Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Global Warming Enthusiasm (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Global Warming Enthusiasm
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/mini-ice-age-coming-in-next-fifteen-years-new-model-of-the-suns-cycle-shows-10382400.html

Check this out - the sun cycle apparently can change the temperature by quite a lot over even small periods of years. Two questions I'll pose to those interested in global warming as a subject:

1) Do current AGW models take into account solar activity over the years and its potential contribution to the Earth's temperatures?

2) If it's true that we're headed towards a mini-ice age, does that mean we can now become global warming enthusiasts, where we gleefully warm the Earth in preparation for the upcoming shot ice age?

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
1. Yes
2. Mu

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
1. Yes, and it is largely considered irrelevant as a driver of global climate change by warmists.

2. That's a non-sensical question. We cannot control global climate any more than we control the sun.

Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Regarding 1) I would rather say that, although the cyclical ebbs and flows of the solar cycle are represented in climate models, the effects are rather grossly represented, mostly focusing on changes to the total short-wave radiance energy, which varies on the order of 0.1% throughout the 11 year cycle. The differences between specific differences in the short wave spectrum are not, as far as I know, well understood or modeled. For instance, although total radiant energy changes by 0.1% over the solar cycle, UV, EUV and x-ray energy is much more variable - and although the energy associated with UV and x-ray is only a small fraction of total solar radiance, these wavelength do have significant physical effects not specifically related to energy content - for instance stratospheric chemistry.

I am not aware of how longer range forecasting of solar radiance is modeled, except to say that solar radiance is one of many input parameters that are varied across multiple runs of the models.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We could, if we wanted to, "control the sun" ie increasing solar output by directing massive objects to fall into the sun.

Furthermore anyone who looks at the climate of other planets realizes that solar emission is not the sole determiner of climate.

I wholeheartedly agree that agw enthusiasts overemphasize emissions over other factors. But both the monomaniacal emissionists and the nonomaniacal denialists fail to adequately consider what humans are doing and have done to the earth's natural homeostatic mechanisms.

Even if solar and other astral radiation was 99.9999 responsible for all temperature variation in human history (which i doubt) it would still behoove our survival to learn how to effect climate control through emissions, ocean oxygenation, carbon sinks, and whatever else human ingenuity and industry can figure out. If we did as the denialists advocate, i.e. stuck our opposable thumbs up our asses and sing "que sera, sera," we never would have made it out of the trees and into the caves, let alone subsequent techno development .

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hug a tree or burn it to ash. Whichever gets us devloping teraforming technology faster is the one I'm for. We need the ability to warm and cool in our toolbox. [Wink]

That said I do prefer some nice greenscape to all concrete and steel...

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Teraforming would be great but preferably not on Earth.
Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why not? In fact, I expect it to take place here first. Arguably depending on how you fall on the current debate, it already is. Though inadvertently. The ability to "correct" a problem we created or "improve" conditions we did not, both seem quite valuable.

It should be far easier from a technical standpoint as well to tweak a currently hospitable climate as opposed to changing an inhospitable one enough to suit our needs.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mynnion:
Teraforming would be great but preferably not on Earth.

Why not? It's just a matter of time until solar and cosmic factors render this planet uninhabitably hot. Use of cazrbon sinks, reforestation and reoxygenation of the oceans could add thousands of years to Terra's human inhabitability.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Agreed with DW
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Could "global warming is the greatest danger of our times" become "global warming is a greatest weapon against the ice age"? It would be a hilariously ironic about face, and yet if it's asserted that man can affect climate through emissions then it seems to be reasonable to suggest that we should do exactly this to counteract an ice age, no?

But even if we don't want to deliberately mess with the climate wouldn't it stand to reason that a coming mini-ice age would serve to 'reset' what the minute incremental global warming effects have been?

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think Al Gore went on Saturday Night Live and did a skit about if he had won in 2000, the problem was the unplanned growth of glaciers due to excessive efforts to stop global warming
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
Could "global warming is the greatest danger of our times" become "global warming is a greatest weapon against the ice age"? It would be a hilariously ironic about face, and yet if it's asserted that man can affect climate through emissions then it seems to be reasonable to suggest that we should do exactly this to counteract an ice age, no?

But even if we don't want to deliberately mess with the climate wouldn't it stand to reason that a coming mini-ice age would serve to 'reset' what the minute incremental global warming effects have been?

We cannot even be sure, at this point, what global warming effects occurred or how much warming actually occurred. None of the models predicted a now nearly 19 year halt in warming, none of them do well at even hind casting, they are largely unusable and barely 18 months ago the IPCC cut warming forecasts by 50%. The data driving those models was, in some cases, faked and in others manipulated to derive the desired outcome of warming. The end result of all that is we can no longer be really sure of what warming occurred, if any, and the effects of it.

Ideally, we would warm rather than sink further into our current ice age. We cannot afford the shorter growing seasons a colder planet would create nor the drop in CO2 that would follow since around 250 ppm would see plant life die off. In a constantly changing climate, a warming trend is the best case scenario.

Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fenring, it sounds like you are giving this one paper, an analysis of potential solar cycle radiation levels over the next couple of decades, a lot of weight.

You should know that it is a statistical analysis of solar cycles only; there is nothing in the paper itself that purports to model the effects on global climate - the 'mini ice age' remark seems to have been pulled out of the author's nether regions.

The net effect of the predicted change in radiance levels would be a reduction, over the next cycle, of about 60% of the cyclical variance of the solar cycle: or a reduction of about 0.06% at its worst.

To put that in perspective, this temporary reduction in solar radiance would be more than offset by just 3 years worth of global increases in CO2 emissions. There are still another 8 years of CO2 emissions in the 11 year solar cycle that would not be offset, so this would simply mean a slowdown in the global heat energy increase, not a reversal.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Donald, I'm not putting any more stock in this particular paper than any other. My point is not to declare the ice age is here, but rather to ask whether global warming aka proto-terraforming might not switch from being a villain to being embraced should there be a threat of an ice age. You can think of it as a hypothetical if you don't want to believe the article's claim.

That being said it seems that you are disputing the particulars of what the article says, because a 'mini ice age' can't possibly mean the equivalent of three years of global warming in reverse (a trivial amount in the aggregate). Global warming is a slow process, and three years of it isn't designated a 'mini green age,' so likewise I don't see how three years of normal global warming could be sufficient to neutralize a mini ice age.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The prospect of a mini ice age happening but going unnoticed due to global warming is terrifying to anyone thinking long-term.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The maximum expected impact of a new Maunder Minimum is .3 C and a Dalton minimum would be .09 C.

quote:
[...] Feulner & Rahmstorf (2010) (PDF available here) estimated that another solar minimum equivalent to the Dalton and Maunder minima would cause 0.09°C and 0.26°C cooling, respectively.

[...]

Jones et al. (2012) (PDF available here) arrived at a nearly identical result, with cooling from another Dalton and Maunder minimum at 0.09°C and 0.26°C, respectively. Similarly, a new paper by Anet et al. (2013) found that a grand solar minimum will cause no more than 0.3°C cooling over the 21st century.

Consistent with these previous studies, Meehl et al. (2013) (PDF available here) estimate a Maunder Minimum would cause about 0.26°C cooling, but as soon as solar activity began to rise again, that cooling would be offset by solar warming.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/aug/14/global-warming-solar-minimum-barely-dent

The cause of the 'little ice age' (LIA) was initially thought to be the Maunder Minimum (MM), but better resolution data shows that MM came along after the LIA had already started, and that the cause was the usual culprits - volcanic activity and reduced ocean circulation.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/volcanoes-may-have-sparked/

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ferning, you should note the sensationalist tone of the piece. The writer is trying to make headlines, not necessarily report the science accurately.

This site seems quite a bit more balanced in the reportage.

quote:
That’s a mistaken conclusion the Independent writers should not have made. The study is about predicting the Sun’s activity. Their prediction, using a new idea for a model of how the sun works, shows a decrease in solar activity. The magnetic wave components of the sun, when in phase, can create strong solar activity. When they are out of phase, that results in low activity last seen in a time called the ‘Maunder minimum’. This occurred 370 years ago. At that time there were few sunspots noted and this coincided with a period of lower-than-average European temperatures...

The scientists PREDICT this will cause conditions like that which occurred previously. But we can not declare that it WILL occur. In addition, the use of the term “little Ice Age” is also misleading since it suggested extended cold temperature across the globe.

quote:
For example, the coldest winter in the Central England Temperature record is 1683-4, but the winter just 2 years later (both in the middle of the Maunder minimum) was the fifth warmest in the whole 350-year CET record. Furthermore, summers during the Maunder minimum were not significantly different to those seen in subsequent years. The drop in global average temperatures in paleoclimate reconstructions at the start of the Little Ice Age was between about 1560 and 1600, whereas the Maunder minimum began almost 50 years later.
It’s easy to find MANY headlines wrongly stating the conclusions too solidly, and wrongly. One study does not make for such a solid conclusion.
Most, if not all, global climate models do take into account solar irradiance. It would be odd that a 60 percent change in solar acitivity would cause a "mini-ice age" and overwhelm global warming, but the previous minimums (that appear to occur every 11 years or so) have had no major effect. [Smile]

The articles do not specify how long this reduction would last, either. If it was only a year or two, and then solar activity returned to normal, it would have little lasting effect.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
I don't see how three years of normal global warming could be sufficient to neutralize a mini ice age.

Correct. That is the point I was making. Whoever claimed "mini-ice-age", whether it was the author of the study, or the author of the article about the study, were talking out of their bum. The study's author has not claimed to have actually run the projected solar changes through any climate model, so projecting a "mini-ice-age" is just silly.

The article itself definitely misrepresented the study, at the very least, claiming "that solar activity will fall by 60 per cent between 2030 and 2040". If that actually occurred, if solar activity actually fell by 60%, the sun as we know it would cease to exist. What the study's author actually projected was a 60% reduction in the solar cycle radiation variance.

The variance in total solar activity from peak to minimum is only 0.1% of total solar radiated energy. A 60% reduction in the peak energy would then mean that the peak would only increase by roughly 0.04% of total radiated energy from the minimum for that solar cycle.

As for your hypothetical: I'm all for the study of all sorts of things, given unlimited resources.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The problem is going to be how to claim reduced solar output is causing the colder climate after a couple of decades of warm mists insisting that solar output due to the unusually active solar cycles that had just occurred was irrelevant. The way it's going to work is first making out that this is just another normal minimum and playing with numbers in a psuedo-science way that largely makes no sense but sounds good. That'll probably get us to 2020 or 2025

When that starts to fail, warmists will need a new boogeyman to become the cause of the cooling that can clearly be blamed on human activity. My guess is particulates from human pollution will once again become favored. By 2030 all the warmists, except for a few die hard hold outs, will be telling us about the threat of global cooling and how overpopulation is going to lead to the end of the planet. It'll be like the 1970's all over again but hopefully without disco.

Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Solar cycles have had declining numbers of sunspots and falling irradiance since the peak of about 1950. Given that we have seen increases in surface temperatures since 1950, this would suggest either a lag of over 60 years for decreasing irradiance to have an effect on global temperatures, or something else must be going on.
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So your prediction, Rafi, is that we'll be cooler in the period from 2020 to 2025 than we are today?

How much money would you like to put down on that?

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And would it be Rafi2 who had to pay off when the bet was lost?
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
So your prediction, Rafi, is that we'll be cooler in the period from 2020 to 2025 than we are today?

How much money would you like to put down on that?

It's kind of like the predictions about how we'd have "supercanes" like Katrina on a regular basis. Instead, we get the longest period in history with no major hurricanes. If you want to make bets and predictions using that as the basis for deciding accuracy and accountability, then I'll wager $1 million ....no wait, $1 billion dollars. We can let Verne Troyer hold the cash.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In what way do you believe that your prediction there is "kind of like" those other ones?

Also: do you really have so little confidence in your own nihilistic cynicism that you're not willing to put down a little money on it? I mean, I know you're full of it, G#, but I at least figured you had some ego.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
In what way do you believe that your prediction there is "kind of like" those other ones?

Also: do you really have so little confidence in your own nihilistic cynicism that

Has your definition of nihilism changed, Tom? I seem to remember a time in which you insisted across dozens of threads that Nihilism was, by irrefutable cosmic fiat, defined so narrowly that no honest person should ever apply the term on Ornery. [Smile] or is this another definition that's suddenly and magicqally changed since the SCOTUS SSM ruling?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No, you berk.
You're just not very good at correctly using words. Let those of us who are use them, please.

Your use of "nihilism" rather begged a question that was very much in play. Whereas Rafi's particularly cynical viewpoint -- that nothing can be known and no sources can be trusted -- is quite literally a nihilistic epistemology.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
For the record, I have no objection to anyone else referring to G4 as a "cynical nihilist." the term certainly seems apt from my own usage. Just wondering when Tom abandoned his earlier fatwa aagainst that usage. [Smile]
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Whereas Rafi's particularly cynical viewpoint -- that nothing can be known and no sources can be trusted -- is quite literally a nihilistic epistemology"

RoFL. Oh dear. That's definitely not the null set definition you were demanding that I adhere to in our conversation of yesteryear.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's not that I don't think the words "nihilist" or "nihilism" cannot be used. I just think you've never been able to actually apply the term correctly to people who are actually nihilists, as opposed to people who think the word "marriage" can easily and accurately be used to describe a legal union between same-sex couples.

[Smile]

---------

quote:
That's definitely not the null set definition you were demanding that I adhere to...
Pete, please spend some time learning how to freakin' read. It's really tiresome having to explain the English language to you every time you surface. A "cultural nihilist" believes that culture does not and cannot have any intrinsic value; people wishing to allow same-sex couples access to legal marriage are practically the opposite of this definition. Rafi is making here a claim of epistemological nihilism -- that not only are any asserted sources of truth untrustworthy, but that the very nature of truth value itself is questionable and arguably unimportant. The equivalent of your false calls of "cultural nihilism" would be if Rafi were asserting that a particular claim was untrue and should therefore be corrected, and I called him a nihilist in response. But that's not what Rafi is doing here; rather, he is saying that his own assertions are no more valuable or important than anyone else's (or, rather, really doing the reverse: asserting that no research is any more valid than his opinion, which he concedes is not valid. And, moreover, that this is not a problem that troubles him overmuch.)

[ July 16, 2015, 05:17 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
First of all, the position youj just d4escribed is "philosophical skepticism," not nihilism.

Second, I think it's a stretch to accuse G4 of actually holding the philosophical positions that he uses to feel like he's won the argument. It's like Justice Stephens arguing constitutional philosophy. you're treating Nihilism as a principle rather than the absence of guiding principles. G4's shown that he can go on like the most pious patriot on the board, of it fits a particular argument. The only principle from which I've never seen him vary is.never retract, apologize or back down. He is his own true north, facts and principles be damned.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"It's not that I don't think the words "nihilist" or "nihilism" cannot be used.L

I didnt accuse you of thinking that, Tom. You SAID it. You specifically declared that nihilism was a null set. Specifically that nihilism with regard to meaning was a null set.

"s opposed to people who think the word "marriage" can easily and accurately be used to describe a legal union between same-sex couples."

Nice try, but my reference to the Goodrich gang of four as nihilists had nothing to do with their thinking that the word marriage could be " asily and accurately be used to describe a legal union between same-sex couples."

What made the Goodrichers and their philosophical bastards nihilistic was their refusal to adress or acknowledge any other meaning of the word marriage that contradicted their usage, culminating in their fatwa that there was no noninvidious reason why ANYONE could oppose a broader definition of marriage.

" A "cultural nihilist" believes that culture does not and cannot have any intrinsic value"

Correct. I wish you had been willing to talk that straight 5~10 years ago before the topic was hot.

[ July 16, 2015, 05:50 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am so happy... Just yesterday, I was wondering how (and when) global warming would relate to same sex marriage.
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
In what way do you believe that your prediction there is "kind of like" those other ones?

No, just saying I'd like to be held to the same level of accountability as you. [Wink]
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
I am so happy... Just yesterday, I was wondering how (and when) global warming would relate to same sex marriage.

That's odd you should say that.

First, the analogy has been done to death on this forum, since other than the authority worship angle, denialist arguments are virtually identical. (Anyone who pretends concerns with how the environment is being affected by sweeping changes is secretly motivated only bu hatred of capitalism/homosexuals)

Second, because it's not the current tangent, or wasnt until you raised it. What I brought up was Tom's use of the word "nihilism"to signify something which he has for years emphatically denied that it can ever signify.

[ July 16, 2015, 08:14 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@ Rafi or G#. While we may have had few hurricanes the last few years there have been a number of super typhoons. The world is more than just the US.
Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Specifically that nihilism with regard to meaning was a null set.
No. You should probably go back and re-read that, since you've misunderstood it. You've misunderstood it here, again, too. A skeptic is someone who disbelieves a source; a nihilist in this context would be someone who believes that the question of a source's validity is irrelevant, since there is no value to truth.

quote:
I wish you had been willing to talk that straight 5~10 years ago ...
I think you'll find that I did. [Smile]
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mynnion:
While we may have had few hurricanes the last few years there have been a number of super typhoons. The world is more than just the US.

Accumulated Cyclone Energy in the pacific has been below normal almost every year since 1998 - 2 years reached near normal status but all others below. Overhyped coverage by the media appears to be confusing you, which I think they'd call a success.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
While I don't see why you confine your analysis only to the Pacific, Rafi, there is some merit to your remark.

According to this article in Skeptical Science from 2013, the worldwide trend of the ACE has been pretty much flat, even while surface water temperatures have been increasing.

quote:
The lower left graph displays the observations with a fitted curve consisting of the sum of two harmonic oscillations with periods 6 and 12 months, but only for the years 2005-2012. The fitted curve can only explain approx. 55% of the variations in the ACE. There is no linear trend. This means that the level of ACE is constant over the entire period. There is, therefore, a conflict between the visual impressions of the evolution of ACE from the very first graph in this analysis...

Even if we know that the sea surface temperatures have been increasing, this is not manifested in a corresponding increase in ACE. This is a paradox.

He does observe, though:

quote:
A possible conclusion is that there has not been observed a global warming signal in the development of ACE during the years 1970-2012, since the global temperature has increased over the same years.

This is expected according to the IPCC. This can be found here Has there been a Change in Extreme Events like Heat Waves, Droughts, Floods and Hurricanes? and here Evidence for Changes in Tropical Storms.

However, I don't understand where he gets his observation, since the articles indicate that PDI Index of tropical storms has been increasing per the IPCC.

All this is especially odd since, as he says:

quote:
We know that the Major Hurricanes have the largest contribution to ACE - approximately 30% - and since we know that their number is increasing because of increasing sea surface temperatures, an increase in the ACE is expected.
So it seems you are correct that the ACE does not reflect the global surface water temperature increase as expected.
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fenring, I came across this article that pretty well debunks any hope that a solar minimum will have any longer-term effects on global warming.

In fact, the Temperature vs. Solar Activity chart in the center shows there has been a significant drop in solar activity since about 2002, which somewhat correlates with the flat temperature increase we've experienced in the last few years. Perhaps we are already reaping the benefits of a solar minimum?

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1