Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[stevensuf]

Adoxgraph, its not the 1-3w less energy, its the lack of ionised particles that stop comsic rays entering the upper atmosphere, which seed clouds. All past solar minimums have been linked to decreased global temperatures greater than expected for the small reduction in solar output.

I recently read a study which suggested that the sun is declining in activity faster than any time in the last 10k years or so, we recently had a grand maximum(coinciding with a warm planet) and are quite possibly heading for a grand minimum .

[adoxograph]

Originally Posted by Celestialsailor

In other words continue down the road we're on. Yup...guess that's a solution.

It kind of is. Earth is a self regulating system calibrated on equilibrium. Ok this may result in no humans anymore, but who really cares - besides humans I mean?

Let me ask you, when did political solutions ever work?

The only feasible solution is a economical one. Convince everyone that there is lots of money to be made in renewable energy investment and off we go. As long everyone is crying "Bohooooooooo, look at the cost of Paris" we go nowhere.

But imagine what would have happened if they would phrased it in a way that there are trillions of profit offsetting the rather low cost to the economy. And think about the high level jobs crated by developing technologies saving the planet.

It's all about the spin.

But as I said before politics and science do not mix because of the hidden agendas in politics.

That is the reason I stay out of discussions about politics and do not even look at the oxymoron called "political solutions".

Btw. there is a lot of money in so called green tech and many rich boys like Gates are jumping on that band wagon. Interestingly they publicise that fact rather sparsely.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Celestialsailor

In other words continue down the road we're on. Yup...guess that's a solution.

Your definition of "adapt" must differ from mine.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

It kind of is. Earth is a self regulating system calibrated on equilibrium. Ok this may result in no humans anymore, but who really cares - besides humans I mean?

Let me ask you, when did political solutions ever work?

The only feasible solution is a economical one. Convince everyone that there is lots of money to be made in renewable energy investment and off we go. As long everyone is crying "Bohooooooooo, look at the cost of Paris" we go nowhere.

But imagine what would have happened if they would phrased it in a way that there are trillions of profit offsetting the rather low cost to the economy. And think about the high level jobs crated by developing technologies saving the planet.

It's all about the spin.

But as I said before politics and science do not mix because of the hidden agendas in politics.

That is the reason I stay out of discussions about politics and do not even look at the oxymoron called "political solutions".

Btw. there is a lot of money in so called green tech and many rich boys like Gates are jumping on that band wagon. Interestingly they publicise that fact rather sparsely.

I've always said..."perhaps it's just our turn for extinction". I never thought a species could be so arrogant, self absorbed and well, stupid. But from these 4500+ posts, it would seem so.
Our political leaders squawk solutions on one hand while the other is extended behind their backs taking contributions and lets just call it as it is...bribes. So I agree with an economic solution...perhaps gas credits. Much like my electric bill is. If I go over a certain amount of electricity, I'm bumped in a higher rate. I'm sure our deniers with scream about that suggestion.
If you want to help a political solution...maybe make lobbying illegal.

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Your definition of "adapt" must differ from mine.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

I would say a lot of my definitions may be different from yours. That's ok, to each their own.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Celestialsailor

I've always said..."perhaps it's just our turn for extinction". I never thought a species could be so arrogant, self absorbed and well, stupid. But from these 4500+ posts, it would seem so.
Our political leaders squawk solutions on one hand while the other is extended behind their backs taking contributions and lets just call it as it is...bribes. So I agree with an economic solution...perhaps gas credits. Much like my electric bill is. If I go over a certain amount of electricity, I'm bumped in a higher rate. I'm sure our deniers with scream about that suggestion.
If you want to help a political solution...maybe make lobbying illegal.

Species don't become extinct because they're arrogant or stupid. They become extinct because they fail to adapt.

The one constant in the universe is the speed of light. Everything else is inn constant flux. No reason to expect climate to be any different whether natural or anthropogenic.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

It's all about the spin.

Sure it is. Reality doesn't matter anymore.

That's how we got Obamacare and the Iran nuclear "agreement."

[adoxograph]

Originally Posted by stevensuf

Adoxgraph, its not the 1-3w less energy, its the lack of ionised particles that stop comsic rays entering the upper atmosphere, which seed clouds.

Yes Dr. Henrik Svensmark (1997). I would ask you to read (Laken et al. 2012; Lockwood 2012 and Sloan and Wolfendale 2013) to get a better picture. However one thing is true; the Svensmark debate is not entirely resolved yet even it is clear that the predicted impact was highly exaggerated. I guess you know of CLOUD in Cern?

Originally Posted by stevensuf

All past solar minimums have been linked to decreased global temperatures greater than expected for the small reduction in solar output.

Yeah well. Let me point you to another paper explaining why this comparison is flawed. (G. S. Jones, M. Lockwood, and P. A. Stott 2012)

Let me put it that way. The whole subject is poorly understood and everything but conclusive. But then again I'm not a climate scientist and not up-to-date with the status of research in this field.

Originally Posted by stevensuf

I recently read a study which suggested that the sun is declining in activity faster than any time in the last 10k years or so, we recently had a grand maximum(coinciding with a warm planet) and are quite possibly heading for a grand minimum.

This on the other hand is my field and I have not heard that before. Could you point me to this study?

[adoxograph]

Originally Posted by fryewe

Sure it is. Reality doesn't matter anymore.

That's how we got Obamacare and the Iran nuclear "agreement."

What do you mean when you say "anymore"? When did realty ever matter in politics?

When I was growing up The USSR was the master of spin. No offense but now American politics has become the textbook example of spin no matter if you look left or right. I think any US residence can provide a very comprehensive list. I'm not saying that other countries are better. Just look at Turnbull and Shorten here in Australia.

Politics is per definition the business of deception, corruption and lies no matter what side you are looking at.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Ah, but that is not what you initially wrote. Unless you are once again mashing together the concept of climate change with the cause of climate change. Since you have trouble with the honest use of words as does apparently Mr. F., let me clarify the terminology for you. Climate change happens. In the short term it is called weather. In the long term it is called climate change and no one doubts it has been happening for eons. You accused Newhaul of denying climate change, which if you believe is the case, then you a sick man.

Anthropogenic global warming is the concept that the 12 molecules out of every million molecules of atmospheric gas are magical and are responsible for climate change. That is a highly suspicious pseudo scientific concept that is currently under serious attack by gathering mountains of contrary data. You apparently believe in that scam, and just as I deny that I am Napoleon, I deny the similar delusion of AGW.

Clear now?

Hah. I thought you'd go there.

Everyone and his dog knows that the climate has changed and will change. It's also pretty common usage to refer to this issue around AGW as "climate change"; only a pedant would misinterpret what's meant by "climate change denier". But since you're that one, please take as given that I meant AGW denier.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Everything in life is about politics...the sooner you realize and start seeing the spin and propaganda the sooner you can set yourself free.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by mr_f

Since you are still having trouble understanding what portion of the increase in atmospheric CO2 is attributable to humans, I don't think you are in a good place to be making projections. But I do enjoy the continued childish insults. Keep 'em coming.

You need to have the IPCC data posted that supports the fact that 3% of carbon emissions are human caused, or would you like to continue to pretend otherwise? I'm fine with that, by the way, as I don't like to startle the deluded. Never know what they'll do if upset. So let me know if you're ready for reality yet.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by stevensuf

Adoxgraph, its not the 1-3w less energy, its the lack of ionised particles that stop comsic rays entering the upper atmosphere, which seed clouds. All past solar minimums have been linked to decreased global temperatures greater than expected for the small reduction in solar output.

I recently read a study which suggested that the sun is declining in activity faster than any time in the last 10k years or so, we recently had a grand maximum(coinciding with a warm planet) and are quite possibly heading for a grand minimum .

Still unknown, but the evidence does appear to be growing that such a minimum is more likely than not. A real bummer, if so.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Species don't become extinct because they're arrogant or stupid.

FTFY. Stupid kills.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

Yes Dr. Henrik Svensmark (1997). I would ask you to read (Laken et al. 2012; Lockwood 2012 and Sloan and Wolfendale 2013) to get a better picture. However one thing is true; the Svensmark debate is not entirely resolved yet even it is clear that the predicted impact was highly exaggerated. I guess you know of CLOUD in Cern?



Yeah well. Let me point you to another paper explaining why this comparison is flawed. (G. S. Jones, M. Lockwood, and P. A. Stott 2012)

Let me put it that way. The whole subject is poorly understood and everything but conclusive. But then again I'm not a climate scientist and not up-to-date with the status of research in this field.



This on the other hand is my field and I have not heard that before. Could you point me to this study?

Here is the synopsis with a link to the complete PDF
https://nextgrandminimum.wordpress.c...grand-minimum/