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.
Bingo! Also consider this...we find animal fossils all over the Florida penninsula such as sharks teeth which suggest ALL of Florida was once under water, and now its not. So, oceans levels have risen and fallen before humans became civilized and started burning fossil fuels. It's a natural cycle, same with temps.
That having been said, I still have reduced my carbon footprint by 1/2 just in case. If everyone would do the same, it can't hurt. If nothing else, we'd be at least conserving resources.
And I've read this article and several like it. In NONE of them did NASA nor any of its researchers predict a mini ice age. The last few paragraphs of your linked article even dismiss the potential for a mini ice age given the global warming associated with the annual 35 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel burning that accumulate in the atmosphere each year. You, typically, ignored the comments at the end of the article of Michael Brown, a professor of astronomy at Australia's Monash University, explaining how man-made climate change would overwhelm any cooling associated with an extended solar minimum cycle.
This article explains how even an extended period of low solar radiation would only, in itself, cool the planet by several tenths of a Fahrenheit degree. It would be more than offset by continued warming due to man-made climate change, including negative feedback loops, such as increased methane releases due to thawing of frozen methane deposits.
In contrast to your speculation of a mini ice age, NASA continues to report global warming associated with carbon dioxide emissions. Click on vital signs, such as global temperature, here:
At the global temperature page, check out the time series beginning in 1975 and moving towards 2017. It will help anybody understand why wildfires are becoming more prevalent in the U.S. West, and also demonstrate how much Florida and the rest of the U.S. has warmed, but to a lesser degree than in the U.S. West.
All of these recent stories speculating about a mini ice age resulted from comments made by Martin Mlynczak, the NASA senior scientist who made the comments in regard to the impact of a cooling, contracting thermosphere on low-altitude earth-orbiting satellites and space junk.
Without interviewing Mlynczak, or anybody at NASA, these news outlets in typical Fox News hype journalism fashion, suggested the possibility of a mini ice age.
A bigger concern is what will happen if the sun does NOT enter an extended minimal period of solar radiation, and instead radiation intensifies as the sun enters a new cycle of activity, as it has for centuries? If normality prevails, global warming actually will be accelerated by increased solar radiation.
See the Thermosphere Climate Index and solar cycle 24 in this article, as well as a detailed explanation of Mlynczak's comments.
The fact is that NASA says that the earth continues to warm due to higher carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. As of yet, NASA isn't emphasizing the impact of increasing methane levels in the atmosphere.
Most seriously, any cooling of the planet would not stop the continuing acidification of the oceans if fossil fuel consumption continued unchecked. How does anybody with a modicum of scientific understanding and any concern for future generations, totally ignore ocean acidification? Do you care nothing about the destruction of ocean marine life and even the phytoplankton which produce the majority of the world's oxygen?
I think it is far more instructive to consider that the earliest inhabitants of Florida came here about 10-12,000 years ago when the peninsula was about double its current width. Since that time, any settlements near the shore have been long lost to the sea. Now, THAT is real ocean level rise and it had absolutely nothing to do with man.
A favorite piece of man-made climate change science denier "Big Lie" propaganda is to confuse the impact of man-made climate change over just several decades with natural processes that took place thousands of years or eons ago.
No, I'm saying that there's sufficient evidence that climate scientists see that there's a statistical correlation between the dramatic rise in greenhouse gasses and increased planetary temperatures as calculated. 97% of climate scientists believe that there's a cause and effect in the correlation. There is not universal agreement (as many like to pretend) on the extent to which increased greenhouse gases play a role and there is not universal agreement on the outcome of these temperature increases. (See Judith Curry)
Furthermore, the premise of all climate change debate is that we can reverse temperature increases by reducing greenhouse emissions but that is nothing more than a logical guess. No one knows for certain that we have any ability to impact the changes we see. So, while I think it is prudent to do what we can, I also don't think that the Paris Accord was worth a damn and it was the right thing to do to pull out of it. I also am not so myopic as to look at only a couple of hundred years (or 10,000 or 100,000) and take that to be a meaningful sample of a trend when we are dealing with scales of millions of years. For all we know, the temperature change over the past couple hundred years is literally just a tiny jagged line among the millions of tiny jagged lines we see in graphs that cover data points over much larger scales.
Rising seas (as they have risen and fallen over millenia), climate changes that affect rainfall and crops (as have happened over millenia), and all the other related phenomena, are obviously of concern. I just have my doubts about our ability to "manage" planetary changes and I certainly have my doubts about the motivations of so-called fixes that involve transfers of wealth, especially when they allow the worst polluters off the hook. That has nothing to do with science, anyway....it's just a scam.
No, I'm saying that there's sufficient evidence that climate scientists see that there's a statistical correlation between the dramatic rise in greenhouse gasses and increased planetary temperatures as calculated. 97% of climate scientists believe that there's a cause and effect in the correlation. There is not universal agreement (as many like to pretend) on the extent to which increased greenhouse gases play a role and there is not universal agreement on the outcome of these temperature increases. (See Judith Curry)
Furthermore, the premise of all climate change debate is that we can reverse temperature increases by reducing greenhouse emissions but that is nothing more than a logical guess. No one knows for certain that we have any ability to impact the changes we see. So, while I think it is prudent to do what we can, I also don't think that the Paris Accord was worth a damn and it was the right thing to do to pull out of it. I also am not so myopic as to look at only a couple of hundred years (or 10,000 or 100,000) and take that to be a meaningful sample of a trend when we are dealing with scales of millions of years. For all we know, the temperature change over the past couple hundred years is literally just a tiny jagged line among the millions of tiny jagged lines we see in graphs that cover data points over much larger scales.
Rising seas (as they have risen and fallen over millenia), climate changes that affect rainfall and crops (as have happened over millenia), and all the other related phenomena, are obviously of concern. I just have my doubts about our ability to "manage" planetary changes and I certainly have my doubts about the motivations of so-called fixes that involve transfers of wealth, especially when they allow the worst polluters off the hook. That has nothing to do with science, anyway....it's just a scam.
I don't have time to rebut every man-made climate change science denier who posts on the C-D forum.
Any person can read through the several C-D Florida forums that discuss man-made climate change science and make up their own mind.
I would urge anybody to be highly suspicious of any posts that substantiate nothing and just expresses the poster's opinions, or spouts propaganda, in either case typically masquerading as facts.
Unfortunately, I haven't seen any scientific research that believes that we can reverse temperature increases by just transitioning away from fossil fuels. The reality is that the greenhouse gases are cumulative and a certain amount of future warming is already baked into the cake. Additionally, there is a possibility (likelihood?), as the U.N. panel now is warning, that we'll trigger one or more negative feedback loops. I've repeatedly documented the seriousness of a vicious methane feedback loop. See post 712 in this thread.
The issue is whether we're going to ignore the overwhelming majority of scientists who warn of calamity if we don't transition away from fossil fuel consumption. E.g., Harold Wanless, chairman of the geological sciences department at the Univ. of Miami, says that the rate of sea level rise is doubling every 7-8 years. The result if this doubling rate continues will be the inundation of much of Florida within several decades, and the loss much sooner of beaches, many low-lying coast areas, and potable water supplies due to salt water intrusion.
At some point, Floridians must decide whether they will listen to scientists or to man-made climate change science deniers, whether politicians or anonymous posters. Floridians can resign themselves to catastrophic consequences that will impact their progeny, or decide to become proactive and demand a transition away from fossil fuel consumption, as the scientists warn is necessary.
The above bold-faced statements are classical denier "Big Lie" propaganda, as is the support for pulling out of the Paris Accord.
The overwhelming number of climate change scientists say their research shows global warming and ocean acidification from carbon dioxide pollution is real and an existential threat to the earth's environment, and therefore humanity. Deniers do not ever produced peer-reviewed research denying the reality of man-made climate change; but they have tried to do so.
NASA scientists say there's a mini ice age coming. Reductions in hurricane activity and intensity supports NASA's claims.
Ohio's Ethane Cracking mega-plants endanger us all. They take fossil fuel proliferation to new heights. There are 2 mega plants in the works. WRnative has not warned us about his own states activities to destroy the ozone layer.
Ohio's got an environmental catastrophe in store for for us all. WRnative was asleep at the switch.
Exporting ethylene to China will cause great harm to the entire US ecosystem.
Google Ethane + Ohio and read...if you can stomache it.
NASA scientists say there's a mini ice age coming. Reductions in hurricane activity and intensity supports NASA's claims.
Ohio's Ethane Cracking mega-plants endanger us all. They take fossil fuel proliferation to new heights. There are 2 mega plants in the works. WRnative has not warned us about his own states activities to destroy the ozone layer.
Ohio's got an environmental catastrophe in store for for us all. WRnative was asleep at the switch.
Exporting ethylene to China will cause great harm to the entire US ecosystem.
Google Ethane + Ohio and read...if you can stomache it.
As previous threads document, NASA scientists are not saying a mini ice age is coming. You haven't posted one link in which NASA or a NASA scientist predicted an upcoming mini ice age. All you've done is post an article about the cooling of the thermosphere during the bottom of the current 11-year solar cycle. See post 712.
As explained, it's always possible that the current minimum period of solar radiation will extend beyond the normal cycles witnessed for centuries, but even such a cycle would only mute global warming due to man-made climate change, but not completely offset it. AND CONTINUED FOSSIL FUEL CONSUMPTION DURING AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF MINIMAL SOLAR ACTIVITY WOULD NOT HALT THE CONTINUED ACIDIFICATION OF THE OCEANS DUE TO FOSSIL FUEL CONSUMPTION.
Deniers simply can not deal with ocean acidification given the fact that it's easily measured, and the impacts on marine life and even production of global oxygen are so potentially devastating.
You support man-made climate change science deniers, especially Donald Trump and Rick Scott; you falsely and repeatedly spread denier "Big Lie" propaganda, even arguing that the earth is cooling, when NASA presentations linked in previous posts clearly document the warming of the planet; and you have no concerns about fossil fuel production and consumption in the U.S. as, unlike climate change scientists and myself, you have never called for a transition away from fossil fuel consumption and you actively support politicians such as Trump that want to INCREASE fossil fuel consumption despite the dire consequences for Florida and the entire world.
Areas of large natural gas production always have plants to separate more valuable natural gas liquids from wet natural gas production. Ethane production is much larger in Texas than in Ohio and any exports to China likely would be made from the Gulf Coast by way of the Panama Canal and not from Ohio, as noted by the Energy Information Administration.
Note that the last paragraph of the above article says the U.S. currently doesn't export ethane to China, likely because China can obtain supplies from production areas much closer to China, such as from Australia and Russia.
Your obsession with ethane, actually used in the production of plastics, as opposed to oil and natural gas production which are overwhelmingly the major sources of carbon dioxide emissions, is inane. As always, your statements too often are blatantly misleading if not entirely false.
As for your ridiculous gobbledygook about hurricanes, you've never substantiated your argument. Your claim that reduced Florida hurricane activity shows that the oceans are cooling is belied by empirical evidence showing the well established warming of oceans in general and specifically in the Gulf of Mexico. Extremely scarily, new research says that the world's oceans now absorb 13 zetajoules of energy annually, dwarfing the half zettajoule of mankind's estimated annual energy consumption.
It's extremely disturbing that American society in the face of mounting evidence of calamity tolerates man-made climate change science deniers, let alone that the "Denier-in-Chief" also is the President, and that deniers and denier enablers still dominate the U.S. Senate.
As repeatedly noted, the warmer waters in the Gulf of Mexico and in Florida waterways in general actually have reduced the seasonality of the red tide and other toxic algal blooms plaguing the Florida's waterways. This reality is not understood in Florida, significantly because of denier dominance of Florida's government and the resulting suppression man-made climate change science and of the dire scientific warnings of the consequences for Florida. Deniers don't even want to talk about the ongoing destruction of the Great Florida Reef and the significantly negative consequences.
Your constant anti-scientific and dishonest postings of denier "Big Lie" propaganda is both destructive and tiresome. The damage that deniers and their supporters are inflicting on the future of Florida, exceptionally at risk from the dire consequences of continued fossil fuel consumption, with their denier rants is inexcusable and will be viewed increasingly so by Floridians with every passing year.
Cold weather for a few days does not indicate the onslaught of a mini ice age!
Actually, a blast of cold air due to a weakening, wobbly jet stream is another indication of global warming. As the weaker jet stream wobbles, it allows cold polar air to escape southward.
Global warming will allow for colder blasts into the U.S. for a few more decades until the Arctic air mass warms so much that it no longer will escape Canada very often in winter, and when it does so, the air mass will be much warmer than in the past.
Note the impact of the ice-albedo feedback loop discussed in the above article, as well as the mention of methane releases from a thawing permafrost near the end of the article.
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.
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.
