Grand Solar Minimum?
-
Well I'm glad there's something out there that takes me off the hook for looking out for the environment again!
(Not saying that's what Mik is doing, just that that's basically the driver behind the do-nothing approach.)
-
“I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” ~Winston S. Churchill
-
@mik said in Grand Solar Minimum?:
I do not subscribe to the do nothing approach. We should reduce our environmental impact as much as is reasonably possible. But I don't necessarily believe that we are on the edge of extinction either.
I think that about twenty years ago, most of the rhetoric around environmentalism was reasonable. The loudest stuff was insane, of course (and that's all that many conservatives were exposed to, because they of course couldn't be bothered), but there was mostly a need to get the word out about how human behaviors can affect environmental conditions.
Today, there's absolutely no hope in making apolitical decisions. None.
-
@lufins-dad said in Grand Solar Minimum?:
@Loki did you actually read the article? It explains how the Solar Minimum affects the Jet Stream and air flow, which will conversely cause a period of warming in many areas… Droughts as well.
I read extensively about the Maunder Minimum years ago but if there is something new here I will read it at your suggestion. Needless to say we were supposed to be in the middle of it by now with a pause in global temperature increases for a couple of years now. I can draw a graph of the actual vs those predictions if you like.
-
Another perspective:
https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2953/there-is-no-impending-mini-ice-age/And I don’t know why it keeps being difficult for some to see that we in fact can and are affecting our climate through the use of fossil fuels.
Instead, the same kind of arguments that have been addressed over and over, just keep being repeated.
Of course the sun can affect climate. The energy from the sun is kind of a vital parameter in climate models... the question is of course, to what extent it currently causes changes (as compared to other factors) at the level of fluctuations that we reasonably expect. Sure, the sun could suddenly fry us or make us freeze to death on its own, but that’s not an expected scenario any time soon...
Global warming on Mars? Not sure if it happens... If it does happen now or did sometime in the past, so what?
All our heat comes from the sun. Of course! Most of it anyway. Who denies that? What’s the point of this, though? Now that we are talking about planets, why is Venus so much hotter than Mercury even though the latter is much closer to the sun?
Of course plants need CO2. Who denies that? Not sure what the point of that argument is, though...
-
I understand your point. I just don't think the science is quite as settled as presented. We have believed a lot of things that turned out to be wrong later, based on best information available at the time.
But l still believe it behooves us to cut all emissions as much as can reasonably be done.
“I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” ~Winston S. Churchill
-
@nunatax said in Grand Solar Minimum?:
Another perspective:
https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2953/there-is-no-impending-mini-ice-age/And I don’t know why it keeps being difficult for some to see that we in fact can and are affecting our climate through the use of fossil fuels.
Instead, the same kind of arguments that have been addressed over and over, just keep being repeated.
Of course the sun can affect climate. The energy from the sun is kind of a vital parameter in climate models... the question is of course, to what extent it currently causes changes (as compared to other factors) at the level of fluctuations that we reasonably expect. Sure, the sun could suddenly fry us or make us freeze to death on its own, but that’s not an expected scenario any time soon...
Global warming on Mars? Not sure if it happens... If it does happen now or did sometime in the past, so what?
All our heat comes from the sun. Of course! Most of it anyway. Who denies that? What’s the point of this, though? Now that we are talking about planets, why is Venus so much hotter than Mercury even though the latter is much closer to the sun?
Of course plants need CO2. Who denies that? Not sure what the point of that argument is, though...
Global warming on mars is old news.
I assume NPR will meet with your approval....
You're so busy making excuses you're missing the points made. For one, the don't eat the paper bag crowd insist that the sun has little to do with climate change, and it's 99% due to fossil fuels. They insist that CO2 is the cause, and is a harmful gas. The point about plants needing CO2 should be easy enough for you to understand. Reduce it too much and plants won't grow. Our oxygen comes from plants. Reduce CO2 too much and you will end up reducing oxygen.
All in all, your argument seems to consist of just feeling some sort of need to argue.
-
@nunatax said in Grand Solar Minimum?:
And I don’t know why it keeps being difficult for some to see that we in fact can and are affecting our climate through the use of fossil fuels.
It is not difficult for anyone to see that.
Everyone agrees about that, everyone.
The question is how much?
The volume of the answer identifies a person's politics.
Beyond that, the science needed to answer the question is, at best, debatable.
-
Here is another piece by the same author. Different topic but you can get a sense of her perspective.
https://starfirecodes.substack.com/p/everything-you-need-to-know-about
It’s about the harm of the Covid vaccine.
-
@loki said in Grand Solar Minimum?:
Here is another piece by the same author. Different topic but you can get a sense of her perspective.
https://starfirecodes.substack.com/p/everything-you-need-to-know-about
It’s about the harm of the Covid vaccine.
From this fine resource:
“Number one - You have dramatically decreased your own immune system by 35%. The first jab did it by at least 15%. The second did it by 35%. Now - if you take any booster shot, you will die. That's it. You take a flu shot in the future, you will die.
“You've also injected yourself with the equivalent of HIV. You can now no longer breastfeed, donate blood, donate organs, donate blood plasma, nor bone marrow.
-
@mik said in Grand Solar Minimum?:
I understand your point. I just don't think the science is quite as settled as presented. We have believed a lot of things that turned out to be wrong later, based on best information available at the time.
But l still believe it behooves us to cut all emissions as much as can reasonably be done.
Quotes like “Hey, I thought the science was settled??” are often all too eagerly used to quickly dismiss anything related to anthropogenic climate change. Would it have been better if new insights and information gained since the development of the very first climate models would have been ignored, just for the sake of not having to adapt the story? That that would all have been swept under the carpet because otherwise the trust of the public could be lost? That climate models have been adapted to new information and insights, and that that has lead to varying predictions over time, is not at all surprising and is indicative of healthy, trustworthy science rather than the other way around. If you feel bad for having been led to believe something that is no longer entirely the same now, you need to review how science works. And as far as “settled” climate science is concerned: nothing has changed around the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that at the rate we are adding more of it to our atmosphere, the increased greenhouse effect it causes is more than capable of affecting our climate. That is THE core consensus. After that realisation, the incredibly complex task of modelling the expected consequences follows. Climate change science is not in its infancy anymore, and current climate models are way better than the first ones ever developed and they continue to be refined when needed. And so they should.
