Jump to content

      













Photo

The Climate Change / Global Warming Debate


  • Please log in to reply
1953 replies to this topic

#1941 LJ

LJ
  • Member
  • 8,740 posts

Posted 15 April 2019 - 07:21 PM

Scary headlines

 

https://www.fraserin...scary-headlines


Life's a journey......so roll down the window and enjoy the breeze.

#1942 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 10,932 posts

Posted 15 April 2019 - 07:29 PM

 

Makes exactly the same point I did a week ago. The report picked dates to maximize the impact of the headline. They could have also picked dates that would have made it look like the earth was cooling.

 

You have to read the source research before you believe anything these days. The media and special interests have figured out that few people actually do so they claim whatever they want and use bogus interpretations of research to make their claims sound credible.


  • Victoria Watcher likes this

#1943 rjag

rjag
  • Member
  • 4,780 posts
  • LocationSi vis pacem para bellum

Posted 15 April 2019 - 08:37 PM

https://science.nasa...nimum-is-coming

 

Cold weather to grip WORLD as solar minimum to DEEPEN, NASA says

 

 

Going to need to tax us more to provide heat 



#1944 nerka

nerka
  • Member
  • 1,225 posts

Posted 15 April 2019 - 10:24 PM

Cold weather to grip WORLD as solar minimum to DEEPEN, NASA says

 

1) Nasa says no such thing

2) Effect of sunspot cycle on surface temps is small. But it has a big effect in the extremely thin uppermost reaches of the atmosphere

3) If we did enter a new grand minimum of sunspots (not proven but definitely a possibility because it has happened before) the cooling caused by that would cancel out just under two decades of global warming at current rates (0.17 deg C per decade)

 

And of course in the real world this year is on track to be one of the hottest globally (likely #3 or #4 but still early days)



#1945 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 10,932 posts

Posted 16 April 2019 - 06:01 AM

1) Nasa says no such thing

2) Effect of sunspot cycle on surface temps is small. But it has a big effect in the extremely thin uppermost reaches of the atmosphere

3) If we did enter a new grand minimum of sunspots (not proven but definitely a possibility because it has happened before) the cooling caused by that would cancel out just under two decades of global warming at current rates (0.17 deg C per decade)

 

And of course in the real world this year is on track to be one of the hottest globally (likely #3 or #4 but still early days)

 

On track to be one of the hottest, hasn't the news been about hold much colder it has been than normal year to date?



#1946 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 47,034 posts

Posted 16 April 2019 - 06:14 AM

We just walked out of the polar vortex and into an oven, eh?

This is a must-read.

Peter Foster: Mark Carney and Michael Bloomberg's 'sustainable' scheme to dismantle Canada's economy
https://business.fin...canadas-economy

When the panel was announced in April of 2018, it was sold as being all about helping Canada tap into a “trillion-dollar opportunity from clean growth and climate action” and creating “good jobs for Canada’s middle class.” Nothing was said about killing fossil fuels.

The exercise kicked off with a “round table discussion” hosted by Catherine McKenna, minister of Environment and Climate Change, and Bill Morneau, minister of finance. The star attendee was Mark Carney.

Shortly before the Paris climate meeting in 2015, Carney gave a major speech at the insurance market Lloyd’s of London. Titled “The tragedy of the horizon,” its theme was that the financial sector was woefully short-sighted when it came to climate threats. Carney chose the insurance industry for his address both because it appeared most at risk from grisly projections of natural disaster, and because insurers were also major investors. He attempted to scare them by projecting that fossil fuel reserves might have to be “stranded” to save the world; the relevant legislation might not yet exist, but investors should get out while the getting was good.

Carney produced a raft of scary and misleading statistics, including those for rising insurance claims from extreme weather events. No less a financial authority than Warren Buffet had rejected such claims, pointing out that rising losses were due not primarily to worse weather, but to more valuable property being built in areas prone to natural disasters.

...

Bloomberg is part of what The Wall Street Journal has dubbed a “Climate Mafia.” He had been mayor of New York during Superstorm Sandy in 2012, and had subsequently joined radical hedge fund billionaire Tom Steyer and former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson — the man who had deluged Wall Street with cash in the wake of the 2008 crisis — in the “Risky Business Project,” which had produced a typically alarmist report.

His Bloomberg Philanthropies were involved in “multiple climate efforts,” including partnering with the Sierra Club in its Beyond Coal Campaign, and “supporting state efforts to transition to renewable energy sources.”

Bloomberg was also the UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Cities and Climate Change. As such he played a key role in establishing networks of mayors who were committed to meeting “ambitious climate-related goals.” The fruit of such initiatives might be seen in Vancouver’s stout opposition to the Trans Mountain Pipeline, and in Montreal’s rejection of the Energy East project.

The 31 members of the task force were hand-picked by Carney’s Financial Stability Board, that is, by Carney, and were all involved in green initiatives and investments. They included Al Gore’s radical business partner, David Blood.


Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#1947 rjag

rjag
  • Member
  • 4,780 posts
  • LocationSi vis pacem para bellum

Posted 16 April 2019 - 06:26 AM

1) Nasa says no such thing

https://spaceweather...ar-minimum/amp/
2) Effect of sunspot cycle on surface temps is small. But it has a big effect in the extremely thin uppermost reaches of the atmosphere
3) If we did enter a new grand minimum of sunspots (not proven but definitely a possibility because it has happened before) the cooling caused by that would cancel out just under two decades of global warming at current rates (0.17 deg C per decade)

And of course in the real world this year is on track to be one of the hottest globally (likely #3 or #4 but still early days)



#1948 nerka

nerka
  • Member
  • 1,225 posts

Posted 16 April 2019 - 09:38 AM

 

1) Nasa says no such thing

https://spaceweather...ar-minimum/amp/
2) Effect of sunspot cycle on surface temps is small. But it has a big effect in the extremely thin uppermost reaches of the atmosphere
 

 

The article talks about the thermosphere cooling off as it does during every solar minimum. The thermosphere is the layer of atmosphere above roughly 85 km height and contains about .001% of the atmosphere's mass.  There is a sunspot influence at the surface but it is very small - too small to counteract the influence of heating from greenhouse gases.



#1949 rjag

rjag
  • Member
  • 4,780 posts
  • LocationSi vis pacem para bellum

Posted 16 April 2019 - 11:36 AM

The article talks about the thermosphere cooling off as it does during every solar minimum. The thermosphere is the layer of atmosphere above roughly 85 km height and contains about .001% of the atmosphere's mass.  There is a sunspot influence at the surface but it is very small - too small to counteract the influence of heating from greenhouse gases.

 

And yet this has been linked to the mini-ice age of the Maunder Minimum that lasted a century or more

 

https://www.livescie...al-warming.html

 

When they talk about ocean levels rising my mm and fractions of degrees for temperature fluctuations etc then this also has to be factored in. We obtain our heat from the sun, therefore any change in the sun will have an impact on earth. 



#1950 nerka

nerka
  • Member
  • 1,225 posts

Posted 16 April 2019 - 03:46 PM

> And yet this has been linked to the mini-ice age of the Maunder Minimum that lasted a century or more.

 

Partially correct.

 

Absent global warming a new Maunder Minimum of sunspots (IF IT HAPPENED) would cause some global cooling. With global warming a new Maunder Minimum would offset only about 15-20 years of warming while it lasted.

 

It is overly simplistic to attribute the Little Ice Age to the last Maunder Minimum as the Little Ice Age lasted about 1300 to 1850 while the Maunder Minimum lasted roughly 1640-1720

 

Finally we can't actually predict solar activity with any skill.  At the 2008/2009 solar minimum people were also calling for a new Maunder Minimum. Did not happen.


  • rjag likes this

#1951 rjag

rjag
  • Member
  • 4,780 posts
  • LocationSi vis pacem para bellum

Posted 16 April 2019 - 04:16 PM

 

 

Finally we can't actually predict solar activity with any skill.  At the 2008/2009 solar minimum people were also calling for a new Maunder Minimum. Did not happen.

 

Heck we cant predict the weather forecast a week out but we can calculate global warming by fractions of a degree 50 years out.... :thumbsup:



#1952 nerka

nerka
  • Member
  • 1,225 posts

Posted 17 April 2019 - 07:38 AM

Heck we cant predict the weather forecast a week out but we can calculate global warming by fractions of a degree 50 years out.... :thumbsup:

That's an old trope that isn't actually valid.

 

To predict the weather accurately we need to know the current state of the atmosphere. Since we can never have perfect measurements everywhere all the time our weather prediction skill falls off quite quickly with time. Current weather predictions have some skill at one week but not a lot. There are theoretical reasons to believe that no matter how good our computer forecast models become we will never be able to forecast with much accuracy beyond about 10-14 days.

 

Predicting the climate is a totally different ballgame. The climate is constrained heavily by such things as the orbital parameters of the Earth, the composition of our atmosphere (particularly GHGs) and the character of land surfaces (such as how much sunlight they reflect). Because of this climate - roughly speaking the average of weather - is MUCH more predictable than weather. We certainly can't say what temperature it will be in Victoria on April 17th, 2050. But the models can give us a prettty good idea what the average temperatures (and their variability) will be like in April in Victoria in 30 years, 50 years, or 100 years.

 

To picture the relative predictability of climate consider this.  I have no idea what the weather will be like 21 months from now. However just knowing a few facts about the Earth's orbit and axial tilt lets me predict with high confidence that the month 21 months from now will be cooler than the current month.

 

Of course the weather/climate models aren't perfect. That's one reason why their predictions are usually reported as a range of possible values rather than a single point. We do know that the models work in a general sense as they can correctly approximate past and current climates including unexpected events like Mount Pinatubo eruption that caused a year of cooling (due to increased reflection of sunlight from "dust" in the stratosphere.

 

So with a climate model prediction of 0.3 degrees of cooling if a new grand solar minimum occurred, how should that be interpreted?

 

Without reading the actual study I'd interpret that as the temperature change from a new grand minimum is likely to be fairly close to 0.3. Very unlikely to be zero cooling.  Extremely unlikely to be 3 degrees of cooling (which would be actual Ice Age levels of cold).



#1953 Wayne

Wayne
  • Member
  • 541 posts

Posted 17 April 2019 - 06:22 PM

Canada has stepped up and leads the way on climate change, almost.

Catherine McKenna, said Wednesday that Canada is aware of the 2016 court decision and ”is strongly committed to collaborating with the Philippines government to resolvethis issue.”

https://www.saanichn...aw-lawyers-say/

It is 2019?

Edited by Wayne, 17 April 2019 - 06:23 PM.


#1954 rjag

rjag
  • Member
  • 4,780 posts
  • LocationSi vis pacem para bellum

Posted Today, 11:51 AM

https://www.spiked-o...greta-thunberg/

 

Anyone who doubts that the green movement is morphing into a millenarian cult should take a close look at Greta Thunberg. This poor young woman increasingly looks and sounds like a cult member. The monotone voice. The look of apocalyptic dread in her eyes. The explicit talk of the coming great ‘fire’ that will punish us for our eco-sins. There is something chilling and positively pre-modern about Ms Thunberg. One can imagine her in a sparse wooden church in the Plymouth Colony in the 1600s warning parishioners of the hellfire that will rain upon them if they fail to give up their witches.

 



 



1 user(s) are reading this topic

1 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


    Freedom57