Nova: Decoding the Weather Machine

[homersapien 11,352]

On 4/22/2018 at 7:11 PM, keoson7 said:

so basically what homosapien is saying is, "my point of view is the only viewpoint, allowed,  wake up to the reality, that science has created for you to believe.". is that close homey??

Wrong forum.  And the "homo play" was pathetically revealing. 

And this isn't about my view, it's about scientific facts.  Deny those at your peril.  

 

 

 

 

[keoson7 28]

Hemp would be a great ssolution for many uses, but big oil and the chemical conglomerates, wont allow a renewable eco friendly solution, because they cant profit from it

[HVAU 673]

It's time for marijuana to be legalized whether it's use is medicinal, industrial or recreational.  

[AuburnNTexas 7,127]

On 4/23/2018 at 8:53 AM, NolaAuTiger said:

What kind of environmenal technology? 

Also, I’m all for clean energy initiatives, but they have to be achievable, reliable, and feasible. A legitimate concern (that any reasonable person can agree with) is supplanting natural gas in the market. Obviously, if it ever happens, it will take several years.

If there is “something” equivalent to what natural gas was for coal, then by all means. Right now, there is not. I don’t deny climate change (which is different than global warming) but it truly saddens me that so many of my counterparts stringently oppose natural gas extraction, despite its benefits that clearly outweigh current alternatives.

I guess I’m an odd ball...

I could not agree with you more. Ideally we would have Cheap cleaner renewable energy Wind, Solar, Tidal, etc. with Cheap sustainable  storage systems that don't pollute the environment. I keep emphasizing Cheap as unless it is within the reach of the average consumer worldwide it won't happen. Natural Gas is both cheaper and less polluting then coal and it is currently replacing coal without the government forcing it. The cost of  renewable energy has come down enough that just energy production cost it is competitive with carbon based energy however energy storage costs still keep it out of the hands of the masses.  The idea of selling renewable energy back to the Power companies is a long term loosing proposition because if enough people do it that companies no longer become profitable and go out of business.

A true storage breakthrough be it battery, super capacitor or some unknown technology would make the electric car viable.  Produced on the same scale as Internal combustion based vehicles would actually cost less than the internal combustion based vehicles.  All of these wonderful things will happen but in the interim we need to rely on things like natural gas to pollute less than older technologies until we get there.

I am not a denier of Global warming it is occurring there is enough science to back that up. Is it all man made, is it all natural cycle as we have seen throughout earth's many cycles, or is it a combination of both.  I tend to believe it is a combination but I will freely admit I could be wrong.

I want cleaner cheaper energy for reasons outside of Climate change, I want clean air and water to breathe and drink for myself, my kids, my grand kids and the rest of the world.  Cheap cleaner renewable energy has the potential to bring clean water and power to the third world.. Despite the mantra of many that energy companies are trying to stop the development of renewable cleaner energy many are actually investing in research as they want to be the ones supplying it to you when it happens which it will. There is to much momentum with governments backing research, Universities, major car manufactures, etc. all doing research in this area.

Even when we get cheap cleaner energy it will take time for the current investments in energy to be replaced.  natural Gas has been cheaper than coal for a good while that said energy companies did not replace every coal plant as they had an investment. What they did is as new plants were created they did natural gas and as a coal plant reached end of life only then was it replaced by a natural gas plant. Economics drove this conversion as it will the change to renewable cleaner energy.

One last thing every time I say renewable energy I preface it with cleaner as no energy production is totally clean the production of solar panels and storage devices all have a pollution footprint.

[homersapien 11,352]

''Soylent Green' here we come.  

 

 

 

[keoson7 28]

On 4/24/2018 at 8:11 PM, homersapien said:

''Soylent Green' here we come.  

 

 

 

definitely were on that path, with the previous administration

[Jeri W 1]

I learned a lot that I didn't know by watching this documentary and found it very interesting.  I agree there is climate change going on just like it has been since the beginning of time, but sometimes wonder at the hysteria about it now, which I believe is mainly due to politics.  Even throughout this documentary they stated they couldn't say for sure that their models and predictions were completely accurate and they seemed to take the worst case scenario approach whenever possible.  That's fine for trying to get something done and finding solutions, but it is also needs to be kept in perspective instead of causing some people such great stress and disproportionate worry.  The world is not going to end in ten years because of climate change.   I also didn't see enough about encouraging everyday people, as well as farmers and corporations to do more planting and gardening, to create more forests, etc., and to use more natural gas, which could be other simple solutions to the problem.   Nuclear energy was also just skimmed over as a solution, which I found interesting.  Was there an agenda here to encourage solar and wind power (which I hate the look of the wind mills and can't understand why these monstrosities are found to be so environmentally friendly) to the exclusion of other solutions?   So while I am not as much of a "denier" as I was before watching this documentary, and I am glad we are working on finding solutions, I am not 100% convinced this is such a dire situation at this point that we need to panic.  Necessity is the mother of invention and I strongly believe good ol American ingenuity will once again save the day.  

[homersapien 11,352]

On 9/22/2019 at 8:59 PM, Jeri W said:

I learned a lot that I didn't know by watching this documentary and found it very interesting.  I agree there is climate change going on just like it has been since the beginning of time, but sometimes wonder at the hysteria about it now, which I believe is mainly due to politics.  Even throughout this documentary they stated they couldn't say for sure that their models and predictions were completely accurate and they seemed to take the worst case scenario approach whenever possible.  That's fine for trying to get something done and finding solutions, but it is also needs to be kept in perspective instead of causing some people such great stress and disproportionate worry.  The world is not going to end in ten years because of climate change.   I also didn't see enough about encouraging everyday people, as well as farmers and corporations to do more planting and gardening, to create more forests, etc., and to use more natural gas, which could be other simple solutions to the problem.   Nuclear energy was also just skimmed over as a solution, which I found interesting.  Was there an agenda here to encourage solar and wind power (which I hate the look of the wind mills and can't understand why these monstrosities are found to be so environmentally friendly) to the exclusion of other solutions?   So while I am not as much of a "denier" as I was before watching this documentary, and I am glad we are working on finding solutions, I am not 100% convinced this is such a dire situation at this point that we need to panic.  Necessity is the mother of invention and I strongly believe good ol American ingenuity will once again save the day.  

That's not strictly accurate.  While the climate has both warmed and cooled since the "beginning of time" (whatever that's suppose to mean), those changes were particular to the their geologic period, which lasts for millions of years.  With AGW, we aren't talking about trans-period changes but changes that are happening within a very small part - less than a thousand years - of the geologic period we are in.

This change is driven by the amount of warming triggered from the increase in greenhouse gases starting from the beginning of the "industrial age" beginning in the 19th century.  And the warming rate is increasing as the amount of CO2 increases.

The extreme concern - "hysteria" as you called it - is related to 1) the time it would take to reduce or even stop those greenhouse gas emissions combined with the "trailing" nature of warming and 2) the real possibility of run-away feedback loops - such as a massive release of methane brought about by permafrost melting.  This could greatly accelerate the rate of warming (see link below).

Unexpected future boost of methane possible from Arctic permafrost

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2785/unexpected-future-boost-of-methane-possible-from-arctic-permafrost/

 

So the "hysteria" is actually based on the actual physics juxtaposed against political denial (human nature).

I think it is already too late to avoid an average increase of 3 degrees Celsius, which means there is nothing we can to to avoid more real problems. 

While I admire your optimism, I don't share it.  The world's eco-system is already undergoing irreversible changes, such as a massive loss of biodiversity (species).  We are currently in the earth's 6th mass extinction event (see below). And biology cannot significantly adapt and re-build to accommodate climate change in the time frames we are talking about.

THE EXTINCTION CRISIS

It's frightening but true: Our planet is now in the midst of its sixth mass extinction of plants and animals — the sixth wave of extinctions in the past half-billion years. We're currently experiencing the worst spate of species die-offs since the loss of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. Although extinction is a natural phenomenon, it occurs at a natural “background” rate of about one to five species per year. Scientists estimate we're now losing species at up to 1,000 times the background rate, with literally dozens going extinct every day [1]. It could be a scary future indeed, with as many as 30 to 50 percent of all species possibly heading toward extinction by mid-century [2].

https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/elements_of_biodiversity/extinction_crisis/

 

In fact, I think there is a better than a 50-50 chance things will get much worse than a 3 degree C increase.  (But I will probably be dead by then.)

I do agree with your comments on nuclear power.  That will become a major factor by necessity if we have any hope of holding the line at 3 deg C.

Bottom line, the 21st century will be the peak of the so called "anthropocene" (sort of a mini geologic period).  The earth is not capable of sustaining over 8 billion people in the sort of lifestyle they will naturally aspire to. 

I expect an apocalyptic decline in the human population late this century driven by natural disasters, disease and war. 

 

[AuburnNTexas 7,127]

I do believe the Planet is warming and I do believe that mankind plays a part in it. How much of a part and how much is a natural change I don't know.  I do believe we should take practical steps to try and cut down our emissions. I emphasize practical steps.  Replacing dirty electrical plants with Natural gas plants is a practical and economically feasible step.  Green energy totally replacing our current energy infrastructure is not practical at this time. There are fundamental issues that have to be solved before it becomes doable. Energy storage and National Electrical Grid are requirements as the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow at the right speed to be useful. Many don't realize it Wind has to be disengaged if wind is blowing too hard. Most energy storage is short term.  We are making strides in energy storage but have a long way to go. In most cases the backup plan for green energy is the electrical generation plants that people want to shutdown.

I know many people are upset that Trump dropped the Paris accords what nobody tells you is the Country's that signed it have made less progress in meeting the accord then the US. 

I am all for projects that try to increase the number of plants and trees as they are natures way to store carbon I love the fact that we are seeing more Green energy and I would not be adverse to spending more money on trying to solve energy storage issues both at the Grid level and at the battery level as I would love to see electric cars replace internal combustion cars. Once we have batteries that give plenty of range and can be re-charged in similar timeframe to fill your tank, and we have lowered the cost of the batteries and increased how long you can use then before you have to replace them electric cars will take off.  Some of this is slowly happening now but I expect it will improve dramatically in the next 10 years.

Once Electric cars are being mass produced  on a similar scale to current cars the price will come down dramatically on electric cars. Small electric motors at each wheel is cheaper and more efficient then an internal combustion system, you no longer need the drive train, the exhaust system all the parts like fuel injectors.

I am not a denier  but I am a realist. How many millions of acres would need to be set aside for Wind Farms and Solar Farms as they are both land intensive What environmental impact would that have, how do we dispose or recycle millions of tons of batteries when they reach end of life. Third world countries need cheap energy, clean water, sanitation, jobs and education to increase standard of living how can that be achieved if we waste billions of dollars on the Green New Deal.

I want to see a realistic plan that is economically feasible. I realize economically feasible is complicated there are hidden costs in air pollution [Healthcare costs] that must be factored into determining if a plan is feasible. If we get to a point where green energy including Grid storage cost is really close to equal but still a little higher then Green is better as long term it will cut down healthcare costs. Before somebody replies that Wind or Solar costs are close to natural gas costs please remember a natural gas plant does not need the extra cost of energy storage or a National Grid as it can run 24 hours a day.

I do believe we need to build a National Grid but that is a very long term plan that would require a lot of thought, money and time to build. We should already be in the planning phase and cost estimate phase and finding ways to fund it.

A national Grid is also great for natural disasters it makes the country more secure and if building from scratch we could also look at protecting it from Cyber attack and possibly EMP attacks

[Grumps 3,693]

The most feasible way I heard to make electric cars more versatile with our current technology is to have battery stations instead of gas stations. If you are driving 500 miles you simply pull into the battery station, pull out your batteries and put them into the charger and install fully charged batteries from the station. This would require a uniform battery style and replacing them would need to be easy, but that seems like a very realistic way to drastically increase the use of electric cars.

[quietfan 233]

3 hours ago, Grumps said:

The most feasible way I heard to make electric cars more versatile with our current technology is to have battery stations instead of gas stations. If you are driving 500 miles you simply pull into the battery station, pull out your batteries and put them into the charger and install fully charged batteries from the station. This would require a uniform battery style and replacing them would need to be easy, but that seems like a very realistic way to drastically increase the use of electric cars.

Certainly an option.

But it's really hard to beat the convenience and flexibility of a liquid fuel for personal transportation.  I think in time the answer will be a renewable liquid fuel--methanol, ethanol, bio-diesel, or something else from agriculture, aquaculture, or industrialized microbe culture--powering fuel cells for electric motors...electric to harvest the efficiencies  of regenerative breaking.   

Mass transport and an gradual shrinking of the size of our cities as we evolve away from committing so much space just to accommodate giant, individually-owned, petro-guzzling dinosaurs will also reduce the demand for fuels.  Smaller, lighter, fewer!

[homersapien 11,352]

3 hours ago, Grumps said:

The most feasible way I heard to make electric cars more versatile with our current technology is to have battery stations instead of gas stations. If you are driving 500 miles you simply pull into the battery station, pull out your batteries and put them into the charger and install fully charged batteries from the station. This would require a uniform battery style and replacing them would need to be easy, but that seems like a very realistic way to drastically increase the use of electric cars.

I have thought that for a long time. 

I can envision a "drive through" set up like a car wash only you stop, drop the low battery (from underneath the car), move forward and have a charged battery installed.  

[homersapien 11,352]

34 minutes ago, quietfan said:

Certainly an option.

But it's really hard to beat the convenience and flexibility of a liquid fuel for personal transportation.  I think in time the answer will be a renewable liquid fuel--methanol, ethanol, bio-diesel, or something else from agriculture, aquaculture, or industrialized microbe culture--powering fuel cells for electric motors...electric to harvest the efficiencies  of regenerative breaking.   

Mass transport and an gradual shrinking of the size of our cities as we evolve away from committing so much space just to accommodate giant, individually-owned, petro-guzzling dinosaurs will also reduce the demand for fuels.  Smaller, lighter, fewer!

While energy "density" certainly favors liquid fuels, the range of electric vehicles is now up to about 250 miles.  I think it's rapidly becoming more of an infrastructure problem than energy density.

[homersapien 11,352]

On 9/24/2019 at 10:29 PM, AuburnNTexas said:

I do believe the Planet is warming and I do believe that mankind plays a part in it. How much of a part and how much is a natural change I don't know.  I do believe we should take practical steps to try and cut down our emissions. I emphasize practical steps.  Replacing dirty electrical plants with Natural gas plants is a practical and economically feasible step.  Green energy totally replacing our current energy infrastructure is not practical at this time. True, but I don't know of anyone that is seriously suggesting it is.  The pressure is to get started.

There are fundamental issues that have to be solved before it becomes doable. Energy storage and National Electrical Grid are requirements as the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow at the right speed to be useful. Many don't realize it Wind has to be disengaged if wind is blowing too hard. Most energy storage is short term.  We are making strides in energy storage but have a long way to go. In most cases the backup plan for green energy is the electrical generation plants that people want to shutdown.  All true.  Personally I think those supplemental generation plants should be nuclear.

I know many people are upset that Trump dropped the Paris accords what nobody tells you is the Country's that signed it have made less progress in meeting the accord then the US. That may be true, but participation in the Paris accords has less to do with actual progress - meeting voluntary promises - than it does abandoning a dedicated, global forum designed to share information on the problem.  Actual commitments - and accountability- would hopefully evolve from such a forum. The forum at least served the purpose of getting nations to acknowledge there is a problem.  Departing it sends the message you don't think it's a problem in the first place. It was the wrong thing to do.

I am all for projects that try to increase the number of plants and trees as they are natures way to store carbon I love the fact that we are seeing more Green energy and I would not be adverse to spending more money on trying to solve energy storage issues both at the Grid level and at the battery level as I would love to see electric cars replace internal combustion cars. Once we have batteries that give plenty of range and can be re-charged in similar timeframe to fill your tank, and we have lowered the cost of the batteries and increased how long you can use then before you have to replace them electric cars will take off.  Some of this is slowly happening now but I expect it will improve dramatically in the next 10 years.

Once Electric cars are being mass produced  on a similar scale to current cars the price will come down dramatically on electric cars. Small electric motors at each wheel is cheaper and more efficient then an internal combustion system, you no longer need the drive train, the exhaust system all the parts like fuel injectors.

I am not a denier  but I am a realist. How many millions of acres would need to be set aside for Wind Farms and Solar Farms as they are both land intensive What environmental impact would that have, how do we dispose or recycle millions of tons of batteries when they reach end of life. Third world countries need cheap energy, clean water, sanitation, jobs and education to increase standard of living how can that be achieved if we waste billions of dollars on the Green New Deal. I think of "The Green New Deal" as more of a template for strategy than an active proposal.  I feel a carbon tax would at least provide the market incentives for such a comprehensive solution to emerge or be defined. (I don't even know if a carbon tax is part of the "Green New Deal".)

I want to see a realistic plan that is economically feasible. I realize economically feasible is complicated there are hidden costs in air pollution [Healthcare costs] that must be factored into determining if a plan is feasible. If we get to a point where green energy including Grid storage cost is really close to equal but still a little higher then Green is better as long term it will cut down healthcare costs. Before somebody replies that Wind or Solar costs are close to natural gas costs please remember a natural gas plant does not need the extra cost of energy storage or a National Grid as it can run 24 hours a day. "Economically feasible" is a loaded term.  As you allude to, the problem with our current economic thinking is that "hidden" costs (aka "external" costs) are seldom - if ever - accounted for in economic analysis, at least outside of government.

I do believe we need to build a National Grid but that is a very long term plan that would require a lot of thought, money and time to build. We should already be in the planning phase and cost estimate phase and finding ways to fund it.   This also provides an opportunity to decentralize our power grid. Imagine all the rooftops with solar collectors that feed into the grid.

A national Grid is also great for natural disasters it makes the country more secure and if building from scratch we could also look at protecting it from Cyber attack and possibly EMP attacks

Good post!

It's a good argument for starting a serious effort to convert our energy infrastructure sooner rather than later.

I think we should start with a carbon tax in order to utilize the creative power of the market to encourage technological change. 

More government-funded basic research is also in order.

[homersapien 11,352]

1 hour ago, quietfan said:

Certainly an option.

But it's really hard to beat the convenience and flexibility of a liquid fuel for personal transportation.  I think in time the answer will be a renewable liquid fuel--methanol, ethanol, bio-diesel, or something else from agriculture, aquaculture, or industrialized microbe culture--powering fuel cells for electric motors...electric to harvest the efficiencies  of regenerative breaking.   

Mass transport and an gradual shrinking of the size of our cities as we evolve away from committing so much space just to accommodate giant, individually-owned, petro-guzzling dinosaurs will also reduce the demand for fuels.  Smaller, lighter, fewer!

I know what you meant (extended urban sprawl) but populations of our (central) cities will become larger rather than smaller over time.  This is already happening.

[AFTiger 282]

It all means complete government control of our lives. 

[homersapien 11,352]

2 hours ago, AFTiger said:

It all means complete government control of our lives. 

Good one!  I'll add it to my list of your beliefs.

[AFTiger 282]

41 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Good one!  I'll add it to my list of your beliefs.

From our resident pseudo climate scientist and general know it all.

[AFTiger 282]

Quote

G. K. Chesterton

 

@GKCdaily

 

Unfortunately science is only splendid when it is science. When science becomes religion it becomes superstition.

wise words

[homersapien 11,352]

55 minutes ago, AFTiger said:

From our resident pseudo climate scientist and general know it all.

That's ironically funny coming from someone who insists AGW theory is a massive hoax perpetuated by scientists from every country around the globe. 

[SaturdayGT 719]

• 1895 - Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again – New York Times, February 1895
• 1902 - “Disappearing Glaciers…deteriorating slowly, with a persistency that means their final annihilation…scientific fact…surely disappearing.” – Los Angeles Times
• 1912 - Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age – New York Times, October 1912
• 1923 - “Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada” – Professor Gregory of Yale University, American representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress, – Chicago Tribune
• 1923 - “The discoveries of changes in the sun’s heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age” – Washington Post
• 1924 - MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age – New York Times, Sept 18, 1924
• 1929 - “Most geologists think the world is growing warmer, and that it will continue to get warmer” – Los Angeles Times, in Is another ice age coming?
• 1932 - “If these things be true, it is evident, therefore that we must be just teetering on an ice age” – The Atlantic magazine, This Cold, Cold World
• 1933 - America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise – New York Times, March 27th, 1933
• 1933 – “…wide-spread and persistent tendency toward warmer weather…Is our climate changing?” – Federal Weather Bureau “Monthly Weather Review.”
• 1938 - Global warming, caused by man heating the planet with carbon dioxide, “is likely to prove beneficial to mankind in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power.”– Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society
• 1938 - “Experts puzzle over 20 year mercury rise…Chicago is in the front rank of thousands of cities thuout the world which have been affected by a mysterious trend toward warmer climate in the last two decades” – Chicago Tribune
• 1939 - “Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right… weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer” – Washington Post
• 1952 - “…we have learned that the world has been getting warmer in the last half century” – New York Times, August 10th, 1962
• 1954 - “…winters are getting milder, summers drier. Glaciers are receding, deserts growing” – U.S. News and World Report
• 1954 - Climate – the Heat May Be Off – Fortune Magazine
• 1959 - “Arctic Findings in Particular Support Theory of Rising Global Temperatures” – New York Times
• 1969 - “…the Arctic pack ice is thinning and that the ocean at the North Pole may become an open sea within a decade or two” – New York Times, February 20th, 1969
• 1969 – “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000″ — Paul Ehrlich (while he now predicts doom from global warming, this quote only gets honorable mention, as he was talking about his crazy fear of overpopulation)
• 1970 - “…get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters – the worst may be yet to come…there’s no relief in sight” – Washington Post
• 1974 - Global cooling for the past forty years – Time Magazine
• 1974 - “Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age” –Washington Post
• 1974 - “As for the present cooling trend a number of leading climatologists have concluded that it is very bad news indeed” – Fortune magazine, who won a Science Writing Award from the American Institute of Physics for its analysis of the danger
• 1974 - “…the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure…mass deaths by starvation, and probably anarchy and violence” – New York Times
• 1975 - Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable – New York Times, May 21st, 1975
• 1975 - “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind” Nigel Calder, editor, New Scientist magazine, in an article in International Wildlife Magazine
• 1976 - “Even U.S. farms may be hit by cooling trend” – U.S. News and World Report
• 1981 - Global Warming – “of an almost unprecedented magnitude” – New York Times
• 1988 - I would like to draw three main conclusions. Number one, the earth is warmer in 1988 than at any time in the history of instrumental measurements. Number two, the global warming is now large enough that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship to the greenhouse effect. And number three, our computer climate simulations indicate that thegreenhouse effect is already large enough to begin to effect the probability of extreme events such as summer heat waves. – Jim Hansen, June 1988 testimony before Congress, see His later quote and his superior’s objection for context.

[homersapien 11,352]

20 hours ago, SaturdayGT said:

• 1895 - Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again – New York Times, February 1895
• 1902 - “Disappearing Glaciers…deteriorating slowly, with a persistency that means their final annihilation…scientific fact…surely disappearing.” – Los Angeles Times
• 1912 - Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age – New York Times, October 1912
• 1923 - “Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada” – Professor Gregory of Yale University, American representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress, – Chicago Tribune
• 1923 - “The discoveries of changes in the sun’s heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age” – Washington Post
• 1924 - MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age – New York Times, Sept 18, 1924
• 1929 - “Most geologists think the world is growing warmer, and that it will continue to get warmer” – Los Angeles Times, in Is another ice age coming?
• 1932 - “If these things be true, it is evident, therefore that we must be just teetering on an ice age” – The Atlantic magazine, This Cold, Cold World
• 1933 - America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise – New York Times, March 27th, 1933
• 1933 – “…wide-spread and persistent tendency toward warmer weather…Is our climate changing?” – Federal Weather Bureau “Monthly Weather Review.”
• 1938 - Global warming, caused by man heating the planet with carbon dioxide, “is likely to prove beneficial to mankind in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power.”– Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society
• 1938 - “Experts puzzle over 20 year mercury rise…Chicago is in the front rank of thousands of cities thuout the world which have been affected by a mysterious trend toward warmer climate in the last two decades” – Chicago Tribune
• 1939 - “Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right… weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer” – Washington Post
• 1952 - “…we have learned that the world has been getting warmer in the last half century” – New York Times, August 10th, 1962
• 1954 - “…winters are getting milder, summers drier. Glaciers are receding, deserts growing” – U.S. News and World Report
• 1954 - Climate – the Heat May Be Off – Fortune Magazine
• 1959 - “Arctic Findings in Particular Support Theory of Rising Global Temperatures” – New York Times
• 1969 - “…the Arctic pack ice is thinning and that the ocean at the North Pole may become an open sea within a decade or two” – New York Times, February 20th, 1969
• 1969 – “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000″ — Paul Ehrlich (while he now predicts doom from global warming, this quote only gets honorable mention, as he was talking about his crazy fear of overpopulation)
• 1970 - “…get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters – the worst may be yet to come…there’s no relief in sight” – Washington Post
• 1974 - Global cooling for the past forty years – Time Magazine
• 1974 - “Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age” –Washington Post
• 1974 - “As for the present cooling trend a number of leading climatologists have concluded that it is very bad news indeed” – Fortune magazine, who won a Science Writing Award from the American Institute of Physics for its analysis of the danger
• 1974 - “…the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure…mass deaths by starvation, and probably anarchy and violence” – New York Times
• 1975 - Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable – New York Times, May 21st, 1975
• 1975 - “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind” Nigel Calder, editor, New Scientist magazine, in an article in International Wildlife Magazine
• 1976 - “Even U.S. farms may be hit by cooling trend” – U.S. News and World Report
• 1981 - Global Warming – “of an almost unprecedented magnitude” – New York Times
• 1988 - I would like to draw three main conclusions. Number one, the earth is warmer in 1988 than at any time in the history of instrumental measurements. Number two, the global warming is now large enough that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship to the greenhouse effect. And number three, our computer climate simulations indicate that thegreenhouse effect is already large enough to begin to effect the probability of extreme events such as summer heat waves. – Jim Hansen, June 1988 testimony before Congress, see His later quote and his superior’s objection for context.

Did you have a point?

[SaturdayGT 719]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Did you have a point?

Maybe if you choose to see it!

[johnnyAU 3,630]

On 9/29/2019 at 12:44 PM, homersapien said:

I think we should start with a carbon tax in order to utilize the creative power of the market to encourage technological change.

Well, of course you do.

[homersapien 11,352]

On 10/4/2019 at 2:27 PM, johnnyAU said:

Well, of course you do.

You don't believe in free market efficiency?