What Will You All Do If Something Happens To The Food Supply?

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
What are the clues that solar minimum / ice age might happen during our lifetimes?
The smaller tendency towards cooling from the solar minimum will be overwhelmed by the larger trend from AGW. No ice age on current projections for many lifetimes, barring unexpected huge volcano or something.

AGW-related conditions have already contributed to crop reductions in some places by just around 1C warming or less.
 

Old Irenaeus

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2020
Messages
1,127
There are some fake eggs in the grocery store I go to, as well as fake meat burguers. Haven't noticed an increase in that recently, but I may have simply not paid attention to it.
I hadn't been to Whole Foods in a while. I was there the other day and was struck by all the plant-based meat substitutes.
 

Perry Staltic

Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2020
Messages
8,186
The smaller tendency towards cooling from the solar minimum will be overwhelmed by the larger trend from AGW. No ice age on current projections for many lifetimes, barring unexpected huge volcano or something.

AGW-related conditions have already contributed to crop reductions in some places by just around 1C warming or less.

Still waiting for this overwhelming warming to happen. Apart from El Nino activity (which has nothing to do with AGW) there hasn't been any significant warming for about 20 years.
 

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
Still waiting for this overwhelming warming to happen. Apart from El Nino activity (which has nothing to do with AGW) there hasn't been any significant warming for about 20 years.
Denying science doesn't make it untrue.
I don't know what the local effects are for you in your location. Perhaps you and yours have not yet been affected by extreme weather, fires, etc, yet.
 

Perry Staltic

Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2020
Messages
8,186
Denying science doesn't make it untrue.
I don't know what the local effects are for you in your location. Perhaps you and yours have not yet been affected by extreme weather, fires, etc, yet.

Which is what you just did. Science is based on data, and I merely stated what the data show - there has been no significant warming over the last 20 years except for El Nino years in which temperature increases occurred; which is perfectly normal and has nothing to do with AGW. Apart from those natural increases it has been flat and possibly has declined a bit.

Extreme weather and fires don't prove anything. Those things always happen in cycles and have been much worse in the past.
 

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
For those who want to understand what the science is saying, and not get confused or attempt to confuse others with misunderstandings or a handful of outliers, this is a conservative report based on a great deal of data gathered and interpreted by many competent scientists:

There's a graph showing observed global temperature change up till 2017 in FIGURE SPM.1.

The report is conservative, in that it only includes phenomena that there is consensus about based on strong evidence.
Each time the IPCC has put out a report, actual change has gone faster than they predicted.


This is just for the US:
 

gaze

Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
2,270
For those who want to understand what the science is saying, and not get confused or attempt to confuse others with misunderstandings or a handful of outliers, this is a conservative report based on a great deal of data gathered and interpreted by many competent scientists:

There's a graph showing observed global temperature change up till 2017 in FIGURE SPM.1.

The report is conservative, in that it only includes phenomena that there is consensus about based on strong evidence.
Each time the IPCC has put out a report, actual change has gone faster than they predicted.


This is just for the US:


Ray talks a little about it at 1:15. he thinks it's caused by a normal sun cycle. i think in another interview he said there will more likely be a global cooling, after this period of heating. there is a definitely a warming in the past 100 years however, probably not caused by co2 the way the mainstream talks about it. fossil fuels are still sh** though and release a lot of toxins
 

Perry Staltic

Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2020
Messages
8,186
For those who want to understand what the science is saying, and not get confused or attempt to confuse others with misunderstandings or a handful of outliers, this is a conservative report based on a great deal of data gathered and interpreted by many competent scientists:

There's a graph showing observed global temperature change up till 2017 in FIGURE SPM.1.

The report is conservative, in that it only includes phenomena that there is consensus about based on strong evidence.
Each time the IPCC has put out a report, actual change has gone faster than they predicted.


This is just for the US:

Trying to determine global temperature variations beyond 40 years is pointless because the temperature record is so spotty. There's just not enough quality measurement data to be able to accurately determine anything meaningful. For example, for the first half of the global temperature record (1880-1950; 70 years) there were less than 50 thermometer stations continuously recording data in the entire southern hemisphere, and most of those were concentrated in SE Australia. All other temperature data for the southern hemisphere are simply generated by computers, ie, they are not measurement data. It wasn't until 1979 when satellite measurements gave us comprehensive and consistent data for the whole globe. So that's only 40 years that we have reliable data.

US natural disasters and heatwaves in 2020 pale in comparison to those that happened in the early part of the 20th century.
 

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
Ray talks a little about it at 1:15. he thinks it's caused by a normal sun cycle. i think in another interview he said there will more likely be a global cooling, after this period of heating. there is a definitely a warming in the past 100 years however, probably not caused by co2 the way the mainstream talks about it. fossil fuels are still sh** though and release a lot of toxins
I agree with you that fossil fuels are trouble for other reasons too.

Sun cycles are real, but their effects are not as large as the effects of increased greenhouse gas emissions and associated feedback mechanisms.

Peat is a biologist; climate science may not be his strongest area. The physics of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, and their effects on climate, have been scientifically established for quite some time. If Peat's going to speak on the subject, maybe he could learn more about it.
 

gaze

Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
2,270
I agree with you that fossil fuels are trouble for other reasons too.

Sun cycles are real, but their effects are not as large as the effects of increased greenhouse gas emissions and associated feedback mechanisms.

Peat is a biologist; climate science may not be his strongest area. The physics of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, and their effects on climate, have been scientifically established for quite some time. If Peat's going to speak on the subject, maybe he could learn more about it.
Yea I don't know enough about the science to talk really. I do know however there are deep financial interests involved in these things. For example james cameron and leonardo dicaprio, both of whom have pushed documentaries on global warming, both of them are heavily invested in the vegan milk and meat market. it's ideal for them to brand cow farts as some global destructive force, conveniently pushing "eco friendly" food, which they happen to own. I asked ray about the financial interests involved in the climate push as well, and he said that the people in nuclear energy have been pushing the narrative strongly as well. This isn't to say the science is all bunk or its not real, but its good to be aware of whos funding the science and pushing the message and any ulterior motives they may have. There are environmental toxins like plastics and other junk that ruins ecosystems, which doesn;t get as much focus because everyone only cares about co2
 

Giraffe

Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
3,730
Regarding the global warming controversy there was a documentary linked in another thread which is really worth watching.

 

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
NASA:
"...
But if such a Grand Solar Minimum occurred, how big of an effect might it have? In terms of climate forcing – a factor that could push the climate in a particular direction – solar scientists estimate it would be about -0.1 W/m2, the same impact of about three years of current carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration growth.

Thus, a new Grand Solar Minimum would only serve to offset a few years of warming caused by human activities.

What does this mean? The warming caused by the greenhouse gas emissions from the human burning of fossil fuels is six times greater than the possible decades-long cooling from a prolonged Grand Solar Minimum.

Even if a Grand Solar Minimum were to last a century, global temperatures would continue to warm. The reason for this is because more factors than just variations in the Sun’s output change global temperatures on Earth, the most dominant of those today is the warming coming from human-induced greenhouse gas emissions."

 

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
This maps studies indicating whether or not there is evidence linking extreme weather events to human activity:

Regarding the global warming controversy ...
There isn't a scientific controversy about whether GHGs are causing increasing global temperature and climate instability, and many of the likely effects.

There is scientific uncertainty about exactly how that may play out, including how fast changes may happen, and whether/when various feedback loops may result in irreversible tipping points.
 
Last edited:

Giraffe

Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
3,730
This maps studies indicating whether or not there is evidence linking extreme weather events to human activity:


There isn't a scientific controversy about whether GHGs are causing increasing global temperature and climate instability, and many of the likely effects.

There is scientific uncertainty about exactly how that may play out, including how fast changes may happen, and whether/when various feedback loops may result in irreversible tipping points.
Have you watched the documentary?
 

Perry Staltic

Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2020
Messages
8,186
This maps studies indicating whether or not there is evidence linking extreme weather events to human activity:

The long brown area in California on that map is Central Valley. It was completely flooded with as much as 30 feet of water for several months in 1861-62. Basically an inland sea. Why isn't that event on the map? Drought/flood cycles are the climate of California, and they were worse in the past.
 
Last edited:

Perry Staltic

Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2020
Messages
8,186
The long brown area in California on that map is Central Valley. It was completely flooded with as much as 30 feet of water for several months in 1861-62. Basically an inland sea. Why isn't that event on the map? Drought/flood cycles are the climate of California, and they were worse in the past.

Don't let anyone kid you that droughts/floods in California aren't natural. Floods like in 1862 happen in a 100-200 year cycle. We are now 158 years into that cycle. Imagine what would happen if Central Valley were flooded today. For one thing, the US would lose 25% of its food production.

What they found was stunning. The Great Flood of 1862 was no one-off black-swan event. Summarizing the science, Ingram and USGS researcher Michael Dettinger deliver the dire news: A flood comparable to—and sometimes much more intense than—the 1861–1862 catastrophe occurred sometime between 1235–1360, 1395–1410, 1555–1615, 1750–1770, and 1810–1820; “that is, one megaflood every 100 to 200 years.”

The indians had seen it before

At least some of the region’s remnant indigenous population saw the epic flood coming and took precautions to escape devastation, Ingram reports, quoting an item in the Nevada City Democrat on January 11, 1862:

"We are informed that the Indians living in the vicinity of Marysville left their abodes a week or more ago for the foothills predicting an unprecedented overflow. They told the whites that the water would be higher than it has been for thirty years, and pointed high up on the trees and houses where it would come. The valley Indians have traditions that the water occasionally rises 15 or 20 feet higher than it has been at any time since the country was settled by whites, and as they live in the open air and watch closely all the weather indications, it is not improbable that they may have better means than the whites of anticipating a great storm."

 
Last edited:

Perry Staltic

Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2020
Messages
8,186
This graph shows how the slight increase in mean global temperature over the past 30 years is due to strong El Ninos. El Ninos are naturally occurring events that release large quantities of heat energy into the atmosphere. The two largest spikes are the El Ninos of 1997-98 and 2015-16, which are categorized as very strong historically.

image-11.png



Notice that the mean tempeature trends between El Nino peaks are flat. Here's the most recent 5-year trend between the 2015-16 El Nino and now. Flat trend with a slight decrease even though CO2 increased linearly during that time.

image-10.png


Here's another view showing the periods before and after the 1997-98 El Nino that shows the step change very nicely. Relatively flat trends before and after, but a noticeable step increase after the ocean dumped its heat into the atmosphere in 1998.

iu


So it's not unreasonable to suspect that once the ocean has dumped a lot of its heat energy into the atmosphere and reduced solar activity decreases the amount of energy heating up the oceans, we will begin to see a cooling trend.
 
Last edited:

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
This graph shows how the slight increase in mean global temperature over the past 30 years ...
The graph you posted shows that there is an overall warming trend aside from the noise of the short el nino/el nina cycles. Nearly half a degree C in just over 30 years. A trend like that is not compatible with reliably sustainable ecosystems over longer periods.

The long brown area in California on that map is Central Valley. It was completely flooded with as much as 30 feet of water for several months in 1861-62. Basically an inland sea. Why isn't that event on the map? Drought/flood cycles are the climate of California, and they were worse in the past.
No-one's saying that there have never been extreme weather-related events in some places before, or that some of them have not been recurring patterns.

The map I posted doesn't try to show that all extreme weather events are anthropogenic.
It maps studies with scientific assessments about the extent to which particular events were likely to have been influenced by human activity. It shows that some events were somewhat likely, very likely, partly, strongly, or not at all anthropogenic. The past events you describe sound as though they were not caused by GHGs because they were so long ago. If there is a next one in the series, it remains to be seen how it compares with past ones, and whether scientists can establish whether or how much it is influenced by human activity.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom