Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 13 of 19
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Atlanta area
    Posts
    6,557
    Post Likes

    20,000 Years of Global Warming

    Congressman Brooks: Bipartisan Panel of Scientists Confirms Humans are not Responsible for Past 20,000 Years of Global Warming
    July 11, 2019
    Press Release

    Washington, DC— Thursday, in a House Science, Space, and Technology Committee hearing on climate change, under questioning by Congressman Mo Brooks (AL-05), four members of a bipartisan panel of climate science experts all admitted that humans are NOT responsible for the Earth’s global warming that has occurred over the past 20,000 years (since the Earth’s last glacial maximum).

    By way of background, during the last glacial maximum of roughly 20,000 years ago:

    • Average global temperatures were roughly 11 degrees Fahrenheit COLDER than they are today (per Zurich University of Applied Science). Stated differently, global temperatures have risen, on average, roughly 0.5 degrees Fahrenheit per century over the past 20,000 years.
    • Sea levels were roughly 410 feet LOWER 20,000 years ago than they are today (per the United States Geological Survey). Stated differently, sea levels have risen, on average, roughly two feet per century over the past 20,000 years (roughly double the global warming enthusiasts’ claimed average sea level rise rate of one foot per century since 1993).
    • Almost all of Canada, Northern Europe, and America (north of the Missouri and Ohio Rivers, east to New York City) was under glacial ice and uninhabitable.

    The gist of the experts’ opinions is that the earth was too lightly populated by humans to make humanity responsible for the Earth’s global warming that began 20,000 years ago.

    Responding Panel Witnesses:

    Dr. Robin E. Bell, Lamont Research Professor, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University

    Dr. Twila A. Moon, Research Scientist, National Snow and Ice Data Center’s (NSIDC) Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences

    Dr. Gabriel J. Wolkon, Research Scientist and Manager, Climate and Cryosphere Hazards Program, Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys, Alaska Department of Natural Resources

    Dr. W. Tad Pfeffer, Fellow, Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado Boulder



    Full transcript of Congressman Brooks’ questioning follows:

    Brooks: Thank you Madam Chairman. Is anyone on the panel not familiar with the Earth’s last glacial maximum roughly twenty thousand years ago? Okay everybody is, good. For those in the audience who are not, by way of background, during the last glacial maximum Northern Europe was under ice, roughly 90% of Canada and almost all of the continental United States of America north of the Missouri and Ohio Rivers and east of New York City were under ice. According to the United States Geological Survey, during the last glacial maximum – again 20,000 years ago – sea levels were roughly 410 feet lower than today. Stated differently, for 20,000 years sea levels have risen, on average, two feet per century versus the much less roughly one foot per century rising rate since 1993 that is reflected in Dr. Alley’s written testimony. Finally, per Zurich University of Applied Science, Earth’s average temperature 20,000 years ago was 48 degrees Fahrenheit versus 59 degrees Fahrenheit today. That’s an 11 degree increase in global temperature average over the last 20,000 year period. So, my question to each of you is – and we will start over here with Dr. Pfeffer and move from my right to left – did human beings cause the global warming that started 20,000 years ago and continues through today? Or, if not, what did?

    Pfeffer: So, the examples from 20,000 years ago that Mr. Brooks gave us, are excellent examples of the kind of natural variability that the Earth experiences. There is no question that in the past there have been changes in temperature, and sea level rise and weather patterns and climate generally as dramatic or more dramatic than what you may be experiencing in the future and of course they weren’t human caused 20,000 years ago or the last million years. All of these variable events have been occurring throughout the Earth’s modern history.

    Brooks: Well my first question was, in your judgment, did human beings cause the global warming that began 20,000 years ago during the last glacial maximum?

    Pfeffer: No. No. Absolutory not. It is an example of spontaneous natural variability— one of the many ways that this whole system was— whether you look at it in terms of sea levels rise, temperature, storms— can be varied.

    Brooks: Are you familiar with the phrase: snowball Earth, or slush ball Earth? Roughly 600 million years ago, when we were almost entirely ice or slush…

    Pfeffer: Entirely natural variation.

    Brooks: …versus, the Paleocene and Eocene, thermal maximum of about 55-56 million years ago when the average temperature was roughly 73 degrees Fahrenheit which is 14 degrees warmer than what we are experiencing now? If you don’t mind, Dr. Wolkon lets go to you. Did human beings cause the global warming that began 20,000 years ago?

    Wolkon: No, absolutely not. That was a product of natural variability in the climate system. Yeah.

    Brooks: Dr. Moon?

    Moon: Humans weren’t around in nearly the numbers we are today, so we certainly were not available to be combusting fossil fuels at the rate we are today are putting emissions into the atmosphere. You can consider, we have built America in the last 243 years and we’re changing things at a much more rapid rate.

    Brooks: So, you also agree then that the global warming that has occurred over the last 20,000 years at 11 degree Fahrenheit increase in temperature, was not human caused, at least, when it began 20,000 years ago?

    Moon: So, I would agree that when it began 20,000 years ago when we were coming out of the last glacial that was not caused by humans. The warming of the last 100 years, most certainly was.

    Brooks: Out of curiosity, why do you or how do you explain that the sea level rise average of the last 20,000 years has been 2 feet per century, yet we are down to 1 foot per century?

    Moon: So, much of our rise in sea levels that you are talking about came earlier in that 20,000 years.

    Brooks: Over six or seven thousand years.

    Moon: Over this last 10,000 years, we have been sitting with vary stable sea levels and those stable sea levels have allowed us to develop the coast of the world.

    Brooks: Okay, thank you Dr. Moon. And I only have about 30 seconds left for Dr. Bell. Dr. Bell, in your judgement, 20,000 years ago when it began was it caused by humans?

    Bell: In my judgment, the variation that we were seeing 20,000 years ago was part of the pulse of the planet— it pulses at about 100,000 years, glacial or interglacial. When I started graduate school, we were expecting to go into the next glacial period, except that we as human beings in the last 100 years— and you can see the pick-up since we invented the seam engine— you can see the temperature moving up.

    Brooks: Alright, I’m out of time. Madam Chairman, I appreciate your indulgence. I just wish I had sufficient time to actually get into what the cause of the global warming that began 20,000 years ago was— if not— humans. Thank you.

    Chairman Johnson: Excuse me. Go ahead, doctor.

    Pfeffer: I just wanted to respond a bit further to your question. The changes in the past, there are two significant differences between those events and the events today. One of them is that they were triggered by natural variations, not by human agency. Let me just give you an analogy of your house: your house might burn down— and it might burn down for entirely natural reasons, it might be struck by lightning— but it could also burn down if you are careless and you drop a cigarette in the crack of the sofa. Both of those are triggers that result in your house burning down. The presence of one of them does not really say much about the other except that they both lead to the same endpoint. The other thing is that while there were these very dramatic temperature changes and sea level rises in the past— which were entirely natural— we weren’t there to deal with them. The problem here is with people. How do we respond to an environmental change? The earth will take care of itself, it doesn’t really care what happens. It is what people do. And if this had happened, you know, a long time ago, when the population of the Earth was a few hundred million, it probably wouldn’t have mattered either because we could have just gotten out of the way. But as it is today— with the number of people that we have and the infrastructure— we are very sensitive to changes of this kind. We do not handle change very well. For example, suppose that the conditions for growing crops that exist today in California, picked up and moved to North Dakota for a couple of hundred years, they are variations like that in the fairly recent geologic past that occurred. How do we deal with them? It is an entirely different world than what we were not here to experience, but we know about 20,000 years ago. We’re much more sensitive. We don’t deal well with change and to deal with it we need to know a lot about it.

    Brooks: Dr. Pfeffer, thank you for that additional insight.

    https://brooks.house.gov/media-cente...humans-are-not
    Vacuum Technology:
    CRUD = Contamination Resulting in Undesirable Deposits.
    CRAPP = Contamination Resulting in Additional Partial Pressure.

    Change your vacuum pump oil now.

    Test. Testing, 1,2,3.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    1,000 miles from nowhere
    Posts
    15,174
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by Space Racer View Post
    Congressman Brooks: Bipartisan Panel of Scientists Confirms Humans are not Responsible for Past 20,000 Years of Global Warming
    July 11, 2019
    Press Release

    Washington, DC— Thursday, in a House Science, Space, and Technology Committee hearing on climate change, under questioning by Congressman Mo Brooks (AL-05), four members of a bipartisan panel of climate science experts all admitted that humans are NOT responsible for the Earth’s global warming that has occurred over the past 20,000 years (since the Earth’s last glacial maximum).

    By way of background, during the last glacial maximum of roughly 20,000 years ago:

    • Average global temperatures were roughly 11 degrees Fahrenheit COLDER than they are today (per Zurich University of Applied Science). Stated differently, global temperatures have risen, on average, roughly 0.5 degrees Fahrenheit per century over the past 20,000 years.
    • Sea levels were roughly 410 feet LOWER 20,000 years ago than they are today (per the United States Geological Survey). Stated differently, sea levels have risen, on average, roughly two feet per century over the past 20,000 years (roughly double the global warming enthusiasts’ claimed average sea level rise rate of one foot per century since 1993).
    • Almost all of Canada, Northern Europe, and America (north of the Missouri and Ohio Rivers, east to New York City) was under glacial ice and uninhabitable.

    The gist of the experts’ opinions is that the earth was too lightly populated by humans to make humanity responsible for the Earth’s global warming that began 20,000 years ago.

    Responding Panel Witnesses:

    Dr. Robin E. Bell, Lamont Research Professor, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University

    Dr. Twila A. Moon, Research Scientist, National Snow and Ice Data Center’s (NSIDC) Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences

    Dr. Gabriel J. Wolkon, Research Scientist and Manager, Climate and Cryosphere Hazards Program, Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys, Alaska Department of Natural Resources

    Dr. W. Tad Pfeffer, Fellow, Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado Boulder



    Full transcript of Congressman Brooks’ questioning follows:

    Brooks: Thank you Madam Chairman. Is anyone on the panel not familiar with the Earth’s last glacial maximum roughly twenty thousand years ago? Okay everybody is, good. For those in the audience who are not, by way of background, during the last glacial maximum Northern Europe was under ice, roughly 90% of Canada and almost all of the continental United States of America north of the Missouri and Ohio Rivers and east of New York City were under ice. According to the United States Geological Survey, during the last glacial maximum – again 20,000 years ago – sea levels were roughly 410 feet lower than today. Stated differently, for 20,000 years sea levels have risen, on average, two feet per century versus the much less roughly one foot per century rising rate since 1993 that is reflected in Dr. Alley’s written testimony. Finally, per Zurich University of Applied Science, Earth’s average temperature 20,000 years ago was 48 degrees Fahrenheit versus 59 degrees Fahrenheit today. That’s an 11 degree increase in global temperature average over the last 20,000 year period. So, my question to each of you is – and we will start over here with Dr. Pfeffer and move from my right to left – did human beings cause the global warming that started 20,000 years ago and continues through today? Or, if not, what did?

    Pfeffer: So, the examples from 20,000 years ago that Mr. Brooks gave us, are excellent examples of the kind of natural variability that the Earth experiences. There is no question that in the past there have been changes in temperature, and sea level rise and weather patterns and climate generally as dramatic or more dramatic than what you may be experiencing in the future and of course they weren’t human caused 20,000 years ago or the last million years. All of these variable events have been occurring throughout the Earth’s modern history.

    Brooks: Well my first question was, in your judgment, did human beings cause the global warming that began 20,000 years ago during the last glacial maximum?

    Pfeffer: No. No. Absolutory not. It is an example of spontaneous natural variability— one of the many ways that this whole system was— whether you look at it in terms of sea levels rise, temperature, storms— can be varied.

    Brooks: Are you familiar with the phrase: snowball Earth, or slush ball Earth? Roughly 600 million years ago, when we were almost entirely ice or slush…

    Pfeffer: Entirely natural variation.

    Brooks: …versus, the Paleocene and Eocene, thermal maximum of about 55-56 million years ago when the average temperature was roughly 73 degrees Fahrenheit which is 14 degrees warmer than what we are experiencing now? If you don’t mind, Dr. Wolkon lets go to you. Did human beings cause the global warming that began 20,000 years ago?

    Wolkon: No, absolutely not. That was a product of natural variability in the climate system. Yeah.

    Brooks: Dr. Moon?

    Moon: Humans weren’t around in nearly the numbers we are today, so we certainly were not available to be combusting fossil fuels at the rate we are today are putting emissions into the atmosphere. You can consider, we have built America in the last 243 years and we’re changing things at a much more rapid rate.

    Brooks: So, you also agree then that the global warming that has occurred over the last 20,000 years at 11 degree Fahrenheit increase in temperature, was not human caused, at least, when it began 20,000 years ago?

    Moon: So, I would agree that when it began 20,000 years ago when we were coming out of the last glacial that was not caused by humans. The warming of the last 100 years, most certainly was.

    Brooks: Out of curiosity, why do you or how do you explain that the sea level rise average of the last 20,000 years has been 2 feet per century, yet we are down to 1 foot per century?

    Moon: So, much of our rise in sea levels that you are talking about came earlier in that 20,000 years.

    Brooks: Over six or seven thousand years.

    Moon: Over this last 10,000 years, we have been sitting with vary stable sea levels and those stable sea levels have allowed us to develop the coast of the world.

    Brooks: Okay, thank you Dr. Moon. And I only have about 30 seconds left for Dr. Bell. Dr. Bell, in your judgement, 20,000 years ago when it began was it caused by humans?

    Bell: In my judgment, the variation that we were seeing 20,000 years ago was part of the pulse of the planet— it pulses at about 100,000 years, glacial or interglacial. When I started graduate school, we were expecting to go into the next glacial period, except that we as human beings in the last 100 years— and you can see the pick-up since we invented the seam engine— you can see the temperature moving up.

    Brooks: Alright, I’m out of time. Madam Chairman, I appreciate your indulgence. I just wish I had sufficient time to actually get into what the cause of the global warming that began 20,000 years ago was— if not— humans. Thank you.

    Chairman Johnson: Excuse me. Go ahead, doctor.

    Pfeffer: I just wanted to respond a bit further to your question. The changes in the past, there are two significant differences between those events and the events today. One of them is that they were triggered by natural variations, not by human agency. Let me just give you an analogy of your house: your house might burn down— and it might burn down for entirely natural reasons, it might be struck by lightning— but it could also burn down if you are careless and you drop a cigarette in the crack of the sofa. Both of those are triggers that result in your house burning down. The presence of one of them does not really say much about the other except that they both lead to the same endpoint. The other thing is that while there were these very dramatic temperature changes and sea level rises in the past— which were entirely natural— we weren’t there to deal with them. The problem here is with people. How do we respond to an environmental change? The earth will take care of itself, it doesn’t really care what happens. It is what people do. And if this had happened, you know, a long time ago, when the population of the Earth was a few hundred million, it probably wouldn’t have mattered either because we could have just gotten out of the way. But as it is today— with the number of people that we have and the infrastructure— we are very sensitive to changes of this kind. We do not handle change very well. For example, suppose that the conditions for growing crops that exist today in California, picked up and moved to North Dakota for a couple of hundred years, they are variations like that in the fairly recent geologic past that occurred. How do we deal with them? It is an entirely different world than what we were not here to experience, but we know about 20,000 years ago. We’re much more sensitive. We don’t deal well with change and to deal with it we need to know a lot about it.

    Brooks: Dr. Pfeffer, thank you for that additional insight.

    https://brooks.house.gov/media-cente...humans-are-not
    Great post, as I have stated repeatedly, "worthy of study, not legislation".
    "You boys are really making this thing harder than it has to be". Me

    “They can’t do anything about it unless they start shooting people, and presumably they won’t do that.” Protester & confirmed idiot.

    "I am not here to rescue you, I am bringing you along for emergency rations" Quark.

    "This is me, I'm not at home. If you'd like to reach me, leave me alone." Sherl Crow

    I give free estimates [Wild Ass Guesses] over the phone.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    1,744
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by Tool-Slinger View Post
    Great post, as I have stated repeatedly, "worthy of study, not legislation".
    I really don't want to start up with you again TS (it's Friday after all), but did you read it all the way to the end?

    The headline act, "...four members of a bipartisan panel of climate science experts all admitted that humans are NOT responsible for the Earth’s global warming that has occurred over the past 20,000 years (since the Earth’s last glacial maximum). "

    Wow, groundbreaking stuff there! Makes me think I've had this all wrong. Sorry guys, my bad. Everything is just fine!

    But...

    I wonder why Congressman Brooks, a republican with political donations from FF companies and lobby groups, was focusing on the last 20,000 years? I wonder what the same scientists would say about the last 100....

    Moon: So, I would agree that when it began 20,000 years ago when we were coming out of the last glacial that was not caused by humans. The warming of the last 100 years, most certainly was.

    Bell: In my judgment, the variation that we were seeing 20,000 years ago was part of the pulse of the planet— it pulses at about 100,000 years, glacial or interglacial. When I started graduate school, we were expecting to go into the next glacial period, except that we as human beings in the last 100 years— and you can see the pick-up since we invented the seam engine— you can see the temperature moving up.

    Pfeffer: I just wanted to respond a bit further to your question. The changes in the past, there are two significant differences between those events and the events today. One of them is that they were triggered by natural variations, not by human agency. Let me just give you an analogy of your house: your house might burn down— and it might burn down for entirely natural reasons, it might be struck by lightning— but it could also burn down if you are careless and you drop a cigarette in the crack of the sofa. Both of those are triggers that result in your house burning down. The presence of one of them does not really say much about the other except that they both lead to the same endpoint. The other thing is that while there were these very dramatic temperature changes and sea level rises in the past— which were entirely natural— we weren’t there to deal with them. The problem here is with people. How do we respond to an environmental change? The earth will take care of itself, it doesn’t really care what happens. It is what people do. And if this had happened, you know, a long time ago, when the population of the Earth was a few hundred million, it probably wouldn’t have mattered either because we could have just gotten out of the way. But as it is today— with the number of people that we have and the infrastructure— we are very sensitive to changes of this kind. We do not handle change very well. For example, suppose that the conditions for growing crops that exist today in California, picked up and moved to North Dakota for a couple of hundred years, they are variations like that in the fairly recent geologic past that occurred. How do we deal with them? It is an entirely different world than what we were not here to experience, but we know about 20,000 years ago. We’re much more sensitive. We don’t deal well with change and to deal with it we need to know a lot about it."


    Oh no, the 'right' has been trying to mislead me. And I nearly fell for it. Luckily I read past the headline.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    1,000 miles from nowhere
    Posts
    15,174
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by Lahrs View Post
    I really don't want to start up with you again TS (it's Friday after all), but did you read it all the way to the end?

    The headline act, "...four members of a bipartisan panel of climate science experts all admitted that humans are NOT responsible for the Earth’s global warming that has occurred over the past 20,000 years (since the Earth’s last glacial maximum). "

    Wow, groundbreaking stuff there! Makes me think I've had this all wrong. Sorry guys, my bad. Everything is just fine!

    But...

    I wonder why Congressman Brooks, a republican with political donations from FF companies and lobby groups, was focusing on the last 20,000 years? I wonder what the same scientists would say about the last 100....

    Moon: So, I would agree that when it began 20,000 years ago when we were coming out of the last glacial that was not caused by humans. The warming of the last 100 years, most certainly was.

    Bell: In my judgment, the variation that we were seeing 20,000 years ago was part of the pulse of the planet— it pulses at about 100,000 years, glacial or interglacial. When I started graduate school, we were expecting to go into the next glacial period, except that we as human beings in the last 100 years— and you can see the pick-up since we invented the seam engine— you can see the temperature moving up.

    Pfeffer: I just wanted to respond a bit further to your question. The changes in the past, there are two significant differences between those events and the events today. One of them is that they were triggered by natural variations, not by human agency. Let me just give you an analogy of your house: your house might burn down— and it might burn down for entirely natural reasons, it might be struck by lightning— but it could also burn down if you are careless and you drop a cigarette in the crack of the sofa. Both of those are triggers that result in your house burning down. The presence of one of them does not really say much about the other except that they both lead to the same endpoint. The other thing is that while there were these very dramatic temperature changes and sea level rises in the past— which were entirely natural— we weren’t there to deal with them. The problem here is with people. How do we respond to an environmental change? The earth will take care of itself, it doesn’t really care what happens. It is what people do. And if this had happened, you know, a long time ago, when the population of the Earth was a few hundred million, it probably wouldn’t have mattered either because we could have just gotten out of the way. But as it is today— with the number of people that we have and the infrastructure— we are very sensitive to changes of this kind. We do not handle change very well. For example, suppose that the conditions for growing crops that exist today in California, picked up and moved to North Dakota for a couple of hundred years, they are variations like that in the fairly recent geologic past that occurred. How do we deal with them? It is an entirely different world than what we were not here to experience, but we know about 20,000 years ago. We’re much more sensitive. We don’t deal well with change and to deal with it we need to know a lot about it."


    Oh no, the 'right' has been trying to mislead me. And I nearly fell for it. Luckily I read past the headline.
    I responded to the next to last line in the post????? I read it,.. please stay on topic and reply to it, not just use it as some opportunity to attack me.
    "You boys are really making this thing harder than it has to be". Me

    “They can’t do anything about it unless they start shooting people, and presumably they won’t do that.” Protester & confirmed idiot.

    "I am not here to rescue you, I am bringing you along for emergency rations" Quark.

    "This is me, I'm not at home. If you'd like to reach me, leave me alone." Sherl Crow

    I give free estimates [Wild Ass Guesses] over the phone.

  5. Likes glennac liked this post
  6. #5
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    1,744
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by Tool-Slinger View Post
    I responded to the next to last line in the post????? I read it,.. please stay on topic and reply to it, not just use it as some opportunity to attack me.
    I was trying to be careful not to attack you, certainly not my intent. Me not seeing your coloured text on Tapatalk is my fault, apologies.

    And although I quoted you, my posting was for general discussion, not just for you to answer.

    My question remains, why did Brooks waste his limited time asking about the last 20,000 years?

    If you had bipartisan scientists at disposal, why not jump right in...

    Why is the planet changing now?
    What can we do about it?
    What technologies are coming down the pipeline?

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    1,000 miles from nowhere
    Posts
    15,174
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by Lahrs View Post
    I was trying to be careful not to attack you, certainly not my intent. Me not seeing your coloured text on Tapatalk is my fault, apologies.

    And although I quoted you, my posting was for general discussion, not just for you to answer.

    My question remains, why did Brooks waste his limited time asking about the last 20,000 years?

    If you had bipartisan scientists at disposal, why not jump right in...

    Why is the planet changing?
    What can we do about it?
    What technologies are coming down the pipeline?
    Understood buddy.

    I am having a big problem with these same questions myself. As for Q #2 I'd evaluate about nothing. Combining Q# 2 and 3, I am flabbergasted we have not been able to make way for tidal power. Solar power and wind power has proven to be mostly a flop.

    As for Q#1, I think it is more a cyclical pattern of planetary climate than human driven climate change. I honestly don't think humans can do anything to FIX IT, as the wheels are in motion already. But I do believe we may be accelerating the "problem" if it is indeed a problem.

    There have been cyclical ice ages known for the history of earth. And we are overdue for the next one as marked on the calendar. And nobody knows why.

    I'd trust proven historical data over "computer generated predictions" any day of the week. THAT, is true science.
    "You boys are really making this thing harder than it has to be". Me

    “They can’t do anything about it unless they start shooting people, and presumably they won’t do that.” Protester & confirmed idiot.

    "I am not here to rescue you, I am bringing you along for emergency rations" Quark.

    "This is me, I'm not at home. If you'd like to reach me, leave me alone." Sherl Crow

    I give free estimates [Wild Ass Guesses] over the phone.

  8. Likes Lahrs liked this post
  9. #7
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    1,744
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by Tool-Slinger View Post
    Understood buddy.

    I am having a big problem with these same questions myself. As for Q #2 I'd evaluate about nothing. Combining Q# 2 and 3, I am flabbergasted we have not been able to make way for tidal power. Solar power and wind power has proven to be mostly a flop.

    As for Q#1, I think it is more a cyclical pattern of planetary climate than human driven climate change. I honestly don't think humans can do anything to FIX IT, as the wheels are in motion already. But I do believe we may be accelerating the "problem" if it is indeed a problem.

    There have been cyclical ice ages known for the history of earth. And we are overdue for the next one as marked on the calendar. And nobody knows why.

    I'd trust proven historical data over "computer generated predictions" any day of the week. THAT, is true science.
    Cheers. Although at times we find ourselves at opposite ends, I respect you and your point of view.

    It is that historical data that is used to fine tune the computer models. I myself am wary of predicting the future. But the models have been +- 20% accurate so far.

  10. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Louisburg Kansas
    Posts
    3,441
    Post Likes
    When working at a high school a math teacher stated he believed in man made global warming. I ask him if he taught statistical probabilities and he said yes. I ask him if that included a fair sample to base the calculations on and he said yes. I ask him if you had an employer that wanted the probability of anything happening and if it had as long a history as the earth and you based your calculations on a sample such as weather statistics we have how long would you keep that job? Without hesitation he said not long. That's the basic problem there is not a very long sample and fair analyses of what we do have might surprise you as to reliability. Most people that believe global warming exist and/or man is responsible don't have a clue of what samples we have or how and where they were and are taken let alone how accurate they may be.
    No man can be both ignorant and free.
    Thomas Jefferson

  11. #9
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Atlanta area
    Posts
    6,557
    Post Likes
    Thread Starter
    This video answers some of the questions above.

    My Gift To Climate Alarmists

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8455KEDitpU
    Vacuum Technology:
    CRUD = Contamination Resulting in Undesirable Deposits.
    CRAPP = Contamination Resulting in Additional Partial Pressure.

    Change your vacuum pump oil now.

    Test. Testing, 1,2,3.

  12. #10
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    1,744
    Post Likes
    Lol. Economic alarmists.

  13. #11
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    1,744
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by Space Racer View Post
    This video answers some of the questions above.

    My Gift To Climate Alarmists

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8455KEDitpU
    So I traced the source of the wild fire stuff. The graphic is correct. There is a reason the 1920s data wasn't included; due to the change in fire fighting action, comparing now to then is not pine trees to pine trees.

    Here is what the experts have to say about the data and why there was a decrease in area burnt:

    "Fire is the most dominant abiotic agent in terms of area affected
    across the landscape, but is also an integral part of many forested
    ecosystems. Between 1945 and 2000, fire suppression substantially
    reduced annual acreage burned. Since 2000, an increase in area
    burned has occurred, although it has not yet reached the levels
    recorded between 1925 and 1960."

    The source goes on to say:
    "Climate change may manifest itself with prolonged or more
    frequent drought. Drought-caused tree mortality is immediately
    noticeable; however, changes in productivity and regeneration
    success of species within their historic range would not be
    discernable at the 5-year reference period."

    Point being, your video is biased and presents information in a deceptive manner without any attempt to digest what it means. It has an agenda, to mislead people that don't think for themselves, just happy to hear confirmation of their bias without truly trying to understand the topic.

    Why is your video misrepresenting the sources data and conclusions?? What is their agenda?? Who is funding them?? Why aren't you fact checking your 'scientific' youtube video??

    Here's the source, a lot more to it than my cherry picking, please read it:

    https://www.fs.fed.us/research/susta...icator-316.pdf

    I can't be bothered with wasting more time on the rest of it. More of the same.

  14. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Woburn, MA
    Posts
    8,977
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by Tool-Slinger View Post
    I think it is more a cyclical pattern of planetary climate than human driven climate change.

    There have been cyclical ice ages known for the history of earth. And we are overdue for the next one as marked on the calendar.
    Tool, I'm bummed at the fact that despite the number of times that I have tried to explain this to you that you do not accept it. You are a smart person and certainly thoughtful in your replies, yet you seem to wear some sort of blinders on this issue. Or I am a crappy explainer.

    Let's start with the "cyclical pattern of planetary climate". It's called the Milankovitch cycle because it was first proposed by a Russian scientist by the name of Milutin Milankovitch in the 1950's. It has a few issues to it, but generally speaking it describes the appearance and length (not perfectly on the length part) of climate events, particularly ice ages. This is how we know, as you say, that "There have been cyclical ice ages known for the history of earth. And we are overdue for the next one as marked on the calendar."

    And yet, amusingly, folks on your side of the football field will always attack the fact that, despite the warming that occurred, in the 1960's, scientists predicted cooling! So how can we trust anything that they say, right?

    They made that prediction based exactly on well-established precedent... or, in other words, the Milankovitch cycle!

    And nobody knows why.
    Heh, actually we DO know why and that's exactly the point (if not well but unintentionally made by you *grin*). We are supposed to be cooling but instead we are warming. Hmmm. What on Earth could it be?

    Sorry, couldn't help myself.

    Tool, the science of climate change is not something that recently came to be. We've known for centuries about the greenhouse effect. Through the study of isotopes science can determine many things, really the science is incredible, but in this case they tell us the difference in molecular weights between different C02 molecules.

    Naturally occurring C02 comes mostly from volcanic activity. Since the C02 produced is not plant based, but rather molten-rock based,it has a heavier carbon molecule than plant-based C02. Scientists measure the ratio between the light and heavy and that's how we know that the rise of C02 is human generated (since fossil fuels are made from decaying plants).

    Final point: in the history of climate change, the reason that the Earth recovered is not some magical property that this planet has as some would like to suggest. Instead, recovery occurred because the cause stopped causing. If the cause was the cycle, then in 50,000 years it would reverse. If the cause was an object such as an asteroid or comet striking the Earth, well then, after thousands of years, the dust settled. Or in the case of volcanic activity, eventually that would, yes, naturally settle down, but still recovery is measured in hundreds to thousands of years.

    As fragile humans, we do not have that kind of time. Are you willing to suggest that the next 5 to 50 or more generations of your family living in misery is something that is ok? Not to cause a panic, just simply saying, that whether this time or something else, man will eventually face a potentially devastating climate change. The knowledge that Earth might recover if the event is natural is no comfort.

    I suggest that one remembers this fact the next time that you wish to raise Earth's "magical" ability to recover. As humans, we don't have hundreds to thousands of years for solutions.

    The only discussion to be had is when and how we do something. If anything at all.

    Cheers! I'm sure you're glad to see me! lol
    "Most people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." ― Bertrand Russell

  15. Likes Lahrs liked this post
  16. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    44
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by Space Racer View Post
    signature line:
    Vacuum Technology:
    CRUD = Contamination Resulting in Undesirable Deposits.
    CRAPP = Contamination Resulting in Additional Partial Pressure.

    Change your vacuum pump oil now.


    Test. Testing, 1,2,3.
    I know exactly what you mean.
    There is also no dirtier job than cleaning a neglected oil diffusion pump.
    At the start of the college year, the task was assigned to freshmen taking laser electro optics technology.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •