A "Mini-Ice Age" could hit earth by 2030, Scientists warn

[Dmitro]

"just a theory" - you mean like gravity?

Does gravity being a theory mean that you wander off the edge of tall buildings ?

I mean we have far less understanding of gravity than we do of climate change.

gravity theory doesnt force us to change the way we run our societies and to remove whole industries, so its alright, nobody is worried about them,
climate change cultists on the other hand...

- - - Updated - - -

Since earthquake prediction is based on probability also, does that mean geology is a cult?

Wrong examples,

1) EQs happen so we can rate predictions and actually check them for being correct ( not the case for global warming religion)
2) climate change cult at the same time is asking for us to believe while not handing in any particular type of direct evidence of human impact

different situations

[schwarzkopf]

gravity theory doesnt force us to change the way we run our societies

Of course it does - we have to make elevators, and aircraft to get around instead of just driving our cars across the sky and up to the 13th floor of the building.

Climate change of course doesn't mean we have to change a damn thing - climate change will quite happily wipe our civilisation off the map and not give two hoots about it.

We only have to change IF we want to survive ... it is of course our choice.

However - denying gravity, climate change, evolution and other science doesn't alter the reality of their existence.

It just alters how prepared we are for them.

[SilverWolf26]

gravity theory doesnt force us to change the way we run our societies and to remove whole industries, so its alright, nobody is worried about them,
climate change cultists on the other hand...

- - - Updated - - -



Wrong examples,

1) EQs happen so we can rate predictions and actually check them for being correct ( not the case for global warming religion)
2) climate change cult at the same time is asking for us to believe while not handing in any particular type of direct evidence of human impact

different situations

You mean remove whole industries and replace them with cleaner, more efficient ones? Sure, let's.

[Cheerbleeder]

Can't predict the future and certainly not climate if you don't have a basic understanding of particle physics and how they scatter in the atmosphere. Sadly, no one on planet earth does!

[Dmitro]

You mean remove whole industries and replace them with cleaner, more efficient ones? Sure, let's.

why whould we stip our american people of their jobs and ship them to China JUST BECAUSE 1 SCIENTIFIC THEORY SAYS SO.

[Mafic]

Another Mini ice age?

Bring on the second Reinassance!

[Dmitro]

Of course it does - we have to make elevators, and aircraft to get around instead of just driving our cars across the sky and up to the 13th floor of the building.

the major difference is that gravity exists in reality , while CC only on paper.
Until the latter isnt different theres no need to change anything.

[Kokolums]

Given that global warming is conclusively proven, denying that fact is what makes you a denier.

You're in the same class of willfully ignorant nuts as flat-earthers and anti-vaxxers, and for the same kind of denial of basic science.

Third time I've linked this, this thread? http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

The problem is credibility is fungible.

People remember around 10 years ago when gas prices were a lot higher and petroleum geologists were claiming that peak oil was arriving in 2010 and gas prices would never come down. You can still see the charts on the internet "proving" this. They were all wrong. Gas prices have fallen since 2010. And what happened was the higher price of oil made fracking viable, which opened up new reserves that used to be thought unobtainable.

Credibility is fungible. That means people have now seen the scientific community get peak oil wrong, and some will argue if they got peak oil wrong, they can get other things wrong, like global warming / climate change.

[schwarzkopf]

People remember around 10 years ago when gas prices were a lot higher and petroleum geologists were claiming that peak oil was arriving in 2010 and gas prices would never come down.

There is a big difference between predicting the results of physical changes (i.e. climate change) and predicting the results of geo-political and social outcomes (peak oil).

Climate change is as much a fact as gravity is ... denial or acceptance of said facts do not alter the fact's existence.

PS: Using the term 'facts' as defined by an English not science dictionary, as science uses the word theory for EVERYTHING including stuff commoners know as facts.

- - - Updated - - -

the major difference is that gravity exists in reality , while CC only on paper.

Actually - gravity does NOT exist. The current understanding of gravity is that it just the apparent effect of mass attempting to move in a straight line in space time. That is - gravity is an illusion.

However - CC does ACTUALLY exist, it is observable at very high levels of confidence in addition Co2 -> temperature correlation is just straight physics.

[schwarzkopf]

Last week and for most of this week, the continental USA was literally the only place on earth that had seasonally really, really (and in a lot of cases) historically low weather. Of the few things that I know of weather,

Climate change creates a change in how the climate operates. It does not infer automatically that things will get warmer.

Climate currently operates within certain parameters, that is - for certain inputs, you can expect certain outputs.

When the inputs start to 'strain' the bounds of the climate mechanism - the climate starts to respond in two ways:
1. It alters the baseline (i.e. generally increased temperatures)
2. It creates bigger swings, bigger extremes (hot and cold)

UNTIL it gets to a certain point, that's when a very sharp correction occurs and the climate changes the 'model' under which it operates - we have at this point had 'climate change'.

Current estimates are that this correct will definitely occur BEFORE 6C baseline warming, and AFTER 2C baseline warming. The closer we get to the 'reset' the wilder the swings and the more extreme the weather.

After this point - we have NO WAY of determining the result, it could be anything.

[Rasulis]

gravity theory doesnt force us to change the way we run our societies and to remove whole industries, so its alright, nobody is worried about them,
climate change cultists on the other hand...

- - - Updated - - -



Wrong examples,

1) EQs happen so we can rate predictions and actually check them for being correct ( not the case for global warming religion)
2) climate change cult at the same time is asking for us to believe while not handing in any particular type of direct evidence of human impact

different situations

How do you proof a peak ground acceleration value of 1.6g based on 2% probability in 50 years recurrence time? That corresponds to an average of period of once per 2,475 years btw.

In the last 20 years, the PGA values for the continental US and the derivation method have been revised 3 times. Does that mean the previous methods were incorrect? No. They were correct based on the information which was available to us at that time. As we gained more knowledge and additional information, the method evolves. It will be updated again in 2020.

It is the same with climatology study of global warming/climate change. it is a study that keep evolving with each new piece of the puzzle.

[Cheerbleeder]

Another Mini ice age?

Bring on the second Reinassance!

LOL! The Church of Climatalogy is strong in this thread. We have people like Endus in here who is scientifically illiterate.

[xezar]

If it makes the summer in Arizona and Florida more bearable, I'm all for a mini ice age XD

But hell, weather forecasting, predictions based on limited observation of trends (people have only been recording and observing temperatures scientifically for what, maybe a bit more than 100 years? Not like we've watched it for thousands and fuck if I trust some hopped up alchemist from the 1500s), I highly doubt anyone is going to be able to predict an ice age, even global warming is kind of iffy in general as humans just haven't been observing long enough to have hard data to even begin to model and predict more accurately.

[SilverWolf26]

why whould we stip our american people of their jobs and ship them to China JUST BECAUSE 1 SCIENTIFIC THEORY SAYS SO.

One scientific theory? **falls over laughing**
Tell you what... you breathe the polluted air, I'll advocate cleaning up mine and we'll see who lives longer.

- - - Updated - - -

Your logic is flawed. Regardless of that person's opinions, believing that something is not correctly defined is not the same as believing that something does not exist. Eisenstein is not a science denier because he, at a time, did not believe quantum theory was not real. Additionally, he believing that Newton's theory being insufficient does not mean that he believe Newton was wrong, nor does it mean that he "denies the science."

I am not sure where this new consumerism shit is from but what i can tell you is that almost nothing in science is, "conclusively proven." The only thing that can be "conclusively proven" are hypotheses and these hypotheses are used to construct theory. The only "facts" in science are directly observable things, "Apples Fall to the floor at approximately 9.8 m/s^2". The mechanics of acceleration due to gravity are reproducible but not "fact".

For as much shit as flat earthers get (deservedly so in a vast majority of cases), an acceleration of the earth moving upward at 9.8 m/s^2 can also create "gravity" and no formula has to change. The only thing that changes is a perspective change. Of course when we get to meta theories, a 9.8 m/s^2 upward acceleration does not account for gravitational lensing, the affect that massive bodies have on other bodies (though i guess you can argue something along the lines of, the acceleration is caused by a disruption of spacetime and near by accelerating bodies can "pull" other objects in the same way shooting a cannon ball pulls lighter objects towards it, not due to the ball's gravity but due to the rapid change in air pressure (think a feather being pulled along for the ride in a gust)).

I can go on and on with this point but the upshot of what i am trying to express is that the moment you make science into dogma, advances stop. It is okay to ask someone for evidence to back up their (probably wrong) claims, but the moment you start using terms like, "willfully ignorant" you begin a process of projecting to your internal hologram of your perception of their argument, instead of actually listening to the (sometimes) valid concerns of a "doubter."

The wright bros doubted the commonly held "scientific" notion that nobody can fly, and we got flight. Eisenstein doubted the scientific documentation of the nature of the universe and we got special / general relativity and a whole host of other amazing stuff (and "proof" that at least conceptually, that at least 5 dimensions exist).

I know that I am coming dangerously close to implying that the next Eisenstein could be on these very forums, however what I am more interested in expressing is that your assumption that "global warming is conclusively proven" could, in 100 years from now, be the equivalent of someone believing, "blood letting is conclusively proven to cure illness." You really should temper your fervor in being willing to denounce someone as an ignorant shill, even though you are just as likely just as "ignorant" as they are and are instead choosing to believe and trust in the accuracy of science 100%. While this is not a bad thing, new science cannot be born if you are more interested in being "correct" than being "true".

- - - Updated - - -



Please actually respond to the question that I asked instead of inventing some unstated question. One of those "parameters" is that weather is fundamentally a vector field. It is how we know exactly what change in average global weather is expected when the average global temperature increases. It is how we know which areas will flood, which areas will become a green paradise and which areas will become an arid desert.

If climate change changes that fundamental fact, then climate change is inadequate at predicting the future and can only "explain" the present time, in the same way that the stock market is heavily reliant on back propagation and is completely unable to predict anything without it. Removing the concept of weather being a vector field is like removing the concept of back propagation from weather and, paradoxically, is also akin to introducing a concept like back propagation to weather.

If you can't refute the actual argument, use a wall of words, specifically big words, to confuse and disseminate.

Science denial is a trend; no amount of conjecture about what is right or wrong will change that. In your own argument you state that climate change could be proven wrong 100 years from now with no fact to back that up in any way. Sure, I could also flap my arms and fly with a new new technology 100 years from now, who knows?

[schwarzkopf]

Your logic is flawed.

A: Not my logic
B: Not flawed

Rest of your copious speech became irrelevant given your flawed basis.

- - - Updated - - -

Please actually respond to the question that I asked instead of inventing some unstated question.

I replied EXACTLY to your question, please don't confuse your lack of understanding with a lack of response.

[BronzeCondor]

However - CC does ACTUALLY exist, it is observable at very high levels of confidence in addition Co2 -> temperature correlation is just straight physics.

Please elaborate on your view of the CO2 & Temperature correlation in terms of how it affects warming/cooling cycles. There is a relationship but from what's been found so far, it's not conclusively causal.

[Endus]

nope, we "believe" "97% scientists are sure" doesnt prove anything, to prove something you have to give a 100% evidence otherwise its a theory, in our case a religious cult.
So I better stay off this radical ideology until its actually proven ( not on pure theoretical bases)

Playing MadLibs with climate change denier bullshit isn't a valid argument. Are you rolling dice on a chart to build these sentences? Because they don't make any sense at all.

The problem is credibility is fungible.

People remember around 10 years ago when gas prices were a lot higher and petroleum geologists were claiming that peak oil was arriving in 2010 and gas prices would never come down. You can still see the charts on the internet "proving" this. They were all wrong. Gas prices have fallen since 2010. And what happened was the higher price of oil made fracking viable, which opened up new reserves that used to be thought unobtainable.

Credibility is fungible. That means people have now seen the scientific community get peak oil wrong, and some will argue if they got peak oil wrong, they can get other things wrong, like global warming / climate change.

This is basically "Willful Ignorance: the hand-waving justification". It isn't an argument. It's you saying that because you didn't understand one thing, you'll randomly assume science is wrong about everything forever, selectively and without any justification.

Can one of your armchair scientists answer a question for me?

Last week and for most of this week, the continental USA was literally the only place on earth that had seasonally really, really (and in a lot of cases) historically low weather. Of the few things that I know of weather, I know it is a vector field meaning that there HAS to be overlap somewhere. If place A is hotter than average, for example, there has to be a place B that, while not maybe the same temperature, is also hotter than average.

The USA On Sunday and Monday was more cold than the Antarctic if we exclude the state of Florida.

I am not implying that Climate change is not real, but most of the climate science is based on the basic understand that weather is a vector field. Where, on the entire planet, was there an area, the equivalent size of the continental USA excluding Florida, that also had unseasonably cold temperature? My autism is strong so i checked a bunch of weather stuff (which is how i knew the average temperature in the USA was lower than the average temperature in Antarctica).

Thank you.

Your premise is wrong to begin with. Weather isn't a "vector field". It's a complex interaction between a suite of influences, some of which (like air pressure and wind direction) are vector fields, and others (like temperature) which really aren't in the same sense.

Weather and climate aren't the same thing, and this is weather, not climate.

Worse, if you look globally, there is no cold trend right now. There's a deep colder-than-usual patch over North America, but the rest of the planet is basically warmer than it usually is this time of year;

https://www.vox.com/science-and-heal...ada-jet-stream

There's a few other small blue spots on the map, but most of it is orange-to-red.

I can go on and on with this point but the upshot of what i am trying to express is that the moment you make science into dogma, advances stop. It is okay to ask someone for evidence to back up their (probably wrong) claims, but the moment you start using terms like, "willfully ignorant" you begin a process of projecting to your internal hologram of your perception of their argument, instead of actually listening to the (sometimes) valid concerns of a "doubter."

Nobody's asking for evidence. They're being presented with mountains of evidence, and then they're denying that it exists. When it's right there, in their face.

This isn't a case where they just don't have the information. They have it, they either won't look at it, or they'll do so and then claim it's fake, based on nothing.

That's what willful ignorance is. It's not accidental. It's not due to a lack of information. It's a choice to deliberately refuse to look at evidence that's handed to you on a platter, because you'd prefer to remain ignorant.

I'm only pulling that one part out of that post, because the rest of it was off-base defending this nonsense.

I've linked the IPCC Working Group 1 report at least three times in this thread alone, and it would answer basically any of the questions these people had, if they honestly wanted an answer. Do they look at it? No. They ignore it, and come into the next thread to spout the same misinformed nonsense.

I keep linking it so that those lurkers reading the thread and not posting, at least, can see that one of us has actual data to back up their position. If someone's honestly curious about something, I'll give them a solid answer, and point them at more source info. But that's not what happens. We get people posting obviously-false denier conspiracy nonsense, and refusing to acknowledge facts. And you're defending that.

[schwarzkopf]

Please elaborate on your view of the CO2 & Temperature correlation in terms of how it affects warming/cooling cycles. There is a relationship but from what's been found so far, it's not exclusively causal.

Within the context of the current climate (which as I mentioned is what we are trying to preserve):

1. CO2's absorption spectrum is in the infra red band (2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers) - this is an innate physical property of CO2
2. Radiation coming from the sun to earth is low in entropy, earth radiates high entropy (heat = IR) radiation - this is a physical property of complex systems (heat)
3. Thus increased CO2 levels will increase the imbalance between energy in (from sun) and energy out (from earth) as a larger proportion is absorbed
4. Increased heat increases the volume of water (expansion) --> sea level rises
5. Increased heat reduces the ice surface volume thus reduces the reflectivity of the surface of the earth (i.e reflecting low entropy radiation), also adds to water volume.

Net result is the climate heads closer to the point at which it 'breaks' and changes to a new climate system. Which I might point out - might even be a massive ice age.

Global warming is a symptom of the move towards breaking the current climate system - it is sort of like taking your temperature when you are sick, it isn't the CAUSE of your illness - just a sign.

[Endus]

You obviously didn't read what I typed.

Try this; ask one, simple, answerable, honest question. One you want a reasonable answer to.

Don't make up theories about stuff and demand people disprove it.

Don't question known facts.

Just ask one question about one thing you're unclear about, regarding climate change, and are honestly open to learning about.

[BronzeCondor]

Nobody's asking for evidence. They're being presented with mountains of evidence, and then they're denying that it exists. When it's right there, in their face.

This isn't a case where they just don't have the information. They have it, they either won't look at it, or they'll do so and then claim it's fake, based on nothing.

That's what willful ignorance is. It's not accidental. It's not due to a lack of information. It's a choice to deliberately refuse to look at evidence that's handed to you on a platter, because you'd prefer to remain ignorant.

I'm only pulling that one part out of that post, because the rest of it was off-base defending this nonsense.

Endus, I'd like to point out that just because chooses not to come to the same conclusion as someone else doesn't necessarily scream ignorance. It's akin to athiests and religious followers getting into their respective debates - who's more right? There's just not enough conclusive evidence out there but to the respective parties, there is. Then there are those on the outside choosing to be mindful of everything. Global AND regional temperature variations have happened in quick instances and over long periods of time from what can be determined thus far. To say someone is ignorant for not buying into climate change being strictly man-made when our knowledge of the past isn't complete can be ignorant in itself. We just don't know enough yet. We can only make educated guesses and not everyone will come to the same conclusion. If someone isn't being respectful, just ignore them.

Within the context of the current climate (which as I mentioned is what we are trying to preserve):

1. CO2's absorption spectrum is in the infra red band (2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers) - this is an innate physical property of CO2
2. Radiation coming from the sun to earth is low in entropy, earth radiates high entropy (heat = IR) radiation - this is a physical property of complex systems (heat)
3. Thus increased CO2 levels will increase the imbalance between energy in (from sun) and energy out (from earth) as a larger proportion is absorbed
4. Increased heat increases the volume of water (expansion) --> sea level rises
5. Increased heat reduces the ice surface volume thus reduces the reflectivity of the surface of the earth (i.e reflecting low entropy radiation), also adds to water volume.

Net result is the climate heads closer to the point at which it 'breaks' and changes to a new climate system. Which I might point out - might even be a massive ice age.

Global warming is a symptom of the move towards breaking the current climate system - it is sort of like taking your temperature when you are sick, it isn't the CAUSE of your illness - just a sign.

I agree with this, we're seeing the effects of the heating of the Earth's surface and there will be be a balancing force in the form of cooling. It would certainly be nice to know all of the external factors that have contributed to past climate changes and I'm personally of the belief that the rapid introduction of fresh water to the THC will have drastic consequences for the Northern Hemisphere. RIP.