U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-05-2016, 11:34 PM
 
Location: Not far from Fairbanks, AK
15,313 posts, read 24,076,473 times
Reputation: 10737

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora View Post
Yo need to realize that journalists in these online "science" magazines twist the heck out of the real stories. Which is why it's always best to get your hands on the actual published paper and read it for yourself.

Here is what she apparently said before the science journalists of UPI translated it into Moranese, the lingua franca of the Mooniverse and Murdochland:




Finally, the Washington Post weighs in with an article that lays the controversy to rest. A reporter who took the trouble to get comment from climate scientists.

No, Earth is not heading toward a ‘mini ice age’

Zharkova refuses to say whether or not she is a climate change denier. No word about whether or not she believes in evolution.
I am not talking about a specific scientist, but about the scientists in the article, and my point is as follows (again): I can only assume that the scientists talked about in the article performed their own research as a base for their decision relating to the possibility of an upcoming global cooling.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-06-2016, 12:59 AM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 °N, 🌄°W
7,178 posts, read 2,397,923 times
Reputation: 4223
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayinAK View Post
I am not talking about a specific scientist, but about the scientists in the article, and my point is as follows (again): I can only assume that the scientists talked about in the article performed their own research as a base for their decision relating to the possibility of an upcoming global cooling.
If you read the actual paper written by Popova you will find that the paper was misconstrued and misrepresented by the online journal mag that wrote about her paper. This happens 99% of the time with online science mags. Don't ever trust them as a source. Always go directly to the actual study or published paper. Once you do this you will see how off the online science mags are. I posted several posts explaining this over and over. I posted the Abstract for this very reason to show what the focus of the study was about.

Here I will make it easy for you and post the actual study.

Principal component analysis of background and sunspot magnetic field variations during solar cycles 21-23


Click on the box that say's Read Full Text.

Last edited by Matadora; 12-06-2016 at 01:40 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2016, 09:21 PM
 
422 posts, read 424,455 times
Reputation: 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora View Post
Little ice age’ headlines are misleading



Be careful what you read out there.
Thank you for bringing up the point I want to make.

BUT we do have facts that we all can all agree upon.

All sun(s) die.

Earth was a rock most of its life before it got water.

Time in this universe is moving forward and we have not found ways to stop it or reverse it.

Most life on earth need both O2 and CO2.

...

Google site:city-data.com k81689
Ctrl-F k81689

What should we do if the sun is dying and will be dead dead in houndreds years?

Is terraforming moons and other planets even possible? If it is it needs to be the fast-tracked for our survival

How little we know about Earths climate yet we want to "fix it"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2016, 09:27 PM
 
Location: Not far from Fairbanks, AK
15,313 posts, read 24,076,473 times
Reputation: 10737
Matadora,

If you have read the full text, then you would not have missed the "4. Conclusion," nor the outlines of the transcripts (boxes with blue text), all which indicate that the globe is due for another period of global cooling because of a decrease in solar activity. It is also explained by the scientists that this period of decreased solar activity, approximates a past period of global cooling and reduced solar activity.

Last edited by RayinAK; 12-06-2016 at 10:12 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2016, 10:07 AM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 °N, 🌄°W
7,178 posts, read 2,397,923 times
Reputation: 4223
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayinAK View Post
Matadora,

If you have read the full text, then you would not have missed the "4. Conclusion," nor the outlines of the transcripts (boxes with blue text), all which indicate that the globe is due for another period of global cooling because of a decrease in solar activity. It is also explained by the scientists that this period of decreased solar activity, approximates a past period of global cooling and reduced solar activity.
Yes I read the full text including the conclusions, which did not state what the news article that you kept harping on stated.

No, they DIDN’T say “there will be a mini ice age”. 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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2016, 10:14 AM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 °N, 🌄°W
7,178 posts, read 2,397,923 times
Reputation: 4223
Quote:
Originally Posted by k81689 View Post
Thank you for bringing up the point I want to make.

BUT we do have facts that we all can all agree upon.

All sun(s) die.

Earth was a rock most of its life before it got water.

Time in this universe is moving forward and we have not found ways to stop it or reverse it.

Most life on earth need both O2 and CO2.
Of course but you seem to not get that naturally produced CO2 levels had remained at pretty constant levels for roughly 800,000 years with a few dips here and there.

However we see the introduction of human produced CO2 starting roughly with the industrial revolution up through today. The CO2 that nature emits (from the ocean and vegetation) is balanced by natural absorption's (again by the ocean and vegetation). Therefore human emissions upset the natural balance, rising CO2 to levels not seen in at least 800,000 years.

In fact, humans emit 26 gigatonnes of CO2 per year while CO2 in the atmosphere is rising by only 15 gigatonnes per year - much of human CO2 emissions is being absorbed by natural sinks.

That's the BIG point that you're missing. Look at what happened to Venus. Don't think this planet is immune to a runaway greenhouse effect as what we see on Venus.

Runaway greenhouse effect
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2016, 08:29 AM
 
165 posts, read 173,345 times
Reputation: 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Regima View Post
Climate change may be escalating so fast it could be 'game over', scientists warn | The Independent
We seem to be near ending up in a loop, a chain-effect, as cannot be stopped, when it gets warmer and more emissions gets up so it will be warmer and so on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josseppie View Post
We have till 2035 to get off fossil fuels and that is plenty of time. [...] The link: Report: We Only Have Until 2035 to Get Rid of Gasoline Engines
Quote:
Originally Posted by The5thOfNovemner View Post
There is a bigger issue there, human population is increasing, and so is related pollution. In nature all creatures have population control, we seem to bypass ours with science and technology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stockwiz View Post
Throw in the fact that all these third world nations are going to start industrializing, and it's a recipe for disaster, really. We need investment in clean tech and we need it fast, in my opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LKJ1988 View Post
It is too late. My Snowball effect is already taking place that i have talked about for years. Within 30 years there will be no more winters in my part of FL as the planet will see rapid warming. Just the last 10 years alone should tell anyone it is too late.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora View Post
Don't think this planet is immune to a runaway greenhouse effect as what we see on Venus.
Runaway greenhouse effect
I address all these points in broad detail in my recent thread: Why I think humanity will probably exist for millions of years, part 1: global warming
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2016, 03:29 PM
 
32,712 posts, read 32,414,636 times
Reputation: 12760
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora View Post
No I actually do my homework and research.

I also don't dismiss the consensus among Academies of Science from 80 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.

The 97% consensus on global warming

So if we take the Doran study which is the only one that actually attempted to poll scientists what number of scientists does this 97% represent?

If you are geologist studying ancient clinate are you climate scientist?


Would you like to discuss the issues with that study? Specifically the wording of question 2 that was designed to illicit a specific response.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2016, 06:26 PM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 °N, 🌄°W
7,178 posts, read 2,397,923 times
Reputation: 4223
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
So if we take the Doran study which is the only one that actually attempted to poll scientists what number of scientists does this 97% represent?
Sure let's discuss that study.

This paper (Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009), is an abridged version of the Zimmerman 2008 MS thesis; the full methods are in the MS thesis.

MS thesis

A web-based poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman of the Earth and Environmental Sciences department, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists.

The survey was designed to take less than two minutes to complete. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization.
  • Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures had generally risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature.
  • 76 out of the 79 respondents who "listed climate science as their area of expertise, and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change", thought that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels.
  • Of those 79 scientists, 75 out of the 77 answered that human activity was a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures, a sample size which would result in a margin of error of 11 percentage points.

The remaining two were not asked, because in question one they responded that temperatures had remained relatively constant.

Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent respectively thinking that human activity was a significant contributing factor.

In summary, Doran and Zimmerman wrote:
Quote:
It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.
Yea right!
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
If you are geologist studying ancient climate are you climate scientist?
Depends on how you define climate scientist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
Would you like to discuss the issues with that study? Specifically the wording of question 2 that was designed to illicit a specific response.
Perhaps you should comb through this first and then let's hold that discussion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2016, 08:06 PM
 
Location: SE Alaska
1,822 posts, read 756,327 times
Reputation: 1499
5 years ago a Stanford study concluded this transition could be done fairly quickly. The world can be powered by alternative energy in 20-40 years, Stanford researcher says
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $99,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top