Global warming strikes again...

[Synobun]

If it goes to cold then people will be looking for answers, and that list you posted will be scrutinized for fallacy.

what

 

[CavLancer]

huh

 

[onejayhawk]

Why is eliminating it in the next 10 years over the top?

Do you mean that from the perspective of accomplishing it politically, or are you against the idea for other reasons?

I already said a timeline on the order of a century was appropriate. Ten years is a full order difference, hence over the top.

No. I mean 100 years as a reasonable target. Even then, you need to deal with coal and shale gasification. That is a viable alternative in my book. Indefinitely continued use of methane is a given. On the flip side of the coin, new power plants and new refineries are valid objectives. They are currently impossible in much of USA.

J

 

[Synobun]

huh

A cold winter wouldn't change that list. I don't know why you think it would?

I already said a timeline on the order of a century was appropriate. Ten years is a full order difference, hence over the top.

No. I mean 100 years as a reasonable target. Even then, you need to deal with coal and shale gasification. That is a viable alternative in my book. Indefinitely continued use of methane is a given. On the flip side of the coin, new power plants and new refineries are valid objectives. They are currently impossible in much of USA.

J

I'm afraid I'm a bit confused. If you're not against the idea politically, why would you be against it being phased out within 10 years? You're keen on it being phased out eventually... why not sooner if it's possible? Why is sooner "inappropriate"? I don't think energy transitioning is held to the same standard as the age of consent.

 

[carlosMM]

Here, I searched 'solar cycle cooling for you. Yup Goodnuf, that's the thing, right there.

"That" is nothing. I can google thngs myself, but how am I to tell which of the millions of hits contains what you mean?

Actually, this has been a typical drive-by-posting by a denier: make a claim, fail to back it up, blame the other side.

Is it fact? Some is. I hope the coming winter and spring will expose the cooking of the books.

cooking of the books? Any evidence? Or is this another drive-by-posting?

If it goes to cold then people will be looking for answers, and that list you posted will be scrutinized for fallacy. Remember that this thread is founded on what I expect to happen. I'm either right or wrong, time will tell, and not too much time.

https://www.google.com/search?q=sol...firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&ei=QGA_WPS7OMOA2QSV34n4AQ

You are wrong, and you fail to bring any evidence supporting your "predictions" and claims. Pretty telling.....

 

[carlosMM]

No. I mean 100 years as a reasonable target.

We do not have 100 years if we wish to preserve a semblance of the current agricultural map of the world. Already, so much warming is irrevocably in the system that we can expect vicious wars over water and food. Actually, we already see climate change playing a role in wars.

 

[warpus]

Do you mean making NASA about putting people in space again? Space habitats, asteroid mining, vacuum and zero G industry, a mission other than servicing a political agenda, that sort of great?

Never mind. I see you think NASA is already a waste of money. As things sit, you may be right.

J

No, it was just a sarcastic comment about how the American president (elect) is saying he wants to make America great (again?) but instead of increasing funding to NASA to help make that happen he is slashing it instead.

 

[onejayhawk]

No, it was just a sarcastic comment about how the American president (elect) is saying he wants to make America great (again?) but instead of increasing funding to NASA to help make that happen he is slashing it instead.

It has already been noted that there is a wide disconnect between climate science and political agendas. NASA was patronized by a political agenda, not by climate science. That patron is now destitute. Perhaps NASA can get back to doing what they were supposed to do all along.

J

 

[warpus]

Yeah I'm sure that now with Trump in charge NASA is going to shift their focus to climate change.

What?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I don't know where I stand on this, honestly. Something tells me the earth has, before, warmed at a rapid rate in select instances, during inter-glacial periods. Maybe it was a bad series of natural events, maybe we, in essence, are a bad series of natural events. It's more important, in any event, to acknowledge the warming trend is happening and work to improve likelihood of human survivors.

You still need something actionable. It's eventually almost guaranteed, billions of years from now, that the planet will get so hot that nothing humans can do can possibly prevent it from cooking every living thing remaining out of existence. Reducing emissions of basically anything won't matter at that point, assuming we as a species even made it that long.

So the reason for warming matters. If we're going Venus status "naturally" and can't offset the trend, we're screwed no matter what we do. If we know for a fact that CO2 emissions are the primary cause and are sufficiently threatening to humanity's future existence, then our choices should be different than if we instead identify another greenhouse gas as more important, or identify another controllable source.

You can also lose sight even within one problem, for example let's say that CO2 were the ONLY factor influencing warming at all, for simplicity. You would be equally interested in reducing emissions as you would increasing processes that remove it. Deforestation would be worth more attention then, and if it's really serious maybe even forcing the process artificially.

According to quantum physics none of anything is actually real so it will fit right in won't it?

Quantum physics does not say much for our conception of reality. You see people consider it separately from physics in general, which isn't a very good representation of reality .

 

[CavLancer]

"That" is nothing. I can google thngs myself, but how am I to tell which of the millions of hits contains what you mean?

Educate yourself on the matter, like I did. Its good you can google, congrats. I cannot possible provide a simple pat answer, there's too much there.

Actually, this has been a typical drive-by-posting by a denier: make a claim, fail to back it up, blame the other side.

There is loads of substantiating info just in that first page of googling. Feel free to explore it, or don't. Certainly I have led you to water, its your choice whether you drink.


cooking of the books? Any evidence? Or is this another drive-by-posting?

The AGW types deny it and you can point to their denials so I won't even bother. This is in the camp of 'my guys are correct, yours are despicable arseholes, based more on politics than anything else. An outside non biased observer cannot come to any other conclusion than the BS is rising much faster than ocean levels.


You are wrong, and you fail to bring any evidence supporting your "predictions" and claims. Pretty telling.....

Been telling you, get into the info I linked to. Again, drink.

 

[Lexicus]

Perhaps NASA can get back to doing what they were supposed to do all along.

J

Ignore climate change so you can more easily pretend it doesn't exist?

 

[Michkov]

Been telling you, get into the info I linked to. Again, drink.

Please standby while we are read through the ~362k results.

 

[Hygro]

Ok I read all the results. Global warming is real and a big deal.

 

[Lexicus]

Have to admit it's been years since I last saw the 'solar cycle' argument.

 

[onejayhawk]

Yeah I'm sure that now with Trump in charge NASA is going to shift their focus to climate change.

What?

WTF? Seriously, what are you talking about? The focus already is on climate change. That's what will change.

J

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

lolololololololol

 

[Lexicus]

WTF? Seriously, what are you talking about? The focus already is on climate change. That's what will change.

J

What are you talking about? You're the one claiming NASA's research is somehow politicized, but as usual you provide no details or substantiation.

 

[KMRblue1027]

What are you talking about? You're the one claiming NASA's research is somehow politicized, but as usual you provide no details or substantiation.

Because simply saying that climate change is a thing is too political for some people. You can't appease that kinda willful ignorance.

 

[warpus]

I mean, Breitbart is the news media equivalent of a mentally handicapped otter