Global Warming [Comment by mortals only, please]

[jusplay4fun]

[jusplay4fun]

Do some in the Forum have a banana Fetish???





and yes, I know that there is basically an entire thread devoted to banana images and photos; I want to share the love

[DirtyDishSoap]

[jusplay4fun]

Be sure to scroll to the right, to see the end.

[fat bastard]

I don't know about all the technical stuff you speak about in your rant about how bad it is on earth.

I can ask you to look back all the articles from the 1970's regarding global warming.

They had everyone afraid. Only 10 ten years left. The 1970's were full of MSM bullshit that never happened.

Now we have better science data right? If the earth is billions of years old we do not have near enough data to predict much. Hundreds of years data ....lol

The end game is what, more government ? The really special folks like yourself can get great government job as a expert on the earth and conquer club.

[DirtyDishSoap]

I guess half the country needs to be on fire for some people.

[Dukasaur]

I don't know about all the technical stuff you speak about in your rant about how bad it is on earth.

I can ask you to look back all the articles from the 1970's regarding global warming.

I think you're misremembering the 70s. Global warming was not on anybody's radar in the 70s. There were a few scientists warning about it in the 70s, even in the 60s, but they were obscure and largely unknown to the public. Global warming really didn't start being publicly discussed until '88 or '89.

They had everyone afraid. Only 10 ten years left. The 1970's were full of MSM bullshit that never happened.

Again, I think you're misremembering the 70s. The 70s saw a lot of very successful environmental actions.

When I was a kid, Lake Erie smelled like a sewer and was pretty much a toxic waste dump. There were a lot of drastic actions taken by the various states and provinces to strictly limit what you could dump in the Great Lakes, and today they're all largely revitalized. Improved sewage treatment, the phosphates ban, and stricter enforcement of laws on industrial effluents all contributed to getting the Great Lakes cleaned up.

At roughly the same time, we first became aware of the damage that acid rain was doing. Again the federal governments of Canada and the U.S. were dragging their asses on doing anything, so again the state and provincial governments of the various Great Lakes states and provinces brought in tough new limits on sulfur emissions and got that problem under control.

The damage that environmental lead was doing was curbed by getting lead out of gasoline and most paint pigments. This really didn't see fruition until the late 80s or 90s, but the initial steps began in the 70s.

The initial work to ban the most dangerous pesticides began in the 70s, starting with the DDT ban in the U.S. in the 1972. To this day, we are still using too many dangerous pesticides, but the groundwork has been done.

So I'm really not sure what you mean by things that didn't happen. A lot of problems were addressed and at least partially resolved by mobilizing public support.

Now we have better science data right? If the earth is billions of years old we do not have near enough data to predict much. Hundreds of years data ....lol

We may only have a couple hundred years of direct temperature measurements, but we actually have really good methods of determining temperatures before that. We can track the climate for 800,000 years through Arctic ice cores.

Further than that, we can look to sedimentary rocks and chemical signatures in them. For instance, the Mg/Ca ratio in calcite produced by corals and various protists is temperature dependent. The warmer the ocean, the more magnesium these organisms will absorb. The colder the ocean, the more pure the calcium uptake. The Mg/Ca ratio is a simple matter of chemistry, these organisms don't choose how much magnesium to absorb, so by analyzing the calcite deposits we have a really good way of determining the temperature of ancient oceans, and it takes us back at least 500 million years.

Before that, we have the 18-O/16-O ratio. The isotope Oxygen-18 is heavier than the common isotope Oxygen-16, and thus water molecules with 18-O in them require warmer sea temperatures to evaporate. By measuring the relative concentration of 18-O in oxidized minerals that were deposited on dry land away from oceans, we have a rough idea of how warm the seas were even beyond the 500 million year window that Mg/Ca gives us. Obviously, the further back you go, the more there is potential error in the data, but an enormous amount of work goes into refining it, and the precision gets better all the time.

The end game is what, more government ?

Well, it doesn't have to be. People could voluntarily choose to stop complicating their lives with so much materialistic claptrap. Sadly, I suspect they won't and yes, in the end there's going to be draconian action by government.

I guess half the country needs to be on fire for some people.

Pretty much.

[ConfederateSS]

Do some in the Forum have a banana Fetish???





and yes, I know that there is basically an entire thread devoted to banana images and photos; I want to share the love

---------There is one...AndyDufresne... he is #1...

I don't know about all the technical stuff you speak about in your rant about how bad it is on earth.

I guess half the country needs to be on fire for some people.

Pretty much.

---------As to Half the world on fire....Then I guess the polar ice caps melting would be a great thing...Think of all the fires that would be extinguished ... ...whew...Thank GOD ... ... ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)...
---------Detroit sure could use some water....It is not warm because of The Earth....it is from block after block in blazes of fire for the past 6 decades...
--------- Although all this worry about heat..... Remember the Big Bad Wolf,he learned the rule....You gotta get Hot...to Play real KOOL... ...

[fat bastard]

Long ago Al Gore Predicted North Pole Would Be COMPLETELY ICE-FREE in Five Years! Nice plane Al. The problem we face is that when there is an endless pot of money available, people will say whatever it takes to get their hands on it. Many predictions in that era DID state the end is soon.

Aha nice catch...it was global cooling in the 1970's. i agree their were great programs that cleaned up messes in various parts of the country.

Maybe some population measures would be to your liking?

What if the world is finite all we do can't change it ?

Ponder that

[DirtyDishSoap]

Riveting.

Long ago Al Gore Predicted North Pole Would Be COMPLETELY ICE-FREE in Five Years! Nice plane Al. The problem we face is that when there is an endless pot of money available, people will say whatever it takes to get their hands on it. Many predictions in that era DID state the end is soon.

Aha nice catch...it was global cooling in the 1970's. i agree their were great programs that cleaned up messes in various parts of the country.

Maybe some population measures would be to your liking?

What if the world is finite all we do can't change it ?

Ponder that

Don't know who's gibberish is worst. That's a pretty low bar.

[mookiemcgee]

Long ago Al Gore Predicted North Pole Would Be COMPLETELY ICE-FREE in Five Years! Nice plane Al. The problem we face is that when there is an endless pot of money available, people will say whatever it takes to get their hands on it. Many predictions in that era DID state the end is soon.

Aha nice catch...it was global cooling in the 1970's. i agree their were great programs that cleaned up messes in various parts of the country.

Maybe some population measures would be to your liking?

What if the world is finite all we do can't change it ?

Ponder that

Your argument is that over the course of 50 years the scientific opinion changed, therefore it's all fake/wrong?

[Dukasaur]

Long ago Al Gore Predicted North Pole Would Be COMPLETELY ICE-FREE in Five Years!

He did say there was a 75% chance that we'd have a completely ice-free north pole in the summer of 2013. That was jumping the gun a little bit. Still, every year there is less ice than the year before. A completely ice-free summer will come, sooner or later. Making specific predictions about exactly how soon is a bit silly, but I don't think there's any doubt that's where the trend line is going.

The problem we face is that when there is an endless pot of money available, people will say whatever it takes to get their hands on it.

Yes, that's very much the problem. We are in almost exactly the same position as we were with tobacco. Remember, the link between cigarette smoking and premature death was solidly established by the time the Hammond and Horn study was published in 1954. Soon there were dozens of studies confirming it, and then hundreds. And yet, by spending millions of dollars on denialist research, the tobacco companies managed to spread enough doubt in people's minds to prevent meaningful action against them for decades. It wasn't until 1998 that they finally threw in the towel. A full 44 years of twisting and turning to avoid facing the truth.

Oil is the new tobacco, and we're seeing the same scenario play out. By seizing every miniscule shred of doubt, by blowing out of proportion every tiny flaw in the data, by circling the wagons around every unfortunate overconfident statement (as you did with the one about the timing of the ice cap melt) the oil companies and their stooges on denialist websites manage to keep doubt alive in the public mind.

Scientists are humans, corruptible like the rest of us. Most have integrity, but dangle enough money in front of them and there are always a few who will prostitute themselves to the oil companies.

What if the world is finite all we do can't change it ?

That's the easiest argument to deal with. You just have to look and see we are changing it. Just look at satellite pictures of the earth. Look at the eastern seaboard of North America, look at western Europe, look at east Asia. Those are all areas within the temperate zone. They should be a beautiful forest green. Instead, they are hideous grey splotches of concrete and asphalt. These forests didn't go away by themselves, we mowed them down. You can see it without any instrumentation, just a naked-eye look at ordinary pictures taken by astronauts on Skylab or other spacecraft.

With instrumentation, you can see other things. You can see dead zones in the ocean where nothing lives. You can see river estuaries that are shining with unnatural colours of toxic waste. You can even see entire mountains that have been sliced off the face of the earth in the quest for coal. But I digress; back to the forests.

We've mowed down one-third of the earth's forests. If you peeled off one-third of your skin, you would go into shock. You would have extreme difficulty maintaining water and temperature balance. I think it's very possible that without medical intervention, you would die. The layer of forest is the most productive part of the entire biosphere. It does all the heavy lifting of removing CO2 from the air and replenishing the O2. A third of it is gone. Just as losing a third of your skin would be catastrophic for you, losing a third of our forests is catastrophic for the biosphere.

We don't need to wonder, "can we change the earth?" We just have to look around and see that we can and do change it.

[jusplay4fun]

Long ago Al Gore Predicted North Pole Would Be COMPLETELY ICE-FREE in Five Years! Nice plane Al. The problem we face is that when there is an endless pot of money available, people will say whatever it takes to get their hands on it. Many predictions in that era DID state the end is soon.

Aha nice catch...it was global cooling in the 1970's. i agree their were great programs that cleaned up messes in various parts of the country.

Maybe some population measures would be to your liking?

What if the world is finite all we do can't change it ?

Ponder that

I am not sure Al Gore made such a prediction that the North Pole would be ice free; I think that may simply be an overstatement made by someone trying to deny man-made global warming. EVEN if Gore did, a prediction of the eventual result, barring NO change, does not deny the LIKELIHOOD of the event occurring eventually. ALSO, it does not change the overall direction. Whether it happens in 5 years or 50 years or 500 years, there are severe consequences, NOT matter what the time line. The faster it come, the worse the damage.

When I first heard of predictions of some weather predictions by some folks who were advocating man-made global warming, I thought those predictions were high RISK ones and not well supported by the SCIENCE AT THE TIME. I think some of those predictions were made to GET ATTENTION and were an example of overstating the case. For me, the jury (and the Science) is still out and trying to deliberate that SPECIFIC set of predictions.

HOWEVER, to be clear, let me state that the evidence for man-made global warming is beyond any real and reasonable doubt. I have already posted that overwhelming and cogent evidence elsewhere in this Forum.

As far as Global Cooling, I remember such arguments. I have read that the likely CAUSE of that was the emission of SULFATES that acted to block solar energy (light). What happened? We cleaned the air and thus reduced sulfate emissions and thus Global Warming (man-made, btw) started as we cleaned the air.

What IF the world is finite? IT IS. PERIOD.

NOW ALL of your arguments are adequately answered.

And as far as your disparaging comment:

really special folks like yourself can get great government job as a expert on the earth

Again, you show that you do not know what you are talking about. I do not have a great government job; I am not even an expert, BUT I do understand science. All you have to do is open your mind and close your mouth for a few minutes to learn what is going on. You have to study science and try to understand. You have to "connect the dots" in front of you. When you start with the (false) assumption, a false premise, guess what? You "can't see the forest for the trees" due to fact that your false premise blocks the view of reality that the forest is on fire. The few trees in front of you at the moment may not be on fire, but the rest of the forest is. Open your nose, too, to smell the odor of a burning forest.

Further, there is no pronouncement by a LOUD voice (do you hear James Earl Jones?) on Mt. Sinai saying that there is global warming. There is a whisper in a small voice; ask Elijah.

[DirtyDishSoap]

Sorry for posting this vid again, but it's actual real life footage of me trying to rescue the day for Bastard and Ram and Confederate.

[jusplay4fun]

but the video only shows that you rescued TWO, not ALL THREE. Who got caught in the burning house?

Or did one get caught in the burning forest?

[DirtyDishSoap]

One hid under the bed, ranting about gubberments coming for their freedoms.

[2dimes]

I guess half the country needs to be on fire for some people.

Once all the useless trees like pines get burned out. If it warms up enough we can plant coffee and banana trees. Two years later. America becomes great again!

I'm investing heavily in those Laurance of Arabia towel hats that keep you cool, mobile desalination equipment, even-toed ungulate breeding facilities and flocks of dessert goats and sheep.

Good luck with your bit-coins when the prairies return to being tropical seas again losers.

[jimboston]

The IQ level in this forum drops… global mean temperature increases.

Is this a causation r correlation or neither?

[jusplay4fun]

The IQ level in this forum drops… global mean temperature increases.

Is this a causation r correlation or neither?

Simple predictions are all cases of linear regression. We first observe the trend and then predict based on the trend e.g. How hard you must brake depending on the distance of the car ahead of you. Not all of situations follow a linear trend though. e.g. the rise of bitcoin from 2015 to 2016 was linear but in 2017 it suddenly became exponential. So post 2017 Bitcoin would not be predicted well by linear regression

https://towardsdatascience.com/laymans- ... 334a3dab09

Pearson Correlation and Linear Regression
A correlation or simple linear regression analysis can determine if two numeric variables are significantly linearly related. A correlation analysis provides information on the strength and direction of the linear relationship between two variables, while a simple linear regression analysis estimates parameters in a linear equation that can be used to predict values of one variable based on the other.

Correlation

The Pearson correlation coefficient, r, can take on values between -1 and 1. The further away r is from zero, the stronger the linear relationship between the two variables. The sign of r corresponds to the direction of the relationship. If r is positive, then as one variable increases, the other tends to increase. If r is negative, then as one variable increases, the other tends to decrease. A perfect linear relationship (r=-1 or r=1) means that one of the variables can be perfectly explained by a linear function of the other.

http://sites.utexas.edu/sos/guided/infe ... riate/cor/

Is it serendipity or a mere coincidence? I am preparing a lesson on linear regression analysis in my class today.

Did the IQ level drop in this Forum since you started to post again, Jim?

[fat bastard]

There is many like this article in newspapers of yesteryear. I guess we have finally got it right because the science is sooo much better. Man has very little to do with weather cycles since the beginning of time.

https://www.nytimes.com/1969/02/20/arch ... ophic.html

[mookiemcgee]

Did the IQ level drop in this Forum since you started to post again, Jim?

I wouldn't say he's low IQ, he's just wrong most of the time.

[jusplay4fun]

There is many like this article in newspapers of yesteryear. I guess we have finally got it right because the science is sooo much better. Man has very little to do with weather cycles since the beginning of time.

https://www.nytimes.com/1969/02/20/arch ... ophic.html

Proves nothing.

One guy who explored the Polar region offers an opinion based on his limited data. We knew a whole lot less about Climate back then. We had fewer satellites looking and gathering less data. The same is true with most of our data sites. Another example: we did not monitor CO2 levels at Mauna Loa until the 1960s.

[jusplay4fun]

Did the IQ level drop in this Forum since you started to post again, Jim?

I wouldn't say he's low IQ, he's just wrong most of the time.

Is he is wrong because he gathers wrong facts or does he draw wrong conclusions? Or does he do BOTH: have and gets wrong facts and draws wrong conclusions from those wrong and limited facts? OR his his perspective so skewed that he fails to even see that his facts are wrong?

It is also possible that what we have are different perspectives that leads to different world views.

One more point: if my suggestion is valid, that would be a negative correlation.

[mookiemcgee]

Did the IQ level drop in this Forum since you started to post again, Jim?

I wouldn't say he's low IQ, he's just wrong most of the time.

Is he is wrong because he gathers wrong facts or does he draw wrong conclusions? Or does he do BOTH: have and gets wrong facts and draws wrong conclusions from those wrong and limited facts? OR his his perspective so skewed that he fails to even see that his facts are wrong?

It is also possible that what we have are different perspectives that leads to different world views.

One more point: if my suggestion is valid, that would be a negative correlation.

I would argue both. He often draws superficial conclusion from facts lazily gathered... but (I feel) he's certainly intelligent enough to draw better conclusion than the ones he chooses to express here.

[fat bastard]

https://principia-scientific.com/new-di ... tmosphere/

There are articles that have different points of view. The stories are buried to be sure.

More lazy facts from the quacks at NASA.

lucky I found stories that you fail to believe.