....
Ok so you just posted a link from a known pseudo-science website. The papers they reference either don't say what they are claiming or are outright lies. Authors have actually spoken out about their papers being misquoted or used out of context to push your anti-science agenda.
These comments attempt to discredit many papers by solar physicists suggesting that we may be approaching a solar minima, with consequences in weather such as the Little Ice Age. You are not qualified to discredit these people or their work, however you are welcome to present scientifically sound arguments on the subject. I fail to see any reason a climate alarmist would be against global cooling. After all, those guys telling you what to think and say have already changed their grammar to "climate change," so they could encompass the possibility of global cooling as well as the tired, worn out Global Warming mantra you are on. |
|
|
|
All of these are idiotic fantasies based on wrong presumptions.
Where would you like to start with the process of intelligent debunking?
CO2 --> fuel?
The end product of exothermic combustion is CO2.
CO2 does not magically reform into something that is exothermic, right?
I believe it is possible to turn CO2 back into fuel. These methods arent exactly cheap, or easy, however. Furthermore, CO2 as fuel is still no match for liquid fuel in terms of efficiency and power output. However, according to an article writen on ScienceMag.org, here is one way it can be done... CO2 is a very stable, unreactive molecule. Chemists can force it to react by pumping in electricity, heat, or both. The first step in this process is usually ripping off one of CO2’s oxygen atoms to make CO. That CO can then be combined with H2 to make a combination known as syngas, which can be converted into methanol, a liquid alcohol that can be either used directly or converted into other valuable chemicals and fuels. Massive chemical plants do just that, but they make their syngas not from air, but from plentiful and cheap natural gas.This article was written back in 2015, so I would like to assume even more advancements have been made since then. I am sure your intentions are good. However, this is basic chemistry. There was nothing "new" in 2015 and there have been no "advancements" since 2015 that change the laws of thermodynamics. Co2 is created in a process that gives off energy.To convert it back to something else, more than that amount of energy must be put back in, because of inefficiency in the conversion. |
|
|
|
I've read this entire thread so far. The most insightful thing in it was: Geoengineering could bring the temperature down but not in the same way we are raising it. Our goal is not to bring the temperature down. Our goal is to keep things like they were. An Earth with less incoming radiation, more co2, and the same temperature is still a completely different Earth.
The geoengineering fixes in question, are unlikely to work. Take converting CO2 back to fuel. Think of all the air you need to push through your reactor to do that. And then all the energy needed to convert that CO2 into fuel. And then add the fact that if you convert it into fuel rather than burying it you're releasing the CO2 right back into the atmosphere. So even if the process is carbon neutral, with current technology setting up the infrastructure certainly isn't. This technology would be viable in a fantasy land with ample zero-carbon energy production, but it's not going to magically save us in the next 10-20 years. Take throwing salt into the atmosphere: There is the problem that even if the temperature is reduced, CO2 stays the same. The climate can still be different despite the temperature being the same. Then there is the global conflict such geoengineering could spark. What if the temperature can only be reduced if Russia's or The United State's crops have to fail for one year? Where is the clear proof that this actually works as intended? Then there is the simple fact that you're throwing more water in with the salt particles, water vapor is a greenhouse gas. The take ocean greening The article itself debunks it and points to another article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7959570.stmI'd also like to add that iron ore isn't free and that it would probably sink to the bottom, requiring us to keep adding it to the ocean for eternity. I believe that we'll totally wreck this planet's ecosystems and climate. The glaciers will melt, the sea levels will rise, millions will lose their homes, incomes and food stability. But we'll probably survive it. We'll just be living in a different planet earth. And one day, the history books will have a chapter on the time we could have saved millions of species of animals and plants, and prevented human suffering equivalent to many world wars, but instead we chose to drive gas guzzlers, build tanks and bombs and destroy ourselves in the process. It's interesting that we disagree on the importance of combatting global warming and climate change, but are 100% in agreement on these ridiculous pseudo-scientific schemes. Maybe there is some hope after all! |
|
|
|
Thats just not going to happen now, college educated people are lucky to make $20/hr and housing,college, and healthcare have soared past the inflation rate.
If you got a college degree in Photography, Journalism, or even Gender Studies then you are completely right, those people are lucky to get $20 per hour. Can we have special provision in Wage Standards for these degree categories allowing them a 1.00 per hour wage? |
|
|
|
People need to learn that one cannot believe claims made by government agencies and large corporations.
These prey on the gullible.
Claims must be accompanied by proof, or else be disregarded. And for a phone with firmware and an operating system, such a claim can only be validated for one firmware version coupled with a specific operating system version.
What do you mean by 'validated'. You've probably already guessed it. I mean the whole thing, validation that your/my data remains private, which means a system designed from the ground up to provide individuals with private keys, end-to-end encryption with others capable of decoding the comm, no apps capable of stealing data. I could go on, but I know you get it. This is the ONLY WAY that a claim can be proved validated, so this is what's required. Otherwise, a claim or promise cannot and should not be believed. There may be another way, which would be for a company to back their "Promises" with a money bond of high dollar amount. Then if a user could show they'd abused their trust, they'd have to pay. That would perhaps affect company behavior, but it wouldn't affect governments. |
|
|
|
....
I believe that we'll totally wreck this planet's ecosystems and climate. The glaciers will melt, the sea levels will rise, millions will lose their homes, incomes and food stability. But we'll probably survive it. We'll just be living in a different planet earth.
And one day, the history books will have a chapter on the time we could have saved millions of species of animals and plants, and prevented human suffering equivalent to many world wars, but instead we chose to drive gas guzzlers, build tanks and bombs and destroy ourselves in the process.
I believe that if we try nutty geo engineering quackery, we'll totally wreck this planet's ecosystems and climates. If we listen to greenie pseudo-scientific wackos, we'll totally wreck this planet. If we build a thousand nuclear power planets, we'll probably do okay. Oceans will rise and fall, and man does not have a Right to put huge population centers dangerously close to the oceans and stay safe. Oceans can rise and fall naturally, or through man's actions. For example, the Western Peninsula of Antarctica is weakly held to the continent, and it could come loose and over time, melt. Sea levels would rise. Tsunamis happen, period. And then there are asteroid strikes, most of which will occur in the oceans, with effects on land masses. To focus on carbon dioxide and emissions dangerously ignores these various factors. |
|
|
|
Huawei is widely believed to be an arm of the Chinese Government by Western/Five Eyes intelligence agencies, although Huawei and the Chinese Government both deny this. ,,,,
A bigger concern for me about Huawei equipment is the equipment that supports backbones of communications networks, such as switches, and wireless antenna.
People need to learn that one cannot believe claims made by government agencies and large corporations. These prey on the gullible. Claims must be accompanied by proof, or else be disregarded. And for a phone with firmware and an operating system, such a claim can only be validated for one firmware version coupled with a specific operating system version. The trend that people are guilty until proven innocent will never catch on fully... That is not the issue here. Here it is protection or abuse of one's personal data. Let me draw a parallel. You are contracting for a building, a 20 story building. The contractor says, "Don't worry, everything we build is earthquake proof." There is no such thing as belief. Show the tests done, show the actual work that proves the statement. |
|
|
|
Huawei is widely believed to be an arm of the Chinese Government by Western/Five Eyes intelligence agencies, although Huawei and the Chinese Government both deny this. ,,,,
A bigger concern for me about Huawei equipment is the equipment that supports backbones of communications networks, such as switches, and wireless antenna.
People need to learn that one cannot believe claims made by government agencies and large corporations. These prey on the gullible. Claims must be accompanied by proof, or else be disregarded. And for a phone with firmware and an operating system, such a claim can only be validated for one firmware version coupled with a specific operating system version. |
|
|
|
Climate change deniers take advantage of snippets of what climate scientists say, disregarding the rest. The whole idea that there isn't consensus on climate change in the scientific community comes from the responsible peer reviewing process where other climate scientists question every part of any findings for the sake of academic honesty. The biggest excuse used right now is that our data set is too small to make any scientifically significant judgement. Thats sort of true, but not so much in a way that supports the denial of climate change. If we saw a 20 degree shift in a matter of a single day, the same argument would stand. Academic honesty prevents real climate scientists from saying, we have calculated that in 9.17549 years the average temperature of the earth will increase by 0.19123 degrees. It allows them to say, we predict that in 9.17549 years considering the data that we've collected over the past 100 years, the average temperature of the earth will increase by 0.19123 degrees. People then say, yeah but thats like just your prediction man, and then we end up with the problem we are in. Its not as critical of a matter at this time as some try to make it sound, but reversing climate change gets more difficult the further we keep spurring it on. We've got a handful of groups all fighting against each other right now. Real climate scientists, advocates for climate science who are making it worse by trying to appeal by sensationalizing and misinterpreting data to make it look more extreme, and climate change deniers who argue against the climate science advocates. So you are not going to answer my simple question.
Surely a climate Scientist should be able to tell us.
What is the correct temperature of the Earth?
If that's difficult, then can you tell us simply what the equilibrium temperature of the Earth is?
Note how easy this should be. I'm letting you pick the temp during the Medieval Warm Period, The Little Ice Age, the last 100 or 200 years. Or the average of the last 1000 years. Or the average of the last 100,000 years.
That should be Climate Science 101 - first quiz, first week. Right?
Nope, they cannot. You'll need teams of thermo/astrophysicists and engineers (to make the data interpretable) for that. ...Telling you exactly what temperature the earth should be is cake, you just need a team of people in the correct fields.... Yes, they should be able to, if the model they have been taught is accurate. Because they would have been told during class the answers found by those teams, and they would parrot them back on the quiz without understanding much. What I've noted as questions do nicely show the problems of climate science as promulgated. You have suggested an appropriate technical team could easily find the "correct temperature." It says volumes that that is not done. By ignoring heat content, characteristic behavior of gray bodies, and multiphase environments, a false "social good" is promulgated that "co2 BAD", "more co2 VERY BAD." |
|
|
|
...
What is the correct temperature of the Earth?
If that's difficult, then can you tell us simply what the equilibrium temperature of the Earth is?
..... There is absolutely no scientific basis for global cooling that is made up. ..... Factually Incorrect. https://principia-scientific.org/norwegian-scientist-global-cooling-beginning-due-low-solar-activity/Scientists are increasingly tuning out the claims that the Earth’s temperatures are predominantly shaped by anthropogenic CO2 emissions, or that future climate is destined to be alarmingly warm primarily due to the rise in trace atmospheric gases. Instead, solar scientists are continuing to advance our understanding of solar activity and its effect on the Earth system, and their results are progressively suggestive of robust correlations between solar variability and climate changes.
For example, in 2016 alone, there were at least 132 peer-reviewed scientific papers documenting a significant solar influence on climate. Among them there were 18 papers that directly connected centennial-scale periods of low solar activity (the Little Ice Age) with cooler climates, and periods of high solar activity (the Medieval Warm Period and the Modern Warm Period [20th Century]) with high solar activity levels. Another 10 papers warned of an impending solar minimum and concomitant cooling period in the coming decades.
And this trend of scientists linking climate changes to solar forcing mechanisms — and bypassing an anthropogenic explanation — continues to rage on in 2017.A Seminal New Paper Unveils The ‘Cause Of Causes’ Of Climate Change
In their groundbreaking New Astronomy paper, Norwegian professors Harald Yndestad and Jan-Erik Solheim indicate that the modern (1940-2015) Grand Maximum of very high solar activity — the highest solar activity levels in 4,000 years — has just ended. ...
What is the correct temperature of the Earth?
If that's difficult, then can you tell us simply what the equilibrium temperature of the Earth is?
The problem is that your questions are not genuine, could be easily googled, and are simply meant to muddy the waters.... I have said all along in this thread that the goal is not to put the temperature back to a certain place. The goal is to limit carbon emissions. It is smart to treat causes not symptoms. I don't think your answers are genuine. If you can't explain why what you propose is actually good, and you can't show the effect of your proposals, you have nothing except a massive control freak scheme. |
|
|
|
As a climate scientist, I thought we had come a long way in the world but reading this thread has been very disappointing. To see so much anti-science and pseudoscience amongst a tech-savy demographic is about as devastating as it gets. No matter how much access of information we have, people still end up misinformed.
Those of us who know something about science and have studied the issue simply don't trust the data advertised by the chicken-little crowd. It's demonstrably fake a lot of times, and you 'climate scientists' have been caught engaging in fraud for money often enough. There will never be a magic bullet entire idea that we can just invent our way out of living in an unsustainable way is why our backs are against the wall now. Of course we have technology that can take CO2 and turn it into energy. Theyre called trees and we are cutting them down.
No 'technology' except nuclear fusion can 'take CO2 and turn it into energy'. That is an ignorant thing for a high school physics student to say, much less a 'climate scientist'. In my area when you cut down a tree dozens will grow back where they have sunlight to do so. The same phenomenon exists in every part of the world I've visited, and I'm relatively well traveled. Geoengineering could bring the temperature down but not in the same way we are raising it. Our goal is not to bring the temperature down. Our goal is to keep things like they were. An Earth with less incoming radiation, more co2, and the same temperature is still a completely different Earth.
I have serious doubts that you are either a climate scientist or a commie, but let's say for the sake of discussion that you are. This would be a good example of a 'watermelon'. Green on the outside and red on the inside. The climate change scammers make no bones about the fact that their overall goal is to change the economic system of the world, which explains why they have no compunction about engaging in pseudo-science and outright fraud. The sad thing is that a lot of the boots on the ground really in their heart of hearts believe in Socialism/Communism/whatever and earnestly believe that that is what they are working towards. They are not. The people who pull their strings (e.g., issue them grants) are the oligarchs who made their pools of wealth in the industrial revolution timeframes (often in the energy sector) and are engineering a way to keep and grow these pools of wealth in the post-industrial times. You are not going to get 'communism' out of this green scammery. The design goal is to get a more complete dictatorship with a technocratic control grid. Those who actually do have a strong belief in 'socialism' will probably be bumped off. But most of these people believe that 7 billion is to many people for the planet anyway, so at least they get to be 'part of the solution' for a change. The scientific community has an easy way of outing fradulent science and the peer review process weeds out anything that isn't credible. All of the data used to reach a scientific consensus is reproducible. If you have doubts about the credibility of scientific consensus, you are a science denier. My quote calling tree technology was sarcasm. Its obvious that forests cannot grow back if the land has been developed or is still being used for farming or grazing. Its true that temperate forests grow back relatively quickly but haven't traveled to enough tropical places because tropical rainforests have difficulty growing back once they have been cleared as the soil is quickly depleted. Even a simple process like growing bananas and shipping them away depletes the soil because the nutrients are in the bananas being shipped away and that biomass never returns to the soil. Scientific thinking involves actively rejecting your biases and identifying root causes or problems. People don't destroy the planet because they want to, they do it for survival and profit. This is because capitalism creates an economy that puts no value on the health of ecosystems, or the distant future. Anyone who searches for the root causes of environmental problems will arrive at capitalism as the culprit. This doesn't make anyone red or a communist but solutions to capitalism-induced problems will clearly be at odds with the mindset of maximizing profits at all costs. ....
CO2 concentration and temperature are linked (greenhouse effect). The natural limit before the industrial revolution had been 300ppm so the temperatures that correspond to the correct amount of CO2 (180-300ppm) would be the correct temperature. ...
So you are not going to answer my simple question. Surely a climate Scientist should be able to tell us. What is the correct temperature of the Earth? If that's difficult, then can you tell us simply what the equilibrium temperature of the Earth is? Note how easy this should be. I'm letting you pick the temp during the Medieval Warm Period, The Little Ice Age, the last 100 or 200 years. Or the average of the last 1000 years. Or the average of the last 100,000 years. That should be Climate Science 101 - first quiz, first week. Right?The question itself is a distraction from the cause of the problem. Temperature change is a response to human greenhouse emissions. Just one of the many responses. Instead of focusing on one effect, why not focus on what the amount of carbon dioxide should be because its the root cause of all of the other things we are worried about? The question is not a distraction, and your ducking responding is an answer. Temperature change is a response to many factors, of which one minor one is human greenhouse emissions. Further, carbon dioxide is not the "root cause of all the other things we are worried about." We need to be worried about global cooling, according to eminent astrophysicists and solar scientists. We certainly need to be worried about random asteroids hitting Earth. The simple fact is if you cannot state a temperature which is the temperature we should return to, after correcting all alleged problems, you have no credible basis for arguing about climate change. You also have no credible basis for claiming you are a climate scientist. I take it then you are refusing to answer my simple questions. What is the correct temperature of the Earth?
If that's difficult, then can you tell us simply what the equilibrium temperature of the Earth is? |
|
|
|
....
CO2 concentration and temperature are linked (greenhouse effect). The natural limit before the industrial revolution had been 300ppm so the temperatures that correspond to the correct amount of CO2 (180-300ppm) would be the correct temperature. ...
So you are not going to answer my simple question. Surely a climate Scientist should be able to tell us. What is the correct temperature of the Earth? If that's difficult, then can you tell us simply what the equilibrium temperature of the Earth is? Note how easy this should be. I'm letting you pick the temp during the Medieval Warm Period, The Little Ice Age, the last 100 or 200 years. Or the average of the last 1000 years. Or the average of the last 100,000 years. That should be Climate Science 101 - first quiz, first week. Right? |
|
|
|
As a climate scientist, I thought we had come a long way in the world but reading this thread has been very disappointing. To see so much anti-science and pseudoscience amongst a tech-savy demographic is about as devastating as it gets. No matter how much access of information we have, people still end up misinformed.
There will never be a magic bullet entire idea that we can just invent our way out of living in an unsustainable way is why our backs are against the wall now. Of course we have technology that can take CO2 and turn it into energy. Theyre called trees and we are cutting them down.
Geoengineering could bring the temperature down but not in the same way we are raising it. Our goal is not to bring the temperature down. Our goal is to keep things like they were. An Earth with less incoming radiation, more co2, and the same temperature is still a completely different Earth.
What is the correct temperature of the Earth? |
|
|
|
.....
....I think there are a few incorrect assumptions with thinking that everyone carrying guns is a good idea, but thats not super relevant. Funny enough, I was going to look up the statistics on the locations of school shootings....
There's a mindset that comes first, before anyone should do concealed carry. Otherwise he becomes a target for punks to take the gun away. The right solution is to eliminate "gun free zones," and make them "zones where you don't know who is carrying but you damn sure know they are there and they are going to shoot you dead." Like "Air Marshalls." They exist, but good luck identifying them. .....
I am ABSOLUTELY in agreement that there is a correlation between over medication of children and incidents. Besides the obvious effect that antidepressants and such have strong side effects on adolescents, its another important indicator. Medication is not a treatment for mental health problems. There are very few cases where someone is just born with a chemical imbalance, and a pill just fixes that. Tossing someone a pill doesn't fix the problem, you need to get to the root of the problem or the pill doesn't do anything. .....
Behavior suppressing pills are obviously behind sudden breakout into psychotic behavior that to a fair degree results in mass shootings. This is not getting the attention it deserves. |
|
|
|
Man-eating tigers could hunt down more humans due to climate change
The reasons why big cats turn on humans are complex and can be specific to individuals. But they can no longer be explained outside the context of climate change. ...
I've been thinking. Maybe we SHOULD listen to the kinds of people that mercilessly harassed Kavanugh when they scream at us about climate change. Maybe we SHOULD listen to those who fiercely argue that delusional men with dicks should be able to ruin women's sports, when they want to take our money for good cause like climate change. Maybe we SHOULD listen to those who believe it's okay to kill eight and a half month old fetus but must save the snail darters, when they scream about how there's only twelve years left to save the planet. Maybe we SHOULD listen to those who want to shut down free and open discussion on Reddit, Facebook and Twitter when they lecture us about climate change. NAW!!!!....... |
|
|
|
.... LOL! Cancer proves adaptation. It proves devolution to the people it forms in. Cancer has nothing to do with the idea of beneficial mutation, except possibly to the cancer itself. Of course, when the host dies, the cancer dies, as well. Nothing beneficial there. Cancer has absolutely nothing to do with proving evolution theory evolution over many thousands of years. I don't really think you are an idiot. So why do you keep trying to prove that you are? Are you evolving?  Evolution is a hoax.  Troll bait not taken. |
|
|
|
There is something I'd like to know how possible is it for the climate of the earth to be destroyed, I mean climate change is a hoax, There is a God if we don't believe or believe and he made the whole universe. Sorry am being so radical but I guess there is still freedom of speech. If God made it and we know he is all sufficient, then am sure He can keep it safe. Haha
Reputable scientists, including those such as reporting through the IPCC on climate change, do not hold that it is a massive crisis. They do not maintain that massive countermeasures are necessary or wise. They do not maintain that climate change is a crisis that may cause massive numbers of human deaths. But there are certainly things that could cause climate change. In the 1980s, Carl Sagan and others popularized the idea that following a nuclear war, there could be a "nuclear winter" that changed the climate for perhaps ten years. This was IIRC a complete hoax. A large asteroid strike could easily change the planet's weather, along with killing most or all creatures. |
|
|
|
^^^ You pretty much seem to misunderstand what a beneficial mutation is. A beneficial mutation maintains and improves the status quo. A detrimental mutation tends toward the destruction of the organism. For example. In the simple evolution of the piston engine to the Wankel rotary, the shape of the engine would have to change in ways that would be entirely destructive to its operation. Mutations that would make this change are detrimental. Beneficial mutations would be those that strengthen the material of the piston engine, so that there would be less wear. In other words, beneficial mutations make the organism more like itself. Making an organism different than itself is detrimental mutation, and maybe a downright destructive mutation.Beneficial mutations don't change one creature into another. Rather, beneficial mutations make the creature into a stronger version of what the creature already is. They make it more of what it already is. Detrimental mutations do the opposite, and place an organism more into the position of death of the most unfit. Evolution theory evolution is entirely backwards and opposite of what really happens, and the most prominent evolution theorists completely know this. Evolution is a hoax. Beneficial mutations increase the chances of lifeform survival to the reproduction age. Over time, given enough mutations, speciation is observed where animals cannot reproduce with their 'genetic ancestors' and produce a viable offspring. I think you cannot comprehend evolution because you think that the world is 10,000 years old. Speciation of apes took millions of years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolutionBoth types of mutations produce change by definition. Cancer cell populations are mutations, and continue to mutate, for example forming resistance to drugs and chemo used to attack them. Cancer proves evolution.... |
|
|
|
Now he also made this quote
"Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy."....
not being able to vote yourself on issues seems pretty restricted, I hope you go back on this quote.
Love you Mr. Paul, Have a nice day!
I wouldn't consider Ron Paul, because he is not for crypto currencies. |
|
|
|
Super funny article on how Blockchain can keep Trump from being so dummy...
....
But for real though... Could we use blockchain to make people more transparent?...
Unnecessary. We can already see right through most Democrats. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
