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

[Mafic]

By the way, I first heard about this 20 years ago. It's not something that just surprises scientists.

Climate science was discussed in the 60's by nuclear scientists. Nuclear scientists pushed for nuclear power to replace fossil fuels. However, the fossil fuel industry put in place standards that made fossil fuels far more attractive than nuclear. Fast forward today and you can tell that fossil fuel industry has sprinted away from nuclear power industry in multiple areas.

The fossil fuel industry also did the first climate science studies and they stumbled upon this by accident too. This is because they were studying the various regressions and transgressions of marine deposition in the Gulf of Mexico.

[ManiaCCC]

There’s a lot of good points in this actually, although I wish he talked more about CO2 influence. Especially the relation to extreme weather events. I guess that’s a whole other video though!

They don't have video focused on global warming nor climate change yet, however, they touched this issue in some other topics. They promised they will do video about it one day, however they are into the science side of things, they don't want to preach.

[zenkai]

I remember when caveman fires caused climate change and it killed all the dinosaurs in an ice age.

[rda]

Isn’t it becoming less of an issue because it’s recovering? I recall reading that it was steadily shrinking over the past few decades

It is recovering, yes.

[THEORACLE64]

They don't have video focused on global warming nor climate change yet, however, they touched this issue in some other topics. They promised they will do video about it one day, however they are into the science side of things, they don't want to preach.

When climate change and global warming are the science side of things though... There's a way to go about it without being preachy, i.e. explain the science.

[Serenais]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunde...Little_Ice_Age

The mentioned Maunder minimum's connection to the Little Ice Age is controversial at best. On top of that, it is mostly commonly stated that Little Ice Age was caused by volcanic activity, not sunspot activity. Besides that, Little Ice Age appeared to affect different portions of the planet differently, which would suggest a cause closer to the planet, or based directly on the planet itself; Sun's activity would affect the whole planet more or less the same. There is also no general agreement on when the Little Ice Age actually begun, and the possible dates go from 13th to 17th century (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age#Dating). Solar activity, be it the strength of the maxima, or overall average, has been decreasing since 1950s, yet temperature average has been rising in that time period.
Additionaly, even the drop in temperatures observed in the Northern Hemisphere during the Little Ice Age wouldn't offset the observed temperature rise entirely. Little Ice Age's onset was also VERY slow, therefore a cooling period between 2021 and 2040 would be very to stop the overall trend. Which, currently, is very steeply rising (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...re_Anomaly.svg).
Overall, for this to have an actual "ice age" effect, it would require a very sudden, very massive phenomena more or less on the scale of a supervolcano eruption. Sun's activity is not going to affect the climate sufficiently to change the current overall trend significantly.
Finally. While there is a professor Zharkova at Northumbria university, she is stated to be a math professor. Her profile at said university also shows that she has a PhD. in astrophysics and astronomy, quite suggesting she knows a bit about stars (and her stated work shows as such). She, however, isn't a climate scientist. Therefore, her statements regarding climate should be taken with a slight grain of salt, if they vary a lot in regards to what is generally accepted by climate scientific community.

[Garnier Fructis]

So now we have independent issues? Yet you have no problems saying that my cough and sprained ankle are caused by the cut on my left hand. Or are we still calling it a cut? When are we going to label it as Generic Bodily Trauma, so that any health issues can be tied back to it without debate?

Yes. Unsurprisingly, the same branch of science can have different things that are only tangentially related.

To elaborate, the Ozone Hole was caused by CFC's. We banned those and we've been seeing steady improvement ever since. Our contribution to Climate Change is primarily caused by GHG's like CO2 and Methane.

Different problems; different causes; different solutions. Unsurprisingly, banning CFC's won't stop climate change.

- - - Updated - - -

Isn’t it becoming less of an issue because it’s recovering? I recall reading that it was steadily shrinking over the past few decades

Yup. /10char

- - - Updated - - -

I remember when caveman fires caused climate change and it killed all the dinosaurs in an ice age.

I remember when you at least tried to sound neutral instead of straight up shitposting.

[Endus]

Yes. Unsurprisingly, the same branch of science can have different things that are only tangentially related.

To elaborate, the Ozone Hole was caused by CFC's. We banned those and we've been seeing steady improvement ever since. Our contribution to Climate Change is primarily caused by GHG's like CO2 and Methane.

Different problems; different causes; different solutions. Unsurprisingly, banning CFC's won't stop climate change.

And ironically enough, the CFC issue is proof that international solutions and agreement is achievable. That we can see this kind of damage, change things, and fix it.

It was a much simpler issue, but nobody's arguing that GHGs are going to be as easy a fix as CFCs were. But it's a demonstration that human emissions very obviously can have rapid atmospheric impacts, and by not doing that shit any more, we can fix it.

And yet, we still have people who want to confuse the issue, because "science BAD", for some godsforsaken reason.

[Garnier Fructis]

And yet, we still have people who want to confuse the issue, because "science BAD", for some godsforsaken reason.

I've long believed that the reason isn't "science bad" so much as "but my wallet, though." Which I think is pretty intellectually bankrupt, but hey.

[Endus]

I've long believed that the reason isn't "science bad" so much as "but my wallet, though." Which I think is pretty intellectually bankrupt, but hey.

Except that's even more dumb, because proactive adaptation and mitigation is way cheaper than paying for destructive/harmful impacts. Both in the direct costs, and especially in the ongoing chaos that big negative impacts like flooding have.

They're basically saying "nah, I don't want to buy flood insurance" while building in a floodplain, and thinking they're "saving money". They aren't. They're making a stupid-ass decision, and then not even having the sense to protect themselves from their own stupidity.

"It'll never flood, it's fine."
"It's flooded three times in the last 10 years."
"It's FINE. No floods. Shut up, Noah."
"Rain's up this year already. Look, the river's already overflowing."
"WE'RE FINE. GAWD. SHUT UP. You just want to make us pay extra money, houses up on the hill are more EXPENSIVE."
"Because they don't flood every few years, ruining everything and making you rebuild. Would you rather pay twice as much and have a house and stuff that lasts 50 years, or pay what you're paying and lose it all in a year or three?"
"I'm not paying more! CHEAPER. SHUT IT, MATHBOY. Get your CONSPIRACY BULLSHIT out of my FREEDOM FACE."
"Fuck it, fine. But don't come whining when your house floats away."

Three months later;
"OH MY JESUS MY HOUSE."
"Told you."
"NOBODY WARNED ME. THIS IS UNCONSCIONABLE. SOMEONE NEEDS TO PAY ME."
"Did you get insurance?"
"I'M NOT MADE OF MONEY."
"Especially not now that you spent it all on a terrible investment and chose to not protect yourself from the risks at any point."
"WHAT RISKS, nobody said there were RISKS."
"Everyone did. You told them to 'shut up'."
"SHUT UP."
"*sigh*"

[PC2]

c'mon CFCs were an easy issue. There were alternatives and it wasn't a case where creating CFC alternatives required releasing more CFCs. Energy is far too difficult a topic for this analogy.

[zenkai]

I remember when you at least tried to sound neutral instead of straight up shitposting.

I remember when people had a sense of humor instead of being angry at the world all the time. If you want to see an example of shit posting read your own replies.

[Karfal]

B b b but but but global warming and science and evil reoublicans and evil hooomans. Global warming

[rda]

Except that's even more dumb, because proactive adaptation and mitigation is way cheaper than paying for destructive/harmful impacts. Both in the direct costs, and especially in the ongoing chaos that big negative impacts like flooding have.

This is handwaving, by the way.

There are no good numbers on this at all. Everything ends at something like "global costs to fix the damage from environment are X and that's a big number already and it will likely get higher" with no specifics (how much higher? 10x? 100x? substantiate the number), no attempt to analyze which events will still be there no matter what, no nods to obvious facts like costs of these events rising simply because people become more productive and produce more and more expensive stuff for the environment to damage, absolutely no exploration of what would the savings be and why due to the proposed actions, no exploration of the real costs of actions past the most direct ones (it is funny how damage from the environment always snowballs in "analysis" pieces with one factor pulling others, but the effects of mitigation never do, despite economic links containing a lot fewer unknowns), and frequently not even a coherent list of actions with even so much as outlines of possible outcomes. It's always rolling of eyes "we have to fix it now" with pretty much nothing in the way of details, and a quick deterioration into "what, you disagree? you are a denier then, anti-science, bla bla bla".

So, you are saying above that adaptation and mitigation are way cheaper, but that's just noise with no backing. There has been near-zero serious discussion on that. Which is understandable, because the main argument is, of course, what specific levels of temperature we are even heading to and whether these levels are big enough to even worry about them, but still you cannot pretend that the argument about costs has been made (and concluded with the result of "adaptation and mitigation are way cheaper", no less, completely laughable) - it didn't even start yet.

[Noradin]

Except that's even more dumb, because proactive adaptation and mitigation is way cheaper than paying for destructive/harmful impacts. Both in the direct costs, and especially in the ongoing chaos that big negative impacts like flooding have.

They might plan to benefit off of the efforts of others to solve this problem without having to make a contribution. That way they might even make a profit out of it, because everyone else having to spent even more extra money to compensate for them will mean they will become cheaper by comparison.

[rda]

They might plan to benefit off of the efforts of others to solve this problem without having to make a contribution. That way they might even make a profit out of it, because everyone else having to spent even more extra money to compensate for them will mean they will become cheaper by comparison.

It is much easier. There is no sound plan of action (what there is has completely negligible effect on the levels of CO2, completely ignores positive feedbacks that are supposed to be the basis of the issue - they are supposedly scarily non-linear when we talk about dangers but everyone just forgets about that when talking about mitigation, and it also costs an arm and a leg). There is pretty much nothing except this "global warming happens, we have to act now, and shut up the deniers" crusade. That's why nobody does anything except funding further research.

The entire world looks at this pointless hysteria of the West and shrugs thinking "WTF is this? nothing about it makes sense". When someone comes to them with the "let's all spend money on nothing" spiel, they ask "why should we?" and when there is no reasonable answer (and there is no reasonable answer, the answers only make sense to the AGW activists which are, thankfully, a complete minority speaking at large), they politely decline or do a token gesture.

[Noradin]

It is much easier. There is no sound plan of action (what there is has completely negligible effect on the levels of CO2, completely ignores positive feedbacks that are supposed to be the basis of the issue - they are supposedly scarily non-linear when we talk about dangers but everyone just forgets about that when talking about mitigation, and it also costs an arm and a leg). There is pretty much nothing except this "global warming happens, we have to act now, and shut up the deniers" crusade. That's why nobody does anything except funding further research.

The entire world looks at this pointless hysteria of the West and shrugs thinking "WTF is this? nothing about it makes sense". When someone comes to them with the "let's all spend money on nothing" spiel, they ask "why should we?" and when there is no reasonable answer (and there is no reasonable answer, the answers only make sense to the AGW activists which are, thankfully, a complete minority speaking at large), they politely decline or do a token gesture.

That is not "easier".
That (which you have posted there) is an overly convoluted conspiracy theory, which is not allowed on this forum.
In short, it's exactly in line with the rest of your posts. As is the abundance of unsourced claims that make up most of your post.
Just because you choose not to look at what data has been shown to you in this thread does not mean it does not exist.
It might surprise you, but you aren't God, reality does not care for your make-believe world-view. No matter how much you insist it does.

[rda]

That is not "easier".
That (which you have posted there) is an overly convoluted conspiracy theory, which is not allowed on this forum.
In short, it's exactly in line with the rest of your posts. As is the abundance of unsourced claims that make up most of your post.
Just because you choose not to look at what data has been shown to you in this thread does not mean it does not exist.
It might surprise you, but you aren't God, reality does not care for your make-believe world-view. No matter how much you insist it does.

There are no conspiracy theories in what I posted. You just cannot discuss the issue because you haven't been following it much and don't know about it much. But you still want to say that you disagree for some reason, so you end up posting passive-aggressive generalities.

[Deleted]

But then what will the global warming people spew?

its called climate change now, its the 21st century.

[Noradin]

There are no conspiracy theories in what I posted. You just cannot discuss the issue because you haven't been following it much and don't know about it much. But you still want to say that you disagree for some reason, so you end up posting passive-aggressive generalities.

That sounds like it should be addressed at you.