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

[Noradin]

Excellent points and I agree.

You would.
He is wrong but believing him allows you to keep your fantasy world intact.

[rda]

He is wrong but believing him allows you to keep your fantasy world intact.

Where specifically he is wrong?

[bigbleach]

But then what will the global warming people spew?

Harvey, Irma, and this "cyclone bomb", all within 6 months. Absolutely nothing is happening at all lol.

[rda]

Harvey, Irma, and this "cyclone bomb", all within 6 months. Absolutely nothing is happening at all lol.

I suggest you familiarize yourself with how many hurricanes of what power have been happening over the years and where. There is no spike. That's in IPCC reports, by the way.

[Noradin]

Just because a majority of a group of people think something is correct, does not necessarily mean it is. I have read other scientist's reports which refute the studies which say mankind is the major reason for the recent warming period. I think BronzeCondor explained it as well, if not better than I could. I think the truth could very well be somewhere in the middle of the two stances. I am still open to more however, so it is not a closed cut case for myself.

He didn't explain anything, he made unsubstantiated, non-scientific claims in an intentionally much too wide scope to be relevant.
If we show him proof that the Earth hasn't heated as fast as it does now in any relevant timeframe (as Endus did) then he could just deflect towards a time where the Earth was still a molten ball, because he invoked "never", "the truth", and "100% certainity". All signs that he wants to have a religious discussion, not a scientific one.

[Ton00]

just the planet doing its thing move along people move along nothing to see

[Noradin]

Where specifically he is wrong?

The first problem is that he is trying to have a religious discussion, not a scientific one.
That is why he invokes "never", "the truth", and "100% certainity". He also links no proof and asks us to just take his word for it.
In short his post is rhetoric without substance.

Then there was already shown data linked here that does show that his claim that "we do not know if current rates of heating (or cooling) could have happened before" is false for any time frame relevant for humanity. (Of course, his claim includes the time where Earth was a freshly formed ball of molten slack, just so he can dismiss said data as incomplete and insuficient.)

[rda]

The first problem is that he is trying to have a religious discussion, not a scientific one.
That is why he invokes "never", "the truth", and "100% certainity". He also links no proof and asks us to just take his word for it.
In short his post is rhetoric without substance.

Then there was already shown data that does show that his claim that "we do not know if current rates of heating (or cooling) could have happened before" is false for any time frame relevant for humanity. (Of course, his claim includes the time where Earth was a freshly formed ball of molten slack, just so he can dismiss said data as incomplete and insuficient.)

Wait, wait, wait. I get that he was being general, perhaps too general for the debate, fine. But you are crossing the other way by saying that the current rates of heating were not happening before and that this has been shown. Current *levels* of temperature certainly happened before, there are no ambiguities here. Current *rates* of temperature change might not have happened, but, first, I am not sure why this is important (yes, I agree that humans are responsible for part of the current warming, don't see BronzeCondor saying otherwise either) and, second, I am not sure that it has been shown that the current rates are uniquely big. You are saying that this was in some data, perhaps in some earlier post - could you please clarify / link? If you want to make some kind of an argument about the warming rates being uniquely big and hence bla bla bla (presumably "hence it is humans playing a role", which I think you can conclude far easier), sure, make it, but I think that's overdoing it and you might simply be wrong on the premise.

[Noradin]

Wait, wait, wait. I get that he was being general, perhaps too general for the debate, fine. But you are crossing the other way by saying that the current rates of heating were not happening before and that this has been shown. Current *levels* of temperature certainly happened before, there are no ambiguities here. Current *rates* of temperature change might not have happened, but, first, I am not sure why this is important (yes, I agree that humans are responsible for part of the current warming, don't see BronzeCondor saying otherwise either) and, second, I am not sure that it has been shown that the current rates are uniquely big. You are saying that this was in some data, perhaps in some earlier post - could you please clarify / link? If you want to make some kind of an argument about the warming rates being uniquely big and hence bla bla bla (presumably "hence it is humans playing a role", which I think you can conclude far easier), sure, make it, but I think that's overdoing it and you might simply be wrong on the premise.

You should ask @Endus and @schwarzkopf link you a few sources on this, it is more their field than mine, I have no sources lying around readily available.
I have to look them up again every time.

Here is one post by schwarzkopf which has a relevant graphic:

Civilisation has a lot shorter life span than homosapiens.

Homo-sapiens - around 200,000 years
Civilisation - around 12,000 years.

This graphic should help (note the pretty much flatline over the most recent 10k years - well that is up until now).:

His source for the graphic is wikipedia(found it for you), sources are listed there.

Endus has demonstrated his professional knowledge in this field of study several times, and he was the one who made posts (with sources) about rates of temperature changes in the past. Since those posts aren't as easy to spot jsut by skimming this thread as this graphic was, I'd prefer if you could either look for them yourself (I didn't spot them skimming the thread once) or to just politely ask him about this question.

Edit: Here is another post that might be relevant to you:

Again, technically, an "ice age" is when there are major ice sheets at the poles. We're in an ice age right now, and have been for millions of years; the Quaternary Ice Age.

The expansion and contraction of those ice caps is what are labelled in popular terminology as "ice ages", but properly, those are "glacial periods", as opposed to "interglacial periods", like the one we're in right now.

That glacial/interglacial cycle involves a global temperature shift on the order of about 10 degrees C, at the two extreme points. The problem is that these cycles are 80k-100k years long. They're marked by slow cooling, followed by a rapid warming event, followed by slow cooling. However, we're using "rapid" and "slow" in geologically relative terms, here. The "rapid" warming involves warming up by 10 degrees C over a span of about 6,000-7,000 years. That's about one degree every 650 years. That's "violently rapid", in terms of natural cycles.

We've seen a degree in warming in the last 100 years, and 2/3 of that warming just in the last 50. We're way outside the scale of how quickly natural cycles occur. Worse, the glacial/interglacial cycle waffles between two extreme points on the temperature scale. We're currently near the warm peak of that cycle. We should be set for 50,000 years of steady cooling, left to natural cycles, not unnaturally rapid warming, which is threatening to pull us out of the Ice Age entirely (not immediately; the Antarctic ice cap in particular will take centuries to melt completely, but once it's gone it's highly unlikely to come back).

Your own source is essentially pointing out that the planet can easily have different stable plateaus, climate-wise. And that's true. The problem is that all of human civilization has emerged during this last interglacial period. The human species has never existed outside of the climate conditions of an ice age. Human civilization has never had to deal with this kind of rapid climate shift on a global scale (and on a local scale, it's often resulted in the collapse/migration/extinction of a given society).

Your own sources are essentially supporting that the planet hasn't seen this kind of climate change before, not outside of extinction-level events like major asteroid impacts. And even those had more long-term climate impact due to the effect of killing 95% of life on the planet in one fell swoop, than their direct impact.

[rda]

^^ OK, thanks, I see. Nobody argues about the rates being unprecedented and hence A, B, C. Thankfully. I don't need to be linked posts with the basics, I know the basics and they don't answer the question I asked other than show that no, nobody is making the argument I thought you were going for.

You were too hasty to jump on BronzeCondor. He was general, yes, but not really wrong regarding anything. Since you say that it isn't really your area, just leave it to whoever you think have it as "their" area.

[namecraft]

looking forward to it

[mich4el]

Climate change is real there was always climate change including multiple ice ages in the past however humans have nothing to do with it.
"global warming" or now "climate change" is a scam to apply more taxes and to suck more money out of people. "carbon tax" is probably one of their goals

[Jin]

Climate change is real there was always climate change including multiple ice ages in the past however humans have nothing to do with it.
"global warming" or now "climate change" is a scam to apply more taxes and to suck more money out of people. "carbon tax" is probably one of their goals

God... Yes the earth goes into warmer and colder periods naturally, this is seen in the ice caps history, however, it goes slowly over time. Humans are warming up the planet then in the past for a simpel reason, population, nowhere in history did we ever reach over 7 billion people (right?) and quite a lot of us are using resources that spew out crap into the atmosphere, causing a global warming that is unnatural. Parts per million h as increased exponential since the industrial resolution when it comes to Co2, not natural but humanity is to blame. 182 ppm on average in the icecaps, 278 pre industrial rev, 336 ppm 1979, 403 ppm in 2016. (see the statistics?) now add that there will be a few more billion peeps being born in the next 50 years, yea, life on earth is going to be amazing for your children/grand child's.

[Noradin]

^^ OK, thanks, I see. Nobody argues about the rates being unprecedented and hence A, B, C. Thankfully. I don't need to be linked posts with the basics, I know the basics and they don't answer the question I asked other than show that no, nobody is making the argument I thought you were going for.

You were too hasty to jump on BronzeCondor. He was generic, yes, but not really wrong regarding anything. Since you say that it isn't really your area, just leave it to whoever you think have it as "their" area.

No he was in fact wrong, in claiming relevance of his post to this thread.
His post was a deflection, nothing more, just like yours is a try to deflect.
His post is just as dishonest as yours, but I guess that is what we get for trying to discuss things and answer questions in good faith.

The rates are unprecedented in any relevant time frame, the sources for this claim have been linked to you.

I also thank you for not putting words in my mouth in future.

[rda]

God... Yes the earth goes into warmer and colder periods naturally, this is seen in the ice caps history, however, it goes slowly over time. Humans are warming up the planet then in the past for a simpel reason, population, nowhere in history did we ever reach over 7 billion people (right?) and quite a lot of us are using resources that spew out crap into the atmosphere, causing a global warming that is unnatural. Parts per million h as increased exponential since the industrial resolution when it comes to Co2, not natural but humanity is to blame. 182 ppm on average in the icecaps, 278 pre industrial rev, 336 ppm 1979, 403 ppm in 2016. (see the statistics?) now add that there will be a few more billion peeps being born in the next 50 years, yea, life on earth is going to be amazing for your children/grand child's.

Are you aware that the direct effect on temperatures from CO2 has diminishing returns, as in, the first *doubling* of CO2 has the same effect as the next *doubling*? All these scary graphs running towards what looks to an uninformed eye like positive infinity or at least a very high ceiling occur because the creators of the models that produce these graphs assume the existance of big positive feedbacks (as in, something else other than CO2 but affected by CO2 accelerating itself). Just thought I'd remind you.

- - - Updated - - -

His post is just as dishonest as yours, ...

What? OK. /10ch

[Jin]

Are you aware that the direct effect on temperatures from CO2 has diminishing returns, as in, the first *doubling* of CO2 has the same effect as the next *doubling*? All these scary graphs running towards what looks to an uninformed eye like positive infinity or at least a very high ceiling occur because the creators of the models that produce these graphs assume the existance of big positive feedbacks (as in, something else other than CO2 but affected by CO2 accelerating itself). Just thought I'd remind you.

- - - Updated - - -



What? OK. /10ch

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mxZoUdYOWA just one of many I watch. But hey if you dont believe we, as a human race arent warming up the planet, then your legacy is not caring, I do.

[rda]

The rates are unprecedented in any relevant time frame, the sources for this claim have been linked to you.

The sources don't show that.

Not even discussing the term "relevant time frame" which you did not even define numerically.

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mxZoUdYOWA just one of many I watch. But hey if you dont believe we, as a human race arent warming up the planet, then your legacy is not caring, I do.

I don't know what's in the video and I am not going to watch it, the beginning looks far too basic to tell me anything new. If you said what it contains and how it contradicts or confirms what I said, it would have been better.

[namecraft]

we need to stop global cooling

[Deleted]

better build up some winter fat

[Noradin]

Not even discussing the term "relevant time frame" which you did not even define numerically.

Yes, I'am aware that I didn't give a number since there are different time frames that are relevant to different sub-discussions in this thread.
Feel free to offer a time frame you deem relevant, tell us why, and discuss any event during that time frame that you think should be taken into account for this discussion.
Please make it something a bit more specific than BronzeCondor's "since the Earth came to be" (which he probably thinks was 7000 years ago).

- - - Updated - - -

I don't know what's in the video and I am not going to watch it, the beginning looks far too basic to tell me anything new. If you said what it contains and how it contradicts or confirms what I said, it would have been better.

From the way you post you really should start out with the basics.
You probably always dismissed them as "too basic" before.