Jump to content


Photo

Mini Ice Age Coming Soon?

science youre welcome

  • Please log in to reply
43 replies to this topic

#21 Mando

Mando

    Anti-Brag Queen

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 46783 posts
  • LocationLimbo

Posted 14 July 2015 - 07:44 AM

I don't know. Source?

I just think it's funny that the same people who instantly poo-poo climate models are suddenly all about computer models when it suits them. I believe it's called "confirmation bias."

 

it's also right in the article that this is very preliminary.


  • 0

#22 Dave

Dave

    Grammaraticus of Titty Money

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 32444 posts
  • LocationLugnar Island

Posted 14 July 2015 - 08:06 AM


I just think it's funny that the same people who instantly poo-poo climate models are suddenly all about computer models when it suits them. I believe it's called "confirmation bias."

I think the difference is we've known about the 11-12 year solar cycle for 170+ years.

Now they think they've figured out the differences in fluctuation enough to understand how the convergence can effect Earth.

Sounds more believable than the computer models that predict New York City will be underwater 5 years ago....


  • 0

#23 BrewerGeorge

BrewerGeorge

    His Royal Misinformed

  • Administrator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 36676 posts
  • LocationIndianapolis

Posted 14 July 2015 - 08:35 AM

That'd be pretty awesome for the US.  Largest coal reserves in the world, after all.  Come On, District 12!



#24 Trub L

Trub L

    Hooked on a Feelin

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 112411 posts
  • LocationIn the Middle

Posted 14 July 2015 - 08:47 AM

I just think it's funny that the same people who instantly poo-poo climate models are suddenly all about computer models when it suits them. I believe it's called "confirmation bias."

 

You should find a young person to explain computers to you.  Not all "computer models" are created equal.  I believe it's called "garbage-in, garbage-out."  ;)


I think the difference is we've known about the 11-12 year solar cycle for 170+ years.

Now they think they've figured out the differences in fluctuation enough to understand how the convergence can effect Earth.

Sounds more believable than the computer models that predict New York City will be underwater 5 years ago....

 

An Inconvenient Day after the day 1800 days ago!


  • 0

#25 SchwanzBrewer

SchwanzBrewer

    Grand Duke of Inappropriate Announcements

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 33919 posts
  • LocationKnee deep in business plans

Posted 14 July 2015 - 09:00 AM

IFLS did a follow up. If this mini ice age happens we'll have colder winters for about 30 years. No big deal really. 


  • 0

#26 denny

denny

    Living Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8857 posts
  • LocationEugene OR

Posted 14 July 2015 - 09:03 AM

 

If you read the article carefully, you'll find that it's a minority opinion and not well studied.


  • 0

#27 BlackBeerd

BlackBeerd

    Comptroller of Stain's Junk Posting

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 17912 posts
  • LocationA Drunken Stupor

Posted 14 July 2015 - 09:26 AM

I think the difference is we've known about the 11-12 year solar cycle for 170+ years.
Now they think they've figured out the differences in fluctuation enough to understand how the convergence can effect Earth.
Sounds more believable than the computer models that predict New York City will be underwater 5 years ago....

When all your computer models end in doom, intelligent people start to question how well you constructed those models.
  • 0

#28 BlackBeerd

BlackBeerd

    Comptroller of Stain's Junk Posting

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 17912 posts
  • LocationA Drunken Stupor

Posted 14 July 2015 - 09:29 AM

If you read the article carefully, you'll find that it's a minority opinion and not well studied.

Climate science as a whole is not well studied.
  • 0

#29 Mando

Mando

    Anti-Brag Queen

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 46783 posts
  • LocationLimbo

Posted 14 July 2015 - 10:07 AM

sometimes I wish we had an actual expert on climate science around here so we could do a Q&A.


  • 0

#30 toonces

toonces

    Methuselah

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 26394 posts
  • Locationthe atomic city

Posted 14 July 2015 - 10:22 AM

Canada better keep their white walkers outta here.

there's a shit ton of obsidian around here. one can find arrowheads made of it.
  • 0

#31 Dave

Dave

    Grammaraticus of Titty Money

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 32444 posts
  • LocationLugnar Island

Posted 14 July 2015 - 11:47 AM

If you read the article carefully, you'll find that it's a minority opinion and not well studied.

If you read the article carefully, you'll find that it was just presented five days ago.

That might clear up your 'minority opinion' and 'not well studied' confusion.

 

It's a brand new study whose results are (supposedly) a lot more accurate than what had been found previously. No one is claiming this is the end-all, be-all to MMGW as far as I can tell so you can keep up with your the-debate-is-over-we-have-a-consensus-GW-is-now-fact-all-deniers-are-Nazis-and-Confederate-sympathizers rhetoric ...  ;)


  • 0

#32 Mando

Mando

    Anti-Brag Queen

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 46783 posts
  • LocationLimbo

Posted 14 July 2015 - 11:51 AM

If you read the article carefully, you'll find that it was just presented five days ago.

That might clear up your 'minority opinion' and 'not well studied' confusion.

 

It's a brand new study whose results are (supposedly) a lot more accurate than what had been found previously. No one is claiming this is the end-all, be-all to MMGW as far as I can tell so you can keep up with your the-debate-is-over-we-have-a-consensus-GW-is-now-fact-all-deniers-are-Nazis-and-Confederate-sympathizers rhetoric ...   ;)

 

other climate driving factors would still be in effect so I don't really view this as somehow contrary to the rest of climate science.  it's all part of the bigger picture.


  • 0

#33 Dave

Dave

    Grammaraticus of Titty Money

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 32444 posts
  • LocationLugnar Island

Posted 14 July 2015 - 11:56 AM

other climate driving factors would still be in effect so I don't really view this as somehow contrary to the rest of climate science.  it's all part of the bigger picture.

True, but if it is right, it dramatically changes a lot of what we know about the sun's 12 year cycle which is a big factor to our climate.

Plus, if we have a 30 year 'mini-ice age, all of the climate change arguments go out the window...


  • 0

#34 Mando

Mando

    Anti-Brag Queen

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 46783 posts
  • LocationLimbo

Posted 14 July 2015 - 11:59 AM

True, but if it is right, it dramatically changes a lot of what we know about the sun's 12 year cycle which is a big factor to our climate.

Plus, if we have a 30 year 'mini-ice age, all of the climate change arguments go out the window...

 

it very well could.

 

as far as arguments flying out windows - maybe.  it could just be a host of different problems.  or maybe things are delayed. 


  • 0

#35 japh

japh

    Winner!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10422 posts
  • LocationOregon

Posted 14 July 2015 - 12:02 PM

Or we start sending out more CO2 just to counteract the little ice age!


  • 0

#36 Mando

Mando

    Anti-Brag Queen

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 46783 posts
  • LocationLimbo

Posted 14 July 2015 - 12:05 PM

Or we start sending out more CO2 just to counteract the little ice age!

 

that could end up being quite the overcorrection when it's over.


  • 0

#37 SchwanzBrewer

SchwanzBrewer

    Grand Duke of Inappropriate Announcements

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 33919 posts
  • LocationKnee deep in business plans

Posted 14 July 2015 - 12:12 PM

Yeah, relaxing emission standards because of this would be a really bad idea.


  • 0

#38 Mando

Mando

    Anti-Brag Queen

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 46783 posts
  • LocationLimbo

Posted 14 July 2015 - 12:20 PM

Yeah, relaxing emission standards because of this would be a really bad idea.

 

considering the acidification of the oceans among other concerns - yes.


  • 0

#39 denny

denny

    Living Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8857 posts
  • LocationEugene OR

Posted 14 July 2015 - 12:21 PM

Follow up with the scientist whose report started the whole thing...

 

https://www.iflscien...-global-warming


  • 0

#40 TonyBrown

TonyBrown

    Comptroller of C-Blocking and Wet Streak Marks

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 67678 posts
  • LocationRedneckistan

Posted 14 July 2015 - 12:23 PM

that could end up being quite the overcorrection when it's over.

and its not an 'undercorrection' getting rid of it now??  :troll:


  • 0



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: science, youre welcome

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users