cumgranosalum Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 So as a percentage, how much of a reduction in CO2 emissions would it take to significantly slow the rate at which the Earth is warming? Good question. It's not a good question -it is readily available to anyone who wants to do a bit of research into climate change - and asking these questions as if the scientific community =don't know the answer or haven't thought of it is just childish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cumgranosalum Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Got it canuck it is a climate4you graph and is not attached to any peer reviewed science. If you want to run your own data streams climate4you web site allows you to mix and match data sets you download and provides the software to run them. Good fun. This is just one Steve ran on hadcrut data. You would not expect a direct correlation running surface temperature data only against CO2 atmospheric concentrations. Only 3% of warming goes into the atmosphere the other 97% goes into the Ocean and it is variable so you have to run upper and lower Ocean temps as well to pick up the heat going into and out of the Oceans. I just pulled it from a quick google search, I don't care who made it, I don't even know. It is the figures that are important. They give a temperature rise of about .5 since the 60's and the have CO2 at 400ppm up from about 320 so I can't see why this needs to be peer reviewed. These are the general figures. CO2 is climbing at a steady pace and the temperature is not. If you like just disregard the chart, it doesn't change the facts. CO2 and temperature have divorced recently. Which is just as well because CO2 was always centuries behind temperature rise anyways so the relationship is temperature dependant and not the other way around. I'm sorry but you are making schoolboy arguments - the corresponding changes in temp and CO2 don't have to be in parallel or any other particular ratio and trying to infer that science has overlooked something with these naive arguments is just pointless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckamuck Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Well if there is no relationship between CO2 and temperature then there is nothing to worry about right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojaco Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Moio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cumgranosalum Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 (edited) Well if there is no relationship between CO2 and temperature then there is nothing to worry about right? a truly asinine comment - do you know absolutely nothing about climate change at all? and as for your ability to evaluate a source...." I don't care who made it, I don't even know. It is the figures that are important." - how do you know the figures are relevant in any way if you don't make some effort to see who is behind them and whether they are even slightly accepted by other authorities? I have to say that your comments on this thread give me the impression that your appreciation of scientific method and thought is so scant as to be worthless and your resulting questions are just too primitive to be taken seriously. In the mean time, why don't you bother to read up on the subject and learn how to distinguish between a good source anda load of media propaganda? then you might get near to being able to understand some of the issues involved. Edited August 30, 2015 by cumgranosalum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
movieplay Posted August 30, 2015 Author Share Posted August 30, 2015 more record breaking weather in the on-going new MIA SNOW IN HAWAII IN JULY at 10,000 feet but still unusual considering its the tropics 30 cm snow Australia Record Breaking colds in NZ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up2u2 Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 (edited) more record breaking weather in the on-going new MIA SNOW IN HAWAII IN JULY at 10,000 feet but still unusual considering its the tropics 30 cm snow Australia Record Breaking colds in NZ So any actual scientific evidence the Earth is cooling due to a Solar Minimum. Some snow here and there. Not really much actual evidence to support your claim. Also any actual evidence the Polar Vortex and snow reports are connected to a Solar Minimum? You do realise Adapt2030 is just a youtube channel it isn't actually a scientific institution providing peer reviewed research and data? Edited August 30, 2015 by up2u2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter Travolta Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 I have often thought about the planet being covered in ice and everything on it obviously being obliterated. If life began again in the way of cavemen, what would it all have been about? People busting a gut going to work, being a yes man and trying for that promotion so he can have the best tv, car, house, holidays etc - for what? If artifacts were found by future cavemen such as the remains of a laptop or iphone, they wouldnt have a clue what it was. There would be no language again, nothing. The wheel and fire would be major steps forward again!! Seems like the meaning of life will never be realised. In fact, maybe it wont be humans or dinosaurs that are prevalent in the new world. Maybe it will be some other form of life? After all, humans have had their chance and keep on blowing it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter Travolta Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 When humans have gone, the world will fix itself again and continue to spin. We are only on this planet for the blink of an eye yet we think we can control the globe and preserve our species existence. We cant, it ends when it ends and thats that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
movieplay Posted August 30, 2015 Author Share Posted August 30, 2015 (edited) again from my post#149 5:08-> Brian Fagan "The Little Ice Age was a period of much more extreme volatility in climate than of constant cold. A Period of very volatile climactic shifts." 15:39-> Richard Sager "It wasn't just the mean was a little colder, there were alot of significant extremes." That's exactly what I said before, a MIA does not mean you no longer have hot, it doesn't mean you don't have summer, it just means you have extreme colds and erratic shifts to cold.. HMMM lets see could that be like .. perhaps a ploar votrex that plunges into the middle of america, bringing temps to extreme lows like -20' or maybe like.. lets see a sudden unexpected August snow in Calgary. or the the dozen other unusually extreme cold conditions that the adapt2030 channel talks about?? you dont think? considering what we have established as what is the definition of a MIA, we are in the early stages of a MIA as I have defined it in this thread, and as these scientists have defined it. ALso another ? up2u2 never answered: WHY would anyone be worried about 'global warming' if we are at the end of the current 10,000 year inter- glacial? looking at the graph on page 1 of this thread. Edited August 30, 2015 by movieplay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
movieplay Posted August 30, 2015 Author Share Posted August 30, 2015 here was some anatartic ice expansion that 'baffled scientists' 2 years ago.. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/09/23/antarctic-sea-ice-hit-35-year-record-high-saturday/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Somtamme Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 I have often thought about the planet being covered in ice and everything on it obviously being obliterated. If life began again in the way of cavemen, what would it all have been about? People busting a gut going to work, being a yes man and trying for that promotion so he can have the best tv, car, house, holidays etc - for what? If artifacts were found by future cavemen such as the remains of a laptop or iphone, they wouldnt have a clue what it was. There would be no language again, nothing. The wheel and fire would be major steps forward again!! Seems like the meaning of life will never be realised. In fact, maybe it wont be humans or dinosaurs that are prevalent in the new world. Maybe it will be some other form of life? After all, humans have had their chance and keep on blowing it! Walter, I have heard it say jokingly that we must be descended from a Martian race, given we are so out of synch with Mother Nature. Some of us on this forum, like Canuck maybe are of purer race. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter Travolta Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 I have often thought about the planet being covered in ice and everything on it obviously being obliterated. If life began again in the way of cavemen, what would it all have been about? People busting a gut going to work, being a yes man and trying for that promotion so he can have the best tv, car, house, holidays etc - for what? If artifacts were found by future cavemen such as the remains of a laptop or iphone, they wouldnt have a clue what it was. There would be no language again, nothing. The wheel and fire would be major steps forward again!! Seems like the meaning of life will never be realised. In fact, maybe it wont be humans or dinosaurs that are prevalent in the new world. Maybe it will be some other form of life? After all, humans have had their chance and keep on blowing it! Walter, I have heard it say jokingly that we must be descended from a Martian race, given we are so out of synch with Mother Nature. Some of us on this forum, like Canuck maybe are of purer race. haha, never rule anything out until you are 100% sure. I believe in life on other planet(s) and one thing is for sure . . . they are far more clever than us if they can enter our airspace and observe us and we cannot do the same?! MInd you, if they are real and do observe us, no wander they keep pi$$ing off when they see what we are doing to one another!! They must think 'stuff that they're all crazy!!' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GanDoonToonPet Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 more record breaking weather in the on-going new MIA SNOW IN HAWAII IN JULY at 10,000 feet but still unusual considering its the tropics 30 cm snow Australia Record Breaking colds in NZ Sorry, I have to comment on this video. I've never suffered such a Gish Gallop in all my life. The part of this I watched is chock full of misinformation. This guy actually thinks that the Royal Astronomical Society are saying there will be 60% reduction in solar activity during the 2030s, NOT a 60% reduction in sunspot activity. I think we'll have a lot more to worry about than an MIA if that happens. Next he goes on to say that the solar wind will stop in 2030. That would mean that the Sun stopped nuclear fusion about a million years ago! Don't worry though as he's got an explanation for that - the Sun doesn't produce energy through nuclear fusion but via 'electrical conductivity through plasma waves between the Earth & Sun'. This is all part of a new 'Electric Universe' theory that is about to be proven right & will shake the foundations of science... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mogandave Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 So as a percentage, how much of a reduction in CO2 emissions would it take to significantly slow the rate at which the Earth is warming?Good question. It's not a good question -it is readily available to anyone who wants to do a bit of research into climate change - and asking these questions as if the scientific community =don't know the answer or haven't thought of it is just childish I don't know anything about it, I don't want to do any research, and don't know know what sources I can trust anyway. I was asking here as there seems to be a number of people that are much better informed than I, you being one of the. Your dodging the question speaks volumes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckamuck Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Well if there is no relationship between CO2 and temperature then there is nothing to worry about right? a truly asinine comment - do you know absolutely nothing about climate change at all? and as for your ability to evaluate a source...." I don't care who made it, I don't even know. It is the figures that are important." - how do you know the figures are relevant in any way if you don't make some effort to see who is behind them and whether they are even slightly accepted by other authorities? I have to say that your comments on this thread give me the impression that your appreciation of scientific method and thought is so scant as to be worthless and your resulting questions are just too primitive to be taken seriously. In the mean time, why don't you bother to read up on the subject and learn how to distinguish between a good source anda load of media propaganda? then you might get near to being able to understand some of the issues involved. My asinine comment was a response to your comment "the corresponding changes in temp and CO2 don't have to be in parallel or any other particular ratio". Now is that not saying that two are unrelated mathematically? Now which comment is more asinine? Even the natural warming side of the debate sees a relationship with CO2 and temperature, but in reverse. The figures on the graph are correct look them up. They are same figures everyone uses. It is simply the CO2 and temperature increase from the 60's until now. I am not disputing the accepted figures. I am showing how CO2 has gone up at continual rate and temperature has plateaued for the last 18 years. Most of us learned how to plot a graph in high school. The rest of your comments are appropriate for someone who has no faith in their position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckamuck Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 I have often thought about the planet being covered in ice and everything on it obviously being obliterated. If life began again in the way of cavemen, what would it all have been about? People busting a gut going to work, being a yes man and trying for that promotion so he can have the best tv, car, house, holidays etc - for what? If artifacts were found by future cavemen such as the remains of a laptop or iphone, they wouldnt have a clue what it was. There would be no language again, nothing. The wheel and fire would be major steps forward again!! Seems like the meaning of life will never be realised. In fact, maybe it wont be humans or dinosaurs that are prevalent in the new world. Maybe it will be some other form of life? After all, humans have had their chance and keep on blowing it! Walter, I have heard it say jokingly that we must be descended from a Martian race, given we are so out of synch with Mother Nature. Some of us on this forum, like Canuck maybe are of purer race. Species, not race. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up2u2 Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 again from my post#149 5:08-> Brian Fagan "The Little Ice Age was a period of much more extreme volatility in climate than of constant cold. A Period of very volatile climactic shifts." 15:39-> Richard Sager "It wasn't just the mean was a little colder, there were alot of significant extremes." That's exactly what I said before, a MIA does not mean you no longer have hot, it doesn't mean you don't have summer, it just means you have extreme colds and erratic shifts to cold.. HMMM lets see could that be like .. perhaps a ploar votrex that plunges into the middle of america, bringing temps to extreme lows like -20' or maybe like.. lets see a sudden unexpected August snow in Calgary. or the the dozen other unusually extreme cold conditions that the adapt2030 channel talks about?? you dont think? considering what we have established as what is the definition of a MIA, we are in the early stages of a MIA as I have defined it in this thread, and as these scientists have defined it. ALso another ? up2u2 never answered: WHY would anyone be worried about 'global warming' if we are at the end of the current 10,000 year inter- glacial? looking at the graph on page 1 of this thread. Fagan and Sager make a small commentary in a video on the 'Little Ice Age' that only affected parts of Europe and North America so where is their peer reviewed scientific evidence and data that shows the supposed current day Solar Minimum occurring now and driving Global Temperatures down? Where is the scientific research showing the Earth is cooling? So the adapt2030 youtube channel mentions extreme cold, erratic shifts to cold, polar vortex snow in Calgary and anywhere it may happen to snow = 'Little Ice Age' due to Solar Minimum? Is there any peer reviewed scientific evidence and data and global monitoring that demonstrates the theory or is it just based on some haphazard observations and casual commentary? Which scientists have stated Earth is cooling and Earth is the early stages of an Ice Age? Are Global Temperatures decreasing? If so where is the data that shows this is happening and it is linked to a 'Little Ice Age' Solar Minimum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
movieplay Posted August 31, 2015 Author Share Posted August 31, 2015 (edited) NOT so fast GanD. This is a very complex issue but ofcource us non-scientists need to take in all this mountain of data and the fact that scientists themselves hotly debate whats going on-we have to take things with a grain of salt, but I wouldn't trash this researcher as a fraud or an idiot.. LOOK here: solar decline in activity is the fastest that has been seen in 10,000 years. http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-25743806 and watch the 10 minute video, first of all the scientist confirms AGAIN what I had said about sunspot observations, that we have 400 years of sunspot observations, earlier up2u2 tried to de-link the sporer minimum from the MIA using an inaccurate or botched graph, but in fact the sporer and wolf minimums were back there where you had the start of the MIA, and the MIA was actually this up and down thing that correlated with the solar cycles..but forget about that and look again at the graph I posted on page 1, the 10,000 year inter-glacial period .. Are you guyz starting to see how the pieces of the puzzle are starting to fit together yet? more record breaking weather in the on-going new MIA ... SNOW IN HAWAII IN JULY at 10,000 feet but still unusual considering its the tropics 30 cm snow Australia Record Breaking colds in NZ Sorry, I have to comment on this video. I've never suffered such a Gish Gallop in all my life. The part of this I watched is chock full of misinformation. This guy actually thinks that the Royal Astronomical Society are saying there will be 60% reduction in solar activity during the 2030s, NOT a 60% reduction in sunspot activity. I think we'll have a lot more to worry about than an MIA if that happens. Next he goes on to say that the solar wind will stop in 2030. That would mean that the Sun stopped nuclear fusion about a million years ago! Don't worry though as he's got an explanation for that - the Sun doesn't produce energy through nuclear fusion but via 'electrical conductivity through plasma waves between the Earth & Sun'. This is all part of a new 'Electric Universe' theory that is about to be proven right & will shake the foundations of science... Edited August 31, 2015 by movieplay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up2u2 Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 (edited) more record breaking weather in the on-going new MIA SNOW IN HAWAII IN JULY at 10,000 feet but still unusual considering its the tropics 30 cm snow Australia Record Breaking colds in NZ Sorry, I have to comment on this video. I've never suffered such a Gish Gallop in all my life. The part of this I watched is chock full of misinformation. This guy actually thinks that the Royal Astronomical Society are saying there will be 60% reduction in solar activity during the 2030s, NOT a 60% reduction in sunspot activity. I think we'll have a lot more to worry about than an MIA if that happens. Next he goes on to say that the solar wind will stop in 2030. That would mean that the Sun stopped nuclear fusion about a million years ago! Don't worry though as he's got an explanation for that - the Sun doesn't produce energy through nuclear fusion but via 'electrical conductivity through plasma waves between the Earth & Sun'. This is all part of a new 'Electric Universe' theory that is about to be proven right & will shake the foundations of science... Some really good points there 'Gan' to be honest my BS detector went off 10 seconds in when he mentioned the Royal Astronomical Society article because at absolutely no time did that article mention Earth will go into a Little Ice Age. In fact they have come out and made that quite clear. The facts are and these facts have been known for many years that the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) is an 11 year cycle and currently (as at 2009) Earth is at a 100 year low. It is pretty simple to establish the facts by simply graphing the 11 year cycle temperature data from NASA / GISS with peer reviewed 11 year TSI cycle data from Krivova et al 2007 and up to 2009 using PMOD data and clearly see as the TSI has plummeted to a 100 year low the Global Temperatures have reached all time highs. This adapt2030 guy has an Ice Age in his head. Edited August 31, 2015 by up2u2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up2u2 Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 NOT so fast GanD. This is a very complex issue but ofcource us non-scientists need to take in all this mountain of data and the fact that scientists themselves hotly debate whats going on-we have to take things with a grain of salt, but I wouldn't trash this researcher as a fraud or an idiot.. LOOK here: solar decline in activity is the fastest that has been seen in 10,000 years. http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-25743806 and watch the 10 minute video, first of all the scientist confirms AGAIN what I had said about sunspot observations, that we have 400 years of sunspot observations, earlier up2u2 tried to de-link the sporer minimum from the MIA using an inaccurate or botched graph, but in fact the sporer and wolf minimums were back there where you had the start of the MIA, and the MIA was actually this up and down thing that correlated with the solar cycles..but forget about that and look again at the graph I posted on page 1, the 10,000 year inter-glacial period .. Are you guyz starting to see how the pieces of the puzzle are starting to fit together yet? more record breaking weather in the on-going new MIA ... SNOW IN HAWAII IN JULY at 10,000 feet but still unusual considering its the tropics 30 cm snow Australia Record Breaking colds in NZ Sorry, I have to comment on this video. I've never suffered such a Gish Gallop in all my life. The part of this I watched is chock full of misinformation. This guy actually thinks that the Royal Astronomical Society are saying there will be 60% reduction in solar activity during the 2030s, NOT a 60% reduction in sunspot activity. I think we'll have a lot more to worry about than an MIA if that happens. Next he goes on to say that the solar wind will stop in 2030. That would mean that the Sun stopped nuclear fusion about a million years ago! Don't worry though as he's got an explanation for that - the Sun doesn't produce energy through nuclear fusion but via 'electrical conductivity through plasma waves between the Earth & Sun'. This is all part of a new 'Electric Universe' theory that is about to be proven right & will shake the foundations of science... Here's the problem with your theory: The Solar Cycle is at a 100 year low and the Earths Temperatures are at all record breaking highs I think you need to check under the hood on this Little Ice Age theory it seems to have a terminal 'knock' in the engine department and it is blowing a little smoke out the exhaust 'movieplayer' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter Travolta Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 I have often thought about the planet being covered in ice and everything on it obviously being obliterated. If life began again in the way of cavemen, what would it all have been about? People busting a gut going to work, being a yes man and trying for that promotion so he can have the best tv, car, house, holidays etc - for what? If artifacts were found by future cavemen such as the remains of a laptop or iphone, they wouldnt have a clue what it was. There would be no language again, nothing. The wheel and fire would be major steps forward again!! Seems like the meaning of life will never be realised. In fact, maybe it wont be humans or dinosaurs that are prevalent in the new world. Maybe it will be some other form of life? After all, humans have had their chance and keep on blowing it! Walter, I have heard it say jokingly that we must be descended from a Martian race, given we are so out of synch with Mother Nature. Some of us on this forum, like Canuck maybe are of purer race. Species, not race. hahaha OMG please stand corrected Somtamme by the PC BS'er The ice age is coming - so what? Who caused it? Who cares? If it's coming it's coming and we're all doomed no matter what scientific cr@p you wanna waste your time posting about theories and weather patterns. We cannot control the planet, only Superman can do that and I believe 100% that you are not him, although I also do believe 100% that you wear your underpants over your trousers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Somtamme Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 Actually, Walter it's not coming, the only evidence of cooling is localised, for example from the changes being measured by the U.S. and UK in the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation. Snow fields in the Cairngorm Mountains in Scotland are also reported over the last few years to be growing. If the results from this monitoring in the Atlantic holds true for the longer-term it has significant potential implications. However, please don't confuse me, it is a consequence of climate change for a part of the world, but not evidence of a global mini-ice age. http://noc.ac.uk/news/amoc-amok-0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GanDoonToonPet Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 NOT so fast GanD. This is a very complex issue but ofcource us non-scientists need to take in all this mountain of data and the fact that scientists themselves hotly debate whats going on-we have to take things with a grain of salt, but I wouldn't trash this researcher as a fraud or an idiot.. LOOK here: solar decline in activity is the fastest that has been seen in 10,000 years. http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-25743806 and watch the 10 minute video, first of all the scientist confirms AGAIN what I had said about sunspot observations, that we have 400 years of sunspot observations, earlier up2u2 tried to de-link the sporer minimum from the MIA using an inaccurate or botched graph, but in fact the sporer and wolf minimums were back there where you had the start of the MIA, and the MIA was actually this up and down thing that correlated with the solar cycles..but forget about that and look again at the graph I posted on page 1, the 10,000 year inter-glacial period .. Are you guyz starting to see how the pieces of the puzzle are starting to fit together yet? Well, I wouldn't describe myself as a non-scientist & you don't seem to have addressed any of my points...never mind. Interesting video on the BBC & very balanced. I particularly like Prof Lockwood's comment that there's a less than 20% chance of a Maunder Minimum in the next 40 years. He also stated that the MIA was a localised phenomenon in Northern Europe & the cause was a redistribution of temperatures; temperatures in Greenland increased during that time for example. Regarding your graph on sunspot activity, here is some recent research published in the journal Nature that shows there is no correlation between sunspot activity & solar activity: Astronomers have fixed an embarrassing discrepancy involving the longest observational record in science: data on sunspot activity that stretch back four centuries. The discovery has ramifications for understanding how the Sun has affected, and could still affect, life on Earth. Notably, the revised sunspot tally shows that solar activity has not risen in recent decades, as once thought. Some had linked this idea of a sunspot 'Grand Maximum' to hotter temperatures on Earth. “We find no such Grand Maximum,” says Frédéric Clette, an astronomer at the Royal Observatory of Belgium in Brussels. “There has been nothing exceptional about the level of solar activity.” ...Clette and his team identified several sources of systemic error in the two lists, such as the fading eyesight of an ageing observer in Switzerland who was seeing fewer sunspots over time. In other cases, skywatchers were focused on making other solar observations, so if their notes do not mention sunspots this does not necessarily mean that none were present. http://www.nature.com/news/spotty-sunspot-record-gets-a-makeover-1.18145#/b1 So although the total amount of energy reaching the surface has decreased, this is unrelated to sunspot activity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
movieplay Posted September 1, 2015 Author Share Posted September 1, 2015 Gan, i didn't address your points? you called the adapt2030 comment that the solar activity is low, not just the sunspot count, a rubbish.. but that was clearly backed up by the bbc report, I realize you guys post on a lot of threads and its alot of reading, BUT you need to read the OP to know where we are here, the maunder minimum 2030 has been confirmed now by several sources, particularly the new research by professor Zharkova..its in the OP, read the op and the links i added first please, up2u2 doesn't seem to accept how I and these scientists define MIA, he keeps posting this graph that shows less than 1' warmer and this is since the 1800's when there are weather station readings from fixed locations, of cource someone else pointed out this is not unusually high and again look at the 10,000 perspective on page 1(put that puzzle piece with what they just said in the bbc report), you can see that 'worrying' about 'global warming at this point of time is illogical when we are moving forward into a weak sun and past the 10,000 year inter-glacial period. I think some people get the idea a MIA is just a short period where there is a mountain of ice where new york city used to be, that's not what we're talking about, this again: 5:08-> Brian Fagan "The Little Ice Age was a period of much more extreme volatility in climate than of constant cold. A Period of very volatile climactic shifts." 15:39-> Richard Sager "It wasn't just the mean was a little colder, there were alot of significant extremes." That's exactly what I said before, a MIA does not mean you no longer have hot, it doesn't mean you don't have summer, it just means you have extreme colds and erratic shifts to cold.. HMMM lets see could that be like .. perhaps a ploar votrex that plunges into the middle of america, bringing temps to extreme lows like -20' or maybe like.. lets see a sudden unexpected August snow in Calgary. or the the dozen other unusually extreme cold conditions that the adapt2030 channel talks about?? you dont think? So it's obvious by that definition the MIA has already started, especially since my detractors on this thread refuse to put forth alternative reasons why these extreme cold conditions and the other unusual weather activity as you can see adapt2030 has plenty of them, exactly when and where the correlation between solar minimums and climate is not precise, especially since a warm pdo can affect it, but lets look here: you can see the maunder minimum, but also notice how in the dalton minimum the cooling effect lags, we have sunspot observations since the early 1600s so we can see the cooling effects, but also notice that the dalton was in the early 1800's but it's effect dragged on to the 1840's..that jives with what's going on now with 2 weaker solar cycles behind us about 10-20 years ago, and here we have the summer snow in hawaii, the polar vortex etc. it's called preponderance of the evidence here guys, look at the hand in front of your face instead of letting 'the establishment' tell you what to think.. someone on this thread mentioned real estate prices in NY, interesting perspective, you think the 'establishment' want to tell everyone 'a mini ice age is coming' that's alarmist, they don't wanna do that especially since it brings to mind these images of american and european cities under glacier which is not what we're talking about. Also as far as the MIA being just a 'cold spell in europe and north america' 'cold spells', 'ice ages' always hit those area's harder, just look at the glaciation maximum, its not in japan or china, and ofcource most of our historical records are american and european based.. so again the FACTS show we are already in the MIA, lets give the MIA a point's for the recent extreme or 'odd' cold's: 2014 polar votrex- i give it 5 for that, because that was the first one since 1985 and the one in 1985 was actually centered over maine, this one plunged right into the central USA. Hawaii July Snow-1 point ( i realize it was at 10,000 feet but IN THE NORTHERN TROPICS, IN July!) Calgary Snow August-1 point then just watch the adapt2030 channel for every other odd weather anomaly that matches MIA, etc. The MIA is HERE now per the definitions I have layed out, if the 'establishment' wants to not use the word 'ice age' i can understand that. I'm not interested in averages and means, im more interested in extreme cold events, so far reality on the ground trumps charts that show averages and means, there is a scientists to do the chart boasting/bashing thing with up2u2 as they debate weather its getting just a tiny bit cooler or warmer..like less than 1' in since 1880 using contested data sets when earlier in the current 10000 year inter-glacial it was 4' warmer in the same amount of time and it was warmer then than it is now but i guess the hot averages are just so outa control according to some people. One more thing, i know what the blog is where up2u2 comes from and where he's getting his little charts, i went over there and very politely countered their arguments as misleading, after I took the time to write a one page response they decided they were losing the argument and deleted my posts, i sent them a message protesting again politely but with some annoyance, they deleted again, so i sent them a final post that was 95% expletives. they can send their guy here and he can say whatever he wants on my thread and i don't mind debating and having neutral moderation but if i post on their blog, even though its at the bottom of the page and they have the full TOP part of the page to tout their perspective, they have to delete it-IMO this is PROOF that they are a fraud, if my opinions and facts are so ridiculous why not just leave it there, retort it and let the reader decide, ONLY a fraud runs away from a debate or insist that only his perspective be allowed. example lets say i post a blog retorting the notion that Obama is a Muslim, and he belongs to alqueda - of course i'm gonna let these idiots that think that post their perspective, WHY? because i know to the average blog reader, they come off as ridiculous and not rational, so it backs up my position. If my global warming i mean climate change denial is SO ridiculous then why not leave my posts there and retort my posts, because THEY FEEL that their loosing the argument on their own blog, they don't have confidence in their position, their forced to bug out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GanDoonToonPet Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 (edited) The facts are and these facts have been known for many years that the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) is an 11 year cycle and currently (as at 2009) Earth is at a 100 year low. It is pretty simple to establish the facts by simply graphing the 11 year cycle temperature data from NASA / GISS with peer reviewed 11 year TSI cycle data from Krivova et al 2007 and up to 2009 using PMOD data and clearly see as the TSI has plummeted to a 100 year low the Global Temperatures have reached all time highs. A_A_FrostFair_12.jpg This adapt2030 guy has an Ice Age in his head. It does make intuitive sense that low TSI would result in less warming but, while browsing Nature, I came across the article below. Although the research was conducted over a short period of time, it shows that a slight reduction in TSI increases surface warming. http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101006/full/news.2010.519.html The proposed mechanism is that the Sun produces more energy in the visible spectrum, to which the atmosphere is more transparent, which leads to more energy reaching the surface. The mechanism is plausible via Planck's Law for black body radiation. Edited September 1, 2015 by GanDoonToonPet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
movieplay Posted September 1, 2015 Author Share Posted September 1, 2015 AUGUST SNOW IN CHINA! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up2u2 Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 I'm not interested in averages and means, im more interested in extreme cold events, so far reality on the ground trumps charts that show averages and means, there is a scientists to do the chart boasting/bashing thing with up2u2 as they debate weather its getting just a tiny bit cooler or warmer..like less than 1' in since 1880 using contested data sets when earlier in the current 10000 year inter-glacial it was 4' warmer in the same amount of time and it was warmer then than it is now but i guess the hot averages are just so outa control according to some people. One more thing, i know what the blog is where up2u2 comes from and where he's getting his little charts, i went over there and very politely countered their arguments as misleading, after I took the time to write a one page response they decided they were losing the argument and deleted my posts, i sent them a message protesting again politely but with some annoyance, they deleted again, so i sent them a final post that was 95% expletives. they can send their guy here and he can say whatever he wants on my thread and i don't mind debating and having neutral moderation but if i post on their blog, even though its at the bottom of the page and they have the full TOP part of the page to tout their perspective, they have to delete it-IMO this is PROOF that they are a fraud, if my opinions and facts are so ridiculous why not just leave it there, retort it and let the reader decide, ONLY a fraud runs away from a debate or insist that only his perspective be allowed. example lets say i post a blog retorting the notion that Obama is a Muslim, and he belongs to alqueda - of course i'm gonna let these idiots that think that post their perspective, WHY? because i know to the average blog reader, they come off as ridiculous and not rational, so it backs up my position. If my global warming i mean climate change denial is SO ridiculous then why not leave my posts there and retort my posts, because THEY FEEL that their loosing the argument on their own blog, they don't have confidence in their position, their forced to bug out. That's been your problem from the start 'movieplayer' you are just finding anywhere on Earth it has snowed and shouting "ICE AGE!!" What you actually avoid, like most Climate Deniers is the scientific facts. You state the Earth is cooling yet all you have is some photos of Snow and somehow that is a preponderance of evidence the Earth is cooling. I have posted charts from NASA / GISS, NOAA and Berkeley Earth that show Globally the Earth is warming you are welcome to post your charts that show Earth is cooling. I visit a lot of sites on GW / CC even Climate Denier sites. What site did you get 'bounced' from lol. You have presented no scientific evidence the Earth is cooling, no scientific evidence of an impending Ice Age, no scientific evidence a Solar Minimum has begun cooling the Earth. Not a cracker of evidence. In fact the science shows exactly the opposite of your theory. Glaciations and Inter-glacials are caused by Milankovitch Cycles and include Eccentricity (100,000 years), Axial Tilt (41,000 years) and Precession (23,000 years). So with your little graph you still have a minimum of 13,000 years before any effects can be factored in. These cycles are so gradual they are simply not factored into any modelling. Both the terms 'Global Warming' and 'Climate Change' have been used by scientists for decades. The terms mean two totally different occurrences. The name has never been changed. Climate Change is a result of Global Warming. Two different terms that have always been used. This is pretty basic stuff 'movieplayer'. If you pretend to have a view on GW / CC you should really know these basics. Also on that Adapt2030 video you should have known that Winter Snow in the Arctic all melts during the Summer minimum so it doesn't compound year after year and is neither linear or exponential so the guy on adapt2030 knows less than you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up2u2 Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 The facts are and these facts have been known for many years that the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) is an 11 year cycle and currently (as at 2009) Earth is at a 100 year low. It is pretty simple to establish the facts by simply graphing the 11 year cycle temperature data from NASA / GISS with peer reviewed 11 year TSI cycle data from Krivova et al 2007 and up to 2009 using PMOD data and clearly see as the TSI has plummeted to a 100 year low the Global Temperatures have reached all time highs. A_A_FrostFair_12.jpg This adapt2030 guy has an Ice Age in his head. It does make intuitive sense that low TSI would result in less warming but, while browsing Nature, I came across the article below. Although the research was conducted over a short period of time, it shows that a slight reduction in TSI increases surface warming. http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101006/full/news.2010.519.html The proposed mechanism is that the Sun produces more energy in the visible spectrum, to which the atmosphere is more transparent, which leads to more energy reaching the surface. The mechanism is plausible via Planck's Law for black body radiation. Interesting Article Gan so the wavelength shifts, creating more visible spectrum energy thru. Well that doesn't help our overheating situation. Are you serious, Planck's Law. Man that took me back in time. Been a long, long time since I studied that in Physics lectures. Thanks Gan you reminded me of some great memories. I might play some Led Zeppelin or Deep Purple tunes and reminisce of days long past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 Obama was on tv ranting about climate change and how we have to do something or our children are all going to die. However, absolutely ZERO effective solutions are suggested from the lips of the great one. I'll bet though, that his solutions have a lot to do with tax increases. Strange though, as he claims climate change is MAN MADE, that he does not even mention population control. Reduce the population, reduce man's impact- seems simple to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts