but new research suggests a second force -- or "wave" -- is at play. Two waves, operating at different layers in the Sun's interior, are now believed to drive solar activity. When these waves are desynchronised, temperatures on Earth fall.

Both waves work on 11 year cycles and fluctuate between the northern and southern hemispheres of the Sun. When the waves stay in phase we see high levels of solar activity such as sunspots, and when out of phase we see low activity.

Such events are in no way linked to climate change, with fluctuations in solar activity having a far smaller impact than global warming.

Valentina Zharkova, a mathematics professor at Northumbria University, who led the research, said comparing predictions to real data about current solar activity showed an accuracy of 97 percent. The findings were presented at the National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno, Wales.

To test their theory Zharkova and her colleagues used solar activity data from 1976-2008. Once it was clear the theory matched they used their model to predict how the two separate waves would behave during the next solar cycles.

They found that by cycle 25, which peaks in 2022, the pair of waves would be increasingly offset. During cycle 26, covering the period 2030-2040, the two waves will be exactly out of synch, causing a "significant reduction" in solar activity.

"In cycle 26, the two waves exactly mirror each other – peaking at the same time but in opposite hemispheres of the Sun. Their interaction will be disruptive, or they will nearly cancel each other. We predict that this will lead to the properties of a 'Maunder minimum'," Zharkova said.

If correct -- further study is naturally required -- Zharkova's prediction would mean a return to freezing temperatures last seen 370 years ago. During that period the River Thames froze to such an extent that regular "frost fairs" were held during the winter, with market stalls and ice skating a common sight on the river.

During the winter of 1683-84 the river was frozen solid for two months at a thickness of 28cm, according to historical records. Solid ice was also reported extending for miles off the coasts around England, France, Belgium and the Netherlands.
 
Thucydides said:
I was inspired to post this based on some of the ramblings on the Election 2015 thread. This article from Wired UK is an example of both how scientific research turns the "narrative" on its head and a hilarious example of how the "church of Global Warming" will try to ignore evidence standing squarly in its face. The prediction that the reduction of solar activity will trigger a "Little Ice Age" in the 2030's cannot be squared with the paragraph in the same article :

Either the change in solar activity will cause a change in the global climate, or it will not. Saying it will cause a little ice age but is in no way linked to climate change is sucking and blowing at the same time in the worst way, and trying to do it in the same article is incredibly stupid as well:

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-07/13/mini-ice-age-earth-sunspots

Lol.  and here is an update from the very same scientist they and you are quoting:

http://www.iflscience.com/environment/mini-ice-age-not-reason-ignore-global-warming

Specifically this:

Zharkova ends with a word of warning: not about the cold but about humanity's attitude toward the environment during the minimum. We must not ignore the effects of global warming and assume that it isn't happening. “The Sun buys us time to stop these carbon emissions,” Zharkova says. The next minimum might give the Earth a chance to reduce adverse effects from global warming.

Oh and this one too...


http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/07/16/scientists-dispute-ice-age-warnings/30257409/
 
Good to know. From the historic records it would appear that after the onset of a Little Ice Age the world will have between 3-500 years to decide "how to stop these carbon emissions".

Of course there is an element of sucking and blowing there as well. How many of these climate change alarmists are for reducing "carbon emissions" by ramping up nuclear power production?

And as for the "evidence" (graphs on link):

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/07/27/mind-blowing-temperature-fraud-at-noaa/

Mind-Blowing Temperature Fraud At NOAA
Posted on July 27, 2015 by stevengoddard

The measured US temperature data from USHCN shows that the US is on a long-term cooling trend. But the reported temperatures from NOAA show a strong warming trend.

ScreenHunter_10009 Jul. 27 12.16

Measured : ushcn.tavg.latest.raw.tar.gz
Reported : ushcn.tavg.latest.FLs.52j.tar.gz

They accomplish this through a spectacular hockey stick of data tampering, which corrupts the US temperature trend by almost two degrees.

ScreenHunter_10008 Jul. 27 12.08

The biggest component of this fraud is making up data. Almost half of all reported US temperature data is now fake. They fill in missing rural data with urban data to create the appearance of non-existent US warming.

ScreenHunter_10010 Jul. 27 12.20

The depths of this fraud is breathtaking, but completely consistent with the fraudulent profession which has become known as “climate science”

And a comment from another blog on this revelation:



It's been interesting. We've actually had a rather hot summer over here in Europe, and yet none of the usual suspects have tried to connect it to global warming. That tells me that they know the jig is up, and it's only a matter of time before even the die-hards like NOAA stop lying about it.

And presumably it won't be long after that before they'll be shrieking about the coming Ice Age and how that means we must accept global government. They're kind of one-trick ponies, aren't they.
 
My issue is climate change.  Not global warming.  I'm really not about trusting alarmists or environmentalists and all these end of the world scenarios but...

When a guy like Stephen Hawking declares that climate change is one of the single greatest threats to the planet, I listen.
 
Crantor said:
My issue is climate change.  Not global warming.  I'm really not about trusting alarmists or environmentalists and all these end of the world scenarios but...

When a guy like Stephen Hawking declares that climate change is one of the single greatest threats to the planet, I listen.

Only now, Mr. Hawking (whom I admire greatly) previously said that the biggest threat to humanity would be contacting ET.  He is now joining forces with others in the hunt for ET...  :alien: :orly:
 
jollyjacktar said:
Only now, Mr. Hawking (whom I admire greatly) previously said that the biggest threat to humanity would be contacting ET.  He is now joining forces with others in the hunt for ET...  :alien: :orly:

While it might sound crazy, they just recently discovered a planet similar to Earth.  ET might not be what we think it is but it likely does exist.

Again, when he says something, I listen.
 
Agreed.  Especially when you take into account the of the effort he must make to in order to say what he wants to say.
 
Again, I don't disagree that climate change occurs.  Nor that it poses a significant threat.

I only suggest that we can't predict climate change and therefore it is ludicrous/criminal to waste resources on courses of action that are not known to be effective.

I, like Bjorn Lomborg, believe it is best to husband what resources we have and apply them to best effect when we have a clearly identified crisis and a course of action that is tailored to meet the crisis.

I would hate to have spent trillions of dollars of wealth supporting bureaucrats and corrupt politicians only to discover bare cupboards when we needed to build levees or knock an incoming asteroid out of the sky.
 
Crantor said:
My issue is climate change.  Not global warming.  I'm really not about trusting alarmists or environmentalists and all these end of the world scenarios but...

When a guy like Stephen Hawking declares that climate change is one of the single greatest threats to the planet, I listen.

The climate is changing all the time. Humans evolved becasue the climate changed and our distant ancestors had attributes which allowed them to survive and thrive in the new environments. Vikings had croft farms in Greenland in the 1100's (we know this because retreating glaciers are revealing the farms) and the Scots were known for their wines until the 1400's.

The issue is how to address this natural cycle of changes. The Climate Change alarmists have an agenda that involves massive increases in bureaucracies, curtailing political and economic freedoms and unbridled State power as their means of addressing these cycles (the snark in my post upthread about how Climate Change alarmists will have the same "solutions" for the next Little Ice Age suggests their agenda isn't actually about climate at all). I happen to believe humans are pretty smart and adaptable creatures and given free reign could probably find solutions on their own. If tribes of Homo Sapiens could go from the burning deserts of Africa to the Ice Age Steppe of central Asia on foot and from there around the world armed with nothing much more advanced than pointed sticks and elegently flaked stone tools, I think we could probably figure things out the way the Ancestors did....
 
Thucydides said:
If tribes of Homo Sapiens could go from the burning deserts of Africa to the Ice Age Steppe of central Asia on foot and from there around the world armed with nothing much more advanced than pointed sticks and elegently flaked stone tools, I think we could probably figure things out the way the Ancestors did....
Pointed Sticks?

Self-defense-against-Fresh-Fruit-monty-python-10984452-456-263.jpg


Here's the real threat:

latest
 
Ah.  Now I understand the 16 ton LVM - Heavy requirement.
 
Kirkhill said:
Again, I don't disagree that climate change occurs.  Nor that it poses a significant threat.

I only suggest that we can't predict climate change and therefore it is ludicrous/criminal to waste resources on courses of action that are not known to be effective.

I, like Bjorn Lomborg, believe it is best to husband what resources we have and apply them to best effect when we have a clearly identified crisis and a course of action that is tailored to meet the crisis.

I would hate to have spent trillions of dollars of wealth supporting bureaucrats and corrupt politicians only to discover bare cupboards when we needed to build levees or knock an incoming asteroid out of the sky.

I would echo this perspective. Unfortunately, the climate change lobby only recognizes their point of view. Anything else warrants being labeled a "denier". Most reasonable men understand that in any discussion there is a middle ground. Alas, war is no place for reasonable men, and the climate change debate is nothing more than another front in the greater culture war.
 
ModlrMike said:
I would echo this perspective. Unfortunately, the climate change lobby only recognizes their point of view. Anything else warrants being labeled a "denier". Most reasonable men understand that in any discussion there is a middle ground. Alas, war is no place for reasonable men, and the climate change debate is nothing more than another front in the greater culture war.

That is because denier's are more often than not lobbyists for whomever will write the biggest cheque, rarely are they individuals coming from a respectable institution or established environmental research group. I think it would do many of you guys some good to watch the documentary Merchants of Doubt. It does an excellent job of showing the business that is professional denial "experts", and their role in using the media as an effective form of convincing the public of whatever they are being paid to downplay. I know I'm rather suspicious of any so called expert who's funding comes from some of the largest oil industrialists in the world, and whom a few decades ago told us that smoking had no adverse health effects.

Science is a method which we use to discern the world around us, and despite an individuals motive to use the findings of this for good or bad, the method works. If some individuals chose to use AGW research to further their own agendas then that is very unfortunate, it does not however make the findings of individuals who actually crunch the numbers any less factual. Science will carry on advancing the scope of mankind's knowledge, we'll adopt new theories from new pieces of information and we'll add to or discard that which does not fit with our updated findings. You can believe the entire scientific community is out to kill jobs or push green technology all you'd like, but those institutions are going to continue to function at the pinnacle of mankind's knowledge in all fields whether you support them or not.
 
I do so love an expert with a PhD.

A committee of PhDs is even better.  It guarantees a project will go long, over budget, and generate nothing.  A great vehicle for a consulting engineer.
 
Kirkhill said:
I do so love an expert with a PhD.

A committee of PhDs is even better.  It guarantees a project will go long, over budget, and generate nothing.  A great vehicle for a consulting engineer.

The alternative to educated professionals is what, laymans interpretations? PhD's got man to the moon, they created the foundations for the atom bomb, they sequenced the first human genome. That work would never have been accomplished by anyone other than those with significant educations to their respective subjects, it was not the work of undergrads, the sciences are not fields where the Pte/Cpl's win wars.
 
Fear not ye Deniers of scientific fact lest ye be burned at the stake, for even the dimmest of the climate change truth sayers knows that stake burning contributes to global warming, and the carbon offsets would be prohibitively expensive. >:D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top