European scientists' study shows woodypeckerhead rejects science MINI ICE AGE
-
I kept posting it because woodpecker kept spamming it, so STFU.
Emotional knee jerky - seriously? You all mad because it's SCIENTISTS saying
the opposite of mmgw?
Truth is, you can bitch all you want, but mmgw is a political ploy/theory/redistribution of
wealth bunch of bs.
And sure enough, you bitchers are rejecting the model by these scientists because
it doesn't fit your agenda.
Too bad, so sad, mmgw is a farce, now it's been shown.
You all mad because it's SCIENTISTS saying
the opposite of mmgw?
The "scientist" you're referring too made NO mention to a "mini ice age" or anything related to climate change in the original report.
She maintains the decline in solar activity will reduce solar irradiance, which heats the sun
She's not disputing neither the "mini ice age" possibility nor climate change in this paper.
Even if we did get cooler temperatures for 10 years, it would be entirely irrelevant to what's happening in our environment - which is still warming.
Not all republicans dispute climate change, FYI - See Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Fiorina (kind of), Jim Gilmore, Lindsey Graham, Jindal, Kasich, Pataki.
Trump, Carson, Huckabee, Cruz - at least those guys refute any possibility of man-made climate change.
-
Carson and Huckabee aren't on my list of politicians I can trust with science...
-
The previous Maunder Minimum occurred in the 17th century and lasted between 50 and 60 years. During this time, winters were colder: for example the River Thames, which usually flows through London, notoriously froze over. The ice was so thick that people could walk from one side to the other. However, the citizens that lived in freezing, 17th century Europe survived these cold winters, and they didn't have the heating technology that we are fortunate enough to have today. If the next solar activity minimum does affect the weather on Earth, it will not be deadly for the human race.
Zharkova compared the Maunder Minimum with the one that her team predicted to occur around 15 years into the future. The next minimum will likely be a little bit shorter than the one in the 17th century, only lasting a maximum of three solar cycles (around 30 years).
The conditions during this next predicted minimum will still be chilly: " It will be cold, but it will not be this ice age when everything is freezing like in the Hollywood films, Zharkova chuckled ". Jblu*******************************************************************************
And nobody is saying "ice age"... they are saying MINI "ice age". Of course it isn't a global, transocean freeze.
She's saying a freaking major cooling. You libs have completely missed the point.
Her model predicts MAJOR COOLING BECAUSE OF THE SUN's decrease in activity.
Now, the mmgw crowd - liberals - disputes the effects of the sun as a cause...and says the rising mm CO2 levels are causing the warming.
"CO2 is a poison" LOLLOL.
So, how the hell can it be cooling, libs, IF THE CO2 IS CLIMBING.
That's what I mean about knee jerk. She says the SUN IS GOING TO BE LESS ACTIVE - and
WE WILL HAVE A MAJOR GLOBAL COOLING.
So, how can you deny that the sun affects global warming? She's a freaking scientist,
and you libs are dismissing everything she does say, by bitching about what she doesn't.
Either answer this, or admit you're wrong. And, per her legit science, I am correct - activity of the sun
has a direct correlation to global temps on earth.
And, it's EXACTLY what I have said many times before - CO2 is rising...but gw doesn't...
that bites that liberal theory in the arse from the gitgo.
But do keep saying "climate change" instead of the old, decrepit, easily disproven "fact" of mmgw.
-
The equation of climate has more than one variable Cal...
No one has ever said the sun has no effect
-
Exactly what Woody said. Of course the sun has an affect on our temperature just like many other factors do. This mini ice age you are thinking of does not change the fact that our climate is warming and CO2 levels are a variable in that, just like solar activity is. 30 years of colder weather does not mean that we are not warming long term. Try not to be so short sighted.
-
Venus is a great example.
Mercury is closer to the sun, and since, according to you Cal, the sun is responsible for global warming and cooling wouldn't it make sense that Mercury would be hotter than Venus? Unless there were other variables that caused Venus to be hotter..hmmm like greenhouse gases? Venus' atmosphere is 90 times thicker than Earth's and is made of mostly, YOU GUESSED IT, CO2!
-
http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=3824
Whose the woodpecker now?
-
There is only one woodypeckerhead, for different reasons than being wrong.
I never said the sun was the ONLY cause of climate changing. That is utter nonsense.
This has been argued many times before, and just believe me - libs have bashed CO2
as THE reason we are supposed to have a "crisis" and we're all gonna die unless
we vote for Al Gore...
CO2 has been declared a "poison" many times on this board. It's plant food.
That's when I first brought up the destruction of the earth's rainforests.
I've posted legit graphs of the direct correlation between sun activity, and global temp.
It is THAT much a significant factor. CO2 must not be very significant, because it is cooling
in spite of the fact that CO2 is climbing. So, the libs' CO2 claim was silly from the gitgo.
I'm not saying rising CO2 is a good thing - I'm saying that over-industrialization, urbanization, paving,
building, major forest fires, volcano eruptions... there are a lot of reasons our global temp is
what it is.
It's really inane for libs to harp on suv's, cows farting, and not enough money taxed and spent, etc etc etc..
all that shows is the political intent of their "emphatic declarations of crisis".
-
CO2 has been declared a "poison" many times on this board. It's plant food.
By whom? Not me, and I'm pretty sure I haven't seen it by anyone else.
Of course there is a link between sun activity and the temperature. Yet, we're in a down period in terms of solar output and the temperature is rising. What's causing that?
-
There is only one woodypeckerhead, for different reasons than being wrong.
I never said the sun was the ONLY cause of climate changing. That is utter nonsense.
This has been argued many times before, and just believe me - libs have bashed CO2
as THE reason we are supposed to have a "crisis" and we're all gonna die unless
we vote for Al Gore...
CO2 has been declared a "poison" many times on this board. It's plant food.
That's when I first brought up the destruction of the earth's rainforests.
I've posted legit graphs of the direct correlation between sun activity, and global temp.
It is THAT much a significant factor. CO2 must not be very significant, because it is cooling
in spite of the fact that CO2 is climbing. So, the libs' CO2 claim was silly from the gitgo.
I'm not saying rising CO2 is a good thing - I'm saying that over-industrialization, urbanization, paving,
building, major forest fires, volcano eruptions... there are a lot of reasons our global temp is
what it is.
It's really inane for libs to harp on suv's, cows farting, and not enough money taxed and spent, etc etc etc..
all that shows is the political intent of their "emphatic declarations of crisis".
I'm pretty sure if you started huffing CO2 you wouldn't last very long - due to CO2 poisoning.
I'm just saying ^, I don't know what the point of mentioning it is but I just saw CO2 and poison in the same sentence.
I'm not saying rising CO2 is a good thing - I'm saying that over-industrialization, urbanization, paving,
building, major forest fires, volcano eruptions... there are a lot of reasons our global temp is
what it is. rising
Some of those reasons are man-made, and we can do things to correct/fix them.
-
Sure, but that's the case for basically anything, including oxygen. The air we breathe contains CO2 naturally, and we aren't poisoned by it.
-
Water is poison if you huff it
-
She is not a scientist. She is a math teacher.
She is predicting the sun will be cooler, which has nothing to do with the conditions creating climate change.
I found more than 10 articles discrediting this "research" and found none that agreed.
The Blaze is a worthless piece of shit with a massive agenda. Anyone who uses it as a source has no interest in knowing the truth about anything.
-
She is not a scientist. She is a math teacher.
She is predicting the sun will be cooler, which has nothing to do with the conditions creating climate change.
I found more than 10 articles discrediting this "research" and found none that agreed.
The Blaze is a worthless piece of shit with a massive agenda. Anyone who uses it as a source has no interest in knowing the truth about anything.
The Blaze is a worthless piece of shit with a massive agenda. Anyone who uses it as a source has no interest in knowing the truth about anything.
To be fair most places have an agenda, but usually only creeps into their editorials. The Blaze power fucks it's agenda into every piece of information about anything on that website.
-
There is only one woodypeckerhead, for different reasons than being wrong.
I never said the sun was the ONLY cause of climate changing. That is utter nonsense.
This has been argued many times before, and just believe me - libs have bashed CO2
as THE reason we are supposed to have a "crisis" and we're all gonna die unless
we vote for Al Gore...
CO2 has been declared a "poison" many times on this board. It's plant food.
That's when I first brought up the destruction of the earth's rainforests.
I've posted legit graphs of the direct correlation between sun activity, and global temp.
It is THAT much a significant factor. CO2 must not be very significant, because it is cooling
in spite of the fact that CO2 is climbing. So, the libs' CO2 claim was silly from the gitgo.
I'm not saying rising CO2 is a good thing - I'm saying that over-industrialization, urbanization, paving,
building, major forest fires, volcano eruptions... there are a lot of reasons our global temp is
what it is.
It's really inane for libs to harp on suv's, cows farting, and not enough money taxed and spent, etc etc etc..
all that shows is the political intent of their "emphatic declarations of crisis".
There is only one woodypeckerhead, for different reasons than being wrong.
I never said the sun was the ONLY cause of climate changing. That is utter nonsense.
This has been argued many times before, and just believe me - libs have bashed CO2
as THE reason we are supposed to have a "crisis" and we're all gonna die unless
we vote for Al Gore...
CO2 has been declared a "poison" many times on this board. It's plant food.
You're correct. CO2 is a plant food, because they "breathe" in CO2 as part of their metabolic process, and release O2. However, for those who depend on oxygen for breathing, such as....humans..., CO2 is most definitely a poison. Hence the actual medical condition Hypercapnia, or "CO2 Poisioning".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's when I first brought up the destruction of the earth's rainforests.
I've posted legit graphs of the direct correlation between sun activity, and global temp.
It is THAT much a significant factor. CO2 must not be very significant, because it is cooling
in spite of the fact that CO2 is climbing. So, the libs' CO2 claim was silly from the gitgo.
Both CO2 and the rainforests are significant factors in climate modulation. Plants are huge carbon sinks, so they would trap and store a great deal of CO2 in the atmosphere. Naturally, rainforests are among the biggest concentrations of plant matter on the planet, so they would be equally huge carbon sinks. In fact, scientists are already beginning to discover evidence that the Earth is beginning to green at an increased rate because of this:
The oceans are another huge carbon sink as well. The oceans can absorb huge amounts of CO2 and dissolve it into the water, reducing the amount of atmospheric CO2.
However, these carbon sinks are not infinite; they have their limits. The point at which the concentration of CO2 in a carbon sink becomes so high that the sink becomes virtually ineffective at further carbon absorption is called "saturation".
Plants, while being able to utilize CO2 as part of photosynthesis, are not infinitely able to continuously absorb it. Also referenced in the Nature article above is the fact that plants readily absorb CO2 up to the point of saturation, after which their ability as carbon sinks greatly diminishes.
And when it comes to the rainforests, the fact that they are being destroyed for logging and farmland faster than they can be replinished also reduces their ability to be a carbon sink, hence, less CO2 can be absorbed by them, leaving more CO2 to build up in the atmosphere. It's comparable to a smoker's lung being damaged by smoke, thereby reducing his or her ability to breathe effectively. The rainforests are like the Earth's lungs.
The oceans, too, are fast approaching their saturation point. When CO2 dissolves into the ocean, it reacts with the water to form carbonic acid, which slowly acidifies the ocean. As the ocean becomes more acidic, its ability to ability to abosrb CO2 will diminish. At a certain point, the ocean will become so acidic, that it will not absorb anymore CO2, which, again, will allow it to accumulate in the atmosphere:
http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/explore/pristine-seas/critical-issues-ocean-acidification/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not saying rising CO2 is a good thing - I'm saying that over-industrialization, urbanization, paving,
building, major forest fires, volcano eruptions... there are a lot of reasons our global temp is
what it is.
But again, Cal, I believe that is the point that most climate scientists are trying to make. Its not that having CO2 and other greenhouse gases is a bad thing; in the right amounts, they are critical to life on Earth. However, these greenhouse gases are already produced in sufficient amounts by natural processes. The ever increasing amounts of greenhouse gases produced by human activity can only cause harm at this point. The vast majority of scientists are warning against factors that we humans can control, not natural processes out of our hands.
It's really inane for libs to harp on suv's, cows farting, and not enough money taxed and spent, etc etc etc..
all that shows is the political intent of their "emphatic declarations of crisis".
-
The Blaze is a worthless piece of shit with a massive agenda. Anyone who uses it as a source has no interest in knowing the truth about anything.
To be fair most places have an agenda, but usually only creeps into their editorials. The Blaze power fucks it's agenda into every piece of information about anything on that website.
The Blaze power fucks it's agenda into every piece of information about anything on that website.
Like I said. The Blaze is the worst news source ever. You dont go there for the truth. You go there for confirmation of your agenda.
-
She is not a scientist. She is a math teacher.
She is predicting the sun will be cooler, which has nothing to do with the conditions creating climate change.
I found more than 10 articles discrediting this "research" and found none that agreed.
The Blaze is a worthless piece of shit with a massive agenda. Anyone who uses it as a source has no interest in knowing the truth about anything.
She is not a scientist. She is a math teacher.
That does not necessarily disqualify her research. Mathematicians are responsible for discovering many of the theories and equations that other scientific disiplines use, and climate modeling is very math intensive.
"That which can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence”. - Christopher Hitchens "The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you". - Neil deGrasse Tyson -
The Blaze power fucks it's agenda into every piece of information about anything on that website.
Like I said. The Blaze is the worst news source ever. You dont go there for the truth. You go there for confirmation of your agenda.
-
Science is just a type of math.
Math rules all
-
Since we're on the subject of climate change, and how scientific studies can be misinterpreted and politicalized, I figured i'd just go ahead and post this here. This story was just released today, so you know we are soon to be inundated by more Blaze articles about scientific conspiracy theories and liberal plots. Better to just nip it in the bud now:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wait, what? Antarctica gaining ice despite climate change, study says
Considering it's a barren, unimaginably cold wasteland at the bottom of the world — where penguins far outnumber people — Antarctica is sure making a lot of news these days.
A recent study in the Journal of Glaciology reported that despite the effects of man-made global warming, the frozen continent is actually gaining ice rather than losing it.
The study, led by Jay Zwally, a NASA glaciologist, claims that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers, especially in eastern and central portions of the continent.
Meanwhile, another study out Monday said that the destabilization and eventual collapse of the massive West Antarctic ice sheet — because of global warming — would lead to as much as a nine-foot sea level rise worldwide, inundating coastal cities.
"What we call the eternal ice of Antarctica unfortunately turns out not to be eternal at all," said Johannes Feldmann of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. Feldmann is lead author of the second study, which appeared in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
"In our simulations, 60 years of melting at the presently observed rate are enough to launch a process which is then unstoppable and goes on for thousands of years," Feldmann said in a release.
"This certainly is a long process," Feldmann added, "but it's likely starting right now."
How is this possible — can both studies be true? Yes, said Ted Scambos, a scientist with the National Snow and Ice Data Center, who was not directly involved in either study.
Scambos said that the first study is more of a short-term look at what's happening today and over the next couple decades in Antarctica, while the other is looking long-term at what will happen over centuries or even millennia if the planet continues to warm.
Additionally, he also questioned the methodology of the first study, saying that the claim of thickening ice in some portions of Antarctica could be based on incomplete data.
Overall, the long-term trend is what's most alarming: "It is clear that further greenhouse-gas emission will heighten the risk of an ice collapse in West Antarctica and more unstoppable sea-level rise," said co-author and sea-level expert Anders Levermann, also from the Potsdam Institute.
"It might be something to worry about, because it would destroy our future heritage by consuming the cities we live in — unless we reduce carbon emission quickly."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I also have a link to the Scientific American article dealing with this. It's a bit more heavy in the scientific jargon, but it comes to the same conclusions: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-antarctica-losing-ice-or-gaining-it/
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login