What the hell are they going to do with that show? Are we going to spend a season watching a blind girl fumble about while Cersei builds a zombie mutant army to take out the White Walkers? There's not going to be anyone left to cheer.
Mini Ice Age Coming in 2030
- Thread starter txhawk I
- Start date
What the hell are they going to do with that show? Are we going to spend a season watching a blind girl fumble about while Cersei builds a zombie mutant army to take out the White Walkers? There's not going to be anyone left to cheer.
I still think Jon gets resurrected. But I confess to a bad feeling that the show may be degrading. I sure hope not.
The producers have done some wonderful things adapting and changing Martin's story for TV. Some scenes are better than in the books. But I'm not at all confident that they can keep up that quality without Martin's story as a framework to flesh out.
Good Lord. Even after I have TWICE suggested you read my posts in this thread, you obviously haven't done so.
Depending upon which scientist you ask, it never happened, so the question is moot.
Lol, I'm reading this thread Lone, and Joe seems to be "locked-in" to this idea he created that you are a strong believer in the Mini Ice Age article.
Joe, as Lone said, please try reading his posts again... preferably while not drunk.
.
He's done the same thing in other threads. He gets an incorrect idea in his head and there's absolutely no way to get him to relinquish it. He still doesn't understand the "vanilla vs chocolate" reference vis-a-vis the definition of discrimination.
Naturally occurring biosphere adjustments that mankind STILL DOESN'T FULLY UNDERSTAND BECAUSE OF THE IMMENSE COMPLEXITY OF OUR NATURAL WORLD.
Lone Clone shucks and jives all over the place in his efforts to downplay climate change, support the argument that nothing needs to be done and, at the same time, con people into believing that he isn't a denier.
LC's approach has moderated some over the years has he has had to admit some of the science - which of course he now claims he never objected to. His whole schtick is a joke, but it isn't a funny joke when failure to address this problem will harm so many people.
Another fantasy, Parser? Are you saying I once claimed that climate doesn't change? Or that human activity has no effect on it? We need to establish some kind of baseline, maybe.
For the record, I'm still highly skeptical of claims that AGW poses a serious threat to the planet.
Ever? As in we could just keep adapting to a degree or two a century perpetually? Or just in your life time? I assume you must just mean while you're around for it doesn't seem logical to assume 3-5 degrees is no big deal and you already admit it's happening and we are adding to it year after year.
Maybe you should write to the Supreme Court so they update the laws on the environment.
Wow. As in another thread, you're seeing that I agree things might have moved an inch and assuming that means I believe they will move a mile.
I think history has shown periods of warming and cooling, in some cases at times when the change couldn't be reasonably attributed to human activity. I think the real "deniers" are those who think that history is meaningless and now the climate reacts only, or principally, to entirely different stimuli.
Does the name Paul Ehrlich mean anything to you?
Joe...do you have a link to the actual presentation or paper. I can't track either one down.
Now you appear to be waffling, let's do establish that base line. Do you accept that human activity will add 1-2 degrees to the world average temps by 2100? If not, what do you think is the real picture with respect to AGW.
No, I don't necessarily accept that. That is why I said I was skeptical. Not sure why this is difficult for you to understand. You never struck me as one of the limited-vocabulary guys on the board. Hell, I think a lot of scientists who generally buy into the AGW theory don't agree on some of the specific projections.
What am I waffling on? It's hard to waffle when you haven't taken a position from which to waffle.
Did you see my question about Paul Erhlich?
Waffling on the existence of man made climate change. What are the impacts of this thing you claim is real? If there are no impacts, it's not real and you are a denier. If it is real, spell out what is the consequence. You must pick a side, the middle has been painted over.
In what way have I waffled? No offense, but you're not making any sense whatever.
Well, that's not entirely true. You're making sense for somebody who is making assumptions without realizing they are assumptions. You seem to think that anyone who thinks humans may be affecting the climate MUST AUTOMATICALLY believe the most dire projections. That isn't the case. The human factor could be negligible, or even positive.
I said I am open to the possibility that human activity may be affecting climate. Or to put it another way, I am willing to believe that human activity has an effect on climate. I don't know how much effect, although I am skeptical of the more extreme claims.
Holding that position -- which I have held consistently -- I couldn't possibly say what "impact" the human factor has.
Back up a bit and start your thinking process over where it relates to my position, and I think you'll understand the situation better.
I'm not making any assumptions, I'm asking you for to spell out your position. Let me help. Do you accept that world average temperatures are increasing?
Thanks for bringing up Ehrlich, I was trying to remember his name in response to the doomsday from the AGW alarmists. We shouldn't pick on him too much though as there have been plenty of other leftists alarmists who have made similar spectacularly wrong predictions.
I am not sure anyone of his stature has been as spectacularly wrong as Ehrlich. Moreover, he is still teaching AND still in the forefront of the AGW alarmist horde.
I have spelled out my position time and again. Most recently, I did so this morning -- again -- in the other thread. I cannot express it any more clearly than I have.
As to your question......over what period of time? In other words, at what point does the comparison begin?
I ask this because people with whom I associate your views tend to be a bit picky about selecting the time frames they use, and even ignore inconvenient periods. I am thinking specifically of the notorious "hockey stick," of course. But also of the current situation, which either does or does not show a lack of increase in recent years.
Is the average temperature of the world increasing compared to the Ice Age? Yes. Is it increasing compared to the days when dinosaurs roamed it? No.
Now that I have answered your questions -- again -- here's one for you:
Do you think climate change occurred before humans became a significant presence on the Earth?
Last edited:
How about 1800 to coincide with the industrial revolution when people like me think man started playing a part in climate change. Or how about when Jesus landed and we all got saved. Your sophist tactics to muddle the waters with dinosaurs probably fits in with the latter.
So you can't answer the question without undercutting your religious position, right? As I suspected, which is why I asked.
Meanwhile, add "sophist" to the list of words you don't understand, which is getting pretty long.
Why not start at 1880, since that's around the time that semi-dependable measurements began? Using that as a baseline, the average global temperature now is slightly higher.
Your turn again: Why not answer some of the questions I've asked you?
What questions of yours still need answering? 1880 is fine with me. I'm hardly dodging here, but misrepresenting is a key tactic of a sophist, look it up. I'm asking how you can expect man to put more energy into the system and not see the system react over the long term? If you bring up dinosaurs, you deserve your mocking.
“Scientists warn the sun will ‘go to sleep’ in 2030 and could cause temperatures to plummet,” blared one headline from this weekend.
“Earth heading for ‘mini ice age’ within 15 years,” warned another.
By Sunday evening, news that the Earth could be headed for period of bitter cold was trending on Facebook and whizzing across Twitter. The story — which has been reported everywhere from conservative blogs to the British press to the Weather Channel to the Huffington Post — was based on a recent presentation at the Royal Astronomical Society’s national meeting. Researchers studying sunspots found that solar activity is due to decline dramatically in the next few decades, reaching levels not seen since the 17th century, during a period known as the Maunder minimum. Back then, the decline coincided with what’s called the “Little Ice Age,” when Europe’s winters turned brutally cold, crops failed and rivers froze over. Could another one be on its way?
Not quite.
Though University of Northumbria mathematics professor Valentina Zharkova, who led the sunspot research, did find that the magnetic waves that produce sunspots (which are associated with high levels of solar activity) are expected to counteract one another in an unusual way in the coming years, the press release about her research mentions nothing about how that will affect the Earth’s climate. Zharkova never even used the phrase “mini ice age.” Meanwhile, several other recent studies of a possible solar minimum have concluded that whatever climate effects the phenomenon may have will be dwarfed by the warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions.
Besides, that “Little Ice Age” that occurred during the Maunder minimum, it wasn’t so much a global ice age as a cold spell in Europe, and it may have been caused more by clouds of ash from volcanic eruptions than by fluctuations in solar activity.
(It’s also worth mentioning that Zharkova’s findings have not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal, so her conclusions haven’t been vetted and refined.)
But those nuances were totally lost as stories about Zharkova’s research made the rounds on social media and in the press. Instead, we got 300-year-old engravings of Londoners cavorting on the frozen River Thames accompanied by predictions of food shortages and brutal cold — plus snarky tweets about not worrying about global warming anymore.
This isn’t the first time that a story about sunspots has turned into a story about climate change skepticism. John Casey, president of the Orlando-based Space and Science Research Corporation, which denies that global temperatures are rising, has written two books on the threat of impending “solar hibernation.” In 2011, when a series of studies concluded that the sun was heading into a cycle of unusually low activity, one headline cheered “Global Warming Be Damned, We Might Be Headed for a Mini Ice Age.”
For decades, scientists have known that solar activity fluctuates according to a roughly 11-year cycle. Sunspots — (relatively) cool, dark blotches on the sun’s surface — indicate areas of intense magnetic activity. But recently sunspots have been weakening, as has the sun’s magnetic field, leading scientists to conclude that the sun is heading into an especially quiet cycle termed the “grand solar minimum”
The new research from Zharkova argues that the solar cycles are regulated by not one but two magnetic waves fluctuating at slightly different frequencies, and that the unusually low activity can be explained by the waves getting far enough out of sync that they effectively cancel one another out.
Even if the upcoming decline in solar activity turns out to be as Zharkova’s suggests, scientists who study the sun say we can’t be sure how it will affect Earth’s climate.
“We have some interesting hints that solar activity is associated with climate, but we don’t understand the association,” Dean Pesnell, a NASA scientist who worked on one of the 2011 studies about the grand minimum, told National Geographic at the time.
Those studies that have found a correlation between solar activity and global temperatures predict that the drop in temperatures associated with a grand minimum will be much smaller than the warming that’s predicted to occur due to greenhouse gas emissions: A 2010 study in the journal Geophysical Letters predicted it could cause a global temperature decrease of about 0.3 degrees Celsius by 2100 — not nearly enough to offset the 1 to 5 degree increase anticipated from human-caused global warming.
As for that image of Londoners frolicking at “frost fairs” on the frozen-over Thames? Those had less to do with the activity of the sun than the activities of humans. Historical climatologist George Adamson told the BBC last year that the river used to freeze because of the architecture of the old London Bridge, whose arches prevented salty sea water from passing upriver and lowering its freezing point. The construction of a new bridge in the 19th century, and other landscape changes that made the river flow faster, brought an end to those festivals — less so than the end of the Maunder minimum.
“I’d be surprised if it froze again to the extent where we’d be able to allow large numbers of people on the Thames,” he said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...e-age-is-trending-but-its-not-true/?tid=hp_mm
“Earth heading for ‘mini ice age’ within 15 years,” warned another.
By Sunday evening, news that the Earth could be headed for period of bitter cold was trending on Facebook and whizzing across Twitter. The story — which has been reported everywhere from conservative blogs to the British press to the Weather Channel to the Huffington Post — was based on a recent presentation at the Royal Astronomical Society’s national meeting. Researchers studying sunspots found that solar activity is due to decline dramatically in the next few decades, reaching levels not seen since the 17th century, during a period known as the Maunder minimum. Back then, the decline coincided with what’s called the “Little Ice Age,” when Europe’s winters turned brutally cold, crops failed and rivers froze over. Could another one be on its way?
Not quite.
Though University of Northumbria mathematics professor Valentina Zharkova, who led the sunspot research, did find that the magnetic waves that produce sunspots (which are associated with high levels of solar activity) are expected to counteract one another in an unusual way in the coming years, the press release about her research mentions nothing about how that will affect the Earth’s climate. Zharkova never even used the phrase “mini ice age.” Meanwhile, several other recent studies of a possible solar minimum have concluded that whatever climate effects the phenomenon may have will be dwarfed by the warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions.
Besides, that “Little Ice Age” that occurred during the Maunder minimum, it wasn’t so much a global ice age as a cold spell in Europe, and it may have been caused more by clouds of ash from volcanic eruptions than by fluctuations in solar activity.
(It’s also worth mentioning that Zharkova’s findings have not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal, so her conclusions haven’t been vetted and refined.)
But those nuances were totally lost as stories about Zharkova’s research made the rounds on social media and in the press. Instead, we got 300-year-old engravings of Londoners cavorting on the frozen River Thames accompanied by predictions of food shortages and brutal cold — plus snarky tweets about not worrying about global warming anymore.
This isn’t the first time that a story about sunspots has turned into a story about climate change skepticism. John Casey, president of the Orlando-based Space and Science Research Corporation, which denies that global temperatures are rising, has written two books on the threat of impending “solar hibernation.” In 2011, when a series of studies concluded that the sun was heading into a cycle of unusually low activity, one headline cheered “Global Warming Be Damned, We Might Be Headed for a Mini Ice Age.”
For decades, scientists have known that solar activity fluctuates according to a roughly 11-year cycle. Sunspots — (relatively) cool, dark blotches on the sun’s surface — indicate areas of intense magnetic activity. But recently sunspots have been weakening, as has the sun’s magnetic field, leading scientists to conclude that the sun is heading into an especially quiet cycle termed the “grand solar minimum”
The new research from Zharkova argues that the solar cycles are regulated by not one but two magnetic waves fluctuating at slightly different frequencies, and that the unusually low activity can be explained by the waves getting far enough out of sync that they effectively cancel one another out.
Even if the upcoming decline in solar activity turns out to be as Zharkova’s suggests, scientists who study the sun say we can’t be sure how it will affect Earth’s climate.
“We have some interesting hints that solar activity is associated with climate, but we don’t understand the association,” Dean Pesnell, a NASA scientist who worked on one of the 2011 studies about the grand minimum, told National Geographic at the time.
Those studies that have found a correlation between solar activity and global temperatures predict that the drop in temperatures associated with a grand minimum will be much smaller than the warming that’s predicted to occur due to greenhouse gas emissions: A 2010 study in the journal Geophysical Letters predicted it could cause a global temperature decrease of about 0.3 degrees Celsius by 2100 — not nearly enough to offset the 1 to 5 degree increase anticipated from human-caused global warming.
As for that image of Londoners frolicking at “frost fairs” on the frozen-over Thames? Those had less to do with the activity of the sun than the activities of humans. Historical climatologist George Adamson told the BBC last year that the river used to freeze because of the architecture of the old London Bridge, whose arches prevented salty sea water from passing upriver and lowering its freezing point. The construction of a new bridge in the 19th century, and other landscape changes that made the river flow faster, brought an end to those festivals — less so than the end of the Maunder minimum.
“I’d be surprised if it froze again to the extent where we’d be able to allow large numbers of people on the Thames,” he said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...e-age-is-trending-but-its-not-true/?tid=hp_mm
I know what "sophist" means. That's why I pointed out that you do not.
The fact that you think it deserves mockery to point out that climate changed before human activity could have been a factor says a great deal about your position. Unless you are denying this happened....which was one of the questions you have not yet answered.
Paul Ehrlich?
But getting back to basics....once again you are ascribing positions to me that I do not hold, and opinions I have not expressed. I am attempting to limit my participation in these discussions to areas where I have some basis for forming an opinion, which is the tactics and track record of the AGW alarmists.
I answered your question about temperature today compared to temperature in the 19th century simply because I thought it might get you back to what I'm trying to discuss. I have already said, many times, that I do not dispute the fact of climate change. That would be crazy. The record is too clear.
One problem we have, though, is when I say "climate change" I mean "climate change," but when you say "climate change" you don't mean "climate change." You mean the specific changes and specific time period and specific causes that are currently in vogue among the AGW alarmists. You thus claim that when I say I believe in climate change, I am conceding all the stuff you and others are peddling, which is not the case at all. When I point this out -- even though that shouldn't be necessary -- you accuse me of waffling.
Yes, we are discussing man made climate change, which 97% of scientists think is happening. Was that not clear? That's why points about the plasticine aren't terribly germane or worthy of the obvious reply that the temps were different. But it is a great rhetorical tool for making the absurd seem reasonable to some, which is what a sophist does.
Your base argument is to deny the scientific consensus. That places you squarely in the denier camp. I think we have your position well sorted.
1. I agree modeling clay isn't germane to our conversation. I'm not the one who brought it up.
2. As we have shown before, 97% of scientists think climate is changing and human activity probably has something to do with it. Me, too.
3. In a discussion of whether climate change is primarily caused by human activity, it is not only germane but absolutely necessary to address the fact that climate change has occurred that could not possibly be due to human activity. Do you deny this?
1)
2) I don't believe you until you pass the nuclear/bus test and put that cause front and center.
3) No, thats a given. We are only concerned with what we can't attribute to a natural cause. Your's is a sophist position.
Wonder who will be the most wrong in their final predictions.
This guy...
Or this article's prediction.
Guess we'll have to wait and see.
1)
2) I don't believe you until you pass the nuclear/bus test and put that cause front and center.
3) No, thats a given. We are only concerned with what we can't attribute to a natural cause. Your's is a sophist position.
1. I couldn't resist.
2. You don't understand the analogy, or you're ignoring it? You should know that a fair number of people who accept the more extreme AGW predictions DO support development of nuclear energy.....the ones who are serious about the subject.
3. You are taking the position that although the Earth warmed before, all by its lonesome, it's incapable of changing now without our interference. I am skeptical of that evaluation.
Yep, totally wrong, no trend here at all:Wonder who will be the most wrong in their final predictions.
This guy...
Or this article's prediction.
Guess we'll have to wait and see.
Can we also pull up all the right-wing claims that turned out to be wrong...or is that different? Is that how you determine your stance on every issue? Intellectual laziness isn't an attribute you should trumpet, you know.
I've asked before for you to describe the natural factor or combination of factors that explain the current warming. You seem so sure they exist, I have to assume you have some special knowledge on the subject. Could you lay out some specifics...finally.
Or is this just you saying it must be so because you think it's so? It has to be one or the other...could you clear up this question?
There is no parallel to Paul Ehrlich on the Right.....and it isn't really correct to couch this matter in the traditional "left/right" manner.
I don't recall you ever asking me that before. If you did, I assume I answered the way I am answering now: If you read what I wrote, you would realize that contrary to claiming special knowledge, I have repeatedly stressed that I do NOT have the training or education to comment on the science.
What I wrote that seems to have set you off this time was simple history: The Earth's climate has changed frequently in the past at times when humans couldn't possibly have been responsible. Do you "deny" that? And the obvious question this history raises is why this time it HAS to be all the fault of human activity.
Latest posts
-
OABCIG to Super Bowl TD: DeJean Integral to Eagles' Championship
- Latest: WaterlooChazz
-
-
-
-