Ready for the next Ice Age? Winter is coming.

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by redrumloa, Aug 12, 2016.

  1. redrumloa

    redrumloa
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2005
    Messages:
    7,811
    Likes Received:
    955
     
    metalman likes this.
  2. metalman

    metalman
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member
    Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    6,767
    Likes Received:
    1,614
  3. redrumloa

    redrumloa
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2005
    Messages:
    7,811
    Likes Received:
    955
    I could have put this in my gloating thread. Global Warming is and always have been a scam.
     
  4. JoBBo

    JoBBo
    Expand Collapse
    Member
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    422
    Likes Received:
    99
    Right. Just a big conspiracy created by Big Solar and Big Wind to go after Poor Tiny Oil...

    For the record, if you had bothered to do a brief internet search before posting this year, you would have found out that this scientific paper was originally published last year and widely discussed by evil pro-hippy, socialist & communist publications such as Forbes.

    While Zharkova´s scientific theory about the cycles of sun activity is quite interesting, the paper does not actually discuss weather or climate. In fact, she is quoted as saying the following: "We must not ignore the effects of global warming and assume that it isn't happening. The Sun buys us time to stop these carbon emissions” (Source)
     
  5. redrumloa

    redrumloa
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2005
    Messages:
    7,811
    Likes Received:
    955
    No, it is an plan by the UN and unelected globalist elites. Do pay attention.
     
  6. redrumloa

    redrumloa
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2005
    Messages:
    7,811
    Likes Received:
    955
    Of course it is framed this way. Globalists/Democrats are trying to criminalize naysayers of the Global Warming Scam.




     
  7. Robert

    Robert
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,774
    Likes Received:
    2,633
    You're wasting your time.
    Logic won't help you here.
    Nor will reason.
    Even common sense is probably not worth citing.
     
    cecilia likes this.
  8. redrumloa

    redrumloa
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2005
    Messages:
    7,811
    Likes Received:
    955


    Ivar Giaever (Norwegian: Giæver, IPA: [ˈiːvɑr ˈjeːvər]; born April 5, 1929) is a Norwegian-American physicist who shared the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1973 with Leo Esaki and Brian Josephson "for their discoveries regarding tunnelling phenomena in solids".[1] Giaever's share of the prize was specifically for his "experimental discoveries regarding tunnelling phenomena in superconductors".[2] Giaever is an institute professor emeritus at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, a professor-at-large at the University of Oslo, and the president of Applied Biophysics.[3]

    On 13 September 2011, Giaever resigned from the American Physical Society over its official position. The APS Fellow noted: "In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"[14]

    As part of the 62nd Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting, Giaever referred to agreement with the evidence of climate change as a "religion" and commented on the significance of the apparent rise in temperature when he stated, "What does it mean that the temperature has gone up 0.8 degrees Kelvin, Probably nothing." Referring to the selection of evidence in his presentation, Giaever stated "I pick and choose when I give this talk just the way the previous speaker (Mario Molina) picked and chose when he gave his talk." Giaever concluded his presentation with a pronouncement: "Is climate change pseudoscience? If I’m going to answer the question, the answer is: absolutely.".[15][16]

    Source - Wikipedia
     
    #8 redrumloa, Aug 14, 2016
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2016
  9. FluffyMcDeath

    FluffyMcDeath
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member
    Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2005
    Messages:
    10,535
    Likes Received:
    1,849
    I've mentioned this for years here. The last solar cycle was very weak. While nobody knows for sure it looks like the ones to follow will be weaker, perhaps drastically so. The Maunder minimum was characterized by a very weak solar cycle and low solar output. I feel sure I was talking about this even before you left.

    For the last few years from time to time I would pop in with an update on the solar cycle and wonder which effect would predominate - weaker solar output, lower earth albedo (from the cleaning up of sulphur emissions) and CO2.

    Even with declining solar output the temperature is going up - so the answer is CO2 is winning. If the solar output falls considerably to Maunder minimum levels we will still be warmer than we were during that time. The herring you are pointing at is red, Red. Retained heat is making up for reduced solar output and then some. You have to listen to what the video says, not what you want it to say. The amount of cooling remains to be seen and should be modelled (instead of being complained about by climate activists) but it is no "get out of jail free" card. It is just a few decades respite from increasing temperature at best. Possibly a worse bit of news is what happens when, after enjoying the cool and doing nothing about CO2 but pumping more if it out, the sun returns to life.
     
  10. redrumloa

    redrumloa
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2005
    Messages:
    7,811
    Likes Received:
    955
    @FluffyMcDeath
    Watch the video I posted from Ivar Giaever. The Nobel prize Winning Physicist explains the problem better than I can. There isn't an open debate because science is not happening. Once something is claimed to be incontrovertible, science ended and religion begins. Just like Christianity and all other religions, people are expected to blindly follow faith and not facts. Scientists like Ivar Giaever who don't blindly follow are forced to resign and/or threatened with incarceration.

    I figured the new found common ground on politics would have 2 exceptions, Global Warming and Abortion. You all will probably come around on Global Warming in our lifetimes at least :)
     
  11. FluffyMcDeath

    FluffyMcDeath
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member
    Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2005
    Messages:
    10,535
    Likes Received:
    1,849
    And I would say the same to you. Claiming CO2 doesn't warm the atmosphere is like claiming you can fuel an internal combustion engine with water - it runs contradictory to physics ... and physics is very unkind to those that choose to ignore it. Reality bites (and knows no politics).
     
  12. metalman

    metalman
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member
    Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    6,767
    Likes Received:
    1,614
    The Sun's current sunspot activity ( solar cycle 24) correlates to solar cycle 5, the Dalton Minimum (1790 to 1830)
    Sunspots are magnetic storms that vary in number with the strength of the solar electromagnetic field. Variations in the Sun’s electromagnetic field causes a variation in cloud formation in the Earth’s atmosphere from cosmic rays. A stronger field deflects the rays; a weaker field allows them to penetrate deeper into the atmosphere.
    Clearly there is some sort of relationship ( coincidental or otherwise) with a solar cycle with a low numbers of sunspots and a climate cooling cycle. Sun spot records start in 1610 .

    The earths climate is influenced by
    Pacific Oscillation
    Atlantic oscillation
    Arctic Oscillation
    11,500 year Glacial cycle
    Ice-albedo feedback

    The ocean is a massive CO2 sink, it's not CO2, but water’s massive latent heat differential either side of the liquid state + that regulates climate

    The wild card in climate predictions is if a large volcanic eruption occurs during a solar sunspot minimum

    The 1815 eruption of the volcano Tambora in Indonesia resulted in 1816 "The year with no summer"

    End of the Ancient Era 536AD Erupting volcanoes in 536 & 539AD triggered a huge dust cloud which blocked out the Sun for 18 months

    It's not global warming we need to worry about, its Ice ball earth

    20,000 years ago, more or less, an ice sheet one mile thick lay over what we now call New York City.
     
    redrumloa likes this.
  13. FluffyMcDeath

    FluffyMcDeath
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member
    Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2005
    Messages:
    10,535
    Likes Received:
    1,849
    No, "buffers" is a better word. It doesn't regulate the climate, it smooths the bumps. A frying pan on the stove will be hot enough to cook almost right away but a pot of water will take a while to heat up. They both get hot in the end.

    Also, ice helps. It takes a lot of heat to melt ice, but once the ice is melted the water heats up much faster.

    What forces the climate is heat in versus heat out.
     
  14. redrumloa

    redrumloa
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2005
    Messages:
    7,811
    Likes Received:
    955
    And here is where you are wrong. Science is hypothesis and proof after the fact. The opposite has happened.The hypothesis was CO2 levels would cause an increase in global temperatures. Since 1998 there has been no increase in temperatures despite a marginal increase in CO2. Also, most of the data is from the northern hemisphere, ignoring the southern hemisphere. The facts point towards a major cooling event coming. The emperor has no clothes.
     
  15. metalman

    metalman
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member
    Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    6,767
    Likes Received:
    1,614
    The albedo of different clouds

    Water 8%
    Cirrus 20-40%
    Stratus 40-65%
    Cumulus 75%
    cumulonimbus 90%

    A cloudy sky reflect more sunlight back into space then a cloudless sky. The size and thickness of clouds, and the size and amount of water vapor inside the cloud varies the cloud albedo.
    At Night, a cloudy sky traps the heat ( green house effect ), and prevent heat from radiating back into the coldness of space.
    A tremendous amount of heat is stored in the water vapor in clouds. Water is much more efficient in storing heat than any other common substance on Earth. The phase changes of water combined with its unique heat-related properties are the major driver to all aspects of climate and weather.

    Cloud formation is dependent on aerosols in the upper atmosphere. This is poorly understood.

     
  16. redrumloa

    redrumloa
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2005
    Messages:
    7,811
    Likes Received:
    955
    BTW, on what basis would you claim to know more than Ivar Giaever, who won a Nobel Prize in physics before the Nobel Prize became a political joke?
     
  17. metalman

    metalman
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member
    Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    6,767
    Likes Received:
    1,614


    An increase in atmospheric CO2 results in increased plant growth
     
    redrumloa likes this.
  18. FluffyMcDeath

    FluffyMcDeath
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member
    Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2005
    Messages:
    10,535
    Likes Received:
    1,849
    About quantum tunnelling in semiconductors? On that subject he probably knows a lot more than me.
    I have not seen him deny that CO2 retains heat by absorbing infrared radiation, of course, because that would be contradictory to a) quantum mechanics, b) measured physical reality.
     
  19. FluffyMcDeath

    FluffyMcDeath
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member
    Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2005
    Messages:
    10,535
    Likes Received:
    1,849
    That is not in question - greenhouses have been doing this for years. However, it's not so good for humans. While indoor CO2 can get up to 2-3000 ppm if not properly ventilated (and that is pretty stuffy), 1000ppm is already enough to make you less smart.

    Furthermore, crops tend to be adapted to various temperatures and water availability. Rising temperatures causes increased water loss and some plants respond by closing or having less stomata which negatively impacts the amount of CO2 they can take up. Also, plants under flood water or in droughts don't seem to benefit from increased CO2. It's not all so black and white hence caution is recommended. Unfortunately the guys driving the bus on these crazy mountain roads are all looking to maximize their productivity and all so confident in their abilities they feel that, should it happen that they miss a turn, go through the rails and find themselves plummeting towards the canyon floor, they improvise something in the moment.
     
  20. metalman

    metalman
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member
    Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    6,767
    Likes Received:
    1,614
    Water vapor is the most abundant heat-trapping gas, it accounts for most of the green house effect
    CO2 as a greenhouse gas is logarithmic relationship with increasing concentration, most of the CO2 greenhouse effect occurs between 20 ppm and 100 ppm

    [​IMG]


    Carbon Dioxide in past eras reached concentrations that were 20 times higher than the current concentration. Recent investigations have shown that the current change of climate is part of a larger cycle known as climatic lowstand phase which precedes a sequential warming period known as transgression phase.
     

Share This Page