Uh-oh, a mini ice age is coming

[boomerang]

All the electricity we've ever generated does not compare to the amount that's hitting this planet every day. Turning a dial on the absorption of that energy can make little things have a large impact.

Urban Heat Index is a fine indicator of just how greatly we can "change our climate". Pave a hundred square miles and watch the temperature of that area soar by 10 degrees.

Yup. I have tried to make my position clear at various times. Whether warming is occurring, whether it's caused by man is not something I have any interest in discussing. There is no 'winning' the argument, there is nothing for the layman to discuss that will have any effect on anything.

What gets to me is two things. First, that the proponents of man caused climate change insist that there must be a consensus among laymen. There is no earthly reason for that. It's just progressive arrogance that is so prevalent today. An arrogance that all must agree with me. Bullshit.

The second is what I said earlier. That man can actually through purposeful intent and action, control the climate of something as enormous as a planet. The arrogance of that is beyond comprehension.

Assume for a minute that Valentina Zharkova is correct. Can we control the activity of the sun? Of course not. Why then, would we think we could control the climate of the planet?

We have made huge strides in doing good things from the perspective of protecting our home, Earth and in a very short period of time too. We will continue do so. Today we are presented with 'solutions' that boil down to nothing more than redistribution of wealth on a global scale. They are easily seen through.

You want to affect the climate of the planet? Fine, knock yourself out. But the progressive goal of equality of misery is not the answer to that. Stop trying to conflate one goal with another goal. We'll continue to spin our wheels when it comes to conservation and innovation until progressives remove their iron grip of control. They aren't going to surrender that willingly which is going to lead to some history making.

 

[Moonbeam]

Yup. I have tried to make my position clear at various times. Whether warming is occurring, whether it's caused by man is not something I have any interest in discussing. There is no 'winning' the argument, there is nothing for the layman to discuss that will have any effect on anything.

What gets to me is two things. First, that the proponents of man caused climate change insist that there must be a consensus among laymen. There is no earthly reason for that. It's just progressive arrogance that is so prevalent today. An arrogance that all must agree with me. Bullshit.

The second is what I said earlier. That man can actually through purposeful intent and action, control the climate of something as enormous as a planet. The arrogance of that is beyond comprehension.

Assume for a minute that Valentina Zharkova is correct. Can we control the activity of the sun? Of course not. Why then, would we think we could control the climate of the planet?

We have made huge strides in doing good things from the perspective of protecting our home, Earth and in a very short period of time too. We will continue do so. Today we are presented with 'solutions' that boil down to nothing more than redistribution of wealth on a global scale. They are easily seen through.

You want to affect the climate of the planet? Fine, knock yourself out. But the progressive goal of equality of misery is not the answer to that. Stop trying to conflate one goal with another goal. We'll continue to spin our wheels when it comes to conservation and innovation until progressives remove their iron grip of control. They aren't going to surrender that willingly which is going to lead to some history making.

To paint reality in such a way as to wind up in a corner is a habit of the conservative brain defective I can only attribute to self hate. You love your victim state.

 

[cubby1223]

Yup. I have tried to make my position clear at various times. Whether warming is occurring, whether it's caused by man is not something I have any interest in discussing. There is no 'winning' the argument, there is nothing for the layman to discuss that will have any effect on anything.

What gets to me is two things. First, that the proponents of man caused climate change insist that there must be a consensus among laymen. There is no earthly reason for that. It's just progressive arrogance that is so prevalent today. An arrogance that all must agree with me. Bullshit.

The second is what I said earlier. That man can actually through purposeful intent and action, control the climate of something as enormous as a planet. The arrogance of that is beyond comprehension.

Assume for a minute that Valentina Zharkova is correct. Can we control the activity of the sun? Of course not. Why then, would we think we could control the climate of the planet?

We have made huge strides in doing good things from the perspective of protecting our home, Earth and in a very short period of time too. We will continue do so. Today we are presented with 'solutions' that boil down to nothing more than redistribution of wealth on a global scale. They are easily seen through.

You want to affect the climate of the planet? Fine, knock yourself out. But the progressive goal of equality of misery is not the answer to that. Stop trying to conflate one goal with another goal. We'll continue to spin our wheels when it comes to conservation and innovation until progressives remove their iron grip of control. They aren't going to surrender that willingly which is going to lead to some history making.

Except the argument never is about man controlling the climate, it's man influencing the climate, and we absolutely do.

Take a massive patch of dense forest and cut the trees all down - climate has been influenced. And man absolutely has control over the action to rebuild the environment or destroy the environment.

Throw a sit-ton of pollutants into the air - climate has been influenced.

How many countless examples in the past has the consensus been "We can never control that!" then POOF!, we can?

We could never be so arrogant enough to attempt to control ships across the ocean, planes through the sky, bridges across long spans, skyscrapers stretching far upwards, electrons dancing through the air, dynamite exploding apart solid rock.

We create a car with a white interior, it is relatively cool in the summertime. We create a car with a black interior, it is a sweltering heatbox all summer long. Humans are capable of recreating that on a larger scale.

Your argument is one of massive ignorance.

 

[werepossum]

Except the argument never is about man controlling the climate, it's man influencing the climate, and we absolutely do.

Take a massive patch of dense forest and cut the trees all down - climate has been influenced. And man absolutely has control over the action to rebuild the environment or destroy the environment.

Throw a sit-ton of pollutants into the air - climate has been influenced.

How many countless examples in the past has the consensus been "We can never control that!" then POOF!, we can?

We could never be so arrogant enough to attempt to control ships across the ocean, planes through the sky, bridges across long spans, skyscrapers stretching far upwards, electrons dancing through the air, dynamite exploding apart solid rock.

We create a car with a white interior, it is relatively cool in the summertime. We create a car with a black interior, it is a sweltering heatbox all summer long. Humans are capable of recreating that on a larger scale.

Your argument is one of massive ignorance.

Yet to buy the CAGW hysteria one must go far beyond humans influencing the climate. Either humans are the only thing influencing climate (just as in the Little Ice Age it was the Maunder Minimum - and nothing else! - in spite of its lumpy temperature record), or the feedback systems that keep Earth stable don't work on human-caused forcing. The former is laughably simplistic, and the latter requires ascribing intelligence to the design, intelligence hostile to humans.

 

[Moonbeam]

Yet to buy the CAGW hysteria one must go far beyond humans influencing the climate. Either humans are the only thing influencing climate (just as in the Little Ice Age it was the Maunder Minimum - and nothing else! - in spite of its lumpy temperature record), or the feedback systems that keep Earth stable don't work on human-caused forcing. The former is laughably simplistic, and the latter requires ascribing intelligence to the design, intelligence hostile to humans.

To paint reality in such a way as to wind up in a corner is a habit of the conservative brain defective I can only attribute to self hate. You love your victim state.

 

[Paratus]

Yet to buy the CAGW hysteria one must go far beyond humans influencing the climate. Either humans are the only thing influencing climate (just as in the Little Ice Age it was the Maunder Minimum - and nothing else! - in spite of its lumpy temperature record), or the feedback systems that keep Earth stable don't work on human-caused forcing. The former is laughably simplistic, and the latter requires ascribing intelligence to the design, intelligence hostile to humans.

Here I'll post this again.

And add this

So maybe you can point out which terms just can't be right.

I'm sorry nature doesn't match your expectations.

 

[Greenman]

To paint reality in such a way as to wind up in a corner is a habit of the conservative brain defective I can only attribute to self hate. You love your victim state.

Isn't it interesting that everyone that disagrees with your point of view has a mental disorder?

It reminds me of the story about a blond young lady that wasn't very bright. She went to the doctor and told him that every part of her body that she touched with her finger hurt, the pain was everywhere. The doctor pointed out to her that she had a broken finger.

 

[shira]

All the electricity heat we've ever generated does not compare to the amount that's hitting this planet every day. Turning a dial on the absorption of that energy can make little things have a large impact.

Urban Heat Index is a fine indicator of just how greatly we can "change our climate". Pave a hundred square miles and watch the temperature of that area soar by 10 degrees.

You (and Boomerang) are just demonstrating your ignorance.

The percentage contribution of human energy usage is irrelevant to whether or not human activity is warming the planet. What's significant is the human contribution to greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Human activity is causing a steady increase in greenhouse gas levels above "natural" levels (the levels that would exist absent human activity). Greenhouse gases capture some of the sun's heat radiated from the Earth back into outer space, and the marginal increase in greenhouse gases caused by human activity represents a marginal increase in the capture of the Earth's radiated heat. THAT is the cause of man-made warming, not heat generated by human activity.

 

[werepossum]

Here I'll post this again.

And add this

So maybe you can point out which terms just can't be right.

I'm sorry nature doesn't match your expectations.

Nature would perfectly match my expectations if I too routinely went back and changed existing measurements to fit my model.

 

[werepossum]

Isn't it interesting that everyone that disagrees with your point of view has a mental disorder?

It reminds me of the story about a blond young lady that wasn't very bright. She went to the doctor and told him that every part of her body that she touched with her finger hurt, the pain was everywhere. The doctor pointed out to her that she had a broken finger.

Lol Well said. Moonie's back must be a mass of bruises given the intensity with which he is continually patting it. He at least has that self love thing down pat - although I would argue that taking it to the extreme that everyone not marching in lockstep has a brain defect is in itself a brain defect.

 

[Paratus]

Nature would perfectly match my expectations if I too routinely went back and changed existing measurements to fit my model.

It doesn't matter that I post observed data, models predictions or whatever. None of it will directly change your mind.

However my sneaky plan is by continuing to post facts that are logically supported you'll learn something just by reading it. Whether you want to or not. :twisted:

 

[werepossum]

It doesn't matter that I post observed data, models predictions or whatever. None of it will directly change your mind.

However my sneaky plan is by continuing to post facts that are logically supported you'll learn something just by reading it. Whether you want to or not. :twisted:

Just imagine the ethics of climate science applied to literally any other field. Say I have a new theory of dynamic loading fatigue on bridges, carefully modeled on years of data. But when I observe existing measurable fatigue, it diverges significantly from my model. So I assume that previous measurements were faulty in just the magnitude and direction required to make my model yield the observed results from the newly modified initial conditions. I do zero experiments to prove this, I simply formulate a theory and make the required changes. Is that good science?

Or let us say I have a theory that humans evolved from pigs. I publish a paper, but behind the scenes I work to make sure that only other scientists who agree that humans are descended from pigs are allowed to review that paper. And I don't allow them to see my raw data, only the data I have "corrected". Good science?

Neither observed data nor model predictions are useful if we accept the need to revise the actual measurements to fit the model.

 

[Moonbeam]

It doesn't matter that I post observed data, models predictions or whatever. None of it will directly change your mind.

However my sneaky plan is by continuing to post facts that are logically supported you'll learn something just by reading it. Whether you want to or not. :twisted:

You can't learn when you are motivated not to. Just tell them they have a brain defect so they can delude the self you only have one thing to say. If they can't see the simple fact they are defective, they won't see the complicated rational science you try to explain. When they are ready to see they are defective then they may be ready to learn. When you tell people who have brain defects they have brain defects and they deny it, they are not going anywhere till they see it.
They remain brain defective because they are too full of pride to see it. Pat yourself on the back that you're not like that. It will cause their egos to have fits and expose the roots of their condition.

Know, however, that people like me who can tell the defective from the sane, are capable of understanding and appreciating your posts. The lack of a brain defect does not mean you know everything. It just means you don't look like a moron because you won' learn.

 

[Moonbeam]

Just imagine the ethics of climate science applied to literally any other field. Say I have a new theory of dynamic loading fatigue on bridges, carefully modeled on years of data. But when I observe existing measurable fatigue, it diverges significantly from my model. So I assume that previous measurements were faulty in just the magnitude and direction required to make my model yield the observed results from the newly modified initial conditions. I do zero experiments to prove this, I simply formulate a theory and make the required changes. Is that good science?

Or let us say I have a theory that humans evolved from pigs. I publish a paper, but behind the scenes I work to make sure that only other scientists who agree that humans are descended from pigs are allowed to review that paper. And I don't allow them to see my raw data, only the data I have "corrected". Good science?

Neither observed data nor model predictions are useful if we accept the need to revise the actual measurements to fit the model.

This is one of the most pathetic rationalization so I have ever seem. Just stick your fingers in your ears and invision the fact that because 2 + 2 = 4, you are right about everything. You can't hide your brain defect under a tinfoil hat. It's a dead giveaway.

 

[Moonbeam]

Isn't it interesting that everyone that disagrees with your point of view has a mental disorder?

It reminds me of the story about a blond young lady that wasn't very bright. She went to the doctor and told him that every part of her body that she touched with her finger hurt, the pain was everywhere. The doctor pointed out to her that she had a broken finger.

Your point of view is that I disagree because your point of view is different than mine, but I disagree with your point of view because it is a point of view that is caused by the fact that you think defectively as you did here. I don't have a point of view on climate change. I am open on the question. That makes defective thinking easy to see.

 

[mu11et]

http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...w-model-of-the-suns-cycle-shows-10382400.html

There will be a "mini ice age" in 2030, solar scientists have said.

We are now able to predict solar cycles with far greater accuracy than ever before thanks to a new model which shows irregularities in the sun’s 11-year heartbeat.
The model shows that solar activity will fall by 60 per cent between 2030 and 2040 causing a "mini ice age".
The conditions predicted have not been experienced since the last "mini ice age" which lasted from 1645 to 1715, called the Maunder Minimum.

 

[Darwin333]

Interesting, thanks. Still not buying the 60% drop though. Although if it happens we're going to be really, really glad we packed the atmosphere with CO2.

I don't think we could pump enough of anything into anywhere to compensate for even a 10-15% decrease in solar radiation/energy. I don't know much about the nuclear physics or whatever it is that drives the sun but how is it possible that it can have a 60% drop that quickly and then ramp back up to normal power a decade or two later???

 

[Greenman]

Just imagine the ethics of climate science applied to literally any other field. Say I have a new theory of dynamic loading fatigue on bridges, carefully modeled on years of data. But when I observe existing measurable fatigue, it diverges significantly from my model. So I assume that previous measurements were faulty in just the magnitude and direction required to make my model yield the observed results from the newly modified initial conditions. I do zero experiments to prove this, I simply formulate a theory and make the required changes. Is that good science?

Or let us say I have a theory that humans evolved from pigs. I publish a paper, but behind the scenes I work to make sure that only other scientists who agree that humans are descended from pigs are allowed to review that paper. And I don't allow them to see my raw data, only the data I have "corrected". Good science?

Neither observed data nor model predictions are useful if we accept the need to revise the actual measurements to fit the model.

You forgot peer review, it's the most important part of science now. No more messy experiments, no more tedious observations, no reproducible results, just a long jump from hypotheses to established fact.

A friendly scientist is a successful scientist.

 

[Jaskalas]

All the electricity heat we've ever generated does not compare to the amount that's hitting this planet every day. Turning a dial on the absorption of that energy can make little things have a large impact.

Urban Heat Index is a fine indicator of just how greatly we can "change our climate". Pave a hundred square miles and watch the temperature of that area soar by 10 degrees.

You (and Boomerang) are just demonstrating your ignorance.

Speaking of ignorance, you may want to try reading that again. Is it partisanship that blinds you? I argued that the energy hitting this planet is beyond scale and small changes (CO2) can have a large impact via absorption.

I'd be amused if your effort wasn't wasteful and distracting.

 

[Darwin333]

You forgot peer review, it's the most important part of science now. No more messy experiments, no more tedious observations, no reproducible results, just a long jump from hypotheses to established fact.

A friendly scientist is a successful scientist.

Part of peer review is repeating experiments and verifying observations/results. It's even happened quite publicly recently with Cern and a few others.

 

[Moonbeam]

You forgot peer review, it's the most important part of science now. No more messy experiments, no more tedious observations, no reproducible results, just a long jump from hypotheses to established fact.

A friendly scientist is a successful scientist.

Nice story bro, but it's not peer reviewed and is only a CBD hypothetical pushed forward as fact. Way to demonstrate what you criticize.

 

[Greenman]

Nice story bro, but it's not peer reviewed and is only a CBD hypothetical pushed forward as fact. Way to demonstrate what you criticize.

I don't see where I claimed that was fact. In fact (note the word play there) it's an opinion. Most of us have one on just about every topic. I've never been foolish enough to assume that mine was always the right one, and I try not to consider people that don't like mine as having something wrong with them. I'll grant you it's a difficult position to take. By assuming a mental disorder isn't the cause of someones ideas, it forces me to actually consider what they have to say, rather than simply dismissing them as "defective". I often wonder if it's worth the effort.

 

[unokitty]

When the End of Human Civilization Is Your Day Job
Among many climate scientists, gloom has set in...

Among climate activists, gloom is building. Jim Driscoll of the National Institute for Peer Support just finished a study of a group of longtime activists whose most frequently reported feeling was sadness, followed by fear and anger. Dr. Lise Van Susteren, a practicing psychiatrist and graduate of Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth slide-show training, calls this "pretraumatic" stress. "So many of us are exhibiting all the signs and symptoms of posttraumatic disorder—the anger, the panic, the obsessive intrusive thoughts."

Leading activist Gillian Caldwell went public with her "climate trauma," as she called it, quitting the group she helped build and posting an article called "16 Tips for Avoiding Climate Burnout," in which she suggests compartmentalization: "Reinforce boundaries between professional work and personal life. It is very hard to switch from the riveting force of apocalyptic predictions at work to home, where the problems are petty by comparison."

Must be tough. I mean knowing that Global Warming err Climate Change is going to kill us all...

Seriously, believers need to get some counselling. And remember, the first step in recovery is admitting that you have a problem...

Feeling pretramatic stress/Climate trauma? Lucky for you, here is a link to 16 steps to avoiding climate burnout.

Best of luck with that gloom and the accompanying "anger, panic, and obsessive intrusive thoughts."

Remember, there is no shame in asking for help.

Uno

 

[Moonbeam]

I don't see where I claimed that was fact. In fact (note the word play there) it's an opinion. Most of us have one on just about every topic. I've never been foolish enough to assume that mine was always the right one, and I try not to consider people that don't like mine as having something wrong with them. I'll grant you it's a difficult position to take. By assuming a mental disorder isn't the cause of someones ideas, it forces me to actually consider what they have to say, rather than simply dismissing them as "defective". I often wonder if it's worth the effort.

Good, you should soon then be forced to conclude I'm right. As I said, I have not taken a stand on climate change, I just point out that your nonsense about what has happened to peer review is a bunch of garbage. What is the point of having an opinion that is obviously ridiculous? You don't like the conclusions of peer reviewed science so you make up shit to attack the process. That's defective thinking. Opinions that two plus two equals five don't count for anything. You only delude yourself when you think that way. When the delusions get bad enough you could get locked up. I wouldn't trouble you but I like you and we need more sane people. Moral responsibility makes it vital that I try to help you. My effort doesn't come from any personal need to be right.

 

[Moonbeam]

When the End of Human Civilization Is Your Day Job
Among many climate scientists, gloom has set in...
Must be tough. I mean knowing that Global Warming err Climate Change is going to kill us all...

Seriously, believers need to get some counselling. And remember, the first step in recovery is admitting that you have a problem...

Feeling pretramatic stress/Climate trauma? Lucky for you, here is a link to 16 steps to avoiding climate burnout.

Best of luck with that gloom and the accompanying "anger, panic, and obsessive intrusive thoughts."

Remember, there is no shame in asking for help.

Uno

Try to relax. The situation is hopeless because you sleep, but it's not serious. There is only love and in love there is no anger or fear. What you fear about fear is that you wifi awaken to the reality of your inner state. You do not believe you can be forgiven, have been forgiven.