Global Warming. Fact or Fiction?

Post Reply New Topic

When is the solar minimum expected to end?

working backwards:

wrt solar minimum:
we're supposed to start seeing more solar activity any time now. This solar minimum has already been unusually long.

wrt. polar bears:
the population got down to 5K because they were being shot by the thousands by trophy hunters, you moron. The population rebounded because the countries with polar bear populations stopped allowing trophy hunters to go shoot them for giggles.

wrt. CO2: Yes, a hell of a lot of things put out CO2. The problem is that, normally, the CO2 output of all of the heterotrophs on the planet is recycled into the carbon cycle and stored in woody debris and under the earth, and some of it later becomes coal, oil, gas, diamonds, etc. By burning fossil fuel, we are taking billions of years worth of stored CO2 and releasing it into the atmosphere all at once. This is BASIC, people. Basic biology, basic geology. High-school level. Please stop being deliberately obtuse.

Very much a spectrum question. As beings we automatically influence and are influenced by our environments. Our environment should be a priority. Global warming is a way of activating the populous. Part truth, part manufactured. Back in the '60s the movers and shakers wrote a plan and decided that it would be the new motivation because the masses were falling out of the grip of religion. How was the world to get along without a common focus? The environment is something that affects everyone. It changes, we change it; some people abuse it, some people help it; to a great extend it will live without us and is controlled by forced oustide of our sphere of influence. Global Warming, Shifting Poles, Does it matter? Just get out there and do something, anything - but don't forget it affects others and others affect you.

So the shift to solar min/max are rapid things?

Generally it follow a 11 years cycle, but for some unknow reasons it get out for his usual cycle.There had been a resgistred minimum of 75 years between 1645 and 1715 (there knew by counting solar spots) know as Maunder minimum. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum So the low activitie can be quite long, or not... No one really know how much time the sun will stay to his minimum.

Thanks, Understood. Now is the transition a rapid thing or a gentle curve? Is there a persistent solar median or does it toggle between extremes? All I hear is solar maximum/solar minimum, like there is no long term average. Does it flip between extremes?

The world we live in:
Fact or fiction?

the question makes no sense. what theyre debating is wether its man made or not. the climatic changes are extreme and measurable. glaciers in norway has receded w hundreds of metres in the past decade.

During the Midieval Warming Period, Greenland was green. People could farm it and raise cattle there.

The ice has come and gone many times.

ruveyn

i voted "something in between"

whether or not global warming is exaggerated is irrelevant since it is merely a symptom of the greater ill of pollution. i have never heard anyone argue that pollution is not a problem.

for example, follow this link

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 180747.htm

all that plastic dissolves into the water and winds up in our food too.

The pattern is basically a sine wave, and the transitions look like they can take as little as a couple of years between full minimum and full maximum or as much as seven years, based only on the last several cycles.

[img][650:480]http://www.astrosurf.com/luxorion/Radio/solar-cycle-19-23.gif[/img]

Last edited by LKL on 23 May 2010, 1:22 am, edited 1 time in total.

But rarely as fast as is currently occurring, and never in contradiction of what the sun and planet would normally be producing.

I miss the option "I honestly have no clue".

Sometimes the climate gets warmer. Sometime the climate gets colder. It has yet to be established that our industrial practices are the sole or even the major cause of the recent era of warming that has existed since the end of the Little Ice Age (circa 1800 c.e.).

ruveyn

It has been established to the satisfaction of pretty much all of the climate scientists who aren't being paid by fossil fuel industries, with about the same level of certainty that smoking was established as an addictive carcinogen despite industry scientists claiming that it wasn't.

These climatologists are also doing junk science They are being stroked and rewarded by the politicians who just love an "emergency" to pass more unnecessary laws.

ruveyn

Science is measured for quality by whether or not the results are replicable and whether or not the studies pass peer review. Climate scientists who support the theory of anthropogenic global warming are doing extremely replicable science and are being published in Science and Nature, the two most prestigious peer-reviewed science journals on the planet. They are, in fact, being demonized by politicians and even fired from government jobs for failing to toe the 'global warming is not a problem' government line, or having their data altered by administration-appointed hacks with no scientific background.
minders limiting press contact
policy statements that contradict scientists' researchstifling publication of pro-warming data
ignoring dissent that contradicts extraction industry claims
ignoring the reports of its own agenciesalteration or stagnation of government climate websites
belittling scientists who support anthropogenic warmingclimate scientists experience more interference than others
ignoring the danger of global warming
censoring articles written on scientists' private timerequiring government minders at press appearances of climate scientists
removing Earth from NASA's mission
cancelling publication of previously uncontroversial publications
altering scientific reports
threatening climate scientists with 'dire consequences' for speaking out
exaggerating the negative impact of greenhouse gas regulation on jobs
prohibiting the use of the phrase 'climate change' or the word 'kyoto' by U.S. representatives at a carbon conference
withholding report on fuel efficiency

that's pretty much all Bush II stuff, but don't forget that Obama wants to build new coal-fired power plants (note that 'clean coal' does not exist, so it's just 'coal.'), open up oil shales and use hydrofracking, expand off-shore drilling, etc. Also don't forget that it was the Obama administration that approved the deep water horizon platform with a categorical exclusion from requiring an environmental impact review, and the Obama administration that failed to commit the U.S. to enough greenhouse gas reductions to have a significant impact at Copenhagan.