CavLancer
This aint fertilizer
That's true because my face is also not real and the pain it would experience would also not be real, and quite devastating in an unreal manner.
Global warming strikes again...
- Thread starter CavLancer
- Start date
AppleDumplingHead
Emperor
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2016
- Messages
- 1,171
The pain would be very real to you, but unreal to me, particularly if I don't observe it. It's a word game using epistemological license, how we know what is or is not real.
What part of "I'm not American" did you fail to grasp? Do you obsess about the financial situation of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau?
Where?
I go by what I see and experience.
William Shatner said that to the director of "Turnabout Intruder" when he told Shatner to walk out of the scene (and presumably out of the briefing room) in a direction where there was no door. Shatner said he knew this was the last episode (Star Trek had just been cancelled and they were filming the final episode), but did the director really want to kill him off by sending him out into the icy cold of space?
Not sure what any of that has to do with this thread. If you want to talk about Star Trek, let's take the conversation downforum to A&E.
@CavLancer: So, metaphysical speculations aside, you say that this winter and spring are going to be unusually cold. If global average temperature from December 1, 2016 through May 31, 2017 ends up actually being far above the 20th century average and even above the average of 2001-2010, would this convince you that global warming is real, or would you still keep saying that cooling is right around the corner?
Now I'd be the first to tell you that focusing on one or two seasons is a bad idea if you're trying to discern anything about climate, but since you have sort of made a prediction, it does give us something to work with.
The thing is that we're really, really sure that even if the Sun's output suddenly dropped to levels last seen in the Maunder Minimum, which kicked off the Little Ice Age, we wouldn't really see much cooling. It would amount to something like 0.3 C, and we've already warmed about 0.9 C since the 20th century began, which was already after the end of the Little Ice Age. I hope this happens because we could use whatever minor reprieves we can get right now, but it wouldn't amount to any more than that.
Now I'd be the first to tell you that focusing on one or two seasons is a bad idea if you're trying to discern anything about climate, but since you have sort of made a prediction, it does give us something to work with.
The thing is that we're really, really sure that even if the Sun's output suddenly dropped to levels last seen in the Maunder Minimum, which kicked off the Little Ice Age, we wouldn't really see much cooling. It would amount to something like 0.3 C, and we've already warmed about 0.9 C since the 20th century began, which was already after the end of the Little Ice Age. I hope this happens because we could use whatever minor reprieves we can get right now, but it wouldn't amount to any more than that.
civman110
Immortal
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2012
- Messages
- 2,111
Posted scientific studies, data, graphs.
All things that your religion doesn't believe in and outright rejects.
CavLancer
This aint fertilizer
It was fun, thanks.
I would say that CO2 is more of a AGW gas than I realized, and we should do our best to limit it. Cooling however is inevitable, and may be right around the corner. If its not cold this winter, particularly in the northern hemisphere, then CO2 is keeping us warm when we should be freezing. We could use the gas as a control mechanism. That said, if it continues warm through solar cycle 24 and then 25, well, its too high and should we get a magnetically active cycle again, we'll be way too warm. It might actually be hard to control unless we can add and remove CO2 at will. The 70s were cold, the 90s hot. That's a short time span.
Regarding the Maunder, yes I agree if CO2 is everything its cracked up to be as a warming gas I'd say it would help protect us from the effects of a Maunder Minimum. However, this may not be such. It might be the end of the Holocene. If we go into the next 90,000 years of glaciation then the CO2, even if its a hard core global warming gas, is fairly meaningless. It might impact how many meters of ice bury New York, but that's about it.
Now the flip side. If its cold, are you going to accept that CO2 isn't that bad of a warming gas? That the whole AGW thing has been overblown and a huge waste of resources?
Valka, thanks I didn't know that. However it was in an episode. Kirk was being read his demise by a bad guy. Somehow the icey cold of space was going to get him or some such. I searched on youtube for the scene but couldn't find it. It did happen however, I'm certain of that.
Last edited by a moderator:
You didn't find it, because it didn't happen.
I've just looked it up in my copy of Star Trek Lives! It's in the chapter where Joan Winston was allowed to spend a week on the set when they were filming "Turnabout Intruder".
From page 193 of the paperback edition (Bantam Books, July 1975):
It is possible that you might be thinking of a scene in which a different character expresses despair. Scotty did (in "The Tholian Web"), and so did McCoy (in several episodes). Joe Tormolen, in "The Naked Time" might be the scene you're looking for (he tries to kill himself in the recreation room). I don't recall those ones well enough to say. But the Kirk dialogue you're talking about was really William Shatner having an argument with a director on the set, and it was related in a book about Star Trek, by someone who witnessed it.
So nope, nothing to do with global warming or climate change. Just an on-set dispute between an actor who really did know more than the director in this situation.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
Climate change and Star Trek. Interesting pairing.
J
J
CavLancer
This aint fertilizer
I'm asking on Yahoo answers, Valka. If this doesn't exist its Mandela effect because in my universe, it happened!
Yup Jay, pretty spacey stuff all around.
Yup Jay, pretty spacey stuff all around.
O-kay. Try this transcript site: http://www.chakoteya.net/StarTrek/I'm asking on Yahoo answers, Valka. If this doesn't exist its Mandela effect because in my universe, it happened!
Yup Jay, pretty spacey stuff all around.
Just do a search for the words you think you remember, and if you find them, let me know and I will sit corrected. But based on what you claimed were the words you remembered, I'm very sure that I'm right. Considering that I was holding the physical book in my hands when I typed my last post...
CavLancer
This aint fertilizer
Sure Valka, I don't consider the discussion a point of honor or such, just want to know. I can hear the phrase...'The icy cold of space'. I remember as a kid wondering if space is really cold. It either was in one of them or then its the Mandela effect. Not having this is not possible any other way. So, I wanna know you see.
If we entered a Maunder Minimum-like event and global temperatures plunged much more than expected for the reduction in energy, taking us back to something like the 20th century average, then it would absolutely shake my view that the Earth's climate system is at all well understood. It's not certain what this would mean, though: it actually could mean that the climate system has a very high sensitivity, so that small drops in the amount of energy we're absorbing cause large drops in temperature and small increases in the amount of energy we absorb cause larger-than-expected temperature increases. Basically I'd lose a lot of faith in the state of understanding of climate science, but that would make the future much more uncertain in both directions. I already have a healthy skepticism of climate models, but I do believe we know enough to know that anthropogenic global warming is:
1. Definitely a serious issue which will cause major disruptions around the globe, such as changes to precipitation patterns and sea level rise, but the seriousness would be reduced if we got a handle on our carbon emissions.
2. Not going to destroy modern civilization or drive us extinct, "just" make things a whole lot crappier.
Both of these things would come under some question if we had a Maunder Minimum and temperatures crashed far more than expected. High CO2 emissions would still be dangerous, it's just that we'd find out we have an even worse idea of what is going on than we thought we did.
Now CO2's infrared absorption spectrum is well-known, so we know that it traps infrared light radiating off the Earth and scatters some of it back to us, warming us like a blanket. The effect of this by itself is easy to calculate, and the result is fairly mild but still enough to cause trouble: 1.1-1.2 C/doubling of CO2. The question is about the feedbacks. As you might have heard, the #1 greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is water vapor with CO2 coming in second, so an increase in CO2 warms us up a bit, which causes more water vapor to enter the atmosphere, which then goes on to warm us more (probably at least as much as the original CO2). The melting of Arctic sea ice (replacing white ice with dark sea) adds in another positive feedback, as does the release of methane and more CO2 from melting permafrost, and then there are a couple more positive feedbacks. Then there are things that are really uncertain, like how clouds will respond and how the aerosol particles we emit along with the CO2 are affecting those clouds. The result is that, if we reach 560 ppm (double preindustrial levels), then we expect the planet to warm by about 3 C, with about two-thirds of this happening fairly quickly and another one-third coming in more slowly. But there's a lot of uncertainty around this number: plus or minus 1.5 C.
So what would make me think it's not as bad as we feared? Pretty simply, an unexpectedly slow warming trend that persisted for at least a couple of decades. It would have to last long enough to overcome natural variability: things like El Niño and volcanic eruptions, along with other patterns that are more poorly understood. There was a bit of a slowdown in the 2000s, but the past two years have been shockingly hot even given the 2015-16 El Niño, absolutely shattering global temperature records. It looks like we're on about the trajectory we expected at the moment, with the usual fluctuations against a background of steady temperature increase of about 0.2-0.25 C per decade.
CavLancer
This aint fertilizer
They are pretty quick, here is what came back..."Kang: I have captured your Engineering section, and now control the ship's power and life support systems. I have deprived all areas except our own. You will die of suffocation in the icy cold of space."
"Day of the Dove" Original Series. 1968
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0708427/quot...
http://www.chakoteya.net/StarTrek/66.htm
Source(s): Google search on "Star Trek the icy cold of space
CarolOklaNola · 15 secs ago
"Day of the Dove" Original Series. 1968
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0708427/quot...
http://www.chakoteya.net/StarTrek/66.htm
Source(s): Google search on "Star Trek the icy cold of space
CarolOklaNola · 15 secs ago
Ok
Still nothing to do with global warming. They weren't anywhere near Earth in that episode.
Okay, so it was Kang, in "Day of the Dove." I sit partially corrected.
Still nothing to do with global warming. They weren't anywhere near Earth in that episode.
CavLancer
This aint fertilizer
Well Boots, glad you have an open mind. I think we will get your decades, particularly if solar scientists know what they're about and cycle 25 flat lines. Then we shall see what we shall see I suppose.
Blah, global warming is a creation of an alien monstrosity bent on turning us against ourselves! In fact its getting cold and we will freeeze!
:
Ok
Okay, so it was Kang, in "Day of the Dove." I sit partially corrected.
Still nothing to do with global warming. They weren't anywhere near Earth in that episode.
Blah, global warming is a creation of an alien monstrosity bent on turning us against ourselves! In fact its getting cold and we will freeeze!
:
Last edited by a moderator:
stfoskey12
Emperor of Foskania
So much for Antarctic sea ice gains balancing out Arctic sea ice losses.
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...as-reached-a-record-low-should-we-be-worried/
Also, I don't think we're in a hiatus any more.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...as-reached-a-record-low-should-we-be-worried/
Also, I don't think we're in a hiatus any more.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php
The reason I prefer the term 'climate change' is because some places are getting warmer and other places are getting cooler.Blah, global warming is a creation of an alien monstrosity bent on turning us against ourselves! In fact its getting cold and we will freeeze!
The truth is that most of the winters we've had around here have been really mild compared to the ones I remember in the '60s and '70s. They tend to come earlier (winter's here for the duration, and has been for several weeks now), but other than the odd cold snap and a few blizzards, they're a lot drier than they were in the past. Some years we've had drought and forest fire warnings as early as March (which was the case this past winter). So when it does snow, I'm not one who complains - we need every flake.
CavLancer
This aint fertilizer
Yes, I remember well those winters though I was far to the south of you in Jersey. Lots of snow, plenty of moisture. That's one of the things that just doesn't compute, at least yet, about the decrease in solar magnetism. Its supposed to allow in more cosmic rays which through some process I haven't looked into helps create cloud cover which reflects solar energy back into space further cooling the planet. So the whole process of the decline in solar output has begun and cycle 24 which was a real under achiever is now in decline way ahead of schedule. If this theory is correct we should be seeing more cloud creation, which so far I haven't seen. However the science is still in its infancy and the contrary nature of humanity makes the whole thing political and science goes out the door. Bad vibes as they say. I just want to know.
In history we had Maunder, whose thing was counting sunspots. Few sunspots and it gets cold, okay got that. Next solar cycle is set to be Maunderesque, seems simple enough, it will be cold. Lots of snow, abundant moisture. Then we have what, a couple hundred parts per million...m i l l i o n...of CO2, put out by humans, you and me, and that's going to kill Polar bears? Its going to melt ice caps? 200 in 1,000,000? Get a life scientists, find a real job. The only way to really discover who is right or wrong is in the real (for this purpose) world and a handy maunder is coming along to settle this, if all the human BS can be overcome and reality emerge. That is to say if its cold and they inevitably fudge the #s and blame the cold on warming, that people finally say, no, ef off. Or, if the minimum comes and temps don't fall, well then those 200 parts are over achievers. Remember that this Earth has seen CO2 250 times current levels and that's what it took to reverse the Snowball Earth and melt the ice at the equator. So I don't see 200 ppm as all that much really. Might be wrong, time will tell.
In history we had Maunder, whose thing was counting sunspots. Few sunspots and it gets cold, okay got that. Next solar cycle is set to be Maunderesque, seems simple enough, it will be cold. Lots of snow, abundant moisture. Then we have what, a couple hundred parts per million...m i l l i o n...of CO2, put out by humans, you and me, and that's going to kill Polar bears? Its going to melt ice caps? 200 in 1,000,000? Get a life scientists, find a real job. The only way to really discover who is right or wrong is in the real (for this purpose) world and a handy maunder is coming along to settle this, if all the human BS can be overcome and reality emerge. That is to say if its cold and they inevitably fudge the #s and blame the cold on warming, that people finally say, no, ef off. Or, if the minimum comes and temps don't fall, well then those 200 parts are over achievers. Remember that this Earth has seen CO2 250 times current levels and that's what it took to reverse the Snowball Earth and melt the ice at the equator. So I don't see 200 ppm as all that much really. Might be wrong, time will tell.
Polar bears are pretty unimportant in the grand scheme of things. I mean they are an apex predator, which is a pretty crucial ecological niche, but in general they're an example of our tendency to care about a few large mammals and ignore everything else. Whatever the short term trends in polar bear numbers, the Arctic ecosystem will shrink and may collapse entirely at some point, barring perhaps little refugia near the Greenland Ice Sheet which will take centuries to melt, or in occasional highland areas. Of course the Arctic will change into something else - probably a northern extension of the taiga. It is cool to imagine taiga creatures wandering around in an immature forest in a recently deglaciated part of southern Greenland in a few decades. We are entering a time of great change and flux and it will be interesting albeit not pleasant.
CavLancer
This aint fertilizer
I wonder about the not pleasant. Certainly its been warmer and its been cooler. Are we at the absolute best temp right now? What about the CO2? Is it perfect now or before or possibly in a few year? What is the optimum for green stuff? If we could geoengineer a planet I wonder what the goals would be. Regarding melting ice, I doubt that can go on too much longer in spite of all the hot air from dramatic sorts. As I've said, we are 11,500 years into a cycle which averages perhaps 11,000. Now that's an average, and some are shorter and some are longer but the Holocene is going to end someday and then the ice will do just fine, it did last time. It will have roughly 90,000 years to run amok. Last time it scoured out the Great Lakes and put hundreds of meters of ice iover Chicago or, further south tens of meters of ice over NYC. Don't cry for the ice, it will do just fine. 
Similar threads
