Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.

[harlenadler]

I hate to tell you but the planet has been cooling and warning for billions of years before all this junk came about.
If the Earth is warming it has nothing to do wtih us, zero.............
I leave you with someone more outspoken than I to explain all this to you https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c

It is true that the world has experienced warmer and colder periods in the past without any interference from humans. The ice ages are well-known examples of global changes to the climate. But even taking all the natural effects into account we cannot explain the temperature rises that we have seen over the last 100 years both on land and in the oceans without factoring in the actions of humans.

We know from looking at gases found trapped in cores of polar ice that the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are now 35 per cent greater than they have been for at least the last 650,000 years. This is mainly due to the burning of fossil fuels, as well as the production of cement and the widespread burning of the world's forests. The increase in global temperature is consistent with the level of increase in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

I also leave someone more outspoken than I to explain this to all of you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkR3TI6xyzU

[1714880087]

1714880087

[1714880087]

1714880087

[1714880087]

1714880087

[tvbcof]

I hate to tell you but the planet has been cooling and warning for billions of years before all this junk came about.
If the Earth is warming it has nothing to do wtih us, zero.............
I leave you with someone more outspoken than I to explain all this to you https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c

It is true that the world has experienced warmer and colder periods in the past without any interference from humans. The ice ages are well-known examples of global changes to the climate. But even taking all the natural effects into account we cannot explain the temperature rises that we have seen over the last 100 years both on land and in the oceans without factoring in the actions of humans.

We know from looking at gases found trapped in cores of polar ice that the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are now 35 per cent greater than they have been for at least the last 650,000 years. This is mainly due to the burning of fossil fuels, as well as the production of cement and the widespread burning of the world's forests. The increase in global temperature is consistent with the level of increase in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

I also leave someone more outspoken than I to explain this to all of you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkR3TI6xyzU

Nye is an entertainer (as was Carlin.)  I prefer to try to get my information about science from scientists when possible.

People who are not afraid to test their skills to at least follow some more complex analysis from an actual atmospheric physicist may be interested in these links which I've posted before:

The absurd picture you paint about ice cores is decimated by the analysis described here:

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeCqcKYj9Oc

and a more recent presentation from the same guy given in 2015 which is slightly less mathy shows that if we burn all the fossil fuel we know about in the worst case scenario, the human contribution to global warming could possibly be around 0.4 degrees C iirc.  Maybe it was 0.2 C.  That way out after year 2100.  Pay particular attention to the opacity of the atmosphere with varying CO2 and where it levels off.

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCya4LilBZ8

Yes, the guy was ejected from academia.  I personally feel that in today's academic and scientific climate (no pun intended) that fact strengthens his credibility greatly.

Considering the facts that humans are a tiny contributor to CO2, and CO2 is a trace gas with a modest 'greenhouse' effect compared to others, the result that human use of fossil fuels has a minimal effect on temperature is actually quite intuitive.

The simple fact that CO2 is nearly 400 ppmv and has continued to rise while global surface temperatures have been stable for nearly 20 years now pretty much blows the rather bizarre notion that CO2 is driving temperature out of the water.  As Salby puts it (for different analytical method but same result) it 'makes it clear which one is the cart and which one is the horse.'  It also explains why the probably billions of dollars worth of computer models of climate upon which our policy (more taxes, more 'social justice', more govt power) is based are proving uniformly bogus as time goes by.

Here's my analogy:  If you walk into a room where someone left a greasy pan on a hot burner and the room is filled with smoke, do you assume that the smoke caused the heat in the pan and the opening the window will solve the heat problem?  Not unless you want an excuse to tax grease.

[Wilikon]

I hate to tell you but the planet has been cooling and warning for billions of years before all this junk came about.
If the Earth is warming it has nothing to do wtih us, zero.............
I leave you with someone more outspoken than I to explain all this to you https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c

It is true that the world has experienced warmer and colder periods in the past without any interference from humans. The ice ages are well-known examples of global changes to the climate. But even taking all the natural effects into account we cannot explain the temperature rises that we have seen over the last 100 years both on land and in the oceans without factoring in the actions of humans.

We know from looking at gases found trapped in cores of polar ice that the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are now 35 per cent greater than they have been for at least the last 650,000 years. This is mainly due to the burning of fossil fuels, as well as the production of cement and the widespread burning of the world's forests. The increase in global temperature is consistent with the level of increase in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

I also leave someone more outspoken than I to explain this to all of you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkR3TI6xyzU

You should always do the talking yourself and not let a joker do it for you...

 

[galdur]

Hudson Bay still almost 50% covered in ice

JULY 8, 2015

Third highest coverage this week since 1992 – High ice coverage just about everywhere.

8 JUL 2015 – THERE IS STILL A LOT OF SEA ICE IN HUDSON BAY, FOXE BASIN, DAVIS STRAIT AND BAFFIN BAY THIS WEEK – MORE THAN AVERAGE FOR THIS DATE.

With almost 50% of the bay still covered in ice, Hudson Bay has the third highest coverage this week since 1992 (after 2009 and 2004); Davis Strait has the highest coverage since 1992; and Foxe Basin and Baffin Bay have the highest coverage since 1998. The Beaufort Sea this week has the second highest coverage since 2006 (after 2013), and more ice than was present in 1971, 1982, 1987, 1988 and 1998 – among others.

http://polarbearscience.com/2015/07/08/sea-ice-breakup-update-high-ice-coverage-just-about-everywhere-even-hudson-bay/

[Spendulus]

I hate to tell you but the planet has been cooling and warning for billions of years before all this junk came about.
If the Earth is warming it has nothing to do wtih us, zero.............
I leave you with someone more outspoken than I to explain all this to you https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c

It is true that the world has experienced warmer and colder periods in the past without any interference from humans. The ice ages are well-known examples of global changes to the climate. But even taking all the natural effects into account we cannot explain the temperature rises that we have seen over the last 100 years both on land and in the oceans without factoring in the actions of humans.

We know from looking at gases found trapped in cores of polar ice that the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are now 35 per cent greater than they have been for at least the last 650,000 years. This is mainly due to the burning of fossil fuels, as well as the production of cement and the widespread burning of the world's forests. The increase in global temperature is consistent with the level of increase in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

I also leave someone more outspoken than I to explain this to all of you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkR3TI6xyzU

Perhaps more outspoken, but wrong.  I debunked his "CO2 science experiment" earlier in this thread. 

As for your assertions about ice cores, they are quite interesting.  But has it occurred to you that they are much less reliable for the last several decades, and even the last century, than prior millenia?  It takes a while for snow to become packed snow, and for that to become ice.

Now as for this statement of yours...

taking all the natural effects into account we cannot explain the temperature rises that we have seen over the last 100 years both on land and in the oceans without factoring in the actions of humans.

This is simply wrong.  It is likely based on your reading and believing some outdated scientific conclusions or pseudo science written by climate alarmists.

At the core of this question is "natural climate variability" and "climate sensitivity."

This does not lead to a conclusion that human co2 production has no effect, but that was not your assertion.  Your assertion was that the last century's temperature rise cannot be explained without a human factor. 

The same people that make claims of that sort claim there was no Little Ice Age and no Medieval Warm Period.  They are liars.

[Wilikon]

Is a mini ICE AGE on the way? Scientists warn the sun will 'go to sleep' in 2030 and could cause temperatures to plummet

The Earth could be headed for a ‘mini ice age’ researchers have warned.

A new study claims to have cracked predicting solar cycles – and says that between 2020 and 2030 solar cycles will cancel each other out.

This, they say, will lead to a phenomenon known as the ‘Maunder minimum’ – which has previously been known as a mini ice age when it hit between 1646 and 1715, even causing London’s River Thames to freeze over.

The new model of the Sun’s solar cycle is producing unprecedentedly accurate predictions of irregularities within the Sun’s 11-year heartbeat.

It draws on dynamo effects in two layers of the Sun, one close to the surface and one deep within its convection zone.

Predictions from the model suggest that solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during the 2030s to conditions last seen during the ‘mini ice age’ that began in 1645, according to the results presented by Prof Valentina Zharkova at the National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno.

The model predicts that the pair of waves become increasingly offset during Cycle 25, which peaks in 2022.

During Cycle 26, which covers the decade from 2030-2040, the two waves will become exactly out of synch and this will cause a significant reduction in solar activity.

‘In cycle 26, the two waves exactly mirror each other – peaking at the same time but in opposite hemispheres of the Sun,’ said Zharkova.

‘Their interaction will be disruptive, or they will nearly cancel each other.

‘We predict that this will lead to the properties of a ‘Maunder minimum”


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3156594/Is-mini-ICE-AGE-way-Scientists-warn-sun-sleep-2020-cause-temperatures-plummet.html

[Spendulus]

Is a mini ICE AGE on the way? Scientists warn the sun will 'go to sleep' in 2030 and could cause temperatures to plummet

The Earth could be headed for a ‘mini ice age’ researchers have warned.

A new study claims to have cracked predicting solar cycles – and says that between 2020 and 2030 solar cycles will cancel each other out.

This, they say, will lead to a phenomenon known as the ‘Maunder minimum’ – which has previously been known as a mini ice age when it hit between 1646 and 1715, even causing London’s River Thames to freeze over.

The new model of the Sun’s solar cycle is producing unprecedentedly accurate predictions of irregularities within the Sun’s 11-year heartbeat.

It draws on dynamo effects in two layers of the Sun, one close to the surface and one deep within its convection zone.

Predictions from the model suggest that solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during the 2030s to conditions last seen during the ‘mini ice age’ that began in 1645, according to the results presented by Prof Valentina Zharkova at the National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno.

The model predicts that the pair of waves become increasingly offset during Cycle 25, which peaks in 2022.

During Cycle 26, which covers the decade from 2030-2040, the two waves will become exactly out of synch and this will cause a significant reduction in solar activity.

‘In cycle 26, the two waves exactly mirror each other – peaking at the same time but in opposite hemispheres of the Sun,’ said Zharkova.

‘Their interaction will be disruptive, or they will nearly cancel each other.

‘We predict that this will lead to the properties of a ‘Maunder minimum”


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3156594/Is-mini-ICE-AGE-way-Scientists-warn-sun-sleep-2020-cause-temperatures-plummet.html

These are not "deniers."

They are prominent solar physics scientists.

[Cryddit]

That would be incredibly lucky - a once-in-four-centuries event happening exactly when AGW puts us in most dire need of it. 

Still, let's all hope they're right.  It would be awesome to run out of fossil fuels, and maybe even get a survivable colony or two into space, before frying the planet or producing an environment here in which we cannot survive. 

I don't think the fifty years or so of a Maunder Minimum is quite enough time for that to happen though given that extraction technology is getting so much more effective though.  If they're right and one is coming, we'll find out.

[Wilikon]

Is a mini ICE AGE on the way? Scientists warn the sun will 'go to sleep' in 2030 and could cause temperatures to plummet

The Earth could be headed for a ‘mini ice age’ researchers have warned.

A new study claims to have cracked predicting solar cycles – and says that between 2020 and 2030 solar cycles will cancel each other out.

This, they say, will lead to a phenomenon known as the ‘Maunder minimum’ – which has previously been known as a mini ice age when it hit between 1646 and 1715, even causing London’s River Thames to freeze over.

The new model of the Sun’s solar cycle is producing unprecedentedly accurate predictions of irregularities within the Sun’s 11-year heartbeat.

It draws on dynamo effects in two layers of the Sun, one close to the surface and one deep within its convection zone.

Predictions from the model suggest that solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during the 2030s to conditions last seen during the ‘mini ice age’ that began in 1645, according to the results presented by Prof Valentina Zharkova at the National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno.

The model predicts that the pair of waves become increasingly offset during Cycle 25, which peaks in 2022.

During Cycle 26, which covers the decade from 2030-2040, the two waves will become exactly out of synch and this will cause a significant reduction in solar activity.

‘In cycle 26, the two waves exactly mirror each other – peaking at the same time but in opposite hemispheres of the Sun,’ said Zharkova.

‘Their interaction will be disruptive, or they will nearly cancel each other.

‘We predict that this will lead to the properties of a ‘Maunder minimum”


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3156594/Is-mini-ICE-AGE-way-Scientists-warn-sun-sleep-2020-cause-temperatures-plummet.html

These are not "deniers."

They are prominent solar physics scientists.

I am sure these scientists and all their studies were always welcomed among the "97% real scientists"...
Of course they were not.

Worse. If the "97%ers" are so invested in their belief  now we may be heading to a real solar apocalypse, them denying the need for more investment and research in solar activities...

[Wilikon]

That would be incredibly lucky - a once-in-four-centuries event happening exactly when AGW puts us in most dire need of it. 

Still, let's all hope they're right.  It would be awesome to run out of fossil fuels, and maybe even get a survivable colony or two into space, before frying the planet or producing an environment here in which we cannot survive. 

I don't think the fifty years or so of a Maunder Minimum is quite enough time for that to happen though given that extraction technology is getting so much more effective though.  If they're right and one is coming, we'll find out.

Do you mean unlucky?

[Cryddit]

Hell no I don't mean unlucky.  If we get a mini ice age starting in about a decade or so and it more-or-less cancels out AGW?  That would be the best luck we could possibly have.

A planet where most of us can survive is a far far better thing than a planet where most of us can't, and if we don't get a break like a Maunder Minimum, we're going to get a planet where most of us can't.

If we manage to run out of fossil fools before it's over, so much the better - it removes one of the means by which we'd otherwise probably go on to fuck it up again.

[Wilikon]

Hell no I don't mean unlucky.  If we get a mini ice age starting in about a decade or so and it more-or-less cancels out AGW?  That would be the best luck we could possibly have.

A planet where most of us can survive is a far far better thing than a planet where most of us can't, and if we don't get a break like a Maunder Minimum, we're going to get a planet where most of us can't.

If we manage to run out of fossil fools before it's over, so much the better - it removes one of the means by which we'd otherwise probably go on to fuck it up again.

If a mini ice age is coming humans are not going to let themselves freeze to death. Humans with money and power that is. It is better to be a bum in the caribbeans all year long than one facing winter every year. Who do you think will survive the mini ice age? The rich nations or the poor nations? 

Very rich nations and people like al gore pray for a mini ice age, so less "undesirable humans" will be left on earth to share its natural resources... It does not matter if it is global warming or global cooling. Ultimate power it the end game.


It is not and has never been about saving the planet.

[Cryddit]

If a mini ice age is coming humans are not going to let themselves freeze to death. Humans with money and power that is. It is better to be a bum in the caribbeans all year long than one facing winter every year. Who do you think will survive the mini ice age? The rich nations or the poor nations? 

Hah.  We're not going to get an ice age, mini or otherwise.  We're already at a greater increase over baseline than a Maunder Minimum can reduce.  Even if we did, a Maunder minimum isn't planetary ice sheets; it's freezing waters in the Thames and a partial restoration of the polar caps.

It is not and has never been about saving the planet.

No, you're right.  The planet will be here.  We can't kill earth, I don't think, at least not yet.  Nature will go right on adapting in a hot, mostly-depleted biosphere, producing everything from new species of grass and lizards to mosses and fungus, to maybe giant bats and things.   What we can do though, is make Earth into an environment that will necessarily go on without us because it isn't a suitable environment for humans any more. 

So what it's about, and always has been about, isn't saving the planet - it's saving the Humans.

[Wilikon]

If a mini ice age is coming humans are not going to let themselves freeze to death. Humans with money and power that is. It is better to be a bum in the caribbeans all year long than one facing winter every year. Who do you think will survive the mini ice age? The rich nations or the poor nations? 

Hah.  We're not going to get an ice age, mini or otherwise.  We're already at a greater increase over baseline than a Maunder Minimum can reduce.  Even if we did, a Maunder minimum isn't planetary ice sheets; it's freezing waters in the Thames and a partial restoration of the polar caps.

It is not and has never been about saving the planet.

No, you're right.  The planet will be here.  We can't kill earth, I don't think, at least not yet.  Nature will go right on adapting in a hot, mostly-depleted biosphere, producing everything from new species of grass and lizards to mosses and fungus, to maybe giant bats and things.   What we can do though, is make Earth into an environment that will necessarily go on without us because it isn't a suitable environment for humans any more. 

So what it's about, and always has been about, isn't saving the planet - it's saving the Humans.

Some humans. Not all. Not the poorest humans. Not the ones who can't afford  trophy hunting on WWF parks... To save the animals in the park and the planet of course...

[tvbcof]

So what it's about, and always has been about, isn't saving the planet - it's saving the Humans.

Some humans. Not all. Not the poorest humans. Not the ones who can't afford  trophy hunting on WWF parks... To save the animals in the park and the planet of course...

I got to looking into the WWF a while ago.  Shocking...and entirely predictable for modern 'eco' folks.  I've a family member who was deluded enough to send them (or some eco mega-ngo) some money one time.  Now they and about 50 others send big glossy ads at a rate of about 1 old growth forest per week to their mailbox.

  http://www.survivalinternational.org/news/10456

In reading about the Baka of Cameroon I found out that the other semi-local didn't really consider them human because of their stature and use to hunt them like monkeys sometimes.  The modern 'eco' crowd seems to hate human beings more than any other pest.  Once they take over it wouldn't surprise me in the least to see trophy hunts for Baka pygmies make a return.

Cryddit is probably among the 99% of well meaning but deluded souls who cannot see through the lies and propaganda to understand those who have shaped his/her mind.  The more I study things the more I am convinced that those who are up there out of cryddit's awareness are genuinely and vigorously evil.

[Spendulus]

That would be incredibly lucky - a once-in-four-centuries event happening exactly when AGW puts us in most dire need of it.  

Still, let's all hope they're right.  It would be awesome to run out of fossil fuels, and maybe even get a survivable colony or two into space, before frying the planet or producing an environment here in which we cannot survive.  

I don't think the fifty years or so of a Maunder Minimum is quite enough time for that to happen though given that extraction technology is getting so much more effective though.  If they're right and one is coming, we'll find out.

Well, not exactly.  Run some back of the envelope calculations on human starvation in the case of a "year without a summer" as occurred during the Little Ice Age, given the current population level and distribution.  It ain't pretty.

Also, there is no such thing as "luck" regarding solar cycles - that would be like a primitive native seeing an eclipse, and fearing the next one which could come at any uncertain time.  Actually, primitive people learned the cycles of eclipses to high accuracy - they learned to predict them.  Saying on the one hand that "it would be luck", eg., "we don't know the cycles behind the solar minima" and on the other "THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED ON GLOBAL WARMING (climate change, blah blah blah) is obviously ridiculous.

Then consider that in this circumstance, all the AGW alarmists would have been working to increase the severity of these problems and hence the severity of the negative outcomes for us and the planet.  This is why we need clear, unbiased scientific analysis of actual facts - instead of the hype, propaganda and stupidified "science" that is currently passed off as "consensus thought on climate."

A level of understanding of internal solar dynamics is driving the things the solar scientists are saying - so they are not simply taking some data and "projecting it forward," as the AGW alarmists are doing - and that's really all they are doing to create their fear forecasts.

This is inexcusable.  

[Cryddit]

So what it's about, and always has been about, isn't saving the planet - it's saving the Humans.

Some humans. Not all. Not the poorest humans. Not the ones who can't afford  trophy hunting on WWF parks... To save the animals in the park and the planet of course...

WTF are you talking about?  An extreme environment would in fact be hardest on the poorest people. 

I am specifically hoping for an outcome that doesn't involve creating an extreme environment.  IOW, I would like an outcome that saves a lot of people, not just the rich people. 

It's the ones who don't give a crap about our influence on the environment, or don't believe we're powerful enough to cause an influence, who are setting up a future where only the wealthy survive.

[tvbcof]

So what it's about, and always has been about, isn't saving the planet - it's saving the Humans.

Some humans. Not all. Not the poorest humans. Not the ones who can't afford  trophy hunting on WWF parks... To save the animals in the park and the planet of course...

WTF are you talking about?  An extreme environment would in fact be hardest on the poorest people. 

I am specifically hoping for an outcome that doesn't involve creating an extreme environment.  IOW, I would like an outcome that saves a lot of people, not just the rich people. 

It's the ones who don't give a crap about our influence on the environment, or don't believe we're powerful enough to cause an influence, who are setting up a future where only the wealthy survive.

Cutting back on available energy will kill literally millions of poor people who are on the edge.  I'll grumble a bit about being gouged, but I'll be fine.  What people who have a simplistic understanding of systems think is that people will pay a bit more for gas in their SUV's here in the U.S. and their mopeds in the developing world.  That thought uncovers the ignorance of how important energy completely across the spectrum of human life.  Our food, our clothing, our homes, etc.

Same family members I spoke of earlier have a dim conception of poor Africans getting by with solar cookers until they can get some solar panels (not even stopping to consider that most of them are hard pressed to get a pair of shoes.)  I hate to be the bearer of bad new to the eco-crowd but these people are not going to lay down and die.  They will do what all energy starved people have always done which is to burn every stick they can find on their way out.

With energy we could deal with climate change and kick as few people as possible out of the lifeboat.  Without energy we cannot sustain what we have now in what seems to ignorant people to be a optimal and stable environment.  You probably don't grok this stuff but it is a near certainty that those who have cultivated your disposition among the masses are completely aware of these things.

BTW, I am fully aware of the potential for overpopulation and a situation where it is simply impossible for there to be enough lifeboats.  I studied Hardin as a youth (instead of Rand like most here.)  Although I think it would be 'better' for earth and humans if there were fewer people I do not believe we are even very near that point where our population is 'unsustainable', and it is certainly not a crisis which calls for forced depopulation.  On the other hand, we could be looking at a leveling off at around 9x10^9 specifically because of the successful operations of the eugenicists I dis-agree with.  Not sure yet, but it's a compelling hypothesis which neatly explains a variety of observations.

[Cryddit]

Cutting back on available energy will kill literally millions of poor people who are on the edge.  I'll grumble a bit about being gouged, but I'll be fine.  What people who have a simplistic understanding of systems think is that people will pay a bit more for gas in their SUV's here in the U.S. and their mopeds in the developing world.  

Hello.  Cutting back on available energy will be hard on the poor.  Not cutting back on available energy - at least if we're talking solely about energy from fossil fuels - will be harder on the poor.  And running out of fossil fuels will happen eventually (and probably at a time that won't be that much different) regardless of AGW or doing anything about it.

Unless we get smart enough to develop some other sources of energy, the poor are effing screwed.  So let's get with the damn program and try something else already.

[tvbcof]

Cutting back on available energy will kill literally millions of poor people who are on the edge.  I'll grumble a bit about being gouged, but I'll be fine.  What people who have a simplistic understanding of systems think is that people will pay a bit more for gas in their SUV's here in the U.S. and their mopeds in the developing world.  

Hello.  Cutting back on available energy will be hard on the poor.  Not cutting back on available energy - at least if we're talking solely about energy from fossil fuels - will be harder on the poor.  And running out of fossil fuels will happen eventually (and probably at a time that won't be that much different) regardless of AGW or doing anything about it.

Unless we get smart enough to develop some other sources of energy, the poor are effing screwed.  So let's get with the damn program and try something else already.

The main thing we are going to accomplish along your path are even more powerful multi-national corporations if indeed multi-national even has any meaning going forward.  They are the primary driving force behind 'sustainability' you know?  And, of course, the panic about CO2 is 100% or nearly so simply a tool to achieve these goals.

From Hardin's observations as I remember them, 'starving people fight inefficiently and mostly among themselves.'  That is exactly the herd dynamics one needs to pursue large goals with minimal interference from the masses.