The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 35 of 54 FirstFirst ... 25333435363745 ... LastLast
Results 341 to 350 of 540

Thread: Speaking of Global Warming

  1. #341
    Senior Member road kill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI
    Posts
    10,695

    Default

    Are these scientists credible?
    Or do you true believers still think the sun has NO effect on the climate?????


    Solar Lull Could Trigger Another 'Little Ice Age,' Sun Scientists Say
    The Huffington Post | By Macrina Cooper-White
    Posted: 01/24/2014 1:48 pm EST | Updated: 01/24/2014 1:59 pm EST

    If you thought the polar vortex was bad, get a load of a new climate phenomenon that just might be coming our way.

    Scientists say we could be headed for another "Little Ice Age," given how eerily calm the sun has been in recent years.

    First, a bit of background. The sun goes through cycles that last roughly 11 years, marked by the ebb and flow of sunspots on its surface. At peak sunspot activity, the so-called solar maximum, the sun sports lots of sunspots and is steadily unleashing solar flares and coronal mass ejections (CMEs). Since our current solar cycle, Number 24, kicked off in 2008, the number of sunspots observed has been half of what heliophysicists expected.

    “I’ve never seen anything quite like this," Dr. Richard Harrison, head of space physics at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in England, told the BBC. "If you want to go back to see when the sun was this inactive in terms of the minimum we’ve just had and the peak that we have now, you’ve got to go back about 100 years.”

    Now, being in a "solar lull" does not mean the sun is completely dormant.

    "The sun is most definitely not 'asleep,'" Dr. C. Alex Young, solar astrophysicist and associate science director in the Heliophysics Science Division of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, told The Huffington Post in an email. In fact, on January 7th, 2014, NASA observed a massive solar flare burst from a sunspot group measured to be "some seven Earth's across."

    But a relatively quiet sun could cause problems. Some scientists say that this period of weak solar activity may mirror what happened before the so-called Maunder Minimum of 1645 to 1715 -- a period named after solar astronomers Annie and E. Walter Maunder, who studied sunspots and helped identify the sun's strange activity in the latter part of the 17th Century. That time period saw only 30 sunspots (one one-thousandth of what would be expected) and coincided with a "Little Ice Age" in Europe, during which the Thames River and the Baltic Sea froze over.

    Mike Lockwood, professor of space environment physics at the University of Reading in the U.K., estimated that we have up to a one-in-five chance of being in Maunder Minimum conditions 40 years from now.


    Early records of sunspots indicate that the sun went through a period of inactivity in the late 17th Century. Very few sunspots were seen on the Sun from about 1645 to 1715.

    While scientists have not proven that low sunspot activity directly caused the "Little Ice Age," and say other factors may have been involved in plunging Europe into the frigid period, they do believe that fewer sunspots may mean less solar energy reaches Earth. And this in turn could lead to global cooling.

    So if the sun did enter another extended period of low activity, how likely is it we'd enter into our own "Little Ice Age?"

    "A new Maunder Minimum will not necessarily affect the Earth in the same way it did during the 17th Century," Guiliana de Toma of the National Center for Atmospheric Research's High Altitude Observatory told HuffPost in an email. "Volcanic eruptions (that have a short-term cooling effect) also played a role in the cold weather observed during the 17th century. Plus we are starting from a warmer Earth."

    So maybe not something as dramatic as an Ice Age would happen. But wait a second. If we're trying to combat global warming, could a little cooling action from the sun actually help turn down the heat on Earth?

    Maybe, but it wouldn't do much, and not for very long. Researchers at the National Center for Atmospheric Research used a computer model to predict the effect of a future "grand solar minimum" on Earth's climate from 2020 to 2070. The model suggested the minimum might slow down the process by 20-30 percent, causing a temporary cooling. But within a few decades afterward, the temperatures would go right back to where they would have been anyway. Sigh.

    There seems to be some "un-settled" science here!!??!!??

  2. #342
    Senior Member HuntClub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Washington County, Mn
    Posts
    154

    Default

    RK, don't you know Florida has disappeared into the ocean and there is no polar or Antarctic ice, errr....or wait......I mean in 2015 there, uh oh errr I mean in 2025

  3. #343
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Detroit Lakes, MN
    Posts
    1,440

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by road kill View Post
    Are these scientists credible?
    Or do you true believers still think the sun has NO effect on the climate?????


    There seems to be some "un-settled" science here!!??!!??
    Who ever said that sun activity does not have an effect on the earths climate? Please point out where this has been stated.

    This article in no way suggests that climate change/warming is not happening due to the known increase in CO2. In fact, the article presents a theory that a reduction in sun's activities could mask the effects of climate change for a little while.
    Maybe, but it wouldn't do much, and not for very long. Researchers at the National Center for Atmospheric Research used a computer model to predict the effect of a future "grand solar minimum" on Earth's climate from 2020 to 2070. The model suggested the minimum might slow down the process by 20-30 percent, causing a temporary cooling. But within a few decades afterward, the temperatures would go right back to where they would have been anyway. Sigh.

  4. #344
    Senior Member coachmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    889

    Default

    So is it global warming or climate change? Sounds like "hedging your bets" to me!

  5. #345
    Senior Member Golddogs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,231

    Default

    As many of the " there is no climate change" crowd likes to chirp; Follow The Money......................

    Threat to bottom line spurs business action on climate

    New York Times


    WASHINGTON — Coca-Cola had always been more focused on its economic bottom line than on global warming, but when the company lost a lucrative operating license in India because of a serious water shortage there in 2004, things began to change.

    After a decade of increasing hits to Coke’s balance sheet as global droughts dried up the water needed to produce its pop, the company has embraced the idea of climate change as an economically disruptive force.

    “Increased droughts, more unpredictable variability, 100year floods every two years,” said Jeffrey Seabright, Coke’s vice president of environment and water resources, listing the problems that he said were also disrupting the company’s supply of sugar cane and sugar beets, as well as citrus for its fruit juices. “When we look at our most essential ingredients, we see those events as threats.”

    Coke reflects a growing view among U.S. business leaders and mainstream economists who see global warming as an economically disruptive force that contributes to lower gross domestic products, higher food and commodity costs, broken supply chains and increased financial risk. Their position is at striking odds with the longstanding argument, advanced by the coal industry and others, that policies to curb carbon emissions are more economically harmful than the effects of climate change.

    “The bottom line is that the policies will increase the cost of carbon and electricity,” said Roger Bezdek, an economist who produced a report for the coal lobby that was released this week. “Even the most conservative estimates peg the social benefit of carbonbased fuels as 50 times greater than its supposed social cost.”

    Some tycoons are no longer listening. At the Swiss resort of Davos, corporate leaders and politicians gathered for the annual World Economic Forum devoted Friday to panels and talks on the threat of climate change. The emphasis will be less about saving polar bears and more about promoting economic self-interest.

    In Washington, World Bank President Jim Yong Kim has put climate change at the center of the bank’s mission, citing global warming as chief contributor to rising global poverty rates and falling GDPs in developing nations. In Europe, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the Parisbased club of 34 industrialized nations, has begun to warn of the steep costs of increased carbon pollution.

    Nike, which has more than 700 factories in 49 countries, is also speaking out because of extreme weather that is disrupting its supply chain. In 2008, floods temporarily shut down four Nike factories in Thailand, and the company remains concerned about rising droughts in regions that produce cotton, which the company uses in its clothes.

    “That puts less cotton on the market, the price goes up, and you have market volatility,” said Hannah Jones, the company’s vice president of sustainability and innovation. Nike already has reported the impact of climate change on water supplies on its financial risk disclosure forms to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

    Nike and Coke are responding internally: Coke uses water-conservation technologies and Nike is using more synthetic material that is less dependent on weather. At Davos and in global capitals, the firms also are lobbying governments to enact environmentally friendly policies.

    But the ideas are a tough sell in countries such as China and India, where cheap coalpowered energy is boosting the economies and helping lift millions out of poverty.

    Even in Europe, officials have begun to balk at the cost of environmental policies: On Wednesday, the European Union scaled back its climate change and renewable energy commitments as high energy costs, declining industrial competitiveness and a recognition that the economy is unlikely to rebound soon caused policymakers to question the short-term economic trade-offs of climate policy.
    Never trust a dog to watch your food!

  6. #346
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Detroit Lakes, MN
    Posts
    1,440

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by coachmo View Post
    So is it global warming or climate change? Sounds like "hedging your bets" to me!
    Not at all. The earth is warming. The climate is changing.

  7. #347
    Senior Member coachmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    889

    Default

    It appears that since people find it hard to believe the earth is warming since numerous places have experienced record lows over the last few years the new verbiage is the repackage the idea with climate change.

  8. #348
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,130

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Henry V View Post
    Who ever said that sun activity does not have an effect on the earths climate? Please point out where this has been stated.

    This article in no way suggests that climate change/warming is not happening due to the known increase in CO2. In fact, the article presents a theory that a reduction in sun's activities could mask the effects of climate change for a little while.
    Henry Stan isn't real adept at reading and understanding many of the links he posts

  9. #349
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,891

    Default

    Maybe, but it wouldn't do much, and not for very long. Researchers at the National Center for Atmospheric Research used a computer model to predict the effect of a future "grand solar minimum" on Earth's climate from 2020 to 2070. The model suggested the minimum might slow down the process by 20-30 percent, causing a temporary cooling. But within a few decades afterward, the temperatures would go right back to where they would have been anyway. Sigh.
    And maybe the whole "balance" of the solar system and the warming and cooling effects from various variables are part of the overall "design" of the integral parts?

    At least these scientists are willing to look beyond the "doomsday" of an Little Ice Age from sunspot activity, to other variables. It is also possible that during the hiatus between excessive warming and excessive cooling, we (humans) will continue to find the new technologies in energy that can ameliorate the effects on humans?

    But the ideas are a tough sell in countries such as China and India, where cheap coalpowered energy is boosting the economies and helping lift millions out of poverty.

    Even in Europe, officials have begun to balk at the cost of environmental policies: On Wednesday, the European Union scaled back its climate change and renewable energy commitments as high energy costs, declining industrial competitiveness and a recognition that the economy is unlikely to rebound soon caused policymakers to question the short-term economic trade-offs of climate policy.
    I read an article about the changes being made in the EU. They have already made great reductions in their use of both fossil fuels and nuclear. They are determined to totally eliminate nuclear energy ... but they will be replacing that mostly with fossil fuel. That could have something to do with the impact of the down-pricing of NG as a result of the new discoveries of NG and the technologies to extract it at commercially viable ways.

    While there are still reservations about fracking and ocean drilling of NG, do we really expect that our innovation will not continue to improve? Yet NG will give the time to develop those technologies, just as conventional oil extraction kept our cars on the road as the NG tech was developed. Is there a way to produce nuclear energy more safely and solve the spent-fuel disposal problems? Is there a way to improve solar technologies to make solar energy more affordable to more people?

    As for India and China, can we really blame them for using coal? Industrialization has raised the standard of living for almost every stratum of their society. A long way to go with the hundreds of millions of people that must be supported in those countries, but they have also come a long way. Those who have seen the improvements in their lives are not likely to give them up. If the govts made decisions that would take that away from them, I doubt those govts could withstand the public displeasure that would result. China and its people, however, are beginning to find out what pollution is about; much like Western countries did. In their own self-interest they can see why they must evolve. Perhaps that will occur more quickly than we anticipate because the problem has been solved before; and the technologies continue to improve.

    I sometimes amazed at the pessimism that pervades the whole issue of our situation. How can we look at how far we've come and the great victories of human innovations and remain so pessimistic? I was just reading that polio has been vanquished in all but three countries in the world! (Pakistan, A'stan, & one other I can't recall) I have a friend who actually survived polio as a kid. I remember standing in line at the school gym getting polio shots; and then Sabin came out with the oral vaccine. Do we remember the pessimism about AIDS in the early 80s? Today, can we doubt that AIDS could some day take its place beside smallpox and polio? IF (and I'm not still not sure CO2 is the "cause"), CO2 is the cause, can we find a way to "re-cycle" it, not only to regulate climate change, but also do so in such a way that we could modulate the recycling to work in tandem with the warming and cooling phases of the earth?

    Or maybe we should just crawl back into our caves, and give up?
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  10. #350
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Pac NW
    Posts
    4,253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mjh345 View Post
    Henry Stan isn't real adept at reading and understanding many of the links he posts
    Stan should take it as a compliment that a lightweight, such as yourself, chooses to attempt to diminish his contribution to this forum.
    When was the last time you posted anything of substance , if ever.
    __________________________

    Marvin S

    Everyone's friend is No One's friend

    Someday your life will flash before your eyes. It's your responsibility to make sure it's worth watching!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •