Only for a given static point in time.
This lady seems to suggest the opposite. For those who like qualifications she lists them out at the beginning
Not cherry picking anything... don't think that phrase is even applicable. Science is science.SimonP wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 2:10 amOnce again, you're cherry-picking scientists at the extreme edge of considered opinion. Northumbria University is hardly the most prestigious of institutions Nevertheless, she acknowledges that AGW is occurring, because it is.
Here we are at near Maunder minimum conditions and yet temperatures are warmer today than they have been in at least the last 100,000 years.
There have been countless attribution studies that show that maximal solar variation is only about 0.1% of total solar output and can change global mean temperature by only a fraction of a degree. Other factors have to be in play as well to effect an ice age.
How long have we been measuring solar output? What about spectral changes? What devices are we using to measure them? How long have we had them? What is the period between large climate shifts? What was the sun doing around the last one? Who recorded it?SimonP wrote: There have been countless attribution studies that show that maximal solar variation is only about 0.1% of total solar output and can change global mean temperature by only a fraction of a degree
Most definitely. But given it's regularity it would seem it is not likely something random. Ice I think is the key player. A situation must enter that it can increase and so it cools more causing it to increase more and so on and on...Major ocean currents collapsing could be the trigger. Would be quite ironic if global warming triggered an ice age. At some point the systems oscillations will change, be it the orbit, the ocean currents, the magnetic field, or anything else. We know things have not ever been static forever.SimonP wrote: Other factors have to be in play as well to effect an ice age.
Yes but if one population is not increasing does it give the other a right to increase? European countries are currently committing racial suicide. Do the people actually democratically support this or is it some global agenda pushed on them?SimonP wrote: Yes, but not everyone pollutes equally. Populations are increasing in some third world countries
I get your reasons for these Matteo but they are not too far from those seeking socialism or equality. What sort of entity would need to be created to implement these? you are looking at global governance. To me that is an almost nightmare scenario. You want to suppress populations? Forced sterilizations, abortions? Labor camps? gas cambers? Where does it start and end?Matteo V wrote: 1. Any country with a decreasing population, should be rewarded for that decrease.
2. Any attempt to increase the population of one of these countries should be stopped.
3. A solution should be applied to the current Financial system so that it can function in a decreasing population. As of now it cannot. But countries with decreasing populations should be the test bed for a system that allows prosperity when the population is declining. This third solution is the most difficult of all because those who are fighting against it are the richest and most powerful, and have all of the politicians and scientists in their back pocket. I suspect that if truly cleaning up the environment, and making problems solvable in the future "hits a brick wall", this will be the brick wall.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests