15 Mar 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainAnd I thank the powers that be that you are not the energy czar. You would be just one of those who would just say, nothing to worry about folks, this will all blow over.
I'm glad there is more CO2 in the atmosphere. Plants will grow better and produce more food per acre. It will also be interesting to see how badly climate models fail predicting the temperature rise.
Keep in mind that much of that CO2 increased as a result of the warming that started to pick up about 200 years ago. How much is the result of man burni ...[text shortened]... rush to some unknown solution. I say unknown because nobody has proposed a practical solution.
Each year that goes by gets us that much closer to the edge of a precipice we cannot recover from without the loss of billions of lives.
For instance, right now in California, where 90 percent of a number of our crops come from, is in the middle of a 4 year drought with no end in sight. Increased CO2 is doing those folks no good at all, just making a bad situation much worse.
After California, the midwest is due to have the same drought. You really think it is going to be good for the US if the growing acreage is in Pennsylvania and not much elsewhere?
15 Mar 15
Originally posted by sonhouse"For instance, right now in California, where 90 percent of a number of our crops come from, is in the middle of a 4 year drought with no end in sight. Increased CO2 is doing those folks no good at all, just making a bad situation much worse."
And I thank the powers that be that you are not the energy czar. You would be just one of those who would just say, nothing to worry about folks, this will all blow over.
Each year that goes by gets us that much closer to the edge of a precipice we cannot recover from without the loss of billions of lives.
For instance, right now in California, wher ...[text shortened]... is going to be good for the US if the growing acreage is in Pennsylvania and not much elsewhere?
You are being stupid. Don't you know the difference between weather change and climate change? Have you heard of the dust bowl?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl
"The drought came in three waves, 1934, 1936, and 1939–40, but some regions of the High Plains experienced drought conditions for as many as eight years."
8 years is a long time and man didn't change the climate in the 30s. You really need to get a grip on reality.
15 Mar 15
Originally posted by humyDid you get that prediction from a Gypsy? I see you still have blind faith in those climate models that could not predict the warming pause.
What!?
Even with more hurricanes, floods and droughts devastating them!?
Exactly how stupid are you?
15 Mar 15
Originally posted by Metal Brainthere was no warming pause: any temporary slow down in the rate of warming, but still a positive non-zero rate, does not equal "warming pause".
Did you get that prediction from a Gypsy? I see you still have blind faith in those climate models that could not predict the warming pause.
15 Mar 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainAre you really such a one trick pony that you are not interested in anything else but cutting down climate change science? BTW, how old do you think the Earth is? Just curious.
Did you get that prediction from a Gypsy? I see you still have blind faith in those climate models that could not predict the warming pause.
16 Mar 15
Originally posted by humyCall it whatever you want. I hate it when people like you ask people like me if I deny climate change. Few people say anthropogenic or man made so it is very annoying. Any idiot knows climate has always been changing. Or they ask if I deny global warming. The climate warms and cools naturally so that is an equally stupid question.
there was no warming pause: any temporary slow down in the rate of warming, but still a positive non-zero rate, does not equal "warming pause".
I'll stop using inaccurate terms when you do. Until then we should all be equally annoyed with each other.
16 Mar 15
1 edit
Originally posted by Metal BrainIn point of fact, mankind has been given a 10,000 year long gift of relatively stable climate. Before that period, the climate had wild swings in temperature, but because of the world wide ocean currents the temperature swings have been something like 1/3 of what they were say 40,000 years ago. One thing that has been noted, some of those ocean currents have already slowed down something like 20% over what it was 100 years ago.
Call it whatever you want. I hate it when people like you ask people like me if I deny climate change. Few people say anthropogenic or man made so it is very annoying. Any idiot knows climate has always been changing. Or they ask if I deny global warming. The climate warms and cools naturally so that is an equally stupid question.
I'll stop using inaccurate terms when you do. Until then we should all be equally annoyed with each other.
This is another result of climate change. If it stops completely the temperature swings will start being wild again.
http://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-1/climate-system/great-ocean-currents/
16 Mar 15
Originally posted by sonhouseFact or theory? I'm not interested in reading more wild theories in an attempt to explain what climate scientists can't with facts.
In point of fact, mankind has been given a 10,000 year long gift of relatively stable climate. Before that period, the climate had wild swings in temperature, but because of the world wide ocean currents the temperature swings have been something like 1/3 of what they were say 40,000 years ago. One thing that has been noted, some of those ocean currents hav ...[text shortened]... t being wild again.
http://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-1/climate-system/great-ocean-currents/
16 Mar 15
1 edit
Originally posted by Metal BrainIt looks to me like you are not interested at all in actually learning climate technology but only interested in tearing it all down. You are not interested in learning, only destruction.
Fact or theory? I'm not interested in reading more wild theories in an attempt to explain what climate scientists can't with facts.
Like I said, you are a one trick pony. Do you deny we can directly measure the speed and volume of ocean currents? Do you deny ocean currents have a calming influence on global weather?
How old do you think the Earth is?
17 Mar 15
Originally posted by sonhouseFact or theory? Which do you claim it is? Simple question.
It looks to me like you are not interested at all in actually learning climate technology but only interested in tearing it all down. You are not interested in learning, only destruction.
Like I said, you are a one trick pony. Do you deny we can directly measure the speed and volume of ocean currents? Do you deny ocean currents have a calming influence on global weather?
How old do you think the Earth is?
For the record I am an Atheist. I hope that reduces the number of stupid questions you ask me.
17 Mar 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainIf you are talking about ocean currents, fact. Do you have a problem with that?
Fact or theory? Which do you claim it is? Simple question.
For the record I am an Atheist. I hope that reduces the number of stupid questions you ask me.
I asked you about the age of Earth because I suspected something and it sounds like that theory was bogus.
17 Mar 15
4 edits
Originally posted by Metal Brain-and yet you poo poo science just as much as any crazed religious fundamentalist; if it wasn't for the fact that irrational people come with a vast variety of sets of beliefs that generally don't make a whole lot of sense, a strange inconstancy.
For the record I am an Atheist.
17 Mar 15
Originally posted by humyI love science and always have. I don't like junk science meant to mislead people. You don't seem to be able to see the difference.
-and yet you poo poo science just as much as any crazed religious fundamentalist; if it wasn't for the fact that irrational people come with a vast variety of sets of beliefs that generally don't make a whole lot of sense, a strange inconstancy.
17 Mar 15
1 edit
Originally posted by Metal BrainWell, like I said, the world is fortunate you are not the science czar.
I love science and always have. I don't like junk science meant to mislead people. You don't seem to be able to see the difference.
It takes hundreds of new ideas to be thought of before 1 of those ideas works out in reality and you can't just prejudge some idea because of your own personal agenda.
You say you love science. Which sciences do you love? My favorites are in the realm of physics, astrophysics, astronomy and the like, and energy devices like fusion research, there are several versions of machines out there studying fusion, and spacecraft, like the latest one called MMS sent out to study magnetic reconnection in the Earth's magnetic field which protects us from incoming solar wind activity. I am into semiconductor research, which we are actively pursuing at the company I presently work for and optics which I have also worked in that field, optical modulators and lasers.
I also worked myself on gravitational lenses, the one our sun makes, I found some interesting things about that I don't think many scientists are aware of.
So what are you into?