Jump to content


Photo

Don't Go Being Politically Insane You Climate Change Skeptics


  • Please log in to reply
1121 replies to this topic

#1101 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,583 posts

Posted 14 November 2019 - 1046 AM

Maybe the Koalas found out that lighting up Eucalyptus powered farts can propel them up to the tree tops.

 

Its a shame the airlines dont display this kind of forward thinking really.

 

As for climate change, it doesnt really matter a damn whether we believe in it or not. My father didnt believe he had cancer, but it still killed him.


  • 0

#1102 Yama

Yama

    Finntroll

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,014 posts

Posted 14 November 2019 - 1528 PM

How much does your electricity really cost?
 
DJQLZXaU8AA_ntP.jpg


Weird, here new wind farms are built without government subsidy. Is this some very old graph?

I am not huge fan of wind power myself though - I don't think it can resolve energy issue, it is too unreliable in large scale. Also turbines themselves are an eyesore and risk for the birds.

Not trying to be argumentative, but are these new wind farms  you are referring to being given federal, state, local tax breaks?


No. There used to be government guaranteed minimum price for renewable energy (ie. if price of energy was below X, state would pay difference for producer) but that was discontinued two years ago. It was replaced with another subsidy scheme, but there new producers are expected to compete from the subsidy, and most don't bother with it as benefit might be very small or non-existent. As for local property tax, that has actually gone up for wind farms, and property tax is a major attraction for counties to accept wind farms. New wind turbines are very often large (up to 300 metres tall) and cost-effectiviness has gone up big-time.
That said, in recent years many projects have been torpedoed by local resistance, particularly in Lapland and Eastern Finland where tourism industry is major employer. Also, military prevents most of the wind farms near eastern border as they disturb radar coverage.
  • 0

#1103 Yama

Yama

    Finntroll

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,014 posts

Posted 15 November 2019 - 0633 AM

The West needs to devote its entire GDP and accumulated resources to return to a pre-white occupied/ influenced condition.

Nobody's demanding that, but hey, lets retort to strawman arguments when we no longer have real ones, right?


You clearly don't realize that your complaints about new ecological diversities imply just this. Part of the cognitive dissonance in the climate and environmental movement.


Of course they don't imply that. Nobody is demanding that ALL wood harvesting must stop forever. My point was simply that current situation in Europe and North America is not very good example for Amazon. Just because we have lots of trees here doesn't mean we have that much real forest, as weird as that might sound.
What Brazil needs is not people staying or reverting back to Stone age (although if some tribes want to stay isolated and left alone, let them). Problem with Brazil is people practicing medieval land use methods with modern era population densities. Solution is to offer them more modern livelihoods, not hope that after further 100 years of slashing & burning they have amassed enough wealth to enter modern economy.
  • 0

#1104 lucklucky

lucklucky

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,721 posts

Posted 16 November 2019 - 0854 AM

In footage, i am seeing very dense Australian forests...

 

 

 

https://www.dailymai...esearchers.html

 

Dailymail link to irritate progressives...

 

 

If this happened today many of "experts" and many of progressives would say it is because "capitalist climate change" which just show the "science" behind it  https://en.wikipedia...arcellus'_flood


  • 0

#1105 NickM

NickM

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,268 posts

Posted 16 November 2019 - 1540 PM

In footage, i am seeing very dense Australian forests...

 

 

 

https://www.dailymai...esearchers.html

 

Dailymail link to irritate progressives...

 

 

If this happened today many of "experts" and many of progressives would say it is because "capitalist climate change" which just show the "science" behind it  https://en.wikipedia...arcellus'_flood

 

a margin story about Sofia Ritchie (Lionel's daughter) poncing about in a bikini....


  • 0

#1106 lucklucky

lucklucky

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,721 posts

Posted 17 November 2019 - 0815 AM

...evidence of Global Warming then? ;-)


  • 0

#1107 sunday

sunday

    Bronze-age right-wing delusional retard

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,032 posts

Posted 21 November 2019 - 0404 AM

Interesting scientific report published in Nature on the influence of solar activity, and Sun orbit, on Earth temperature. The model seems to explain the historical warm and cold periods.

Recently discovered long-term oscillations of the solar background magnetic field associated with double dynamo waves generated in inner and outer layers of the Sun indicate that the solar activity is heading in the next three decades (2019–2055) to a Modern grand minimum similar to Maunder one. On the other hand, a reconstruction of solar total irradiance suggests that since the Maunder minimum there is an increase in the cycle-averaged total solar irradiance (TSI) by a value of about 1–1.5 Wm−2 closely correlated with an increase of the baseline (average) terrestrial temperature. In order to understand these two opposite trends, we calculated the double dynamo summary curve of magnetic field variations backward one hundred thousand years allowing us to confirm strong oscillations of solar activity in regular (11 year) and recently reported grand (350–400 year) solar cycles caused by actions of the double solar dynamo. In addition, oscillations of the baseline (zero-line) of magnetic field with a period of 1950 ± 95 years (a super-grand cycle) are discovered by applying a running averaging filter to suppress large-scale oscillations of 11 year cycles. Latest minimum of the baseline oscillations is found to coincide with the grand solar minimum (the Maunder minimum) occurred before the current super-grand cycle start. Since then the baseline magnitude became slowly increasing towards its maximum at 2600 to be followed by its decrease and minimum at ~3700. These oscillations of the baseline solar magnetic field are found associated with a long-term solar inertial motion about the barycenter of the solar system and closely linked to an increase of solar irradiance and terrestrial temperature in the past two centuries. This trend is anticipated to continue in the next six centuries that can lead to a further natural increase of the terrestrial temperature by more than 2.5 °C by 2600.

 
41598_2019_45584_Fig3_HTML.png

Top plot: the close-up view of the oscillations of the baseline magnetic field (dark blue curve) in the current and past millennia with a minimum occurring during Maunder Minimum (MM). The irradiance curve (magenta line) presented from Krivova and Solanki27,28 overplotted on the summary curve of magnetic field (light blue curve)6. Note the irradiance curve is slightly reduced in magnitude in the years 0–1400 to avoid messy curves. The dark rectangle indicates the position of MM coinciding with the minimum of the current baseline curve and the minimum of the solar irradiance27,28. The scale of the baseline variations are shown on the left hand side of Y axis, the scale of the summary curve - on the right hand side. Bottom plot: variations of the Earth temperature for the past 140 years derived by Akasofu26 with the solid dark line showing the baseline increase of the temperature, blue and red areas show natural oscillations of this temperature caused by combined terrestrial causes and solar activity. The increase of terrestrial temperature is defined by 0.5 °C per 100 years26.


 
https://www.nature.c...598-019-45584-3

PDF

Edited by sunday, 21 November 2019 - 0406 AM.

  • 0

#1108 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,242 posts

Posted 21 November 2019 - 1043 AM

 

Its a shame the airlines dont display this kind of forward thinking really.

 

As for climate change, it doesnt really matter a damn whether we believe in it or not. My father didnt believe he had cancer, but it still killed him.

 

People thought that lightning was a tool of the devil because it always struck high buildings (like church steeples), started fires and killed people. Just because you see an action doesn't mean you rightly know the cause. Trying to wash yourself in grace to avoid being struck by lightning while poncing around on a tor during a rain storm isn't exactly rational or informed, no matter HOW much you think bolts from the sky are caused by the devil. 


  • 0

#1109 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,242 posts

Posted 21 November 2019 - 1045 AM

I think the bits with the solar irradiance, coronal ejecta, magnetic field interactions, input of hard radiation and it's effect on cloud formation all create a set of variables and complex interrelationships that the warmists have not yet reasonably accounted for in their various models. For one, I think they discount magnetic fields and solar weather as even being a factor other than solar irradiance itself.

 

I've had a feeling about this for more than 10 years looking at various bits of literature, from the astonishment of US weather researchers looking at clear effects after 9/11 and the new information of solar weather trends. 


Edited by rmgill, 21 November 2019 - 1047 AM.

  • 0

#1110 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,583 posts

Posted 21 November 2019 - 1047 AM

 

 

Its a shame the airlines dont display this kind of forward thinking really.

 

As for climate change, it doesnt really matter a damn whether we believe in it or not. My father didnt believe he had cancer, but it still killed him.

 

People thought that lightning was a tool of the devil because it always struck high buildings (like church steeples), started fires and killed people. Just because you see an action doesn't mean you rightly know the cause. Trying to wash yourself in grace to avoid being struck by lightning while poncing around on a tor during a rain storm isn't exactly rational or informed, no matter HOW much you think bolts from the sky are caused by the devil. 

 

 

Yes, and people thought smoking was good for you one time as well. Look, there is a Doctor who smokes. Must be good for you, right?


  • 0

#1111 lucklucky

lucklucky

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,721 posts

Posted 21 November 2019 - 1422 PM

is that even an argument?


  • 0

#1112 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,242 posts

Posted 21 November 2019 - 1728 PM

Sure, you can justify anything with Dr Who because the writers can make ANYTHING up. 


  • 0

#1113 DKTanker

DKTanker

    1strdhit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,790 posts

Posted 21 November 2019 - 1746 PM

Interesting scientific report published in Nature on the influence of solar activity, and Sun orbit, on Earth temperature. The model seems to explain the historical warm and cold periods.
 

Heretic.  BLASPHEMER!!!!!  :angry2:  :angry2:  :angry2:


  • 0

#1114 NickM

NickM

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,268 posts

Posted 21 November 2019 - 1802 PM

...evidence of Global Warming then? ;-)

 

Given who she is and who she's 'involved' with, it tells me there's lotsa stupid newspaper stories and stupid readers.


  • 0

#1115 lucklucky

lucklucky

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,721 posts

Posted 21 November 2019 - 1948 PM

ah...

 

the thing that is more strange about "climate science" is how scientists follow a path with just a couple variables. What if there are 30, 100 significant variables? many of variables are past history of climate we don't know how much in relative terms are their impact.


  • 0

#1116 sunday

sunday

    Bronze-age right-wing delusional retard

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,032 posts

Posted 21 November 2019 - 2001 PM

ah...
 
the thing that is more strange about "climate science" is how scientists follow a path with just a couple variables. What if there are 30, 100 significant variables? many of variables are past history of climate we don't know how much in relative terms are their impact.


More often than not, there could be found a quite strong correlation between an effect and a handful of variables.
  • 0

#1117 Mobius

Mobius

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,894 posts

Posted 22 November 2019 - 1001 AM

 

 
41598_2019_45584_Fig3_HTML.png

Top plot: the close-up view of the oscillations of the baseline magnetic field (dark blue curve) in the current and past millennia with a minimum occurring during Maunder Minimum (MM). The irradiance curve (magenta line) presented from Krivova and Solanki27,28 overplotted on the summary curve of magnetic field (light blue curve)6. Note the irradiance curve is slightly reduced in magnitude in the years 0–1400 to avoid messy curves. The dark rectangle indicates the position of MM coinciding with the minimum of the current baseline curve and the minimum of the solar irradiance27,28. The scale of the baseline variations are shown on the left hand side of Y axis, the scale of the summary curve - on the right hand side. Bottom plot: variations of the Earth temperature for the past 140 years derived by Akasofu26 with the solid dark line showing the baseline increase of the temperature, blue and red areas show natural oscillations of this temperature caused by combined terrestrial causes and solar activity. The increase of terrestrial temperature is defined by 0.5 °C per 100 years26.


 
https://www.nature.c...598-019-45584-3

PDF

 

It says Natural Fluctuations.  Fluctuations of what?   Temperatures?   World temperatures US temperatures?    It can't be US temperatures because the 1930s was the peak temperatures in the past 100 years and the last 20 were lower so it shows fake data.  Even when it tries to lay the cause on something other than CO2.

USclimate.jpg


Edited by Mobius, 22 November 2019 - 1023 AM.

  • 0

#1118 sunday

sunday

    Bronze-age right-wing delusional retard

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,032 posts

Posted 22 November 2019 - 1114 AM

Those are Earth temperatures, not US. The natural fluctuations chart is from the Akasofu paper, available here. Akasofu shows the evolution of temperature since the Little Ice Age, and hypothesizes some explanations. Zharkova's paper, the one I linked on my post, puts forward a physical explanation for that evolution.
 
Abstract of Akasofu paper:
 

A number of published papers and openly available data on sea level changes, glacier retreat, freezing/break-up dates of rivers, sea ice retreat, tree-ring observations, ice cores and changes of the cosmic-ray intensity, from the year 1000 to the present, are studied to examine how the Earth has recovered from the Little Ice Age (LIA). We learn that the recovery from the LIA has proceeded continuously, roughly in a linear manner, from 1800-1850 to the present. The rate of the recovery in terms of temperature is about 0.5°C/100 years and thus it has important implications for understanding the present global warming. It is suggested on the basis of a much longer period covering that the Earth is still in the process of recovery from the LIA; there is no sign to indicate the end of the recovery before 1900. Cosmic-ray intensity data show that solar activity was related to both the LIA and its recovery. The multi-decadal oscillation of a period of 50 to 60 years was superposed on the linear change; it peaked in 1940 and 2000, causing the halting of warming temporarily after 2000. These changes are natural changes, and in order to determine the contribution of the manmade greenhouse effect, there is an urgent need to identify them correctly and accurately and remove them from the present global warming/cooling trend.


  • 0

#1119 Mobius

Mobius

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,894 posts

Posted 22 November 2019 - 1258 PM

 

Those are Earth temperatures, not US. The natural fluctuations chart is from the Akasofu paper, available here. Akasofu shows the evolution of temperature since the Little Ice Age, and hypothesizes some explanations. Zharkova's paper, the one I linked on my post, puts forward a physical explanation for that evolution.
 
Abstract of Akasofu paper:
 

A number of published papers and openly available data on sea level changes, glacier retreat, freezing/break-up dates of rivers, sea ice retreat, tree-ring observations, ice cores and changes of the cosmic-ray intensity, from the year 1000 to the present, are studied to examine how the Earth has recovered from the Little Ice Age (LIA). We learn that the recovery from the LIA has proceeded continuously, roughly in a linear manner, from 1800-1850 to the present. The rate of the recovery in terms of temperature is about 0.5°C/100 years and thus it has important implications for understanding the present global warming. It is suggested on the basis of a much longer period covering that the Earth is still in the process of recovery from the LIA; there is no sign to indicate the end of the recovery before 1900. Cosmic-ray intensity data show that solar activity was related to both the LIA and its recovery. The multi-decadal oscillation of a period of 50 to 60 years was superposed on the linear change; it peaked in 1940 and 2000, causing the halting of warming temporarily after 2000. These changes are natural changes, and in order to determine the contribution of the manmade greenhouse effect, there is an urgent need to identify them correctly and accurately and remove them from the present global warming/cooling trend.

 

They are trying to explain away why there is no warming (or very little when the data is faked) in the last 20 years .  The article really doesn't indicate what the warming is in terms of.  What is it?  Total world temperature?  They cherry pick a lot of local events that show some sort of warming.  But to prove that we need every glacier not just some otherwise it may show some areas are warming and others are cooling.  Tale for example Greenland.  Some glaciers are shrinking and others are growing.  


  • 0

#1120 lucklucky

lucklucky

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,721 posts

Posted 22 November 2019 - 1429 PM

 

ah...
 
the thing that is more strange about "climate science" is how scientists follow a path with just a couple variables. What if there are 30, 100 significant variables? many of variables are past history of climate we don't know how much in relative terms are their impact.


More often than not, there could be found a quite strong correlation between an effect and a handful of variables.

 

 

What is the effect of ants, termites and plankton on climate?  we can make a list of dozens of potential variables.

And we even have the past, because in climate the past also matters to what we have today, and we will have tomorrow.

 

.


Edited by lucklucky, 22 November 2019 - 1434 PM.

  • 0