Science & Technology News

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by CatNewBee

No, climate will continue to change. It always has and always will.

That is a vapid statement.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

That is a vapid statement.

Wrong it is simply stating a fact. If you disagree please post your evidences or at least your opinion.

The climate is dynamic and is always changing . Man has no control over it .

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Wrong it is simply stating a fact. If you disagree please post your evidences or at least your opinion.

The climate is dynamic and is always changing . Man has no control over it .

Just because we can’t control the climate doesn’t mean we can’t influence it, intentionally or not.

[Mike OReilly]

Here we go again .

For those of you who want to challenge the consensus scientific view on anthropogenic climate change, go off and become a climate scientist. Until you do, I'll listen to actual climate scientists.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Here we go again .

For those of you who want to challenge the consensus scientific view on anthropogenic climate change, go off and become a climate scientist. Until you do, I'll listen to actual climate scientists.

Mike i actually do as upposed to politic and msm driven consensus bs.
In science there is no such thing as a consensus.

Not one single mmgwc prediction has even actually come to pass.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Mike i actually do as upposed to politic and msm driven consensus bs.
In science there is no such thing as a consensus.

Not one single mmgwc prediction has even actually come to pass.

Like I said, here we go again . Just stop. We all know your views. We don't need it repeated ad infinitum.

Of course, there is such a thing as scientific consensus. How do you think science progresses??? Consensus doesn't mean an end to inquiry, but it is a well understood stage of scientific endeavour. You'd know this if you understood the process of science.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Wrong it is simply stating a fact. If you disagree please post your evidences or at least your opinion.

The climate is dynamic and is always changing . Man has no control over it .

Clearly, you don't know the meaning of "vapid."

[CatNewBee]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Clearly, you don't know the meaning of "vapid."

"It means that one tonne of deuterium -- heavy water -- can give more energy than 10,000 tonnes of the ideal chemical fuel, or tens of thousands of tonnes of oil. If we can crack this, then energy will be basically free and climate change will be a quaint memory. I don't expect to see it in my lifetime, but I think for sure it will be this century."

So what I call vapid is this statement: Energy will be free and climate change will be a quaint memory. Neither of both is likely to happen. There is no free energy (entropy law from nature and economy laws from the society) and climate will continue to change.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Adelie

Just because we can’t control the climate doesn’t mean we can’t influence it, intentionally or not.

In all the many posts, this is probably the most accurate summation. No doubt the presence of humans and their technology does have an effect on the climate. And not only the climate. In fact, not primarily the climate by a long shot. Humans have had a much greater affect on the ecology and environment as a whole.


And yet, like flies to a cow pat, it is the climate that has the primary focus. Even more incredulous is that there is a single point of blame, that being fossil fuels. The obvious question is; why is this so?



Some here scream we must "believe the climate scientists". Sure. Same as we must "believe the car salesmen" whilst shopping for the newest climate destroyer. Arguably, if we'd all believed the climate scientists going back for a quarter of a century now we'd be A: partying like it's 1699 and/or B: presently living on an inhospitable hell hole of a planet. Now look at the device you are reading this on, and then look out your closest window. Is this what you see?

Originally Posted by SailOar

Clearly, you don't know the meaning of "vapid."

Well, saying the sun rises in the east and sets in the west is a pretty vapid statement too. Doesn't make it any less true, however,

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Clearly, you don't know the meaning of "vapid."

Clearly I do but you may need to look it up.
At the minimum stop the partial out of context post quotes.

[GordMay]

CO2 levels 50 per cent higher than when the industrial age began

The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said the average carbon dioxide level for May was 419.13 parts per million. That's 1.82 parts per million higher than May 2020, and 50 per cent higher than the stable pre-industrial levels of 280 parts per million, according to NOAA.
The 10-year average rate of increase also set a record, now up to 2.4 parts per million per year.
Carbon dioxide levels peak every May just before plant life in the Northern Hemisphere blossoms, sucking some of that carbon out of the atmosphere and into flowers, leaves, seeds and stems. The reprieve is temporary, though, because emissions of carbon dioxide from burning coal, oil and natural gas for transportation and electricity far exceed what plants can take in, pushing greenhouse gas levels to new records every year. This seasonal rise and subsequent fall in CO2 levels every year is known as the ‘Keeling Curve’.

When the Earth climbed out of the last ice age, carbon dioxide increased by about 80 parts per million and it took the Earth system, the natural system, 6,000 years.
By comparison, it has taken only 42 years, from 1979 to 2021, to increase carbon dioxide by that same amount.
But, hey, it's only 'natural variation'.

“Carbon dioxide peaks near 420 parts per million at Mauna Loa observatory” ~ NOAA
➥ https://research.noaa.gov/article/Ar...carbon-dioxide

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

No doubt the presence of humans and their technology does have an effect on the climate. And not only the climate. In fact, not primarily the climate by a long shot. Humans have had a much greater affect on the ecology and environment as a whole.

And yet, like flies to a cow pat, it is the climate that has the primary focus. Even more incredulous is that there is a single point of blame, that being fossil fuels. The obvious question is; why is this so?

We've seen enough on CF, in the news and elsewhere, to confirm that a certain set of people not only deny the reality and severity of the human-caused climate changes but are also equally blase about all the other insults to the planet too... so this repeated moan about "primary focus" is just an empty rhetorical gambit. The vast majority of climate change deniers clearly don't give the proverbial rats ass about the other ecological issues either, and can't or won't make the connection that all these problems are interrelated and have a common cause: exploitation and consumption without any regards for harm or sustainability.

Why the emphasis on the role of fossil fuels? Because they represent millions of years of sequestered carbon being dumped into the atmosphere over a period of decades. Duh.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

We've seen enough on CF, in the news and elsewhere, to confirm that a certain set of people not only deny the reality and severity of the human-caused climate changes but are also equally blase about all the other insults to the planet too... so this repeated moan about "primary focus" is just an empty rhetorical gambit. The vast majority of climate change deniers clearly don't give the proverbial rats ass about the other ecological issues either, and can't or won't make the connection that all these problems are interrelated and have a common cause: exploitation and consumption without any regards for harm or sustainability.

Why the emphasis on the role of fossil fuels? Because they represent millions of years of sequestered carbon being dumped into the atmosphere over a period of decades. Duh.

I'm guessing that "certain set of people" who "don't give a proverbial rat's..." and consumes such "without any regards for harm or sustainability" includes anyone that owns - or depends upon - anything burning fossil fuel? It would be the ultimate in hypocrisy otherwise, would it not?

If so, that's most of the CF set accounted for.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I'm guessing that "certain set of people" who "don't give a proverbial rat's..." and consumes such "without any regards for harm or sustainability" includes anyone that owns - or depends upon - anything burning fossil fuel? It would be the ultimate in hypocrisy otherwise, would it not?

If so, that's most of the CF set accounted for.

A lovely deflection tactic here: pretending that pollution, CC... they're all down to personal, individual actions and choices, and not something fundamental in how most developed nations currently operate. "If you own a car/boat/house but are worried about climate change, you're a hypocrite". etc, etc.

A common form of this smokescreen is AlGoraphobia.

It's a willful avoidance of what the real problems are, and at what level the solutions must be implemented. COVID has been a comparable but time-compressed global crisis, and there's been little dispute that international cooperation and government leadership and intervention were absolutely necessary. So, instead of that effort, we should have just told everyone that "if you're worried about COVID, but you go to work, shop for food, visit your relatives... you're a hypocrite"? Yeah, that would have worked.

And you've already mentioned that the proposed solution to CC is to revert back to some sort of agrarian dystopia. You're not missing a trick!

[GordMay]

“Satellites Show How Earth's Water Cycle Is Ramping Up as Climate Warms”

NASA scientists have studied 17 years of gravity observations of our planet to understand how the global water cycle is changing.
The rate at which plants and the land surface release moisture into the air has increased on a global scale between 2003 and 2019. These processes are collectively known as evapotranspiration, and a new NASA study [1] has calculated its increase by using observations from gravity satellites.

But how does the rate of evapotranspiration affect the global water cycle? As moisture from the oceans circulates through the atmosphere, a portion falls as precipitation over the continents. Some of this water goes into rivers as runoff, and some seeps into soils. The remaining water evaporates from the land and transpires from plants back into the air.

Finding that evapotranspiration is increasing at a faster rate than previously known has implications for understanding how climate change could impact Earth in the future. As the world warms, evapotranspiration will accelerate, speeding up the drying of land and vegetation. Weather patterns can also be affected: Increased evaporation from land can create droughts in some regions.

This is a symptom of a warming world that can have major consequences for ecosystems and human societies as stress on surface and groundwater supplies increases.

Much More About: ➥ https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3086/s...climate-warms/

The Study:
[1] “A 10% increase in global land evapotranspiration from 2003 to 2019” ~ by Madeleine Pascolini-Campbell et al
[Abstract] ➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03503-5




GRACE ➥ https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/gr...periment-grace

GRACE Follow-On (GRACE-FO) ➥ https://gracefo.jpl.nasa.gov/

Measuring Earth's Surface Mass and Water Changes ➥ https://grace.jpl.nasa.gov/