Global Warming? Nope, it's time for an ice age...

[Maxt]

We already have seen this play out a thousand times here, lets just get it out of the way now.

Phd of any kind and believes in anthropogenic global warming=Noble expert from academia that is beyond reproach, financially benign and does all his work for the saving of mankind.
Phd, even one in climate sciences, that doesn't believe in anthropogenic global warming= shill for big oil.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by J-hop


I think maybe he was referring to the Tim Ball reference from your climate change thread.

I didn't even know who he was until another member mentioned him in that thread. I checked it out, and found that I held similar beliefs to his in regards to climate change. To which I wrote in this thread:

The Earth isn’t a human that you can accurately take its temperature (let alone accurately take it over the last 100 years and claim a very small difference).

How can you claim accuracy given that the earth has tens of thousands of various temperature points that constantly change through the various seasons, subterranean effects, Earths orbit, Earth’s wobble, cosmic rays, the Sun’s orbit, etc?

Given all that, it seems ludicrous to claim a .85 C change in the last 100 years. The variables are too immense and well, variable It’s like claiming you can grab a handful of air. Such claims normally indicate a vested interest which is based in money making. Oh wait.

[J-hop]

That's just it though. All Tim has are beliefs. If you look at his "work" he rarely brings actual science into it.

The facts are:

(1) milancovitch cycles, sun activity, eccentricity, precession etc etc are all brought into the models by both sides of the argument and do track historical temperature changes fairly well

(2) the above mentioned combined effects do not have a good match with the last 100 years

(3) modelling anthropogenic pollution does bring the models closer to a match

Even the biggest skeptics (except for maybe crazy Tim) seem to agree with above yet they do not accept that anthropogenic effects are the cause. They believe something else is the cause yet have not been able to find an alternative. Milancovitch cycle etc are not points to be argued over as both sides agree on these points.

[Seth1968]

^
I don't have anything to add on the specific matter, as I've said all I can. Other than the cause, the real problem in all of this is that we really can't do anything about it, and this from one of previous posts:

Climate change has become a "religion" for the masses, and just as importantly, a pathetic excuse for governments to tax the shit out of us. To add insult to injury, the masses believe the ridiculous government propaganda that carbon taxes will help our environment. Except, not only is that the furthest thing from truth, but such taxes will create significantly higher poverty, disease, ignorance, crime, etc.

[ExtraSlow]

***not an expert***
Serious question, but is anyone looking seriously at "climate engineering" at this point? I feel like it would be withing our technological capabilities to increase earths albedo a few percentage points.
***still not an expert***

[J-hop]

Originally posted by Seth1968
^
I don't have anything to add on the specific matter, as I've said all I can. Other than the cause, the real problem in all of this is that we really can't do anything about it, and this from one of previous posts:

I actually completely agree with you on this. This carbon tax is moronic, it does nothing but debilitate our local industry while pushing the demand to countries with way worse environmental track records than us and actually causes a net increase in pollution from what I understand.

It is like a religion. Pisses me off when people say "humans caused global warming" no they absolutely didn't. Do they have a negative effect? Yea it looks like it but are we the main cause, nope.

[01RedDX]

.

[ExtraSlow]

See, that's the thing. I know we can destroy ozone by accident, so couldn't we do something similar (but in reverse) on purpose?

[Sugarphreak]

...

[spikerS]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak


It would actually be pretty easy to reduce the global temp... Just fly out a space blanket to block out the sun for a few hours each day. It wouldn't even have to be that big if it was in a closer orbit to the sun. Again... If attempted, it would a world ending disaster IMO.

could you imagine, deploying a solar reflector like that, and have it fail to retract?

[Sugarphreak]

...

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
lol

Imagine if it was controlled by the US and they just decided that China or Russia didn't need sun anymore

Fire up the idled coal plants!

[JustinL]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak

Just fly out a space blanket to block out the sun for a few hours each day. It wouldn't even have to be that big if it was in a closer orbit to the sun.

LoL

You might want to think about that a bit longer and do a few quick measurements about how big things actually are and the distances involved.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[JustinL]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak


I am sure it is possible to build a device that would obstruct the sun... And I look forward to the inevitable roll out by space-X and Greenpeace

Haha no it's not possible anywhere in the near or distant future. But I was more laughing at the idea that you wouldn't have to make it as big if you put it closer to the sun. Sure it's fun to think about as a thought experiment from a geopolitical point of view, but ain't gonna happen.

[Gestalt]

So some claimed we already can't feed ourselves, so we should just block the sun a couple hours a day.

Humans aren't very smart. We need to minimize our impact, but most claim we can't even predict global warming, cooling, ice ages, Singapore smog alerts, but now, you want to give humans a way to directly manipulate weather at the push of a button.

I can't think of a worse disaster waiting to happen, besides maybe nukes.

[J-hop]

#chemtrails


https://www.technologyreview.com/s/5...lobal-warming/

[BigMass]

Originally posted by Seth1968


As much as I love science, science isn't always an absolute, and scientists aren't always scrupulous.

Whenever someone uses words like, "absolute" my dick gets hard and reminds me of Christian presuppositionalists. Now, saying scientists aren't always scrupulous, I agree %100. Scientists can also be delusional, paranoid, insane or just incorrect. That is why we have the scientific method. This is why we have peer review and independent verification and double blind studies, experimentation etc. All of which has been well documented regarding human influence in climate change, the consequences in ignoring it and not making the appropriate adjustments.

Remember Acid Rain? The Ozone Layer? Neurological impacts of leaded gasoline? The only reason these issues have subsided is government policy, not because of libertarian corporate altruism. Corporations are concerned with only one thing, money. Government and scientists need to work together in formulating policy because us humans are apes that require science to correct the errors our recently evolved brains create. I'm really not interested in what the majority believe, I'm more interested in what the facts are and what our scientific theories demonstrate.

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by BigMass
Remember The Ozone Layer?..........The only reason these issues have subsided is government policy

Wait.......What........Really? I thought the whole Ozone layer thing was "solved" because it was never actually a thing that needed solving?

[suntan]

Particulate matter from coal burning makes an excellent ablative material.