The coming Ice Age

[Jaydog]

Apparently the Sun is what causes the Earth to warm and cool, and all along I thought it was carbon emissions :haha:

So now we are supposedly heading towards a "mini Ice age" I think climatologists are about as accurate as our local weathermen :D

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=44199

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/...nce-news-solar-flares-sunspots-global-warming

The decline in solar activity is unusual and unexpected, and scientists are wondering if this could be the start of a second

 

[whatthe?]

Soon Al Gore will be out telling everyone that his jets flying around are good for the environment because they're helping stall the next ice age.

 

[ZedMikey]

Here we go again... Jay, did you even read the second link you posted?

But scientists warn that the temperature change due to a decline in sunspot activity would likely be minimal and not enough to compensate for global warming.
"A new Maunder-type solar activity minimum cannot offset the global warming caused by human greenhouse gas emissions," wrote authors Georg Feulner and Stefan Rahmstorf, AFP reports.
"Moreover, any offset of global warming due to a grand minimum of solar activity would be merely a temporary effect, since the distinct solar minima during the last millennium typically lasted for only several decades or a century at most."

 

[ZedMikey]

I am going to ignore the first link since they have been "leading conservative media since 1944" and are still clinging to the same BS I showed was factually incorrect the last time we discussed this. :)

 

[Jaydog]

Here we go again... Jay, did you even read the second link you posted?

Yes I did, and I still cling to the fact that there is way too much going on within our solar system that we truly don't understand, plus we are still in an infant stage of monitoring our climate, thus there is way too much that we don't fully understand to come to a logical conclusion on what exactly is changing our temperatures, there is some great theories out there, but they are nothing more than theories and we won't know the impact of higher co2 levels for decades, and it's obvious that the sun has a bigger impact on global temperatures than humans :awesomework:

 

[crash2]

Excessive snow wheeling---yes!

 

[Jaydog]

Besides, if in fact it does last as long as a century, we will be out of fossil fuels by then, and the co2 levels will have dropped, so we have nothing to worry about :D

 

[ZedMikey]

Yes I did, and I still cling to the fact that there is way too much going on within our solar system that we truly don't understand, plus we are still in an infant stage of monitoring our climate, thus there is way too much that we don't fully understand to come to a logical conclusion on what exactly is changing our temperatures, there is some great theories out there, but they are nothing more than theories and we won't know the impact of higher co2 levels for decades, and it's obvious that the sun has a bigger impact on global temperatures than humans :awesomework:

And now you're falling into the trap of using the word "theory" incorrectly. In science, a theory isn't just a guess... a hypothesis is a guess... but an educated one. A theory is a hypothesis that has undergone significant testing and been shown to be an accurate, demonstrable, repeatable explanation of the data.

The gravitational theory... germ theory... atomic theory... etc... not guesses.

As for "way too much going on within our solar system that we truly don't understand..." Like what? What is happening in our solar system has us so baffled that you will completely disregard anything that is said about global climate change that goes against your preconceived notions? What is it that makes you ignore the majority of climate scientists in favor of conservative editorials spouting the same old bull**** that we know is false?

 

[ZedMikey]

Minor addendum... a theory can be a composite of multiple hypotheses...

 

[CrustyJeep]

Besides, if in fact it does last as long as a century, we will be out of fossil fuels by then, and the co2 levels will have dropped

How? Where will the CO2 go?

 

[boardbysled]

How? Where will the CO2 go?

Sequestered into Hack Shacks giant ass log home.:redneck:

 

[Jaydog]

And now you're falling into the trap of using the word "theory" incorrectly. In science, a theory isn't just a guess... a hypothesis is a guess... but an educated one. A theory is a hypothesis that has undergone significant testing and been shown to be an accurate, demonstrable, repeatable explanation of the data.

The gravitational theory... germ theory... atomic theory... etc... not guesses.

As for "way too much going on within our solar system that we truly don't understand..." Like what? What is happening in our solar system has us so baffled that you will completely disregard anything that is said about global climate change that goes against your preconceived notions? What is it that makes you ignore the majority of climate scientists in favor of conservative editorials spouting the same old bull**** that we know is false?

Sorry I used it incorrectly, I will now use the term (GWH) Global Warming Hypothesis :D

How? Where will the CO2 go?

Oh I don't know, isn't that what plants use :fawkdancesmiley:

 

[boardbysled]

Oh I don't know, isn't that what plants use :fawkdancesmiley:

Then die and decompose and give off CO2.

 

[Jaydog]

Then die and decompose and give off CO2.

Then the cows eat it and fart, and we all know that cow farts is what is killing the planet, stupid organics :haha::haha:

What really needs to happen is that somebody should put a muffler on the chilean volcano that has been spewing out greenhouse gasses for the last 11 days, doesn't it realize what it's doing to us? :corn:

 

[Jaydog]

In all actuality Co2 levels are mainly caused by the Earth releasing it into the atmosphere, there are volcanoes that erupt, and some that constantly vent, which is around 1 trillion tons a year, the pre-industrial level of Co2 is around 250ppm, but volcanoes eruptions have increased over the last 500 years, as has Co2 levels, Co2 is absorbed by rock and by the oceans, also Co2 levels were a lot higher 15 billion years ago, and we all know that man wasn't around to cause that, there are so many variables to just point at one thing, Climate change is just the political flavor of the month. :awesomework:

 

[ZedMikey]

In all actuality Co2 levels are mainly caused by the Earth releasing it into the atmosphere, there are volcanoes that erupt, and some that constantly vent, which is around 1 trillion tons a year, the pre-industrial level of Co2 is around 250ppm, but volcanoes eruptions have increased over the last 500 years, as has Co2 levels, Co2 is absorbed by rock and by the oceans, also Co2 levels were a lot higher 15 billion years ago, and we all know that man wasn't around to cause that, there are so many variables to just point at one thing, Climate change is just the political flavor of the month. :awesomework:

*sigh...*

You don't cite your source for the 1 trillion tons... but the USGS says all our volcanoes outgas only a few hundred million metric tons of CO2 per year (130 million to 440 million metric tons). http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php Where did you get your 1 trillion tons number?

Compare this with 35 BILLION tons of CO2 projected for anthropogenic CO2 emissions for 2010. Quick math lesson... 440 million is less than 35 billion by a factor of almost 100.

And how were CO2 levels on earth higher 15 billion years ago? The universe hadn't even formed, yet. :fawkdancesmiley:

 

[Travis1]

*sigh...*

You don't cite your source for the 1 trillion tons... but the USGS says all our volcanoes outgas only a few hundred million metric tons of CO2 per year (130 million to 440 million metric tons). http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php Where did you get your 1 trillion tons number?

Compare this with 35 BILLION tons of CO2 projected for anthropogenic CO2 emissions for 2010. Quick math lesson... 440 million is less than 35 billion by a factor of almost 100.

And how were CO2 levels on earth higher 15 billion years ago? The universe hadn't even formed, yet. :fawkdancesmiley:

Yet, you're backing yourself up with JUNK SCIENCE, may as well be selling amway.

The earth's temperature has risen and lowered for hundreds of thousands of years. There's been more than a couple ice ages, and all the scientific data out there shows us that the global warming we are facing right now is NATURAL.

The most humans have done is sped up the process, a very tiny bit.

 

[ZedMikey]

Yet, you're backing yourself up with JUNK SCIENCE, may as well be selling amway.

The earth's temperature has risen and lowered for hundreds of thousands of years. There's been more than a couple ice ages, and all the scientific data out there shows us that the global warming we are facing right now is NATURAL.

The most humans have done is sped up the process, a very tiny bit.

You haven't read a shred of scientific information on this topic, have you?

 

[luggs]

Excessive snow wheeling---yes!

i need to prepare for this event...any suckers out there wanna trade a set of 33 inch tsls for some 39.5 iroc snow wheeling extreme floaters?...i need to be ready for this..paint my gu:booo:ns snow camo today..dangit!!!!

 

[CrustyJeep]

What really needs to happen is that somebody should put a muffler on the chilean volcano that has been spewing out greenhouse gasses for the last 11 days, doesn't it realize what it's doing to us? :corn:

It's not really doing anything at all compared to cars. You really should do some actual reading. Volcanoes release a tiny fraction of the greenhouse gases we do.

 

[Jaydog]

*sigh...*

You don't cite your source for the 1 trillion tons... but the USGS says all our volcanoes outgas only a few hundred million metric tons of CO2 per year (130 million to 440 million metric tons). http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php Where did you get your 1 trillion tons number?

Compare this with 35 BILLION tons of CO2 projected for anthropogenic CO2 emissions for 2010. Quick math lesson... 440 million is less than 35 billion by a factor of almost 100.

And how were CO2 levels on earth higher 15 billion years ago? The universe hadn't even formed, yet. :fawkdancesmiley:

Here's a link for the volcanoes
http://climatechangedispatch.com/ho...t-co2-levels-are-not-of-anthropogenic-origins

Here's a link about higher Co2 levels in the past, where did all that Co2 go :D
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008152242.htm

It's not really doing anything at all compared to cars. You really should do some actual reading. Volcanoes release a tiny fraction of the greenhouse gases we do.

Prior to the industrial age CO2 was 250ppm now it is around 380ppm I think it is us that is the tiny fraction

 

[ZedMikey]

Here's a link for the volcanoes
http://climatechangedispatch.com/ho...t-co2-levels-are-not-of-anthropogenic-origins

And where does he get his numbers? He has no citations in his article. So, I ask again... what is it that makes you disregard the findings of the USGS regarding volcanic CO2 emissions in favor of some random article on the internet that has NOTHING to back it up?

Here's a link to one of the peer-reviewed papers cited on the USGS page I linked. It has lots of good information about the real numbers surrounding volcanic emissions.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011EO240001.pdf

Here's a link about higher Co2 levels in the past, where did all that Co2 go :D
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008152242.htm

A lot of things can affect atmospheric CO2 levels. CO2 levels change naturally, as they mention in that article. The fact that CO2 levels change naturally doesn't change the fact that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the driving factor in the changing atmospheric CO2 levels currently.

]Prior to the industrial age CO2 was 250ppm now it is around 380ppm I think it is us that is the tiny fraction

What planet are you from that a 52% increase is a tiny fraction?!

 

[WHITE TRASH1]

How arrogant do you have to be to believe man will have any real lasting effect on the Earth now or in the future? The planet can fend for itself just fine.

We put natures crude crude oil into the ocean where it isn't supposed to be naturally and microbes eat it after a short time. Things like that happen all the time, these "dangerous" c02 levels probably have more to do with rainforest depletion than grandma driving her buick to bingo. C02 is plant food, take away plants and whats the result?

 

[ZedMikey]

How arrogant do you have to be to believe man will have any real lasting effect on the Earth now or in the future? The planet can fend for itself just fine.

Who said we will have a lasting effect on the Earth? Nice strawman there, Trashy. We won't hurt the planet one bit... the life currently existing on the planet, however, is a different story. How many species have we driven to extinction already? How many more will we kill off by radically changing the climate? If we kill ourselves off first, maybe the rest of the species will do ok. :)

We put natures crude crude oil into the ocean where it isn't supposed to be naturally and microbes eat it after a short time.

Sure... some bacteria will eat the crude oil we spill into the oceans. How many species can't eat it and die, instead? Let's see... how many fish, mammal, and avian species are there in/near our oceans? Again... we could dump all the oil we want into the oceans, and we won't hurt the planet. Perhaps kill the vast majority of life in/near the oceans, but the planet won't care.

Things like that happen all the time, these "dangerous" c02 levels probably have more to do with rainforest depletion than grandma driving her buick to bingo. C02 is plant food, take away plants and whats the result?

Let's see... from http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php

Light-duty vehicles emit 3 billion metric tons of CO2 per year. Mt. St. Helens erupting in 1980... 10 million metric tons. So, if we have 300 Mt. St. Helens-style eruptions this year, you might be right.

Until then, I think I'll trust the extensive research performed by scientists around the world rather than the hunch of a truck driver on a 4x4 board... just sayin...

 

[CrustyJeep]

How arrogant do you have to be to believe man will have any real lasting effect on the Earth now or in the future? The planet can fend for itself just fine.

Oh look, it's the old "Earth will still be a big ball of rock orbiting a giant ball of hydrogen long after we're gone" argument. Wow, how ****ing insightful. How do you avoid tripping over that huge brain all the time? :flipoff:

 

[Jaydog]

I'm just saying, there are a thousand different variables, the equipment we have now is superior to equipment used in the past to monitor Co2 levels, could they have been off 20% or more? The sun is the overwhelming factor that gives us heat, and if it reduces solar flares and calms down like they are saying, then our temperatures will drop, we definatly add to the Co2 levels, but by how much, that is the question that is alluding everyone, like I said there are way too many variables to point your finger at one particular source, I think this whole subject is more for a political soapbox than anything else, but like I've said hundreds of times, take the politics out of science and we would all be better off.

 

[CrustyJeep]

I'm just saying, there are a thousand different variables, the equipment we have now is superior to equipment used in the past to monitor Co2 levels, could they have been off 20% or more? The sun is the overwhelming factor that gives us heat, and if it reduces solar flares and calms down like they are saying, then our temperatures will drop, we definatly add to the Co2 levels, but by how much, that is the question that is alluding everyone, like I said there are way too many variables to point your finger at one particular source, I think this whole subject is more for a political soapbox than anything else, but like I've said hundreds of times, take the politics out of science and we would all be better off.

The question is alluding you, that's for sure. You seem to dislike the answer. Why is that? If the answer was wrong, and you had good reason to believe so, you'd post up those reasons, but so far you've posted stuff that simply isn't believable or doesn't provide sources or that is factually incorrect. That seems to indicate you don't have good reason not to like the answer, but yet you dislike it. Why is that?

 

[Travis1]

You haven't read a shred of scientific information on this topic, have you?

If by scientific information, you mean the raw data - yes.

If by scientific information, you mean the bull**** spewed by scientists to justify additional grants to study something or push their own personal agend - no.

 

[Jaydog]

The question is alluding you, that's for sure. You seem to dislike the answer. Why is that? If the answer was wrong, and you had good reason to believe so, you'd post up those reasons, but so far you've posted stuff that simply isn't believable or doesn't provide sources or that is factually incorrect. That seems to indicate you don't have good reason not to like the answer, but yet you dislike it. Why is that?

What Question? That Global Warming is real??? :eeek:

 

[Jaydog]

If by scientific information, you mean the raw data - yes.

If by scientific information, you mean the bull**** spewed by scientists to justify additional grants to study something or push their own personal agend - no.

This is exactly why I'm so skeptical, do you know the billions, if not trillions, of dollars there is involved in green products, and climate research. Imagine how much pressure the scientific community has to come out with the "right" data.