Michael Bots wrote:
70's Consensus?     Cooling + Neutral = Warming  until 76
Number of papers classified as predicting global cooling (blue) or warming (red). In no year were there more cooling papers than warming papers

Warming plus Neutral kicks cooling's ass.

And what is "Neutral?" Paper was on an unrelated topic?

Lightcraft Studio wrote:
Carbon dioxide is such a tiny fraction of the atmosphere that it's completely ridiculous to be focusing all our efforts on carbon trading schemes and such.  We know from bore samples and so on that CO2 rises and falls, and it tends to rise along with temperature rises... slightly training changes in temperatures (suggesting it rises as a result of temp rises, and vice versa).

Now and then volcanoes go off and dump massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, but the dust and particles cools the planet for a number of years and that in turn reduces the CO2.

Cycles in solar activity also are a factor, and we see patterns there as well.... there are many variables, and we're still pretty much guessing at this point. Heck, we can't even accurately predict the weather next week, much less next century.

Our focus should go back to keeping the air clean, keeping the water clean and learning how to do sustainable farming, foresting, fishing, and things along those lines. Playing Monopoly with carbon credit schemes is a huge scam and is distracting attention away from the important things.

Doubt.

So much doubt.

It's almost as if someone is intentionally spreading it.

Michael Bots wrote:
70's Consensus?     Cooling + Neutral = Warming  until 76
Number of papers classified as predicting global cooling (blue) or warming (red). In no year were there more cooling papers than warming papers

i fail to see how this does anything but prove my point.

Wye wrote:
i fail to see how this does anything but prove my point.

He's added a "Neutral" category that discussed neither warming nor cooling and is claiming it for the "Cooling" side.

Michael Bots wrote:
The Coming Ice Age
A true scientific detective story
http://harpers.org/archive/1958/09/the-coming-ice-age/

omg this is fucking EXQUISITE!

First of all, the article is written by Betty Friedan! Which I find fascinating just for its own sake.

Betty Friedan (February 4, 1921 – February 4, 2006) was an American writer, activist, and feminist. A leading figure in the women's movement in the United States, her 1963 book The Feminine Mystique is often credited with sparking the second wave of American feminism in the 20th century.

Second, the article contains gems like:


As Ewing and Donn read the evidence, an Ice Age will result from a slow warming and rising of the ocean that is now taking place. They believe that this ocean flood — which may submerge large coastal areas of the eastern United States and western Europe — is going to melt the ice sheet which has covered the Arctic Ocean through all recorded history. Calculations based on the independent observations of other scientists indicate this melting could begin, within roughly one hundred years.


http://harpers.org/archive/1958/09/the-coming-ice-age/

So this article disputes none of the warming and melting we see today, it just has a different idea of what the upshot from all that warming and melting might be.

Wye wrote:
Like I said. Listen to the scientists. Not the media.

Well, the scientists who started the current round of hysteria destroyed the data they based their faulty "conclusions" on. Since then, the "scientists" who side with them anyway are the ones getting the research grants and making their living off this stuff.

We've had years of "trust us, all scientists agree, etc" kind of stuff, coupled with name-calling ("deniers", etc.) and shaming of any scientist who dares speak out against the "experts".

The push to base everything on CO2, which is around 0.03% of our atmosphere, is all about money. Big money.... very, very big money... and power. These people don't give a rat's ass about the planet, or about you or me... they fly around in their private jets, live in their 15,000 Sq ft homes and cash in big time on the carbon exchanges and back room deals while they tell you that buying their latest products that save a little on energy is somehow going to make a difference.

We can't control the sun's cycles, we can't control volcanoes, we can't control the Earth's core which shifts around and causes the magnetic poles to reverse now and then (causing huge climate changes no doubt), etc.

We can however, do a lot to keep the air, water and land clean.... but there's not a whole lot of money and power in that, so that's not currently the focus.

Lightcraft Studio wrote:
Well, the scientists who started the current round of hysteria destroyed the data they based their faulty "conclusions" on. Since then, the "scientists" who side with them anyway are the ones getting the research grants and making their living off this stuff.

What's the motive?

NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:
What's the motive?

What's the motive for wanting more money? Well, some folks like having more money... heck if I know. Ask Al Gore.

Lightcraft Studio wrote:
What's the motive for wanting more money? Well, some folks like having more money... heck if I know. Ask Al Gore.

Couldn't he make a shit ton more money joining the Merchants of Doubt?

ernst tischler wrote:

ernst tischler wrote:
Earth has experienced both drastic climate change and mass extinctions in the past, so it would be foolish to think those things cannot happen again...and even more foolish to think that we can do anything to cause or prevent it.

When it happens, it happens and we will be dead.

Is it real science or is it the science of politics driven by those who seek more and more control and wealth.

As opposed to those who seek more and more control and wealth by promoting and selling hydrocarbon fuels and pay huge money in an attempt to subvert any science that opposes their agenda?

You know, the good guys, like the Rockefeller family. Nice friendly folks like them. After all, they certainly have our best interests at heart, don't they?

Jay Dezelic wrote:
Isn't it possible that humans were evolved by nature to recycle buried carbon back into the live environment?

No.

That's not how evolution works.  Things evolve in response to changing environmental conditions.. they don't evolve in order to fulfil some far flung purpose millions of years into the future.

Jay Dezelic wrote:
It is amazing to me that so many people have such a politically manipulated view of the planet.  What percentage of people would say humans were a detrimental parasite, rather than a beneficial part of nature? Formal education pretty much teaches that humans are an invasive species to earth. WTF?

Isn't it possible that humans were evolved by nature to recycle buried carbon back into the live environment?  An immense amount of carbon was buried under rock and dust after the last major astroid impact some 65 million years ago.  Humans are the only animal capable of recovering deep carbon so that the earth can eventually return to being a lush greenhouse as it was millions of years ago. Fossil records show a lot more jungles and rainforests on the planet in past millenniums. 

CO2 makes plants grow.  Proof of this can be seen in commercial greenhouse operations where farmers intentionally create atmospheres of five or six times the amount of CO2 we have in the environment today for healthier plants.

As another benifit, if allowed to progress, humans will soon have the ability to prevent astroid impacts with the earth.  Maybe that's what nature intended all along?  It is pretty short-sighted to think humans are not a beneficial element of life on earth.

So next time you climb into your gas guzzling SUV, take the long way home and enjoy knowing that the CO2 you make and technology you consume is probably doing more good for the planet than many want you to believe.

You're committing a fundamental error.. the danger of what we're doing to the environment isn't to the world or even life in general.  We are utterly incapable of destroying the planet or even completely destroying the biosphere.  What we are doing is making the world uninhabitable for *us*.

Nature doesn't *intend* anything.. it just is.

Wye wrote:
No.

That's not how evolution works.  Things evolve in response to changing environmental conditions.. they don't evolve in order to fulfil some far flung purpose millions of years into the future.

How do you know?  It all looks pretty damn convenient to me.

Wye wrote:
You're committing a fundamental error.. the danger of what we're doing to the environment isn't to the world or even life in general.  We are utterly incapable of destroying the planet or even completely destroying the biosphere.  What we are doing is making the world uninhabitable for *us*.

Nature doesn't *intend* anything.. it just is.

Yes. I agree. Humans will likely become extinct just like 99% of all the other species that lived before us.  So what?

Jay Dezelic wrote:

How do you know?  It all looks pretty damn convenient to me.

Same way I know that when I drop a can of beans in my kitchen it's going to fall until it hits something.

Yes. I agree. Humans will likely become extinct just like 99% of all the other species that lived before us.  So what?

Indeed that is a distinct possibility.

Can't imagine why so many people are interested in speeding the process up, however.

Wye wrote:
Can't imagine why so many people are interested in speeding the process up, however.

Without technological advancement (i.e. restrictions on the free-flow of ideas and incentives for personal achievment), our untimely demise will be a certainty.

Tony From Syracuse wrote:
mankind cannot operate on the scale that mother nature can.  so it doesnt matter if one is a global warming believer or denier.  we cant science our way out of the problem to make a change big enough to stop that train.

Why not? We scienced our way into the problem and made big changes to get the train moving.

Jay Dezelic wrote:

Without technological advancement (i.e. restrictions on the free-flow of ideas and incentives for personal achievment), our untimely demise will be a certainty.

Indeed.  Which is why it's such a shame so many in government are trying to silence the scientists who are trying find ways to fix this mess.

Solas wrote:
So much for global warming. Looks like in the next 15 years we'll be in the ice age

http://www.sciencealert.com/a-mini-ice- … t-15-years

" The model demonstrates that solar activity will fall by 60 percent by 2030 as the magnetic waves inside the Sun will become increasingly more desynchronized during the next two cycles, especially during cycle 26, which covers the decade between 2030 and 2040."

the science-y stuff: http://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press/26 … ble-dynamo

You may have missed the solar graph and its contribution:

NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:
Oh, no!

Graphs!

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015- … the-world/

Solas wrote:
So much for global warming. Looks like in the next 15 years we'll be in the ice age

http://www.sciencealert.com/a-mini-ice- … t-15-years

" The model demonstrates that solar activity will fall by 60 percent by 2030 as the magnetic waves inside the Sun will become increasingly more desynchronized during the next two cycles, especially during cycle 26, which covers the decade between 2030 and 2040."

the science-y stuff: http://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press/26 … ble-dynamo

*sigh*

Note that the term "Little Ice Age" applied to the Maunder minimum is something of a misnomer as it implies a period of unremitting cold (and on a global scale), which is not the case. For example, the coldest winter in the Central England Temperature record is 1683-4, but the winter just 2 years later (both in the middle of the Maunder minimum) was the fifth warmest in the whole 350-year CET record. Furthermore, summers during the Maunder minimum were not significantly different to those seen in subsequent years. The drop in global average temperatures in paleoclimate reconstructions at the start of the Little Ice Age was between about 1560 and 1600, whereas the Maunder minimum began almost 50 years later.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum

NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:

ooo cool animation, i like the squiggly colored lines, why can't they all explain articles like this???

Wye wrote:
*sigh*

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum

i take it from your exasperation we're not all going to freeze to death like the movie 2012 and board a badass submarine ?

J O H N  A L L A N wrote:
I think it's foolish to believe nothing can be done.
I for instance remember the choking smog in Los Angeles in the early 80s - it's nothing like that now.

That is truly comical. In 1980 the Earths human population was 3 Billion. Now it is 6-7 Billion.

LAs population now is? And then was?

Wye wrote:

No.

That's not how evolution works.  Things evolve in response to changing environmental conditions.. they don't evolve in order to fulfil some far flung purpose millions of years into the future.

Proof?

Wye wrote:
The time cover was from 1979.

Notice the state of the research in 1979

Like I said. Listen to the scientists. Not the media.

Do you consider Nye and deGrasse Tyson scientists?
Any takers?

SAND DIAL wrote:

That is truly comical. In 1980 the Earths human population was 3 Billion. Now it is 6-7 Billion.

LAs population now is? And then was?

He is saying despite the increase in population LA is now less polluted than it used to be.

I visited LA in the early 80's, on a bad day you could see the haze across the street. They cut the air into blocks and used it to construct buildings.
Last few times I was there it was much, much better. Despite a population increase.

Improvements can and should continue to be made.

Wye wrote:

Indeed.  Which is why it's such a shame so many in government are trying to silence the scientists who are trying find ways to fix this mess.

I just learned yesterday that my cousin's son (a strait-A physics student at the University of Washington) is working as an apprentice machinist for a company that is testing projectiles designed to penetrate frozen astroids.  I am so glad he didn't decide to become a lawyer.

Governments silence science by putting too much emphasis on social programs rather than discovery.  As a kid, I eagerly watched all the manned Apollo missions, fully expecting that space travel to the moon and beyond would be commonplace by the 21st century.  It is hard to believe that the Apollo 17 mission in 1972 was the last time any human travel beyond low earth orbit. 

Truth is, lack of real education has caused a reduction in demand for real science.  We are rapidly entering a new dark age where most people prefer forms of wizardry and witchcraft over actual science.

Jay Dezelic wrote:
I just learned yesterday that my cousin's son (a strait-A physics student at the University of Washington) is working as an apprentice machinist for a company that is testing projectiles designed to penetrate frozen astroids.  I am so glad he didn't decide to become a lawyer.

Governments silence science by putting too much emphasis on social programs rather than discovery.  As a kid, I eagerly watched all the manned Apollo missions, fully expecting that space travel to the moon and beyond would be commonplace by the 21st century.  It is hard to believe that the Apollo 17 mission in 1972 was the last time any human travel beyond low earth orbit. 

Truth is, lack of real education has caused a reduction in demand for real science.  We are rapidly entering a new dark age where most people prefer forms of wizardry and witchcraft over actual science.

Yup. The Sorts of government people who deny the science of space exploration also deny the sciences of space exploration (Edit: meant to say climate change instead of space a second time) and evolution. They're not interested in any of the sciences.

Time for them to move on and let the smart people run the USA again. Go back to a time when the American government presented a shining beacon of science, exploration and discovery.

Wye wrote:
Yup. The Sorts of government people who deny the science of space exploration also deny the sciences of space exploration and evolution. They're not interested in any of the sciences.

Time for them to move on and let the smart people run the USA again. Go back to a time when the American government presented a shining beacon of science, exploration and discovery.

This is what was called "American Exceptionalism"--the ability to solve nearly any problem or challenge with innovation, science, and technological achievement through the incentives offered by free market capitalism.  There is (was) nowhere else in the world where productive ideas could flourish as well as they did under our constitutionally governed free society.

For the sake of preventing future calamities, it would be far better for our government to incentivize the development of competitive solutions rather than penalize and restrict human progress.

Jay Dezelic wrote:
This is what was called "American Exceptionalism"--the ability to solve nearly any problem or challenge with innovation, science, and technological achievement through the incentives offered by free market capitalism.  There is (was) nowhere else in the world where productive ideas could flourish as well as they did under our constitutionally governed free society.

For the sake of preventing future calamities, it would be far better for our government to incentivize the development of competitive solutions rather than penalize and restrict human progress.

The space race had nothing whatsoever to do with free market capitalism. Very little of what America has achieved has anything to do with the free market. The so called free market is a fantasy. Collectivism is what gave America its strength and innovation. Not so called rigged individualism.

The problem with incentivizing competitive solutons is that so many (both private and public citizens) have their heads in the sand and deny that there is even anything to solve.

Wye wrote:

The space race had nothing whatsoever to do with free market capitalism. Very little of what America has achieved has anything to do with the free market. The so called free market is a fantasy. Collectivism is what gave America its strength and innovation. Not so called rigged individualism.

The problem with incentivizing competitive solutons is that so many (both private and public citizens) have their heads in the sand and deny that there is even anything to solve.

The space race had everything to do with individual incentive, competition and capitalism.  Think about the thousands of private sector inventions from rocket engines and specialty fuels to high temp seals and exotic fasteners that were the physical components of the space program.  I was an industrial designer and inventor for over 25 years with a small staff of engineers.  I have several patents under my real name.  I got out of the business fifteen years ago because there was no longer an economic incentive that could offset the financial risk. Multiply that by everyone else I competed with and you can see why America can no longer solve problems like it did in the past.

I agree that "Free Market" is now a total fantasy with the small number of dominant monopolies allowed to control nearly every major industry. But it was not always that way.  Anti-trust laws were developed a century ago to foster sustainable free markets.  The laws are largely no longer enforced and we are back to the 1870's under the control of robber barons and their puppet politicians.  Bring back anti-trust and America will almost instantly rebound.

The space program was a confluence of both broad-based private and public energy.  Kennedy said "we're going to the moon" and the pace was set.  Most tax payers felt good about the collaborative nature of the space program in the early years because they accomplished tangible goals.  Same with the EPA when they incentivized the development of cleaner fuels and engines as a result of science.--now the EPA uses voodoo to conjure up restrictive solutions to problems that don't exist while intentionally ignoring the need for practical conservation.

Wye wrote:
rigged individualism.

I'm going to spell it that way from now on