A little blast from the past.

[westwall]

I find it amusing how whether the "issue" was global cooling or global warming the tactics are the same. The same propaganda was used way back in the 1970's to try and worry the populace about the "impending Ice Age" and lo and behold it's the same players.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttLBqB0qDko&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Global Cooling: The Coming Ice Age[/ame]

 

[Tom Clancy]

There's an iceage in my freezer if that counts...

no? okay, never mind.

 

[Old Rocks]

Damn, still the same old lies. Here is the reality of what the scientists were saying in the 1970s.


http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/nas-1975.html


The 1975 US National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Report
UNDERSTANDING CLIMATE CHANGE: A program for action

 

[Old Rocks]

And again, the facts.

http://www.aiacny.org/2009/June/GLOBAL WARMING AND THE ARCHITECT- June 09.pdf

Scientific studies in the 1970's re: global cooling”
“Most predictions of an impending ice age came from the popular press (eg - Newsweek,
NY Times, National Geographic, Time Magazine). As far as peer reviewed scientific papers
in the 1970s, very few papers (7 in total) predicted global cooling. Significantly more papers
(42 in total) predicted global warming due to CO2.”

 

[Old Rocks]

Global Warming: Fiction: Scientists in the 1970s Were Predicting a Coming Ice Age

The cooling between 1940 and 1970 was likely a result of industrial pollution that produced sunlight-blocking aerosols, a phenomenon known as global dimming. As industry ramped up across the globe, much air pollution was being spewed out of smoke stacks along with carbon dioxide. This air pollution was blocking incoming sunlight much like that of a volcanic eruption and had the effect of masking the global warming that was well underway. Once clean air legislation began to pass across the globe, air pollution decreased considerably. Sulfate aerosols have declined significantly since 1970 with the Clean Air Act in the United States and similar policies in Europe. The Clean Air Act was strengthened in 1977 and 1990. According to the EPA (2008), from 1970 to 2005, total emissions of the six principal air pollutants, including particulate matter, dropped by 53% in the US. In 1975, the masked effects of trapped greenhouse gases finally started to emerge and have dominated ever since.

According to Wild, M., Ohmura, A. and Makowski, K. (2007) solar dimming was effective in masking greenhouse warming, but only up to the 1980s, when dimming gradually transformed into brightening. Since then, the uncovered greenhouse effect has revealed its full dimension, as manifested in a rapid temperature rise (+0.38.C/decade over land since mid-1980s). The solar brightening durting that time could not have superseded the greenhouse effect as main cause of global warming, since land temperatures increased by 0.8oC from 1960 to 2000, even though solar brightening did not fully outweigh solar dimming within that period.

Because of the rapid rate of industrialization of China, India, and other Asian countries in the last few decades, there is still considerable global dimming today. (Recall figure 2.9 that shows aerosols have a direct cooling effect of 0.5 ±0.4 W/m2 and an indirect cooling effect caused by clouds of 0.7 W/m2 with a range between 0.3 and 1.8 W/m2.) If these developing countries pass similar legislation, the rate of global warming will accelerate even faster.

Two important conclusions can be drawn from this data:

Human activities can cause global climate change on a relatively short time scale
Legislation can mitigate that climate change

 

[westwall]

I believe the response to that was OUCH! eh olfraud? I can allways tell when I zinged you!

 

[Old Rocks]

No, it was, oh God, there goes that damned idiot spreading disinformation around.

 

[westwall]

No, it was, oh God, there goes that damned idiot spreading disinformation around.

Hah! That's rich! Do you play the Comedy Store too?

 

[konradv]

I find it amusing how whether the "issue" was global cooling or global warming the tactics are the same. The same propaganda was used way back in the 1970's to try and worry the populace about the "impending Ice Age" and lo and behold it's the same players.

YouTube - Global Cooling: The Coming Ice Age

Same players? Now if I were a thinking man instead of a partisan hack, I'd be wondering what would have made them change their minds so fast. I can never fathom how the deniers consider this to be evidence for their side. It boggles the mind how they just run away from logic!!!

 

[westwall]

I find it amusing how whether the "issue" was global cooling or global warming the tactics are the same. The same propaganda was used way back in the 1970's to try and worry the populace about the "impending Ice Age" and lo and behold it's the same players.

YouTube - Global Cooling: The Coming Ice Age

Same players? Now if I were a thinking man instead of a partisan hack, I'd be wondering what would have made them change their minds so fast. I can never fathom how the deniers consider this to be evidence for their side. It boggles the mind how they just run away from logic!!!

How about an even baser reason for changing their minds mr. partisan hack. That being money. If you bothered to even watch the video (which I doubt as that would actually make you have to think about your position and a person who is basing their decisions on "faith" never want to hear actual facts that attack their faith now do they?) you would see that the methods that were being suggested to control the "cooling" were ridiculous and expensive and would have been funded by you guessed it the public.

The paople involved changed their minds because they saw that the trends were rising and the solar data said that the temps were going to rise and there was no panic amongst the masses. The people couldn't be made to care so there was no money coming to them.

That is why they changed their minds. But your faith won't allow you to see that simple fact.

 

[konradv]

I find it amusing how whether the "issue" was global cooling or global warming the tactics are the same. The same propaganda was used way back in the 1970's to try and worry the populace about the "impending Ice Age" and lo and behold it's the same players.

YouTube - Global Cooling: The Coming Ice Age

Same players? Now if I were a thinking man instead of a partisan hack, I'd be wondering what would have made them change their minds so fast. I can never fathom how the deniers consider this to be evidence for their side. It boggles the mind how they just run away from logic!!!

How about an even baser reason for changing their minds mr. partisan hack. That being money. If you bothered to even watch the video (which I doubt as that would actually make you have to think about your position and a person who is basing their decisions on "faith" never want to hear actual facts that attack their faith now do they?) you would see that the methods that were being suggested to control the "cooling" were ridiculous and expensive and would have been funded by you guessed it the public.

The paople involved changed their minds because they saw that the trends were rising and the solar data said that the temps were going to rise and there was no panic amongst the masses. The people couldn't be made to care so there was no money coming to them.

That is why they changed their minds. But your faith won't allow you to see that simple fact.

Why would there be any more money in one avenue of research over the other? Your criticism doesn't pass the smell test. You want us to watch poltically motivated videos, because the science and logic aren't on your side. You're a hack, because you like to dress up your arguments in science, but your logic leaves much to be desired. It certainly wouldn't hold much water in a rigorous scxientifc debate. It only works on cvertain people in venues like this, because of their pre-set ideas and your ability to dazzle them with BS that fits their bias.

 

[Trajan]

And again, the facts.

http://www.aiacny.org/2009/June/GLOBAL WARMING AND THE ARCHITECT- June 09.pdf

Scientific studies in the 1970's re: global cooling”
“Most predictions of an impending ice age came from the popular press (eg - Newsweek,
NY Times, National Geographic, Time Magazine). As far as peer reviewed scientific papers
in the 1970s, very few papers (7 in total) predicted global cooling. Significantly more papers
(42 in total) predicted global warming due to CO2.”

so, its been 35 years, temperature status please? how much warmer isit now due to that CO2 outlook you have ascribed to those folks who 'should know'?

 

[westwall]

Same players? Now if I were a thinking man instead of a partisan hack, I'd be wondering what would have made them change their minds so fast. I can never fathom how the deniers consider this to be evidence for their side. It boggles the mind how they just run away from logic!!!

How about an even baser reason for changing their minds mr. partisan hack. That being money. If you bothered to even watch the video (which I doubt as that would actually make you have to think about your position and a person who is basing their decisions on "faith" never want to hear actual facts that attack their faith now do they?) you would see that the methods that were being suggested to control the "cooling" were ridiculous and expensive and would have been funded by you guessed it the public.

The paople involved changed their minds because they saw that the trends were rising and the solar data said that the temps were going to rise and there was no panic amongst the masses. The people couldn't be made to care so there was no money coming to them.

That is why they changed their minds. But your faith won't allow you to see that simple fact.

Why would there be any more money in one avenue of research over the other? Your criticism doesn't pass the smell test. You want us to watch poltically motivated videos, because the science and logic aren't on your side. You're a hack, because you like to dress up your arguments in science, but your logic leaves much to be desired. It certainly wouldn't hold much water in a rigorous scxientifc debate. It only works on cvertain people in venues like this, because of their pre-set ideas and your ability to dazzle them with BS that fits their bias.

No, you fail the smell test. Your capacity for critical thinking is sorely lacking. You can only think about a single cause for the rise in temperatures. That makes it a faith based belief. God did it. Your God is CO2. Your devil is man. However the Earth is far bigger than we are and the engine of the climate is so vast that no climatologists comes even remotely close to figuring it out. They wave their hands and make hyperbolic prognostications so that the government will give them money to research what's causing it.

They have recieved over a 100 billion dollars and they still can't tell us a single concrete thing...other than their computer models are so bad they can't recreate what occured 10 days ago.

Keep bowing to the CO2 alter there konrad. Keep praying to the gods of CO2.

 

[FireGod]

How about an even baser reason for changing their minds mr. partisan hack. That being money. If you bothered to even watch the video (which I doubt as that would actually make you have to think about your position and a person who is basing their decisions on "faith" never want to hear actual facts that attack their faith now do they?) you would see that the methods that were being suggested to control the "cooling" were ridiculous and expensive and would have been funded by you guessed it the public.

The paople involved changed their minds because they saw that the trends were rising and the solar data said that the temps were going to rise and there was no panic amongst the masses. The people couldn't be made to care so there was no money coming to them.

That is why they changed their minds. But your faith won't allow you to see that simple fact.

Why would there be any more money in one avenue of research over the other? Your criticism doesn't pass the smell test. You want us to watch poltically motivated videos, because the science and logic aren't on your side. You're a hack, because you like to dress up your arguments in science, but your logic leaves much to be desired. It certainly wouldn't hold much water in a rigorous scxientifc debate. It only works on cvertain people in venues like this, because of their pre-set ideas and your ability to dazzle them with BS that fits their bias.

No, you fail the smell test. Your capacity for critical thinking is sorely lacking. You can only think about a single cause for the rise in temperatures. That makes it a faith based belief. God did it. Your God is CO2. Your devil is man. However the Earth is far bigger than we are and the engine of the climate is so vast that no climatologists comes even remotely close to figuring it out. They wave their hands and make hyperbolic prognostications so that the government will give them money to research what's causing it.

They have recieved over a 100 billion dollars and they still can't tell us a single concrete thing...other than their computer models are so bad they can't recreate what occured 10 days ago.

Keep bowing to the CO2 alter there konrad. Keep praying to the gods of CO2.

So by your logic, there should be nothing done about spewing pollution into the environment especially because the scientists can not seem to agree from your POV.

 

[westwall]

Why would there be any more money in one avenue of research over the other? Your criticism doesn't pass the smell test. You want us to watch poltically motivated videos, because the science and logic aren't on your side. You're a hack, because you like to dress up your arguments in science, but your logic leaves much to be desired. It certainly wouldn't hold much water in a rigorous scxientifc debate. It only works on cvertain people in venues like this, because of their pre-set ideas and your ability to dazzle them with BS that fits their bias.

No, you fail the smell test. Your capacity for critical thinking is sorely lacking. You can only think about a single cause for the rise in temperatures. That makes it a faith based belief. God did it. Your God is CO2. Your devil is man. However the Earth is far bigger than we are and the engine of the climate is so vast that no climatologists comes even remotely close to figuring it out. They wave their hands and make hyperbolic prognostications so that the government will give them money to research what's causing it.

They have recieved over a 100 billion dollars and they still can't tell us a single concrete thing...other than their computer models are so bad they can't recreate what occured 10 days ago.

Keep bowing to the CO2 alter there konrad. Keep praying to the gods of CO2.

So by your logic, there should be nothing done about spewing pollution into the environment especially because the scientists can not seem to agree from your POV.

Not at all. If you had ever bothered to review my posts you would have found that while I deplore the extravagant waste of over a hundred billion dollars on "climate research" I am very much an environmentalist and am heavily involved in cleaning up abandoned mines. My distaste for the clowns involved in the climate fraud stems from the fact that they are actively taking money away from research and repair that could otherwise be used to do some very good environmental things.

The people doing this on the other hand are merely interested in enriching themselves not saving the planet.

 

[FireGod]

No, you fail the smell test. Your capacity for critical thinking is sorely lacking. You can only think about a single cause for the rise in temperatures. That makes it a faith based belief. God did it. Your God is CO2. Your devil is man. However the Earth is far bigger than we are and the engine of the climate is so vast that no climatologists comes even remotely close to figuring it out. They wave their hands and make hyperbolic prognostications so that the government will give them money to research what's causing it.

They have recieved over a 100 billion dollars and they still can't tell us a single concrete thing...other than their computer models are so bad they can't recreate what occured 10 days ago.

Keep bowing to the CO2 alter there konrad. Keep praying to the gods of CO2.

So by your logic, there should be nothing done about spewing pollution into the environment especially because the scientists can not seem to agree from your POV.

Not at all. If you had ever bothered to review my posts you would have found that while I deplore the extravagant waste of over a hundred billion dollars on "climate research" I am very much an environmentalist and am heavily involved in cleaning up abandoned mines. My distaste for the clowns involved in the climate fraud stems from the fact that they are actively taking money away from research and repair that could otherwise be used to do some very good environmental things.

The people doing this on the other hand are merely interested in enriching themselves not saving the planet.

Thanks for the clarification on that.

What your proposal look like to "save the planet"? <-- not a trick question.

 

[westwall]

So by your logic, there should be nothing done about spewing pollution into the environment especially because the scientists can not seem to agree from your POV.

Not at all. If you had ever bothered to review my posts you would have found that while I deplore the extravagant waste of over a hundred billion dollars on "climate research" I am very much an environmentalist and am heavily involved in cleaning up abandoned mines. My distaste for the clowns involved in the climate fraud stems from the fact that they are actively taking money away from research and repair that could otherwise be used to do some very good environmental things.

The people doing this on the other hand are merely interested in enriching themselves not saving the planet.

Thanks for the clarification on that.

What your proposal look like to "save the planet"? <-- not a trick question.

Continued research on fusion power. More research to bring powercell technology to the masses, continued and accelerated research on solar power, research into bringing geothermal power to it's rightful place in the power generation arena, and finally I would relly like to see some serious research on Tesla's ideas for using the Earths magnetic field as a wireless electrical distribution system.

That would make electric vehicles extremely useful and would lead to the end of the internal combustion engine which while it is the most efficient means we have for transport on a small scale burns hydrocarbons which would be far better used elsewhere.

 

[FireGod]

Not at all. If you had ever bothered to review my posts you would have found that while I deplore the extravagant waste of over a hundred billion dollars on "climate research" I am very much an environmentalist and am heavily involved in cleaning up abandoned mines. My distaste for the clowns involved in the climate fraud stems from the fact that they are actively taking money away from research and repair that could otherwise be used to do some very good environmental things.

The people doing this on the other hand are merely interested in enriching themselves not saving the planet.

Thanks for the clarification on that.

What your proposal look like to "save the planet"? <-- not a trick question.

Continued research on fusion power. More research to bring powercell technology to the masses, continued and accelerated research on solar power, research into bringing geothermal power to it's rightful place in the power generation arena, and finally I would relly like to see some serious research on Tesla's ideas for using the Earths magnetic field as a wireless electrical distribution system.

That would make electric vehicles extremely useful and would lead to the end of the internal combustion engine which while it is the most efficient means we have for transport on a small scale burns hydrocarbons which would be far better used elsewhere.

Thanks for that. If fusion can be done safely that would be great. I would like to see solar follow Moore's law and I am thinking that it might get be getting there. Why is geothermal not being heavily developed as all the tech is here now ... oh wait that would put oil and coal companies on the decline and we can not have that. The only problems with Tesla that I can see A) the magnetic field currently is showing signs of shifting/reversing so that might muck thing up a bit.
B) the magnetic field is the primary/only defense of life against the cosmos including our star, I am not so sure it would be a good idea to risk screwing it up. The added power to the field may make it stronger (a good thing) however there is also the chance that it can compromise our planetary shield. If that were to happen then it would be game over for virtually every living thing on the planet see mars for an example of the possible ramifications. Yes I know that humans did not **** up Mars, however it serves a good example of what happens when the magnetic field is destroyed.

I noticed that you did not mention wind or wave power, why?

 

[westwall]

Thanks for the clarification on that.

What your proposal look like to "save the planet"? <-- not a trick question.

Continued research on fusion power. More research to bring powercell technology to the masses, continued and accelerated research on solar power, research into bringing geothermal power to it's rightful place in the power generation arena, and finally I would relly like to see some serious research on Tesla's ideas for using the Earths magnetic field as a wireless electrical distribution system.

That would make electric vehicles extremely useful and would lead to the end of the internal combustion engine which while it is the most efficient means we have for transport on a small scale burns hydrocarbons which would be far better used elsewhere.

Thanks for that. If fusion can be done safely that would be great. I would like to see solar follow Moore's law and I am thinking that it might get be getting there. Why is geothermal not being heavily developed as all the tech is here now ... oh wait that would put oil and coal companies on the decline and we can not have that. The only problems with Tesla that I can see A) the magnetic field currently is showing signs of shifting/reversing so that might muck thing up a bit.
B) the magnetic field is the primary/only defense of life against the cosmos including our star, I am not so sure it would be a good idea to risk screwing it up. The added power to the field may make it stronger (a good thing) however there is also the chance that it can compromise our planetary shield. If that were to happen then it would be game over for virtually every living thing on the planet see mars for an example of the possible ramifications. Yes I know that humans did not **** up Mars, however it serves a good example of what happens when the magnetic field is destroyed.

I noticed that you did not mention wind or wave power, why?

Some good points on the Tesla issue. I agree destroying the magnetic field would be bad but if it could be done the power issues of the planet would be pretty much a thing of the past. That is the single biggest issue affecting mans development is the transmission of power in an efficient safe manner.

Wave power is regional and notoriously ineficient. There are a few areas where it could be exploited (tidal regions like Baffin Bay) but the simple wave action that they want to use for the most part will only be usable in a small area and the energy collection and transmision issues are pretty severe. Plus people in general don't like the look of most of the power generation systems that have been proposed.

Wind has the same issue as regards looks and while I think it has definite potential on a fairly small scale to date the large windfarms are still more of a tax scheme than a real power generation system. Maintenance costs on the big turbines are on the order of 30,000 dollars a year. It takes a busload of electrical sales to pay for that and more to the point wind farms in general are only operating at full song a very small percentage of the time. Most often they are putting along at 30-35% of capacity.

There is a proposal that would make wind power far more interesting that I am consulting on but that is still propietary!