# Science predicts ice age coming



## Pluto

http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/723481/Earth-ICE-AGE-big-freeze-solar-activity


Sun cools more than expected.


----------



## Spudd

http://www.iflscience.com/environment/no-we-aren-t-heading-mini-ice-age/


----------



## mordko

Nobody should be getting "scientific" information from newspapers.


----------



## TomB19

Pluto, I'm reasonably confident you aren't familiar with what science is. Specifically, I refer to the scientific method (ie: the pursuit of objective knowledge).


----------



## new dog

Anything is possible, we don't know very much, when it comes to long term climate and sun cycles I would think.

It is possible that global warming is responsible for the next ice age as warm moist weather builds ice in the far north. I heard this theory awhile ago and who knows that could be right or maybe it takes a pole shift or something to cause it.


----------



## Beaver101

This prediction reminds me of the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" ... love Jake G. in that movie.

How about a coin-toss? Heads, the Artic is melting faster than before and earth is going to be warmer. Tails, the ice-age is coming as per some scientists' prediction.


----------



## TomB19

I'm sure that 150 years ago, there were "scientists" who said we would never get to space because space is the domain of God, or that the motor car was too complex to ever work.

Let's not pretend these individuals were the cream of their generation. lol!

Every herd has a few back stragglers and the climate change deniers are the back stragglers of the "science" heard.

Objectivity involves performing an experiment and observing the results to learn the outcome. Subjectivity involves starting with a conclusion and then looking for an experiment which is consistent. Science is the former.


----------



## dubmac

we are still, technically, in an ice age. as long as greenland, arctic and antarctic land masses are covered with ice sheets - we will be in an ice age. We are, however, in a period of of global warming that occurs between periods of global cooling. 

from wikipedia...
"By this definition, we are in an inter-glacial period—the Holocene—of the ice age that began 2.6 million years ago at the start of the Pleistocene epoch, because the Greenland, Arctic, and Antarctic ice sheets still exist."

The earth has had 4-5 major ice advances (surges) in the most recent ice age. Causes for ice advances and global cooling can be quite varied as well - major volcanic events, or subtle changes to global ocean currents can contribute to these events. Never a boring moment!


----------



## Nelley

TomB19 said:


> I'm sure that 150 years ago, there were "scientists" who said we would never get to space because space is the domain of God, or that the motor car was too complex to ever work.
> 
> Let's not pretend these individuals were the cream of their generation. lol!
> 
> Every herd has a few back stragglers and the climate change deniers are the back stragglers of the "science" heard.
> 
> Objectivity involves performing an experiment and observing the results to learn the outcome. Subjectivity involves starting with a conclusion and then looking for an experiment which is consistent. Science is the former.


Again you show your ignorance grasshopper-speaking of the old days, the ancestor of the modern climate change grifters is PT Barnum (Barnum and Bailey) who said-there is a sucker born every minute and two to take him.


----------



## TomB19

Disregard Republican scientists. They don't exist.


----------



## Pluto

TomB19 said:


> Pluto, I'm reasonably confident you aren't familiar with what science is. Specifically, I refer to the scientific method (ie: the pursuit of objective knowledge).


1. the pursuit of objective knowledge is not a method, it is a goal. The method is what you do to achieve the goal, assuming it is achievable. 

2. There is no such thing as "the" scientific method because that is singular. Science frequently devises new methods depending on need, hence there are many scientific methods. Anyone who talks as if there is only one method for all situations doesn't know what they are talking about. 

3. Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as objective knowledge. There is no external fixed criterion for truth. You sound like a late 19th century to early 20th century empiricist/foundationalist, a theory that was abandoned over 50 years ago. Pray tell, what do you do to strive toward your goal of objective knowledge?


----------



## Pluto

mordko said:


> Nobody should be getting "scientific" information from newspapers.


True. 

In the 1970's it was reported in Scientific American and newspapers that an ice age was coming. By the 1980's "objective science" reversed its view. then when it was reported that the warming had flattened, a phenomenon that science didn't predict, "objective science" insists the theory is true, and the flattening is just a temporary anomaly. When is "objective" science going to get it right? 

Apparently, and according to you, they have it right, it just isn't in the newspapers. Well where is it? Where, for example, was the prediction that the warming would flatten post 1998? As far as I know, it isn't anywhere and it took about 10 years for them to acknowledge it.


----------



## Pluto

TomB19 said:


> I'm sure that 150 years ago, there were "scientists" who said we would never get to space because space is the domain of God, or that the motor car was too complex to ever work.
> 
> Let's not pretend these individuals were the cream of their generation. lol!
> 
> Every herd has a few back stragglers and the climate change deniers are the back stragglers of the "science" heard.
> 
> Objectivity involves performing an experiment and observing the results to learn the outcome. Subjectivity involves starting with a conclusion and then looking for an experiment which is consistent. Science is the former.


1. But I do believe in climate change. 
2. I'm not convinced that your theory, namely, fluctuations in co2 explains all variations in climate is valid and reliable. Other factors possibly effecting climate have not been ruled out. 
3. Your experiment and observations will always rely on the assumption that your methods are valid, and the interpretation of your observations are as well. Since you are making assumptions, it isn't strictly speaking, objective. 
3.1 For example, you claim your co2 theory of climate change is a universal truth. But universals can not be proven. You just believe/have faith in it. then you call your faith "objective".


----------



## mordko

Pluto said:


> Apparently, and according to you, they have it right, it just isn't in the newspapers. Well where is it? Where, for example, was the prediction that the warming would flatten post 1998? As far as I know, it isn't anywhere and it took about 10 years for them to acknowledge it.


Science does not do "predictions". That would be shamans. If you look at scientific forecasts, they typically have a probability associated with various outcomes. There will also be an uncertainty range. Climate science isn't my field but it's one of the most complicated fields and computers were not up to it in the 70s. So, I have no idea what they were forecasting then and there will be a significant uncertainty in their current forecasts. Does not make for very good headlines.


----------



## Pluto

Recent study has proxy temp data going back 2 million years. No hockey stick here. A big yawn. 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v538/n7624/abs/nature19798.html


----------



## Pluto

mordko said:


> Science does not do "predictions". That would be shamans. If you look at scientific forecasts, they typically have a probability associated with various outcomes. There will also be an uncertainty range. Climate science isn't my field but it's one of the most complicated fields and computers were not up to it in the 70s. So, I have no idea what they were forecasting then and there will be a significant uncertainty in their current forecasts. Does not make for very good headlines.


What's the difference between a prediction and a forecast? The dictionary says they are the same thing. 

Now when you say there will be an uncertainty range, you are amazingly realistic. 
there is always a margin of error in measuring things, especially global average temps. In other words, if someone claims the temps now are higher than in 1935, I'm not convinced. the global average in 1935 is not known with enough precision to make a claim that it is warmer now. 

And to make future forecasts (predictions) of warming, when they can't even explain the recent flattening, is a stretch.


----------



## mordko

Prediction implies absolute accuracy in the forecast. Shamans do that. Pundits do that. Scientists don't. We don't even know for certain which side of the wall a cat is at any given time.


----------



## mordko

Having said this, making predictions about the past is a lot easier. We have ways of figuring out how warm it was in 1935 even in places for which there are no records. And there will be a margin of error but it's possible to give an answer with 95 percent confidence or better, particularly when talking about a delta with the current temperatures.


----------



## TomB19

Pluto said:


> 1. But I do believe in climate change.


You don't have to believe in climate change for it to exist or be real.




Pluto said:


> 2. I'm not convinced that your theory, namely, fluctuations in co2 explains all variations in climate is valid and reliable. Other factors possibly effecting climate have not been ruled out.


Sure. ... and when you go to the doctor for a diagnosis, I'm sure you explain to him how wrong he is.

Personally, I'll go with the climate scientists. ... and the physician. In each case, they may not be correct. They could make mistakes but they are vastly more likely to be correct than yourself.


----------



## Joe Black

Pluto said:


> 1. the pursuit of objective knowledge is not a method, it is a goal. The method is what you do to achieve the goal, assuming it is achievable.
> 
> 2. There is no such thing as "the" scientific method because that is singular. Science frequently devises new methods depending on need, hence there are many scientific methods. Anyone who talks as if there is only one method for all situations doesn't know what they are talking about.
> 
> 3. Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as objective knowledge. There is no external fixed criterion for truth. You sound like a late 19th century to early 20th century empiricist/foundationalist, a theory that was abandoned over 50 years ago. Pray tell, what do you do to strive toward your goal of objective knowledge?


The scientific method, as I understand it, is very simple and elegant:

1. Propose a hypothesis
2. Design and conduct an experiment that will either prove or disprove your hypothesis

The experiment is what makes it objective - you design it such that a certain result could only happen if your hypothesis is true (or at the very least, that it would be extreme coincidence that you achieve the predicted result but the actual reason was different from your hypothesis).

Can you describe one of those "alternative" scientific methods you claim exists?


----------



## Joe Black

Pluto said:


> True.
> 
> In the 1970's it was reported in Scientific American and newspapers that an ice age was coming. By the 1980's "objective science" reversed its view. then when it was reported that the warming had flattened, a phenomenon that science didn't predict, "objective science" insists the theory is true, and the flattening is just a temporary anomaly. When is "objective" science going to get it right?
> 
> Apparently, and according to you, they have it right, it just isn't in the newspapers. Well where is it? Where, for example, was the prediction that the warming would flatten post 1998? As far as I know, it isn't anywhere and it took about 10 years for them to acknowledge it.


The "ice age" theories of the 70's never had the overwhelming acceptance in the scientific community that climate change does now.

Can you find an example where over 90% of the experts in the field were in strong agreement and then were proven utterly wrong?

The equivalent of your argument is finding a couple unknown scientists in the 70's who claimed cigarette smoking was actually good for you, and then using that as an example of how the "entire" scientific later "reversed" themselves.


----------



## Pluto

TomB19 said:


> You don't have to believe in climate change for it to exist or be real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. ... and when you go to the doctor for a diagnosis, I'm sure you explain to him how wrong he is.
> 
> Personally, I'll go with the climate scientists. ... and the physician. In each case, they may not be correct. They could make mistakes but they are vastly more likely to be correct than yourself.


What makes you so sure? What method do you use to come to such a sure conclusion? Sounds like you are assuming.


----------



## Pluto

mordko said:


> Science does not do "predictions". That would be shamans. If you look at scientific forecasts, they typically have a probability associated with various outcomes. There will also be an uncertainty range. Climate science isn't my field but it's one of the most complicated fields and computers were not up to it in the 70s. So, I have no idea what they were forecasting then and there will be a significant uncertainty in their current forecasts. Does not make for very good headlines.


Probabilities in this climate realm seems reasonable. 
Computer models, like all models, rely on assumptions. So the range of probabilities is only as good as the assumptions.


----------



## Pluto

Joe Black said:


> The "ice age" theories of the 70's never had the overwhelming acceptance in the scientific community that climate change does now.
> 
> Can you find an example where over 90% of the experts in the field were in strong agreement and then were proven utterly wrong?
> 
> The equivalent of your argument is finding a couple unknown scientists in the 70's who claimed cigarette smoking was actually good for you, and then using that as an example of how the "entire" scientific later "reversed" themselves.


1. True. Hysteria is overwhelmingly contagious. 
2. the history of science is replete with examples of theories that almost everyone believed but later abandoned. Almost everyone believed in all of Newton's formulations, but he was mistaken about some things. More recently the theory that saturated fat is bad for your health is in question. Apparently the same data that was used to recommend a low fat diet was reviewed, and that data did not show that saturated fat contributed to ill health. Apparently the bad fat was only trans fat. So clearly the original data was misconstrued. Red wine contains anti oxidants that protect the heart is another theory that is under question. Having one drink a day contributes to good health is another commonly accepted theory that is under question. 


But questioning and critiquing "climate change" is of a different quality. It is like critiquing religion. No one who dares to ask questions is free of derision, as if derision is a scientific method.


----------



## carverman

Pluto said:


> Probabilities in this climate realm seems reasonable.
> *Computer models, like all models, rely on assumptions. So the range of probabilities is only as good as the assumptions.*


Good scientific philopsophy..similar to "ALL DOGS ARE FOUR LEGGED ANIMALS, BUT NOT ALL FOUR LEGGED ANIMALS ARE DOGS"

This thread is interesting reading on mostly hypothesis and opinions formed on these scientific hypothesis...
"the earth is warming, the polar ice caps are melting,the oceans are rising..the summers are getting hotter..etc etc"

"no it aint" .

"it's going through a cycle of global warming then cooling..the next ice age is around the corner" 

Why is that? Because we are burning off fossil fuels than ever in the history of man and turning
the atmosphere into mostly carbon dioxide. What is the effect of mostly carbon dioxide on the earth's atmosphere?
1. less oxygen for humans and animals 2. trapping the heat from the sun's rays 

years ago a science teacher told me that "energy can not be created nor destroyed..it just changes it's form and the way it affects us"

So what we need is facts..which century will the next ice age start and should we as humans ,that is if we even exist by then and haven't <polluted/killed off/starved to death each other> . 
Will the lifestyles as we know them today will still exist 83 years from now..at the turn of the next century? 

and..maybe something that will be regarded as more recent in our history..
Will Trump become the next 45th president of the USA in 8 days? 

Here is a fact of life that none of us can deny...we are all going to die..someday...sooner or later...so does it really matter?


----------



## Pluto

Joe Black said:


> The scientific method, as I understand it, is very simple and elegant:
> 
> 1. Propose a hypothesis
> 2. Design and conduct an experiment that will either prove or disprove your hypothesis
> 
> The experiment is what makes it objective - you design it such that a certain result could only happen if your hypothesis is true (or at the very least, that it would be extreme coincidence that you achieve the predicted result but the actual reason was different from your hypothesis).
> 
> Can you describe one of those "alternative" scientific methods you claim exists?


1. Tell me what simple and elegant experiment was performed that that forecast the 18 or so year pause in warming? the denial of any significance to the pause is an example of rejecting the observation in favor of belief in the theory. When one rejects the observation and retains faith in the theory, is that objective?

2. Not everything in reality is amenable to experimentation and the type of objectivity you claim. Classical mechanics is as close to the ideal of objectivity that one will get. but outside classical mechanics things get more and more uncertain. 

It looks to me like you are paraphrasing some rudimentary text book for beginners that isn't at a high enough level to get into the complexities. If you read "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" I will discuss it with you. If you have no interest in such issues at a higher level, that's your prerogative, but it doesn't make your basic level correct.


----------



## TomB19

Pluto said:


> 1. Tell me what simple and elegant experiment was performed that that forecast the 18 or so year pause in warming?


When there is an 18 year pause in global warming, we'll let you know.


----------



## mordko

Part of the problem is that a lot of exaggeration, propaganda, BS and spin has been presented as if they were scientific facts by the likes of Al Gore. It undermined confidence in the underlying science - which never made the crazy claims Al Gore tried to sell - among the general public.


----------



## carverman

mordko said:


> Part of the problem is that a lot of exaggeration, propaganda, BS and spin has been presented as if they were scientific facts by the likes of Al Gore. It undermined confidence in the underlying science - which never made the crazy claims Al Gore tried to sell - among the general public.


I agree in principle Mordko..but the fact is that we are burning up fossil fuels more now than ever in the history of man.
China, with their economic boom due to cheap labour is enjoying a different lifestyle...most can afford cars..multiply that by millions or hundreds of millions in a population of 1.3 billion plus the added population driving cars/truck/aircraft in countries like Japan, Korea, the Pacific rim countries, alone accounts to a huge thirst for energy..oil. Add to that the western world and it is evident that global warming due to extreme carbon dioxide emissions from all this mechanization, not to mention methane from cow farts has an effect on global warming. 

This has all happened since the invention of the affordable mass produced automobile and basicall since the 1960s on wards.
Thats about 50 years or so of man's progress...if we continue to use up earth's resources at the rate we are even now..we don't really need to worry about any future ice age.
The energy expended is trapped inside the earths atmosphere and that is a concern.


----------



## Nelley

carverman said:


> I agree in principle Mordko..but the fact is that we are burning up fossil fuels more now than ever in the history of man.
> China, with their economic boom due to cheap labour is enjoying a different lifestyle...most can afford cars..multiply that by millions or hundreds of millions in a population of 1.3 billion plus the added population driving cars/truck/aircraft in countries like Japan, Korea, the Pacific rim countries, alone accounts to a huge thirst for energy..oil. Add to that the western world and it is evident that global warming due to extreme carbon dioxide emissions from all this mechanization, not to mention methane from cow farts has an effect on global warming.
> 
> This has all happened since the invention of the affordable mass produced automobile and basicall since the 1960s on wards.
> Thats about 50 years or so of man's progress...if we continue to use up earth's resources at the rate we are even now..we don't really need to worry about any future ice age.
> The energy expended is trapped inside the earths atmosphere and that is a concern.


Exactly where do you think all this oil is going to come from to keep burning it at this rate forever? You do realize that as of 2016 we have no viable replacement for crude oil? Are you aware that the biggest year for oil discovery was 1964? Over the last 52 years a gazillion dollars has been spent trying to locate major discoveries-it aint there.


----------



## Pluto

TomB19 said:


> When there is an 18 year pause in global warming, we'll let you know.


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture19798.html

According to this study, we are well with the normal temp range going back 2 million years. Looks like a 2 million year pause.


----------



## Pluto

Nelley said:


> Exactly where do you think all this oil is going to come from to keep burning it at this rate forever? You do realize that as of 2016 we have no viable replacement for crude oil? Are you aware that the biggest year for oil discovery was 1964? Over the last 52 years a gazillion dollars has been spent trying to locate major discoveries-it aint there.


Reportedly the US has about a 500 year supply in shale oil, not to mention a great abundance of coal that could last hundreds of years. Cough, cough.


----------



## Pluto

mordko said:


> Part of the problem is that a lot of exaggeration, propaganda, BS and spin has been presented as if they were scientific facts by the likes of Al Gore. It undermined confidence in the underlying science - which never made the crazy claims Al Gore tried to sell - among the general public.


Yes. besides Al Gore, you forgot to mention TomB19.


----------



## Nelley

Pluto said:


> Reportedly the US has about a 500 year supply in shale oil, not to mention a great abundance of coal that could last hundreds of years. Cough, cough.


The discovery of coal predates the discovery of crude oil-the global economy switched to crude oil because it is a superior energy source-as coal becomes the predominant energy source once again we are regressing energy quality wise.


----------



## carverman

Pluto said:


> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture19798.html
> 
> According to this study, we are well with the normal temp range going back 2 million years. *Looks like a 2 million year pause*.


Whew! What a relief...now I don't have to worry about rising hydro rates or the price of fuel/nat gas for a "few more years". :smile-new:


----------



## TomB19

Here is a quick note on the efficiency of coal.

The process of coal power production is massively efficient. Wheel loaders or drag lines carve coal out of the ground, dump trucks haul it to a conveyor, the conveyor moves it to a hopper where it is pulverized and dropped into a furnace.

Furnace boils water. Steam drives turbine. power is exported via wire to demand points.

The power plants are built where the coal is.

No need for drilling of wells, refining of crude, or anything such as that.

The combustion process may not be that efficient with coal but the generation process is.

Natural gas is also pretty efficient but not to the same level.


----------



## Nelley

TomB19 said:


> Here is a quick note on the efficiency of coal.
> 
> The process of coal power production is massively efficient. Wheel loaders or drag lines carve coal out of the ground, dump trucks haul it to a conveyor, the conveyor moves it to a hopper where it is pulverized and dropped into a furnace.
> 
> Furnace boils water. Steam drives turbine. power is exported via wire to demand points.
> 
> The power plants are built where the coal is.
> 
> No need for drilling of wells, refining of crude, or anything such as that.
> 
> The combustion process may not be that efficient with coal but the generation process is.
> 
> Natural gas is also pretty efficient but not to the same level.


Crude oil is more useful as a transportation fuel-if this global economy moves to running mainly on coal it isn't going to be as wealthy-I don't know why I think you might be able to comprehend this.


----------



## TomB19

My understanding is that we have plenty of oil to last a long while.

The electrification of cars will extend the oil era significantly and slow the carbonation of the atmosphere. Both of these are good things.


----------



## Nelley

TomB19 said:


> My understanding is that we have plenty of oil to last a long while.
> 
> The electrification of cars will extend the oil era significantly and slow the carbonation of the atmosphere. Both of these are good things.


The Earth's supply of oil will last forever, because the usage will decline-because it will be too expensive to extract. Everybody talks about low oil prices ($50 US)-from memory this would be a record HIGH price circa 2004. Deep sea drilling and tar sands needs way higher prices but there is a limit to how much the customer can pay.


----------



## olivaw

TomB19 said:


> My understanding is that we have plenty of oil to last a long while.
> 
> The electrification of cars will extend the oil era significantly and slow the carbonation of the atmosphere. Both of these are good things.


They are good for the planet, certainly. We have to reduce CO2 emissions. The science of climate change is undeniable. 

To some of my friends - it is one more factor in what feels like a perfect storm. 
- Low oil prices
- Keystone XL was not approved and signs are not good for Canadian pipelines
- Shale oil production in the US decreases demand for product from the Athabasca oil sands (tar sands?)
- Declining demand in North America (though that was partially offset by increased Asian demand for a while)


----------



## andrewf

TomB19 said:


> Here is a quick note on the efficiency of coal.
> 
> The process of coal power production is massively efficient. Wheel loaders or drag lines carve coal out of the ground, dump trucks haul it to a conveyor, the conveyor moves it to a hopper where it is pulverized and dropped into a furnace.
> 
> Furnace boils water. Steam drives turbine. power is exported via wire to demand points.
> 
> The power plants are built where the coal is.
> 
> No need for drilling of wells, refining of crude, or anything such as that.
> 
> The combustion process may not be that efficient with coal but the generation process is.
> 
> Natural gas is also pretty efficient but not to the same level.


Too bad coal emissions kill tens of thousands of people per year.


----------



## Pluto

Nelley said:


> The discovery of coal predates the discovery of crude oil-the global economy switched to crude oil because it is a superior energy source-as coal becomes the predominant energy source once again we are regressing energy quality wise.


I think you are probably mostly correct. There were places where oil just oozed from the ground and some ancient people in the Mediterranean used the oil for various purposes. Too, the ancient Chinese actually drilled for oil. 

Even so coal is filthy, and contains radioactive particles that end up in the atmosphere.


----------



## mordko

Pluto said:


> I think you are probably mostly correct. There were places where oil just oozed from the ground and some ancient people in the Mediterranean used the oil for various purposes. Too, the ancient Chinese actually drilled for oil.
> 
> Even so coal is filthy, and contains radioactive particles that end up in the atmosphere.


And when you extract oil, you are retrieving produced water which is full of radio toxic isotopes like Po-210. It is then released into environment and is concentrated on equipment in the form of radioactive scales.

Still, the highest contribution to your overall dose comes from gas. Every time you use it, you are releasing radon.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole

"Science does not do "predictions". That would be shamans."

Science does predictions all the time. Create a theory that explains phenomena => devise an experiment => predict the results of the experiment based on theory => conduct experiment => theory proven correct, or not. That is the way science has been done since the 18th century.


----------



## mordko

^This would be a hypothesis. In that particular context we were talking about predicting the future with 100% confidence level. That's not science. It's shamans.


----------



## olivaw

^ In science, a hypothesis becomes a theory once observation matches prediction. (Note, a theory may eventually need to be modified to reflect addition observation). The theory is then used to make practical predictions.


----------



## TomB19

I have a 1993 quarter.


----------



## mordko

When we make "predictions", we call it a forecast. When we forecast, we also provide confidence levels, uncertainty analysis, sensitivity analysis, risk assessments and all sorts of other assessments to evaluate probability of plausible scenarios. Anyone making predictions about the future with 100 percent accuracy is not a scientist. A pundit. A politician. A journalist. A talking head. Not a scientist.


----------



## olivaw

^ My point was that he used the term "theory" accurately. He used the word prediction correctly too. It is not unacceptable to say that a theory predicts an observation. 

But you are free to use the word forecast. We seldom tie ourselves up in pedantic arguments in a casual forum such as this.


----------



## mordko

olivaw said:


> ^ My point was that he used the term "theory" accurately. He used the word prediction correctly too. It is not unacceptable to say that a theory predicts an observation.
> 
> But you are free to use the word forecast. We seldom tie ourselves up in pedantic arguments in a casual forum such as this.


He did use it correctly, but he was responding to an earlier point which did not deal wth a theory. The gist is that anyone claiming to know the future precisely is a charlatan. Like Al Gore.


----------



## Pluto

TomB19 said:


> When there is an 18 year pause in global warming, we'll let you know.


So you are a pause denier. Even Schneider from Berkley acknowledges the flattening/pause. but not you. clearly you have a preconceived conclusion in mind, and you call that "objective". 

According to the recent study published in Nature, current temps are in the normal range defined by the last 2 million years. Apparently you are in denial of that too and perceive warming over and above the 2 million year norm. Yes? No?


----------



## andrewf

^ The fact that the pause is exactly 18 years (starting 1997) and not 17 or 19 years should arose your suspicions. It is cherry picking the base year. It's like saying 2000 - 2007 was a 'pause' in equity markets, evidence that equity returns would be nil in perpetuity.


----------



## TomB19

Pluto said:


> So you are a pause denier. Even Schneider from Berkley acknowledges the flattening/pause. but not you. clearly you have a preconceived conclusion in mind, and you call that "objective".
> 
> According to the recent study published in Nature, current temps are in the normal range defined by the last 2 million years. Apparently you are in denial of that too and perceive warming over and above the 2 million year norm. Yes? No?


You are so far beyond the pale that I'll continue to disregard your posts.

The hottest year on record is 2015. Second hottest... 2014. Third hottest... not 2013. Got you! It was 2010. 2013 was only the fourth hottest year on record.

Here is an article published by a little outfit called "Scientific American" magazine. They cite a 99% chance of 2016 being the hottest year on record.

I'm sure Rush Limbaugh disagrees. lmao!

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...ance-2016-will-be-the-hottest-year-on-record/

Now, if you were writing that it's been 18 years since you had any concept of objectivity, I would be inclined to agree with you.


----------



## Pluto

andrewf said:


> ^ The fact that the pause is exactly 18 years (starting 1997) and not 17 or 19 years should arose your suspicions. It is cherry picking the base year. It's like saying 2000 - 2007 was a 'pause' in equity markets, evidence that equity returns would be nil in perpetuity.


1. Well andrew, I didn't pick any dates. The climate decided to stop warming during a time frame that the global warming theorists picked. 
The problem isn't me picking dates, the problem is their model didn't predict the flattening within the time frame they, not me, chose. Since they can not account for it, something is wrong with the model. 
2. Recently, Nature published research that goes back 2 million years. Current temperatures are well within the norm for the last 2 million years. Feel free to pick a start date and end date that you feel is not cherry picking. 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture19798.html


----------



## Pluto

TomB19 said:


> You are so far beyond the pale that I'll continue to disregard your posts.
> 
> The hottest year on record is 2015. Second hottest... 2014. Third hottest... not 2013. Got you! It was 2010. 2013 was only the fourth hottest year on record.
> 
> Here is an article published by a little outfit called "Scientific American" magazine. They cite a 99% chance of 2016 being the hottest year on record.
> 
> I'm sure Rush Limbaugh disagrees. lmao!
> 
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/...ance-2016-will-be-the-hottest-year-on-record/
> 
> Now, if you were writing that it's been 18 years since you had any concept of objectivity, I would be inclined to agree with you.


1. They don't know with precision what the global average temperature was in 1881. There is a margin of error here that you seem to assume does not exist. Their 1881 temp is based on many assumptions. Assumptions, choices, judgments and evaluations by scientists fly in the face of your naive notion of objectivity. You seem to think that all you have to do is inject the word "objective" into your personal perspective and all of a sudden it is an eternal static truth. 
2. What do you mean by "on record"? Starting at 1881 is arbitrary. The following recently published article goes back 2 million years, and we are in a normal range of temp from its perspective, and not the "hottest year on record". 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture19798.html

But since it doesn't fit your personally preferred perspective, I take it, it is not the "record" that's "objective" for you. 

3. I think your notion of "objectivity" comes from a very basic science text for beginners. Strictly speaking, objectivity is an ideal that in practice can not be achieved. the scientific American article you referred me to chose 1881 as the beginning of the record. That's a choice. Its a judgment. Its valuing. They personally value 1881 over other dates. They personally value some items over others. Objectivity proposes that the criterion for truth is *external*, ie outside the scientist. But there is no external fixed criteria for truth. You don't seem to get that. Every time a scientist makes an judgment, a valuation, a choice, that's subjectivity. 

4. However, you want to educate me on "objectivity", as if you know what it is. So here is an offer: give me a reference for a book that you think justifies your view of objectivity. 

5. As far as the future goes, you are bent on the notion that we are already in a very abnormally high temp time and it will keep getting hotter and hotter and hotter. but the 2 million year record does not cohere with your belief. I don't really know what the future will hold, but in your mind, you do. I don't see the proof myself. So far, to me, your view of the future looks like a grand illusion. I'll change my mind when the facts require it.
6. Science only 38% sure 2014 was the warmest year. 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...d-2014-warmest-year-record-38-sure-right.html


----------



## steve41

Pluto.... these Warmunistas are convinced they are right.... don't bother to argue with them.


----------



## olivaw

^yeah, it's so much easier to argue with people who are convinced they are wrong.


----------



## mordko

Global warming is very real... As is imminent glaciation. Canada will inevitably end up under several meters of ice again and the only thing that can delay it is global warming.


----------



## andrewf

Pluto said:


> 1. Well andrew, I didn't pick any dates. The climate decided to stop warming during a time frame that the global warming theorists picked.
> The problem isn't me picking dates, the problem is their model didn't predict the flattening within the time frame they, not me, chose. Since they can not account for it, something is wrong with the model.
> 2. Recently, Nature published research that goes back 2 million years. Current temperatures are well within the norm for the last 2 million years. Feel free to pick a start date and end date that you feel is not cherry picking.
> 
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture19798.html


If the pause were real, you could speak convincingly of a 20 year pause or a 15 year pause--the conclusion should be robust. Cherry picking the hottest year on record, with a huge el nino, as the basis for your trend is not just bad science, but intentionally misleading.

This is a really very simple point, your anthropomorphism of the climate notwithstanding.

By the way, you posted a dead link.


----------



## Pluto

steve41 said:


> Pluto.... these Warmunistas are convinced they are right.... don't bother to argue with them.


Well, I think you might have a point there. I didn't really see it as an argument, rather as an exchange of ideas during which I might learn something.


----------



## Nelley

Pluto said:


> Well, I think you might have a point there. I didn't really see it as an argument, rather as an exchange of ideas during which I might learn something.


The Global Warming sheep don't exchange ideas-they simply repeat nonsense-example-there was a specific prediction/announcement that hurricanes would increase in intensity and frequency-DID NOT HAPPEN-is this discussed or explained-NOPE-just ignored. Having a model and twisting facts to fit your model isn't science.


----------



## Pluto

andrewf said:


> If the pause were real, you could speak convincingly of a 20 year pause or a 15 year pause--the conclusion should be robust. Cherry picking the hottest year on record, with a huge el nino, as the basis for your trend is not just bad science, but intentionally misleading.
> 
> This is a really very simple point, your anthropomorphism of the climate notwithstanding.
> 
> By the way, you posted a dead link.


it wasn't dead when I posted it, but it is now.


----------



## Pluto

andrewf said:


> If the pause were real, you could speak convincingly of a 20 year pause or a 15 year pause--the conclusion should be robust. Cherry picking the hottest year on record, with a huge el nino, as the basis for your trend is not just bad science, but intentionally misleading.
> 
> This is a really very simple point, your anthropomorphism of the climate notwithstanding.
> 
> By the way, you posted a dead link.


Well one of the alleged hottest years on record was supposed to be 2014. I don't know if that's the year you mean. But in order to construe it that way, they had to ignore the satellite data. apparently satellite data is considered to be the most accurate way to get a global average, and it didn't show that was the hottest year on record. So they just ignored it what the satellite data showed.


----------



## Karlhungus

The thing I dont understand is, that man made Co2 makes up such a small proportion of overall GHG (1%), yet this small amount is supposed to cause all this catastrophe


----------



## Pluto

*2 million year climate record*

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v538/n7624/abs/nature19798.html#figures

Apparently a previous post of this link was dead. So here it is reposted. there is a wee graph at the bottom of the article. When I look at the graph it looks like we are currently within normal range of temperatures. Hence, claims that 2014, and 2015 are the hottest on record don't conform to this lengthy record. 

P.S. Tomb19 and Joe Black, I await your bibliography, or at least one substantial book that proves/substantiates you views on "objectivity".


----------



## mordko

Karlhungus said:


> The thing I dont understand is, that man made Co2 makes up such a small proportion of overall GHG (1%), yet this small amount is supposed to cause all this catastrophe


I am pretty sure the 1% number is from some dodgy source but would you mind providing a link?


----------



## Spudd

Pluto said:


> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v538/n7624/abs/nature19798.html#figures
> 
> Apparently a previous post of this link was dead. So here it is reposted. there is a wee graph at the bottom of the article. When I look at the graph it looks like we are currently within normal range of temperatures. Hence, claims that 2014, and 2015 are the hottest on record don't conform to this lengthy record.


Are you referring to Figure 1 at the bottom of that article? If so, that graph is showing GAST as temperature deviation (in °C) from present (average over 0–5 ka) in blue. ka means thousand years. So it's showing the past 5000 years average is around where it has been historically. Well, considering the industrial age really only started a few hundred years ago, that's not too surprising. You can't really extrapolate anything when you look at a 2 million year long record where each data point is 5000 years average, if you want to understand man's industrial effect on the surface temperature. 

If you look at Figure 2, it shows that the higher the greenhouse gas "forcing" whatever that means, the higher the global average surface temperature. So that would tend to agree with global warming theories. 

In fact, she even closes the abstract with "This result suggests that stabilization at today’s greenhouse gas levels may already commit Earth to an eventual total warming of 5 degrees Celsius (range 3 to 7 degrees Celsius, 95 per cent credible interval) over the next few millennia as ice sheets, vegetation and atmospheric dust continue to respond to global warming.". Which is what global warming theorists generally predict, if I'm not mistaken.


----------



## Pluto

Spudd said:


> Are you referring to Figure 1 at the bottom of that article? If so, that graph is showing GAST as temperature deviation (in °C) from present (average over 0–5 ka) in blue. ka means thousand years. So it's showing the past 5000 years average is around where it has been historically. Well, considering the industrial age really only started a few hundred years ago, that's not too surprising. You can't really extrapolate anything when you look at a 2 million year long record where each data point is 5000 years average, if you want to understand man's industrial effect on the surface temperature.
> 
> If you look at Figure 2, it shows that the higher the greenhouse gas "forcing" whatever that means, the higher the global average surface temperature. So that would tend to agree with global warming theories.
> 
> In fact, she even closes the abstract with "This result suggests that stabilization at today’s greenhouse gas levels may already commit Earth to an eventual total warming of 5 degrees Celsius (range 3 to 7 degrees Celsius, 95 per cent credible interval) over the next few millennia as ice sheets, vegetation and atmospheric dust continue to respond to global warming.". Which is what global warming theorists generally predict, if I'm not mistaken.


Yes, she does give lip service to warming theory with that very grand and alarming statement. Making such statements is how they ensure continued funding. If she wants a lengthy career, she has to continue to promote the warming theory and blame that on humans. Notwithstanding the forward looking statements, which she has been criticized for, we are presently inside the norm for the time period she covered. Given all the hullabaloo over the warming issue in relation to industrial co2, one would think her most recent proxy data would indicate much higher temps. Alas it doesn't. I'm quite sure that global temps fluctuate, but I'm not at all convinced co2 is the only factor, nor am I convinced that a warmer climate necessarily means disaster.


----------



## Pluto

Karlhungus said:


> The thing I dont understand is, that man made Co2 makes up such a small proportion of overall GHG (1%), yet this small amount is supposed to cause all this catastrophe


Its about 0.04% of the atmosphere. As a % of ghg, I don't know off hand. but if I remember correctly methane is 20x more potent as a GHG compared to co2. Lots of methane is produced by forests. Not the trees, but the microbes in the soil produce significant amounts of methane. Forests producing a powerful green house gas didn't go over too well with some folks, so I don't hear too much about it anymore. But some farmers take it in the neck, in the form of a carbon tax, for their animals farting methane. 
As far as I know co2 gets most of the attention because it is the one humans produce via industry, otherwise they don't care about greenhouse gases that are produced by microbes, and wild animals. 

One of the assumptions of the warming theory is that the earth's climate sensitivity (to co2 and other GHG gases) is very high and it seems this is where they get their outlandish predictions. But the reality is the earth's climate sensitivity is unknown. And to make dire predictions based on an unknown factor is irresponsible.


----------



## Pluto

Nelley said:


> The Global Warming sheep don't exchange ideas-they simply repeat nonsense-example-there was a specific prediction/announcement that hurricanes would increase in intensity and frequency-DID NOT HAPPEN-is this discussed or explained-NOPE-just ignored. Having a model and twisting facts to fit your model isn't science.


Yes, I guess you are right. Well anyhow, I'm being ignored by the sheep apparently because they don't have the requested bibliography supporting their idea of objectivity, which, in turn was used to indubitably prove the upcoming horrors of warming. Covering this value laden theory with a shroud of "objectivity" is a con job I'm not falling for.


----------



## Karlhungus

mordko said:


> I am pretty sure the 1% number is from some dodgy source but would you mind providing a link?


Is there a point in providing a link when you have already assumed it is bunk?

Just a quick google, even from a site that believes warming is from human activity, admits that human C02 contribution is tiny. https://www.newscientist.com/articl...hs-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter


----------



## mordko

Karlhungus said:


> Is there a point in providing a link when you have already assumed it is bunk?
> 
> Just a quick google, even from a site that believes warming is from human activity, admits that human C02 contribution is tiny. https://www.newscientist.com/articl...hs-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter


Your link says the EXACT opposite.


----------



## new dog

Nelley said:


> The Global Warming sheep don't exchange ideas-they simply repeat nonsense-example-there was a specific prediction/announcement that hurricanes would increase in intensity and frequency-DID NOT HAPPEN-is this discussed or explained-NOPE-just ignored. Having a model and twisting facts to fit your model isn't science.


I think whether their theory is right or wrong doesn't matter, all that matters is they control what the agenda will be. Controlling the sheep as you call it is one of their goals.


----------



## Karlhungus

mordko said:


> Your link says the EXACT opposite.


From the article : "So what’s going on? It is true that human emissions of CO2 are small compared with natural sources." You can argue to what effect, but thats another story. 

Also, http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html. "Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 additions comprise (11,880 / 370,484) or 3.207% of all greenhouse gas concentrations, (ignoring water vapor)." *Ignoring water vapour*. Which further on that site says that water vapour makes up 95% of all GHGS. Source:US department of energy.


----------



## mordko

Karlhungus said:


> From the article : "So what’s going on? It is true that human emissions of CO2 are small compared with natural sources." You can argue to what effect, but thats another story.
> 
> Also, http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html. "Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 additions comprise (11,880 / 370,484) or 3.207% of all greenhouse gas concentrations, (ignoring water vapor)." *Ignoring water vapour*. Which further on that site says that water vapour makes up 95% of all GHGS. Source:US department of energy.


There is a reason that water vapour is ignored. Firstly, it does not make up 95 percent of green house gases, unless you use some funny parameter to add them up, like weight. The parameter that matters is contribution to global warming. 

Secondly and crucially, water vapour simply rotates in nature. Yes, concentration in air goes up in response to warming and therefore makes it accelerate, but it's not the cause. The cause - greenhouse gases, like CO2. And your own article shows that concentration has grown significantly and the cause is man made. 

How exactly and when exactly it will have an effect is questionable. The anthropogenic nature of a very large increase in CO2 concentration and its contribution to warming = fact.


----------



## andrewf

Pluto said:


> Yes, she does give lip service to warming theory with that very grand and alarming statement. Making such statements is how they ensure continued funding. If she wants a lengthy career, she has to continue to promote the warming theory and blame that on humans. Notwithstanding the forward looking statements, which she has been criticized for, we are presently inside the norm for the time period she covered. Given all the hullabaloo over the warming issue in relation to industrial co2, one would think her most recent proxy data would indicate much higher temps. Alas it doesn't. I'm quite sure that global temps fluctuate, but I'm not at all convinced co2 is the only factor, nor am I convinced that a warmer climate necessarily means disaster.


I think you utterly failed to grasp what Spudd wrote. Good job!


----------



## andrewf

Pluto said:


> Its about 0.04% of the atmosphere. As a % of ghg, I don't know off hand. but if I remember correctly methane is 20x more potent as a GHG compared to co2. Lots of methane is produced by forests. Not the trees, but the microbes in the soil produce significant amounts of methane. Forests producing a powerful green house gas didn't go over too well with some folks, so I don't hear too much about it anymore. But some farmers take it in the neck, in the form of a carbon tax, for their animals farting methane.
> As far as I know co2 gets most of the attention because it is the one humans produce via industry, otherwise they don't care about greenhouse gases that are produced by microbes, and wild animals.
> 
> One of the assumptions of the warming theory is that the earth's climate sensitivity (to co2 and other GHG gases) is very high and it seems this is where they get their outlandish predictions. But the reality is the earth's climate sensitivity is unknown. And to make dire predictions based on an unknown factor is irresponsible.


That's interesting. It seems that most (60%) methane emissions are due to human activity:










https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases


----------



## Pluto

^

Could be. but I don't buy it just because they say it and you post it. I like to read both sides of the issue before accepting whatever. 
Needless to say, current warming theory focuses on co2, not the other gases. If you want to tell them they should focus on methane, go ahead. 

These scientists can't even agree on what the temp data actually is, never mind what's causing changes in climate. Historical data sometimes gets changed (downward) for no apparent reason than making current temps look warmer. And it goes on and on and on. the controversy really is similar to a theological dispute.

The reality is an ice age ended some 10,000 years ago when a warming trend began and humans didn't cause that. for all we know any recent warming is just the natural warming that commenced at the end of the last ice age. Current theories, for all we know, could be just piggy backing on a natural warming trend.


----------



## andrewf

^Possible, but it must have some natural cause. Climate science has been methodically identifying and accounting for natural factors like solar activity, volcanic eruptions, el nino cycles, ocean warming etc. in climate models. And there is some change in temp that is not explainable other than by the effect on CO2 and other GHGs. We have been helped to some extent by lower than usual sun spot activity, but there is no reason to expect (no model that predicts) this should continue.

I feel that a lot of 'skeptics' are a bit schizophrenic when it comes to their arguments. Sometimes they argue there is no warming (which is very difficult to argue given the abundant evidence of recent warming--changes in migration patterns, seasonal flowering times, nesting seasons), other times they argue that there is warming but CO2 has nothing to do with it (CO2 acting as a GHG is pretty incontrovertible and is middle school science fair level stuff), other times they admit CO2 does cause warming but because of other factors we shouldn't be worried (we should count on the permanence of a recent lull in sunspot activity).

Which is it? You can't hold all three positions in a logically consistent manner.


----------



## Pluto

andrewf said:


> ^Possible, but it must have some natural cause. Climate science has been methodically identifying and accounting for natural factors like solar activity, volcanic eruptions, el nino cycles, ocean warming etc. in climate models.
> .


Give me references for "climate science has been methodically identifying and accounting for natural factors..." I don't accept that just because I read it on the Internet. I read both sides, pro and con and I need details. I'm not convinced they have accounted for all the "natural" factors. 

I hold the position that I don't know, and I think they don't know. sometime in the mid 2000's the UN announced that the globe has stopped warming due to "unknown natural factors". that 's the famous pause. There is nothing in the GHG model that predicted it and accounted for it. But you claim those loose ends are all tied up, so I need references for it. In the meantime, last I heard, the South ice cap isn't warming, and isn't melting. The pro global warming guys say the south is isolated from the rest of the globe, so it doesn't count. But in Greenland and the north cap there is some melting apparently. some scientists have proposed that the northern melting is due to soot from industry (Russia, China), but the South isn't melting due to soot, because industry isn't close enough. I haven't heard that one explained away yet. 

I also hold the position that presently we are about as warm as it was in the middle ages, 1000 AD around the time the Vikings showed up there. Obviously, Greenland didn't get that warm due to fossil fuels. 
I'm not sure but I think you are engaged in confirmation bias by virtue of only reading authors that write what you already believe. And I'm not sure that you read with a critical eye. Critical thinking is supposed to be a component of science.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole

The world is not as warm as it was in 900 - 1300 AD. They were farming on Greenland, and growing wine grapes in commercial quantities in England. Grapes grew wild in Newfoundland. There is some evidence Europeans were exploring or hunting seals and walrus around Baffin Island.


----------



## Pluto

^
thank you. Assuming that, I have to wonder what all the current hullabaloo is about.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole

It's about passing restrictive new laws and taxes. Look at what the Climate Change advocates do, and what they say. None of them seem to have a problem living in big energy hog houses, staying in luxury hotels , flying all over the world in jumbo jets, or riding in limousines. They say they want us to cut carbon emissions but when it comes down to doing something all they want to do is raise taxes and pass new laws for others to obey. And when you get down to brass tacks the new taxes and laws will do little or nothing for the climate.


----------



## Nelley

Rusty O'Toole said:


> The world is not as warm as it was in 900 - 1300 AD. They were farming on Greenland, and growing wine grapes in commercial quantities in England. Grapes grew wild in Newfoundland. There is some evidence Europeans were exploring or hunting seals and walrus around Baffin Island.


That is because in 1300 AD they didn't have Goldman Sachs or ManBearPig or carbon credit trading markets or carbon taxes-if they would have had these, it never would have gotten so warm and humanity would not have perished in 1300 AD from warming.


----------



## mordko

And the relationship between global warming and Goldman is ...??? 

Anyway, it's a good thing they provide access to the internet at Canadian psychiatric wards. Very sweet of them.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole

Goldman sold their shares in the carbon credit exchange 2 years ago. So, officially, nothing.


----------



## Pluto

https://www.amazon.com/Evidence-Bas...28045884/ref=dp_ob_title_bk?tag=vglnkc7179-20

http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/31/the-next-little-ice-age-is-already-here-russian-scientist-claims/


While the global warming matra goes on and on, the South ice cap has, in recent years been breaking growth records. Surely there is co2 in the atmosphere down there. Surely the sun still shines down there all summer. What seems to be the problem? It could be that co2 alone is not explanatory. 
And why did the temp rise rapidly during the pre industrial time from 1650 to 1850? If Science is objective, why do some scientists not agree with the co2 theory?


----------



## steve41

Politics.

The leftwing are still licking their wounds after the Cold War..... Socialism/Communism was discredited, Capitalism/Democracy prevailed.

Some bright leftie spark latched on to the fact that global temperatures and C02 concentrations were both climbing, and those nasty Capitalists such as Shell, BP, Mobil were responsible. The rest is history.


----------



## Spudd

Pluto said:


> And why did the temp rise rapidly during the pre industrial time from 1650 to 1850? If Science is objective, why do some scientists not agree with the co2 theory?


If you read the Nature article's conclusions that you yourself posted, she includes a very clear graph showing a strong correlation between CO2 and global temperature.


----------



## TomB19

The scientist cited in this thread must be Donald Trump.

Any data showing the earth has been setting temperature records for quite a few years now is countered with knuckle draggers claiming to not believe in thermometer technology.

Now they're pulling out data from a millennia ago and presenting it as fact, despite it going hard against almost all studies?

For real?

Does anyone remember when the science of cigarette smoking was not trusted? The "scientists" were the tobacco complanies and the two guys who wrote the paper later reminded it but that paper is still cited to this day.

I'd like to thank the science denyers for making me feel really, really smart.


----------



## steve41

TomB19 said:


> Now they're pulling out data from a millennia ago and presenting it as fact, despite it going hard against almost all studies?


Yeah.... like Greenland was once called 'VINland' .... grapes and wine and such. Oh, wait a minute- maybe VIN was 'vehicle ID Number' All those automobiles cavorting around in the 13 th century.


----------



## TomB19

There was a study in the 1970s which concluded the earth is cooling. It was an outlier, among the work done even then. That article has been discredited repeatedly and yet it continues to be cited by climate deniers.


----------



## Joe Black

steve41 said:


> Yeah.... like Greenland was once called 'VINland' .... grapes and wine and such. Oh, wait a minute- maybe VIN was 'vehicle ID Number' All those automobiles cavorting around in the 13 th century.


Errr, I hope you know that there were never "grapes and wine and such" in Greenland?


----------



## Rusty O'Toole

There is some question about exactly where Vinland was. But since the discovery of a Norse encampment at L'Anse Aux Meadows it was probably Newfoundland. If there are no wild grapes there, Farley Mowat discovered evidence that there were as late as the 17th century in a book by a French botanist.


----------



## Pluto

Spudd said:


> If you read the Nature article's conclusions that you yourself posted, she includes a very clear graph showing a strong correlation between CO2 and global temperature.


As David Hume pointed out some time ago, correlation is not proof of causation.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole

Tom I am old enough to remember that the coming Ice age was widely publicized in the early seventies over several years. Are you saying all the magazine articles, books, movies and news stories came from ONE not very convincing scientific article?

As I recall at the time the consensus was that the inter glacial period was ending, and we were headed back into another Ice Age. The only question was when, and how fast.

Some scientists were quite alarmed at the rapid cooling between 1930 and 1970.


----------



## Pluto

TomB19 said:


> Now they're pulling out data from a millennia ago and presenting it as fact, despite it going hard against almost all studies?


Please be specific. What is the data from a millennia ago, and what are the studies going hard against it?


----------



## Pluto

TomB19 said:


> There was a study in the 1970s which concluded the earth is cooling. It was an outlier, among the work done even then. That article has been discredited repeatedly and yet it continues to be cited by climate deniers.


part of the reason it is cited is your claim that all science is "objective" implying, therefore, that your preferred scientists couldn't possibly be mistaken about anything.


----------



## Pluto

TomB19 said:


> Any data showing the earth has been setting temperature records for quite a few years now is countered with knuckle draggers claiming to not believe in thermometer technology.


People make choices about where the thermometers are located. And those choices impact the results. People make choices about how many thermometers are used. those choices impact the results. 

When I watch the weather report on any given day, there is great temperature differences from city to city even just a short distance from each other. When one is trying to measure the temperature of the entire globe by using thermometers, they have to make a choice concerning how many thermometers will be used and how they will be distributed. These are problems that introduce subjectivity - ie assumptions that the set of thermometers used are representative of the entire planet.


----------



## Pluto

According to this research the Medieval Warm Period was global. 

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/31/new-paper-shows-medieval-warm-period-was-global-in-scope/

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/617

And temperatures then were about the same as now.


----------



## TomB19

Pluto said:


> part of the reason it is cited is your claim that all science is "objective" implying, therefore, that your preferred scientists couldn't possibly be mistaken about anything.


It's true. It's the objectivity that makes it science.

Not everything claiming to be science is objective, and therefore, not everything claiming to be science is.

Subjectivity creeps it's way in, like water in a leaky ship, and ruins results. Your fabrication that I have implied scientists couldn't possibly be wrong, for example, is a great example of subjectivity.

The idea is, the result obtained by the most objective process is the one most likely to be correct, without regard to how much you enjoy the result or believe in it.

See. It's not so hard.


----------



## kcowan

Rusty O'Toole said:


> Some scientists were quite alarmed at the rapid cooling between 1930 and 1970.


Yes and I think partly it was attributed to air pollution from the industrial revolution. When the installed all the scrubbers and cat converters, heating resumed.

Of course now they have to explain the air pollution in China and India and why cooling has not resumed?


----------



## Nelley

TomB19 said:


> It's true. It's the objectivity that makes it science.
> 
> Not everything claiming to be science is objective, and therefore, not everything claiming to be science is.
> 
> Subjectivity creeps it's way in, like water in a leaky ship, and ruins results. Your fabrication that I have implied scientists couldn't possibly be wrong, for example, is a great example of subjectivity.
> 
> The idea is, the result obtained by the most objective process is the one most likely to be correct, without regard to how much you enjoy the result or believe in it.
> 
> See. It's not so hard.


Jeez Tom-you are not that stupid-"subjectivity" creeps in because scientists are humans just like you-exactly how much money would it take for you to falsify study results if you felt you could get away it-a grand-500 bucks? There is huge money in this whole climate scam.


----------



## Pluto

TomB19 said:


> The idea is, the result obtained by the most objective process is the one most likely to be correct, without regard to how much you enjoy the result or believe in it.
> 
> See. It's not so hard.


Tom, you still don't get this. 
Scientists make choices and assumptions. That's the unavoidable subjective pole. 
Earlier you appealed to amazingly accurate thermometers. wonderful. Now you have to make choices about where to place them. And you have to make choices about how many thermometers are required to achieve the necessary accuracy. Such choices rely on the judgment and evaluative powers of the scientists. That's the subjective pole. don't you get that?


----------



## s123

I'm keeping my eyes open for information on earth's data.
The human history is a blink of an eye when compared with the earth's history.

We've seen increased drought & flooding in recent years by human causes.
The continued droughts have a huge impact on environment.
Deforestation affects weather patterns, drought, flooding, water cycle and the reduction of soils and water quality etc....
Forest protection should be the top priority to deal with in our current situation.

- The big picture: 65 million years of temperature swings:
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-big-picture-65-million-years-of-temperature-swings/

- Deforestation and Drought:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/11/opinion/sunday/deforestation-and-drought.html?_r=0

In the last year alone some 2,000 square miles of the Amazon roughly the size of Delaware were lost to clearing, largely for planting soybeans and raising cattle. A growing number of scientists are warning that wide-scale deforestation about 20 percent of the Amazon forest is gone already and nearly that much is degraded may already be directing precipitation away from places long accustomed to it.

One Princeton study suggested that deforesting the Amazon could potentially contribute to drought in places as far away as California, while other research indicated that recent droughts in Texas and New Mexico might be linked to cutting in the Amazon. Despite the uncertainty embedded in these and other studies,
“There’s lots of evidence that changing the water cycle in the Amazon would have global consequences,” 

In a recent report, Antonio Donato Nobre, a veteran climatologist with Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research, warned that if just 40 percent of the Amazon region is deforested there could be an abrupt large-scale shift to grasslands, which could substantially alter global weather patterns “and cause a breakdown of the current climate system.
” If deforestation continues, he has said, São Paulo will most likely “dry up.”

Gordon Bonan, a scientist at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., and the author of “Ecological Climatology,” said reducing deforestation and replanting forests should be priorities not just in Brazil but in North America and beyond for many reasons, including the health of climate systems.
“The pace of change is far outpacing our understanding of what the change is doing,” he said, 
“and by the time we do understand it’s probably going to be too late.”


----------



## andrewf

Pluto said:


> People make choices about where the thermometers are located. And those choices impact the results. People make choices about how many thermometers are used. those choices impact the results.
> 
> When I watch the weather report on any given day, there is great temperature differences from city to city even just a short distance from each other. When one is trying to measure the temperature of the entire globe by using thermometers, they have to make a choice concerning how many thermometers will be used and how they will be distributed. These are problems that introduce subjectivity - ie assumptions that the set of thermometers used are representative of the entire planet.


Are you denying that warming is occurring? Flowers bloom earlier, ice sheets retreat earlier, it is not all a matter of direct thermometer measures.


----------



## andrewf

kcowan said:


> Yes and I think partly it was attributed to air pollution from the industrial revolution. When the installed all the scrubbers and cat converters, heating resumed.
> 
> Of course now they have to explain the air pollution in China and India and why cooling has not resumed?


What about the exactly-18-year pause in warming?


----------



## Eder

I say bulldoze NY and restore the virgin forest there that was preventing climate change...of course a lot of scientists would need to find new digs...


----------



## steve41

Eder said:


> I say bulldoze NY and restore the virgin forest there that was preventing climate change...of course a lot of scientists would need to find new digs...


 'Digs' as in digging caves?


----------



## Pluto

s123 said:


> I'm keeping my eyes open for information on earth's data.
> The human history is a blink of an eye when compared with the earth's history.
> 
> We've seen increased drought & flooding in recent years by human causes.
> The continued droughts have a huge impact on environment.
> Deforestation affects weather patterns, drought, flooding, water cycle and the reduction of soils and water quality etc....
> Forest protection should be the top priority to deal with in our current situation.
> 
> - The big picture: 65 million years of temperature swings:
> http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-big-picture-65-million-years-of-temperature-swings/
> 
> - Deforestation and Drought:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/11/opinion/sunday/deforestation-and-drought.html?_r=0
> 
> In the last year alone some 2,000 square miles of the Amazon roughly the size of Delaware were lost to clearing, largely for planting soybeans and raising cattle. A growing number of scientists are warning that wide-scale deforestation about 20 percent of the Amazon forest is gone already and nearly that much is degraded may already be directing precipitation away from places long accustomed to it.
> 
> One Princeton study suggested that deforesting the Amazon could potentially contribute to drought in places as far away as California, while other research indicated that recent droughts in Texas and New Mexico might be linked to cutting in the Amazon. Despite the uncertainty embedded in these and other studies,
> “There’s lots of evidence that changing the water cycle in the Amazon would have global consequences,”
> 
> In a recent report, Antonio Donato Nobre, a veteran climatologist with Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research, warned that if just 40 percent of the Amazon region is deforested there could be an abrupt large-scale shift to grasslands, which could substantially alter global weather patterns “and cause a breakdown of the current climate system.
> ” If deforestation continues, he has said, São Paulo will most likely “dry up.”
> 
> Gordon Bonan, a scientist at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., and the author of “Ecological Climatology,” said reducing deforestation and replanting forests should be priorities not just in Brazil but in North America and beyond for many reasons, including the health of climate systems.
> “The pace of change is far outpacing our understanding of what the change is doing,” he said,
> “and by the time we do understand it’s probably going to be too late.”


1. yeah well your first link says that Greenland is colder now than 1000 years ago. 
2. in 1940's forests covered about 1/3 of land. Presently Forests cover about 1/3 of land. We do replant in North America and have for decades.


----------



## Pluto

andrewf said:


> Are you denying that warming is occurring? Flowers bloom earlier, ice sheets retreat earlier, it is not all a matter of direct thermometer measures.


1. that particular post was about tom's idea of "objectivity". He claims it is warmer now that in 1880, and he claims objective knowledge based on thermometer data. But in 1880 the thermometers were placed where ever it was convenient for municipal weather stations, and not in locations that would represent the entire globe. to say that those thermometers in 1880 were representative of the globe is just his subjective perspective. 

2. do I believe the globe is warming? It is pretty obvious there was an ice age that ended some 10000 years ago, or there abouts. So obviously the earth has warmed. 

3. more recently we have been recovering from the "Little Ice Age" which bottomed out around 1650. Assuming the data is accurate there was some steep warming post 1650, that obviously was not caused by the industrial revolution. Presently we are about the same temp as it was 1000 years ago. Ice sheets: which ice sheets? the ones at the South Pole? the south pole has not been warming. 

4. I don't know if it is warming this year. maybe it is, maybe it isn't. You seem to be convinced it is warming this year, and if you are, how do you know?

So, in stages, for 10000 years, flowers have bloomed earlier. So what?


----------



## andrewf

If flowering times had been advancing as quickly for the past 1000 years as they have in the past few decades, spring flowers would be blooming a few dozen seasons early.

Obviously the climate varied prior to human industrial activity. Referring to that is just obfuscation. The question is whether human activity, such as raising CO2 concentrations by >1.5x, deforestation, release of soot and aerosols, etc. has an impact on climate. Are you denying that human activity has the potential to impact the climate?


----------



## Pluto

^

1. I believe it is probable that Humans are contributing some to warming. Like when I'm in my house on a winter night and light a match, the match is contributing to warming the house, but obviously it isn't warming the entire house. 
2. some people seem to believe that Humans are causing all warming. To me this is unproven, ludicrous, and very likely false. 

3. The ice on Greenland is reportedly about 110000 years old. so I think we have to assume that 110,000 years ago the planet was warmer then than now and it will likely get there again regardless of human intervention. 
4. Climate science is nowhere near as sophisticated and accurate as it claims. It has a long way to go before it is a credible forecaster, if ever. Its current state is very much like a rigid religion where those who ask questions instead of mindlessly reciting the creed, are cast out.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole

Some good news - carbon emissions are taking a dip.

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/global-carbon-missions-are-taking-a-dip


----------



## andrewf

Pluto said:


> ^
> 
> 1. I believe it is probable that Humans are contributing some to warming. Like when I'm in my house on a winter night and light a match, the match is contributing to warming the house, but obviously it isn't warming the entire house.


It does warm the house, just unevenly. You're thinking just the urban heat island effect? 




> 2. some people seem to believe that Humans are causing all warming. To me this is unproven, ludicrous, and very likely false.


Only scientifically illiterate people, maybe.



> 3. The ice on Greenland is reportedly about 110000 years old. so I think we have to assume that 110,000 years ago the planet was warmer then than now and it will likely get there again regardless of human intervention.


Sure, but the last time it happened it was a gradual process. Not over a small handful of decades/centuries. Also, we humans have invested in a lot of infrastructure that is within a few feet of global sea level. It would cost us an awful lot of money to protect/replace it.



> 4. Climate science is nowhere near as sophisticated and accurate as it claims. It has a long way to go before it is a credible forecaster, if ever. Its current state is very much like a rigid religion where those who ask questions instead of mindlessly reciting the creed, are cast out.


Sure. But "deniers"/skeptics don't help matters by refusing to do anything, on the precaution that doubling CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere might be dangerous. Intransigence on more benign measures like modest carbon taxes with associated cuts in other taxes leads to wool-headed greenies pushing for expensive, ineffective policies like renewable energy subsidies, onerous regulations, and wasteful infrastructure investment. And there are plenty of merits to reducing GHG emissions in other ways. Coal is a public health disaster, which kills a 9/11 worth of people every few months in the US alone. Never mind smog from cars and buildings.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole

We aren't going to do anything anyway. Even the biggest Climate Change enthusiasts admit that the changes they want, like cap and trade, CO2 exchanges, green energy etc will do little or nothing to reduce CO2 emissions.


----------



## andrewf

Carbon tax would be effective, unless you think economics is wrong on everything.


----------



## Pluto

andrewf said:


> Sure. But "deniers"/skeptics don't help matters by refusing to do anything, on the precaution that doubling CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere might be dangerous. Intransigence on more benign measures like modest carbon taxes with associated cuts in other taxes leads to wool-headed greenies pushing for expensive, ineffective policies like renewable energy subsidies, onerous regulations, and wasteful infrastructure investment. And there are plenty of merits to reducing GHG emissions in other ways. Coal is a public health disaster, which kills a 9/11 worth of people every few months in the US alone. Never mind smog from cars and buildings.


They do do something. They promote emissions free nuclear. As you point out, more people die from the coal industry than by the nuclear industry. But the head in the clouds greenies shut down that interim option. France is about 90% nuclear, while greenie Germany is building coal plants. So who is really doing something? France is, not the greenies.


----------



## TomB19

Nuclear hasn't been that great, nor has it been that bad, but nuclear has a bright future.

There is a new type of reactor that will run 20 times more efficient than current reactors. These reactors are being actively developed and should be online within the next five years. As I understand it, they will literally be happy to burn the nuclear waste from current generation nuclear plants. Best of all, it does not produce radioactive waste material like current generation reactors do.

... and then there is fusion. It promises a whole new level of energy generation. It might end the universe as we know it, but it will probably be worth it. lol!


----------



## s123

TomB19 said:


> Nuclear hasn't been that great, nor has it been that bad, but nuclear has a bright future.
> 
> There is a new type of reactor that will run 20 times more efficient than current reactors. These reactors are being actively developed and should be online within the next five years. As I understand it, they will literally be happy to burn the nuclear waste from current generation nuclear plants. Best of all, it does not produce radioactive waste material like current generation reactors do.
> 
> ... and then there is fusion. It promises a whole new level of energy generation. It might end the universe as we know it, but it will probably be worth it. lol!


Are you talking about this?

The Hinkley Point C nuclear power station in southwest England.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/11/opinion/britains-nuclear-cover-up.html

It estimates that the facility will produce about 7 percent of the nation’s total electricity from 2025, the year it is expected to be completed. The EPR’s designer, Areva, claims that the reactor is reliable, efficient and so safe that it could withstand a collision with an airliner.
But the project is staggeringly expensive: It will cost more than $22 billion to build and bring online. And it isn’t clear that the EPR technology is viable.
No working version of the reactor exists. The two EPR projects that are furthest along — one in Finland, the other in France — are many years behind schedule, have hemorrhaged billions of dollars and are beset by major safety issues.

- Secret government papers show taxpayers will pick up costs of Hinkley nuclear waste storage:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/30/hinkley-point-nuclear-waste-storage-costs 
Taxpayers will pick up the bill should the cost of storing radioactive waste produced by Britain’s newest nuclear power station soar, according to confidential documents which the government has battled to keep secret for more than a year.
The papers confirm the steps the government took to reassure French energy firm EDF and Chinese investors behind the £24bn Hinkley Point C plant that the amount they would have to pay for the storage would be capped.


----------



## Pluto

TomB19 said:


> Nuclear hasn't been that great, nor has it been that bad, but nuclear has a bright future.
> 
> There is a new type of reactor that will run 20 times more efficient than current reactors. These reactors are being actively developed and should be online within the next five years. As I understand it, they will literally be happy to burn the nuclear waste from current generation nuclear plants. Best of all, it does not produce radioactive waste material like current generation reactors do.
> 
> ... and then there is fusion. It promises a whole new level of energy generation. It might end the universe as we know it, but it will probably be worth it. lol!


Nice. In the US it is illegal to re-refine, and reuse spent fuel rods.

I might add in response to the other post above, the storage issue is really solved. Its not that big of a deal. And its better to have control of the waste compared to coal fired plants in which the waste is blowing in the wind. Yes?


----------



## andrewf

Not to mention that much more radioactive material is emitted into the environment by burning coal than due to nuclear accidents.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole

andrewf said:


> Carbon tax would be effective, unless you think economics is wrong on everything.


How effective? Best estimates I have seen say a carbon tax would reduce our emissions by a small amount, not enough to make a difference while China and other countries are putting out many times the pollution we are.

Thorium reactors have a lot of promise. This may be what TomB19 is talking about. They are simpler, safer, cleaner, and easier and cheaper to build than anything we have now for nuclear energy.

Canadian Candu reactors could run on thorium + spent fuel rods but new design reactors are 40% more efficient.


----------



## andrewf

Rusty O'Toole said:


> How effective? Best estimates I have seen say a carbon tax would reduce our emissions by a small amount, not enough to make a difference while China and other countries are putting out many times the pollution we are.
> 
> Thorium reactors have a lot of promise. This may be what TomB19 is talking about. They are simpler, safer, cleaner, and easier and cheaper to build than anything we have now for nuclear energy.
> 
> Canadian Candu reactors could run on thorium + spent fuel rods but new design reactors are 40% more efficient.


What best estimate is this? If it is the best estimate you have seen, I'm guessing you didn't go looking for honest estimates (ie, indulging in confirmation bias). 

I am pro-nuclear. Not sure how it is relevant to a discussion of a carbon tax, except perhaps that the nuclear industry would benefit from such a tax.


----------



## masa

wow,bad news


----------



## Rusty O'Toole

Courtesy Financial Post

http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/canada-carbon-emissions

"Carbon emissions coming from the emerging countries swamp trends from advanced countries in North America and Europe. China alone has increased carbon emissions by almost 60% from 2005 to 2011. The absolute increase in metric tons is three times more than all the reduction that has taken place in all of Canada, Europe, Japan and the United States. Add India and Russia to China and CO2 emissions have increased by four billion metric tons in six years time."


----------



## andrewf

That doesn't say anything about the effectiveness of a carbon tax. The reality is that China is doing more to incentivize emissions reductions than we are.


----------



## s123

Whether the temperature rise or decline the pollution levels need to decrease for our safe environment.
I'm still uncertain about the carbon tax but we for sure need the solid plan for cleaning / protecting our water & air.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...n-rising-at-an-alarming-rate-in-worlds-cities
-Air pollution rising at an 'alarming rate' in world's cities 

Outdoor air pollution has grown 8% globally in the past five years, with billions of people around the world now exposed to dangerous air, according to new data from more than 3,000 cities compiled by the World Health Organisation (WHO). 


While all regions are affected, fast-growing cities in the Middle East, south-east Asia and the western Pacific are the most impacted with many showing pollution levels at five to 10 times above WHO recommended levels.


----------



## s123

Why not Canada? 

http://themindunleashed.com/

- Solar Panels In The UK Surpass Coal-Powered Electricity
- Pakistani Parliament is the first in the world to go fully solar
- Sustainable salt water battery won’t corrode and can power your home for 10 years
- Russia, China, Japan & South Korea Planning Solar & Wind Energy Super Grid


----------



## DealClaimer

I also heard about the ice age or the global cooling that scientists predicted. According to their recent observations we are leading in to a decade long freeze when the sun slows down solar activity by 60 per cent. Perhaps, it will cause tremendous snows to fall.


----------



## My Own Advisor

My uncle is a geologist. He fully expects the earth to undergo another ice age. Warming must occur first. Are we in that cycle? Are we further along enough in that cycle? He doesn't know either 

Most of us, geologists or otherwise, know something is up with our weather - that is a certainty.


----------



## mordko

My Own Advisor said:


> My uncle is a geologist. He fully expects the earth to undergo another ice age. Warming must occur first. Are we in that cycle? Are we further along enough in that cycle? He doesn't know either
> 
> Most of us, geologists or otherwise, know something is up with our weather - that is a certainty.


The forecasts say that you have to wait around 60 thousand years for the next ice age in Canada. And that it's delayed from the normal cycle because of the global warming. Clearly, the uncertainty is very high.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole

That's funny, in the 1970s an ice age was imminent, or a few hundred years away at the most. My my how times change.


----------



## s123

Hutterites has a good self-sufficient systems that we can start learning from them.
Alberta blue sky~!

- Green Acres, the largest solar farm in Western Canada:
http://www.greenenergyfutures.ca/episode/hutterite-solar-western-canada-biggest

For project developer SkyFire Energy, the project was a first in terms of scale.
“The solar resource here is some of the best in Canada,” says Vonesch. 

*“A system installed right here will produce about 50 or 60 per cent more than if the same system were installed in Germany, 
where there’s more solar [installed] than anywhere in the world.”
*
The wind resource in Southern Alberta is also among the best in Canada. So why did the colony choose solar and not wind?
“Maintenance was one of the big issues,” chuckles Jake Hofer. “And I’m terribly scared of heights.”


Making an investment for the future
Thanks to a keen business sense and a DIY attitude, Green Acres pushed the envelope on the cost of the solar. 
They secured an original quote to build their two-megawatt solar farm for $2.80 a watt, but reduced that to $2.40 a watt through their own labour.
The result is a payback of 15 years if electricity prices remain low, or as few as 10 years if they start to escalate, says Dan Hofer.

---
*just thought about negative impact after this post.


----------



## s123

If anybody really want to help our environment better,
the best way is a less consuming unnecessary foods, goods and energies.
It's very simple method and effective.

The solution is ignoring if it's not profitable.
We are constantly ignoring the real causes.
That's why the situations are worsening each days.

Keep consuming new products that create a huge waste.
The mass productions make a huge negative impact on earth and also creating job less.
So those producer who have more than enough can contribute a huge carbon tax(?) for cleaning & improving the environment.
Why struggling citizens expenses are more and the life become harder? 
Why more people are losing the basic needs?

We bought too much stuff carelessly that reached to the big pile of waste land / water.
We also eat too much that makes us sick of creating the modern illness.

I used to be eating breakfast even I didn't have appetite. ( "break – fast” ? :confusion
In my experience, after I changed this eating habit (skip the breakfast) that I noticed my energy levels increased.
Keep feeding the food in that interfere the cleaning system. 
It makes sense that leaves more than 12 hours between dinner and breakfast to giving the guts work done properly. 
Well, the results was a good.

Then... how come this method is not much popular?
Because it's not a profitable so just let ignore.
Solving the problems are also not profitable.


- 12 Negative Aspects of Globalization:
http://oilprice.com/Finance/the-Economy/12-Negative-Aspects-of-Globalization.html

- Old Wisdom On Daily Meal Frequency, Why Are You Eating So Much?:
http://www.theiflife.com/wisdom-day-meal-frequency/

Dr. Felix Oswald says that “during the zenith period of Grecian and Roman civilization monogamy was not as firmly established as the rule that a health-loving man should content himself with one meal a day, and never eat till he had leisure to digest, i.e., not till the day’s work was wholly done. 


- What your gut’s telling you: why your digestion holds the key to your health:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/wo...r-digestion-holds-the-key-to-your-health.html

Diseases as wide-ranging as Parkinson’s, osteoporosis and autism seem to display early symptoms in the gut. It has been found that mimicking signals from the gut to the brain by stimulating the vagus nerve can improve learning and memory, and regulate mood. It’s been used as a treatment for epilepsy and depression, and could help conditions such as Alzheimer’s, migraine and tinnitus. 

...Perhaps even more unexpected is the growing body of research suggesting that the state of our guts – or, to be more precise, the ecosystem that thrives inside – can explain why some of us eat more than others and are more likely to pile on the pounds. Andrew Gewirtz, a professor of pathology at Emory University in Atlanta, is a leader in this area. 


- The richest 1% now has as much wealth as the rest of the world combined, according to Oxfam.:

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-35339475


----------



## s123

The powered by hydrogen seem non(?) impact on earth. 
Does anybody know it well?

-Germany created the world's first zero-emissions train that only emits steam:
http://www.businessinsider.com/germ...emissions-train-that-only-emits-steam-2016-11


----------



## andrewf

Hydrogen is not really a fuel, it is more a chemical battery. The problem with hydrogen is how you synthesize H2 gas. Usually it is made from methane (natural gas).


----------



## Pluto

s123 said:


> The powered by hydrogen seem non(?) impact on earth.
> Does anybody know it well?
> 
> -Germany created the world's first zero-emissions train that only emits steam:
> http://www.businessinsider.com/germ...emissions-train-that-only-emits-steam-2016-11


It takes power to get the hydrogen from water. Where is Germany getting that power from? Their coal fired plants? If so, it isn't emissions free. France's nuclear power plants? Too, it takes more power to get the hydrogen than they get back when used as a fuel. I think theres are reasons why Ballard Power tanked.


----------



## s123

This solar-hydrogen seems good.
I would like to know there are a lot of renewal technology and which technology from the start (manufactures) to the end/waste will make the least negative impact on earth and works for Canada.

- World's First Solar-Hydrogen Residential Development Is 100% Self-Sustaining :
Dec. 23, 2015 10:53AM EST 
http://www.ecowatch.com/worlds-firs...evelopment-is-100-self-sustai-1882134609.html

CNX Construction will have installed 114 kilowatt of photovoltaic panels. The company estimates that with the initial installation, an average of 247 kilowatt hour will be generated every month, or enough to power all four homes and all other equipment and infrastructure, including the water pumps. 
The company has not released cost figures for*the project, but said, "We have calculated a return on our investment (ROI) based on 5 to 6 Thai Baht/kilowatt hour. The time for a ROI will be around 15*years as of today." 
"Due to its widening acceptance, the cost of similar systems will drop within the next 3 to 5 years and will generate a much faster ROI," the release added. 
The official opening of the Phi Suea House is set for Jan. 29, 2016. 

-New Record Set for Capturing and Storing Solar Energy in Hydrogen Fuel:
http://sciencenewsjournal.com/new-record-set-capturing-storing-solar-energy-hydrogen-fuel/
November 5, 2016


----------



## Pluto

^
the article states that 30% of the energy was captured. Is 30% good compared to other energy sources? 

Solar transformed to H still seems very much like a very expensive accessory to main power sources. I suspect the world consumes way more than this method can supply. 

If it is really true that the planet is going to be destroyed by human caused climate change very soon, one would expect some urgency in shifting to an emissions free main power source right now. The urgency isn't there however, as evidenced by resistance to emissions free technology that is already in existence. As far as I know the leader in emissions free power is France, yet the doomsday climate change hysterics reject their model. Strange.


----------



## SweetLake

I just thing is something it was meant to happen


----------



## Pluto

Nasa admits solar variation may be a factor in climate variation. 

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/

The bombast and bluster of the man made global warming illusion may be about to evaporate.


----------



## Davis

Pluto, if you had read the article you linked to, you might have noticed two things: 
1. It was published four years ago, so "evaporation" does not seem to have happened; and
2. This passage: " "If there is indeed a solar effect on climate, it is manifested by changes in general circulation rather than in a direct temperature signal." This fits in with the conclusion of the IPCC and previous NRC reports that solar variability is NOT the cause of global warming over the last 50 years."

This is why NASA and every other scientific organzations - the people you call 'hysterics' - stand behind the science of anthropogenic climate change.

Your 'alternative facts' don't stand a chance against science in convincing thinking people.


----------



## Pluto

Davis said:


> Pluto, if you had read the article you linked to, you might have noticed two things:
> 1. It was published four years ago, so "evaporation" does not seem to have happened; and
> 2. This passage: " "If there is indeed a solar effect on climate, it is manifested by changes in general circulation rather than in a direct temperature signal." This fits in with the conclusion of the IPCC and previous NRC reports that solar variability is NOT the cause of global warming over the last 50 years."
> 
> This is why NASA and every other scientific organzations - the people you call 'hysterics' - stand behind the science of anthropogenic climate change.
> 
> Your 'alternative facts' don't stand a chance against science in convincing thinking people.


1. Picking "50 years" is a value judgement. It is not long enough to determine temp trends especially when the accuracy of measurement is in question. For example,
2. NASA/NOAA temp data is under adjustment and some think it is fake data. 
https://realclimatescience.com/2017/02/nasa-noaa-climate-data-is-fake-data/
3. When Dr. Roy Spencer worked at NASA he was gagged - prevented from speaking about the inner workings going on there with respect to climate science. If the science was so perfect, why would they gag anyone? Eventually he got a job at a university where there is no gag order. Global warming primer:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/my-global-warming-skepticism-for-dummies/

4. Video of Spencer speaking and testifying at climate change hearings:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Dr.+Roy+spencer

5. In my view he offers a balanced perspective. The globe does not appear to be warmer now than 1000 and 2000 years ago. See attachment. 

It is not good to uncritically accept whatever NASA/NOAA claim. We should pay some attention to dissent as well. Uncritical acceptance is not supposed to be scientific. clicking on the attachment should get a larger version.


----------



## s1231

s123 said:


> This solar-hydrogen seems good.
> I would like to know there are a lot of renewal technology and which technology from the start (manufactures) to the end/waste will make the least negative impact on earth and works for Canada.
> 
> - World's First Solar-Hydrogen Residential Development Is 100% Self-Sustaining :
> Dec. 23, 2015 10:53AM EST
> http://www.ecowatch.com/worlds-firs...evelopment-is-100-self-sustai-1882134609.html
> 
> CNX Construction will have installed 114 kilowatt of photovoltaic panels. The company estimates that with the initial installation, an average of 247 kilowatt hour will be generated every month, or enough to power all four homes and all other equipment and infrastructure, including the water pumps.
> The company has not released cost figures for*the project, but said, "We have calculated a return on our investment (ROI) based on 5 to 6 Thai Baht/kilowatt hour. The time for a ROI will be around 15*years as of today."
> "Due to its widening acceptance, the cost of similar systems will drop within the next 3 to 5 years and will generate a much faster ROI," the release added.
> The official opening of the Phi Suea House is set for Jan. 29, 2016.
> 
> -New Record Set for Capturing and Storing Solar Energy in Hydrogen Fuel:
> http://sciencenewsjournal.com/new-record-set-capturing-storing-solar-energy-hydrogen-fuel/
> November 5, 2016



possibilities with cooperation.

- Hydrogen a more sustainable bet for S’pore’s energy future:
https://www.ipscommons.sg/hydrogen-a-more-sustainable-bet-for-spores-energy-future/


Hydrogen gas is perhaps the next avenue for Singapore’s future energy outlook, as test-bedding has begun off Singapore’s coast on Semakau Island. Hydrogen has the highest energy content of any common fuel by weight, and acts as an energy carrier used to move, store and deliver energy.

Policymakers, in collaboration with French electric utility company Engie SA, have been actively exploring the viability of hydrogen storage to deal with the limitations of solar power.
Using electricity generated from solar energy to power electrolysis processes, hydrogen can be produced and stored for future use. It becomes an extremely effective energy carrier in the form of hydrogen fuel cells, which subsequently generate electricity when required.

Additionally, a large volume of hydrogen can be easily stored in many different ways. Not only is it more efficient than traditional combustion technologies, it is pollution-free and can be used for transportation, heating and power generation.

...Furthermore, the Government must actively advocate using hydrogen fuel cells as a power source, especially for primary and backup power generation, such as renewable energy power plants, as well as for portable devices that normally use batteries, such as hydrogen fuel-cell buses.



- Researcher’s Nanomaterial Can Extract Hydrogen Fuel from Seawater:
https://today.ucf.edu/researchers-nanomaterial-can-extract-hydrogen-fuel-seawater/


----------



## Pluto

^ that looks promising.


----------



## none

This thread is full of idiots.


----------



## Pluto

^ well start your own thread then.


----------



## s1231

s1231 said:


> possibilities with cooperation.
> 
> - Hydrogen a more sustainable bet for S’pore’s energy future:
> https://www.ipscommons.sg/hydrogen-a-more-sustainable-bet-for-spores-energy-future/
> 
> 
> Hydrogen gas is perhaps the next avenue for Singapore’s future energy outlook, as test-bedding has begun off Singapore’s coast on Semakau Island. Hydrogen has the highest energy content of any common fuel by weight, and acts as an energy carrier used to move, store and deliver energy.
> 
> Policymakers, in collaboration with French electric utility company Engie SA, have been actively exploring the viability of hydrogen storage to deal with the limitations of solar power.
> Using electricity generated from solar energy to power electrolysis processes, hydrogen can be produced and stored for future use. It becomes an extremely effective energy carrier in the form of hydrogen fuel cells, which subsequently generate electricity when required.
> 
> Additionally, a large volume of hydrogen can be easily stored in many different ways. Not only is it more efficient than traditional combustion technologies, it is pollution-free and can be used for transportation, heating and power generation.
> 
> ...Furthermore, the Government must actively advocate using hydrogen fuel cells as a power source, especially for primary and backup power generation, such as renewable energy power plants, as well as for portable devices that normally use batteries, such as hydrogen fuel-cell buses.
> 
> 
> 
> - Researcher’s Nanomaterial Can Extract Hydrogen Fuel from Seawater:
> https://today.ucf.edu/researchers-nanomaterial-can-extract-hydrogen-fuel-seawater/




-Russia To Become A Leader In Energy Storage

http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Ene...sia-To-Become-A-Leader-In-Energy-Storage.html

Anatoly Chubais, head of Rosnano, a $10-billion state investment fund, said recently that energy storage development can completely change the face of the energy industry. He added, speaking at the Vienna Economic Forum, that this transformation could take place within the next decade. It might be worth keeping a closer look at energy storage news from Russia.


----------



## OhGreatGuru

If I understand the articles in Wikipedia correctly, producing hydrogen on a commercial scale requires about 50 kWh of electricity per kg of hydrogen produced; plus about 15 kWh/kg if it is to be compressed for storage or transport.

The energy density of hydrogen, at 100% efficiency end use, is about 39.5 kWh/kg. While more than twice that of natural gas or LNG, it still means you have to expend 65% more energy to extract it than you will get out of it. This only works if the power source for hydrolizing the hydrogen is large-scale solar. I don't know how much energy it takes to make large-scale solar generating plants.

You then have to ship it to its point of use.

You also have to find a safe way to disperse the large volume of oxygen being generated at the same time.

Yes, hydrogen is clean-burning. It is also highly flammable, and burns with an invisible flame. It requires significantly higher storage pressures for tanks and piping than LNG.

There are no to perfect solutions. But when you see articles saying "... the Government must actively advocate using 'xyz' as a power source ..." it's usually someone with an axe to grind, not someone who is being objective.


----------



## boingboing

A lot of facts and misdirection in this thread, but what's nice is that more and more people are talking about it instead of putting their heads in the sand. Science is a beautiful thing. Hard to believe there was a time when religion ruled and one would be put to death for unearthing the facts.


----------



## Eder

Now we are close to being put to death for unearthing facts...business as normal.


----------



## Pluto

boingboing said:


> A lot of facts and misdirection in this thread, but what's nice is that more and more people are talking about it instead of putting their heads in the sand. Science is a beautiful thing. Hard to believe there was a time when religion ruled and one would be put to death for unearthing the facts.


Feel free to redirect with your preferred facts.


----------



## bass player

NASA has confirmed that their data show that sea levels have recently fallen...this happens when land ice increases in the Antarctic, Greenland, and glaciers and is a sign of the planet cooling. Of course, the data trend is too short to be conclusive...just 2016 and 2017 so far, but it does add credence to the predictions of an upcoming ice age that scientists have made:

https://www.iceagenow.info/sea-levels-are-falling/


----------



## Joe Black

bass player said:


> NASA has confirmed that their data show that sea levels have recently fallen...this happens when land ice increases in the Antarctic, Greenland, and glaciers and is a sign of the planet cooling. Of course, the data trend is *too short to be conclusive...just 2016 and 2017* so far, but it does add credence to the predictions of an upcoming ice age that scientists have made:
> 
> https://www.iceagenow.info/sea-levels-are-falling/


So here's the guy's methodology to reaching his conclusion:
1. Take 24 years of data
2. Snip out 5% of that data that is contrary to the average trend
3. Based on that 5% use that for your new "conclusion"

I can prove just about anything as long as I get to throw out all data that does not fit the result I want to see, like this guy did.


----------



## Pluto

^
Joe, that's precisely the method of man made global warming theorists - they throw out data that does not fit their conclusions. they have no expalnation about why there was no Greenland melt this summer, so they ignore it. They have no adequate explanation why the Antarctic has not been melting. 

Data show it is cooler now than 65 million years ago. Even so, they insist recent years are the hottest on record. What record? The record that shows it is cooler now than 65 million years ago? Nope. They apparently throw that out, and rely on cherry picked data from the last 50 years or so.


----------



## Joe Black

Pluto said:


> ^
> Joe, that's precisely the method of man made global warming theorists - they throw out data that does not fit their conclusions. they have no expalnation about why there was no Greenland melt this summer, so they ignore it. They have no adequate explanation why the Antarctic has not been melting.
> 
> Data show it is cooler now than 65 million years ago. Even so, they insist recent years are the hottest on record. What record? The record that shows it is cooler now than 65 million years ago? Nope. They apparently throw that out, and rely on cherry picked data from the last 50 years or so.


Please tell me which study it was that cherry picked data, what their original data set was, and which section of the data they ignored to fit their conclusions.

For example, the following NASA study:

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-data-show-2016-warmest-year-on-record-globally

Apparently the data set is from 1880 to 2016. According to that article 1880 is the start year because that's when "modern recordkeeping" began - i.e. the data was collected in a consistent manner during that time period. "Cherry picking" would be only using a subset of your entire data set, such as BP's cited article where only 5% of the entire available data was used. In this NASA study, their conclusions are based on 100% of the data they had available. They didn't, for example, say 2016 was the hottest year except for 1932 and 1964, it was in fact the hottest from their data.

Since the debate has never been about whether there is natural climate change (this has never been denied by the "climate theorists"), what is the point of comparing data from the last century with 65 million years ago? Of course it was hotter or colder back then than it is now.

The debate has always been whether human activity is _accelerating_ or even reversing natural climate change. Simply stating that weather was different millions of years has nothing to do with this argument. It's like saying human activity never starts forest fires because we can prove that forest fires have started naturally for thousands of years.


----------



## Pluto

1. 1880 to present is too short of a time to determine trends. Its cherry picking a very short time period. A longer time frame, such as 65 million years, can put it into historical perspective. but apparently they don't want that for subjective reasons. 
2. for example, a study of some hundreds of thousands of years using modern methods indicates co2 rose after temperature rose, not before. Al Gore failed to mention that in his first movie thereby duping uncritical thinkers and creating believers in a false idea. 
3. co2 did not rise above its 400,000 year channel until 1950. So pre 1950 is natural levels, and post 1950 is where the man made co2 has import. Yet reportedly it was warmer in the 1930's than in the 1950's. Apparently, some climate scientists have been busy "reprocessing" the data from the 30's to make it look lower, and reprocessing more recent years to make it look warmer all under the guise of science. 
4. even so, 1950 to present is not enough time to draw hard conclusions. It is over empasizing a few decades to the exclusion of other times. 
5. So last summer reportedly Greenland didn't experneice its usual melt, and snow acutally increased while sea levels declined. That is phenomena that climate science must explain. But instead of explaining it, they seem to want to explain it away as if it doesn't matter.


----------



## verticalguy

Will be needed as the heat wave coming in 500 mio years, caused by the burning out sun, is not going to be much fun.


----------

