Page 17 of 150 FirstFirst ... 712131415161718192021222767117 ... LastLast
Results 321 to 340 of 2988

Thread: Lectro was RIGHT--post1626--(climate related)

  1. #321
    Quote Originally Posted by Lectro View Post
    Yes. I believe the sun is going through a cooling phase. I consider the sun to be,by far, the driver of climate. The correlations shown by Henrik Svensmark and Fris Christiansen are undeniable.


    The antarctic (western) melt... https://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/25611.aspx

    On the other hand, a subglacial eruption and the accompanying heat flow will melt a lot of ice. “The volcano will create millions of gallons of water beneath the ice — many lakes full,” Wiens said.
    This water will rush beneath the ice toward the sea and feed into the hydrological catchment of the MacAyeal Ice Stream, one of several major ice streams draining ice from Marie Byrd Land into the Ross Ice Shelf.
    By lubricating the bedrock, it will speed the flow of the overlying ice, perhaps increasing the rate of ice-mass loss in West Antarctica.
    “We weren’t expecting to find anything like this,” Wiens said.
    The research was funded by the National Science Foundation, Division of Polar Programs.

    You don't buy the the strengthening Antarctic polar vortex breaking sea ice apart creating open water to freeze?

  2. #322
    Huffington Post -- 1/24/14

    Solar Scientists are finally getting their day in the, well, sun

    http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4645248

    Fking imagine that...Huffington Post with a "Maunder Minimum" reference. You've come a long way baby...

    If you thought the polar vortex was bad, get a load of a new climate phenomenon that just might be coming our way.

    Scientists say we could be headed for another "Little Ice Age," given how eerily calm the sun has been in recent years.

    First, a bit of background. The sun goes through cycles that last roughly 11 years, marked by the ebb and flow of sunspots on its surface. At peak sunspot activity, the so-called solar maximum, the sun sports lots of sunspots and is steadily unleashing solar flares and coronal mass ejections (CMEs). Since our current solar cycle, Number 24, kicked off in 2008, the number of sunspots observed has been half of what heliophysicists expected.

    “I’ve never seen anything quite like this," Dr. Richard Harrison, head of space physics at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in England, told the BBC. "If you want to go back to see when the sun was this inactive in terms of the minimum we’ve just had and the peak that we have now, you’ve got to go back about 100 years.”

    Now, being in a "solar lull" does not mean the sun is completely dormant.

    "The sun is most definitely not 'asleep,'" Dr. C. Alex Young, solar astrophysicist and associate science director in the Heliophysics Science Division of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, told The Huffington Post in an email. In fact, on January 7th, 2014, NASA observed a massive solar flare burst from a sunspot group measured to be "some seven Earth's across."

    But a relatively quiet sun could cause problems. Some scientists say that this period of weak solar activity may mirror what happened before the so-called Maunder Minimum of 1645 to 1715 -- a period named after solar astronomers Annie and E. Walter Maunder, who studied sunspots and helped identify the sun's strange activity in the latter part of the 17th Century. That time period saw only 30 sunspots (one one-thousandth of what would be expected) and coincided with a "Little Ice Age" in Europe, during which the Thames River and the Baltic Sea froze over.

  3. #323
    So what credence to you give to the concept of greenhouse gases warming our atmosphere?

  4. #324
    Also, for the final time, the earth cooling is not evidence against global climate change brought on by human involvement.

  5. #325
    You give creedence to human created CO2 increase.

    I join the solar physicists in yesterday's Huffpo piece. I believe the sun is conclusive and decidedly the driver of earthen climate.

    The point is that added atmospheric carbon dioxide has no significant influence on average global temperature. Examination of the temperature data of the last and prior glaciations from NOAA as determined from Vostok ice cores reveals that temperature trends reversed direction irrespective of carbon dioxide level. This proves that there is no net positive feedback. Climatologists, who apparently don't know how feedback works don't realize this. Unaware of their ignorance, they impose net positive feedback in their GCMs which causes them to predict substantial warming from carbon dioxide increase. Without feedback, the GCMs do not predict significant Global Warming. Other assessments from entirely different perspectives also determine that there is no significant net positive feedback. They can be seen at http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/01/index.html and http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-...al-warming.htm
    Last edited by Lectro; 01-25-2014 at 12:07 PM.

  6. #326
    Quote Originally Posted by Lectro View Post
    The Carbonated myth to which you subscribe...it is fizzing out...

    A scientific "bubble" if you will... Oversold mild climate derivatives,as it were.
    I don't subscribe to anything.

    What's your ultimate goal here? To say I told you so, to defund the EPA, to get rid of emission standards, to drill baby drill, to stop setting aside money for ecological disasters?

    Why are you so invested in this issue?
    When in doubt, rub one out -BiffTannen

  7. #327
    Quote Originally Posted by ONW View Post
    I don't subscribe to anything.

    What's your ultimate goal here? To say I told you so, to defund the EPA, to get rid of emission standards, to drill baby drill, to stop setting aside money for ecological disasters?

    Why are you so invested in this issue?
    Ahhh, excuse me...have you ever checked the title of this thread?

    I believe science can be a force for ill if left to political persuasions...of any stripe.

  8. #328
    Quote Originally Posted by Lectro View Post
    Ahhh, excuse me...have you ever checked the title of this thread?

    I believe science can be a force for ill if left to political persuasions...of any stripe.
    I get it you're name is in the title, but why are you so personally invested in this issue that someone would start a thread about the subject with your name in it?
    When in doubt, rub one out -BiffTannen

  9. #329
    Quote Originally Posted by ONW View Post
    I get it you're name is in the title, but why are you so personally invested in this issue that someone would start a thread about the subject with your name in it?
    I enjoy a good argument and nowhere do I see a greater need for healthy skepticism as I do in the climate change echo chamber being passed off as a debate hall. I hope I have demonstrated there are many academics and scientists of note whose research puts them at odds with the IPCC models,pronouncements and projections. I have said nothing on these threads outside of amplifying the thoughts and ideas of people genuinely working in the fields relevant to climate change.

    Of course, the same can be asked of you...

  10. #330
    Quote Originally Posted by Lectro View Post
    I enjoy a good argument and nowhere do I see a greater need for healthy skepticism as I do in the climate change echo chamber being passed off as a debate hall. I hope I have demonstrated there are many academics and scientists of note whose research puts them at odds with the IPCC models,pronouncements and projections. I have said nothing on these threads outside of amplifying the thoughts and ideas of people genuinely working in the fields relevant to climate change.

    Of course, the same can be asked of you...
    Good point. I'm out. Peace.
    When in doubt, rub one out -BiffTannen

  11. #331
    The late Michael Crichton put it best. Here is his essay on Science and Politics and the need for scientific autonomy.


    http://www.michaelcrichton.net/essay...dangerous.html

    Imagine that there is a new scientific theory that warns of an impending crisis, and points to a way out.

    This theory quickly draws support from leading scientists, politicians and celebrities around the world. Research is funded by distinguished philanthropies, and carried out at prestigious universities. The crisis is reported frequently in the media. The science is taught in college and high school classrooms.

    I don't mean global warming. I'm talking about another theory, which rose to prominence a century ago.

    Its supporters included Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Winston Churchill. It was approved by Supreme Court justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis, who ruled in its favor. The famous names who supported it included Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone; activist Margaret Sanger; botanist Luther Burbank; Leland Stanford, founder of Stanford University; the novelist H. G. Wells; the playwright George Bernard Shaw; and hundreds of others. Nobel Prize winners gave support. Research was backed by the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations. The Cold Springs Harbor Institute was built to carry out this research, but important work was also done at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford and Johns Hopkins. Legislation to address the crisis was passed in states from New York to California.

    These efforts had the support of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, and the National Research Council. It was said that if Jesus were alive, he would have supported this effort.

    All in all, the research, legislation and molding of public opinion surrounding the theory went on for almost half a century. Those who opposed the theory were shouted down and called reactionary, blind to reality, or just plain ignorant. But in hindsight, what is surprising is that so few people objected.

    Today, we know that this famous theory that gained so much support was actually pseudoscience. The crisis it claimed was nonexistent. And the actions taken in the name of theory were morally and criminally wrong. Ultimately, they led to the deaths of millions of people.

    The theory was eugenics, and its history is so dreadful --- and, to those who were caught up in it, so embarrassing --- that it is now rarely discussed. But it is a story that should be well know to every citizen, so that its horrors are not repeated.

    The theory of eugenics postulated a crisis of the gene pool leading to the deterioration of the human race. The best human beings were not breeding as rapidly as the inferior ones --- the foreigners, immigrants, Jews, degenerates, the unfit, and the "feeble minded." Francis Galton, a respected British scientist, first speculated about this area, but his ideas were taken far beyond anything he intended. They were adopted by science-minded Americans, as well as those who had no interest in science but who were worried about the immigration of inferior races early in the twentieth century --- "dangerous human pests" who represented "the rising tide of imbeciles" and who were polluting the best of the human race.

    The eugenicists and the immigrationists joined forces to put a stop to this. The plan was to identify individuals who were feeble-minded --- Jews were agreed to be largely feeble-minded, but so were many foreigners, as well as blacks --- and stop them from breeding by isolation in institutions or by sterilization.

    As Margaret Sanger said, "Fostering the good-for-nothing at the expense of the good is an extreme cruelty ... there is not greater curse to posterity than that of bequeathing them an increasing population of imbeciles." She spoke of the burden of caring for "this dead weight of human waste."

    Such views were widely shared. H.G. Wells spoke against "ill-trained swarms of inferior citizens." Theodore Roosevelt said that "Society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce their kind." Luther Burbank" "Stop permitting criminals and weaklings to reproduce." George Bernard Shaw said that only eugenics could save mankind.

    There was overt racism in this movement, exemplified by texts such as "The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy" by American author Lothrop Stoddard. But, at the time, racism was considered an unremarkable aspect of the effort to attain a marvelous goal --- the improvement of humankind in the future. It was this avant-garde notion that attracted the most liberal and progressive minds of a generation. California was one of twenty-nine American states to pass laws allowing sterilization, but it proved the most-forward-looking and enthusiastic --- more sterilizations were carried out in California than anywhere else in America.

    Eugenics research was funded by the Carnegie Foundation, and later by the Rockefeller Foundation. The latter was so enthusiastic that even after the center of the eugenics effort moved to Germany, and involved the gassing of individuals from mental institutions, the Rockefeller Foundation continued to finance German researchers at a very high level. (The foundation was quiet about it, but they were still funding research in 1939, only months before the onset of World War II.)

    Since the 1920s, American eugenicists had been jealous because the Germans had taken leadership of the movement away from them. The Germans were admirably progressive. They set up ordinary-looking houses where "mental defectives" were brought and interviewed one at a time, before being led into a back room, which was, in fact, a gas chamber. There, they were gassed with carbon monoxide, and their bodies disposed of in a crematorium located on the property.

    Eventually, this program was expanded into a vast network of concentration camps located near railroad lines, enabling the efficient transport and of killing ten million undesirables.

    After World War II, nobody was a eugenicist, and nobody had ever been a eugenicist. Biographers of the celebrated and the powerful did not dwell on the attractions of this philosophy to their subjects, and sometimes did not mention it at all. Eugenics ceased to be a subject for college classrooms, although some argue that its ideas continue to have currency in disguised form.

    But in retrospect, three points stand out. First, despite the construction of Cold Springs Harbor Laboratory, despite the efforts of universities and the pleadings of lawyers, there was no scientific basis for eugenics. In fact, nobody at that time knew what a gene really was. The movement was able to proceed because it employed vague terms never rigorously defined. "Feeble-mindedness" could mean anything from poverty to illiteracy to epilepsy. Similarly, there was no clear definition of "degenerate" or "unfit."

    Second, the eugenics movement was really a social program masquerading as a scientific one. What drove it was concern about immigration and racism and undesirable people moving into one's neighborhood or country. Once again, vague terminology helped conceal what was really going on.

    Third, and most distressing, the scientific establishment in both the United States and Germany did not mount any sustained protest. Quite the contrary. In Germany scientists quickly fell into line with the program. Modern German researchers have gone back to review Nazi documents from the 1930s. They expected to find directives telling scientists what research should be done. But none were necessary. In the words of Ute Deichman, "Scientists, including those who were not members of the [Nazi] party, helped to get funding for their work through their modified behavior and direct cooperation with the state." Deichman speaks of the "active role of scientists themselves in regard to Nazi race policy ... where [research] was aimed at confirming the racial doctrine ... no external pressure can be documented." German scientists adjusted their research interests to the new policies. And those few who did not adjust disappeared.

    A second example of politicized science is quite different in character, but it exemplifies the hazard of government ideology controlling the work of science, and of uncritical media promoting false concepts. Trofim Denisovich Lysenko was a self-promoting peasant who, it was said, "solved the problem of fertilizing the fields without fertilizers and minerals." In 1928 he claimed to have invented a procedure called vernalization, by which seeds were moistened and chilled to enhance the later growth of crops.

    Lysenko's methods never faced a rigorous test, but his claim that his treated seeds passed on their characteristics to the next generation represented a revival of Lamarckian ideas at a time when the rest of the world was embracing Mendelian genetics. Josef Stalin was drawn to Lamarckian ideas, which implied a future unbounded by hereditary constraints; he also wanted improved agricultural production. Lysenko promised both, and became the darling of a Soviet media that was on the lookout for stories about clever peasants who had developed revolutionary procedures.

    Lysenko was portrayed as a genius, and he milked his celebrity for all it was worth. He was especially skillful at denouncing this opponents. He used questionnaires from farmers to prove that vernalization increased crop yields, and thus avoided any direct tests. Carried on a wave of state-sponsored enthusiasm, his rise was rapid. By 1937, he was a member of the Supreme Soviet.

    By then, Lysenko and his theories dominated Russian biology. The result was famines that killed millions, and purges that sent hundreds of dissenting Soviet scientists to the gulags or the firing squads. Lysenko was aggressive in attacking genetics, which was finally banned as "bourgeois pseudoscience" in 1948. There was never any basis for Lysenko's ideas, yet he controlled Soviet research for thirty years. Lysenkoism ended in the 1960s, but Russian biology still has not entirely recovered from that era.

    Now we are engaged in a great new theory that once again has drawn the support of politicians, scientists, and celebrities around the world. Once again, the theory is promoted by major foundations. Once again, the research is carried out at prestigious universities. Once again, legislation is passed and social programs are urged in its name. Once again, critics are few and harshly dealt with.

    Once again, the measures being urged have little basis in fact or science. Once again, groups with other agendas are hiding behind a movement that appears high-minded. Once again, claims of moral superiority are used to justify extreme actions. Once again, the fact that some people are hurt is shrugged off because an abstract cause is said to be greater than any human consequences. Once again, vague terms like sustainability and generational justice --- terms that have no agreed definition --- are employed in the service of a new crisis.

    I am not arguing that global warming is the same as eugenics. But the similarities are not superficial. And I do claim that open and frank discussion of the data, and of the issues, is being suppressed. Leading scientific journals have taken strong editorial positions of the side of global warming, which, I argue, they have no business doing. Under the circumstances, any scientist who has doubts understands clearly that they will be wise to mute their expression.

    One proof of this suppression is the fact that so many of the outspoken critics of global warming are retired professors. These individuals are not longer seeking grants, and no longer have to face colleagues whose grant applications and career advancement may be jeopardized by their criticisms.

    In science, the old men are usually wrong. But in politics, the old men are wise, counsel caution, and in the end are often right.

    The past history of human belief is a cautionary tale. We have killed thousands of our fellow human beings because we believed they had signed a contract with the devil, and had become witches. We still kill more than a thousand people each year for witchcraft. In my view, there is only one hope for humankind to emerge from what Carl Sagan called "the demon-haunted world" of our past. That hope is science.

    But as Alston Chase put it, "when the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power."

    That is the danger we now face. And this is why the intermixing of science and politics is a bad combination, with a bad history. We must remember the history, and be certain that what we present to the world as knowledge is disinterested and honest.
    Last edited by Lectro; 01-25-2014 at 02:28 PM.

  12. #332
    Now then,if you took the time to read Michael Crichton's eye opening essay ^
    you can continue by reading these quotes from the leading lights behind UN and IPCC political maneuvering.

    Merton Lambert, former spokesman for the Rockefeller Foundation: "The world has a cancer, and that cancer is man."
    Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh, leader of the World Wildlife Fund: "If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels."
    Maurice Strong, U.N. environmental leader: "Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"
    Ted Turner, CNN founder, UN supporter, and environmentalist: "A total population of 250–300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal."

  13. #333
    The late Michael Crichton's academic bio:

    CO2 denialist...


    Crichton graduated summa cum laude from Harvard College, received his MD from Harvard Medical School, and was a postdoctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, researching public policy with Jacob Bronowski. He taught courses in anthropology at Cambridge University and writing at MIT.

  14. #334
    Quote Originally Posted by Wakeforest22890 View Post
    So what credence to you give to the concept of greenhouse gases warming our atmosphere?
    I give it creedence as a "concept" but certainly not as a proven fact.

  15. #335
    Posting this here without comment because it seemed somewhat pertinent to the discussion. Specifically, this part...

    Experts believe we're currently overdue a flip, but they're unsure when this could occur.

    If a switch happens, we would be exposed to solar winds capable of punching holes into the ozone layer.

    The impact could be devastating for mankind, knocking out power grids, radically changing Earth’s climate and driving up rates of cancer.

    ‘This is serious business’, Richard Holme, Professor of Earth, Ocean and Ecological Sciences at Liverpool University told MailOnline. ‘Imagine for a moment your electrical power supply was knocked out for a few months – very little works without electricity these days.’

    The Earth's climate would change drastically. In fact, a recent Danish study believes global warming is directly related to the magnetic field rather than CO2 emissions.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...wer-grids.html

  16. #336
    Svensmark's work is now being verified on a regional scale.

    http://www.ann-geophys.net/31/1833/2...1833-2013.html

    Real world science.

  17. #337
    Dam it's cold...any of you boys have a Shroud I can borrow?

    The Ice-Man cometh my dim witted brothers

    Svensmark has made it to Broadway... "Send in the Clouds"

  18. #338
    Quote Originally Posted by Lectro View Post
    Dam it's cold...any of you boys have a Shroud I can borrow?

    The Ice-Man cometh my dim witted brothers

    Svensmark has made it to Broadway... "Send in the Clouds"
    You gonna post in July how hot it is?

  19. #339
    Quote Originally Posted by WFFaithful View Post
    You gonna post in July how hot it is?
    Don't hold your icy cold breath.
    When in doubt, rub one out -BiffTannen

  20. #340
    Quote Originally Posted by WFFaithful View Post
    You gonna post in July how hot it is?
    Is it hot in the summer?

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •