The hurricane prediction is for the strongest in 70 years

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

I don't even know where to begin.

This thread shows clearly the damage done by the 50+ years of leftist controlled education in the West. Even apparently so called educated people are very myopic and susceptible to propaganda trends.

First of all to talk about "climate change" using 10-20-50, even 100 year spans is just plain stupid. Not to say very unscientific. There is no such thing as a decades trend. Most climate changes occur in at least centuries spans and most of those are in thousands of years spans. The short term hickups are just that - hickups. Or hickdowns if you will.

The so called Dark Ages 5C-9C CE have corresponded to such cooling period. And 10-14cc had the warming period which corresponded with the rise of living standards in Europe, which peaked about mid-14th C and had the plague as a result of the warmer climate which allowed for proliferation of rats and other vermin. Also this warming period allowed the Vikings to colonize Greenland which was actually green and had decent pastures, at least its coastal areas, up to the 14th C.

From 14-15th C to about now we are in the cooling trend so that the reversal to the next warming cycle is pretty much should be within the normal historical climate oscillation periods. To fight this trend by human induced means is about as smart as to try to prevent Sun spots, lightening, or some such. We just need to adjust our activities and living patterns, etc. i.e. not to build too close to the rising oceans, not to build shacks in hurricane prone areas, not keep rebuilding in flood zones, etc.

The Failed Education System in the West is resulting in quite a bit more that the inability to separate a Hoax from Science. But remember it changed from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" so that summer and winter the MMGW Believers have something to scream about. And....scream they shall....

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by MMGW Talking Point

. We are warming and sea levels are rising.

Warming?....only if you "Statistically" Fake the Data to make the past cooler and the present warmer....might as well ask Russians for more Fake New Posts.

[peter57]

Originally Posted by jackdale

According to natural cycles, solar cycles and Milankovitch cycles, we should be cooling, ice sheets should be expanding and sea levels falling. We are warming and sea levels are rising.

What is a natural cycle? I don't think that the earth read that scientific report (peer reviewed). 24000 year cycle?

What made the change to the last ice age? Warm ocean currents maybe?

The scientists still need more time to work out what causes the earth to constantly change and change differently. Cosmic rays have been studied?

To many variables and not enough understanding. I just don't like scaring the pants off of people to get at their wallet.

The Nutters are full of doom and gloom and the Deniers argue every point to their last breath. But there are lot of climate scientists who sit on the fence observe and make good predictions compared to the alarming Nutters who are way off.

Don't get me wrong though, I am 100% against pollution and I think there are pumping out a lot worse things than CO2, I've chocked in China between Shanghai and Nanjing where you can not see the 500 coal fired Power stations through the mind boggling smog. What is the alternative? when the worlds so call solar powered Germany are building coal power stations and Japan too as an alternative to nuclear. I think South Australia is the worlds largest percentage of renewables 10%.-20% arguable apparently. The thing is it will cost the poor the most.

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Here are some long time spans for you.

For 800,000 years. at least, CO2 levels never exceeded 300 ppm. In that "Goldilocks" world human evolved and their food crops were domesticated.



Before the Industrial Revolution we were in a 6,000 year cooling period. Then we dumped 1.5 trillion tonnes of CO2, a known greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere raising levels to those not observed in 3-5 million years. Using carbon isotope analysis, the 40% increase in atmosphere CO2 can be directly attributed to the burning of fossil fuels. This is what happened.

It is the fault of the guy that invented fire. If it where not for him the problem would not exist. What is the solution, we go back to living in caves. Maybe the brain power used the gather info. could better be directed at developing a clean energy source. How many egg heads need to keep gathering the same "data". If you have a preconceived idea selective data taking will verify it.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Cadence

". If you have a preconceived idea selective data taking will verify it.

bingo and now due to selective data sets you have mann made global warming.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Cadence

It is the fault of the guy that invented fire. If it where not for him the problem would not exist. What is the solution, we go back to living in caves. Maybe the brain power used the gather info. could better be directed at developing a clean energy source. How many egg heads need to keep gathering the same "data". If you have a preconceived idea selective data taking will verify it.

A wood burning fire simply releases CO2 that would have been released through decomposition in the natural carbon cycle. The problem comes from burning the fossil fuels that were sequestered and lowered the the CO2 levels to those present for that last million years.

Alternative energy sources is a solution that will take time to implement and they are being developed. With some we have to remove undeserved sigmas, for example, nuclear energy has the lowest number of deaths per terawatt. Windmills are one of the lowest causes of avian deaths.

Richard Muller had a preconvinced idea when he began the research for the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study. He reached quite a different conclusion, even though a large portion of his funding came from the Koch Foundation.

You will find most of the cherry picking of data on the side of those who are dismissive of climate science.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

bingo and now due to selective data sets you have mann made global warming.

wrong.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Warming?....only if you "Statistically" Fake the Data to make the past cooler and the present warmer....might as well ask Russians for more Fake New Posts.

wrong

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

The Failed Education System in the West is resulting in quite a bit more that the inability to separate a Hoax from Science. But remember it changed from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" so that summer and winter the MMGW Believers have something to scream about. And....scream they shall....

Global Warming is a subset of Climate Change.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by peter57

What is a natural cycle? I don't think that the earth read that scientific report (peer reviewed). 24000 year cycle?

What made the change to the last ice age? Warm ocean currents maybe?

The correlation and mechanism of the role Milankovitch cycles in ice ages is well understood - by some.

Milankovitch Cycles and Glaciation

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by peter57

Cosmic rays have been studied?

Cosmic rays have neen advanced as a hypothesis by Svensmark and discounted by the CLOUD experiment at CERN.

Fundamental questions remain about the origin of newly formed atmospheric aerosol particles because data from laboratory measurements have been insufficient to build global models. In contrast, gas-phase chemistry models have been based on laboratory kinetics measurements for decades. Here we build a global model of aerosol formation using extensive laboratory-measured nucleation rates involving sulfuric acid, ammonia, ions and organic compounds. The simulations and a comparison with atmospheric observations show that nearly all nucleation throughout the present-day atmosphere involves ammonia or biogenic organic compounds in addition to sulfuric acid. A significant fraction of nucleation involves ions, but the relatively weak dependence on ion concentrations indicates that for the processes studied variations in cosmic ray intensity do not significantly affect climate via nucleation in the present-day atmosphere.

Global atmospheric particle formation from CERN CLOUD measurements | Science

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by peter57

I think South Australia is the worlds largest percentage of renewables 10%.-20% arguable apparently.

Norway is 100% renewable, with hydro representing the vast majority of that.

https://www.ssb.no/en/elektrisitet

[peter57]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Norway is 100% renewable, with hydro representing the vast majority of that.

https://www.ssb.no/en/elektrisitet

I think SA world largest in solar and wind and now they have Elon's battery " but I am restating a politician. So Norway is getting close to 100% but like your article says 95% Hydro.

We all do not live in Norway and the Greenies here say that hydro is the worst way to go about it.

I have Known about the Milancovitch cycles for a long time and one of my daughters is attending a uni course in astronomy. Was it the release of CO2 from this or warming ocean currents? Or both?

Back to my argument. What can we do about it?

P.S.
I detest cold weather! In winter I wear full thermal underwear in Queensland and have three sets on the boat. So I am all for a warmer world, but against pollution.

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by jackdale

A wood burning fire simply releases CO2 that would have been released through decomposition in the natural carbon cycle. The problem comes from burning the fossil fuels that were sequestered and lowered the the CO2 levels to those present for that last million years.

Alternative energy sources is a solution that will take time to implement and they are being developed. With some we have to remove undeserved sigmas, for example, nuclear energy has the lowest number of deaths per terawatt. Windmills are one of the lowest causes of avian deaths.

Richard Muller had a preconvinced idea when he began the research for the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study. He reached quite a different conclusion, even though a large portion of his funding came from the Koch Foundation.

You will find most of the cherry picking of data on the side of those who are dismissive of climate science.

Nuclear power may have the lowest no. of deaths per terawatt. I have no idea how that is calculated? I don't think that can until the waste with the long have lives have a suitable means of disposal. Seems the waste is only being stored for future generations to worry about. Not that I disagree on its usage but it seems to be somewhat of an erroneous figure until the hens have come home to roost.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Cadence

Nuclear power may have the lowest no. of deaths per terawatt. I have no idea how that is calculated? I don't think that can until the waste with the long have lives have a suitable means of disposal. Seems the waste is only being stored for future generations to worry about. Not that I disagree on its usage but it seems to be somewhat of an erroneous figure until the hens have come home to roost.

This is the source that I used for deaths per terawatt. I have not been able to find one that does similar statistics. If there us one I am more than willing to check it out.

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/0...t-hour-by.html