Climate change, yep

[TeaDub]

3 minutes ago, Moeman said:

So dinosaurs pumped coal into the air or some kind of equivalent? Yes, I know it was a cool down. Basically put poisens into air, water etc and the end game is an end game for future generations. 

The earth has seen hotter and it's seen colder over the millions of years. Perhaps man plays a part in climate? I'd venture the errant volcano and the rest of nature contributes far more. I'm old enough to remember the ensuing "Ice Age" in the 70s from man made conditions. Agenda driven hype.

 

I'm also curious about this "fossil fuels" terminology. Do people really believe that it's from dead dinosaurs? Last I saw, we (meaning just this country) were pumping out over 10 million barrels a DAY. That's a lot of dead animals.

[Moeman]

5 minutes ago, TeaDub said:

The earth has seen hotter and it's seen colder over the millions of years. Perhaps man plays a part in climate? I'd venture the errant volcano and the rest of nature contributes far more. I'm old enough to remember the ensuing "Ice Age" in the 70s from man made conditions. Agenda driven hype.

 

I'm also curious about this "fossil fuels" terminology. Do people really believe that it's from dead dinosaurs? Last I saw, we (meaning just this country) were pumping out over 10 million barrels a DAY. That's a lot of dead animals.

Abiotic oil isn’t news. A species that burns it is relative to geologic terms, news. And so is dumping poison in water other than feces. Read up,

[janice6]

Quote

 

 

The past:

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

 

"...methane clathrates were also present in deep Antarctic ice cores and record a history of atmospheric methane concentrations, dating to 800,000 years ago.^[3] The ice-core methane clathrate record is a primary source of data for global warming research, along with oxygen and carbon dioxide..."

"..deep fresh water lakes may host gas hydrates as well, e.g. the fresh water Lake Baikal, Siberia.^[8] Continental deposits have been located in Siberia and Alaska in sandstone and siltstone beds at less than 800 m depth. Oceanic deposits seem to be widespread in the continental shelf (see Fig.) and can occur within the sediments at depth or close to the sediment-water interface. They may cap even larger deposits of gaseous methane.."

"...Experts caution that environmental impacts are still being investigated and that methane—a greenhouse gas with around 25 times as much global warming potential over a 100-year period (GWP100) as carbon dioxide—could potentially escape into the atmosphere if something goes wrong. Furthermore, while cleaner than coal, burning natural gas also creates carbon emissions. .."

[crockett]

2 hours ago, DWARREN123 said:

Nature is in charge of climate changes not humans. The climate was changing before people, we only have to worry when it stops changing.

 

We are actually due for both a small ice age within a few decades, as well as the fully blown version a couple thousand years away. Average temperatures should have fallen over the past few decades, but the reality is, that average sea temperatures and levels are rising, against any ice age trend. I have no doubt that human mankind has a bigger role in this change of patterns.

The company I worked for back in the 90s maintained helicopters stationed in Greenland, with many flights to the North pole to support research facilities in regions not accessible by sea. A consortium of world wide research organisations and companies (not UN funded by the way) built pretty large communities around those facilities, filled with countless professionals, often holding multiple degrees.

That was over 20 years ago and the findings go exactly along with the consequences we are seeing today. As soon as you leave the US, you won't find too many people not agreeing with the findings, not in the 90s and not today.

[fortyofforty]

I just watch what the Fascists do.  They fly in private aircraft to global warming conferences.  They maintain multiple mansions around the world, heated and cooled year 'round.  They ride in enormous limousines and SUVs, spewing thousands of tons of carbon dioxide into our precious atmosphere.  And they lecture the little people about needing to save the planet.  Give me a ******* break.  They don't take it seriously.  Why should I?

[TeaDub]

58 minutes ago, Moeman said:

Abiotic oil isn’t news. A species that burns it is relative to geologic terms, news. And so is dumping poison in water other than feces. Read up,

And here I have been sympathetic to your perspective in your prior posts. Never mind. Dismissal is far easier than dialog.

Indeed.

[tous]

1 hour ago, TeaDub said:

I'm also curious about this "fossil fuels" terminology. Do people really believe that it's from dead dinosaurs? Last I saw, we (meaning just this country) were pumping out over 10 million barrels a DAY. That's a lot of dead animals.

Nearly all of what we call fossil fuels, coal and oil,  are the result of dead plants over millions of years and not the odd brontosaurus.

[crockett]

47 minutes ago, fortyofforty said:

I just watch what the Fascists do.  They fly in private aircraft to global warming conferences.  They maintain multiple mansions around the world, heated and cooled year 'round.  They ride in enormous limousines and SUVs, spewing thousands of tons of carbon dioxide into our precious atmosphere.  And they lecture the little people about needing to save the planet.  Give me a ******* break.  They don't take it seriously.  Why should I?

Because 2 wrongs don't make a right.

[Borg warner]

So far it looks like it's going to be a mild winter where I live. But back East people are freezing. And if it weren't for Global Warming they'd really be screwed.

[minervadoe]

Quote

 

BEGINNING about 1,100 years ago, what is now California baked in two droughts, the first lasting 220 years and the second 140 years. Each was much more intense than the mere six-year dry spells that afflict modern California from time to time, new studies of past climates show.

The findings suggest, in fact, that relatively wet periods like the 20th century have been the exception rather than the rule in California for at least the last 3,500 years, and that mega-droughts are likely to recur.

The evidence for the big droughts comes from an analysis of the trunks of trees that grew in the dry beds of lakes, swamps and rivers in and adjacent to the Sierra Nevada, but died when the droughts ended and the water levels rose. Immersion in water has preserved the trunks over the centuries.

Dr. Scott Stine, a paleoclimatologist at California State University at Hayward, used radiocarbon dating techniques to determine the age of the trees' outermost annual growth rings, thereby establishing the ends of drought periods. He then calculated the lengths of the preceding dry spells by counting the rings in each stump.

This method identified droughts lasting from A.D. 892 to A.D. 1112 and from A.D. 1209 to A.D. 1350.

In medieval times the California droughts coincided roughly with a warmer climate in Europe, which allowed the Vikings to colonize Greenland and vineyards to grow in England, and with a severe dry period in South America, which caused the collapse of that continent's most advanced pre-Inca empire, the rich and powerful state of Tiwanaku, other recent studies have found.

Dr. Stine, who reported his findings ... in the British journal Nature, says that California, like Tiwanaku, presents "a classic case of people building themselves beyond the carrying capacity of the land," which is determined not by wet times but by dry ones. "What we've done in California is fail to recognize that there are lean times ahead," said Dr. Stine, "and they are a lot leaner than anything we've come up against" in the modern era.

 

 

Edited November 24, 2018 by minervadoe

[tous]

The very worst thing that can happen to a scientist is to become a true believer in their own theories.

At that point, they cease being objective and devote their time and energy into proving that they are right.

It is like a police detective that decides that one guy is guilty and ignores all else but the evidence that proves that guy guilty, whether it exists or not.

They'll keep looking.

 

It is a very easy trap to fall in to.

Scientists have egos, too.  They want to be acknowledged by their peers and some decide that they want to be adored by the public and celebrities as well.

They cease being scientists and become advocates for their true belief and woe betide those that disagree, for they are Philistines and must be stoned, driven from the temple.

 

Consider that 90% of the population, and especially Hollywood actors, in the US likely cannot perform simple algebra; not  that they aren't smart enough, but that they don't use it every day and it becomes irrelevant.

Are they who we really want to be as the arbiters of scientific truth and validity?

Edited November 24, 2018 by tous

[crockett]

11 minutes ago, tous said:

Th every worst thing that can happen to a scientist is to become a true believer in their own theories.

At that point, they cease being objective and devote their time and energy into proving that they are right.

It is like a police detective that decides that one guy is guilty and ignores all else but the evidence that proves that guy guilty, whether it exists or not.

They'll keep looking.

 

It is a very easy trap to fall in to.

Scientists have egos, too.  They want to be acknowledged by their peers and some decide that they want to be adored by the public and celebrities as well.

They cease being scientists and become advocates for their true belief and woe betide those that disagree, for they are Philistines and must be stoned, driven from the temple.

 

Consider that 90% of the population, and especially Hollywood actors, in the US likely cannot perform simple algebra; not  that they aren't smart enough, but that they don't use it everyday and it becomes irrelevant.

Are they who we really want to be as the arbiters of scientific truth and validity?

 

Many well known scientists are INTJs (a Myers Briggs type indicator). Their strongest cognitive functions are dominantly ruled by introverted intuition. With other words, they do NOT feel empowered or motivated by others, let alone a large audience.

What an INTJ also incorporates is extraverted thinking. This indicator makes INTJs organize and schedule ideas, and the environment to ensure the efficient, productive pursuit of objectives. They seeks logical explanations for actions, events, and conclusions, looking for faulty reasoning and lapses in sequence.

Edited November 24, 2018 by crockett

[tous]

I am a solid INTJ and I have found myself lured by true belief rather than evidence and logic and I'm just a regular galoot.

I have been laughed at by the Universe more than once; in fact, a lot.

But, good point.

Edited November 24, 2018 by tous

[crockett]

18 minutes ago, tous said:

I am a solid INTJ and I have found myself lured by true belief rather than evidence and logic and I'm just a regular galoot.

I have been laughed at by the Universe more than once.

But, good point.

Welcome to the club.

I was diagnosed with INTJ when my long time buddy (PhD) let me run through the test. What first looked like a gift, turned out to be a major pain in the ass, for me, and people around me. That level of perfectionism eats you alive, slowly, as you will know.

Did the test years later again, kinda hoping that things may have changed. Nope. Even more pronounced.

Then I spent $300 on the Myers Briggs Manual (you really have to be a sucker for information to work through this thing) and sure enough, all goes hand in hand. At least I have found a few tools to make use of all this. Day trading being one of them. Watching 24 charts for 7 hours a day and recognizing and predicting patterns is a dream come true for me. I'll need a new set of eyeballs soon.

You might be lucky to find an original version on eBay for much less. I dare you.

 

 

Edited November 24, 2018 by crockett

[Al Czervik]

Oh, noes!  Weez all gonna die!

[tous]

2 minutes ago, crockett said:

Then I spent $300 on the Myers Briggs Manual (you really have to be a sucker for information to work though this thing) and sure enough, all goes hand in hand.

Try reading 1,000 page contracts drafted by government lawyers. 

Or being the most junior officer and having to know all of the myriad regulations and memos and procedures for important things like what sort of pictures can a rating tape up by his bunk?

 

I generally scan documents such as that and pay attention to section headings, then I go back and read for comprehension because I basically know what the whole thing is about from the first pass.

[crockett]

4 minutes ago, tous said:

Try reading 1,000 page contracts drafted by government lawyers. 

Or being the most junior officer and having to know all of the myriad regulations and memos and procedures for important things like what sort of pictures can a rating tape up by his bunk?

 

I generally scan documents such as that and pay attention to section headings, then I go back and read for comprehension because I basically know what the whole thing is about from the first pass.

In my free time, so basically all day long.  

Skimming, a strategic and selective reading method in which one focuses on the pointe (and still finds all the details).

[Al Czervik]

Let's see.  So, someone like the climate carnival barker, di Caprio, that buys a several million dollar property down the beach, at a scant few feet above mean sea level, and preaches the world will be ruined by fossil fuels, yet flies around in a G-450?  Uh, huh.  Makes sense.

[Borg warner]

Has anyone noticed that they don't call it Global Warming anymore? It's now called "Climate Change". That way if it turns out Global warming ewas a hoax, Climate Change covers any possible scenario.

But what if we start heading into a new Ice Age? Just think, to change the climate, we'll have to burn more fossil fuel, use incandesent light bulbs, and deflate the air in all our tires.

Edited November 24, 2018 by Borg warner

[gwalchmai]

9 hours ago, tous said:

Nearly all of what we call fossil fuels, coal and oil,  are the result of dead plants over millions of years and not the odd brontosaurus.

Yeah, there's been a LOT of algae over the years.

Still, there's the inconvenient truth that Sinclair dropped the ball when they picked their spokesmodel...

[fortyofforty]

12 hours ago, crockett said:

Because 2 wrongs don't make a right.

Do you actually think they're worried?  They're the experts.  What do they know that you don't?

[crockett]

11 minutes ago, fortyofforty said:

Do you actually think they're worried?  They're the experts.  What do they know that you don't?

Scientists do not fly in private aircraft to global warming conferences.  They also don't maintain multiple mansions around the world, heated and cooled year 'round.  They do not ride in enormous limousines and SUVs, spewing thousands of tons of carbon dioxide into our precious atmosphere.

You are talking about some politicians, and maybe some clowns from Beverly Hills.

 

[gwalchmai]

41 minutes ago, crockett said:

Scientists do not fly in private aircraft to global warming conferences.  They also don't maintain multiple mansions around the world, heated and cooled year 'round.  They do not ride in enormous limousines and SUVs, spewing thousands of tons of carbon dioxide into our precious atmosphere.

You are talking about some politicians, and maybe some clowns from Beverly Hills.

 

There's nothing about believing in science that precludes any of those things. Science is a system for observing and investigating natural phenomena, not a moral system. This is not to say the persons to whom you refer are scientists, necessarily, just that being scientists doesn't rule out the behavior.

Edited November 24, 2018 by gwalchmai

[Huaco Kid]

15 hours ago, gwalchmai said:

Andre the Giant is known for producing a 16 second fart on the set of "The Princess Bride".

And don't you just know that it was a really wet one, that smelled like beer and 37 hotdogs.

[fortyofforty]

49 minutes ago, crockett said:

Scientists do not fly in private aircraft to global warming conferences.  They also don't maintain multiple mansions around the world, heated and cooled year 'round.  They do not ride in enormous limousines and SUVs, spewing thousands of tons of carbon dioxide into our precious atmosphere.

You are talking about some politicians, and maybe some clowns from Beverly Hills.

 

Scientists receive grant money, and if they speak out against scientific orthodoxy they are cut off, shut down and ostracized.  They also do not live without using fossil fuels.  Science is not an election.  Science means making testable predictions and having your hypotheses tested repeatedly.  I know one person who won a Nobel prize for his great work speaking out against Western Civilization.  I also know he doesn't live by his own precepts.

Al Gore and Environmental Groups Accuse Trump of 'Burying' Climate Report With Black Friday Release