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

[Schattenlied]

When Battlefield 2142 becomes reality.

112 years early, damnit DICE! We don't have mechs yet, we're not ready!

[SilverWolf26]

You obviously didn't read what I typed.

I did read what you typed. What I read was a needlessly verbose attempt at demonstrating superiority. I found it meandering and (somewhat) off-point, using conjecture and formula to prove an invalid point.

But yes, I did read it.

[schwarzkopf]

How does telling me basic fundamentals of climate change answer the question, "where is the area of equal mass to the continental USA excluding Florida that the science used to verify climate change as a legitimate science predicts MUST exist for the predictions of climate change to be true?"?

Because the question demonstrates your complete lack of understanding of the basics of climate change.

[SilverWolf26]

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.

This is a poor comparison as religion is based on truth and science is based on proven and repeatable experimentation. As someone once said, and I'm paraphrasing - "If you want truth, there's a scripture class down the hall. In here we teach fact."

[schwarzkopf]

Please explain. If you are not willing to explain just don't reply to this message.

What do you want me to explain to you again ?
Give me a straight forward sensible question - and I'll answer it to the best of my ability using facts and figures available freely to everyone.

[SilverWolf26]

What if you are wrong and i happen to have autism and can't help but be verbose because i want to be 100% sure that people such as your self understand me; but that often back fires because people attempt to reduce a statement that is already in as few words as possible to properly convey my idea while keeping context?

Are you attempting to shame me for actually using words to properly convey my idea which is not some simple one liner that can be reduced to a meme? Would you've prefer if i called people stupid, shat myself than get into a meta argument instead of actually responding to questions asked?

Intelligence is knowing many things. Wisdom is portraying that knowledge in a way that your audience understands. I still stand by my statement that your post is needlessly verbose and tends to come across as wanting to sound intelligent without taking your audience in to account.

It irks of wanting to impress.

[Endus]

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.

Science isn't a guessing game, and you don't get to imagine up whatever results you want from the data. Every known factor has been quantified with regards to explaining the warming trend we observe in every data source regarding global temperatures. The only factors that correlate with any degree of significance are anthropogenic GHG emissions and related secondary factors.

Here's a graphic set from Bloomberg that's a couple years old that details this in relatively simple animated graphs, combining various factors;
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2...ing-the-world/

If a scientist could figure out some other factor that nobody has ever thought of in the last ~50 years or so, out of tens of thousands of climate scientists, they'd get accolades. New ideas are presented all the time, and generally prove to not have had a significant effect; these get incorporated into models, and along with improved instrumentation, are why those models continually improve.

If the question here is an algorithm, it may be an incredibly complicated algorithm, but it keeps spitting out exactly one answer, every time. And people don't want to admit that's the answer, so they refuse to admit it.

But that's as ridiculous as claiming that 2+2 can't equal 4, because you don't want it to. They don't have a better argument. Not even a different argument. They have no argument. They just don't like the answer, so they say "nuh-uh" and stamp their feet, and start badmouthing and slandering scientists for not fabricating data to fit their ridiculous and baseless assumptions.

[SilverWolf26]

Please explain. If you are not willing to explain just don't reply to this message. I am not interested in small minds filled with the thoughts of other people.

Small minds! Thank you for clarifying. At least now you're not being subtle about being superior, it's right out there for everyone to see.

[Endus]

How does telling me basic fundamentals of climate change answer the question, "where is the area of equal mass to the continental USA excluding Florida that the science used to verify climate change as a legitimate science predicts MUST exist for the predictions of climate change to be true?"?

I already answered you on this.

If you're arguing that temperature must "balance out" at any given moment, globally, that's flat-out wrong, and isn't how climate nor weather work. That premise is fundamentally incorrect.

If you just want to know if the cold snap hitting North America is global, or if there is warming elsewhere that effectively offsets this regional weather event in terms of quantifying the global temperature anomaly this month, I linked you to a global map showing that that's exactly what is going on. Here it is again; https://www.vox.com/science-and-heal...ada-jet-stream

[schwarzkopf]

If the question here is an algorithm, it may be an incredibly complicated algorithm, but it keeps spitting out exactly one answer, every time. And people don't want to admit that's the answer, so they refuse to admit it.

What is more amazing is that there are hundreds of climate models, all spiting out one answer - all independently written, all independently researched and design by independently groups.

Now - some might be spitting out 2.1, others 3.3, others 4.5 and others 6.5 ... but guess what, ALL of them are spitting out a warming baseline temperature leading to the inescapable fact that climate change is on its way if we don't do something (or probably even if we do).

[Ursiel]

Another way the world is definitely going to end, guys. We're all doomed. It's 2012 all over again.

[schwarzkopf]

Another way the world is definitely going to end,

World will survive just fine, as it has through all the other major climate alterations in history.

It is only human civilisation that will end... and personally, I don't see that as a particularly bad thing anyway

[Endus]

What is more amazing is that there are hundreds of climate models, all spiting out one answer - all independently written, all independently researched and design by independently groups.

Now - some might be spitting out 2.1, others 3.3, others 4.5 and others 6.5 ... but guess what, ALL of them are spitting out a warming baseline temperature leading to the inescapable fact that climate change is on its way if we don't do something (or probably even if we do).

It's seriously like looking at an open-pit mining operation, and saying "gee willikers, I wonder what's making that hole in the ground?"

The scientists look, and say "probably all that mining equipment you can see working away in there."

"But holes have been created naturally in the past, right? From asteroids, and sinkholes, and volcanoes, right?"

"Well, yeah, but they don't look like this. And there's all that mining equipment, right there. Look, you can see them mining right now."

"No, humans can't make holes in the Earth, we couldn't possibly. It HAS to be something else."

"But they're right there! Mining! Right now! Just watch for a few minutes, you'll see!"

"Nope, it must be a natural sinkhole, or maybe the Lizardpeople are finally emerging from their subterranean lairs. That seems more likely. Ciao!"

"Jesus wept."

[SilverWolf26]

World will survive just fine, as it has through all the other major climate alterations in history.

It is only human civilisation that will end... and personally, I don't see that as a particularly bad thing anyway

Based on the state of humanity at the moment (and particularly the United States) I'm not sure I would disagree.

[Endus]

https://www.intmath.com/blog/mathema...roduction-3345
http://environweb.lanl.gov/weatherma...wind_field.asp

What theory did i make up? Is weather not a vector field? Is the primary argument for flat earth based in the fact that they explain away gravity as a 9.8m/s^2 acceleration upward?

Did you reply to the wrong person?

I've seriously answered this question twice already, directly. Why aren't you bothering to read my posts?

No, weather is not a vector field. Some factors that make up weather, like wind patterns, can be displayed as vector fields, but that's not all weather factors. You're also wrong in the assertion that a vector field requires a counterbalance somewhere that's regionally identifiable. The entire point is that temperature is clearly not balancing. It's warming overall, globally. Not evenly all over, but that's because weather's chaotic, but the average is consistently and steadily creeping upwards.

And no, the primary argument against flat-earthers has nothing to do with explaining gravity. There's a host of really simple explanations, but the easiest is that we've taken pictures from orbit and can see with naked eyes that it's a roughly spherical orb.

It is a demonstrable fact that black people are the source of 50% violent crime and theft in the USA (with the majority of the victims being other black people but thats another point). Should we not question this fact?

Is there a reason you're suddenly inserting racist allegations into a thread on climate change?

I asked one and only one question, provided context to my question, and also provided additional context so that even though i didn't say explicitly, "I am having doubts due to the vector field thing." You knew, well enough from reading my text, that i have doubts about climate change due to the vector field thing.

And for the fourth time, you are wrong about the vector field thing. You have no basis for it to begin with.

Is it not at all possible that I am just long winded and a bit pedantic due to being NeuroAtypical?

Dude, I don't care if you're neuroatypical. But don't play the victim with me when you just launched a whole bunch of direct, personal insults at me in this post, and I haven't insulted you directly once.

[schwarzkopf]

Is it not at all possible that I am just long winded and a bit pedantic due to being NeuroAtypical?

Dear god, and I have Alexithymia - this will be interesting

Climate Change science is not an exact (empirically) predictable science, that doesn't mean it can't predict stuff.

You are trying to impose strict empirical formula in a field where it doesn't belong - that will not only mean your questions make little sense, but also that answers will not seem to fit the questions.

The closest 'popular' field that will help is chaos theory, showing graphs of systemic output changes with small input variations etc.

In other words - don't over complicate your questions, and we won't over complicate our answers

[PC2]

World will survive just fine, as it has through all the other major climate alterations in history.

It is only human civilisation that will end... and personally, I don't see that as a particularly bad thing anyway

You sound like a misanthrope. The global avg temp going up a few degrees does not mean civilization ends.

[SilverWolf26]

Endus, I asked a simple, honest question and i set up all of the necessary context so that you know exactly what i am asking. YOU are the dishonest one who find my question difficult. A simple, "I don't know" is a lot more respectable to me than trying to project your dishonesty onto me. I am probably one of the most tragically honest people that you will ever meet. I wrote a wall of text because that wall of text truly defines exactly how i feel.

If you go into an argument assuming the person you are against is being dishonest, you yourself will become dishonest in the way you answer them due to your own personal biases.

If you don't want to answer my question, just say so and i will go somewhere else.



https://www.intmath.com/blog/mathema...roduction-3345
http://environweb.lanl.gov/weatherma...wind_field.asp

What theory did i make up? Is weather not a vector field? Is the primary argument for flat earth based in the fact that they explain away gravity as a 9.8m/s^2 acceleration upward?

Did you reply to the wrong person?




It is a demonstrable fact that black people are the source of 50% violent crime and theft in the USA (with the majority of the victims being other black people but thats another point). Should we not question this fact? For the longest time, it was a "fact" that houses "exploded" from tornadoes due to a difference in air pressure. Of course we now know this "fact" is wrong due to Fujita, "questioning known facts."

The statement is a clear case of special pleading because based on your post history, you definitely do not apply that equally. Science has no concern with special pleading and while edge cases exist, they account for less than 5% to be considered an edge case.

In short; I am not sure why you included something that you don't actually believe here in a rebutall and you have not attempt to apply any additional context. From your perspective, maybe you didn't even realize how dishonest this statement is.


I asked one and only one question, provided context to my question, and also provided additional context so that even though i didn't say explicitly, "I am having doubts due to the vector field thing." You knew, well enough from reading my text, that i have doubts about climate change due to the vector field thing.

How is it that i was able to convey this thought without stating it explicitly but also at the same time, is being intentionally obtuse to distract you with lots of words?

Is it not at all possible that I am just long winded and a bit pedantic due to being NeuroAtypical?

- - - Updated - - -



Yup. I am not ashamed of my intellect or the fact that I saved $15,000 filing my own immigration paperwork. Nor am i ashamed of constantly performing, "better than anticipated". Nor am i ashamed of getting straight A's until i was bullied. Nor am i ashamed of having different opinions from the average person.

A small minded person is a person who reads an entire short essay that is mostly grammatically correct and come to the conclusion, "this means nothing" because their eyes glazed over halfway through.

A small minded person goes back to check to see if i made any grammatical mistakes so that they can use that to clobber me over the head instead of actually answering my question.

A small minded person always has to get the last word in, even if it adds nothing to the conversation.

A small minded person is more interested in getting their own point across than actually understanding what they are arguing against.

Yes, well, you've managed to call one who disagrees with you a liar and another small minded in the same post, it seems relevant arguments to the topic at hand are not necessarily your cup of tea.

Let me add another to your list, then.

A small minded person gets defensive and lashes out at those that do not agree with it, regardless of knowledge or learning.

[schwarzkopf]

The global avg temp going up a few degrees does not mean civilization ends.

Well - it only started because it went up a few degrees. I don't think you are really aware of how precarious civilisation is, or how major an effect a climate change event would be.

A few climate events changed the atmospheric makeup to the extent that 90% of life died out.

So yeah - running headlong into climate change event of our own causing should be of concern.

[schwarzkopf]

Endus was smart enough to understand the question i was asking .

As was I it seems.