Get ready for the next ice age, global warming fanatics.

[Omni]

47 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

The title of this thread is misleading.

 

The little ice age was caused by changes in solar output, and is not an actual ice age. Ice ages last much longer and are caused by milankovitch cycles, not by chances in solar irradiance.

Yep I think that anyone with the slightest scientific background knows this little ice age business was all hocus pocus. Especially when you have sat. photos showing 800,000 sq. kms. of arctic ice missing over a decade. 

[-1=e^ipi]

1 hour ago, Omni said:

Yep I think that anyone with the slightest scientific background knows this little ice age business was all hocus pocus. Especially when you have sat. photos showing 800,000 sq. kms. of arctic ice missing over a decade. 

Could you please elaborate on what you mean? I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to state. What do you mean by 'this little ice age business was all hocus pocus'? Do you mean that you don't think the little ice age did not occur, are you arguing that the claims by Argus are incorrect, or are you trying to say that trends in arctic ice over a decade imply that trends will not reverse in the future?

[Omni]

2 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Could you please elaborate on what you mean? I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to state. What do you mean by 'this little ice age business was all hocus pocus'? Do you mean that you don't think the little ice age did not occur, are you arguing that the claims by Argus are incorrect, or are you trying to say that trends in arctic ice over a decade imply that trends will not reverse in the future?

I'm saying that the global warming deniers are wasting their time in light of actual verifiable data. Pretty hard to get away with faking a sat photo showing the deterioration of arctic sea ice. Especially 800,000 sq. kms. of it.

[-1=e^ipi]

I still don't get how your comments fit into the context of this thread. A 10 year trend in sea ice is hardly conclusive of much, let alone being a silver bullet to defeat all climate change denier arguments. There is also merit in the idea that there will be reduced solar output over the coming decades and that maunder minimum like conditions would lead to a second little ice age if not for increased greenhouse gas concentrations.

[Omni]

21 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

I still don't get how your comments fit into the context of this thread. A 10 year trend in sea ice is hardly conclusive of much, let alone being a silver bullet to defeat all climate change denier arguments. There is also merit in the idea that there will be reduced solar output over the coming decades and that maunder minimum like conditions would lead to a second little ice age if not for increased greenhouse gas concentrations.

Yes and it's those nasty little greenhouse gas concentrations that seem to helping that ice disappear.

[kimmy]

On 12/23/2016 at 9:13 AM, Argus said:

It would certainly be ironic, and show Trudeau's impeccable timing if he were to start Canada fighting against global warming the very year we're starting to get global cooling...

So basically you've disregarded the view of the large majority of scientists working in this field, but you've picked this one to agree with... because you prefer the conclusion he has arrived at?

 -k

[Argus]

32 minutes ago, kimmy said:

So basically you've disregarded the view of the large majority of scientists working in this field, but you've picked this one to agree with... because you prefer the conclusion he has arrived at?

 -k

I didn't say I agreed with it or not. I simply said it would be ironic.

My position on global warming to date is that it's happening, but the solution (reducing carbon emissions) is embraced by morons who can't count. Ie, it's "something" to do, and so they're doing it, with great earnestness and at tremendous expense, despite how obvious it is that it will accomplish absolutely nothing.

Edited December 25, 2016 by Argus

[Omni]

38 minutes ago, Argus said:

I didn't say I agreed with it or not. I simply said it would be ironic.

My position on global warming to date is that it's happening, but the solution (reducing carbon emissions) is embraced by morons who can't count. Ie, it's "something" to do, and so they're doing it, with great earnestness and at tremendous expense, despite how obvious it is that it will accomplish absolutely nothing.

Do you mean the well over 90% of professional scientists in the field who agree that global warming is happening any why? I don't think they are the morons.

[Argus]

14 minutes ago, Omni said:

Do you mean the well over 90% of professional scientists in the field who agree that global warming is happening any why? I don't think they are the morons.

No I mean the morons who look at CO2 numbers rising every year, look at the fact that hundreds of coal fired generators are being built throughout the third world, look at the plans for expansion of CO2 emissions in China, India and other countries, and then say "Hey! Let's bankrupt Canada so we can reduce world Co2 emissions by 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.1%!

 

[Omni]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

No I mean the morons who look at CO2 numbers rising every year, look at the fact that hundreds of coal fired generators are being built throughout the third world, look at the plans for expansion of CO2 emissions in China, India and other countries, and then say "Hey! Let's bankrupt Canada so we can reduce world Co2 emissions by 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.1%!

 

http://climateactiontracker.org/countries/china.html

[Argus]

31 minutes ago, Omni said:

http://climateactiontracker.org/countries/china.html

Yes, China's energy output is reduced the last few years due to economic reasons. So? It's still building more coal plants, and as its economy expands it will bring them on along with the others it has temporarily shuttered or reduced output from.

[Smallc]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

I didn't say I agreed with it or not. I simply said it would be ironic.

So do you agree with it, or not?

[Omni]

9 minutes ago, Smallc said:

So do you agree with it, or not?

Perhaps hasn't considered it beyond a way to take a cheap shot at Trudeau.

[-1=e^ipi]

10 hours ago, kimmy said:

So basically you've disregarded the view of the large majority of scientists working in this field, but you've picked this one to agree with... because you prefer the conclusion he has arrived at?

To be fair, global temperatures will likely decrease next year due to La Nina.

[Argus]

18 hours ago, Smallc said:

So do you agree with it, or not?

I am not any kind of scientist. I certainly have read some on the tremendous influence even minor changes in the sun have over our climate, but I wouldn't begin to have the education to know if this report is correct. It's interesting, though.

[Smallc]

That's a non answer.  If you don't understand it or trust it, why post it?

[Argus]

2 hours ago, Smallc said:

That's a non answer.  If you don't understand it or trust it, why post it?

To discuss it, of course. Duh.

[Smallc]

You're not one to really post things that you don't believe to be discussed - therefore, I think you probably believe it.

[Wilber]

On 12/25/2016 at 9:49 AM, -1=e^ipi said:

I still don't get how your comments fit into the context of this thread. A 10 year trend in sea ice is hardly conclusive of much, let alone being a silver bullet to defeat all climate change denier arguments. There is also merit in the idea that there will be reduced solar output over the coming decades and that maunder minimum like conditions would lead to a second little ice age if not for increased greenhouse gas concentrations.

It actually shows the trend from 1978.

[Wilber]

19 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

To be fair, global temperatures will likely decrease next year due to La Nina.

So?

[-1=e^ipi]

7 minutes ago, Wilber said:

It actually shows the trend from 1978.

40 year trend, still doesn't demonstrate that much. You generally need more than a single trend in science. You generally want a model that explains observations, has a good theoretical basis, and can be used to predict the future.

[Wilber]

26 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

40 year trend, still doesn't demonstrate that much. You generally need more than a single trend in science. You generally want a model that explains observations, has a good theoretical basis, and can be used to predict the future.

If the trend continues at the same rate for another 40 years, there is a good chance it will be irreversible, if it isn't already.. Any way, it demonstrates a lot more than a one or two year La Nina.

[Argus]

2 hours ago, Smallc said:

You're not one to really post things that you don't believe to be discussed - therefore, I think you probably believe it.

I don't think you are a very good judge of very many things, and certainly not of what I do or don't believe.

[-1=e^ipi]

24 minutes ago, Wilber said:

If the trend continues at the same rate for another 40 years, there is a good chance it will be irreversible

 

A good chance? How does one estimate probability without a model?

[-1=e^ipi]

In addition to that, what is your understanding of 'irreversible'? Do you not think that ice can refreeze? Or is this some sort of second law of thermodynamics argument?