ICE AGE EARTH: Global FREEZE lasting 120 YEARS threatens ‘more intense’ winters from 2019

Yes my brain fart, it was the Himalayan glaciers that were supposed to be nearly gone by now but are instead growing as we speak. What exactly in the link I presented do you not consider to be sound science?

 

So apparently earth could have a built in self regulating system that doesn't allow it to overheat and the planet is at no risk of burning up as some suggest. That could be considered good news I guess.

 

Greenland’s ice is melting four times faster than thought—what it means
New science suggests Greenland may be approaching a dangerous tipping point, with implications for global sea-level rise.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...-times-faster-than-thought-raising-sea-level/

Greenland, the world’s biggest island, appears to have hit a tipping point around 2002-2003 when the ice loss rapidly accelerated, said lead author Michael Bevis, a geoscientist at Ohio State University. By 2012 the annual ice loss was “unprecedented” at nearly four times the rate in 2003, Bevis said in an interview.

 

In reading the link did anyone question the reliability of the source?

"The Daily Star is a daily tabloid newspaper published from Monday to Saturday in the United Kingdom since 2 November 1978The paper predominantly focuses on stories largely revolving around celebrities, sport, and news and gossip about popular television programmes, such as soap operas and reality TV shows. …The newspaper features a photograph of a topless model on weekdays…Other regular features in the Daily Star include Wired, a daily gossip column edited by James Cabooter, "Hot TV", a television news column edited by Ed Gleave and Peter Dyke, Mike Ward's weekly television review page and "Forum", a daily page devoted to readers' text messages, which are apparently printed verbatim."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Star_(United_Kingdom)

Here is a trust level of British readers:
"Tabloid newspapers, the websites mentioned above and Al Jazeera all scored below 5 in terms of trustworthiness, with the Daily Star and Twitter (both 3.3) trailing Facebook (3.4) in last place."
https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/face...daily-star-according-bbc-commissioned-survey/

The Daily Star is a UK based tabloid style newspaper. They use over sensationalized headlines for most stories. This source does publish legitimate news, however, it also posts conspiracies and pseudoscience articles. (it) may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence. These sources may be untrustworthy for credible/verifiable information, therefore fact checking and further investigation is recommended on a per article basis when obtaining information from these sources.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-star-uk/

 

Feel free to repudiate anything presented in the article. Not reading it because you don't like the source is the cowards way out and SOP for leftist.

 

I have read it-three times so lets drop the personal assumptions you make and look at several things about the article itself:

The article is a series of “predictions” made by David Dailey, a man who researches climate change in order to disprove it.

I do believe this statement from your article is correct: “The vast majority of scientists are of the view that global average temperatures have been rising steeply in the past century, with evidence showing human influence is the dominant cause. In order to prevent catastrophic global warming, almost every country has signed up to a United Nations climate pact, whose aim is to keep global temperatures below 2C.

Dailey provides not a single fact but provides “predictions” and this places me at a disadvantage as no one can prove or disprove a prediction.

 

Dang. My old bones were hoping for global warming. Every day I go out and start up all my vehicles and just let them idle to pump CO2 into the atmosphere.

 

Do you pour mercury in the water supply too?

 

Nope. No way that will help my old bones.

 

Have you considered cuddling with another set of old bones instead?

 

Your egocentric approach to environmental pollution is duly noted and helps explain your denial of man made climate change.

 

For a while I was assuming that you were smart enough to realize I was joking. Now I am not so sure.

 

Only a Trumper would consider a joke about the existential threat to the planet funny.

 

Climate is like a box of chocolates -- you never know what you're gonna get.

 

The last line in the article is the most relevant to anyone with an open mind.

"There is a huge amount of research going into this, and the honest truth is that we don’t yet have all the answers.”

 

Apparently only a Trumper has a sense of humor.

 

We are looking catastrophe in the eye and humanity is on the brink of extermination! How in the world can you find humor in such a dire situation???? I'll bet a pitchfork full of babies makes you hysterical you evil piece of ****!!!!!

 

That's not true at all. If all other things remain equal then more solar radiation warms the planet, more greenhouse gases warm the planet, lower albedo warms the planet, less aerosols warm the planet, etc. And when you take the net effect of all agents acting on the climate system including but not limited to those listed here then we actually have a pretty good idea of what we're gonna get. It's not perfect, but it's pretty close; close enough to make informed decisions anyway.

 

I will start taking them seriously when they produce the study that says that 97% of scientists believe that man is the primary cause of global warming. Without going back and checking it is more like 3% absolutely believe it, 94% have varying degrees of it could be possible and our ability to predict it is questionable and 3% absolutely don't believe it. They counted the "could be possible" as believers.

 

And then we have trouble forecasting what will happen tomorrow.

 

Weather forecasting is difficult. In many respects it's actually more difficult to do weather forecasts than climate forecasts.

Weather Forecast - The prediction of exact properties for exact locations at exact times.

Climate Forecast - The prediction of average properties over large regions and long periods of time.

Weather forecasts suffer from the limitations of the laws of chaos. Really small errors in initial conditions can spiral into large errors on forecasts of exact properties quickly. But climate forecasts don't suffer from the laws of chaos in the same way because of strange attractors. Instead of focusing on the prediction of exact properties they focus on predicting the trajectory of the attractor. The climate behaves very erratically on small spatial and temporal scales, but always follows an attractor on large spatial and temporal scales. So instead of trying to predict exact properties which is very difficult climate forecasts just need to predict the movement of the attractor which is much easier.

 

A statement that neither proves or disproves anything. There is a lot of research going into cancer and we don't have all the answers but it does not support the premise it doesn't exist.
I was called to task for not disproving the facts in the article. I was pointing out the distinct lack of facts.

 

It's predictions based on past climate facts and cycles and at least as worthy of consideration as predictions based on computer models.

"These global warming and cooling cycles are determined by the gravitational forces of the Earth, moon and sun, he said, citing evidence “well documented in science”.

In other words, as Earth swings closer to the sun global warming is observed, while cooling is observed as Earth swings away. "

 

I have heard that argument before and it is pretty much nonsense. Short term virtually all the factors are available and measured. Long term there are an endless number of factors which are unpredictable including man himself.

 

"More intense winters" =/= Global average temperatures aren't rising