Global Warming

cabezadecaballo said:
Coal has been taxed, fee'd, and further undermined by a resultant shrinking economy of scale. That is a part of the cost equation that you will obviously ignore. Whatever. It may be for the best. If there was a cost-efficient way to clean up generation with coal, I guess that some would have fought harder for it here. None of this changes the fact that the globalists that you support politically endorse a dynamic that has more of our goods produced by workers (thus tax-payers and consumers) on the other side of the world. Workers in factories powered by a whole lot of coal-generated electricity. Same global "greenhouse", so same phonies, same wealth transfer.

So, as far as your mini-turbines - burning fossil fuels. Home generation, no grid. Gas. Fracking. Extreme increase of propane demand. Semi-green, but profitable for your circle. Got it.

I was apparently wrong in thinking you had some pipe dream about home wind turbines. I stand corrected.

So, right now I get an occasional prodding to help pay the utilities of po' folks. "Energy Share" or something. Already, much of their fees are subsidized in our overall deficit dynamics. Who is going to pay for the electricity of the poor ? Are we going to maintain a mass grid even as we make the homes of the top half of the economy electrically self-sufficient ? I guess the real dream is to have our tax dollars install these systems for those that cannot afford them on their own. How does this shifting paradigm look in your Demturd fantasy ?

As low-volume toilets and shower heads have come into vogue, we have already plainly seen that the fixed costs of any Water Department require a significant raise of volume-based consumption charges. Why would electricity be much different ? Therefore, can this mean anything other than the gubmint putting mini-turbines and battery buffers in every home or maintaining some form of our current grid at a far less cost-effective level when reckoned per user ? Certainly your side's liberal interpretation of the Constitution will have electricity as an inalienable right, right ?

Do I have this wrong, or is this where you are headed ?

Sorry, but you may as well be telling us that Hughes Internet is going to put Spectrum and Cox out of business. I think you bought a rah-rah sales pitch. Better pull yer head outta yer arse, Irish Buffalo'ed.

edit: Hold on. As long as yer head is up yer arse, have a look around and see if you can come up with a methane-recovery plan to use yer farts to run yer turbine......maybe a pick-up tube in yer recliner ? Toto make furniture ?
Click to expand...

Doesnt it stink up there? You have to come out for air at some point. I think?

I love how this all evolved into low flow toilets and shower heads. Create this BS then argue against it.

Turbines getting smaller and more efficient every day. Organizations in a race to create. Man in Ohio laughs and touts coal. Tells everyone else to get their head out of their . :LOL:
 
eastisbest said:
and then there's those that use words like "alarmists" to descibe interpretation of data that doesn't fit thier predisposed political narrative. That's not someone with a scientific bent. Science is impartial. It uses impartial words. LOTR, does not. You do not. He and/or you may or may not be a scientist but on this topic, you are not scientific. Poor Cru would call that position pedantic but Science calls it ethics and professionalism.
Click to expand...

Yappi is not a scientific forum it's a free flowing message board and calling these people "alarmists" is an accurate description of their actions.

When we debate climate change on Yappi, which is quite often, it goes in two parallel directions: one is science based and one is ideological. In this forum it's not possible to separate the two IMO. The debate around global warming long ago stopped being a purely scientific one. And that's unfortunate but the fault lies largely with the alarmist side - IMO.

The "science" supporting Climate Change is weak and the conclusions made in response to the data are grossly overreaching. For these reasons it's reasonable to question the motivation of those pushing this theory. That they immediately jump from an unproven theory to DEMANDS that we fundamentally change our society & economics is alarming. And it's perfectly appropriate to call it out as such.
 
irish_buffalo said:
Doesnt it stink up there? You have to come out for air at some point. I think?

I love how this all evolved into low flow toilets and shower heads. Create this BS then argue against it.

Turbines getting smaller and more efficient every day. Organizations in a race to create. Man in Ohio laughs and touts coal. Tells everyone else to get their head out of their . :LOL:
Click to expand...

What a terribly lame deflection, even for you. I know you typically have a modicum of reading comprehension. What happened ? Did you bump your head under some politicians desk, trying to secure support for LEEDS credits for your company's style of gas turbine on-site electrical generation ? Increase the national debt to, in effect, subsidize your "green" product ? "Greater Good" doesn't mean the need to sell your product is great-est.

You actually address nothing that I posted in that mess up there^, even though I spelled out legit concerns very clearly. This is the value of returning your insult. With mere facts and no return of your "head up butt" comments, you'd likely ignore a post with concerns you're unable to counter. I'd be deprived of your comical counter-punch.

Even with explicit illustration (water billing) of an assured dynamic if your stated goals - mass adoption of an electricity alternate requiring significant investment - would be seen through, you still can't see very clearly from up there. Methane induced oxygen deprivation on your part, perhaps ?
 
What is to reply? You went from comparing mini turbines to low flow toilets. It warrants nothing serious at that point.

But I'll bite nonetheless...;)

Coal has been taxed, fee'd, and further undermined by a resultant shrinking economy of scale. That is a part of the cost equation that you will obviously ignore. Whatever. It may be for the best. If there was a cost-efficient way to clean up generation with coal, I guess that some would have fought harder for it here. None of this changes the fact that the globalists that you support politically endorse a dynamic that has more of our goods produced by workers (thus tax-payers and consumers) on the other side of the world. Workers in factories powered by a whole lot of coal-generated electricity. Same global "greenhouse", so same phonies, same wealth transfer.
Click to expand...
Huh? The globalists that I support? Says who? Funny how Trump comes along and every staunch Pub on this site becomes uber protectionist. Republicans have pushed the vast majority of outsourcing legislation than anyone. Tangent here regardless. For the record, China and India are beginning to embrace green energy because it has become cheaper and more efficient especially with the advances in battery storage.

So, as far as your mini-turbines - burning fossil fuels. Home generation, no grid. Gas. Fracking. Extreme increase of propane demand. Semi-green, but profitable for your circle. Got it.
Click to expand...
All on the right path. CleanER. Less waste.

I was apparently wrong in thinking you had some pipe dream about home wind turbines. I stand corrected.
Click to expand...
No, there are personal wind turbines getting more efficient every day, especially thanks to advances in battery storage (repeat).

So, right now I get an occasional prodding to help pay the utilities of po' folks. "Energy Share" or something. Already, much of their fees are subsidized in our overall deficit dynamics. Who is going to pay for the electricity of the poor ? Are we going to maintain a mass grid even as we make the homes of the top half of the economy electrically self-sufficient ? I guess the real dream is to have our tax dollars install these systems for those that cannot afford them on their own. How does this shifting paradigm look in your Demturd fantasy ?
Click to expand...
Demturd? Cute. For a guy that voted for Obama and Trump I actually respect you for being a critical thinker who would never be "lock-step" in any partisan way but there you are. So now this is all about paying "po' folks" bills? C'mon man. Quit making some boogeyman to fit your narrative. I'm talking about an industry that was LONG overdue for change. Once nudged, it began changing and it aint looking back. Embrace it as it will begin to change rapidly over the next 30 years.

As low-volume toilets and shower heads have come into vogue, we have already plainly seen that the fixed costs of any Water Department require a significant raise of volume-based consumption charges. Why would electricity be much different ? Therefore, can this mean anything other than the gubmint putting mini-turbines and battery buffers in every home or maintaining some form of our current grid at a far less cost-effective level when reckoned per user ? Certainly your side's liberal interpretation of the Constitution will have electricity as an inalienable right, right ?
Click to expand...
There it is again. "Your side" BS. Our side bud. For one thing, I am taking you at your word that these low-flows (I cannot help but think King of the Hill) are causing the water departments to add charges for consumption mass? My water bill charges me for usage. So then we are jumping to electricity? The changes will be market changes. Once outside of that market I will get charged for NG or Propane consumption, that is it. This buying into the market will go away from a single user level. I have a buddy that heats his house with wood. His cost is the wood. Lol.

Do I have this wrong, or is this where you are headed ?
Click to expand...
Kinda, not really.

Sorry, but you may as well be telling us that Hughes Internet is going to put Spectrum and Cox out of business. I think you bought a rah-rah sales pitch. Better pull yer head outta yer arse, Irish Buffalo'ed.
Click to expand...
So from low-flows to internet? You got it figured out. More names? C'mon man.

edit: Hold on. As long as yer head is up yer arse, have a look around and see if you can come up with a methane-recovery plan to use yer farts to run yer turbine......maybe a pick-up tube in yer recliner ? Toto make furniture ?
Click to expand...
This is pure gold. Zzzzzziiiinnng.
 
jmog said:
I have been published using chaos and bifurcating systems to analyze crystal growth (Journal of Crystal Growth).

I also was published using chaos and bifurcating/asymptotic systems to analyze microscopic microchip production using Atomic Force Microcopes.

Now, with respect to emissions, I have a couple patents (1 in, 1 still pending) on ultra low emission burner technology.

I spent more than a decade doing direct research in this field, now I work more as a consultant/application engineer helping customers lower their industrial emissions (NOx, SOx, CO, and CO2) out of their industrial furnaces.

I have been directly in the emission industry since 2003 either doing research or consulting, so about 17 years.

That’s my direct qualifications with respect to industrial emissions and chaos/bifurcating/asymptotic math systems.

Now, since you want to do the appeal to authority in reverse on me, list your chaos theory and climate related qualifications, outside of watching MSNBC.
Click to expand...
Now that's a good answer.
 
irish_buffalo said:
What is to reply? You went from comparing mini turbines to low flow toilets. It warrants nothing serious at that point.

But I'll bite nonetheless...;)

Huh? The globalists that I support? Says who? Funny how Trump comes along and every staunch Pub on this site becomes uber protectionist. Republicans have pushed the vast majority of outsourcing legislation than anyone. Tangent here regardless. For the record, China and India are beginning to embrace green energy because it has become cheaper and more efficient especially with the advances in battery storage.

All on the right path. CleanER. Less waste.

No, there are personal wind turbines getting more efficient every day, especially thanks to advances in battery storage (repeat).

Demturd? Cute. For a guy that voted for Obama and Trump I actually respect you for being a critical thinker who would never be "lock-step" in any partisan way but there you are. So now this is all about paying "po' folks" bills? C'mon man. Quit making some boogeyman to fit your narrative. I'm talking about an industry that was LONG overdue for change. Once nudged, it began changing and it aint looking back. Embrace it as it will begin to change rapidly over the next 30 years.

There it is again. "Your side" BS. Our side bud. For one thing, I am taking you at your word that these low-flows (I cannot help but think King of the Hill) are causing the water departments to add charges for consumption mass? My water bill charges me for usage. So then we are jumping to electricity? The changes will be market changes. Once outside of that market I will get charged for NG or Propane consumption, that is it. This buying into the market will go away from a single user level. I have a buddy that heats his house with wood. His cost is the wood. Lol.

Kinda, not really.

So from low-flows to internet? You got it figured out. More names? C'mon man.

This is pure gold. Zzzzzziiiinnng.
Click to expand...
You really need to back read the post you are pretending to quote, and try again. Your response is as if you must be reading three of every four sentences.

You did “bite”, but more as a description than as an action, if you’re capable of following that line of thinking any better than you did my posts. Did I write poorly, or are you stupid.....or are you deflecting. Hmm....

Try again.
 
Last edited:
eastisbest said:
Earth was "warm" before so this is nothing new, ignores cause. It's not a scientific stance. To ignore in their arguments that the Earth wasn't habitable in that previous time is... troll worthy.
Click to expand...

When wasn't the Earth habitable?

How hot is to hot?

What temp is the "sweet spot"?
 
The weather the nice weather lady on TV predicted for Feb. in Ohio does not seem to be the "sweet spot" I was hoping for.
 
Last edited:
Guess what now? ..... ??? AGW has caused the Coronavirus.
It will just go on and on for infinity. The constant klaxon call of the sky is falling.
 
jmog said:
I also was published using chaos and bifurcating/asymptotic systems to analyze microscopic microchip production using Atomic Force Microcopes.
Click to expand...
I think you went to IMDb and just copied some Spock dialog from Star Trek.

I could be wrong though.
 
chs1971 said:
I think you went to IMDb and just copied some Spock dialog from Star Trek.

I could be wrong though.
Click to expand...
I have one of my publications in PDF on my laptop. I can redact my name and post it here if it would make you feel better.
 
jmog said:
eastisbest said:
Instead of dodging, ..
Now while you'll looking for that quote you're not going to find, why not educate the audience with your expertise on chaotic systems and "weather." It will be useful to the discussion don't you think?
Click to expand...
I have

Now, since you want to do the appeal to authority in reverse on me, list your chaos theory and climate related qualifications, outside of watching MSNBC.
Click to expand...

I didn't ask you for your qualfications. I didn't doubt them nor do I have reason to believe them. Neither is important.
You want me to answer yours but you refuse to answer mine?

You dodged supplying this supposed quote by me where you say I talked about climate. Why is that? Couldnt find it or more interested in supplying fake quotes. You also have not taken the time to "educate the audience" on why Chaos theory is important in this topic. With your qualifications, that's a softball. It will add to the understanding don't you think?

As a researcher, you should be able to get straight to the point. So far, all you've done is get thumbs up from the kids that stand behind the bully going "oh yeah." Instead of making up fake quotes, supply your knowledge, not your letters.

Mine was Math modeling and computer similation at GTRI. I'm sure you have somethings to teach me. I'm interested.
 
Last edited:
jmog said:
I have one of my publications in PDF on my laptop. I can redact my name and post it here if it would make you feel better.
Click to expand...

What would be the point of redacting your name? It would be a quick google of the publication title and journal. The citations. Heck, a couple sentences would do it, lol.

Let's just take your word for it. No one here has reason to doubt it. ;)
 
eastisbest said:
I didn't ask you for your qualfications. I didn't doubt them nor do I have reason to believe them. Neither is important.
You want me to answer yours but you refuse to answer mine?

You dodged supplying this supposed quote by me where you say I talked about climate. Why is that? Couldnt find it or more interested in supplying fake quotes. You also have not taken the time to "educate the audience" on why Chaos theory is important in this topic. With your qualifications, that's a softball. It will add to the understanding don't you think?

As a researcher, you should be able to get straight to the point. So far, all you've done is get thumbs up from the kids that stand behind the bully going "oh yeah." Instead of making up fake quotes, supply your knowledge, not your letters.

Mine was Math modeling and computer similation at GTRI. I'm sure you have somethings to teach me. I'm interested.
Click to expand...
You asked me for my expertise, I gave my experience as evidence of my expertise.

Then you say I didn’t answer and you didn’t ask for my qualifications? You specifically asked for my expertise, you are now moving the goalposts to the synonym “qualifications”.

You asked for my expertise, I gave my exact background as evidence of my somewhat expertise. It is 100% ok to just move on without trying to act like you are still “right”. Argue a point, don’t argue to be “right”. I answered your question exactly.

Math modeling, I took about 6 classes (3 undergrad and 3 grad) in modeling. It was fun and I used it a lot for research on burner technology (doing CFD/Fluent modeling) but I like the old paper/pencil solutions myself.
 
eastisbest said:
I didn't ask you for your qualfications. I didn't doubt them nor do I have reason to believe them. Neither is important.
You want me to answer yours but you refuse to answer mine?

You dodged supplying this supposed quote by me where you say I talked about climate. Why is that? Couldnt find it or more interested in supplying fake quotes. You also have not taken the time to "educate the audience" on why Chaos theory is important in this topic. With your qualifications, that's a softball. It will add to the understanding don't you think?

As a researcher, you should be able to get straight to the point. So far, all you've done is get thumbs up from the kids that stand behind the bully going "oh yeah." Instead of making up fake quotes, supply your knowledge, not your letters.

Mine was Math modeling and computer similation at GTRI. I'm sure you have somethings to teach me. I'm interested.
Click to expand...
Ok, with respect to chaos theory...

Asymptotic series solutions to partial differential equations is the stepping stone. A class on asymptotic solutions is a graduate (masters level) applied math course.

Asymptotic solutions are used in bifurcating systems to solve the problems around each “node”. The nodes in a bifurcating system is a possible solution among many, sometimes infinite systems.

A good example is if you take a yard stick, stand it straight up, and slowly add pressure to the top. Eventually the yard stick will “buckle” into a shape. In the real world we only would ever see the right or left sided “C” shape when it buckles. However, the math says that a right or left “S” shape is a perfectly valid outcome. There are more with more than 2 “humps” as well. Bifurcation theory then uses asymptotics to assess which solutions are stable vs unstable. In case of the yard stick the only stable solution mathematically is the right or left “C” which is why that is what we see.

That is a problem with exactly 1 bifurcation. Now, add more bifurcations and it becomes a non-linear dynamics problem, take the bifurcations to nearly infinite amount of bifurcations and you have chaos theory.

A class in non-linear dynamics and chaos theory is typically a PhD level math class. I took it while working on my masters because it was interesting and I needed it for my Thesis work.

Weather, and climate, are systems that fall under chaos theory.

Knowing what I know, and what I have studied on chaos theory, is exactly why I am skeptical of most climate computer models.

We can’t model chemical reactions in a fire accurately (emissions) in a computer simulation (trust me, I did/tried this for a decade) and that is NOT a chaos theory application, but I am to believe that we can accurately predict the temperatures, sea levels, glacier melt levels, etc 10-20 years from now?

Every model has been wrong so far. Models are good at predicting trends in non-chaos systems, it is still to be determined if they can be used similarly in chaos systems.



How’s that for explains why chaos theory is important? Did I pass your test?
 
jmog said:
You asked me for my expertise, I gave my experience as evidence of my expertise.
Click to expand...

No I didn't.

Now while you'll looking for that quote you're not going to find, why not educate the audience with your expertise on chaotic systems and "weather."
Click to expand...

"with" not "on." Just like I never commented on "climate."

It is 100% ok to just move on without trying to act like you are still “right”. Argue a point, don’t argue to be “right”. ;)

But the resume was interesting, regardless it didn't answer the question I asked.

"pencil and paper." I tried to get the computer to use them, but it was stubborn.
 
jmog said:
Ok, with respect to chaos theory...



How’s that for explains why chaos theory is important? Did I pass your test?
Click to expand...

I wasn't giving you a test. I'm not sure why you're so stuck on that. Take the post at face value. I simply asked you to educate. I didn't feel you needed to nor demand that you impress anyone. Anyone with a google could post jibberish, I see no value in challenging whether some anonymous person made it up. All that matters is it correct.

You stated
Having actually studied chaos theory, the math and science behind climate and weather, and doing baseline research on lowering actual industrial combustion emissions for 18 years...
Click to expand...

I feel you got to the point here:
Every model has been wrong so far. Models are good at predicting trends in non-chaos systems
Click to expand...
and
Weather, and climate, are systems that fall under chaos theory.
Click to expand...

But I would say missed the boat here
it is still to be determined if they can be used similarly in chaos systems.
Click to expand...

Not that it is factually incorrect but more that it isn't relevant. What is relevant is the middle quote. I've posted why many times on previous threads. Can only wish you were here then to comment.

FWIW: I never took a course in math modeling. I never took a course in Chaos Theory.

I take it you've given up on finding anything in my post referring to climate. And that you've looked up "prove" and it's worth in science? ;)
 
eastisbest said:
I wasn't giving you a test. I'm not sure why you're so stuck on that. Take the post at face value. I simply asked you to educate. I didn't feel you needed to nor demand that you impress anyone. Anyone with a google could post jibberish, I see no value in challenging whether some anonymous person made it up. All that matters is it correct.

You stated


I feel you got to the point here:

and


But I would say missed the boat here


Not that it is factually incorrect but more that it isn't relevant. What is relevant is the middle quote. I've posted why many times on previous threads. Can only wish you were here then to comment.

FWIW: I never took a course in math modeling. I never took a course in Chaos Theory.

I take it you've given up on finding anything in my post referring to climate. And that you've looked up "prove" and it's worth in science? ;)
Click to expand...

Eastisbest, what you've just typed is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Comparing what I typed to someone using google and posting gibberish let’s me know how much of this science you really understand.
 
eastisbest said:
I wasn't giving you a test. I'm not sure why you're so stuck on that. Take the post at face value. I simply asked you to educate. I didn't feel you needed to nor demand that you impress anyone. Anyone with a google could post jibberish, I see no value in challenging whether some anonymous person made it up. All that matters is it correct.

You stated


I feel you got to the point here:

and


But I would say missed the boat here


Not that it is factually incorrect but more that it isn't relevant. What is relevant is the middle quote. I've posted why many times on previous threads. Can only wish you were here then to comment.

FWIW: I never took a course in math modeling. I never took a course in Chaos Theory.

I take it you've given up on finding anything in my post referring to climate. And that you've looked up "prove" and it's worth in science? ;)
Click to expand...

Eastisbest, what you've just typed is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Comparing what I typed to someone using google and posting gibberish let’s me know how much of this science you really understand.
 
Scientist Warns Of Mini Ice Age As Sun Hibernates During Solar Minimum


An expert warned that Earth might experience a mini ice age when the Sun hibernates due to its solar minimum cycle. According to the expert, the Sun’s hibernation and extremely cold weather could last for over three decades.

The solar minimum is a period in the Sun’s solar cycle that occurs every 11 years. During the solar minimum, sunspots on the Sun’s surface diminishes, leading to a weaker output from the massive star. On the other hand, during a solar maximum, the Sun emits more energy as its sunspots increase.

According to Valentina Zharkhova, a professor at Northumbria University’s department of mathematics, physics and electrical engineering, the Sun is about to enter a Grand Solar Minimum this year, which is like an extended version of the solar minimum. Instead of lasting for only a couple of years, the Grand Solar Minimum could extend for 33 years.
Click to expand...

 
climate.nasa.gov

What Is the Sun's Role in Climate Change? – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Current news and data streams about global warming and climate change from NASA.
climate.nasa.gov climate.nasa.gov

What Effect Do Solar Cycles Have on Earth’s Climate?
Click to expand...
According to the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the current scientific consensus is that long and short-term variations in solar activity play only a very small role in Earth’s climate. Warming from increased levels of human-produced greenhouse gases is actually many times stronger than any effects due to recent variations in solar activity.

For more than 40 years, satellites have observed the Sun's energy output, which has gone up or down by less than 0.1 percent during that period. Since 1750, the warming driven by greenhouse gases coming from the human burning of fossil fuels is over 50 times greater than the slight extra warming coming from the Sun itself over that same time interval.
Click to expand...

As mentioned, the Sun is currently experiencing a low level of sunspot activity. Some scientists speculate that this may be the beginning of a periodic solar event called a “grand minimum,” while others say there is insufficient evidence to support that position. During a grand minimum, solar magnetism diminishes, sunspots appear infrequently and less ultraviolet radiation reaches Earth. Grand minimums can last several decades to centuries. The largest recent event happened during the “Little Ice Age” (13th to mid-19th century): the “Maunder Minimum,” an extended period of time between 1645 and 1715, when there were few sunspots.

Several studies in recent years have looked at the effects that another grand minimum might have on global surface temperatures.2 These studies have suggested that while a grand minimum might cool the planet as much as 0.3 degrees C, this would, at best, slow down (but not reverse) human-caused global warming. There would be a small decline of energy reaching Earth, and just three years of current carbon dioxide concentration growth would make up for it. In addition, the grand minimum would be modest and temporary, with global temperatures quickly rebounding once the event concluded.
Click to expand...
 
irish_buffalo said:
climate.nasa.gov

What Is the Sun's Role in Climate Change? – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Current news and data streams about global warming and climate change from NASA.
climate.nasa.gov climate.nasa.gov
Click to expand...

IB I've read a lot of these types of articles and they all declare the following about the Sun & climate:

1) Fluctuations in solar output have a small effect on climate compared to the impact of increasing CO2 levels.

2) There is a "consensus" of how the sun changes over time and how that impacts climate.

The problem is that they never get around to explaining HOW they learned these things. Or what are the supporting studies and data describing these things. No matter how many articles they reference that I check out it just seems to go in a circle where one "review" article sites another and then that one sites the one that sited it. It's freaking incestuous.

The problem is that we really don't know the mechanics and magnitude of solar changes over long periods of time. We are learning new things about the sun every day. It's relationship with the Earths climate is complicated and the science here is constantly evolving. I have no idea what the consensus they're talking about actually is. One thing I do know is that it's not based on data.

Take this sentence from your post:

For more than 40 years, satellites have observed the Sun's energy output, which has gone up or down by less than 0.1 percent during that period.

Forty years! Watching the sun for 40 years and relating it to climate change as a way to determine the suns role in climate is like following the stock market for 10 minutes and drawing economic conclusions about the last century from it. It's absurd.
 
Yappi said:
Scientist Warns Of Mini Ice Age As Sun Hibernates During Solar Minimum




Click to expand...

Hopefully they're being just as alarmist as those pushing catastrophic global warming. My sense reading what the scientists studying the sun are saying is that they're more restrained and modest about what they know and don't know.

But one thing we do know is that over the last couple of million years there have been multiple Ice Ages. And any one of these events would have been difficult for our civilization to survive. It's also wise to remember that when discussing NATURAL phenomena, precedent is hugely important. Ice Ages have come and gone before, human caused "Global Warming" is something new. So the confidence that another Ice Age could happen is a lot higher then burning fossil fuels will cause catastrophic climate change is.

And while we know about the number and extents of previous Ice Ages we're ignorant of the less intense cooling episodes like the one described in your attached article. The most recent example of such a cooling was likely the little Ice Age experienced about 200 years ago.

The bottom line is that the best way to compensate for our ignorance of these types of climate change is to:

* Ensure our civilization is as strong & rich as possible.

* Focus our efforts on ADAPTATION rather then on trying to prevent what's happening. Some day we'll be able to manipulate global climate but we're not there yet.
 
cabezadecaballo said:
IKR?!? Burn some coal, quick!!
Click to expand...

Here's the funny truth - IF we were unlucky enough to enter an ice age COAL would likely be the key material that keeps us all from freezing to death. It's a highly efficient source of energy and we have a lot of it round. It's also easy & relatively safe to burn compared to oil & natural gas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top