Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Do I believe in what?
I believe within 15 years, whether you like it or not, life is going to be very different.
Well, yeah, we'll be 15 years older. If CO2 is really an issue then, maybe the Greens will get on board with nuclear energy, instead of still wasting money on Wind.
I'm fine with nuclear and wind for that matter. Solar is awesome, we can create much of our own energy. And, yes, the left has wasted time fighting nuclear, while it's not the safest form of energy, anything is better than fossil fuels.
It's 2016, grow up already.
I'm fine with nuclear
Cool, tell all your green friends to get their heads out of their asses.
and wind for that matter
If only it made sense, economically, and was reliable.
It's 2016, grow up already.
I agree, when the left grows up and backs nuclear, they can stop whining about CO2.
Listen, you can fault the left all you want about nuclear energy and somehow that's the reason we have global warming, I really don't give a fuck. In the meantime, you have some jagoffs in this thread who want to continue to use fossil fuels, they are your problem, preaching to a liberal who is OK with nuclear energy is wasting your time.
Listen, you can fault the left all you want about nuclear energy and somehow that's the reason we have global warming, I really don't give a fuck.
No, nuclear isn't the reason we have warming.
And anti-nuclear whining from the left isn't gonna fix our warming. Glad we agree.
you have some jagoffs in this thread who want to continue to use fossil fuels,
Yeah, because people who realize the value of fossil fuels and don't fall for leftist whining are jagoffs. LOL!
Hell, I'd build another 200gw of nuclear to make up the backbone of our energy infrastructure to replace most coal. Set wind, solar and wave ontop of it supported by grid batteries.
Yeah, nothing says green energy more than tons and tons of toxic batteries to make that unreliable "green energy" useful.
Solar, wind, thermal and nuclear, those are options. You can waste your time shitting on alternative energy until it's 100% perfect but we already know what got us into this mess to begin with. Matthew is right, r&d, we'll get better at this. But, the debate is over, the conservatives in this country are the only real obstruction.
Well, yeah, we'll be 15 years older. If CO2 is really an issue then, maybe the Greens will get on board with nuclear energy, instead of still wasting money on Wind.
I'm fine with nuclear and wind for that matter. Solar is awesome, we can create much of our own energy. And, yes, the left has wasted time fighting nuclear, while it's not the safest form of energy, anything is better than fossil fuels.
It's 2016, grow up already.
I'm fine with nuclear
Cool, tell all your green friends to get their heads out of their asses.
and wind for that matter
If only it made sense, economically, and was reliable.
It's 2016, grow up already.
I agree, when the left grows up and backs nuclear, they can stop whining about CO2.
Listen, you can fault the left all you want about nuclear energy and somehow that's the reason we have global warming, I really don't give a fuck. In the meantime, you have some jagoffs in this thread who want to continue to use fossil fuels, they are your problem, preaching to a liberal who is OK with nuclear energy is wasting your time.
Listen, you can fault the left all you want about nuclear energy and somehow that's the reason we have global warming, I really don't give a fuck.
No, nuclear isn't the reason we have warming.
And anti-nuclear whining from the left isn't gonna fix our warming. Glad we agree.
you have some jagoffs in this thread who want to continue to use fossil fuels,
Yeah, because people who realize the value of fossil fuels and don't fall for leftist whining are jagoffs. LOL!
Without the left we wouldn't be talking global warming at all.
"The value of fossil fuels" as though we didn't discover the harm they are doing. Regardless of the industrial revolution, we are where we are and fossil fuels do not bridge us to our future.
Hell, I'd build another 200gw of nuclear to make up the backbone of our energy infrastructure to replace most coal. Set wind, solar and wave ontop of it supported by grid batteries.
Yeah, nothing says green energy more than tons and tons of toxic batteries to make that unreliable "green energy" useful.
Solar, wind, thermal and nuclear, those are options. You can waste your time shitting on alternative energy until it's 100% perfect but we already know what got us into this mess to begin with. Matthew is right, r&d, we'll get better at this. But, the debate is over, the conservatives in this country are the only real obstruction.
You can waste your time shitting on alternative energy until it's 100% perfect
Use it all you want. You can even lie and say it's cleaner.
But, the debate is over, the conservatives in this country are the only real obstruction.
I'm glad the Germans shut down all their nukes, so they can burn more lignite.
Ya gotta love it when liberal idiocies collide.
I'm fine with nuclear and wind for that matter. Solar is awesome, we can create much of our own energy. And, yes, the left has wasted time fighting nuclear, while it's not the safest form of energy, anything is better than fossil fuels.
It's 2016, grow up already.
I'm fine with nuclear
Cool, tell all your green friends to get their heads out of their asses.
and wind for that matter
If only it made sense, economically, and was reliable.
It's 2016, grow up already.
I agree, when the left grows up and backs nuclear, they can stop whining about CO2.
Listen, you can fault the left all you want about nuclear energy and somehow that's the reason we have global warming, I really don't give a fuck. In the meantime, you have some jagoffs in this thread who want to continue to use fossil fuels, they are your problem, preaching to a liberal who is OK with nuclear energy is wasting your time.
Listen, you can fault the left all you want about nuclear energy and somehow that's the reason we have global warming, I really don't give a fuck.
No, nuclear isn't the reason we have warming.
And anti-nuclear whining from the left isn't gonna fix our warming. Glad we agree.
you have some jagoffs in this thread who want to continue to use fossil fuels,
Yeah, because people who realize the value of fossil fuels and don't fall for leftist whining are jagoffs. LOL!
Without the left we wouldn't be talking global warming at all.
"The value of fossil fuels" as though we didn't discover the harm they are doing. Regardless of the industrial revolution, we are where we are and fossil fuels do not bridge us to our future.
Without the left we wouldn't be talking global warming at all.
Without the left, imagine how much less CO2 we'd have emitted since the late 70s.
Hell, I'd build another 200gw of nuclear to make up the backbone of our energy infrastructure to replace most coal. Set wind, solar and wave ontop of it supported by grid batteries.
Yeah, nothing says green energy more than tons and tons of toxic batteries to make that unreliable "green energy" useful.
Solar, wind, thermal and nuclear, those are options. You can waste your time shitting on alternative energy until it's 100% perfect but we already know what got us into this mess to begin with. Matthew is right, r&d, we'll get better at this. But, the debate is over, the conservatives in this country are the only real obstruction.
You can waste your time shitting on alternative energy until it's 100% perfect
Use it all you want. You can even lie and say it's cleaner.
But, the debate is over, the conservatives in this country are the only real obstruction.
I'm glad the Germans shut down all their nukes, so they can burn more lignite.
Ya gotta love it when liberal idiocies collide.
It is cleaner. Solar is cleaner, wind is cleaner, even nuclear is cleaner, we just have to figure out what to do with the waste.
I'm fine with nuclear
Cool, tell all your green friends to get their heads out of their asses.
and wind for that matter
If only it made sense, economically, and was reliable.
It's 2016, grow up already.
I agree, when the left grows up and backs nuclear, they can stop whining about CO2.
Listen, you can fault the left all you want about nuclear energy and somehow that's the reason we have global warming, I really don't give a fuck. In the meantime, you have some jagoffs in this thread who want to continue to use fossil fuels, they are your problem, preaching to a liberal who is OK with nuclear energy is wasting your time.
Listen, you can fault the left all you want about nuclear energy and somehow that's the reason we have global warming, I really don't give a fuck.
No, nuclear isn't the reason we have warming.
And anti-nuclear whining from the left isn't gonna fix our warming. Glad we agree.
you have some jagoffs in this thread who want to continue to use fossil fuels,
Yeah, because people who realize the value of fossil fuels and don't fall for leftist whining are jagoffs. LOL!
Without the left we wouldn't be talking global warming at all.
"The value of fossil fuels" as though we didn't discover the harm they are doing. Regardless of the industrial revolution, we are where we are and fossil fuels do not bridge us to our future.
Without the left we wouldn't be talking global warming at all.
Without the left, imagine how much less CO2 we'd have emitted since the late 70s.
That's your point to demonstrate. But to defend fossil fuels while condemning liberals for creating co2, sounds convoluted.
Hell, I'd build another 200gw of nuclear to make up the backbone of our energy infrastructure to replace most coal. Set wind, solar and wave ontop of it supported by grid batteries.
Yeah, nothing says green energy more than tons and tons of toxic batteries to make that unreliable "green energy" useful.
Solar, wind, thermal and nuclear, those are options. You can waste your time shitting on alternative energy until it's 100% perfect but we already know what got us into this mess to begin with. Matthew is right, r&d, we'll get better at this. But, the debate is over, the conservatives in this country are the only real obstruction.
You can waste your time shitting on alternative energy until it's 100% perfect
Use it all you want. You can even lie and say it's cleaner.
But, the debate is over, the conservatives in this country are the only real obstruction.
I'm glad the Germans shut down all their nukes, so they can burn more lignite.
Ya gotta love it when liberal idiocies collide.
It is cleaner. Solar is cleaner, wind is cleaner, even nuclear is cleaner, we just have to figure out what to do with the waste.
Solar and wind, as long as you ignore the toxic chemicals, lead and dead birds.
But you have the love the lignite, I mean the Germans, for fuck sake.
Without the left we wouldn't be talking global warming at all.
Without the left, imagine how much less CO2 we'd have emitted since the late 70s.
Yet 15 of the hottest 16 years occurred since 2000.What the moron doesn't get, the sun just might be going cold for about 90,000 years..
View attachment 60860
IF you measure the average width in time of the previous four glacial periods, were in deep trouble and right on time for the end of our current interglaical.
Looks like that chart is saying there is a strong relationship to temperature and co2 levels. What's that red line practically shooting off the chart saying?
You make a good point, that I have also made in the past. While natural CO2 levels are tied to temperature with CO2 rising after temperature increase, there much less reason to believe that the same relationship holds true today because we are the ones artificially raising CO2.
It is unexplored territory.
IF the end point was properly averaged there would be no spike at all. Spatial resolution changes, like Mann does on the end of records to insinuate some man induced crap, is pure fantasy when place in proper context. Our current swings have been seen before without man in high resolution proxies.
I think you are insane if you believe that mankind's use of fossil fuels hasn't affected the concentration of CO2 in the air.
But don't forget that 1/3 of all CO2 emissions have happened in the last two decades, a time of little to no temperature increase.
At 72, my life is very differant than it was when I was growing up. The mountains I grew up in routinely get snow later, less of it, and it goes off sooner. Since they finished the North Cascades Highway in '72, I have made trips on it about every five years. And the glaciers there are retreating very visibly between trips. The glaciers on Rainer and Hood are doing the same.So wait, do you agree with the findings of this article that the Sun will go through a cooling period that will possibly bring about a mini ice age that could last 70 to a 100 years? If so then the global warming theory must be totally discounted. The earth cannot get warm while the sun cools down dramatically. The Sun doesn't have political affiliations!National Geographic? I wouldn't call that a blog.Your link says global warming is a problem.
You guys are just pranking, right? People can't be this fucking stupid.
Perhaps you need to read the article again, it cites NASA as its primary source, and nowhere does it mention "global warming":
The combined data indicate that we may soon be headed into what's known as a grand minimum, a period of unusually low solar activity.
The predicted solar "sleep" is being compared to the last grand minimum on record, which occurred between 1645 and 1715.
Known as the Maunder Minimum, the roughly 70-year period coincided with the coldest spell of the Little Ice Age, when European canals regularly froze solid and Alpine glaciers encroached on mountain villages.
Nobody called it a blog Believe it or not, National Geographic has other articles that fully recognize global warming is happening. You should look into it.
"The combined data indicate that we may soon be headed into what's known as a grand minimum, a period of unusually low solar activity.
The predicted solar "sleep" is being compared to the last grand minimum on record, which occurred between 1645 and 1715.
Known as the Maunder Minimum, the roughly 70-year period coincided with the coldest spell of the Little Ice Age, when European canals regularly froze solid and Alpine glaciers encroached on mountain villages"
Do I believe in what?
I believe within 15 years, whether you like it or not, life is going to be very different.
I have been hearing that for 40 years and they have been saying that before my grand father was born now that I read up on it.
Now that was fucking stupid. Do we discard our lead acid auto batteries in landfill? No, we recycle them. And what the hell makes you think that we will not recycle the grid scale batteries at the end of their lifespan.Hell, I'd build another 200gw of nuclear to make up the backbone of our energy infrastructure to replace most coal. Set wind, solar and wave ontop of it supported by grid batteries.
Yeah, nothing says green energy more than tons and tons of toxic batteries to make that unreliable "green energy" useful.
At 72, my life is very differant than it was when I was growing up. The mountains I grew up in routinely get snow later, less of it, and it goes off sooner. Since they finished the North Cascades Highway in '72, I have made trips on it about every five years. And the glaciers there are retreating very visibly between trips. The glaciers on Rainer and Hood are doing the same.So wait, do you agree with the findings of this article that the Sun will go through a cooling period that will possibly bring about a mini ice age that could last 70 to a 100 years? If so then the global warming theory must be totally discounted. The earth cannot get warm while the sun cools down dramatically. The Sun doesn't have political affiliations!National Geographic? I wouldn't call that a blog.
Perhaps you need to read the article again, it cites NASA as its primary source, and nowhere does it mention "global warming":
The combined data indicate that we may soon be headed into what's known as a grand minimum, a period of unusually low solar activity.
The predicted solar "sleep" is being compared to the last grand minimum on record, which occurred between 1645 and 1715.
Known as the Maunder Minimum, the roughly 70-year period coincided with the coldest spell of the Little Ice Age, when European canals regularly froze solid and Alpine glaciers encroached on mountain villages.
Nobody called it a blog Believe it or not, National Geographic has other articles that fully recognize global warming is happening. You should look into it.
"The combined data indicate that we may soon be headed into what's known as a grand minimum, a period of unusually low solar activity.
The predicted solar "sleep" is being compared to the last grand minimum on record, which occurred between 1645 and 1715.
Known as the Maunder Minimum, the roughly 70-year period coincided with the coldest spell of the Little Ice Age, when European canals regularly froze solid and Alpine glaciers encroached on mountain villages"
Do I believe in what?
I believe within 15 years, whether you like it or not, life is going to be very different.
I have been hearing that for 40 years and they have been saying that before my grand father was born now that I read up on it.
As are the glaciers in the Rockies. In fact, Glacier National Park will probably have no glaciers by 2030. The flora and fauna of these areas are changing in response to these changes.
At 72, my life is very differant than it was when I was growing up. The mountains I grew up in routinely get snow later, less of it, and it goes off sooner. Since they finished the North Cascades Highway in '72, I have made trips on it about every five years. And the glaciers there are retreating very visibly between trips. The glaciers on Rainer and Hood are doing the same.So wait, do you agree with the findings of this article that the Sun will go through a cooling period that will possibly bring about a mini ice age that could last 70 to a 100 years? If so then the global warming theory must be totally discounted. The earth cannot get warm while the sun cools down dramatically. The Sun doesn't have political affiliations!Nobody called it a blog Believe it or not, National Geographic has other articles that fully recognize global warming is happening. You should look into it.
"The combined data indicate that we may soon be headed into what's known as a grand minimum, a period of unusually low solar activity.
The predicted solar "sleep" is being compared to the last grand minimum on record, which occurred between 1645 and 1715.
Known as the Maunder Minimum, the roughly 70-year period coincided with the coldest spell of the Little Ice Age, when European canals regularly froze solid and Alpine glaciers encroached on mountain villages"
Do I believe in what?
I believe within 15 years, whether you like it or not, life is going to be very different.
I have been hearing that for 40 years and they have been saying that before my grand father was born now that I read up on it.
As are the glaciers in the Rockies. In fact, Glacier National Park will probably have no glaciers by 2030. The flora and fauna of these areas are changing in response to these changes.
Good. Warmer is better.
Now that was fucking stupid. Do we discard our lead acid auto batteries in landfill? No, we recycle them. And what the hell makes you think that we will not recycle the grid scale batteries at the end of their lifespan.Hell, I'd build another 200gw of nuclear to make up the backbone of our energy infrastructure to replace most coal. Set wind, solar and wave ontop of it supported by grid batteries.
Yeah, nothing says green energy more than tons and tons of toxic batteries to make that unreliable "green energy" useful.
Now that was fucking stupid. Do we discard our lead acid auto batteries in landfill? No, we recycle them. And what the hell makes you think that we will not recycle the grid scale batteries at the end of their lifespan.Hell, I'd build another 200gw of nuclear to make up the backbone of our energy infrastructure to replace most coal. Set wind, solar and wave ontop of it supported by grid batteries.
Yeah, nothing says green energy more than tons and tons of toxic batteries to make that unreliable "green energy" useful.
You're right, there is no pollution involved in lead mining and smelting.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Now that was fucking stupid. Do we discard our lead acid auto batteries in landfill? No, we recycle them. And what the hell makes you think that we will not recycle the grid scale batteries at the end of their lifespan.Hell, I'd build another 200gw of nuclear to make up the backbone of our energy infrastructure to replace most coal. Set wind, solar and wave ontop of it supported by grid batteries.
Yeah, nothing says green energy more than tons and tons of toxic batteries to make that unreliable "green energy" useful.
You're right, there is no pollution involved in lead mining and smelting.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Less offensive to the environment than continuing to burn fossil fuels.
So wait, do you agree with the findings of this article that the Sun will go through a cooling period that will possibly bring about a mini ice age that could last 70 to a 100 years? If so then the global warming theory must be totally discounted. The earth cannot get warm while the sun cools down dramatically. The Sun doesn't have political affiliations!National Geographic? I wouldn't call that a blog.Here's the hard truth the leftist wacko media refuses to tell the public:
news.nationalgeographic.com
Sun Headed Into Hibernation, Solar Studies Predicts
By Victoria Jaggard, National Geographic News
Sunspots may disappear altogether in next cycle.
What a quiet sun looks like: Very few active regions are visible in this 2009 satellite picture.
Image courtesy STEREO/NASA
Enjoy our stormy sun while it lasts. When our star drops out of its latest sunspot activity cycle, the sun is most likely going into hibernation, scientists announced today.
Three independent studies of the sun's insides, surface, and upper atmosphere all predict that the next solar cycle will be significantly delayed—if it happens at all. Normally, the next cycle would be expected to start roughly around 2020.
The combined data indicate that we may soon be headed into what's known as a grand minimum, a period of unusually low solar activity.
The predicted solar "sleep" is being compared to the last grand minimum on record, which occurred between 1645 and 1715.
Known as the Maunder Minimum, the roughly 70-year period coincided with the coldest spell of the Little Ice Age, when European canals regularly froze solid and Alpine glaciers encroached on mountain villages.
(See "Sun Oddly Quiet—Hints at Next 'Little Ice Age?'")
"We have some interesting hints that solar activity is associated with climate, but we don't understand the association," said Dean Pesnell, project scientist for NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO).
Also, even if there is a climate link, Pesnell doesn't think another grand minimum is likely to trigger a cold snap.
"With what's happening in current times—we've added considerable amounts of carbon dioxide and methane and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere," said Pesnell, who wasn't involved in the suite of new sun studies.
"I don't think you'd see the same cooling effects today if the sun went into another Maunder Minimum-type behavior."
Sunspots Losing Strength
Sunspots are cool, dark blemishes visible on the sun's surface that indicate regions of intense magnetic activity.
For centuries scientists have been using sunspots—some of which can be wider than Earth—to track the sun's magnetic highs and lows.
(See the sharpest pictures yet of sunspots snapped in visible light.)
For instance, 17th-century astronomers Galileo Galilei and Giovanni Cassini separately tracked sunspots and noticed a lack of activity during the Maunder Minimum.
In the 1800s scientists recognized that sunspots come and go on a regular cycle that lasts about 11 years. We're now in Solar Cycle 24, heading for a maximum in the sun's activity sometime in 2013.
Recently, the National Solar Observatory's Matt Penn and colleagues analyzed more than 13 years of sunspot data collected at the McMath-Pierce Telescope at Kitt Peak, Arizona.
They noticed a long-term trend of sunspot weakening, and if the trend continues, the sun's magnetic field won't be strong enough to produce sunspots during Solar Cycle 25, Penn and colleagues predict.
"The dark spots are getting brighter," Penn said today during a press briefing. Based on their data, the team predicts that, by the time it's over, the current solar cycle will have been "half as strong as Cycle 23, and the next cycle may have no sunspots at all."
(Related: "Sunspot Cycles—Deciphering the Butterfly Pattern.")
Sun's "Jet Streams," Coronal Rush Also Sluggish
Separately, the National Solar Observatory's Frank Hill and colleagues have been monitoring solar cycles via a technique called helioseismology. This method uses surface vibrations caused by acoustic waves inside the star to map interior structure.
Specifically, Hill and colleagues have been tracking buried "jet streams" encircling the sun called torsional oscillations. These bands of flowing material first appear near the sun's poles and migrate toward the equator. The bands are thought to play a role in generating the sun's magnetic field.
(Related: "Sunspot Delay Due to Sluggish Solar 'Jet Stream?'")
Sunspots tend to occur along the pathways of these subsurface bands, and the sun generally becomes more active as the bands near its equator, so they act as good indicators for the timing of solar cycles.
"The torsional oscillation ... pattern for Solar Cycle 24 first appeared in 1997," Hill said today during the press briefing. "That means the flow for Cycle 25 should have appeared in 2008 or 2009, but it has not shown up yet."
According to Hill, their data suggest that the start of Solar Cycle 25 may be delayed until 2022—about two years late—or the cycle may simply not happen.
Adding to the evidence, Richard Altrock, manager of the U.S. Air Force's coronal research program for the National Solar Observatory (NSO), has observed telltale changes in a magnetic phenomenon in the sun's corona—its faint upper atmosphere.
Known as the rush to the poles, the rapid poleward movement of magnetic features in the corona has been linked to an increase in sunspot activity, with a solar cycle hitting its maximum around the time the features reach about 76 degrees latitude north and south of the sun's equator.
The rush to the poles is also linked to the sun "sweeping away" the magnetic field associated with a given solar cycle, making way for a new magnetic field and a new round of sunspot activity.
This time, however, the rush to the poles is more of a crawl, which means we could be headed toward a very weak solar maximum in 2013—and it may delay or even prevent the start of the next solar cycle.
Quiet Sun Exciting for Science
Taken together, the three lines of evidence strongly hint that Solar Cycle 25 may be a bust, the scientists said today during a meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Las Cruces, New Mexico.
But a solar lull is no cause for alarm, NSO's Hill said: "It's happened before, and life seems to go on. I'm not concerned but excited."
In many ways a lack of magnetic activity is a boon for science. Strong solar storms can emit blasts of charged particles that interfere with radio communications, disrupt power grids, and can even put excess drag on orbiting satellites.
"Drag is important for people like me at NASA," SDO's Pesnell said, "because we like to keep our satellites in space."
What's more, a decrease in sunspots doesn't necessarily mean a drop in other solar features such as prominences, which can produce aurora-triggering coronal mass ejections. In fact, records show that auroras continued to appear on a regular basis even during the Maunder Minimum, Pesnell said.
(See "Solar Flare Sparks Biggest Eruption Ever Seen on Sun.")
Instead, he said, the unusual changes to the sun's activity cycles offer an unprecedented opportunity for scientists to test theories about how the sun makes and destroys its magnetic field.
"Right now we have so many sun-watching satellites and advanced ground-based observatories ready to spring into action," Pesnell said. "If the sun is going to do something different, this is a great time for it to happen."
© 1996-2016 National Geographic Society.
Your link says global warming is a problem.
You guys are just pranking, right? People can't be this fucking stupid.
Perhaps you need to read the article again, it cites NASA as its primary source, and nowhere does it mention "global warming":
The combined data indicate that we may soon be headed into what's known as a grand minimum, a period of unusually low solar activity.
The predicted solar "sleep" is being compared to the last grand minimum on record, which occurred between 1645 and 1715.
Known as the Maunder Minimum, the roughly 70-year period coincided with the coldest spell of the Little Ice Age, when European canals regularly froze solid and Alpine glaciers encroached on mountain villages.
Nobody called it a blog Believe it or not, National Geographic has other articles that fully recognize global warming is happening. You should look into it.
"The combined data indicate that we may soon be headed into what's known as a grand minimum, a period of unusually low solar activity.
The predicted solar "sleep" is being compared to the last grand minimum on record, which occurred between 1645 and 1715.
Known as the Maunder Minimum, the roughly 70-year period coincided with the coldest spell of the Little Ice Age, when European canals regularly froze solid and Alpine glaciers encroached on mountain villages"
Do I believe in what?
I believe within 15 years, whether you like it or not, life is going to be very different.
