Climate Change Report

#2,426
#2,426
McDad said:
They must have dire, gloom and doom, apocalyptic warnings as part of their reports to media so as to gain attention with the sensationalism. Otherwise, I cannot understand why every climate change prediction leads to the same end point of [possible] catastrophic death.
Click to expand...
Yup. If it’s warms up we’re in trouble. If it cools down we’re in trouble.
 
  • Like
Reactions: norrislakevol, DC_Vol, allvol123 and 3 others
#2,427
#2,427
McDad said:
They must have dire, gloom and doom, apocalyptic warnings as part of their reports to media so as to gain attention with the sensationalism. Otherwise, I cannot understand why every climate change prediction leads to the same end point of [possible] catastrophic death.
Click to expand...

Noteworthy here that the author of this piece is an anthropogenic climate change denier, which comes through fairly transparently in the article. The doom and gloom predictions also didn't come from NASA.

Does solar activity cause volcanic eruptions? I've never heard of that before but it sounds like nonsense.
Edit: apparently it isn't nonsense.

Pubs.GISS: Stothers 1989: Volcanic eruptions and solar activity
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BartW and McDad
#2,428
#2,428
#2,433
#2,433
  • Like
Reactions: Septic
#2,434
#2,434
Wafflestomper said:
Let me google that for you:

"'Global warming' refers to the long-term warming of the planet. 'Climate change' encompasses global warming, but refers to the broader range of changes that are happening to our planet."

What’s the difference between climate change and global warming? – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
Click to expand...

So “ Global Cooling “refers to the long term cooling of the planet and would cause glaciers to form and an ice age . Together then they would make up “ Climate change “ ? 😊
That makes perfect sense to me .
 
  • Like
Reactions: allvol123, Orange_Vol1321 and norrislakevol
#2,436
#2,436
BartW said:
Awkwardly worded again I’ll agree, but what that means is there is about 5% chance that the real value falls above or below the whiskers in the box and whisker plot.

HADCRUT4 is a global temperature dataset. So the figure shows that their observed global temperature change from 1951-2010 was about 0.65C +/- 0.05C with 95% confidence.


It's just not significant on the scale of global energy flow. I was off by a decimal on my previous post. Estimates for waste heat are 0.01-0.03 W/m2 averaged globally. Incoming solar radiation and, consequently, infrared emission from the surface and atmosphere, is on the order of 300 W/m2, or over 10,000 times greater than waste heat. Average waste heat flux is actually even less than the average geothermal heat flux (~0.1 W/m2, from radioactive decay of isotopes in the mantle and crust). The change in heat flux from the added CO2, from the figure in my previous post, is 1.68 W/m2.

The amount of heat from the sun that is being trapped by GHGs (and the amount of added heat trapped by the added GHGs) dwarfs the amount of waste heat we people create directly. Our heat is not the problem. The sun's heat plus our added insulation is the problem.
Click to expand...

Well no one is going to pay more money for essential goods, services, and travel based on the junk science that is man made climate change. We will not be ripped off by a bunch of crooks that think up of a ponzi scheme like the Paris Climate Accord. Only really dumb people fall for that, and only really dumb or evil people would want to force us into a poorer economic situation with anything even resembling the Green New deal.

The climate models are complete and total garbage. "They are worse than terrible". That quote comes to you from a climate scientist that holds a PHD in atmospheric physics who I personally know. I think that we have all learned a valuable lesson during this corona virus apocalypse about trusting any type of model. I have studied weather models like the GFS, NAM, and the SREF for two decades now, and even though they have more data flowing into them than you could imagine the are still quite unreliable more than 3 days out.

People just need to relax and realize that we are still in the midst of a 3 million year cooling trend, and there isn't a damn thing you can do to make it continue, or pull us out of it.
 
#2,437
#2,437
Orange_Vol1321 said:
Low Solar Activity to Cause Temperatures to Plummet, Say Scientists

The Sun is entering a period of “solar minimum” that could cause temperatures to plummet by up to 2C over 20 years and trigger a global famine, according to experts.

Solar activity has entered a deep decline with scientists saying there have already been 100 days this year where the sun has displayed zero sunspots.

NASA boffins say this means that the earth could be about to experience a new “Dalton Minimum,” the period between 1790 and 1830 which led to a severe prolonged cold snap and massive volcanic eruptions.

“This means were could be entering one of the deepest period of sunshine recession which could trigger long periods of cold, famine and other issues,” reports the Daily Star.
Click to expand...

This story is recycled by questionable news sources every year or two. From a previous instance in the global warming thread:

BartW said:
The idea that we're heading into a slight solar lull is not new. There has been considerable research into solar variation and even specifically into the possible impacts of a new Maunder Minimum on climate. Here are some articles from the last few years and a publicly available literature review if you’re interested:

What if the Sun went into a new Grand Minimum? (from 2011)
A grand solar minimum would barely make a dent in human-caused global warming (from 2013)
Weak sun could offset some global warming in Europe and US (from June)
Effects of Sunspot on the Multi-Decadal Climate Projections (literature review)

Tl;dr a Maunder Minimum would cause a ~0.1% change in total solar irradiance (not 60%), which would temporarily offset 0.1 - 0.3 C of the projected 3-4 C temperature increase this century.

I mean, think about it. The modern solar maximum occurred in the mid 20th century, and the sunspot cycles have been growing steadily weaker since. Global temperature, on the other hand, has been increasing steadily since the mid 20th century. It’s not the sun. We checked, I promise
Click to expand...
 
#2,438
#2,438
norrislakevol said:
Well no one is going to pay more money for essential goods, services, and travel based on the junk science that is man made climate change. We will not be ripped off by a bunch of crooks that think up of a ponzi scheme like the Paris Climate Accord. Only really dumb people fall for that, and only really dumb or evil people would want to force us into a poorer economic situation with anything even resembling the Green New deal.

The climate models are complete and total garbage. "They are worse than terrible". That quote comes to you from a climate scientist that holds a PHD in atmospheric physics who I personally know. I think that we have all learned a valuable lesson during this corona virus apocalypse about trusting any type of model. I have studied weather models like the GFS, NAM, and the SREF for two decades now, and even though they have more data flowing into them than you could imagine the are still quite unreliable more than 3 days out.

People just need to relax and realize that we are still in the midst of a 3 million year cooling trend, and there isn't a damn thing you can do to make it continue, or pull us out of it.
Click to expand...
Ok boomer.

I’m not going to break down this gish gallop of points refuted a thousand times on this forum, but if you’d like to pick a topic to discuss I’m happy to engage. If just another drive-by then good day to you, be well, and lord have mercy.
 
#2,439
#2,439
norrislakevol said:
Well no one is going to pay more money for essential goods, services, and travel based on the junk science that is man made climate change. We will not be ripped off by a bunch of crooks that think up of a ponzi scheme like the Paris Climate Accord. Only really dumb people fall for that, and only really dumb or evil people would want to force us into a poorer economic situation with anything even resembling the Green New deal.

The climate models are complete and total garbage. "They are worse than terrible". That quote comes to you from a climate scientist that holds a PHD in atmospheric physics who I personally know. I think that we have all learned a valuable lesson during this corona virus apocalypse about trusting any type of model. I have studied weather models like the GFS, NAM, and the SREF for two decades now, and even though they have more data flowing into them than you could imagine the are still quite unreliable more than 3 days out.

People just need to relax and realize that we are still in the midst of a 3 million year cooling trend, and there isn't a damn thing you can do to make it continue, or pull us out of it.
Click to expand...

D4B8FBDB-DD37-4DA0-A665-04D8C315874E.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: allvol123 and norrislakevol
#2,440
#2,440
BartW said:
Ok boomer.

I’m not going to break down this gish gallop of points refuted a thousand times on this forum, but if you’d like to pick a topic to discuss I’m happy to engage. If just another drive-by then good day to you, be well, and lord have mercy.
Click to expand...

Sending hundreds of millions of $$$ to a group of Euro elitists will not cause the earths temp to rise or fall . That’s just a fact .
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40 and Rickyvol77
#2,441
#2,441
0nelilreb said:
Sending hundreds of millions of $$$ to a group of Euro elitists will not cause the earths temp to rise or fall . That’s just a fact .
Click to expand...
Neat fact. Do you agree with the other posters above that nothing we do can have any impact on the planet's climate?
 
#2,442
#2,442
BartW said:
Neat fact. Do you agree with the other posters above that nothing we do can have any impact on the planet's climate?
Click to expand...

I don’t think he said “ nothing we do can have an impact on the climate “ . If every country stopped polluting yes or course the climate would be better . That’s like saying if I stick my mouth over the trucks tail pipe will I have more problems breathing than if I’m 20 foot away from it . Will all industrialized countries stop ? No of course not . Is the Paris accord a money scheme allowing different countries to do what they wish until their desired time line? Of course it is . This whole we are all going to die “ if “ we don’t lower the temp of the planet and oh by the way you need to give us hundreds of millions of $$$ so we can tell you when , what , why and how .. nah bruh its a scam .
 
#2,443
#2,443
0nelilreb said:
I don’t think he said “ nothing we do can have an impact on the climate “ . If every country stopped polluting yes or course the climate would be better . That’s like saying if I stick my mouth over the trucks tail pipe will I have more problems breathing than if I’m 20 foot away from it . Will all industrialized countries stop ? No of course not . Is the Paris accord a money scheme allowing different countries to do what they wish until their desired time line? Of course it is . This whole we are all going to die “ if “ we don’t lower the temp of the planet and oh by the way you need to give us hundreds of millions of $$$ so we can tell you when , what , why and how .. nah bruh its a scam .
Click to expand...

This is just a sample from this page:

norrislakevol said:
People just need to relax and realize that we are still in the midst of a 3 million year cooling trend, and there isn't a damn thing you can do to make it continue, or pull us out of it.
Click to expand...
IPleadInsanity said:
I just said the earth is always warming or cooling. I don't have a problem with Global warming theories. I have a problem with those who think they have any control over the situation.
Click to expand...

And it’s a very common theme in these threads. I've seen it dozens of times here.

I ask because, if you don’t believe humans have any impact on this planet in the first place, then it’s difficult to move on to talking solutions. There are several stages of climate denial, and people regularly jump from one to the other:

1. Deny that global warming is occurring
2. Deny that it’s caused by human GHG emissions
3. Deny that it’s a problem
4. Deny that it’s possible to solve

If you’re not arguing any of the above and you just take issue with the solutions we have selected, then we will have at least some level of agreement. I find the actual political discussion about the solutions much more appropriate and interesting than correcting earth science misconceptions. Unfortunately this thread (and about half of Congress) spends most of its time bouncing back and forth between stage 1 and 2 denial so we rarely get deep into those discussions.
 
#2,445
#2,445
I actually saw a story the other day that Kansas is off to the slowest start for tornado season since 1980. I’m sure that’s somehow bad too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: allvol123
#2,448
#2,448
BartW said:
This is just a sample from this page:




And it’s a very common theme in these threads. I've seen it dozens of times here.

I ask because, if you don’t believe humans have any impact on this planet in the first place, then it’s difficult to move on to talking solutions. There are several stages of climate denial, and people regularly jump from one to the other:

1. Deny that global warming is occurring
2. Deny that it’s caused by human GHG emissions
3. Deny that it’s a problem
4. Deny that it’s possible to solve

If you’re not arguing any of the above and you just take issue with the solutions we have selected, then we will have at least some level of agreement. I find the actual political discussion about the solutions much more appropriate and interesting than correcting earth science misconceptions. Unfortunately this thread (and about half of Congress) spends most of its time bouncing back and forth between stage 1 and 2 denial so we rarely get deep into those discussions.
Click to expand...
Nice false dichotomy!
 
#2,449
#2,449
BartW said:
This is just a sample from this page:




And it’s a very common theme in these threads. I've seen it dozens of times here.

I ask because, if you don’t believe humans have any impact on this planet in the first place, then it’s difficult to move on to talking solutions. There are several stages of climate denial, and people regularly jump from one to the other:

1. Deny that global warming is occurring
2. Deny that it’s caused by human GHG emissions
3. Deny that it’s a problem
4. Deny that it’s possible to solve

If you’re not arguing any of the above and you just take issue with the solutions we have selected, then we will have at least some level of agreement. I find the actual political discussion about the solutions much more appropriate and interesting than correcting earth science misconceptions. Unfortunately this thread (and about half of Congress) spends most of its time bouncing back and forth between stage 1 and 2 denial so we rarely get deep into those discussions.
Click to expand...
Perhaps If the “experts” had not shot their wad the last 35 years falsely predicting so much disaster and end of world BS that changes from decade to decade and actually HAD solutions other than “ban cars, don’t eat meat, give money to us”. People would care and listen more. But alas here we are
 
  • Like
Reactions: DC_Vol, Orangeslice13, Orange_Vol1321 and 1 other person
#2,450
#2,450
BartW said:
This is just a sample from this page:




And it’s a very common theme in these threads. I've seen it dozens of times here.

I ask because, if you don’t believe humans have any impact on this planet in the first place, then it’s difficult to move on to talking solutions. There are several stages of climate denial, and people regularly jump from one to the other:

1. Deny that global warming is occurring
2. Deny that it’s caused by human GHG emissions
3. Deny that it’s a problem
4. Deny that it’s possible to solve

If you’re not arguing any of the above and you just take issue with the solutions we have selected, then we will have at least some level of agreement. I find the actual political discussion about the solutions much more appropriate and interesting than correcting earth science misconceptions. Unfortunately this thread (and about half of Congress) spends most of its time bouncing back and forth between stage 1 and 2 denial so we rarely get deep into those discussions.
Click to expand...

I am not qualified to debate this issue but if you are expecting to reverse the effects of over 100 years of carbon emissions I have doubts that is possible. Having lived in both China and India I can tell you for sure they are not going to reduce their carbon emissions anytime soon. I heard a similar version of the current global warming when I was in grammar school and also that we would run out of oil by the early 90's. Don't like the word deny, indicates someone does not agree with the truth. That kind of ends the debate.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top