Mini Ice Age To Hit In 2030

i960 said:
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.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter if its renewable or not if there are metric craptons of the stuff all over the planet, called COAL. Clean coal plants emit very low pollution for the amount of power they generate, and we have so much coal in the United States its not even funny so we might as well use that natural resource. I have a clean coal plant not all that far from my house, and because its a new plant with the latest technology, the SO2, NOx, and particulates are super low. The only downside is that aside from expensive carbon sequestration, even clean coal is going to produce a LOT of carbon dioxide.

Now the question is, is the carbon dioxide really bad news? If we're going to see long periods of reduced solar activity, and we are in fact at a solar activity peak right now, then the answer is heck no.

So again, the real "poisons" being released into the atmosphere... no contest, there are no advocates for that. Everyone agrees those are bad. The CO2 boogieman... its up for debate. CO2 is something you breath out into your home every minute of every day.
 
This just in, things in the universe not static; subject to change. People argue.
 
i960 said:
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..
Click to expand...

That's a big step back from the heady days of 'An Inconvenient Truth', 5 years to slash c02 emissions or irreversible planetary damage, loss of all Arctic ice by a certain time, 'debate is over', etc.

That statement you have made is very mild, and completely possible for nearly any skeptical person to agree with. Like me.

But I hate to say I find the 'R' word offensive.
 
Ducman69 said:
It doesn't matter if its renewable or not if there are metric craptons of the stuff all over the planet, called COAL. Clean coal plants emit very low pollution for the amount of power they generate, and we have so much coal in the United States its not even funny so we might as well use that natural resource. I have a clean coal plant not all that far from my house, and because its a new plant with the latest technology, the SO2, NOx, and particulates are super low. The only downside is that aside from expensive carbon sequestration, even clean coal is going to produce a LOT of carbon dioxide.

Now the question is, is the carbon dioxide really bad news? If we're going to see long periods of reduced solar activity, and we are in fact at a solar activity peak right now, then the answer is heck no.

So again, the real "poisons" being released into the atmosphere... no contest, there are no advocates for that. Everyone agrees those are bad. The CO2 boogieman... its up for debate. CO2 is something you breath out into your home every minute of every day.
Click to expand...

How many clean coal plants are there vs dirty coal? I'm actually asking, as I have no idea. I'm not really against building clean coal plants if it's replacing an old dirty one. But you know what puts out even less pollution than clean coal? Nuclear. Why the hell we aren't building a fuck load of those is beyond me.

From what I read, CO2 kinda lingers in the air for a long ass time and builds up. So even if we dip into a period of reduced solar activity, what happens when solar activity increases again? I don't know, I just think the amount of CO2 that occurs naturally is plenty. Why add to it? We pump a metric fuckload of the stuff out every single day, especially in the last 100 or so years. I don't know how anyone can believe that is perfectly harmless.

And yes there are advocates for pollution, they just won't come out and say it. There are people that believe that global warming/climate change does not exist, not even a tiny amount, and that man has zero effect on the climate. These same people then think it's totally cool to burn as much fossil fuel as you want. Not just coal, oil, and gas for power, but also cars, trucks, trains, planes, boats, etc. They believe dumping all of that burnt fuel does exactly zero to the atmosphere. I've talked to people like that. It's crazy.
 
Ducman69 said:
It doesn't matter if its renewable or not if there are metric craptons of the stuff all over the planet, called COAL. Clean coal plants emit very low pollution for the amount of power they generate, and we have so much coal in the United States its not even funny so we might as well use that natural resource. I have a clean coal plant not all that far from my house, and because its a new plant with the latest technology, the SO2, NOx, and particulates are super low. The only downside is that aside from expensive carbon sequestration, even clean coal is going to produce a LOT of carbon dioxide.

Now the question is, is the carbon dioxide really bad news? If we're going to see long periods of reduced solar activity, and we are in fact at a solar activity peak right now, then the answer is heck no.

So again, the real "poisons" being released into the atmosphere... no contest, there are no advocates for that. Everyone agrees those are bad. The CO2 boogieman... its up for debate. CO2 is something you breath out into your home every minute of every day.
Click to expand...

I shit everyday too. Still doesn't mean it's healthy just to have piles of shit lying around and dropping it wherever I go.
 
dbr1 said:
That's a big step back from the heady days of 'An Inconvenient Truth', 5 years to slash c02 emissions or irreversible planetary damage, loss of all Arctic ice by a certain time, 'debate is over', etc.

That statement you have made is very mild, and completely possible for nearly any skeptical person to agree with. Like me.

But I hate to say I find the 'R' word offensive.
Click to expand...

I'm not an Al Gore supporter, just an FYI. Some of the stuff he claimed is probably correct, but I'm sure he highly exaggerated for political or monetary gain. He isn't a scientist and shouldn't be taken all that seriously. But just because people like Al Gore are full of hot air doesn't mean we should stick our heads in the sand and pretend like nothing is happening. We just need to be smart about it, a little skeptical, and moderate in how this is handled. The science deniers are just as bad as the sky is falling doom and gloomers. :)
 
dbr1 said:
That's a big step back from the heady days of 'An Inconvenient Truth', 5 years to slash c02 emissions or irreversible planetary damage, loss of all Arctic ice by a certain time, 'debate is over', etc.

That statement you have made is very mild, and completely possible for nearly any skeptical person to agree with. Like me.

But I hate to say I find the 'R' word offensive.
Click to expand...
I haven't gone to the places myself but I watched a few VICE episodes on HBO and the journalists recorded huge walls of ice calving pretty much continuously. The scientists they interviewed said that we'd already entered an irreversible feedback loop and now our best bet is to minimize the damage...but there's no way to stop the trainwreck we're headed for.

The basic gist of it was that as the planet heated up, we caused more fires (resulting in more ash along with the other pollutants that have been going up into the air), and all those things had landed on our ice darkening it and heating it up more than we suspected (like blacktop on a hot day as compared to concrete). The models they were using weren't accounting for that tidbit so while people often hear that the "models were wrong" they tend to think that means the predictions can be ignored. But they fail to understand when the models were wrong they were wrong in the sense that they thought it'd be bad but it actually turned out much worse.

All those jokes about the weatherman being wrong in the daily forecast would be funny if it meant they told us rain and it turned out to be a sunny day at the beach. But the analogy would be they told us rain and instead it hailed. Ignoring the prediction and going out on your bike hitting ice and dying would be a stupid response to someone telling you it was going to rain and you ignored him because he'd been "wrong" before (i.e., it hailed every time he thought it was going to rain).

Anyway, I believe you can google those VICE episodes and catch sections of them. I've done it in the past when I didn't want to log into my HBOGo account.
 
It also has a negative feedback component to it, which slowly increases until it overwhelms the positive feedback loop and actually reverses it. More moisture in the air means more snow in the winter. More snow means more white covered areas for a longer period of time. More white covered areas for a longer period of time means more solar radiation is reflected back into space instead of absorbed by the planet.

Also (and I know you did not say there is), there is not enough water on the planet to create a thermal runaway like what nature did to Venus with the naturally existing warming and cooling cycles. Earth can never become Venus.
 
i960 said:
How many clean coal plants are there vs dirty coal? I'm actually asking, as I have no idea. I'm not really against building clean coal plants if it's replacing an old dirty one. But you know what puts out even less pollution than clean coal? Nuclear. Why the hell we aren't building a fuck load of those is beyond me.
Click to expand...

The Obama administration has made it insanely expensive to build a clean coal plant - he promised to destroy the coal industry and is doing a good job of putting a lot of union workers onto unemployment as he does.

As for nuclear, the environmentalists make sure it is too expensive to build them. When you announce you are doing a study to see if a location is feasible, you are hit with your first lawsuit against it...and the lawsuits do not end until you either give up and not build it or you finally pay the extra tens of millions needed to win the suites and can build it.

verylostindeed said:
There is no such thing as "clean" coal.
Click to expand...

This is almost as ignorant as saying there is no such thing as stars. You are thinking of the 1970s in the US, or the 2015s in China (which the Kyoto treaty the US wisely did not join said is just fine - China's pollution does not need to be reduced). If you really want to remove ignorance, you can start at the wiki page and then follow the links for even deeper information.

\https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_coal_technology
 
I welcome this news.

Could use a bit of a cool off. I'll deal with frigid cold winters in exchange for getting rid of the miserable heat in the summer.
 
verylostindeed said:
There is no such thing as "clean" coal.
Click to expand...
*facepalm* There are a myriad of clean coal technologies available, including a few in Texas that even go so far as to use sequestration, in which they pump the carbon dioxide byproduct that can't be removed deep underground beneath many layers of clay which is non-porous. But clean coal techs have been implemented for many decades now with older plants being upgraded (because its usually cheaper than paying penalties and you get tax credit), which are very effective save for carbon dioxide emissions, which is a greenhouse gas but as we can see there's debate over how big a problem, if at all, carbon dioxide output is since historically it appears we may have finally reached the peak of solar output and CO2 output would reduce the effects of global cooling and help with planetary reforestation.
 
i960 said:
I'm not an Al Gore supporter, just an FYI. Some of the stuff he claimed is probably correct, but I'm sure he highly exaggerated for political or monetary gain. He isn't a scientist and shouldn't be taken all that seriously. But just because people like Al Gore are full of hot air doesn't mean we should stick our heads in the sand and pretend like nothing is happening. We just need to be smart about it, a little skeptical, and moderate in how this is handled. The science deniers are just as bad as the sky is falling doom and gloomers. :)
Click to expand...

The problem is the global warming movement has had absolutely no tolerance for any degree of skepticism. It is more like a religious movement than any type of scientific theory.
 
The stupid is strong among many here about anthropogenic climate disruption.
Are non-stop changing how the entire planet functions.
But hey, who cares? Its not going to affect us right?
Mass extinction blah blah .. yeah yeah...
https://youtu.be/ABZjlfhN0EQ
 
Well, maybe I won't sell my tractor/snowblower when I retire to Florida in 15 years. I might be able to make quite a bit of money on the side clearing driveways when the cold hits. Bring it on!
 
dbr1 said:
The problem is the global warming movement has had absolutely no tolerance for any degree of skepticism. It is more like a religious movement than any type of scientific theory.
Click to expand...

No, i'ts that the global warming scientific community is sick of having to refute the same pseudoscientific nonsense by laypeople who have no idea what they are talking about, over and over and over again.

It's similar to have to repeat ad infinitum that that bullshit study linking autism and vaccines has been debunked, retracted, the lead sponsor in the study lost his medical license over medical ethics because of it, etc. etc etc., and still they come and repeat the same bullshit.

If there is a new legitimate scientific discovery that sheds a different light on the climate situation as we know it, I'm sure the community will take it seriously, but as it stands, all the fact is coming from respected scientists, and all the skepticism is coming from think tanks producing politically motivated junk science more to fuel a political movement than to ad anything of any significance to the conversation.

From a purely scientific perspective the debate is over. It has been for some time. There is no longer a theory of climate change, it is absolute proven fact that the climate is changing due to human effects, and that long term it will have very harmful effects. Yes, those who study the field are already aware of solar activity, and other natural phenomena that factor into the equation, much more so - I am willing to bet - than any of the skeptics, and they factor these elements into their models, and even with all this being considered, there is a clear, significant and negative impact of human activity on our climate.
 
Doward said:
Currently here in Florida it is 98.4F, and feels like 106F.

BRING ON THE ICE AGE ALREADY.
Click to expand...

Heck YES!

In the 70s (yeah I remember it) it was very common to have huge snow falls in the area I live in. They dwindled during the 80s and became sporadic in the 90s and are GONE by the 2000s. Now what is common is flurries, or accumulation of an inch, instead of snow storms that dropped a foot of snow. All this and the summers have grown increasingly warm. (mid 90s instead of mid 80s for highs)
I'm looking forward to the SOLAR CYCLE to get back to a cool one.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041727839 said:
No, i'ts that the global warming scientific community is sick of having to refute the same pseudoscientific nonsense by laypeople who have no idea what they are talking about, over and over and over again.
Click to expand...
There's no consensus in the "scientific community" on global warming anymore than there is consensus about when or if the mini ice age will hit.

All scientists agree that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Not all scientists agree on how much of an impact it makes or whether or not its greenhouse gases that are causing a slight warming when the trend of warming has been steady even before industrialization, and that we estimate there's stronger solar activity today than in any time before if looking at Carbon-14.
 
i960 said:
How many clean coal plants are there vs dirty coal? I'm actually asking, as I have no idea. I'm not really against building clean coal plants if it's replacing an old dirty one. But you know what puts out even less pollution than clean coal? Nuclear. Why the hell we aren't building a fuck load of those is beyond me.

From what I read, CO2 kinda lingers in the air for a long ass time and builds up. So even if we dip into a period of reduced solar activity, what happens when solar activity increases again? I don't know, I just think the amount of CO2 that occurs naturally is plenty. Why add to it? We pump a metric fuckload of the stuff out every single day, especially in the last 100 or so years. I don't know how anyone can believe that is perfectly harmless.

And yes there are advocates for pollution, they just won't come out and say it. There are people that believe that global warming/climate change does not exist, not even a tiny amount, and that man has zero effect on the climate. These same people then think it's totally cool to burn as much fossil fuel as you want. Not just coal, oil, and gas for power, but also cars, trucks, trains, planes, boats, etc. They believe dumping all of that burnt fuel does exactly zero to the atmosphere. I've talked to people like that. It's crazy.
Click to expand...

The same fear-mongering and paranoia that fuels the polarization of the climate change debate is also a big reason why we don't have an expansion of nuclear power. It is very tough to sell people on nuclear, especially in light of the Fukushima disaster. A major catastrophe is used to sell the idea that all nuclear power is unsafe, when in reality, we can learn from the disaster and use that experience to design a better reactor, perhaps not located near an active volcano along a major fault line...

This same level of propaganda is employed to get the government to dole out generous subsidies for solar and wind power generation. Both technologies have promise and I think we should encourage their development, just not to the extent that we are. They both benefit greatly from being able to have the green label attached to them, so they receive what I would consider to be an unequal distribution of resources that could also be going to the development of more environmentally friendly nuclear, clean coal, or natural gas plants.

As far as I know, there is currently no zero-impact method for generating electricity. Even solar and wind power generation require the use of materials whose production or disposal are not necessarily environmentally friendly. Then there is the issue of birds flying into or over the arrays and dying, etc. What we should be focusing our attention, and therefore our money, on are power generation methods that have the biggest electrical output for the lowest environmental impact. This concept is not particularly sexy and does not sell well to those that benefit from sounding the alarms on one side of the issue or the other though.
 
J Macker said:
This article is much better than the linked news article because it presents the facts and potential impact on Earth's temperature:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/grand-solar-minimum-barely-dent-AGW.html
Click to expand...
Wrong, wrong, wrong...

Global Warming is based upon the research of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) also known as the Hockey Stick study, Hockey Stick graph, Hockey Stick controversy. Currently Michael Mann is suing his detractors for defamation citing the OxBurgh Panel which exonerates him for: “scientific misconduct”, “fraud”, “academic fraud”, “data falsification”, “statistical manipulation”, “manipulation of data” and even supposed findings that his work was “properly conducted an fairly presented”.

hockey_stick_graph-300x207.jpg


What Mann fails to note: "However, contrary to the claims in Mann’s litigation, not only did the Oxburgh panel not exonerate Mann, at their press conference, Oxburgh panelist David Hand, then President of the Royal Statistical Society, made very disparaging and critical comments about Mann’s work, describing it as based on “inappropriate” statistics that led to “exaggerated” results."

(Quoted material: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...michael-mann-exonerated-by-the-oxburgh-panel/)

Just because Mann, Bradley and Hughes exaggerated their results doesn't necessarily invalidate their claims. We can look to more recent research than that. Esper et al (2012) ran a similar study to M,B and H except they measured their tree rings using rays to measure changes in the cell-wall density of trees in Northern Finland over the past 2,000 years.

Their results are dramatically different:

Esperetal2012b-300x183.jpg


http://www.wsl.ch/fe/landschaftsdynamik/dendroclimatology/Publikationen/Esper_etal.2012_GPC

You can see there is a sharp rise at the end of the 20th century and Esper et al suggests that some of the warming can be accounted for by man's activities however recent warm temperatures still fall well within the range of normal temperatures. The Roman and Medieval warm periods are significantly warmer. Recent temperatures fall roughly one standard deviation from the mean while Roman and Medieval temperatures fall two standard deviations from the mean.

If past temperatures which are significantly warmer than recent temperatures did not result in ecological disaster why assume the worst from relatively milder temperatures? The medieval warm period was characterized as having longer growing seasons and supported larger populations. All the bad stuff happened when things got colder (famine, plague, etc.)

Beware of frauds who claim that science is settled, that skeptics are anti-science, etc. but who are completely unaware of the actual science.
 
First thing that came to mind when reading the title is...

"Winter is coming..."

Damn you Game of Thrones!
 
mope54 said:
I haven't gone to the places myself but I watched a few VICE episodes on HBO and the journalists recorded huge walls of ice calving pretty much continuously. The scientists they interviewed said that we'd already entered an irreversible feedback loop and now our best bet is to minimize the damage...but there's no way to stop the trainwreck we're headed for.

The basic gist of it was that as the planet heated up, we caused more fires (resulting in more ash along with the other pollutants that have been going up into the air), and all those things had landed on our ice darkening it and heating it up more than we suspected (like blacktop on a hot day as compared to concrete). The models they were using weren't accounting for that tidbit so while people often hear that the "models were wrong" they tend to think that means the predictions can be ignored. But they fail to understand when the models were wrong they were wrong in the sense that they thought it'd be bad but it actually turned out much worse.

All those jokes about the weatherman being wrong in the daily forecast would be funny if it meant they told us rain and it turned out to be a sunny day at the beach. But the analogy would be they told us rain and instead it hailed. Ignoring the prediction and going out on your bike hitting ice and dying would be a stupid response to someone telling you it was going to rain and you ignored him because he'd been "wrong" before (i.e., it hailed every time he thought it was going to rain).

Anyway, I believe you can google those VICE episodes and catch sections of them. I've done it in the past when I didn't want to log into my HBOGo account.
Click to expand...
I remember when that soot was suppose to be causing global cooling, then the earth's temperature trend went the other way. Then they contrived a truthy sounding human cause to the new trend direction that was going to happen with or without us to advocate the same solutions. Have no fear they will contrive another truthy sounding human cause if we start to cool and you can use that to help keep sell more enslavement.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041727839 said:
No, i'ts that the global warming scientific community is sick of having to refute the same pseudoscientific nonsense by laypeople who have no idea what they are talking about, over and over and over again.

It's similar to have to repeat ad infinitum that that bullshit study linking autism and vaccines has been debunked, retracted, the lead sponsor in the study lost his medical license over medical ethics because of it, etc. etc etc., and still they come and repeat the same bullshit.

If there is a new legitimate scientific discovery that sheds a different light on the climate situation as we know it, I'm sure the community will take it seriously, but as it stands, all the fact is coming from respected scientists, and all the skepticism is coming from think tanks producing politically motivated junk science more to fuel a political movement than to ad anything of any significance to the conversation.

From a purely scientific perspective the debate is over. It has been for some time. There is no longer a theory of climate change, it is absolute proven fact that the climate is changing due to human effects, and that long term it will have very harmful effects. Yes, those who study the field are already aware of solar activity, and other natural phenomena that factor into the equation, much more so - I am willing to bet - than any of the skeptics, and they factor these elements into their models, and even with all this being considered, there is a clear, significant and negative impact of human activity on our climate.
Click to expand...

Wow quite a rant.

But this part is just wrong, and shows that the ill informed person in this discussion is you:

and all the skepticism is coming from think tanks producing politically motivated junk science more to fuel a political movement than to ad anything of any significance to the conversation.​
 
MrCaffeineX said:
The same fear-mongering and paranoia that fuels the polarization of the climate change debate is also a big reason why we don't have an expansion of nuclear power. It is very tough to sell people on nuclear, especially in light of the Fukushima disaster. A major catastrophe is used to sell the idea that all nuclear power is unsafe, when in reality, we can learn from the disaster and use that experience to design a better reactor, perhaps not located near an active volcano along a major fault line...
Click to expand...

I agree with this.

Nuclear power has irrationally been thrown under the bus because it is "scary". Plants can safely be build in geologically stable areas, and there is no problem at all with final waste storage except the people living in those geologically stable areas who protest, not realizing that their very protests lead us to a less safe solution, as the waste builds up in less stable interim storage pools.

The truth is, current energy production results in greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases are bad. Another truth is, we have become used to a certain standard of living, which depends on massive energy consumption, and in the history of mankind, no population has ever voluntarily given up a standard of living. (individual activists have, but no population as a whole)

In order for this change to work, we need to engineer our way out of it. The alternative energy production needs to be as effective, cheaper and cooler (not temperature, but you know, "hip") This way people will embrace it, leave their old dirty ways behind, and continue to feel like their standard of living is improving (or at least staying the same) not diminishing.

The problem with Nuclear is, that while I believe it is a good, safe (when built properly in the right place) method of energy production, without the greenhouse gas problem (well, without as much of a greenhouse gas problem, fossil fuels are still used in mining, etc.) it is also very expensive. All the added security needed, combined with safety precautions and interim and final storage of waste lead to a cost much higher than the current average energy mix.

MrCaffeineX said:
This same level of propaganda is employed to get the government to dole out generous subsidies for solar and wind power generation. Both technologies have promise and I think we should encourage their development, just not to the extent that we are. They both benefit greatly from being able to have the green label attached to them, so they receive what I would consider to be an unequal distribution of resources that could also be going to the development of more environmentally friendly nuclear, clean coal, or natural gas plants.

As far as I know, there is currently no zero-impact method for generating electricity. Even solar and wind power generation require the use of materials whose production or disposal are not necessarily environmentally friendly. Then there is the issue of birds flying into or over the arrays and dying, etc. What we should be focusing our attention, and therefore our money, on are power generation methods that have the biggest electrical output for the lowest environmental impact. This concept is not particularly sexy and does not sell well to those that benefit from sounding the alarms on one side of the issue or the other though.
Click to expand...

I agree here too (though I wouldn't necessarily use inflammatory words such as "propaganda" and "dole" :p ). I believe government subsidies are needed in order to encourage cleaner energy production, just like I believe government penalties/taxes are needed to discourage dirty energy production.

Government needs to just not pick winners and losers, and instead set a target of amount of CO2 (and other pollutants) per megawatt of energy produced, and let the market figure out how to best meet those goals. Monitor all new energy production projects. Give subsidies to those who come up with the lowest CO2/Megawatt figures (and have expertise on hand to make sure that their assessments are accurate) and penalize those with the highest figures. Also try to make existing dirty plants less profitable and encourage moving away from them through tax penalties.

Our free market has proven time and time again to be the best method of innovation the world has ever seen, so lets not be prescriptive here. Give the market subsidies for target goals, and let the market determine how to meet those goals. It may be through solar and wind, but it may not. it may be through coal gasification with CO2 filters or some other innovative method, or it may be something completely new we have never heard of before.


Part of the Solyndra-style subsidies problem - however - is that we are not operating in a fair global market. China identified that solar panels were going to be big business in the future so they used practices that in most of the world would have been illegal, subsidizing the hell out of their own local production to the point where no one else in the world could compete, and then watched the global competitors fold one by one, only to withdraw the subsidies once they had market dominance. We tried to counter this with the Solyndra subsidies, but our political will was weaker than that of China (one of the few benefits of a totalitarian regime, I guess) so while we subsidized, we did not keep up with China, and they still folded.

Now, as a result of this, the only solar panels you can get are made in China by Chinese companies, and china is being rewarded for their illegal economic policies. Big American business is so dependent on China though, that we stay quiet about it, as we don't want to upset the status quo. The future game changing technologies from small startups have nothing to compete with - lobbying wise - compared to large entrenched businesses that rely on China for production (while the Chinese bit by bit steal their IP)
 
Zarathustra[H];1041727839 said:
No, i'ts that the global warming scientific community is sick of having to refute the same pseudoscientific nonsense by laypeople who have no idea what they are talking about, over and over and over again.

It's similar to have to repeat ad infinitum that that bullshit study linking autism and vaccines has been debunked, retracted, the lead sponsor in the study lost his medical license over medical ethics because of it, etc. etc etc., and still they come and repeat the same bullshit.

If there is a new legitimate scientific discovery that sheds a different light on the climate situation as we know it, I'm sure the community will take it seriously, but as it stands, all the fact is coming from respected scientists, and all the skepticism is coming from think tanks producing politically motivated junk science more to fuel a political movement than to ad anything of any significance to the conversation.

From a purely scientific perspective the debate is over. It has been for some time. There is no longer a theory of climate change, it is absolute proven fact that the climate is changing due to human effects, and that long term it will have very harmful effects. Yes, those who study the field are already aware of solar activity, and other natural phenomena that factor into the equation, much more so - I am willing to bet - than any of the skeptics, and they factor these elements into their models, and even with all this being considered, there is a clear, significant and negative impact of human activity on our climate.
Click to expand...
You wrong on so many levels. You haven't kept up with the actual science. Esper et al (2012) demonstrates not only that recent temperatures fall within the normal range of temperatures over the last 2,000 years but it has been ignored by all the political activists masquerading as scientists that you are so in thralled with...
 
thejokker said:
A huge red flag when people claim CO2 is a pollutant instead of a "chemical of life"...
Click to expand...

Too much or too little of anything will kill you.

Water is essential for life. Too much of it causes death.

CO2 is a giver of plant life, and key to the production of oxygen for us to breathe, but only in the delicate existing balance. Mess up that balance and everything else falls apart. So yes, when you produce too much of it, it is very much a pollutant.
 
thejokker said:
You wrong on so many levels. You haven't kept up with the actual science. Esper et al (2012) demonstrates not only that recent temperatures fall within the normal range of temperatures over the last 2,000 years but it has been ignored by all the political activists masquerading as scientists that you are so in thralled with...
Click to expand...

You might want to read this. Espers study is interesting, but it does not contradict current knowledge on climate change.
 
NickJames said:
Time to starting scooping out real estate down here in South Florida.
Click to expand...

Pfft.

A few extra feet of snow here and there in Chicago, Minneapolis and Upstate NY?

The residents will just grumble a bit louder than they usually do and then deal with it. No biggie.

Maybe it'll chase away all the yuppies and weak sisters and stuff.

Hmm. Time to start stocking up on lawn furniture so I can stake out my parking spot....
 
Zarathustra[H];1041728030 said:
Too much or too little of anything will kill you.
Click to expand...
Anything? Even penis? I could use this to my advantage... officer, she didn't have enough vitamin-D, so I had to give her an infusion or she'd die. I'm basically a hero, not a rapist.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041728030 said:
CO2 is a giver of plant life, and key to the production of oxygen for us to breathe, but only in the delicate existing balance.
Click to expand...
Not true, plant life peaked when CO2 levels were more than double what they are today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top