5 ms·

Don't shoot the messenger. It's all theory and conjecture until it actually happens, and it has in the past, and it WILL happen again in the future.

isthatafact 2y ago
It is important not to conflate "I have a hunch that x will happen" with "theoretically motivated predictions". Also, you are conflating a mild temperature drop that would be expected to be caused by solar minimum with an ice age and a "pole shift".
- danielovichdk 2y ago
  It's no hunch and the author didn't express it as such. It's a well established theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
  - isthatafact 2y ago
    Those ~100k year cycles in earth orbit and spin are not related to the present discussion of sunspot cycles and solar activity. And (while not clear in this case) usually when someone claims that a "pole shift" will happen, they are usually referring to the crackpot claim that the planet will suddenly do something like maybe flip over or wobble violently causing the end of civilization: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cataclysmic_pole_shift_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cataclysmic_pole_shift_hypothe...
- precompute 2y ago
  An Ice Age doesn't lead to "mild" temperature drops. It's catastrophically cold for centuries. Civilization is unlikely to survive it, and we don't have records of any that have save the Neanderthals, who lived in small groups.
  - defrost 2y ago
    We're in an ice age now. Humans have always lived in an Ice Age. It's called the Quaternary glaciation and it's been filled with individual glacial periods. You might want to read up on terminology. Physics, thermodynamics, informs us that the glaciers aren't coming back while the insulation in the atmosphere is high and still increasing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation
    - precompute 2y ago
      > To geologists, an ice age is defined by the presence of large amounts of land-based ice. That's pedantic. > Physics, thermodynamics, informs us that the glaciers aren't coming back while the insulation in the atmosphere is high and still increasing. Meh. The running hypothesis on the "other side" is that we're going to have a pole shift and grand solar minimum at the same time. Now, as you can see, I haven't really done the prerequisite reading. I have, however, read about all the stupidity surrounding "global warming" and how it was totally going to end the planet in 2000 and 1980 and 2024 and whenever, every year's the last one so that people that don't have anyone's best interests at heart can get more leverage off this supposedly inevitable-and-totally-close scenario. Meanwhile, the "fringe" has decidedly stuck to one thing, and has repeatedly criticized the very real corruption of (climate) science by monetary interests (and now national / global policy decisions) and popular opinion. This only makes me NOT want to spend my free time untangling "conclusive" climate decisions backed by ""science"" and who-knows-what leverage by a slimy bureaucrat. I, as an individual, don't have a horse in this race. I don't believe in either one because my carbon emissions can be eclipsed by a volcano or a plane in a few hours. It's completely useless to expect me to not buy a car or to watch my energy consumption when it's not going to make a dent anyway.
      - yfontana 2y ago
        [flagged]
        precompute 2y ago

isthatafact 2y ago

It is important not to conflate "I have a hunch that x will happen" with "theoretically motivated predictions". Also, you are conflating a mild temperature drop that would be expected to be caused by solar minimum with an ice age and a "pole shift".

danielovichdk 2y ago
It's no hunch and the author didn't express it as such. It's a well established theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
- isthatafact 2y ago
  Those ~100k year cycles in earth orbit and spin are not related to the present discussion of sunspot cycles and solar activity. And (while not clear in this case) usually when someone claims that a "pole shift" will happen, they are usually referring to the crackpot claim that the planet will suddenly do something like maybe flip over or wobble violently causing the end of civilization: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cataclysmic_pole_shift_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cataclysmic_pole_shift_hypothe...
precompute 2y ago
An Ice Age doesn't lead to "mild" temperature drops. It's catastrophically cold for centuries. Civilization is unlikely to survive it, and we don't have records of any that have save the Neanderthals, who lived in small groups.
- defrost 2y ago
  We're in an ice age now. Humans have always lived in an Ice Age. It's called the Quaternary glaciation and it's been filled with individual glacial periods. You might want to read up on terminology. Physics, thermodynamics, informs us that the glaciers aren't coming back while the insulation in the atmosphere is high and still increasing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation
  - precompute 2y ago
    > To geologists, an ice age is defined by the presence of large amounts of land-based ice. That's pedantic. > Physics, thermodynamics, informs us that the glaciers aren't coming back while the insulation in the atmosphere is high and still increasing. Meh. The running hypothesis on the "other side" is that we're going to have a pole shift and grand solar minimum at the same time. Now, as you can see, I haven't really done the prerequisite reading. I have, however, read about all the stupidity surrounding "global warming" and how it was totally going to end the planet in 2000 and 1980 and 2024 and whenever, every year's the last one so that people that don't have anyone's best interests at heart can get more leverage off this supposedly inevitable-and-totally-close scenario. Meanwhile, the "fringe" has decidedly stuck to one thing, and has repeatedly criticized the very real corruption of (climate) science by monetary interests (and now national / global policy decisions) and popular opinion. This only makes me NOT want to spend my free time untangling "conclusive" climate decisions backed by ""science"" and who-knows-what leverage by a slimy bureaucrat. I, as an individual, don't have a horse in this race. I don't believe in either one because my carbon emissions can be eclipsed by a volcano or a plane in a few hours. It's completely useless to expect me to not buy a car or to watch my energy consumption when it's not going to make a dent anyway.
    - yfontana 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - precompute 2y ago