- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Glacial melt has tripled in the Amundsen Sea
Posted on 12/4/14 at 6:19 pm to Iosh
Posted on 12/4/14 at 6:19 pm to Iosh
quote:
Or we could do what France did 40 years ago and reduce the CO2 emissions of the electricity sector by over 50% within a decade while still drastically increasing capacity.
Doesn't that require nuclear power plants?
Posted on 12/4/14 at 7:06 pm to Scoop
quote:
Glacial melt has tripled
Good, we need the water.
Posted on 12/4/14 at 8:33 pm to GumboPot
quote:
nuclear power plants
Oh, you!
Posted on 12/4/14 at 8:36 pm to SpidermanTUba
LINK
I'm not so sure we shouldn't be pumping out the CO2 to offset the effects of the coming mini-Maunder minimum. I'm off to buy a new winter coat, gloves, and wood-burning stove.
quote:
Indeed, the sun could be on the threshold of a mini-Maunder event right now. Ongoing Solar Cycle 24 is the weakest in more than 50 years. Moreover, there is (controversial) evidence of a long-term weakening trend in the magnetic field strength of sunspots. Matt Penn and William Livingston of the National Solar Observatory predict that by the time Solar Cycle 25 arrives, magnetic fields on the sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed. Independent lines of research involving helioseismology and surface polar fields tend to support their conclusion.
I'm not so sure we shouldn't be pumping out the CO2 to offset the effects of the coming mini-Maunder minimum. I'm off to buy a new winter coat, gloves, and wood-burning stove.
Posted on 12/4/14 at 11:36 pm to ChEgrad
quote:
Indeed, the sun could be on the threshold of a mini-Maunder event right now. Ongoing Solar Cycle 24 is the weakest in more than 50 years. Moreover, there is (controversial) evidence of a long-term weakening trend in the magnetic field strength of sunspots. Matt Penn and William Livingston of the National Solar Observatory predict that by the time Solar Cycle 25 arrives, magnetic fields on the sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed. Independent lines of research involving helioseismology and surface polar fields tend to support their conclusion.
Yet the Earth warms....
hmmm.....
Posted on 12/4/14 at 11:39 pm to LSURussian
LSURussian - did I kick you in the pussy too hard or something?
DOES THE ARTICLE YOU LINKED TO TALK ABOUT THE ANTARCTIC ICE SHEET OR THE ANTARCTIC SEA ICE?
Posted on 12/4/14 at 11:41 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
You did indeed toss it out => . . . . . . . even though solar output has been going down since 87
Psst.....
LINK
quote:
Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth's climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.
2007-20=1987
LINK
This post was edited on 12/4/14 at 11:44 pm
Posted on 12/5/14 at 5:07 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:Here's the dilemma TUba. We are in midst of an ice age. We have solid evidence of ~0.1Ma cyclical climate patterning. We know our climate is currently at interglacial maximum. Those are things we do know.
Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth's climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.
2007-20=1987
What we do not know is why.
What is the cause of climate change over time?
We know a set of 9-10 regular cycles traversing a 1Ma period is far more compatible with physical rather than biologic cause. We know that such a pattern is more compatible with regular rather than random events. We (should) know these observations point to extraterrestrial origins of climate variance.
Likewise, we know orbital and axial differentials occur. Some have theorized such differentials account for terrestrial climate cycles (Milankovitch theory). The problem is Milankovitch cycles don't match well with ice core or benthic observations. Cyclical solar variance might. However, as with cause of the ice age itself, we also suffer significant gaps in our knowledge of solar behavior.
One thing is 100% certain though. CO2 greenhouse effects accounting for Quaternary Period climate cycles is a ridiculous premise. It is unsupportable.
Posted on 12/5/14 at 8:54 am to CptBengal
The guy I was responding too, claimed it was a local occurrence.
I'm pointing out...it's not local.
I'm pointing out...it's not local.
Posted on 12/5/14 at 9:00 am to NC_Tigah
NC_TIgah
quote:
We are in midst of an ice age.
CptBengal
quote:
FACT. Unless we're in an ice age....glaciers are always melting faster than they replenish.
Hmmmmmm...
Posted on 12/5/14 at 9:53 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:Your apparent confusion is again illustrative.
SpidermanTUba
Many folks, including you TUba, use the term "ice age" in reference to ice age glaciation. It's easier to type than "periods of glaciation." It's clear what is meant. It's certainly not something I'd normally call you on.
Yet, while you are quick to point out silly stuff like mistaken terminology (i.e., Antarctic Sea Ice), you dodge even very basic questions on the topic.
It's your thread.
So it's odd that you claim confusion regarding even simple terms of the discussion. Frankly, I'm not sure why you continue posting on the topic. It's become uncomfortably autosadistic.
Back to top
![logo](https://images.tigerdroppings.com/images/layout/TDIcon.jpg)