Official Global Warming thread (merged)

#5,952
#5,952
Sandvol said:
Just Damn Bart! NYC is a bust. The Pope's encyclical is a bust. Now sea ice a bust. But we need that carbon tax.

What Happened To The Arctic
Click to expand...

Watch out Sand, Bart is the only one allowed to post facts and evidence. Of course he will log on, look at the article and then post one of his many graphs that contradict yours. I honestly think Bart just makes these graphs himself.
 
#5,958
#5,958
BigOrangeTrain said:
Earth heading for 'mini ice age' in 15 years, scientists say - UPI.com

Oops
Click to expand...

images
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5,962
#5,962
The article states that global temperature will fall within 30 days of the event. It does not state how far or for how long it will be lower.

Just more indications that man has very little to no affect on what happens to the earth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#5,963
#5,963
tnmarktx said:
This disproves everything global warming scientist have been saying. I thought that man made greenhouse gases controlled the temp. Now they are actually saying what I thought all along, it's the sun stupid.
Click to expand...

Don't you understand? All scientists are in 100% agreement on all of this conflicting data.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#5,964
#5,964
Oh joy, where to begin? I’ve missed a lot!

Talk about sensationalist media… the mini-ice age story is a worse fail than the usual Yellowstone nonsense. They do both come up every couple of years but damn… Smh

I guess I can understand the mistake. The press release came from a Ukrainian presenting at the Welsh conference Cyfarfod Seryddiaeth Cenedlaethol 2015, and was unsurprisingly poorly worded.

Predictions from the model suggest that solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during the 2030s to conditions last seen during the ‘mini ice age’ that began in 1645…

"In cycle 26, the two waves exactly mirror each other – peaking at the same time but in opposite hemispheres of the Sun. Their interaction will be disruptive, or they will nearly cancel each other. We predict that this will lead to the properties of a 'Maunder minimum'," said Zharkova. "Effectively, when the waves are approximately in phase, they can show strong interaction, or resonance, and we have strong solar activity. When they are out of phase, we have solar minimums. When there is full phase separation, we have the conditions last seen during the Maunder minimum, 370 years ago."
Click to expand...

By “conditions last seen during the Maunder minimum” it means sunspot conditions, not temperature conditions. Some outlets even thought they meant 'total solar output' would fall by 60%. That wouldn’t be a mini-ice age, that would be snowball earth. Additionally, ‘Maunder Minimum’ and ‘Little Ice Age’ are not interchangeable. Their timing partially overlapped but the Maunder Minimum did not cause the LIA.

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 :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#5,965
#5,965
Then there was this
mrorange211 said:
Nobel-winning physicist who backed Obama: Prez 'dead wrong' on global warming - Washington Times

There is not a consensus, even in the scientific community.
Click to expand...
Some Ivar Giaver quotes-
"I am not really terribly interested in global warming. Like most physicists I don't think much about it. But in 2008 I was in a panel here about global warming and I had to learn something about it. And I spent a day or so - half a day maybe on Google, and I was horrified by what I learned. And I'm going to try to explain to you why that was the case.”

“First: nothing in science is incontrovertible. Second: the “measured” average temperature increase in 100 years or so, is 0.8 Kelvin. Third: since the Physical Society claim it has become warmer, why is everything better than before? Fourth: the maximum average temperature ever measured was in 1998, 17 years ago. When will we stop wasting money on alternative energy?”

“I think the temperature has been amazingly stable”

"How can you measure the average temperature of the Earth? I don't think that's possible.”

"Water vapor is a much much stronger green[house] gas than the CO2. If you look out of the window you see the sky, you see the clouds, and you don't see the CO2.”

"Is it possible that all the paved roads and cut down forests are the cause of "global warming", not CO2? But nobody talks about that."
Click to expand...

He may be a Nobel laureate, but he is self-admittedly clueless about climate change. He done gone emeritus (86) and is now working for the infamous Heartland Institute. I wouldn’t read that much into it…

And on the topic of consensus, did anybody catch this one?

The 97 Percent Scientific Consensus on Climate Change Is Wrong—It’s Even Higher
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#5,966
#5,966
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#5,967
#5,967
Bart is bringing the heat. And yes, I realize that most of the scientific community agrees; I found it curious, however, that a nobel guy totally dismissed it. Didn't research him, but I guess I should have because he doesn't seem to be too credible.
 
#5,968
#5,968
mrorange211 said:
Bart is bringing the heat. And yes, I realize that most of the scientific community agrees; I found it curious, however, that a nobel guy totally dismissed it. Didn't research him, but I guess I should have because he doesn't seem to be too credible.
Click to expand...
:hi:

We are all admittedly subject to our own cognitive biases, even the truly brilliant ones. Hence the importance the peer review, scientific consensus, yadayadayada
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#5,969
#5,969
mrorange211 said:
Bart is bringing the heat. And yes, I realize that most of the scientific community agrees; I found it curious, however, that a nobel guy totally dismissed it. Didn't research him, but I guess I should have because he doesn't seem to be too credible.
Click to expand...

Bart would dis Albert Einstein.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#5,970
#5,970
Sandvol said:
Bart would dis Albert Einstein.
Click to expand...
Well, he was sort of wrong about being wrong about the cosmological constant :p

He was also wrong about quantum mechanics, famously saying "God does not play dice."

I'd say both of those instances reflect Einstein's own cognitive biases. He was surely wrong about other things too, but (to my knowledge) he's never said anything quite as ridiculous as Giaever
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#5,971
#5,971
Why would anyone think something as puny as the sun would have anything to do with the climate? I mean that's just silly. Obviously we humans are the sole cause of the climate changing the way it is. Science says so. That's why we see so many different articles refuting each other about the climate changing. I mean all scientists agree. I wonder where the statistical data is to back up these agreements?
 
#5,972
#5,972
BartW said:
Well, he was sort of wrong about being wrong about the cosmological constant :p

He was also wrong about quantum mechanics, famously saying "God does not play dice."

I'd say both of those instances reflect Einstein's own cognitive biases. He was surely wrong about other things too, but (to my knowledge) he's never said anything quite as ridiculous as Giaever
Click to expand...

what about your own cognitive biases? You don't seem to discuss those at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top