Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Argus

Get ready for the next ice age, global warming fanatics.

Recommended Posts

It would certainly be ironic, and show Trudeau's impeccable timing if he were to start Canada fighting against global warming the very year we're starting to get global cooling...

“The New Little Ice Age Has Started.” This is the unambiguous title of a new study from one of the world’s most prestigious scientific institutions, the Russian Academy of Science’s Pulkovo Observatory in St. Petersburg. “The average temperature around the globe will fall by about 1.5 C when we enter the deep cooling phase of the Little Ice Age, expected in the year 2060,” the study states. “The cooling phase will last for about 45-65 years, for four to six 11-year cycles of the Sun, after which on the Earth, at the beginning of the 22nd century, will begin the new, next quasi-bicentennial cycle of warming.”

http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/lawrence-solomon-proof-that-a-new-ice-age-has-already-started-is-stronger-than-ever-and-we-couldnt-be-less-prepared

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Argus said:

It would certainly be ironic, and show Trudeau's impeccable timing if he were to start Canada fighting against global warming the very year we're starting to get global cooling...

“The New Little Ice Age Has Started.” This is the unambiguous title of a new study from one of the world’s most prestigious scientific institutions, the Russian Academy of Science’s Pulkovo Observatory in St. Petersburg. “The average temperature around the globe will fall by about 1.5 C when we enter the deep cooling phase of the Little Ice Age, expected in the year 2060,” the study states. “The cooling phase will last for about 45-65 years, for four to six 11-year cycles of the Sun, after which on the Earth, at the beginning of the 22nd century, will begin the new, next quasi-bicentennial cycle of warming.”

http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/lawrence-solomon-proof-that-a-new-ice-age-has-already-started-is-stronger-than-ever-and-we-couldnt-be-less-prepared

I guess that's why the arctic has been around 15 degrees warmer than usual and there's no ice, and the antarctic ice sheet melt has been deemed to be irreversible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Omni said:

I guess that's why the arctic has been around 15 degrees warmer than usual and there's no ice, and the antarctic ice sheet melt has been deemed to be irreversible.

Irreversible eh?  Might as well ditch the carbon tax and just live it up for a while.  Pass the gasoline and the coal!

Edited by bcsapper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Irreversible eh?  Might as well ditch the carbon tax and just live it up for a while.  Pass the gasoline and the coal!

Might as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Lawrence Solomon is not a good source on this.

 

He's as good as any other self anointed expert on "climate change".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Omni said:

Even Solomon doesn't deny climate change, he simply argues there is a lack of consensus as to the speed and severity of it. 

That's the real problem.  Everyone knows the world is changing.  You can't keep 8 billion people fed, clothed and warm without having an effect.  If everyone could agree on what was coming down the pipe I think more could be done to stop it.  But it's like smoking.  It takes a long time and bad luck to get lung cancer, and one can live in hope in order to keep doing what one likes to do.  Then when you get it it's too late.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

That's the real problem.  Everyone knows the world is changing.  You can't keep 8 billion people fed, clothed and warm without having an effect.  If everyone could agree on what was coming down the pipe I think more could be done to stop it.  But it's like smoking.  It takes a long time and bad luck to get lung cancer, and one can live in hope in order to keep doing what one likes to do.  Then when you get it it's too late.

I'm not a scientist so I can't say if we are up to that too late point or not. But I do like my 3 squares a day and a warm bed at night. I do think we could achieve those comforts in better ways. I recall for instance the days when vehicle exhaust near busy streets would make your eyes water and your nose run. We have cleaned that up pretty well so we need to continue those type efforts. And I quit smoking 14 years ago. It was tough going for awhile but I put the effort in and now it's a done deal. Short term pain for long term gain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Omni said:

I'm not a scientist so I can't say if we are up to that too late point or not. But I do like my 3 squares a day and a warm bed at night. I do think we could achieve those comforts in better ways. I recall for instance the days when vehicle exhaust near busy streets would make your eyes water and your nose run. We have cleaned that up pretty well so we need to continue those type efforts. And I quit smoking 14 years ago. It was tough going for awhile but I put the effort in and now it's a done deal. Short term pain for long term gain.

I agree.  I quit in 1999 after smoking a pack a day for 25 years. 

My point is, if AGW is to be stopped and reversed, better ways isn't enough.  Extremely drastic ways are necessary, and I don't think anyone who isn't already suffering is going to put up with them.  I think the only thing that is going to do the job is technological innovation, and for that you need a decent economy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I agree.  I quit in 1999 after smoking a pack a day for 25 years. 

My point is, if AGW is to be stopped and reversed, better ways isn't enough.  Extremely drastic ways are necessary, and I don't think anyone who isn't already suffering is going to put up with them.  I think the only thing that is going to do the job is technological innovation, and for that you need a decent economy. 

Yes I think we could maintain a strong economy and make advances on GW. (pardon me if I sound like Trudeau) For instance company's could flourish building and maintaining nuclear power plants insted of digging coal from the ground to burn. That's nearly as good as quitting smoking right there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Omni said:

Yes I think we could maintain a strong economy and make advances on GW. (pardon me if I sound like Trudeau) For instance company's could flourish building and maintaining nuclear power plants insted of digging coal from the ground to burn. That's nearly as good as quitting smoking right there. 

I agree with the nuclear option.  I would start by converting every coal fired plant to gas fired in the meantime.  Still, though, that introduces the methane leaks issue.

Edited by bcsapper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

He's as good as any other self anointed expert on "climate change".

Which is why I prefer actual scientists than self-anointed media types.  Warming is happening, there is no doubt there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I agree with the nuclear option.  I would start by converting every coal fired plant to gas fired in the meantime.  Still, though, that introduces the methane leaks issue.

Fossil fuels each have their environmental impacts, but I recall visiting Scotland years ago in the winter and the coal smoke really hampered the enjoyment of walking around the town. I have a gas furnace in my house and I don't notice any serious effects of the exhaust from it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Which is why I prefer actual scientists than self-anointed media types.  Warming is happening, there is no doubt there.

Solomon is quoting a report from actual scientists...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I grew up in a town where every house and factory used coal.  It was black.  Then, when coal fires were banned, they sandblasted the place and it's quite nice now.

Burning gas can be efficient, but getting the gas to market can result in some fugitive emissions that can exacerbate the problem. Methane is worse than CO2 for immediate, short term AGW effects.

Edited by bcsapper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Yeah, I grew up in a town where every house and factory used coal.  It was black.  Then, when coal fires were banned, they sandblasted the place and it's quite nice now.

Burning gas can be efficient, but getting the gas to market can result in some fugitive emissions that can exacerbate the problem. Methane is worse than CO2 for immediate, short term AGW effects.

Yep, bring on the nukes and hopefully they can get that fusion thing figured out soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Which is why I prefer actual scientists than self-anointed media types.  Warming is happening, there is no doubt there.

 

Actual self anointed scientists are no better when they too have an agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Professionals have a built-in agenda to do the job.   With academics, the goal is to get it right and further knowledge.  My feeling is that many of the conspiracy types don't understand professionalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

With academics, the goal is to get it right and further knowledge.  

Not even remotely true. The goal is to get published and secure funding.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bryan said:

Not even remotely true. The goal is to get published and secure funding.

 

Agreed...academics compete for attention and funding. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Argus, Post Media isn't exactly known for their accurate and unbiased reporting on climate issues.  This is as much propaganda as David Suzuki.  You're also quoting a source from a Russian University.  Prestigious indeed!  No false propaganda out of that part of the world!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Moonlight Graham said:

Post Media isn't exactly known for their accurate and unbiased reporting on climate issues. 

They have more credibility on that topic than most mainstream sources in Canada.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Bryan said:

Not even remotely true. The goal is to get published and secure funding.

So, if somebody could make their entire career by showing that the prevailing wisdom is incorrect they wouldn't be able to get published or get funding ?

 

That is poppycock.  There would more funding than you could imagine for anybody who could excuse the fossil fuel industry from having to concern themselves with climate change policy.  They funded illegitimate opposition, so why would they not have put real money behind a real theory ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

So, if somebody could make their entire career by showing that the prevailing wisdom is incorrect they wouldn't be able to get published or get funding ?

 

That's exactly what happens, time and time again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...