Anybody aware of this Nature article - Oscillations of the baseline of solar magnetic field and solar irradiance on a millennial timescale.
Re electric cars - so you’re suggesting that since they don’t have tailpipe emissions that they are completely devoid of carbon footprint, or other environmental costs during their entire life cycle - including disposal / recycling?
Except for the few jurisdictions with mature hydro or nuclear power generation, were exactly do you propose the electricity will come from, particularly in emerging nations such as China and India?
Whether flat, oblate, hollow, long - you pick- the best science to date suggests that the Earth is a closed system with finite resources that can only be extracted, refined, reconstituted and recycled so many times before changing the nature of whatever lifeforms predominate at any given blip in time. Archeological evidence suggests that she’s been quite successful at hard reboots more than once, but we are talking about time scales that humankind’s arrogance and hubris have difficulty conceiving.
Except for the few jurisdictions with mature hydro or nuclear power generation, were exactly do you propose the electricity will come from, particularly in emerging nations such as China and India?
Whether flat, oblate, hollow, long - you pick- the best science to date suggests that the Earth is a closed system with finite resources that can only be extracted, refined, reconstituted and recycled so many times before changing the nature of whatever lifeforms predominate at any given blip in time. Archeological evidence suggests that she’s been quite successful at hard reboots more than once, but we are talking about time scales that humankind’s arrogance and hubris have difficulty conceiving.
Well, people are aware of this article and aren't too impressed: Nature Scientific Reports | …and Then There's Physics
“Which science are you referring to? I'm asking because there are many out there with varying info.”
The same science that put men on the moon, found the hole in the ozone layer and will help cure you if you get ill.
If the data says something is changing, and causal links are established, you have to draw the conclusion that if you want to stop the changes, you need to modify your behavior.
I see more FUD and obsfucation coming from the anti- climate lobby - interestingly almost all of it backed by big money oil companies and other vested interests with well oiled lobbyist machines in most countries.
Again, if you can show me anywhere where dumping 2.5 trillion tons of a greenhouse gas into the atmosphere is not the major vector in global warming I’m all ears.
We’ve heard is sunspots (no it isn’t), the earths axis has tilted (let’s have a laugh), it’s volcanoes (out by a factor of ~10) and a host of other possibilities that all get debunked. So the anti-science people scramble to find something else and the whole thing is repeated.
The same science that put men on the moon, found the hole in the ozone layer and will help cure you if you get ill.
If the data says something is changing, and causal links are established, you have to draw the conclusion that if you want to stop the changes, you need to modify your behavior.
I see more FUD and obsfucation coming from the anti- climate lobby - interestingly almost all of it backed by big money oil companies and other vested interests with well oiled lobbyist machines in most countries.
Again, if you can show me anywhere where dumping 2.5 trillion tons of a greenhouse gas into the atmosphere is not the major vector in global warming I’m all ears.
We’ve heard is sunspots (no it isn’t), the earths axis has tilted (let’s have a laugh), it’s volcanoes (out by a factor of ~10) and a host of other possibilities that all get debunked. So the anti-science people scramble to find something else and the whole thing is repeated.
Last edited:
oh yeah?
Like predicting the future using meta-data from the past (as in tree rings, ice cores, radioactive decay, etc. who knows what? Correlation and causation can be a very difficult concept to interpret it would seem.
Like predicting the future using meta-data from the past (as in tree rings, ice cores, radioactive decay, etc. who knows what? Correlation and causation can be a very difficult concept to interpret it would seem.
Well, I'm not knowledgeable enough to make a good judgement. 2020 comes soon enough and at most by 2028 I'll know for sure.
Vostok ice core sample timeline when compared in high resolution chart. It was 100s thousands of years, not millions, sorry.
If you mean NASA, they aren't all innocent. Look up "NSAS New Climate Data Fraud".
But as you have replied, "Not while humans have been on the planet, living in cities with millions of people.", then why is global warming human's fault? Also, what method can humans use to change or stop the global temperature from fluctuating?
The global temperature hasn't risen in proportion to CO2 increase last 60 years or before. If it has, I can understand why the blame goes to CO2.
I understand frustration of those of you who are a climate scientists trying to explain complicated things to more or less laymen.
However, there are a small minority of actual and accomplished climate scientist (the real ones , not the broad spectrum of scientist who constitute so called consensus ) that do not share the doomsday scenario. It's all academic really. Nothing will be done. The major polluters will not stop. 50% of China's population still did not enter an industrial age , same with India and Africa. Don't even think of USA . Only the handful of well regulated , small European countries will do something for feel good measures because so far the level of public trust and indoctrination is so high there, that their citizens are willing to be taxed to death and they do not have to provide for their defense. That trust will erode (it's already eroding ). The grounds are shifting as we speak.
However, there are a small minority of actual and accomplished climate scientist (the real ones , not the broad spectrum of scientist who constitute so called consensus ) that do not share the doomsday scenario. It's all academic really. Nothing will be done. The major polluters will not stop. 50% of China's population still did not enter an industrial age , same with India and Africa. Don't even think of USA . Only the handful of well regulated , small European countries will do something for feel good measures because so far the level of public trust and indoctrination is so high there, that their citizens are willing to be taxed to death and they do not have to provide for their defense. That trust will erode (it's already eroding ). The grounds are shifting as we speak.
let's just call it a RBR - really big rock - or it could have been the alien mothership
and to limono's point above, yes the ground is literally continuously shifting under our feet, as well as the ocean level rising.
Last edited:
You’re great at one line answers to complex issues but that’s what you get when you get your facts from Twitter. You’ve even managed to dredge up dirt on NASA to support your world view. But it won’t change the fact that the planet is warming and human activity is the reason.
You don’t even seem to be able to grasp the concept of thermal lag . . .
Last edited:
We could start with global population control, but I think we're 200yrs too late to reinvent our propensity for growth, "advancing" technology, and agricultural practices to mitigate the problem. With the almost unimaginable amount of thermal mass involved in both the atmosphere and ocean, even absent further "contribution" by our species, inertia will take a geologically long time to slow and reverse.
The Earth is infected by a virus, and it's us - she will get over it.
The Earth is infected by a virus, and it's us - she will get over it.
I am heading to my thinking garret to sort this out.
I dunno Crispy. With all that ice, that used to push down into the crust, displacing other masses and thereby raising adjacent plates...
...I think the continents are actually sinking.
Do you have any rum soaked evidence to the contrary? If not, I would like to continue this conversation as my rum soaked evidence might be rather entertaining. But that's for later. As in, after I've actually had rum.
In the meantime, and I hate that word, it's not mean at all it just means (agh, there is it again) that I am taking a break and taking little Bingo for our afternoon walk.
Last edited:
I dunno....
Even if one falls hook line and sinker for all the speculation parading as science re: causation of climatic events,(which I personally don't), there's no believable hypothesis to test the validity of conclusions apparently already drawn and being enacted at great expense.
What's more, an historical chronology of mankind's implementation of complex economic and scientific accomplishments with intervention on a grand scale has been fraught with failure or worse (nuclear energy comes to mind), peaceful uses of nitroglycerin and other high explosives, etc. What could have prevented the whole CO2 thingie (remember free energy for all from the AEC back in the 1950's?) turned into economic and health disasters (Chernobyl, Fukushima, etc.) along with millions of tons of HOT radioactive waste piling up around the globe.
As I see it, not much chance of mankind's intervention in climate and weather manipulation resulting in success, even amongst the true believers, unless one includes weaponization, both economically and militarily.
Even if one falls hook line and sinker for all the speculation parading as science re: causation of climatic events,(which I personally don't), there's no believable hypothesis to test the validity of conclusions apparently already drawn and being enacted at great expense.
What's more, an historical chronology of mankind's implementation of complex economic and scientific accomplishments with intervention on a grand scale has been fraught with failure or worse (nuclear energy comes to mind), peaceful uses of nitroglycerin and other high explosives, etc. What could have prevented the whole CO2 thingie (remember free energy for all from the AEC back in the 1950's?) turned into economic and health disasters (Chernobyl, Fukushima, etc.) along with millions of tons of HOT radioactive waste piling up around the globe.
As I see it, not much chance of mankind's intervention in climate and weather manipulation resulting in success, even amongst the true believers, unless one includes weaponization, both economically and militarily.
Last edited:
It's complex depending on which source you look at. At any rate, it certainly isn't something that can be laid out sufficiently on forums like this so I keep it short and anyone who wants to delve into it, there are tons of searchable sites out there.
I've been following this global warming / climate change story since 2001. I've been reading up, listening, watching and comparing info on various sites and looking up weather in various parts of the world for years.
Unfortunately, politics (& money) migrated into NASA in recent years.
The argument is on how much influence we have on global warming. The claim varies depending on which source you tune to.
I've bee following it. I'll take the claim of CO2 being the main cause of global warming more seriously if there is a real proof of it, not the "proof" by those who are either bought out or playing politics.
To my understanding the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is settled science. Starting from that point years ago I looked at the available records and noticed that the measured atmospheric concentration of CO2 varied with human economic activity (I.E. the rate of increase dropped during global economic slowdowns) So, based on the evidence and settled science I concluded that climate change was attributable to human activity. What am I missing here?
Cal, you could always try meanwhile, and I’m wondering how long I’ll need to wait today until you consider yourself sufficiently rum-soaked for your contributions to be even more coherent and entertaining than usual. Keeping our relative body masses and your years of extensive training in that discipline in mind, I’m not sure if I’ll be able to stay awake that late.
As for evidence to buttress my earlier opinions, let me fire up my Google machine - I’d wait a couple of days before you send out a search party because - “squirrel”
Got any recent photos of Bingo?
Oh, and as for “science”, I was always under the impression that it is more of an ongoing process than a hard cast set of facts - any theory or law is always open to question and reassessment/ refinement, and sometimes we figure out we were wrong the first - or any number - of times before
As for evidence to buttress my earlier opinions, let me fire up my Google machine - I’d wait a couple of days before you send out a search party because - “squirrel”
Got any recent photos of Bingo?
Oh, and as for “science”, I was always under the impression that it is more of an ongoing process than a hard cast set of facts - any theory or law is always open to question and reassessment/ refinement, and sometimes we figure out we were wrong the first - or any number - of times before
Last edited:
Berkeley Earth
Discussion on this topic is almost always useless as people refuse to consider or change their minds or beliefs. I must admit when Donald Trump says climate change it is a hoax, I simply must believe it to be true. He would never lie. Same with Sean Hannity. Someone mentioned population, which is the root problem, but we will never deal with that. Let's see, on this planet we have educated people who believe that: Elvis is still alive; the earth is flat; vaccines are harmful; Jesus was white and spoke English; the Apollo moon landing was a hoax; the Holocaust was a hoax; white Americans are the superior form of humans; a pitcher can throw a rising fastball; the earth is 4,000 years old; humans rode on the back of dinosaurs; and innumerable others. All the above beliefs are utterly contrary to all fact, history and science, yet people believe them and refuse to change their mind. So continue to disagree, but things sure seem to keep getting warmer.
Discussion on this topic is almost always useless as people refuse to consider or change their minds or beliefs. I must admit when Donald Trump says climate change it is a hoax, I simply must believe it to be true. He would never lie. Same with Sean Hannity. Someone mentioned population, which is the root problem, but we will never deal with that. Let's see, on this planet we have educated people who believe that: Elvis is still alive; the earth is flat; vaccines are harmful; Jesus was white and spoke English; the Apollo moon landing was a hoax; the Holocaust was a hoax; white Americans are the superior form of humans; a pitcher can throw a rising fastball; the earth is 4,000 years old; humans rode on the back of dinosaurs; and innumerable others. All the above beliefs are utterly contrary to all fact, history and science, yet people believe them and refuse to change their mind. So continue to disagree, but things sure seem to keep getting warmer.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.