An inconvenient truth

[Shorthorse]

You people are behind the times. Don't you know that all global warming, global cooling, and global mediuming,is caused by humans and is a disaster about to happen?! We all have to be punished.

It's always amusing the godlike powers that man ascribes to himself.
By the way, according to http://smithsonianeducation.org, "About 55 million years ago- 10 million years after the extension of the dinosaurs- the earth was a warmer place than it is today. Nine degrees warmer on average."

 

[Jcharger]

Little ice age runs a little later, but the point that there are other controls (not just industrial revolution) is valid. Yet we also cannot rule out a human influence since then.

Neither here nor there with the next thing that I posted before. It is a plot from the 1990 ish ipcc report with data since then in yellow (data used before then in white). A very crude alignment I made with public data using excel and lining up axes. It is an interesting and weird look at old predictions that have lots of uncertainty and newer data.

Yeah science is about testing. My favorite is hearing a student once say, "and I wish my hypothesis comes true" at the end of a presentation. That is the human element, but not science.

 

[BeatersRus]

so,you all remember that nuclear power plant that went into meltdown in japan right?
where do you think all that radiation is going right now?
heres your clue.

Fukushima Releasing 770,000 Tons Of Radioactive Water Into Pacific



a fairly decent explanation of nuclear power plants today.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=japan+radiation+fukushima+radiation+on+plane

 

[PurpleBeeper]

Don't need to Google it.
I will explain with one question.
If you think x is causing something to prove the theory what do you do in an observed experiment?

Barring relativity & change of reality due solely to observation, you devise an experiment to test the validity of hypothesis "x", such are varying "x" and observing changes, if any of "y".

In this case, it would be measurements of thermal conductivity vs. transparency of carbon dioxide, methane, etc. Since we don't have a laboratory large enough to test the entire Earth at once, we have to draw conclusions based upon smaller experiments.

OK, now your turn....and no cheating off of google.

 

[PurpleBeeper]

It was Tambora in Indonesia and it was 1815. People fail to realize that mother nature actually puts more stuff into the atmosphere that we as people can do. She also cleans it out too. The other thing that people don't realize is that weather is daily events, climate and extended period of the average weather and it changes over periods of time regardless of humans or natural occurrences. If you look at the climate over 10 year periods going back 200 years, each 10 year period has a different climate average. The little ice age happened in the late 1600's to early 1700's followed by a warm period during the enlightenment in the mid 1700's to nearly 1800. Where the industrial revolution hadn't really gotten going to its full extent! So, what cause these changes?????

You make a very good point. I guess another way to deal with "climate change" is just to dump as much pollution as we can into the air & just assume that mother nature will "figure it out". That wouldn't be my first choice, but it's an option.

To answer your question directly, and again I'm no meteorologist or climate scientist, I think it's pretty obvious that pre-industrial revolution changes were "natural". I mean, it certainly could be that pollution is actually good for the planet in some way. I'm personally a little worried that it's not.

 

[PurpleBeeper]

??? maybe Cave women using aerosol hair spray before they went out "clubbin"...

Having worked in the aerosol industry... here's a little insider info. The chlorofluorocarbons (old school propellant) were banned maybe 20 yrs. (?) ago. They're only legal for very special applications. Aerosols still have that "stigma" associated with them since I "think" these propellants were some of the first chemicals identified as greenhouse gasses.

Today, most propellant is a blend of propane & butane and some of it is nitrogen (78% of the air we breathe, so not harmful) and some of it is carbon dioxide (which seems strange to me).

 

[PurpleBeeper]

Little ice age runs a little later, but the point that there are other controls (not just industrial revolution) is valid. Yet we also cannot rule out a human influence since then.

Neither here nor there with the next thing that I posted before. It is a plot from the 1990 ish ipcc report with data since then in yellow (data used before then in white). A very crude alignment I made with public data using excel and lining up axes. It is an interesting and weird look at old predictions that have lots of uncertainty and newer data.View attachment 688507

Yeah science is about testing. My favorite is hearing a student once say, "and I wish my hypothesis comes true" at the end of a presentation. That is the human element, but not science.

Interesting data. I sure "hope" that most scientists are wrong & we can just go about our business. I'm no saint in this matter. I've spent most of my life trying to burn as much gasoline as I can, as fast as I can.

You're also VERY correct about what your student once said. Scientists have to be VERY careful to just accept the data & conclusions that come out of an experiment and not throw in their own 2-cents. Believe me, I've met more than one scientist who was biased. That made me a little uncomfortable when I worked in the pharmaceutical industry.

I personally have been fired from two jobs. One boss wanted me to falsify data for the FDA & the other company wanted me to falsify data for the EPA....it happens, I know. We sell our souls all too cheaply.

 

[PurpleBeeper]

so,you all remember that nuclear power plant that went into meltdown in japan right?
where do you think all that radiation is going right now?
heres your clue.

Fukushima Releasing 770,000 Tons Of Radioactive Water Into Pacific



a fairly decent explanation of nuclear power plants today.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=japan+radiation+fukushima+radiation+on+plane

Yep... and it really sucks in my opinion. If it weren't for nuclear meltdowns & nuclear waste it would be a fantastic energy source.

Hey, what's that car got under the hood? "It's uranium 238 powered with a plutonium supercharger"

 

[Jcharger]

Another thing to chew over. A friend of mine was able to take aerosol samples after Fukoshima in San Diego and use them to calculate the neutron fluxes emitted from the reactor. Transit time was 4 DAYS! Think about it. Transit times are fast and we see the stuff from Asia in the US. Similar things have been seen in the US from China and India. Another friend told a story of being able to see the duty cycles of the Japanese reactors from afar using a neutrino detector (probably Kamland - look for the person for scale - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamio...no_Detector#/media/File:KamLAND_schematic.png) and knowing that what was in the logs was not what was being done.

Tried image embed, but it wouldn't do this one.

 

[Hey-O]

If we get a handle on nuclear fusion things would be cleaner. I think sometimes the more we move forward the more we move backwards.

 

[furryfrog]

Well, I'm not a climate scientist. What I meant to say is that the vast majority of ALL scientists believe "global climate change" is real, not just the handful of scientists with government grants or whatever.

This comment is so false, but a lot of people accept it at face value.

 

[furryfrog]

It was Tambora in Indonesia and it was 1815. People fail to realize that mother nature actually puts more stuff into the atmosphere that we as people can do. She also cleans it out too. The other thing that people don't realize is that weather is daily events, climate and extended period of the average weather and it changes over periods of time regardless of humans or natural occurrences. If you look at the climate over 10 year periods going back 200 years, each 10 year period has a different climate average. The little ice age happened in the late 1600's to early 1700's followed by a warm period during the enlightenment in the mid 1700's to nearly 1800. Where the industrial revolution hadn't really gotten going to its full extent! So, what cause these changes?????

True, The province I live in, 70% of CO2 emissions are from forest fires, and we have been paying a carbon tax on gasoline for 10 years. Not to mention the CO2 thing is an unproven hypothesis. It's becoming increasingly clear what this things about, it's about taking sovereignty away from nations, and putting them under the control of the UN or other organizations.

 

[furryfrog]

I personally have been fired from two jobs. One boss wanted me to falsify data for the FDA & the other company wanted me to falsify data for the EPA....it happens, I know. We sell our souls all too cheaply.

I cant say I'm surprised anymore that they asked you to falsify data, crazy. Good to know you have some integrity, I imagine the person they hired to replace you did what was asked.

 

[furryfrog]

This video is 5 years old now, but short, for those that have short attention spans.

 

[furryfrog]

This is a good watch for those interested in how the managed to "create" the hockey stick temperature graph the alarmist always use as "evidence"
Skip to 7:30 if your interested only how the "data" for that graph was put together though the whole presentation is interesting in itself.

 

[Jcharger]

I think you have it backwards. The evidence for climate change is overwhelming and the evidence for a human connection is very strong. The scientists and the scientific methods are also in a resounding consensus.

You show some wonderful propaganda. Unfortunately that is what it is.

 

[PurpleBeeper]

This comment is so false, but a lot of people accept it at face value.

You may be correct, but as a scientist myself I know A LOT of scientists and I have never met one that thinks climate change is "made up"...not one.

 

[furryfrog]

Funny, you didn't even have time to view my posts until you commented. Sounds like your mind is already made up, that's cool, part of the human condition called confirmation bias. Threads like this are interesting, almost like a conversation for the deaf, each of us leaving,feeling more strongly about our opinions we had before even venturing into this thread.

I am not going to take what you say at face value, just because your so emotionally connected to your opinion. That argument is old and hollow.

 

[PurpleBeeper]

I cant say I'm surprised anymore that they asked you to falsify data, crazy. Good to know you have some integrity, I imagine the person they hired to replace you did what was asked.

Sad, but true. At least I can sleep at night. I am sure that some scientists lie/cheat for whatever reason....for pride, to keep their job, etc. I "wish" I could say that all scientists are honest, but that's not true. There are certainly people in the world who don't care who they hurt. Sad, isn't it?

 

[furryfrog]

You may be correct, but as a scientist myself I know A LOT of scientists and I have never met one that thinks climate change is "made up"...not one.

You seem like you have integrity, so I believe you on that. There are many scientists and climatologists not believing in the global warming hypothesis. Keep in mind the climate is always changing though. I'm not a scientist.