Started By
Message

re: Glacial melt has tripled in the Amundsen Sea

Posted on 12/4/14 at 6:19 pm to
Posted by GumboPot
Member since Mar 2009
119331 posts
Posted on 12/4/14 at 6:19 pm to
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 by ljhog
Lake Jackson, Tx.
Member since Apr 2009
19116 posts
Posted on 12/4/14 at 7:06 pm to
quote:

Glacial melt has tripled

Good, we need the water.
Posted by udtiger
Over your left shoulder
Member since Nov 2006
99640 posts
Posted on 12/4/14 at 8:33 pm to
quote:

nuclear power plants


Oh, you!
Posted by ChEgrad
Member since Nov 2012
3287 posts
Posted on 12/4/14 at 8:36 pm to
LINK

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 by SpidermanTUba
my house
Member since May 2004
36129 posts
Posted on 12/4/14 at 11:36 pm to
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 by SpidermanTUba
my house
Member since May 2004
36129 posts
Posted on 12/4/14 at 11:39 pm to

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 by SpidermanTUba
my house
Member since May 2004
36129 posts
Posted on 12/4/14 at 11:41 pm to
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 by NC_Tigah
Carolinas
Member since Sep 2003
124536 posts
Posted on 12/5/14 at 5:07 am to
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
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.
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 by samson'sseed
Augusta
Member since Aug 2013
2070 posts
Posted on 12/5/14 at 8:54 am to
The guy I was responding too, claimed it was a local occurrence.

I'm pointing out...it's not local.
Posted by SpidermanTUba
my house
Member since May 2004
36129 posts
Posted on 12/5/14 at 9:00 am to

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 by NC_Tigah
Carolinas
Member since Sep 2003
124536 posts
Posted on 12/5/14 at 9:53 am to
quote:

SpidermanTUba
Your apparent confusion is again illustrative.

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.
Jump to page
Page First 9 10 11
Jump to page
first pageprev pagePage 11 of 11Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram