![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Mini Ice Age To Hit In 2030
- Thread starter Megalith
- Start date
sfsuphysics
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2007
- Messages
- 15,991
in before the "oh so global warming huh?" type of retards to start.
Knowing that majority of news networks cant predict a 5 day forecast I find it hard to believe they can predict anything.
California drought has only been an issue this year, which they should have predicted years in advance and take action, yet they did not.
A Canadian Goose jacket is the least of your concerns, as an SUV with 4 wheel drive and snow tires is going to be the better investment if this mini ice age is in fact true.
California drought has only been an issue this year, which they should have predicted years in advance and take action, yet they did not.
A Canadian Goose jacket is the least of your concerns, as an SUV with 4 wheel drive and snow tires is going to be the better investment if this mini ice age is in fact true.
Yakk
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 5,810
Well, aparently the human species were able to survive a few cycles of reduced solar activity, calling it a mini ice age is clickbait worthy. Probably won't like the heating bill though.
Yakk
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 5,810
Emm... global warming & reduced solar activity are related, except maybe our global warming will keep us a bit warmer at the cost of overheating once the solar activity increases again.
Yakk
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 5,810
Emm... global warming & reduced solar activity are related, except maybe our global warming will keep us a bit warmer at the cost of overheating once the solar activity increases again.
*not related
jojo69
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2009
- Messages
- 11,267
oh ffs
megalith
megalith
Knight_of_BAAWA
Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2005
- Messages
- 806
Well, all the AGW whackos scream that the sun has nothing to do with anything. And we all know that it plays a very important part. This finding, of course, confirms that the sun plays a very important part.In fact: it plays the majority part. Humans can't do anything (other than nuclear winter) which even comes close to what the sun--or even the Earth with volcanic eruptions (see: 1800 And Froze To Death)--can do.
Moogle Stiltzkin
Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2004
- Messages
- 814
for people thinking, "oh so global warming isn't a problem"
well it still is. it's causing acidication of the oceans and gonna create mass extinctions. Notice how now shelled sea creatures, their shells are becoming thinner and brittle e.g. crabs, lobsters... what else?
also bye bye corral reefs :x so no more safe havens for the smallfishies.
well it still is. it's causing acidication of the oceans and gonna create mass extinctions. Notice how now shelled sea creatures, their shells are becoming thinner and brittle e.g. crabs, lobsters... what else?
also bye bye corral reefs :x so no more safe havens for the smallfishies.
CreepyUncleGoogle
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2013
- Messages
- 6,871
A mini ice age would be so cool!
Don't forget nerfing the thermohaline cycle due to fresh water melt. That'll drive declining temps as well...
I've never heard anyone credible say that the sun has nothing to do with it. Obviously it does. But we can't control the sun. We can control the garbage we spew into the air, and that garbage does cause a positive feedback loop which amplifies the effect of the sun. We can argue all day long just how much of an effect it is, how much humans play a part, and what the ultimate result will be. But we DO have an effect, and denying it is just retarded. But, even if man made global warming/climate change/*insert latest buzzword here* isn't real, do you really wanna be breathing in all the garbage we pump into the environment? I sure as hell don't. We need to get off fossil fuels for a variety of reasons. Global warming is only one of them. The others IMO are far more important to me. And this is coming from someone who works in the oil industry and depends on it for my living...
On a side note, I think one reason why environmentalists are looked at as wackos and aren't taken seriously (even though they are mostly right) is because their methods don't resonate with the average person. They are all worried about saving the birds and the trees and mother earth and it's innate beauty and blaming man for all of the earths troubles and blah blah blah. I am big on keeping the environment clean, and those people make me want to stab myself. Instead, they need to spin it in a more selfish way. Think about it. Animals don't give a flying fuck what the earth looks like. Trees and rocks and water have no consciousness, no ability to see, or understand. "Beauty" is an entirely man made thing. The earth will continue on long after we are extinct, so who gives a shit about "saving the planet". Instead, we need to be more selfish. I personally like a clean blue sky, not a dirty brown one. I like clean air. I like clean water. I as a human can appreciate beauty in nature. I like the way trees look. I don't give a fuck what some endangered fish thinks. I want a clean environment so that I can enjoy it, and my friends and family can enjoy it, and other humans can enjoy it. We should all want that.
CO2 is not "garbage", its completely natural part of the atmosphere, and we are increasing that part. Life has thrived on the planet with far higher CO2 concentrations than we have today, and CO2 does not cause some kind of indefinite feedback loop or amplify all effects of the sun.
All CO2 does is help to hold in some of the thermal energy of the sun. Ideally, we would like to maintain a constant temperature, so the man-accelerated release of large quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere is undesirable if it increases the average world temperature too quickly.
However, if we could predict with accuracy that we will have an extended period of reduced solar activity, then its a very good thing. Its not rocket science.
Again, there has never been a debate about other pollution, like the kind that causes acid rain. The question was about the release of non-toxic gases like CO2 from clean-coal plants, and whether or not its a problem and if it is a problem how big of one it is. If we do see reduced solar activity for a long time in the future, then not only is it not a problem, we may even wish to increase it in order to keep global temperatures from dropping too much, provided we think that we can find a technology to sequester that CO2 in the future when its not needed as a "thermal blanket" of sorts. If we could produce environmental control stations around the world that could release and absorb large quantities of CO2, we could in fact harness that to our benefit to minimize the effects of solar variations.
And that also demonstrates a weakness of relying on solar technology if we do have a huge drop of solar energy hitting the earth. Its a season power source that sucks more the further you get from the equator, it doesn't work at night, its not economical in the near future, and we have no environmentally friendly way to store vast amounts of solar energy made during the day to release at night or on long periods of overcast weather.
Suprfire
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2008
- Messages
- 2,116
I wonder how chilly it might get... Maybe we'll see snow in central florida? That'd be brick-shatting worthy.
Well, carbon-14 is thought to be an indicator of solar activity, and if you look at it as a predictor of solar activity, we have had unusually high solar radiation in modern times, and it was really just a matter of time for it to fall to more historic norms:
Then again, I think we're only talking about a few degrees here and there. The bigger climate change I think comes from changes in thermal currents.
In Europe it is insanely hot right now, apparently because of a huge shift in thermal currents from Africa. Sucks for them, as many places don't have airconditioning.
Parmenides
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,578
Of course there is climate change, it's been changing since the beginning of life here on earth.
NickJames
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 6,698
Time to starting scooping out real estate down here in South Florida.
schoolslave
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2010
- Messages
- 1,293
Do you literally spend all your time looking at News threads, googling opposing viewpoints to the majority's opinion, and then blabbering on and on and on until you run out of Google/Reddit-fueled counterarguments?
Xrave
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2004
- Messages
- 7,816
We better start pumping out more CO2 to help compensate for the impending mini iceage.
I'm talking about all the other shit that gets spewed into the air along with the CO2 from less than clean sources. And yes, CO2 along with other greenhouse gasses do cause a positive feedback loop. It does increase global temperatures faster than what would occur naturally. The only argument is how much and what the long term effects are. And yes, life thrived when CO2 was higher, but humans didn't exist then. This is why I brought up the selfish part. I want the planet to remain ideally suited to human life and human desires. I don't a flying fuck what happens after we are all gone.
And I also don't think solar is the solution. It's one piece, but not a complete solution. I think modern nuclear reactors are the solution. They are clean, relatively cheap, and safe. We need to be building a shitload of new ones to replace the aging ones that are less reliable, less safe, and produce more waste. I remember reading about a new type of reactor that can use the waste from older reactors as it's fuel, therefore automatically making the older ones cleaner as well. I forget what they are called, something to do with salt...
bloodypulp
Gawd
- Joined
- May 17, 2010
- Messages
- 903
hopefully by then, we've cloned the wooly mammoth, whose DNA was found a couple years back.
Simmonz
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 14, 2008
- Messages
- 2,506
My girlfriend's mom actually just bought me a goose down coat, i'm set.
westrock2000
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2005
- Messages
- 9,433
Now hold on. First you say that anyone that disagrees with you is retarded. But then your fall back argument is to play off emotions. "Even if it save 1 child" type stuff.
It would be great if temperatures never changed and the Earth just went on stuck in one state for eternity. But Earth does not do that. It never has.
So if the Earth could get colder or get warmer, which do you think would have a bigger impact on life on this planet? Not just humans. But all forms of life, flora and fauna. Do you think more life would sustain if it was colder or warmer?
Making the Earth warmer would probably SAVE life. Even compared to the "perfect" temps we have now.
Do you literally need some ibuprofen to help with those menstrual cramps, or are you always this edgy?
Then who are you arguing with? There's absolutely no one that disagrees with you on that. The only point of contention is whether or not greenhouse gases like CO2 matter, and if they matter how much they do.i960 said:
Uhmmm... positive feedback loop, I don't think that means what you think it means. If that were the case, the CO2 pumped into the atmosphere would trap more solar energy which would somehow make the sun release more energy and then trap more energy and so forth exponentially, but that's nonsensical. CO2 can't have any effect on the sun, so it can't create a feedback loop. That's just common sense.i960 said:
And yes, maintaining a consistent temperature is certainly desirable, as no one wants to live in a desert, but if we really are at the absolute peak of solar activity as carbon-14 measurements would indicate, then worrying about CO2 output isn't all that important as a priority, and may even be beneficial to help maintain global temperatures and increase flora growth rates.
Avoiding a global cooling trend while boosting global plant growth are things that would benefit man. In that scenario, it would also be very likely that we'd see a nice reforestation of the planet, all else equal, as trees benefit the most and could invade grasslands and they fight erosion better, increase animal populations more except for the large ruminants of course (thanks to the shelter/housing the trees provide), and are more durable since their deep roots can access and hold water better than grasslands.
I believe the peak biomass the Earth ever had was before the major asteroid extinction event during the time of the dinosaurs, and CO2 levels and global temperatures were sooooooooooooooooo much hotter than today.
Now a question of course would be, could humans adapt? If the change is slow enough, absolutely, as I think we'd simply move away from the equator and populate northern and southern regions and higher altitudes more than we do today. If it were as hot as during the time of the dinosaurs for example, then places like greenland might actually be absolutely covered in thick super fast growing forests with bursting plantlife so it would actually be, yeah, GREEN!
There's tons of water and what not there, its just too cold. I recommend that we preemptively invade Canada and take that land for ourselves, just in case 'Murica gets too hot.
Phoenix333
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2009
- Messages
- 3,510
Mini ice age again, just like they were predicting in the 1970's before all the Global Warming hype started... and someone will have another study showing that's wrong, etc, etc, ad nauseum. It's 2015. Manhattan was supposed to be under water by now. How many times are people going to keep buying into all this? Instead of the religious fanatic wearing a sign saying "THE END IS NEAR", it's a bunch of so-called scientists so it's somehow supposed to be more believable. But the fix is... send us more money! Do with less! We know what's better! It's the same damned thing it's always been - someone's getting rich off someone else's gullibility, and before one of the Global Warming apologists chimes in with the "but it's really Climate Change" crap, I know the playbook and the buzzwords. When it's hotter you say "See, I told you so!", and when it's cooler you just change the name and try to point to the same cause... even though that's not how the greenhouse effect works. Been there, done that.
The very term "Climate Change" is a joke. The climate has never been constant, it never will be, and if you think I'm advocating for more pollution or unrestrained capitalist expansion, I never said that, but that's what you assume so let me just correct you before you even go there. I hate pollution. I just don't consider CO2, which is a natural product of animal respiration and volcanic activity, among other things, to be a pollutant. If carbon is a pollutant than life, by that definition, is pollution. The term "carbon-based life form" ,ean anything to you? You want to fix this? Stop bulldozing the rainforests because, you know, trees soak up CO2, and have all the idiot alarmists and politicians STFU for 5 minutes and maybe by toning down all that hot exhaust spewing out of their collective mouths you'll reduce those CO2 levels you're all so afraid of. I'm waiting for them to start taxing breathing. I know politicians, and if one of them thinks he can find a way to tax people for simply existing he'll try it. After all, who doesn't have some kind of "carbon footprint" simply by being alive?
Resorting to name calling before someone even makes a post is pathetic. Since someone else's data doesn't fit your preferred theory you'd rather throw away the data instead of questioning the validity of the theory. If the theory cannot stand up to the test of critical review then it is to be discarded. That is the scientific method, and has been since the beginning. If scientists are unwilling to test the theory at all then it is no longer science nor theory. It becomes something else entirely.
I find it all sadly ironic. I always hear the anti-religious types argue that science adapts to new information which is what makes it superior to religion... yet in the case of Global Warming, "the science is settled". Those who disagree with that assessment are branded heretics and deniers, they are vilified, demonized, and called all sorts of nasty names... some of them even having their careers burned at the stake. I'd expect that kind of fanaticism from the Westboro Baptist Church, but when people cannot even discuss an issue... when opposing thought is censored before anyone even says anything at all, well what else can it be called? I wonder how many climate scientists have had to skew their findings for fear of being outed as a non-believer. It's hard to do real science when you're afraid of being excommunicated. Just ask Copernicus or Galileo.
The very term "Climate Change" is a joke. The climate has never been constant, it never will be, and if you think I'm advocating for more pollution or unrestrained capitalist expansion, I never said that, but that's what you assume so let me just correct you before you even go there. I hate pollution. I just don't consider CO2, which is a natural product of animal respiration and volcanic activity, among other things, to be a pollutant. If carbon is a pollutant than life, by that definition, is pollution. The term "carbon-based life form" ,ean anything to you? You want to fix this? Stop bulldozing the rainforests because, you know, trees soak up CO2, and have all the idiot alarmists and politicians STFU for 5 minutes and maybe by toning down all that hot exhaust spewing out of their collective mouths you'll reduce those CO2 levels you're all so afraid of. I'm waiting for them to start taxing breathing. I know politicians, and if one of them thinks he can find a way to tax people for simply existing he'll try it. After all, who doesn't have some kind of "carbon footprint" simply by being alive?
Resorting to name calling before someone even makes a post is pathetic. Since someone else's data doesn't fit your preferred theory you'd rather throw away the data instead of questioning the validity of the theory. If the theory cannot stand up to the test of critical review then it is to be discarded. That is the scientific method, and has been since the beginning. If scientists are unwilling to test the theory at all then it is no longer science nor theory. It becomes something else entirely.
I find it all sadly ironic. I always hear the anti-religious types argue that science adapts to new information which is what makes it superior to religion... yet in the case of Global Warming, "the science is settled". Those who disagree with that assessment are branded heretics and deniers, they are vilified, demonized, and called all sorts of nasty names... some of them even having their careers burned at the stake. I'd expect that kind of fanaticism from the Westboro Baptist Church, but when people cannot even discuss an issue... when opposing thought is censored before anyone even says anything at all, well what else can it be called? I wonder how many climate scientists have had to skew their findings for fear of being outed as a non-believer. It's hard to do real science when you're afraid of being excommunicated. Just ask Copernicus or Galileo.
I never said anyone who disagrees with me is retarded. I said anyone who believes humans have zero impact on climate is retarded. We do have an impact. That's a fact and it doesn't require you to believe it or me for it to be true. The only question is how much of an impact. That is certainly a debate worth having and I don't have the answer and I don't know if anyone really does. And I have no idea what you are talking about regarding the whole "if it saves one child" thing. And I don't expect temps to never change. I just don't think we should be dumping shit into the atmosphere willy nilly and pretending it has zero effect.
bigdogchris
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2008
- Messages
- 18,706
I don't care whether human made climate change is real or not. We shouldn't be polluting just because we can. We should be striving for 100% green because we want to keep our only home looking beautiful.
I'm arguing that we shouldn't be burning so much fossil fuels and should be actively working to get off them, for a variety of reasons, not just global warming. People just don't want to believe it exists, largely for political reasons. Fine, don't believe it. We still need to get off fossil fuels for other reasons that no one disagrees with. My point is that environmentalists should change the argument from global warming sky is falling doom and gloom to something that we can all agree on, that brown skies suck and no one wants that.
And it is a positive feedback loop. I never said it involved the sun. CO2 increases temps, which warms the oceans, which release more CO2 and water vapor, which increases temps. Rince and repeat.
This is exactly the point I was trying to make. Reduce the pollution from non renewable sources, and you will also reduce CO2 output as a side effect. You don't have to believe in climate change to see this as a win win for everyone.
mullet
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2004
- Messages
- 2,017
9 out of 10 trees say they love all of this CO2 and to keep it up.
4saken
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2004
- Messages
- 13,163
I can get behind that. If only they hadnt turned it into a money grabbing politicized issue of doom and gloom, which has been so overblown.
'47 Knucklehead
n00b
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2012
- Messages
- 31
This.
5 days? Hell, I don't even bother looking at the 3 day forcast to plan when I'm going to ride my motorcycle, or even the day before. I look at the report for that day, and pretty much anything under 50% I ride. They can't even get local weather anywhere accurate just 8 hours out.
So when I see garbage ... 15 years from now ... or the temperature will rise 1C in 100 years, I laugh my butt off.