Which One Is Worse Global Warming or a Coming Ice Age?

[Dashinka 24,960]

Saw these two articles just a few days apart. If the science is settled that we have man made global warming, then what the heck is happening with the sun. Before anyone says it, I certainly believe in global climate change which has been happening since the beginning of this planet, but I am a bit surprised by the hubris of some that think man can out do the sun.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3442264/Welsh-village-decommissioned-warnings-lost-sea.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3444633/What-happened-sun-Solar-activity-remains-quietest-century-trigger-mini-ice-age.html

[Rob L 3,811]

Saw these two articles just a few days apart. If the science is settled that we have man made global warming, then what the heck is happening with the sun. Before anyone says it, I certainly believe in global climate change which has been happening since the beginning of this planet, but I am a bit surprised by the hubris of some that think man can out do the sun.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3442264/Welsh-village-decommissioned-warnings-lost-sea.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3444633/What-happened-sun-Solar-activity-remains-quietest-century-trigger-mini-ice-age.html

So which is it: Is Solar Activity the cause of climate change or CO2 emissions?

[GandD 5,966]

It's co2. I'm not sure why this is even still a discussion.

[belinda63 3,052]

There are natural fluctuations in the earth's climate. Ice age, warming, ice age warming due to (as I understand it, simplistically) because of the earth wobble and sunspots. Note the more correct term rather than "global warming" is "climate change". Some areas may get colder for a bit, some may remain the same, but the long-term outcome is the average temperature will increase as it has for the past 50 or so years.

[Rob L 3,811]

There are natural fluctuations in the earth's climate. Ice age, warming, ice age warming due to (as I understand it, simplistically) because of the earth wobble and sunspots. Note the more correct term rather than "global warming" is "climate change". Some areas may get colder for a bit, some may remain the same, but the long-term outcome is the average temperature will increase as it has for the past 50 or so years.

There are natural fluctuations in the earth's climate.

-This is true

Ice age, warming, ice age warming due to (as I understand it, simplistically) because of the earth wobble and sunspots.

--Here is the crux of the discussion: Is a Ice Age Epoch or Mini Ice Age ( and subsequent warming from that variation) the same as the warming , climate change and change in ocean chemistry that scientist have documented?

This is an important question because the events can coincide and yet be different events with different causes.

[OriZ 3,157]

Here's our little ice age from the last couple days...

Edited February 15, 2016 by OriZ

[Dashinka 24,960]

So which is it: Is Solar Activity the cause of climate change or CO2 emissions?

I think that really depends on your point of view. If you are of the opinion that mankind can overwhelm a natural force such as the sun and the physics of celestial motion then it is CO2. If you think man cannot do the above, then you would tend toward solar activity.

I pose this, what if it becomes an ice age and the glaciers start advancing toward major population centers. Can mankind stop them?

[Advanced Aardvark 82]

In Geologic terms, the effects of mankind's actions on the planet over the last millennium are like a flea fart in a hurricane. Current hysteria over warming of a degree over a century pales in comparison to the forces of nature.

In example, the eruption of Krakatoa in 1883 caused average northern hemisphere summer temperatures to decrease by 2.2F the following year. Acid rain blanketed the globe for years afterward as the suspended sulfur dioxide fell in rain. The Krakatoa eruption was just one fart by Mother Nature.

The well document global cooling and warming cycles will continue; none of us will be here to witness the final answer.

The narcissism of current "climate scientists" is more of a challenge to global society than mankind's long term effect on the planet.

[Rob L 3,811]

I think that really depends on your point of view. If you are of the opinion that mankind can overwhelm a natural force such as the sun and the physics of celestial motion then it is CO2. If you think man cannot do the above, then you would tend toward solar activity.

I pose this, what if it becomes an ice age and the glaciers start advancing toward major population centers. Can mankind stop them?

This is the thing : Science does not depend upon your point of view , world view or mood that morning. It depends upon physical laws which can be hypothesized, theorized, measured and proven.

If CO2 is pumped into the atmosphere it has some chemical reaction (to every action there is a reaction) to our air, our oceans. Are you saying that CO2 and Methane has no appreciable affect on our environment and is not responsible for that changes that scientists are measuring?

[smilesammich 10,727]

i didn't really think it possible, but i feel dumber having read this thread. dumber but warmer, as the temperature has been rising since the sun rose behind clouds this morning. how does the sun not burn off the clouds? how are the clouds still here? why is it still winter?

[Dakine10 5,452]

In Geologic terms, the effects of mankind's actions on the planet over the last millennium are like a flea fart in a hurricane. Current hysteria over warming of a degree over a century pales in comparison to the forces of nature.

In example, the eruption of Krakatoa in 1883 caused average northern hemisphere summer temperatures to decrease by 2.2F the following year. Acid rain blanketed the globe for years afterward as the suspended sulfur dioxide fell in rain. The Krakatoa eruption was just one fart by Mother Nature.

The well document global cooling and warming cycles will continue; none of us will be here to witness the final answer.

The narcissism of current "climate scientists" is more of a challenge to global society than mankind's long term effect on the planet.

The carbon cycle is in equilibrium over the long term. Long term effect on the planet is not the issue. The issue is about mankind's effect on himself. When talking about something happening over a few decades or even a few centuries, the issue is what happens in the short term.

Warming or cooling of 1 or 2 degrees celcius is not, of itself, the issue either. The issue is that the earth is supporting 7.5 billion people and we already know that is not sustainable. Aquifers and ground water tables are already being depleted around the globe just to support the current population. Over half of the current population is urban, as opposed to ~10% in 1883. Increasing temperature only exacerbates a situation that already exists.

[Ban Hammer 13,716]

i didn't really think it possible, but i feel dumber having read this thread. dumber but warmer, as the temperature has been rising since the sun rose behind clouds this morning. how does the sun not burn off the clouds? how are the clouds still here? why is it still winter?

why don't i have a sammich?

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

Is New York under water yet. Didn't Al get a Nobel Prize for that.

One fact for sure. He got rich on Carbon offsets

[Rob L 3,811]

I think that really depends on your point of view. If you are of the opinion that mankind can overwhelm a natural force such as the sun and the physics of celestial motion then it is CO2. If you think man cannot do the above, then you would tend toward solar activity.

I pose this, what if it becomes an ice age and the glaciers start advancing toward major population centers. Can mankind stop them?

This is the thing : Science does not depend upon your point of view , world view or mood that morning. It depends upon physical laws which can be hypothesized, theorized, measured and proven.

If CO2 is pumped into the atmosphere it has some chemical reaction (to every action there is a reaction) to our air, our oceans. Are you saying that CO2 and Methane has no appreciable affect on our environment and is not responsible for that changes that scientists are measuring?

Bump

Is New York under water yet. Didn't Al get a Nobel Prize for that.

One fact for sure. He got rich on Carbon offsets

Is there a question in there?

if so NO, YES

[Rob L 3,811]

It's co2. I'm not sure why this is even still a discussion.

Here is the scientific proof: this thread exists, therefore it is still a discussion. Will this thread settle anything? I doubt it, 30 % of the folks in the State of California do not believe that the climate is changing. To quote the immortal / ficitional Don Draper " Listen, I'm not here to tell you about Jesus. You already know about Jesus, either he lives in your heart or he doesn't."