mini ice age could be on the way and it’s going to get very, very cold

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by Josephwalker, Nov 16, 2018.

  1. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah. You definitely got me there. I should be more careful with the wording.

    Knowledge is not a binary concept. It is a spectrum. We might not have perfect understanding. But that doesn't mean we have zero understanding and are completely clueless either.

    Sure, you can easily deny that the Earth has been warming if you dismiss all of the evidence that says you're wrong.

    That's because solar cycles aren't the only thing that modulates the climate. The Earth can even warm under declining solar radiation and vice versa because other effects working in the opposite way and with a bigger magnitude can be in play. In fact, over the last 500 million years this has been happening. Solar luminosity has increased by 5% yet the Earth has gradually cooled (in fits and starts of course).

    No it hasn't. In fact, the net effect of all necessary adjustments has actually worked to reduce the warming compared to what it would show if only the raw observations were used. See Karl 2015 figure 2B.

    Oh there definitely is. The magnitude of the changes as a result of solar cycles isn't the same across all frequencies reaching the Earth. Scientists are well aware of this. And, of course, there are other potential ways that the Sun could effect the climate that are being studied. So far none of these have proved to have anywhere close to the same influence on the climate as TSI.
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2019
    Cosmo likes this.
  2. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A scientific consensus is not an agreement on a single correct view of experts.

    A scientific consensus is an agreement on the diversity of, distribution within and disagreement among experts.

    A scientific consensus reflects understanding.

    Until 1811, the consensus was that formula for water was HO.

    Solar activity is not something the IPCC equates. They only consider TSI but solar activity has a profound effect on this planet as it mitigates the effect of cosmic rays hitting Earth. The greater the solar activity the fewer cosmic rays reach Earth. There was a hypothesis that cosmic rays affect cloud formation but it was not proven until recently with CERN. The more clouds, the less sunlight reaches Earth and is reflected to space.

    Now the one thing that is very hard to model are clouds so the computer models parameterize clouds which means they cannot model them. That is one of the large known unknowns in the science. With less energy from the sun, the Earth begins to cool. That cooling has a delayed effect due to the ability of the oceans to retain heat content. When solar activity increased, years later the Earth warmed. Now that it is decreasing, rivaling the Dalton Minimum, solar scientists are predicting coming cooling.

    BTW, this is also science.
     
  3. Moi621

    Moi621 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2013
    Messages:
    19,292
    Likes Received:
    7,606
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male


    Moi supports a mini ice age
    and encourages You Do Too.

    After all there are already so many alarmist supporting the further warm up
    it's about time cool down advocates got some attention and science grants.
     
  4. saveliberty

    saveliberty Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2017
    Messages:
    800
    Likes Received:
    407
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    When you all figure this out just let me know if I need to buy a warmer winter coat okay?

    If there's a big sale, I'm buying one regardless.
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2019
  5. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Of course it is. You either know something is true or you don't. If you're 99.99% sure it's true, you may bet your life on it; but if you know it's true, there's no betting involved.
     
  6. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    People bet their lives on imperfect knowledge all of the time. Medical diagnosis and treatments frequently have a spectrum of efficacy that is rarely 100% or even 99%.

    For example, smoking significantly increases your chances of getting lung cancer. But scientists can't pick a person from random and say definitively whether they will develop cancer due to smoking by a certain date or not. It just doesn't work that way.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  7. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I just calculated the tide rise in Miami based on historical data. Only tide gauges are used for local planning and not one tide gauge shows any acceleration over historical rise since tide gauges were implemented. It shows in 100 years the sea level will be 1/2 inch higher. Compare that to the hysterical claims of sea level rise that are being used to push AGW.
     
  8. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah, I mean I agree. Hysterical sea level rise claims are unwarranted. We aren't going to see catastrophic sea level rise by 2100. Any catastrophic rise would likely be well after 2100 and only if CO2 levels rise dramatically to 1000 ppm which is very unlikely.

    The tide gauges I'm seeing in Miami and in most areas along the east coast are 2.0-2.5 mm/yr. That would be a 8-10" rise in 100 years assuming the rate of rise doesn't accelerate.
     
  9. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That number is an historical number over time but the gauges show about 0.13 mm/yr.
     
  10. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,419
    Likes Received:
    2,184
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Since reality went the opposite way of what the cosmic ray theory predicted, the cosmic ray theory is conclusively debunked.
     
  11. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As usual you add nothing but nonsense opinion and no facts. You should try some reading instead of navel gazing for a change.
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2019
  12. ibobbrob

    ibobbrob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2017
    Messages:
    12,744
    Likes Received:
    3,136
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Whether right, left or center, climate change translates in to hot and cold. Very hot in the summer and very cold in the winter.
     
  13. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    CERN has pretty much put the nail in the coffin in theory that GCRs affect the climate. Their big bombshell discovery came in 2014 when they discovered that it was likely biogenic vapors from trees that were enhancing nucleation rates. And then in Decemeber of 2016 they released the results of the ionization experiments.

    Fundamental questions remain about the origin of newly formed atmospheric aerosol particles because data from laboratory measurements have been insufficient to build global models. In contrast, gas-phase chemistry models have been based on laboratory kinetics measurements for decades. We built a global model of aerosol formation by using extensive laboratory measurements of rates of nucleation involving sulfuric acid, ammonia, ions, and organic compounds conducted in the CERN CLOUD (Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets) chamber. The simulations and a comparison with atmospheric observations show that nearly all nucleation throughout the present-day atmosphere involves ammonia or biogenic organic compounds, in addition to sulfuric acid. A considerable fraction of nucleation involves ions, but the relatively weak dependence on ion concentrations indicates that for the processes studied, variations in cosmic ray intensity do not appreciably affect climate through nucleation in the present-day atmosphere.

    http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6316/1119

    And yes, the GCR cloud nucleation theory states that as solar activity waxes/wanes GCR flux at Earth increases/decreases thus increasing/decreasing cloud formation which blocks incoming radiation. Solar activity has waned and thus GCR flux has increased which should have increased cloud formation and cooled the planet. So the GCR theory actually predicts that the Earth should have been cooling in recent decades.

    See the following for more rebuttals to the GCR cloud nucleation theory and its affect on the climate.

    Lockwood 2007
    Phillips 2009
    Benestad 2013
    Erlykin 2013
    Riccobono 2014
    Dunne 2016
    Rose 2018
     
  14. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Directly from CERN.

    In 2014 CERN’s CLOUD experiment made a huge discovery when it showed that biogenic vapours emitted by trees and oxidised in the atmosphere have a significant impact on the formation of clouds, thus helping to cool the planet.

    https://home.cern/science/experiments/cloud

    A paper on a computer model does not change the discovery (a big discovery BTW) and there is a saying in science, all models are wrong.
     
  15. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah, that's the huge discovery I mentioned. It's documented in the Riccobono 2014 paper I linked to.
     
  16. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not a syllable of this militates against anything I said. You get that, right?
     
  17. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,180
    Likes Received:
    62,817
    Trophy Points:
    113
    be interesting if those on the other side said we needed to make more co2 to warm the place up when it got cold ;)

    I have always said, we may be delaying the next ice-age, we just do not know
     
    Josephwalker likes this.
  18. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It shows that people bet their lives on a spectrum of knowledge that is neither useless nor perfect.
     
  19. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No they don't, because acting according to what you know isn't a bet. What people bet on is information they haven't personally verified - and of course scientists worthy of the name always take care to mark the distinction, so they don't end up disseminating nonsense under color of scientific authority.
     

Share This Page