When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

Void · 2022-12-04 20:31:33

That is impressive materials. Keep in mind that water vapor is a very potent greenhouse gas. Methane is a problem, but life very likely exists to eat it whenever it can, and then so producing organic mass for its body and also CO2.

I do appreciate that data. It shows that the evaporation surfaces are increasing. More evaporation surfaces and so then more water vapor into the atmosphere. And water vapor is a stronger greenhouse effect than CO2.

So, that is interesting indeed.

But more water vapor means more precipitation, and more precipitation means more erosion which causes nutrients to go into the ocean, which will stimulate photosynthesis, which will sequester Carbon in the deep ocean waters over time.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2022-12-04 20:32:50)

SpaceNut · 2022-12-04 20:47:41

I read the article as showing where the rain is falling which evaporated from the oceans that supported life to out gas in the lakes but what it did not tell me is how much rain is falling in the oceans where it just dilutes the sea water saltiness.

Void · 2022-12-05 11:02:26

Quote:

I read the article as showing where the rain is falling which evaporated from the oceans that supported life to out gas in the lakes but what it did not tell me is how much rain is falling in the oceans where it just dilutes the sea water saltiness.

Well, it will do so some. In reality that will fertilize the seas as well. Lighning fixes Nitrogen, I believe, and raindrops have to form on a nucleus, which could be dust with iron in it.

So, more rain may increase photosynthesis.

The salt of the ocean is the salt of the ocean. In fact, an input of fresh water can make it easier for organisms to function. In the dead sea, it is mostly after a rain that algae will bloom.

Done.

Calliban · 2022-12-05 11:53:06

We know from simple arithmatic, that human activities are increasing atmospheric CO2 levels. And we know from experiment that CO2 molecules absorb certain frequencies of infrared light. This is the basis behind radiative forcing calculations. This sort of global warming model is simple, because it is linear and does not need to incorporate feedback effects. But beyond that, all predictions of human induced global warming are based on models of the Earth's climatic system that are extremely complex, with both positive and negative feedback effects that are very difficult to quantify. We simply don't know with any realistic certainty how these systems will react to large increases in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations.

In many ways, the uncertainty is part of the problem. If you cannot quantify the risk imposed by activities, then you cannot make informed decisions. We do not know how far we are from tipping points that may magnify warming effects. All we can really say with any certainty is that rising CO2 levels are a potential problem. When you combine this problem with the problem of fossil fuel depletion, which is far more easily quantified and is a definite present-day problem, it begins to look increasingly prudent to hasten our transition away from fossil energy.

The problem is that the solutions being offered are less than practical. Back in the 1970s, the Green energy movement was a solution looking for a problem. They were obsessed with the idea of transitioning humanity to what they considered to be 'natural' energy sources like the sun and wind, essentially because they found the idea aesthetically appealing. But they had the problem that intermittent renewables were entirely impractical as energy sources, because of low power density and intermittent supply. There are no technological solutions that can work around these weaknesses, so they needed the threat of a civilisation ending catastrophe to justify pouring resources into technologies that were otherwise weak and unappealing.

They jumped onto the concept of anthropogenic climate change, making all sorts of horrifying claims about what it could do, because they needed to find a problem that justified the need to spend a fortune on green technologies. The conservative 'Right' then reached the equally dodgy conclusion that ACC must be a hoax, because the Left had built a non-sensical cult around it. Both movements are wrong in their conclusions. Just because ACC is a potential problem, does not mean that intermittent RE scams should be pushed as the solution just because idealogues find that idea aesthetically pleasing. Just because Left leaning lunatics find it convenient to milk ACC, does not mean that the concept itself MUST be a complete hoax. Both groups have reached illogical conclusions on this issue.

Last edited by Calliban (2022-12-05 12:00:16)

Void · 2022-12-05 12:22:19

Is it possible that humans in groups just need an issue of some kind? Some outlets for prehistoric stone age adaptations?

I think that that is part of the problem.

But I agree that new energy sources are likely to be a good thing.

As for CO2, I am not all that worried about it anymore. My experiences with process control, now make me think that the Earth is self-correcting to a very large degree, even if humans are dumping Carbon into the atmosphere.

Another social process that I believe may be at the roots of the turmoil, is the uneasiness of the vertical people. It is my belief that the historical pattern continues. There have been and continue to be people who cannot comprehend and do not like an industrial society.

They feel that people who are not in the ruling class need to be made into peasants, to be available to be less than them, and to possibly be a pool of servants.

So, this is not only about the climate problems that may or may not exist, but also about them feeling like they are in charge.

This was the historical relationship of the British system. The south was dominated by estate holders, who wanted nothing to do with industrial activity, and felt it was dirty and resented the technological people who gained wealth from industrial activity.

To be in their "In" crowd, you needed to have an estate, belong to the Church of England, and of course have the type of education that involved dead languages. This left the northern peoples largely out. Those then not being allowed to be in the in crowd or to go to the dead language's educations, and not owning estates, created their own technical schools, and so they ended up owning the industrial revolution for a time.

A parallel exists in the USA. The north actually fell during the great depression. Perhaps it was a good thing. But the continuing crushing of the so called "Rust Belt" with Kissinger, Nixon, Reagan, more or less. The deals with OPEC and China. Brilliant, and perhaps saving the nation, but crushing a large part of the north.

In actually due to Shale (Which forces tried to suppress), and the breakdown of supply chains, North America is re-industrializing.

But it is fully likely that the "Farmers" will still resent money that comes from industry. With them it is not about making the pie bigger, it is about keeping all of the pie for themselves. I am not so concerned, as I feel that their time has come and gone. Rather, I try to identify powerful forces which may seek to act against industrial activity.

And it is obvious it would not be in the interests of the Russians for Shale to have prospered, so they apparently were behind some of the activities against shale in this country.

Similarly, given a chance those countries which took up industrialization after the damaging of the "Rust Belt" might seek to influence developments here.

So, foreign powers might use the "Environmental Movement" as a tool. So, they are to be among the usual suspects.

And then there are the young and confused, who can be manipulated.

At least here in this country, the idea of being white collar, mostly involved being in the petty ruling class, above the blue collar.
It did involve verbal and accounting skills to a large extent, and I suppose the ability to manage as well, further up.

Blue Collar was a good place to put misfits and immigrants who did not have the proper language skills.

It did work out for a lot of people in the 20th Century industrial age. I am not complaining.

But now, computers are taking over a lot of the linguistic skills and I suppose accounting.

And technology is perhaps more sophisticated.

But a lot of the young are being trained to do silly work in the white-collar areas. That is not going to work out so well for them.

But they want to be ruling class, and very likely resent technological ranks as those who don't belong. And young people sort of want to party and not be responsible, so it is not so surprising that they would adopt arrogant attitudes and then bite the technological hand that makes their cushy lives possible.

And then they want to take loans and shirk responsibility, making the industrial classes and the poor pay their loans off.

So, no, they might think that they are the COOL or IN people, I just think that most of them are JERKS.

Done.

Oh, I need to explain the farmer thing. I do not refer to modern technological farmers, rather, there seem to have been 3 significant groups that make up what we call Europeans. One of them was the farmers. One was hunter gatherers, and then the ones from the steppes.

The problem with the farmers is that although the helped to get us here, they are a stagnation of humanity. They form vertical hierarchies, which are eternally circular in social development. And under Constantine, I believe they intentionally tried to make everyone not in the ruling class dirt poor, peasants.

It is perhaps only that the industrial age arrived and access to foreign lands occurred especially North America, that they were set back on their heels for a bit. Otherwise, I feel we might have remained in the dark ages.

The Arab world may also have followed a similar path. They were very scientific and a bit more tolerant, up to the 13th century, and then it is my belief that they had destroyed the talented people that they had conquered. The Roman Empire and its aftermath seem to have done much the same thing.

Domination is Satanic, and the results are the downfall of humanity.

I do not rejoice in seeing efforts made to impoverish the masses and to sink them into ignorance.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2022-12-05 12:53:19)

Calliban · 2022-12-05 13:58:55

Void, I think you have hit the nail on the head. There is a reason why the founding fathers of America drafted the American constitution in the way that they did. It emphasises the rights of the individual over the state and the responsibility of citizens and goes out of its way to impose limitations on state power. It is not the mob rule of pure democracy. Anyone familiar with classical Greek history understands how 'democracy' can end up becoming every bit as stifling to human freedom as the tyranny of an all powerful aristocracy. These men had travelled to America in order to escape the restrictive conditions of aristocratic Britain. The seeds of the American revolution were sown in Britain, by an aristocratic class that drew income from land and hereditary title and afforded no opportunities to men that were not already part of the overclass. The men that escaped to America did so to flee these conditions and there was no appetite amongst colonists for seeing a continuance of aristocratic traditions.

The majority of British people are no more free today than they were in 1776. We still live under an arrogant aristocracy. The sort of rights and freedoms that are engrained in the US constitution are alien to British subjects. I wonder sometimes why I continue to stay here. Were it not for family ties, I would have emigrated to the US, Canada or Australia, some 20 years ago. You can see the value of the American constitution when you compare the treatment of citizens in the US, to the sort of dictatorial treatment that the citizens of Canada, Australia and Britain have to endure from their own governments. The treatment of truckers in Canada. The dictatorial treatment of the unvaccinated by the Australian government. The complete absence of free speech in Britain. The ironically named Democrats have done their best to vandalise American freedom over the past 25 years. But the constitutional republic still provides a model for how Martian government can be structured.

Last edited by Calliban (2022-12-05 14:14:28)

Void · 2022-12-05 19:41:20

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alistair_Cooke

Told us that about Brittan on a TV program, and I transferred the idea to North America.

I don't want to say too much, but it is my feeling that the treasure that America inherited from the UK and Ireland, (And of course others), may have been left over genes from the Hunter Gatherers who are of interest to me, and it is also possible that some residual of the peoples in the steppes come in with northern migrants.

It is kind of mean to assign stagnation to London, but I also assign it to Dublin, Paris, Rome, Athens, Cairo, (And something else).

Not that they are not centers of culture and even scientific invention, but the main structures are all about dominating an area around them, and that by force, by trampling down the local peons. The rulers of such a power will be jealous of rivals, and will either seize any rival power, or kill off the inventive who may derive power from creativity. Posturing before the high power might spare your life for a bit, but you can kiss the survival of your kind goodby eventually.

So, I like to think that some of the refuge genes ended up here.

Hunter Gatherers: They had red or yellow skin and all of them had blue eyes.
https://phys.org/news/2019-03-europe-hu … t-dna.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hunter-Gatherer
https://www.ancient-origins.net/human-o … mon-021813

Not that nothing good came from the Near East, but it is my notion that they tended to be rigid in social structure and likely slowly exterminated the "Weak" (Other skills than slavery), with vertical power.

At least that is my current thinking. I am willing to modify is with more information.

Some of the "Demons" have gotten here of course, but there is still room for the undesirables. The timing of things is against the "Demons" anyway.

If you had as much "North" as we do, your country would include the Nordic countries. Don't try it.

I don't know as much about the people from the Steppes, I guess perhaps the Slavs, and perhaps the Nordics might have had associations.
https://russianlife.com/stories/online/ … n-steppes/

A hunter gatherer "Lola": https://www.livescience.com/ancient-che … -lola.html

However interesting that is to connect it to the topic here, I guess I blame the "Demons" for trying to deindustrialize us, to take power from us. It is highly suspected.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2022-12-05 20:07:17)

SpaceNut · 2023-01-20 21:42:45

Mexico bans solar geoengineering tests after US startup's unsanctioned 'science project'

In 1991, the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines sent 20 million metric tons of sulfur aerosols into the atmosphere. Once in the air, the particulates reflected incoming sunlight back into space, resulting in a noticeable cooldown in global temperatures over the next two years and reigniting a debate about the possibility of purposefully replicating the process to combat global warming.

More than just sulfur was put into the air.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-02-23 10:34:46

The former deputy assistant secretary for spent fuel and waste disposition in the Office of Nuclear Energy, trans nonbinary cross dresser drag queen transexual something or other.

Maybe they had some diversity quota box to tick off?

Fashion designer who lost luggage at airport claims Sam Brinton wore her clothing
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl … thing.html

Climate change data specifically for Niagara ‘alarming’
https://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca/new … rming.html

2022 updates to the temperature records

https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/a … e-records/

Another January, another annual data point.
As in years past, the annual rollout of the GISTEMP, NOAA, HadCRUT and Berkeley Earth analyses of the surface temperature record have brought forth many stories about the long term trends and specific events of 2022 – mostly focused on the impacts of the (ongoing) La Niña event and the litany of weather extremes (UK and elsewhere having record years, intense rainfall and flooding, Hurricane Ian, etc. etc.).
But there are a few things that don’t get covered much in the mainstream stories, and so we can dig into them a bit here.
What influence does ENSO really have?
It’s well known (among readers here, I assume), that ENSO influences the interannual variability of the climate system and the annual mean temperatures. El Niño events enhance global warming (as in 1998, 2010, 2016 etc.) and La Niña events (2011, 2018, 2021, 2022 etc.) impart a slight cooling

SpaceNut · 2023-02-26 18:43:14

The earths water is locked up in fresh and what is termed unusable, but I think that is misleading as we know how to desalinate it.
So did the sea levels rise and we did not notice it since it is said to be just 1% that is fresh that is in the lakes and rivers that cover earth for our drinking needs.

How Much Water is There on Earth?

About 71 percent of the Earth's surface is water-covered, and the oceans hold about 96.5 percent of all Earth's water. Water also exists in the air as water vapor, in rivers and lakes, in icecaps and glaciers, in the ground as soil moisture and in aquifers, and even in you and your dog.

Does that mean the air is holding onto more than it once did?

https://www.usgs.gov/special-topics/wat … rths-water

SpaceNut · 2023-04-02 20:49:09

The Greenland Ice Sheet Is Getting Close to a Melting Point of No Return AA19oDc1.img?w=534&h=205&m=6

A new study identifies two of these tipping points in relation to the Greenland ice sheet (GIS), a 1.7-million-square-kilometer (660,200-square-mile) frozen expanse that's the second largest body of ice in the world after the Antarctic ice sheet.
Based on the latest models, releasing 1,000 gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere will completely melt the southern region of the ice sheet. Go up to 2,500 gigatons, and almost the entire ice sheet would be wiped away permanently.
he study suggests that even sticking to the 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) temperature rise above pre-industrial levels mandated in the Paris climate agreement won't be enough to stop the GIS from going past the point where it can't fully recover.
We're looking at a long-term sea level rise of 1.8 meters (5.9 feet) with 1,000 gigatons of carbon pumped into the atmosphere and a huge 6.9 meter (22.6 feet) rise with 2,500 gigatons of carbon, the researchers report.

kbd512 · 2023-04-02 23:33:04

"We cannot continue carbon emissions at the same rate for much longer without risking crossing the tipping points," says Höning.

This is great news, since we don't have a "carbon emissions" problem. I see no fine black powder atop that Greenland ice sheet, so we should be good to go. I was worried there for a moment.

SpaceNut · 2023-04-03 19:21:56

I think that a rise in CO2 would also indicate from poorly burned fuels a rise in Soot as well. So just how far back in time were this connected?
Published: 15 January 2013, Soot a major contributor to climate change in fact its a x2 factor to the effect of warming.

How much does black carbon contribute to climate warming? New understanding of modeling soot in the atmosphere underscores the importance of reducing carbon emissions

Black carbon's absorption of solar radiation is comparable to that of carbon dioxide. Yet black carbon only remains in the atmosphere for days to weeks, while carbon dioxide can remain in the atmosphere for hundreds of years.

Must be all that coal dust in the air that is blacking that white stuff called ice and snow.

U.S. Energy-Related Carbon Dioxide Emissions, 2021

kbd512 · 2023-04-04 18:25:32

SpaceNut,

If that's the case, then we can stop burning coal to make the steel for wind turbine towers, the microchips for EVs, the Silicon for photovoltaics, and the plastics and synthetic fibers for wind turbine blades. We burn an awful lot of coal to make those things. We can solve that problem in days to weeks, according to your link.

SpaceNut · 2023-04-04 19:49:36

Kbd512 coal burning does create soot but so do all of these other things; internal-combustion engines, power-plant boilers, hog-fuel boilers, ship boilers, central steam-heat boilers, waste incineration, local field burning, house fires, forest fires, fireplaces, and furnaces to which many do not burn coal at all.

Which Types of Energy Source Produces the Most Pollution?

kbd512 · 2023-04-05 02:44:44

SpaceNut,

An energy system which requires 10 times to 100 times more materials to merely exist, will also require burning 10 times to 100 times more coal, oil, and gas to create. No other energy sources presently exist to create this new energy system. All the fear porn in the world isn't changing that simple fact. Bite your nails, shake your fist at the sky, curse the world and the people in it, but the solutions coming from the same people pushing the fear porn involve burning vastly more hydrocarbon fuels.

I can't rationalize that, because it looks facially absurd to me.

Can you come up with a plausible rationale behind doing something like that?

Calliban · 2023-04-05 03:15:38

Attached is a link to a pdf copy of 'Plentiful Energy' which tells the story of the Integral Fast Reactor.
http://www.thesciencecouncil.com/pdfs/P … Energy.pdf

This technology was developed over four decades at the Argonne national laboratory. It had developed to the point where it was close to commercialisation when it was cancelled by the Clinton led Democrats as one of his first official acts in office. This was politically very cheap for him, but hugely costly to the American nation and indeed the entire world. The left wing fanatics in the Democratic party did not want to see a sustainable nuclear power programme that would have invalidated the need for further funding of renewable energy programmes. So they destroyed it. Like most of the things that they do, it was motivated by political ideology rather than any practical consideration.

That single act of vandalism cost us what would have been our most powerful tool in decarbonising the global economy. The IFR was a variable breeding ratio fast reactor concept. It used metallic uranium plutonium zirconium alloy fuel, with a pyro fuel processing technique that removed fission products whilst recycling all actinides back into the fuel. This would have largely eliminatedthe need for long term geological disposal of nuclear waste. It would also have allowed extraction of 100% of the energy content of uranium. It would have accomplished this in a very power dense reactor which could have competed economically with light water reactors. Quite litterally, it would have provided plentiful, cheap and almost limitless energy. Mineral shortages would not have impeded IFR expansion due to its much greater power density when compared to renewable energy sources.

No wonder the far left wanted to vandalise it. Those same people are right now attempting to imprison a patriotic president, precisely because he was a patriotic president. There are technical solutions to our problems. The problem is that we live in clown world, where those in charge work against us.

Last edited by Calliban (2023-04-05 03:17:31)

tahanson43206 · 2023-04-05 06:33:46

For Calliban re #667

Thank you for the good news this excellent book is available for free in pdf form! You recommended the book previously. I ordered a paperback edition.

My copy arrived 2021/08/03 and I read much of it closely, and scanned the rest.

In particular, I noted the appointment of a gent named Milt Shaw from Admiral Rickover's staff to head the program in 1964. According to the authors of the book, this appointment led to destructive results. Now that the pdf copy is available, everyone in the forum and anyone who is not a member and sees your post will be able to see the history.

I just asked Google about the history of Milton Shaw in 1964, and it came back with another book reference:

I'll add the snippet in a moment.

It seems to me that focus for the misfortune that befell the US nuclear development program should be more narrowly focused than blanket sweeping condemnation of entire classes of people.

Milton Shaw: And the decline of the American Nuclear ...https://energyfromthorium.com › 2008/09/23 › milton-...
Sep 23, 2008 — When Milton Shaw went to the AEC in 1964 he already had a well-formed set of beliefs, attitudes and professional skills.

I note that there is a Google citation for a Professor Milton Shaw who lived at the same time and is NOT the same person as the one who came from Admiral Rickover's staff. Professor Milton Shaw's biography is filled with praise for a long and productive life.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2023-04-05 06:44:39

https://energyfromthorium.com/2008/09/2 … blishment/

The history cited at the link in the post just above includes this text:

After I wrote this account of Milton Shaw’s career, I learned more about the role of Hyman Rickover in the story. Shaw seems to have Rickover’s creature. Shaw’s abusive and confrontational management style appears to have been a conscious emulation. However Rickover appears to have worked to bring his victims back on board after he racked them over the coals. Shaw, in contrast left his victims out to dry, and thus he collected more and more enemies. Shaw’s attitude toward nuclear safety tracks too closely with Rickover to be an accident. Other aspects of Shaw’s career are consistent with Rickover’s attitudes. I suspect that Rickover and Shaw may have been in close and frequent communication during Shaw’s AEC years, but I will leave that for future historians to test.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2023-04-05 18:55:17

It was April 10, 1963, the Thresher would sink just 200 miles from where it had undergone repair work just off from on sea trials testing near Cape Cod following the 1963 sinking of the attack submarine. Newly Declassified Report Shows How Rickover Worked to Explain Radiation Risk from USS Thresher Loss

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-05-19 04:32:45

He / She / It was on the run?

Ex-Biden Non-Binary Nuclear Official Arrested for Being 'Fugitive from Justice'
https://www.ibtimes.sg/sam-brinton-ex-b … rges-70270

“Genderfluid” ex-Biden official Sam Brinton arrested
https://en.protothema.gr/genderfluid-ex … f-justice/

East African fashion designer says She called the cops on Biden's non-binary ex-nuclear guru Sam Brinton in latest arrest
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl … rrest.html

Non-binary ex-Biden official Sam Brinton arrested again as 'fugitive from justice'
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/non-bi … ve-justice

There are qualifications, Kansas State University (B.S.) Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.Sc.) lobbying for updated regulations so nuclear waste but maybe took a lot of drugs at some 'parade' or clearly something went weird with the brain over the years.

In 2022, Brinton became deputy assistant secretary for spent fuel and waste disposition in DOE's Office of Nuclear Energy, serving in the Office of Spent Fuel and Waste Disposition

https://www.exchangemonitor.com/doe-emp … ar-energy/

Brinton would ask to be addressed by special 'pronouns'.

Sam Brinton is a gender fluid human which considers "non binary" titles

According to a 2017 Washington Blade local events article, Brinton resided in Washington, D.C., was a singer in the Gay Men's Chorus of Washington, D.C., and was engaged to Kevin Rieck

https://www.washingtonblade.com/2017/11 … angirardi/

Brinton was arrested for stealing women's clothing and luggage at the Minneapolis, Minnesota Airport, a felony and faces 5 years in prison.

A week later, Brinton was charged a second time for theft at the Harry Reid Airport in Las Vegas, Nevada.

Latest Sport To Face a Transgender Controversy: Disc Golf
https://www.nysun.com/article/latest-sp … -disc-golf

Biden proposal on transgender sports bans sparks state resistance
https://www.newsnationnow.com/on-balanc … -title-ix/

Guardian Opinion Article on Climate

'Biden is still not doing nearly enough about the climate crisis'

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr … sis-voters

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2023-05-19 04:48:23)

kbd512 · 2023-05-19 15:58:31

Mars_B4_Moon,

Sam Brinton was charged because he's a thief who continually chooses to engage in criminal activity against random people in random places. I don't care why or for what purpose, nor do other sane and rational people. President Biden is an Alzheimer's patient who doesn't know what planet he's on, so little wonder that everyone in his administration is either a total screwball or an evil clown. Whenever I see public photos of Sam Brinton, he reminds me of Pennywise- another evil clown who goes around terrorizing people. I don't know enough about fashion to judge who wears a better costume, but at the end of the day they both look like what they are- evil clowns.

SpaceNut · 2023-06-10 16:47:07

Climate change warning signs started in the 1800s. Here's what humanity knew and when.

Not much of a time line.

Concerns about coal burning crop up early
1300s – King Edward of England bans coal burning, blaming it for thick, black smoke choking the air in London.
1700s – Coal-powered factories begin appearing in Great Britain as the first Industrial Revolution begins in Europe.
1861 – Irish physicist John Tyndall writes that water vapor and gasses such as carbon dioxide create the Earth’s greenhouse effect, trapping the Sun’s heat and keeping the planet warm.
1896 – Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius publishes a study that shows he “knows that increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will raise temperatures, and acknowledges that burning fossil fuels are a source of carbon dioxide, but stops just short of explicitly predicting man-made global warming,” said Robert Rohde, lead scientist for Berkeley Earth. Arrhenius connected the dots in his later work.
U.S. geologist Thomas Chamberlin at the University of Chicago, who studied glaciers in the Arctic, also writes about carbon dioxide’s role in regulating the Earth’s temperature.
1912 – A New Zealand newspaper warns burning coal could eventually change the climate. The piece was based on a Popular Mechanics magazine article published earlier that year that mentioned the work of Arrhenius.
1958 – Scientist C. David Keeling with the Scripps Institution of Oceanography begins direct measurements of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. In the 65 years since then, carbon dioxide concentrations have climbed from 315.98 parts per million to 423.78, a 34% increase.
1970 – Meteorologist George S. Benton at Johns Hopkins University writes "Carbon Dioxide and its Role in Climate Change" for the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. He says:
A 10% increase in carbon dioxide should result in an average temperature increase of about .3 degrees Celsius.
Some local temperatures have warmed as much as 3-4 degrees Celsius.
1974 – The Central Intelligence Agency publishes the report “A Study of Climatological Research as it Pertains to Intelligence Problems.” The agency notes detrimental global climatic change and calls for more federally funded research, saying: “It is increasingly evident that the intelligence community must understand the magnitude of international threats which occur as a function of climatic change.”
1975 – Geochemist Wallace Broecker of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory publishes a study titled: "Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?"
1977 – In a July letter to Carter, his science adviser, geophysicist Frank Press, notes:
Fossil fuel combustion has increased “at an exponential rate” over 100 years
Carbon dioxide is 12% above the pre-industrial revolution level and could grow 1.5 to 2 times that level within 60 years, increasing warning anywhere from 0.5-5 degrees Celsius
Rapid increase could be “catastrophic”
1978 – In one of the earliest references to climate change in the news media, Newsweek publishes a story by Peter Gwynne and Sharon Begley, during a tough winter, with heavy rain and mudslides in California.
The authors asked if the Earth is moving into a period of colder weather and climatologists said climate change isn’t temporary weather but what happens over decades.
“A growing number of meteorologists think that, rather than cooling, the atmosphere is actually warming up,” the story stated. “And if the world is getting warmer, the main reason is a rise in the atmosphere’s level of carbon dioxide.”
July 1980 – The Global 2000 Study Report to the President, written by a team co-led by Martha Garrett and Gerald Barney, moves the conversation about environmental challenges fully into American politics. Among its findings:
Even a 1 degree Celsius rise would make the earth’s climate warmer than in 1,000 years
A carbon dioxide-induced temperature rise is expected to be 3 or 4 times greater at the poles than in the middle latitudes. (Today, federal officials say the Arctic is warming more than twice as fast as anywhere else in the world and at an even greater pace in some locations and at some times of the year.)
December 1980 – The probable outcome of the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is “beyond human experience,” reports a sweeping study by the American Association for the Advancement of Science for the Energy Department. The report states, that CO2-triggered climate change could:
Cause floods and droughts, leading to malnutrition and famine.
"Pit nation against nation and group against group.''
Roger Revelle, former president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, says if carbon dioxide levels doubled by mid-21st century, average global temperatures would increase by 5 degrees Fahrenheit, the Associated Press reports.
1988 – James Hansen, with NASA’s Goddard Space Institute, and George Woodwell, director of the Woods Hole Research Center, tell members of the U.S. Senate’s Energy and Natural Resources committee that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are rising and responsible for increases in global average temperature and warming at higher latitudes.
1989 – The National Academy of Sciences — now led by Press, Carter's former science adviser — sends a letter to President-elect George H.W. Bush, urging him to place the threat of increasing global temperatures high on his agenda and to seek alternatives to coal, oil and other pollutants that fuel global warming.
Gleick publishes a study that notes widespread attention to concerns about how climate change and other environmental problems could affect international security and recommends responses to minimize adverse consequences.
1990 – The U.S. Navy War College presents a report to the Select Senate Committee on Intelligence, “Global Climate Change: Implications for the United States.” in what Gleick says is the first explicit acknowledgement of the potential threat of climate change to national security.
1991 – The Bush administration’s National Security Strategy of the United States mentions the climate peril twice, saying environmental concerns such as climate change and deforestation were “already contributing to political conflict.”
1997 – Members of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change adopt the Kyoto Protocol in Kyoto, Japan in December. It receives 84 signatures over the next 15 months.
1998 – The federal government declassifies data gathered by Navy submarines on Arctic sea ice thickness, information deemed essential to examining how global climate change affects ice cover.
1999 – As the millennium closes, researchers Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes reconstruct historical temperatures and suggest warming in the latter half of the century is unlike anything in at least 1,000 years. It became widely known as the hockey stick theory, for the line that shows the abrupt increase in later years.
2002 – The National Academies of Science releases the report: “Abrupt Climate Change, Inevitable Surprises.”
2003 – Abrupt climate change could pose “specific consequences to the US military,” writes retired Navy Rear Admiral Richard Pittenger and oceanographer Robert Gagosian in a piece for Defense Horizons. They say it “seems a useful exercise to contemplate the military ramifications of potential, abrupt climate changes."
2009 – U.S. Navy creates a Climate Change Task Force to recommend actions the Navy should take in response to sudden changes in the Arctic marine environment. Rear Admiral David Titley, who led the task force, later said counter arguments presented during the research “fell apart in the face of overwhelming evidence.”
By 2010, the task force releases an “Arctic Roadmap” and a Navy Climate Change roadmap. Among the statements:
Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the globe.
“The current scientific consensus indicates the Arctic may experience nearly ice free summers sometime in the 2030's.”
Climate change is "affecting military installations and access to natural resources worldwide.”
2015 – An Inside Climate News investigation reports Exxon and Exxon Mobil Corp. accurately predicted human caused global warming between 1977 and 2003 but "suppressed the information"
2019 – A Department of Defense report during the administration of President Donald Trump says dozens of bases are experiencing climate change challenges, including rising sea levels, thawing permafrost, drought and wildfires.
2021 – Department of Defense risk analysis warns “to keep the nation secure, we must tackle the existential threat of climate change. The unprecedented scale of wildfires, floods, droughts, typhoons, and other extreme weather events of recent months and years have damaged our installations and bases, constrained force readiness and operations, and contributed to instability around the world.”

Even with all of the atom bombs that we have set off we have not moved the earth orbit even a little bit so how does some one think we will be able to Moving Earth away from the sun could solve global warming, expert says

Shifting Earth about 3 million miles further away from the sun that would extend a year to 380 days, meaning we'd have to insert an extra 15 days into a calendar year somewhere.

AA1cmR7r.img?w=534&h=333&m=6

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-06-14 13:02:21

France-Germany Spat Over Nuclear Delays EU Renewables Deal Again
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles … deal-again

Germany hits out at Brussels plan to label nuclear and gas ‘green’
https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-nucl … echnology/

London Tech Week: Oliver Stone warns the world not to turn its back on nuclear power
https://au.lifestyle.yahoo.com/london-t … 25835.html
Governments need to work together on expanding the use of nuclear power in order to prevent a climate disaster

Keir Starmer says nuclear power is ‘critical part’ of UK’s energy mix
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 … energy-mix
Labour leader pledges to get stalled projects operational to boost energy security

Transgender activist no longer welcome at White House after going topless at Biden event
https://apnews.com/article/biden-transg … ec7f8b5d37

Nonbinary fmr Biden official out on bail on luggage theft charges
https://www.bizpacreview.com/2023/06/03 … s-1364782/

Biden’s former nuclear waste commissioner
accused of stealing a Tanzanian fashion designer ’s dresses from her airport luggage

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-06-18 14:54:35

Woman sues doctors for removing her breasts at 13, when she was confused by "influencers"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl … wsuit.html

Air pollution to increase without nuclear power: study

https://www.agcanada.com/weatherfarm/ai … ower-study

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2023-06-18 14:56:26)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#651 2022-12-04 20:31:33

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#652 2022-12-04 20:47:41

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#653 2022-12-05 11:02:26

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#654 2022-12-05 11:53:06

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#655 2022-12-05 12:22:19

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#656 2022-12-05 13:58:55

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#657 2022-12-05 19:41:20

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#658 2023-01-20 21:42:45

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#659 2023-02-23 10:34:46

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#660 2023-02-26 18:43:14

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#661 2023-04-02 20:49:09

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#662 2023-04-02 23:33:04

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#663 2023-04-03 19:21:56

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#664 2023-04-04 18:25:32

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#665 2023-04-04 19:49:36

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#666 2023-04-05 02:44:44

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#667 2023-04-05 03:15:38

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#668 2023-04-05 06:33:46

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#669 2023-04-05 06:44:39

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#670 2023-04-05 18:55:17

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#671 2023-05-19 04:32:45

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#672 2023-05-19 15:58:31

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#673 2023-06-10 16:47:07

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#674 2023-06-14 13:02:21

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#675 2023-06-18 14:54:35

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

Board footer