Global warming may end by 2036

[Robert Urbanek]

Global warming may end by 2036, according to an ancient Egyptian cycle that predicts the future.

Thus, spoke the sun god Re: "I am Khepera at the dawn, and Re at noon, and Tem in the evening." Khepera rolls the sun across the sky like the scarab rolls a ball of dung. He has the power of resurrection, bringing the sun back to life after it "dies" at night. Re at noon, depicted as a falcon, conveys power that brings an unforgiving heat as the sun descends to earth. Tem, represented by the water lily, carries the god force through the cooling night, assuring its return in the dawn.

The aspects of this trinity correspond to periods of history.

In recent incarnations of Re, Hitler was the “unforgiving” falling sun (1930-1945); Walt Disney, a cultural pharaoh with a Matterhorn pyramid, represented Tem and the night of recovery (1946-1963); and the Beatles, the scarab gods, brought a morning of youthful rebellion. This latter Era of Khepera (1964-1999) is being followed by an equally long “falling sun” period (2000-2035) of hardship and authoritarian leaders.

The current era coincides with worsening global warming, so the night of Tem should begin with a colder climate, which would correspond to the Cold War in the previous Tem period. Expect in 2036 an abrupt change triggered by increased volcanic activity, a giant asteroid striking the planet or a nuclear war, any of which would create conditions blocking the heat of the sun.

Related links: Egyptology

 

[james bond]

There is no global warming. Libs just want you to buy electric cars after which they'll realize it causes even more global warming.

 

[night_son]

Global warming may end by 2036, according to an ancient Egyptian cycle that predicts the future.

Thus, spoke the sun god Re: "I am Khepera at the dawn, and Re at noon, and Tem in the evening." Khepera rolls the sun across the sky like the scarab rolls a ball of dung. He has the power of resurrection, bringing the sun back to life after it "dies" at night. Re at noon, depicted as a falcon, conveys power that brings an unforgiving heat as the sun descends to earth. Tem, represented by the water lily, carries the god force through the cooling night, assuring its return in the dawn.

The aspects of this trinity correspond to periods of history.

In recent incarnations of Re, Hitler was the “unforgiving” falling sun (1930-1945); Walt Disney, a cultural pharaoh with a Matterhorn pyramid, represented Tem and the night of recovery (1946-1963); and the Beatles, the scarab gods, brought a morning of youthful rebellion. This latter Era of Khepera (1964-1999) is being followed by an equally long “falling sun” period (2000-2035) of hardship and authoritarian leaders.

The current era coincides with worsening global warming, so the night of Tem should begin with a colder climate, which would correspond to the Cold War in the previous Tem period. Expect in 2036 an abrupt change triggered by increased volcanic activity, a giant asteroid striking the planet or a nuclear war, any of which would create conditions blocking the heat of the sun.

Related links: Egyptology

Global warming will likely end when radical leftist and other power hungry members of the neo-nobility acquire enough power. That time would be: never.

 

[Muhammed]

FACT: The Earth has been cooling for billions of years, not warming.


FACT: Historically, during relatively warmer periods, human civilization thrives, and in relatively colder periods, humanity suffers horribly.

Yet, in light of these facts, idiots still try to insist that global warming would be a bad thing. WTF?

 

[james bond]

No, I'm not kidding. We already know it with using electricity.

Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data | US EPA

Includes information on global greenhouse gas emissions trends, and by type of gas, by source, and by country.

www.epa.gov

It causes much more greenhouse emissions than fossil fuels.

 

[itfitzme]

There is no global warming. Libs just want you to buy electric cars after which they'll realize it causes even more global warming.

Science says different and it has said different for a century.

We know that CO2 regulates the Earth's temperature.

1) It is a fact that the Earth is warmer than it would otherwise be if it had no atmosphere.

2) Greenhouse gasses like CO2 absorb heat, electromagnetic radiation in the infrared band.

We know where the CO2 comes from

3) The chemistry of combustion requires that CO2 is produced when carbon based fuels are burned, a process also known as rapid oxidation. Oxygen combines with the carbon in the fuel to produce CO2.

4) The isotope of oxygen in fossil fuels is distinguishable from that of fuels such as wood by a process known as carbon dating.

We know that atmospheric CO2 has been on the rise.

5) In 1958, Keeling began recording the mixing ratio of atmospheric CO2. Since then, CO2 content has continued to increase.

We know that the global mean temperature has been increasing.

6) The global mean temperature of the Earth has been documented since people have been interested in weather, which affects our daily lives and the agriculture that we depend on. The ability to monitor the global temperature has only improved. Numerous organization, including Home - Berkeley Earth, including Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation.

We know what physical factors affect the global mean temperature and none but CO2 accounts for global warming.

7) There are a handful of factors that affect the global mean air and sea surface temperature. These include orbital mechanics, heat exchange with the oceans, GHG content, solar energy (TSI), as well as aerosols from volcanic eruptions and man made pollution.

a) Orbital mechanics affect global temperatures on the scale of the ice ages and are the cause of periods of glaciation. Orbital mechanics is not the cause of global warming.

b) Volcanic eruptions and man made pollutants are short lived, with volcanic eruptions affecting temperatures over a few years. The affect of man made pollutants is well known and has declined as a result of environmental policies.

c) The GHG of water vapor is directly proportional to temperature. Water vapor is not an independent cause of GMT.

d) Methane content and changes is insufficient to cause AWG.

e) The affect of solar irradiance can be shown by plotting temperature against TSI. TSI is proven as not the cause of the temperature variability.

f) Heat exchange with the oceans is also a well known cause of atmospheric temperature change. The cyclical ocean temperature events known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation PDO, Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation, El Nino and La Nina are well known. These cycles are apparent in the decadal long ups and downs of the global mean air and sea surface temperature record.

8) The short of it is that when taken together, CO2 is the clear cause of the long term increase, PDO strongly affects the cyclical variations. All other factors, including the Sun, are insignificant.

All basic science proves, unequivocally that global warming began in the 1900s at the start of the industrial revolution and has continued to this day. As the population has grown, so has the rate as which global mean temperature has increase.

 

[JLW]

Thank you OP for this lesson in denier "science".

 

[itfitzme]

No, I'm not kidding. We already know it with using electricity.


View attachment 395519

Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data | US EPA

Includes information on global greenhouse gas emissions trends, and by type of gas, by source, and by country.

www.epa.gov

It causes much more greenhouse emissions than fossil fuels.

You are a bit confused.

Electricity isn't a greenhouse gas. It has historically been produced by the burning of coal and oil. Methane is another source of fuel for electricity production. Burning coal,oil and natural gas releases CO2, the primary greenhouse gas.

Renewable energy sources don't contribute to greenhouse gases. Wind, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, and nuclear power do not produce greenhouse gases.

Electricity can come from both renewable and non-renewable sources.

Greenhouse gas emissions from electricity production are not from renewable sources, it is from non-renewable sources like coal, oil, and methane.

From your link, CO2 from fossil fuels and industrial processes account for 65% of greenhouse gas emissions.

" The burning of coal, natural gas, and oil for electricity and heat is the largest single source of global greenhouse gas emissions."

Again, your link says that the burning of coal, natural gas and oil is the largest contributor to greenhouse gases.

I am assuming that you are just mistaken about where electricity comes from.
That or you are just flat out lying.

 

[itfitzme]

Global warming may end by 2036, according to an ancient Egyptian cycle that predicts the future.

Thus, spoke the sun god Re: "I am Khepera at the dawn, and Re at noon, and Tem in the evening." Khepera rolls the sun across the sky like the scarab rolls a ball of dung. He has the power of resurrection, bringing the sun back to life after it "dies" at night. Re at noon, depicted as a falcon, conveys power that brings an unforgiving heat as the sun descends to earth. Tem, represented by the water lily, carries the god force through the cooling night, assuring its return in the dawn.

The aspects of this trinity correspond to periods of history.

In recent incarnations of Re, Hitler was the “unforgiving” falling sun (1930-1945); Walt Disney, a cultural pharaoh with a Matterhorn pyramid, represented Tem and the night of recovery (1946-1963); and the Beatles, the scarab gods, brought a morning of youthful rebellion. This latter Era of Khepera (1964-1999) is being followed by an equally long “falling sun” period (2000-2035) of hardship and authoritarian leaders.

The current era coincides with worsening global warming, so the night of Tem should begin with a colder climate, which would correspond to the Cold War in the previous Tem period. Expect in 2036 an abrupt change triggered by increased volcanic activity, a giant asteroid striking the planet or a nuclear war, any of which would create conditions blocking the heat of the sun.

Related links: Egyptology

Global warming will likely end when radical leftist and other power hungry members of the neo-nobility acquire enough power. That time would be: never.

Well, yes it will because global warming is caused by the burning of non-renewable fuels like coal and oil. The Republican Party has been a consistent denier of science. Global warming will continue as long as the Republican Party and the deniers continue to block efforts to mitigate the scientifically proven process of global warming and climate change.

It isn't that it will end when the "Libs" acquire enough power. We will begin a concerted effort at mitigating the effect when deniers stop denying science. Then it will take decades to stop it because of the momentum built up in the climate system.

Coincidentally, Putin's Russia is primarily invested in oil. When the deniers stop buying in to Putin's propaganda, then we will see more effort.

Until then, the global mean temperature will continue to rise. Climate will continue to change as more energy is added to the climate system. Weather will become more unstable. As the weather becomes unstable and the affect of global warming can no longer be denied, then voters will vote for science based representatives.

I see what you are getting at though. Because the Republican Party are deeply embedded in the AWG denier conspiracy cult, when they lose power, then global warming will begin to be addresses. Of course, by your binary categorical thinking, all global warming deniers are not liberals and all liberals follow the science of climate change. When deniers lose their power, someone else gets it. and seeing as all science based voters are liberals, then when they get enough power, it will end.

Yes when the people of power follow the science, then global warming will begin to be addressed. So, you are right but for a completely deluded reason.

 

[itfitzme]

FACT: The Earth has been cooling for billions of years, not warming.


FACT: Historically, during relatively warmer periods, human civilization thrives, and in relatively colder periods, humanity suffers horribly.

Yet, in light of these facts, idiots still try to insist that global warming would be a bad thing. WTF?

Fact: The Earth WAS cooling since it first formed from a molten blob of rock orbiting the Sun.

Fact: Since the 1900s, the Earth has been warming. That is why it is called Global Warming.

 

[Muhammed]

FACT: The Earth has been cooling for billions of years, not warming.


FACT: Historically, during relatively warmer periods, human civilization thrives, and in relatively colder periods, humanity suffers horribly.

Yet, in light of these facts, idiots still try to insist that global warming would be a bad thing. WTF?

Fact: The Earth WAS cooling since it first formed from a molten blob of rock orbiting the Sun.

Fact: Since the 1900s, the Earth has been warming. That is why it is called Global Warming.

That graph is based on datasets that are much too short, corrupt, incomplete, inaccurate and insufficient to draw any conclusions.

You are an easily brainwashed fool.

 

[itfitzme]

FACT: The Earth has been cooling for billions of years, not warming.


FACT: Historically, during relatively warmer periods, human civilization thrives, and in relatively colder periods, humanity suffers horribly.

Yet, in light of these facts, idiots still try to insist that global warming would be a bad thing. WTF?

Yeah, during relatively cold periods, I find working outside much more difficult. During relatively warmer periods, I work better. When I am sick and have a temperature of 101F, I don't work better, I work worse. When the air temperature is 101F, I don't work better, I work worse. In the Mohave Desert, which is relatively warmer than Hawaii, I work worse. In Siberia, which is relatively colder than Hawaii, less gets done outside.

You are overgeneralizing and ignoring thousands of facts. Science doesn't work that way. Science addresses all the fact. It addresses them in a very detailed manner.

By your reasoning, it is cooler now than it was yet humans to better when it is warm. Wait, humans are doing better. So which is it? Is the Earth relatively cooler or the human race doing relatively better? Your logic can't have both. Warmer = Better for Humans but The Earth is Cooler.

Human civilization has thrived for many reasons, not simply because the Earth is warmer or colder. The greatest advancement occured at the beginning of the 1900s when we discovered oil and coal and began the industrial revolution. Unfortunately, that oil was the sequestration of billions of tons of carbon from billions of years ago, when the Earth, long before human beings existed. Humanity developed at a very specific temperature range. Our food crops were developed to the temperatures and climate that existed at the beginning of the industrial revolution, when the Earth was cooler. Plants depend on a stable climate, the climate that they developed in to. The rate at which the Earth is warming exceeds the rate that nature is able to adapt. This is just one of the many effects of global warming.

So, yes, science does continue to insist that global warming is a bad thing.

 

[itfitzme]

FACT: The Earth has been cooling for billions of years, not warming.


FACT: Historically, during relatively warmer periods, human civilization thrives, and in relatively colder periods, humanity suffers horribly.

Yet, in light of these facts, idiots still try to insist that global warming would be a bad thing. WTF?

Fact: The Earth WAS cooling since it first formed from a molten blob of rock orbiting the Sun.

Fact: Since the 1900s, the Earth has been warming. That is why it is called Global Warming.

That graph is based on datasets that are much too short, corrupt, incomplete, inaccurate and insufficient to draw any conclusions.

You are an easily brainwashed fool.

It isn't

Let me explain


The most definitive is to apply 400 years of hard mathematic scientific laws to show how the emipirical measurments fit together to produce the affect of global warming. If you have a team of PhDs and a super-computer, this is the way to go.

Another method is basic statistical data analysis techniques. Specifically, a multi-variate regression is a realistic approach for most. Excell and Open Office have data analysis packages. There are websites that will do regression. There are a number of data analysis packages on the market, including the open source software R,

The results of of a multi variate regression is

Anom = -122.7+0.00944*CO2+0.0804*PDO+.08793*TSI

The likelihood of this result being random change is 7.466e-15. This is a probability of 1 in 133,940,530,404,500. This is one in 134 trillion. In practical terms, this is a guarantee that these factors, CO2 and PDO, are drivers of the global mean air and sea surface temperature.

GMT can be estimated to a good degree of accuracy by plugging in the empirical data for the three factors. Monthly data is the most definitive though yearly averages work well enough. And this technique is obtainable for those of us who don't have a PhD in physics.

9) Correlation alone doesn't prove causality. A lack of correlation does prove no causality.

Causality requires correlation. The variable TSI is included for this reason. TSI is demonstrated as not being causal. It is in general, obviously. But, during this current period of global warming, any affects due to changes in solar irradiation is swamped by the affects of CO2 and ocean heat exchange. Again, in practical terms, this is a guarantee, of 134 trilllion to one, that CO2 and PDO are drivers of the GMT.

While correlation alone doesn't prove causality, the combination of the known physical laws along with correlation does prove causality. The multivariate linear regression result is supported by the basic science. The basic science make it clear that global warming is expected by increase in CO2. The analysis of the empirical data makes it clear that CO2 is affecting the planet as expected.


Definitely, not too short.


Data and Tools

TSI - Total Solar Irradiance
SORCE » Total Solar Irradiance Data
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TSI_TIM_Reconstruction.txt

Anom - Global Mean Temperature Anomaly
Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP v4)
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts.csv
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts.txt

CO2 - Carbon Dioxide
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/maunaloa.co2

PDO - Pacific Decadal Oscillation
Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)
http://research.jisao.washington.edu/pdo/PDO.latest

R - The R Project for Statistical Computing

https://www

.r-project.org/

Apache OpenOffice

Apache OpenOffice - Official Site - The Free and Open Productivity Suite

The official home page of the Apache OpenOffice open source project, home of OpenOffice Writer, Calc, Impress, Draw and Base.

www.openoffice.org

Linear and Multiple Regression Online
Regression Tools - Online Linear Regression
Regression Tools - Online Multiple Linear Regression

 

[ding]

FACT: The Earth has been cooling for billions of years, not warming.


FACT: Historically, during relatively warmer periods, human civilization thrives, and in relatively colder periods, humanity suffers horribly.

Yet, in light of these facts, idiots still try to insist that global warming would be a bad thing. WTF?

Fact: The Earth WAS cooling since it first formed from a molten blob of rock orbiting the Sun.

Fact: Since the 1900s, the Earth has been warming. That is why it is called Global Warming.

That graph is based on datasets that are much too short, corrupt, incomplete, inaccurate and insufficient to draw any conclusions.

You are an easily brainwashed fool.

It isn't

Let me explain


The most definitive is to apply 400 years of hard mathematic scientific laws to show how the emipirical measurments fit together to produce the affect of global warming. If you have a team of PhDs and a super-computer, this is the way to go.

Another method is basic statistical data analysis techniques. Specifically, a multi-variate regression is a realistic approach for most. Excell and Open Office have data analysis packages. There are websites that will do regression. There are a number of data analysis packages on the market, including the open source software R,

The results of of a multi variate regression is

Anom = -122.7+0.00944*CO2+0.0804*PDO+.08793*TSI

The likelihood of this result being random change is 7.466e-15. This is a probability of 1 in 133,940,530,404,500. This is one in 134 trillion. In practical terms, this is a guarantee that these factors, CO2 and PDO, are drivers of the global mean air and sea surface temperature.

GMT can be estimated to a good degree of accuracy by plugging in the empirical data for the three factors. Monthly data is the most definitive though yearly averages work well enough. And this technique is obtainable for those of us who don't have a PhD in physics.

9) Correlation alone doesn't prove causality. A lack of correlation does prove no causality.

Causality requires correlation. The variable TSI is included for this reason. TSI is demonstrated as not being causal. It is in general, obviously. But, during this current period of global warming, any affects due to changes in solar irradiation is swamped by the affects of CO2 and ocean heat exchange. Again, in practical terms, this is a guarantee, of 134 trilllion to one, that CO2 and PDO are drivers of the GMT.

While correlation alone doesn't prove causality, the combination of the known physical laws along with correlation does prove causality. The multivariate linear regression result is supported by the basic science. The basic science make it clear that global warming is expected by increase in CO2. The analysis of the empirical data makes it clear that CO2 is affecting the planet as expected.


Definitely, not too short.


Data and Tools

TSI - Total Solar Irradiance
SORCE » Total Solar Irradiance Data
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TSI_TIM_Reconstruction.txt

Anom - Global Mean Temperature Anomaly
Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP v4)
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts.csv
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts.txt

CO2 - Carbon Dioxide
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/maunaloa.co2

PDO - Pacific Decadal Oscillation
Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)
http://research.jisao.washington.edu/pdo/PDO.latest

R - The R Project for Statistical Computing

https://www

.r-project.org/

Apache OpenOffice

Apache OpenOffice - Official Site - The Free and Open Productivity Suite

The official home page of the Apache OpenOffice open source project, home of OpenOffice Writer, Calc, Impress, Draw and Base.

www.openoffice.org

Linear and Multiple Regression Online
Regression Tools - Online Linear Regression
Regression Tools - Online Multiple Linear Regression

Are you aware of the 20 or so Heinrich and Dansgaard-Oeschger events during the last glacial cycle which consisted of an abrupt warming to near-interglacial conditions that occurred in a matter of decades and was followed by a gradual cooling?

My point is I believe our climate is a little more complicated than just atmospheric CO2. Especially since the data shows that CO2 reinforces climate change, it doesn't drive climate change.

 

[ReinyDays]

itfitzme knows his material ... I'm impressed ...

While correlation alone doesn't prove causality, the combination of the known physical laws along with correlation does prove causality. The multivariate linear regression result is supported by the basic science.

We don't know all the physical laws governing this system ... and research continues ... the main gap as I see it is the relationship between CO2 concentration and climate forcing ... we have 415 ppm and 1.8 W/m^2 ... what ppm is needed for 4.5 W/m^2? ... is this consistent with the IPCC prediction of +2ºC? ...

Of these "results" you speak ... I just riveted with curiosity why you're multiplying the Solar Constant by 0.0879 ... that's not something I would think to do ...

Anywho ... I'm of the opposite philosophy ... global warming is a good thing for all living things ... we stand at the dawn of a new Golden Age of Humanity ... how good the world will be in a 100 years is beyond our imagination today ... all life will thrive in warmer and wetter conditions ...

 

[ding]

itfitzme knows his material ... I'm impressed ...

While correlation alone doesn't prove causality, the combination of the known physical laws along with correlation does prove causality. The multivariate linear regression result is supported by the basic science.

We don't know all the physical laws governing this system ... and research continues ... the main gap as I see it is the relationship between CO2 concentration and climate forcing ... we have 415 ppm and 1.8 W/m^2 ... what ppm is needed for 4.5 W/m^2? ... is this consistent with the IPCC prediction of +2ºC? ...

Of these "results" you speak ... I just riveted with curiosity why you're multiplying the Solar Constant by 0.0879 ... that's not something I would think to do ...

Anywho ... I'm of the opposite philosophy ... global warming is a good thing for all living things ... we stand at the dawn of a new Golden Age of Humanity ... how good the world will be in a 100 years is beyond our imagination today ... all life will thrive in warmer and wetter conditions ...

Color me not a fan of modeling the earth's climate where the primary driver of the model has never actually driven climate change in the past. It has only served to reinforce climate change. CO2 is a background player. A supporting cast player. And I am especially skeptical of the predictions of said models when they employ unnecessary feedback to achieve the desired result. I am a fan of modeling to predict the threshold of glaciation in the northern and southern hemispheres. Or to predict how much CO2 would be sucked out of the atmosphere should a real climate change occur of which there have been more than a few. Some changes went from glacial to near interglacial and back again in periods of less than a few decades.

But like you I too am a fan of a warmer planet than a cooler planet. As you already know, my position is that we should get as far away from 280 ppm as reasonably possible.

 

[whitehall]

The same "sun god" that predicted the end of the world in the Mayan calendar or was that a different "sun god"?