FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Earth is facing a 30 year deep freeze cyckle
Earth is facing a 30 year deep freeze cyckle
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Earth is rapidly growing colder because of diminished solar activity.
Trends indicate we could be headed for colder temperatures similar to those seen in the late 1700s and early 1800s when the sun went into a "solar minimum" — a phenomenon with significantly reduced solar activity, including solar flares and sunspots.
Whats your thought? I find it quite exciting. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Sun cycles between solar min and maximum every 11 years yes solar activity has gone quiet but it's only the second cycle we have been able to witness properly so we don't know if it's more quiet than normal or not |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Im dying to ask if its getting hotter or colder but the thread will just turn into chaos  "
I often wonder myself if it gets hotter or colder during a deep freeze.....it's a conundrum for sure |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Despite claims like these. The actual measurements still show temperatures rising.
The Thames freezing during the LIA was more to do with sluggish flow because of the design of London Bridge at the time and because the Embankments didn't exist then. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Aren't a lot of us getting wiped out by a tsunami anyway if that Canary Island volcano erupts and the Island sinks ? According to the cheery programme I watched the other day! So we won't need to worry about the temperatures.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Where's the peer reviewed research evidence in reputable journals Shag?
My gut feeling is that it would distract from man made global warming, where the causes have not been addressed and humans would stupidly not take the opportunity to get their act together. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Earth is rapidly growing colder because of diminished solar activity.
Trends indicate we could be headed for colder temperatures similar to those seen in the late 1700s and early 1800s "
But apparently Global warming is the real problem. ....
I wish they'd choose which one they want. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Aren't a lot of us getting wiped out by a tsunami anyway if that Canary Island volcano erupts and the Island sinks ? According to the cheery programme I watched the other day! So we won't need to worry about the temperatures. "
.
That would be the east coast of America! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Earth is rapidly growing colder because of diminished solar activity.
Trends indicate we could be headed for colder temperatures similar to those seen in the late 1700s and early 1800s when the sun went into a "solar minimum" — a phenomenon with significantly reduced solar activity, including solar flares and sunspots.
Whats your thought? I find it quite exciting."
.
The mini ice age with the famous frost fairs started in the 1600s with notable cold spells in the 1700s and 1800s. As yet there is no conclusive proof of its cause but several theories, ranging from ocean current slow down, solar reduction, excessive volcano activity or natural climate change from the medieval warm period (small note that period was actually cooler than we are today).
It is entirely possible that global warming may throw the climate back into the ice age!.
It's also entirely possible we may end up like Venus with huge amounts of methane making for the 6th earth extinction.
And that might come as early as 2030 according to some data |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I've had a scan for any research evidence but it mainly seems to come from scare story alerts, from non accredited sources, so I think Shag - and others - that you can relax.
Global Warming is the predominant trend, caused largely by humans. How this pans out, when major climatic checks and balances may be thrown off or killed, due to our interference, is not anybody's guess: we should largely stick to the worlds' scientists who have those massive computer models that are crunching huuuuge loads of data. The UK's Met Office computer runs 16,000 trillion calculations per second - this is quite a lot more than the imbox messages received by all females on Fab, by a fair number, even on a day when all guys are horny to the max.
The quick answer is that climate prediction is rapidly developing as a science, with incredible computing power behind it. What the world hasn't had to contend with in the past is the major influence that humans have had since the industrial revolution. They're able to analyse data going back millions of years - through data from fossils, as well as more recent data, such as from deep ice drilling, which retrieves ancient ice with its CO2 content.
There are lots of energy corporation funded people who spout off nonsense though, so it's worth checking any sources of opinion and information, for its credibility. If it's not published in credible peer reviewed journals, then it's probably not worth any attention. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
It's also worth remembering that rising sea levels and flood waters cause massive problems to the 400 and odd nuclear power stations world wide.
It seems the dangers of Fukushima haven't been learnt except for in Germany? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Hello Sophie,
"Global Warming is the predominant trend, caused largely by humans. How this pans out, when major climatic checks and balances may be thrown off or killed, due to our interference, is not anybody's guess: we should largely stick to the worlds' scientists who have those massive computer models that are crunching huuuuge loads of data."
As the old saying goes 'Garbage in, Garbage out' Glib, yes, but so far the computer predictions have not been upheld so probably there are other factors not put into the models?
Alec
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Hello Sophie,
"Global Warming is the predominant trend, caused largely by humans. How this pans out, when major climatic checks and balances may be thrown off or killed, due to our interference, is not anybody's guess: we should largely stick to the worlds' scientists who have those massive computer models that are crunching huuuuge loads of data."
As the old saying goes 'Garbage in, Garbage out' Glib, yes, but so far the computer predictions have not been upheld so probably there are other factors not put into the models?
Alec
"
.
That's just a complete myth.
The fact that climate models have accurately predicted temp rise over observed tempo rise over 30 years is proof alone, infact they accurately predicted a global cooling of 0.5 degrees from the volcanic eruption of mount Pinatubo in 1991.
common misconception is that climate models are biased towards exaggerating the effects from CO2. It bears mentioning that uncertainty can go either way. In fact, in a climate system with net positive feedback, uncertainty is skewed more towards a stronger climate response . For this reason, many of the IPCC predictions have subsequently been shown to underestimate the climate response. Satellite and tide-gauge measurements show that sea level rise is accelerating faster than IPCC predictions. The average rate of rise for 1993-2008 as measured from satellite is 3.4 millimetres per year while the IPCC Third Assessment Report projected a best estimate of 1.9 millimetres per year for the same period. Observations are tracking along the upper range of IPCC sea level projections.
Similarly, summertime melting of Arctic sea-ice has accelerated far beyond the expectations of climate models. The area of sea-ice melt during 2007-2009 was about 40% greater than the average prediction from IPCC AR4 climate models. The thickness of Arctic sea ice has also been on a steady decline over the last several decades. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Hello Sophie,
"Global Warming is the predominant trend, caused largely by humans. How this pans out, when major climatic checks and balances may be thrown off or killed, due to our interference, is not anybody's guess: we should largely stick to the worlds' scientists who have those massive computer models that are crunching huuuuge loads of data."
As the old saying goes 'Garbage in, Garbage out' Glib, yes, but so far the computer predictions have not been upheld so probably there are other factors not put into the models?
Alec
"
Actually the models are still working very well. If anything the predictions have tended to be conservative, especially for sea level rise, Greenland ice melt, and methane emissions. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Hello Sexybum,
we obviously read different accounts.
"The fact that climate models have accurately predicted temp rise over observed tempo rise over 30 years is proof alone, infact they accurately predicted a global cooling of 0.5 degrees from the volcanic eruption of mount Pinatubo in 1991."
Even the IPCC is talking about it as a pause. If the models were accurate, why would they do that?
There are more and more bodies questioning the whole man made climate change theories and more to the point the vast amount of money being thrown at the problem which will be ineffective, especially as the proponents of these methods seem to rule out the most effective and reliable power source with little or no CO2 emissions when running. That, of course, being nuclear power.
Alec
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Hello Sexybum,
we obviously read different accounts.
"The fact that climate models have accurately predicted temp rise over observed tempo rise over 30 years is proof alone, infact they accurately predicted a global cooling of 0.5 degrees from the volcanic eruption of mount Pinatubo in 1991."
Even the IPCC is talking about it as a pause. If the models were accurate, why would they do that?
There are more and more bodies questioning the whole man made climate change theories and more to the point the vast amount of money being thrown at the problem which will be ineffective, especially as the proponents of these methods seem to rule out the most effective and reliable power source with little or no CO2 emissions when running. That, of course, being nuclear power.
Alec
"
.
This global cooling over the last 17 years is a large misconception by people who don't take a deeper look at the statistics.
The warmest year on record was 1998 that is true so we've not had a warmer year in 17 years however the trend is still up as 12 of those 17 are still in the top ten of the warmest years recorded.
On a graph it's up not down.
Ie 2008 was the fourth highest year recorded and by NASAs measurement 2014 is the warmest year on their records... The tend is upwards just as predicted by the computer models |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Hello Sexybum,
we obviously read different accounts.
"The fact that climate models have accurately predicted temp rise over observed tempo rise over 30 years is proof alone, infact they accurately predicted a global cooling of 0.5 degrees from the volcanic eruption of mount Pinatubo in 1991."
Even the IPCC is talking about it as a pause. If the models were accurate, why would they do that?
There are more and more bodies questioning the whole man made climate change theories and more to the point the vast amount of money being thrown at the problem which will be ineffective, especially as the proponents of these methods seem to rule out the most effective and reliable power source with little or no CO2 emissions when running. That, of course, being nuclear power.
Alec
"
.
Alec id also like to point out to you that nuclear energy produces c02, if you take into account building, decommissioning, maintenance, refining and digging of ore.
In fact even the generators themselves if you take that into account put there c02 per kwh produced at around 80-100g
This compares with around 300-400 with natural gas
1000-1200 with new coal
And around 10-40 with renewables like wind and solar.
I'd also like to point out that uranium is not renewable and even at current output without calculating for any increases at all... There's only 100-150 years or so, I'd also point out that around 35% the world's known resources of uranium lye in counties that might not want to share it! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Man made global warming is in place and I would be so pleased if we had a longer period to try to avert it from causing potential catastrophe for us and the world.
The fantasy scenario of us not being at crisis point is just a fantasy. Predictions are not guarantees but there is now so much in-built accuracy that computer and expert driven models are phenomenally good.
There are no peer reviewed papers published in professional journals on cooling because there is no professional opinion or evidence. Unlike man made global warming, where scientific evidence abounds in reputable publications. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Hello Sexybum,
of course there is CO2 produced in construction and manufacture of all stations and your figure for wind is woefully short of the real figure, particularly when you factor in the availability CO2/Mwh). Also due to the location of these generators there is large transmission construction works required. It takes approximately 500 wind turbines to give the equivalent of one medium sized power station. (Working on a figure of 2Mw/h per turbine availability)
I'm not up to date but when I worked at a nuclear power station the fuel was re cycled.
Alec
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Hello Sexybum,
of course there is CO2 produced in construction and manufacture of all stations and your figure for wind is woefully short of the real figure, particularly when you factor in the availability CO2/Mwh). Also due to the location of these generators there is large transmission construction works required. It takes approximately 500 wind turbines to give the equivalent of one medium sized power station. (Working on a figure of 2Mw/h per turbine availability)
I'm not up to date but when I worked at a nuclear power station the fuel was re cycled.
Alec
"
.alec
You can "recycle" some of the fissionable material, it's neither cheap nor easy but it's limited, you can't keep recycling it!, that's why they have great big uranium mines in Australia, Canada and Russia, it's an ore which usually is scrape mined, then you have to prepare it for use with complicated centrifugal machines these all take lots of c02 usage
The losses on renewables are actually alot less because of their scattering among the network rather than the few big plants.
Nuclear plants cost mega bucks to build, maintain, run and most importantly decommission (a price were just starting to have to shell out for in this country) compared to other fuels hence why they have a bigger c02 output in everything except fuel.
I'm not saying nuclear isn't doable what I'm saying is it's a bit more complicated than people think!.. If nuclear was so attractive and easy and cheap, you'd think the usa would have built one in the last 30 years but they haven't.
I haven't even got started on what, where and how you store your waste for the next 10,000 years either  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Hello Sexybum,
of course there is CO2 produced in construction and manufacture of all stations and your figure for wind is woefully short of the real figure, particularly when you factor in the availability CO2/Mwh). Also due to the location of these generators there is large transmission construction works required. It takes approximately 500 wind turbines to give the equivalent of one medium sized power station. (Working on a figure of 2Mw/h per turbine availability)
I'm not up to date but when I worked at a nuclear power station the fuel was re cycled.
Alec
"
.Alec.
I forgot to ask which plant did you work at, from your location I'm guessing it was Angelsey?.
Wylfa uses a magnox reactor system, these were built primarily for producing plutonium and never used anything but natural uranium for fuel, this means they have to refuel it alot compared to modern reactors using enriched uranium, in the industry that's called downedtime.
And is one of the reasons wylfa is set for decommissioning soon!. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
sand sun and ... 
