Global warming err Climate change HOAX

[GG]

At a conference yesterday, an otherwise smart investment manager from a major global bank claimed that the reason for the massive Syrian migration in 2014 was due to a severe drought, caused by global warming.  

 

Can't make this stuff up. 

[Nanker]

20 minutes ago, GG said:

At a conference yesterday, an otherwise smart investment manager from a major global bank claimed that the reason for the massive Syrian migration in 2014 was due to a severe drought, caused by global warming.  

 

Can't make this stuff up. 

Well, truth be told, it did get a little hot down there. 

[Taro T]

10 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

I've wracked my brain and it would appear that the only thing that makes sense would be if the scientist told him what he wanted to hear. 

 

Probably not too far off from how he chooses them.  Sadly.

[Tiberius]

10 hours ago, Taro T said:

 

Probably not.  And it probably includes Bill Nye, the cast of Big Bang Theory, and Thomas Dolby (She Blinded Him with Science.  SCIENCE!), and the like.

Ha ha, never watched that show. I like Carl Sagan, dead, but he spoke about global issues a lot. Neil Degrasse Tyson, Bill Bryson (science author, not scientist) and a new fav, Lawrence Krauss. 

[3rdnlng]

10 hours ago, Koko78 said:

 

Looking like Dr. Amy Mainzer helps:

 

I'd test those tubes.

[Azalin]

3 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

You're getting there.  Let's just say these systems exist in 100 years.  By then two other things will likely have happened:

 

1. Artificial intelligence will have made huge leaps.

2. Another theorized, or as yet theorized superior system of high speed space propulsion will have been devised and would potentially be deployable.  

 

Don't like 100 years as a measure?  How about 10?  50?  1000?  10,000?  Pick one.  And let's say the limitation of light speed turns out to be 100% the upper limit.

 

There is another constant that renders this exploration a little less exciting but no less important.  It will always be vastly more difficult to maintain a life support system traveling for decades through space to known or unknown destinations than to go without one.  Each one of us has billions of bacteria within that help support our existence.  The same complexities and interdependencies are obstacles for most living things on Earth.  Does it make economic sense or scientific sense to attempt to send entire ecosystems on journeys for thousands of years in multiple directions?  It sure would be awesome but does it make sense?  I don't think so, because all of these life forms come in miniature form and you know what they all do?  They replicate.  We don't have the means at this point in history but at some point in the future we will be able to send a miniature Noah's Ark.....and it will be able to replicate.  It's transport will also be able to replicate.  No matter how advanced we become, this method will always make more sense than transporting actual living things.  

 

So.....given self replicating robots that hop around exploring, how long would it take to explore the entire galaxy?  Realistic numbers say it would be about 250k years once started for the purely robotic variety.  This method makes sense for us.  If the galaxy was teeming with life it would also have to make sense for at least some of the other societies, no?  250,000 years isn't that long really.  But where are all these probes?  Where is any other sign at all?  We are learning a lot and every single thing we've learned in the past decade+ points to it being just us.  Every data point.  Our probes will be the first but with some luck and perseverance they will succeed somewhere, probably many somewheres. 

 

This is always a fascinating topic for discussion, partially because because it pits the imagination against the hard realities of physics. I honestly can't argue with anything you're saying, and I can tell that you're familiar with the Fermi paradox as well.

 

[Tiberius]

15 hours ago, Dante said:

I don't trust science any more since it's been compromised for the sake of control. So it doesn't mean shite to me. Now I'm more into pattern recognition. I trust my instincts on my own observations more.

Science is still science. You seem to be objecting to where the science leads. That's just the pitfalls of seeking the truth. The truth always carries with it unpleasant facts, but it's still worth and necessary to seek. 

[GG]

5 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

You're getting there.  Let's just say these systems exist in 100 years.  By then two other things will likely have happened:

 

1. Artificial intelligence will have made huge leaps.

2. Another theorized, or as yet theorized superior system of high speed space propulsion will have been devised and would potentially be deployable.  

 

Don't like 100 years as a measure?  How about 10?  50?  1000?  10,000?  Pick one.  And let's say the limitation of light speed turns out to be 100% the upper limit.

 

There is another constant that renders this exploration a little less exciting but no less important.  It will always be vastly more difficult to maintain a life support system traveling for decades through space to known or unknown destinations than to go without one.  Each one of us has billions of bacteria within that help support our existence.  The same complexities and interdependencies are obstacles for most living things on Earth.  Does it make economic sense or scientific sense to attempt to send entire ecosystems on journeys for thousands of years in multiple directions?  It sure would be awesome but does it make sense?  I don't think so, because all of these life forms come in miniature form and you know what they all do?  They replicate.  We don't have the means at this point in history but at some point in the future we will be able to send a miniature Noah's Ark.....and it will be able to replicate.  It's transport will also be able to replicate.  No matter how advanced we become, this method will always make more sense than transporting actual living things.  

 

So.....given self replicating robots that hop around exploring, how long would it take to explore the entire galaxy?  Realistic numbers say it would be about 250k years once started for the purely robotic variety.  This method makes sense for us.  If the galaxy was teeming with life it would also have to make sense for at least some of the other societies, no?  250,000 years isn't that long really.  But where are all these probes?  Where is any other sign at all?  We are learning a lot and every single thing we've learned in the past decade+ points to it being just us.  Every data point.  Our probes will be the first but with some luck and perseverance they will succeed somewhere, probably many somewheres. 

 

Won't matter one bit.   I've seen the Star Wars movies.  Despite possessing technology to traverse the universe using glorified banana peels for fuel and being able to read and shape minds, people still sleep on ramshackle mattresses in broken down rebar concrete huts (if they're lucky)

[Foxx]

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

Science is still science. You seem to be objecting to where the science leads. That's just the pitfalls of seeking the truth. The truth always carries with it unpleasant facts, but it's still worth and necessary to seek. 

settled science, damnitall!!

 

Scientist Warns Of Mini Ice Age As Sun Hibernates During Solar Minimum

... According to Valentina Zharkhova, a professor at Northumbria University’s department of mathematics, physics and electrical engineering, the Sun is about to enter a Grand Solar Minimum this year, which is like an extended version of the solar minimum. Instead of lasting for only a couple of years, the Grand Solar Minimum could extend for 33 years.

 

When this happens, the professor said Earth could experience a global drop in temperature by one degrees Celsius, which is already enough to cause severe weather conditions.  

“The Sun is approaching a hibernation period,” she said according to Express. “Less sunspots will be formed on the solar surface and thus less energy and radiation will be emitted towards the planets and the Earth.”

 

“The reduction in temperature will result in cold weathers on Earth, wet and cold summers, cold and wet winters,” she added. “We will possibly get big frosts as is happening now in Canada where they see [temperatures] of -50C.”

 

 

According to data collected by NASA, the last time a Grand Solar Minimum occurred was in 1650, which lasted up to 1710. During this period, the Sun entered a phase known as Maunder Minimum, which was characterized by a decrease in the star’s brightness.

 

Due to the Sun’s diminished activity, various regions on Earth such as North America and Europe went into deep freeze, causing icy features such as glaciers to grow and expand. The extremely cold weather also caused a few rivers, lakes and other large bodies of water to freeze. ...

[Tiberius]

57 minutes ago, Foxx said:

 

 

 

According to data collected by NASA, the last time a Grand Solar Minimum occurred was in 1650, which lasted up to 1710. During this period, the Sun entered a phase known as Maunder Minimum, which was characterized by a decrease in the star’s brightness.

 

 

Interesting, because the output of European agriculture (Mostly English) right about this time, has been attributed to a warming period. That advance in agriculture was an important precursor to industrialization. 

 

And, this in no way undermines the science of Global Warming, even a 33 year reversal of temps is only 33 years. 

[Gary M]

19 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Interesting, because the output of European agriculture (Mostly English) right about this time, has been attributed to a warming period. That advance in agriculture was an important precursor to industrialization. 

 

And, this in no way undermines the science of Global Warming, even a 33 year reversal of temps is only 33 years. 

 

So the climate was changing before we burned fossil fuels, who knew?

 

[Foxx]

35 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Interesting, because the output of European agriculture (Mostly English) right about this time, has been attributed to a warming period. That advance in agriculture was an important precursor to industrialization. 

 

And, this in no way undermines the science of Global Warming, even a 33 year reversal of temps is only 33 years. 

but, but... we're all gonna die in 12 years. well to be fair, it probably is like 11.5 now.

 

amirite??

Edited February 6, 2020 by Foxx

[Tiberius]

1 minute ago, Foxx said:

but, but... we're all gonna die in 12 years. well to be fair, it probably is like 11.5 now.

 

amiright??

I don't know when we will hit the turning point. 

16 minutes ago, Gary M said:

 

So the climate was changing before we burned fossil fuels, who knew?

 

Yes, the climate is affected by many factors, like green house gases. 

[Foxx]

Just now, Tiberius said:

I don't know when we will hit the turning point. 

tibs, there is no turning point. at least not humankind induced. there are far greater factors that influence the environment upon the Earth and all planets for that matter.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

I don't know when we will hit the turning point. 

Yes, the climate is affected by many factors, like green house gases. 

Why don’t they just stop building green houses, and paint the ones that are out there?  The answer is right in front of our eyes! 

[Tiberius]

2 minutes ago, Foxx said:

tibs, there is no turning point. at least not humankind induced. there are far greater factors that influence the environment upon the Earth and all planets for that matter.

Oh no, pouring carbon into the atmosphere has an effect. I listen to scientists, you listen to politicians. 

1 minute ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Why don’t they just stop building green houses, and paint the ones that are out there?  The answer is right in front of our eyes! 

Lol, will this be a federal program? Will Mexico pay for it? 

[3rdnlng]

2 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Why don’t they just stop building green houses, and paint the ones that are out there?  The answer is right in front of our eyes! 

It goes way back and started in the Emerald City.

 

[Foxx]

11 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Oh no, pouring carbon into the atmosphere has an effect. I listen to scientists, you listen to politicians. ...

i'm not listening to politicians on any of this, tibs. i have done my fair share of research on the topic and my conclusion is that, to use a metaphor here, we are no more significant than fleas on a dog.

 

know that i have solar panels on my house and in rebuilding my house, i have constructed one of the greenest possible environments (outside of my crypto mining venture). i have done so with regard to a comfort factor and not because i believe the fear mongers in any way shape or form. 

Edited February 6, 2020 by Foxx

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

7 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Oh no, pouring carbon into the atmosphere has an effect. I listen to scientists, you listen to politicians. 

Lol, will this be a federal program? Will Mexico pay for it? 

I’d outsource it to the states. All paint is local, and you go moving buckets of whitewash all around the country it’s going to totally offset the carbon reductions from painting the durn houses.  

[Gary M]

3 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I’d outsource it to the states. All paint is local, and you go moving buckets of whitewash all around the country it’s going to totally offset the carbon reductions from painting the durn houses.  

 

Do they have to use union laborers?