NASA head changes mind on Climate Change

245

Replies

  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 26,181 Senior Member
    No response necessary. Nothing to debate. Just pointing out something I found interesting and then enjoying reading what kinds of crazy excuses people would come up with. 
    Well as Capt. Malcolm Reynolds said : "Well, that makes you a tease."
    If the U.S. Congress was put in charge of the Sahara Desert, there would be a shortage of sand in under six months.



  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 26,181 Senior Member
    Every generation wants to make their mark on history, fixing the mistakes made by those who came before. And then as they get older every generation wants to preserve the changes they have made and try to prevent the upcoming generation from making society their own. In short this is why conservatives are generally focused on taking us back to 1980 and liberals are focused on moving us forward to 2050.  
    (Sigh) While you are free to hold any opinion you desire, you are not allowed to have your own set of made up facts to go with it. The geologic history of this planet is literally set in rock and miles deep ice sheets. Your attempt to rewrite that record, written in stone and ice, will always fail. Why? Because the truth will always be there laughing in your face.

    And 1980? Really? Seriously? I want the government to go back to the way it was when George Washington was POTUS. VERY SMALL, and VERY LIMITED. FYI, THE 1980's sucked donkey butt. So did the 1970's, and the 1960's sucked out loud. I know; I was there living the dream................er.....................nightmare.
    If the U.S. Congress was put in charge of the Sahara Desert, there would be a shortage of sand in under six months.



  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,775 Senior Member
    tennmike said:
    Every generation wants to make their mark on history, fixing the mistakes made by those who came before. And then as they get older every generation wants to preserve the changes they have made and try to prevent the upcoming generation from making society their own. In short this is why conservatives are generally focused on taking us back to 1980 and liberals are focused on moving us forward to 2050.  
    (Sigh) While you are free to hold any opinion you desire, you are not allowed to have your own set of made up facts to go with it. The geologic history of this planet is literally set in rock and miles deep ice sheets. Your attempt to rewrite that record, written in stone and ice, will always fail. Why? Because the truth will always be there laughing in your face.

    And 1980? Really? Seriously? I want the government to go back to the way it was when George Washington was POTUS. VERY SMALL, and VERY LIMITED. FYI, THE 1980's sucked donkey butt. So did the 1970's, and the 1960's sucked out loud. I know; I was there living the dream................er.....................nightmare.
    Mike I've ignored you in this thread both because we have had this debate before, and also every single argument you've made is a giant straw man, and more importantly is not a subject we disagree on. Yes there are lots of natural processes that have historically changed the planet's climate. I in no way disagree with that, nor does anyone who seriously studies climate change. That fact however also does not refute the simple scientific facts that greenhouse gases, of which humans are responsible for producing a crap ton, trap heat within the earth's atmosphere and influence the climate.

    I will agree with you on one point, every time before now generally sucked worse than today. It's called progress and you can thank progressives for that! Seriously though, there's no way to go back to the government of the 1770's without going back to the economy and technology of the 1770's and to that I say no thanks!
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,181 Senior Member
    Progressives want to impose Marxism, thought control and limit freedom. That is unacceptable. I'm pretty sure that was what Mike was referring to by mentioning the 1770's.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 26,181 Senior Member
    Is methane gas a greenhouse gas? Seems to be according to scientists.

    Some more of that 'inconvenient truth' in these links.
    If the methane hydrates in the ocean thaw, of if there is some considerable seismic activity where these hydrates are found, the Earth taking a really big fart releasing that methane could warm things up a bit; maybe a LOT more than a bit. There's billions and billions of cubic feet of the stuff.

    https://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-1/ocean-chemistry/climate-change-and-methane-hydrates/

    http://www.washington.edu/news/2014/12/09/warmer-pacific-ocean-could-release-millions-of-tons-of-seafloor-methane/

    This link is suspect as it talks about agricultural waste and manure, but avoids the human manure and the huge amount of methane generated at landfills. That obvious editing out the human factor is really a big load of crap. Nice try but no cigar. And those danged termites eating wood and farting methane! They are one of the largest biomasses on Earth, so that's a lot of farting termites.
     
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/11/atmospheric-levels-of-methane-a-powerful-greenhouse-gas-are-spiking-scientists-report/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2e5338968f5b

    Here's a NASA link to some of that methane that is naturally occurring and from whence it originates.

    https://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/methane.html

    Now then, you say that we humans are causing the global warming/climate change, but you have YET to put a verifiable, repeatable, scientific method approved number to it. Until you can put a number to it that passes the scrutiny of the scientific method, then it is just guesstimation at best, and obfuscation at worst. That is the main sticking point between our positions. That and zeroing in on CO2 to the exclusion of all other sources of greenhouse gases. That volcanic eruption in Hawaii is spewing a whole bunch of gas.

    If the U.S. Congress was put in charge of the Sahara Desert, there would be a shortage of sand in under six months.



  • FFLshooterFFLshooter Member Posts: 952 Senior Member
    tennmike said:
    Every generation wants to make their mark on history, fixing the mistakes made by those who came before. And then as they get older every generation wants to preserve the changes they have made and try to prevent the upcoming generation from making society their own. In short this is why conservatives are generally focused on taking us back to 1980 and liberals are focused on moving us forward to 2050.  
    (Sigh) While you are free to hold any opinion you desire, you are not allowed to have your own set of made up facts to go with it. The geologic history of this planet is literally set in rock and miles deep ice sheets. Your attempt to rewrite that record, written in stone and ice, will always fail. Why? Because the truth will always be there laughing in your face.

    And 1980? Really? Seriously? I want the government to go back to the way it was when George Washington was POTUS. VERY SMALL, and VERY LIMITED. FYI, THE 1980's sucked donkey butt. So did the 1970's, and the 1960's sucked out loud. I know; I was there living the dream................er.....................nightmare.
    Blah blah blah blah.
    You, like most other liberals only give a stellar **** about global warming because it was touted so largely by a liberal. If Al Gore would have said that eating your own fecal matter was healthy, y’all would be picking **** from your teeth still to this day. 
  • BigslugBigslug Senior Member Posts: 7,077 Senior Member
    Orrrrrr he realized the his best shot at huuuuuuge capital injections into his crumbling agency will come from sending up a whole new wave of global satellites into the sky to test his new pet theory and at the same time build up his new empire and get his name on the HQ new building of the vastly expanded new NASA because Sierra Club hippies will love him, Democrats will think he just s awesome and anyone fighting against him will be considered a climate nazi...

    But that can’t be true because no politician thinks that way..... right?
    Gotta hand out a big "DING! DING! DING! We have a winner!" here.

    He's now head of an agency that's been spending big chunks of money on planetary research.  To keep those funds coming in, his personal "party line" probably has to change.

    But seriously, can NASA get back to working on. . .gee, I don't know. . .AERONAUTICS AND SPACE???
    WWJMBD?

    "Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 26,181 Senior Member
    Breaking news!
    Scientists have discovered the heat wave is being caused by a massive star in the middle of our solar system!
    :D
    If the U.S. Congress was put in charge of the Sahara Desert, there would be a shortage of sand in under six months.



  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,697 Senior Member
    It is ludicrous to me that scientists (and politicians) would spend their lives extrapolating conclusions from nebulous bits of ambiguous 'data' about man-made global warming, instead of preparing for the survival of naturally occurring disasters that are factually known to have happened before.

    A good 'recent' documented example of such a natural occurrence is the Carrington Event of 1859, in which solar activity caused a naturally occurring worldwide EMP event that, were it to happen today would be catastrophic, due to our dependence on electricity and the attendant electronic devices. Solar flares bombarded the atmosphere to the extent that the only serious 'electronic' technology of the day, telegraphs, were knocked out all over the planet. Such an event today would deprive us of electric power for years, spelling disaster for the major cities.

    Based on this known science, why has our government not spent the billions of taxpayer dollars that have gone into the various global warming or climate change programs, on shielding our electric infrastructure from a known threat? We actually already have the ability and the knowledge to protect against EMP, whether it be natural or man-made, and yet we do nothing, while spending huge sums on a vague theory.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,697 Senior Member

    ...I will agree with you on one point, every time before now generally sucked worse than today. It's called progress and you can thank progressives for that! Seriously though, there's no way to go back to the government of the 1770's without going back to the economy and technology of the 1770's and to that I say no thanks!
    Assuming that you do actually know that Nicholas Tesla, Louis Pasteur, Isaac Newton and all of the other great scientific intellects were left-wing radicals in the same vein as those that now call themselves progressives, it proves nothing, because it omits all of the scientists who were wrong about their new ideas. In fact, most of the great scientific discoveries have been made by scientists stumbling upon new scientific phenomena, while trying to prove a different theory. Compared to what the great scientists in history have had to do to get support for their theories, the climate change cabal has done nothing.

    You try to paint conservatives as being obstinate old white racists who hate all new ideas. The truth is that most are simply realists, who have learned from a study of what has gone before that the majority of new ideas fail, due to unexpected consequences. That does not mean that conservatives don't embrace new ideas. It just means that they don't 'bet the ranch' on an idea that has no record of success. The difference is like the difference between gamblers - -- the successful ones avoid games like roulette, because it is a game of pure luck, in favor of games like straight poker, where a person can greatly improve the odds of success by using his own intellect to control his losses, while still striving for success. He wins a little, loses a little, and waits for the odds to favor him, before 'betting the ranch.'
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,775 Senior Member
    bisley said:

    ...I will agree with you on one point, every time before now generally sucked worse than today. It's called progress and you can thank progressives for that! Seriously though, there's no way to go back to the government of the 1770's without going back to the economy and technology of the 1770's and to that I say no thanks!
    Assuming that you do actually know that Nicholas Tesla, Louis Pasteur, Isaac Newton and all of the other great scientific intellects were left-wing radicals in the same vein as those that now call themselves progressives, it proves nothing, because it omits all of the scientists who were wrong about their new ideas. In fact, most of the great scientific discoveries have been made by scientists stumbling upon new scientific phenomena, while trying to prove a different theory. Compared to what the great scientists in history have had to do to get support for their theories, the climate change cabal has done nothing.

    You try to paint conservatives as being obstinate old white racists who hate all new ideas. The truth is that most are simply realists, who have learned from a study of what has gone before that the majority of new ideas fail, due to unexpected consequences. That does not mean that conservatives don't embrace new ideas. It just means that they don't 'bet the ranch' on an idea that has no record of success. The difference is like the difference between gamblers - -- the successful ones avoid games like roulette, because it is a game of pure luck, in favor of games like straight poker, where a person can greatly improve the odds of success by using his own intellect to control his losses, while still striving for success. He wins a little, loses a little, and waits for the odds to favor him, before 'betting the ranch.'
    That failure isn't a bug it's an intentional part of the program. As a Conservative you see any risk that doesn't work out as a falure. It's not. Taking risks, often big risks is what pushes society forward. Venturing into the unknown without a map. It's not just science either.

    Many of the most important political actions in history were made by radical liberals. The declaration and constition are radical liberal documents. The Medicare and Medicaid you rely on for your retirement are thanks to radical liberals. Women's rights, civil rights thanks to radical liberals. Food safety, child labor laws, the 40 hour work week all thanks to radical liberals. 

    From science and engineering the wright brothers, Henry Ford, Neil Armstrong, Einstein, Elon Musk all radical liberals. 

    Now they're are plenty of radical liberals and radical liberal ideas that failed. Prohibition was the result of an alliance between radical liberals and religious zealots. There are countless failed technologies, wrong scientific ideas and political experiments that went wrong (see communism in practice). But that's ok. That's how the system is supposed to work. And this is where I blow your mind. This is where conservatives come in as valuable. They help check the unbridled enthusiasm and risk taking of radical liberals. We actually need both. We need the radical liberals to generate new ideas and crusty old conservatives to question them. 
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,181 Senior Member

    Many of the most important political actions in history were made by radical liberals. The declaration and constition are radical liberal documents. The Medicare and Medicaid you rely on for your retirement are thanks to radical liberals. Women's rights, civil rights thanks to radical liberals. Food safety, child labor laws, the 40 hour work week all thanks to radical liberals.
    GOOD GRIEF, YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RADICAL LIBERALS AND CLASSICAL LIBERALS. Radical liberals are not much different than communists, in my opinion. They're the ones always tearing things down, rather than building up. I have witnessed the radical liberals of the 60's (the ones you seem to idolize) and the ones of today. They all suck....if you want to put yourself within that group, then knock yourself the F out. The constitution was not implemented to create the socialist state you describe.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,697 Senior Member


    ...I will agree with you on one point, every time before now generally sucked worse than today. It's called progress and you can thank progressives for that! Seriously though, there's no way to go back to the government of the 1770's without going back to the economy and technology of the 1770's and to that I say no thanks!
    Assuming that you do actually know that Nicholas Tesla, Louis Pasteur, Isaac Newton and all of the other great scientific intellects were left-wing radicals in the same vein as those that now call themselves progressives, it proves nothing, because it omits all of the scientists who were wrong about their new ideas. In fact, most of the great scientific discoveries have been made by scientists stumbling upon new scientific phenomena, while trying to prove a different theory. Compared to what the great scientists in history have had to do to get support for their theories, the climate change cabal has done nothing.

    You try to paint conservatives as being obstinate old white racists who hate all new ideas. The truth is that most are simply realists, who have learned from a study of what has gone before that the majority of new ideas fail, due to unexpected consequences. That does not mean that conservatives don't embrace new ideas. It just means that they don't 'bet the ranch' on an idea that has no record of success. The difference is like the difference between gamblers - -- the successful ones avoid games like roulette, because it is a game of pure luck, in favor of games like straight poker, where a person can greatly improve the odds of success by using his own intellect to control his losses, while still striving for success. He wins a little, loses a little, and waits for the odds to favor him, before 'betting the ranch.'
    That failure isn't a bug it's an intentional part of the program. As a Conservative you see any risk that doesn't work out as a falure. It's not. Taking risks, often big risks is what pushes society forward. Venturing into the unknown without a map. It's not just science either.

    Many of the most important political actions in history were made by radical liberals. The declaration and constition are radical liberal documents. The Medicare and Medicaid you rely on for your retirement are thanks to radical liberals. Women's rights, civil rights thanks to radical liberals. Food safety, child labor laws, the 40 hour work week all thanks to radical liberals. 

    From science and engineering the wright brothers, Henry Ford, Neil Armstrong, Einstein, Elon Musk all radical liberals. 

    Now they're are plenty of radical liberals and radical liberal ideas that failed. Prohibition was the result of an alliance between radical liberals and religious zealots. There are countless failed technologies, wrong scientific ideas and political experiments that went wrong (see communism in practice). But that's ok. That's how the system is supposed to work. And this is where I blow your mind. This is where conservatives come in as valuable. They help check the unbridled enthusiasm and risk taking of radical liberals. We actually need both. We need the radical liberals to generate new ideas and crusty old conservatives to question them. 
    You aren't completely wrong, except that you tend to give your side way too much credit, by switching your ideology back to 'liberal,' from the 'progressive' label you claimed in the previous post.

    Yes, it is true that the founding fathers were liberals, but at a time when conservatives supported monarchy. Oddly, though, the 'father' of conservatism, Edmund Burke, stood up for the colonists in the British Parliament, for resisting taxation without representation and the right to resist the establishment of British soldiers as a metropolitan authority. Had he been heeded, there would have been no need for a revolution.

    As for Thomas Edison, he was far from liberal. He was simply an American capitalist who took the best ideas of Nicholas Tesla, and turned them into a product that made him money and benefited mankind, the whole world over.

    Henry Ford was a radical, anti-semitic conservative who invented nothing and vehemently opposed labor unions. but opposed them by giving his workers a reduced work week, and paid them enough to afford the products they built. He was simply a gifted capitalist that cared about the working man.

    I'm perfectly willing to give liberals credit where it is due, but don't mix and match them with radical leftists. Even as we speak, the liberals in your own party are cringing at the silliness of the radical left that is fighting for control of the party. There was a time when a liberal could be respected by a conservative, because there was no reason to suspect his motives as purely political, even to the detriment of the country. But that ship has sailed. People like Harvard lawyer and professor Alan Dershowitz fought the liberal causes for his entire long life, but is now reviled by Democrats on mainstream media for supporting Constitutional values that he has held for 50 years, when he was a liberal icon.

    Nowadays, it is impossible to clearly define what either the liberals, progressives, or radical leftists in the Democrat party stand for, because they refuse to define it - they just hate Trump and anyone else who doesn't kowtow to their nonsense.
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,429 Senior Member
    It only took 30 pieces of silver to make Judas change his mind- - - - -I'll bet this guy will pocket a LOT more for doing somewhat of a flip-flop.
    Hide and wail in terror, Eloi- - - -We Morlocks are on the hunt!
    ASK-HOLE Someone who asks for advice and always does something opposite
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 3,751 Senior Member
    Harvard University technical studies department of proctological theory is currently investigating the effects of bipartisan rhetorical gas in the atmosphere contributing to the climate crisis. 

    Congress is debating the amount of funding to allocate next session.
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,775 Senior Member
    Bisley I was writing with the more dictionary definitions in mind.

    Liberal - "open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values."

    Conservative - "holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion."

    Yes the current political definitions don't always perfectly align with these, but at the core this is generally what I think about when I think liberal vs conservative.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 26,181 Senior Member
    Bisley I was writing with the more dictionary definitions in mind.

    Liberal - "open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values."

    Conservative - "holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion."

    Yes the current political definitions don't always perfectly align with these, but at the core this is generally what I think about when I think liberal vs conservative.
    That may be the 'book definition' but it isn't the actual fact in practice by a long shot.

    Conservative- "Let's check this out thoroughly and look for any unintended and unforseen consequences of this idea, thing, ideology to make sure it isn't more harmful than good."
     
    Liberal- "Hold my beer and watch this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
    If the U.S. Congress was put in charge of the Sahara Desert, there would be a shortage of sand in under six months.



  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,181 Senior Member
    tennmike said:

    That may be the 'book definition' but it isn't the actual fact in practice by a long shot.

    Conservative- "Let's check this out thoroughly and look for any unintended and unforseen consequences of this idea, thing, ideology to make sure it isn't more harmful than good."
     
    Liberal- "Hold my beer and watch this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
    Kind of like those stunts in the "Jackass" movies where dumbasses crash into things to see what the results will be.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 26,181 Senior Member
    Earthlings: The Sun doesn't control Earth's climate. OUR input is greater.
    Sun: Not true; I control the climate of the Earth, you puny Earthlings.
    Eartlings: No you don't!
    Sun: How about I turn down my thermostat to 50% output, or turn it up 30% higher.
    Earthlings several weeks later: YOU WIN! GO BACK TO NORMAL VARIABLE OUTPUT!!!!!!!!!!
    :D
    If the U.S. Congress was put in charge of the Sahara Desert, there would be a shortage of sand in under six months.



  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,181 Senior Member
    Bisley I was writing with the more dictionary definitions in mind.

    Liberal - "open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values."

    Conservative - "holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion."

    Yes the current political definitions don't always perfectly align with these, but at the core this is generally what I think about when I think liberal vs conservative.
    I guess "new behavior" and "discarding traditional values" would include forcing men and women, boys and girls all to pee in the same bathroom. Yeah, got it!!
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,181 Senior Member
    tennmike said:
    Earthlings: The Sun doesn't control Earth's climate. OUR input is greater.
    Sun: Not true; I control the climate of the Earth, you puny Earthlings.
    Eartlings: No you don't!
    Sun: How about I turn down my thermostat to 50% output, or turn it up 30% higher.
    Earthlings several weeks later: YOU WIN! GO BACK TO NORMAL VARIABLE OUTPUT!!!!!!!!!!
    :D
    All you have to do is compare the difference in air temperature of night and day and you get the answer....LOL
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 15,341 Senior Member
    I guess "new behavior" and "discarding traditional values" would include forcing men and women, boys and girls all to pee in the same bathroom. Yeah, got it!!
    Call me radical, but we have been doing that at my house for as long as I can remember.
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,181 Senior Member
    I guess "new behavior" and "discarding traditional values" would include forcing men and women, boys and girls all to pee in the same bathroom. Yeah, got it!!
    Call me radical, but we have been doing that at my house for as long as I can remember.
    You know damn well I was talking about public restrooms.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,697 Senior Member
    Putting man-made climate change at higher priority than protection of the infrastructure from naturally occurring electro-magnetic pulse protection is absolutely insane. First, with climate theory, you have theory that has not come close to crossing the threshold into scientific fact, due to huge variables that can only be extrapolated from scant data.

    Compare that to a known fact - that the incidence of 'solar flares' have, in relatively recent history (1859), been documented to have surged briefly and caused a catastrophic failure of all of the man-made electrical infrastructure that existed at that time. It was not considered catastrophic, at the time, because telegraphy was the only electrically based technology that existed, at least to any sort of world-wide degree.

    But it is possible to quantify the effect of that known and well documented solar anomaly by measuring what sort of power was required to disable telegraph keys and other components of that era. That is real science, that can be reproduced, over and over again, using man-made EMP tecnology. It is absolutely possible to accurately predict the damage to the current level of technology, today, and it is not theoretical. We know that it has happened at least once, and that it can happen, again. We also know how to mitigate the damage from it, with relatively low-tech devices (Faraday cages), that don't cost a lot.

    If protection from naturally occurring EMP is not enough incentive, you would think that having at least 9 or 10 countries with nuclear weapons capable of doing the same thing on a more localized level would be. Instead we waste our time and money on theoretical ideas that can't even be partially proved for another 100 years, if ever.


  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,775 Senior Member
    bisley said:
    Putting man-made climate change at higher priority than protection of the infrastructure from naturally occurring electro-magnetic pulse protection is absolutely insane. First, with climate theory, you have theory that has not come close to crossing the threshold into scientific fact, due to huge variables that can only be extrapolated from scant data.

    Compare that to a known fact - that the incidence of 'solar flares' have, in relatively recent history (1859), been documented to have surged briefly and caused a catastrophic failure of all of the man-made electrical infrastructure that existed at that time. It was not considered catastrophic, at the time, because telegraphy was the only electrically based technology that existed, at least to any sort of world-wide degree.

    But it is possible to quantify the effect of that known and well documented solar anomaly by measuring what sort of power was required to disable telegraph keys and other components of that era. That is real science, that can be reproduced, over and over again, using man-made EMP tecnology. It is absolutely possible to accurately predict the damage to the current level of technology, today, and it is not theoretical. We know that it has happened at least once, and that it can happen, again. We also know how to mitigate the damage from it, with relatively low-tech devices (Faraday cages), that don't cost a lot.

    If protection from naturally occurring EMP is not enough incentive, you would think that having at least 9 or 10 countries with nuclear weapons capable of doing the same thing on a more localized level would be. Instead we waste our time and money on theoretical ideas that can't even be partially proved for another 100 years, if ever.


    Katrina, Sandy, Harvey, Maria....

    How many acres have burned and how many homes have been destroyed by wildfires in the past few years?

    How many floods, droughts (TX, CA), mudslides have we heard about in the past decade? How many "100 year storms"?

    Nope, can't be proved, we should continue doing exactly what we've been doing, running a missive uncontrolled experiment with the Earth's atmosphere. What's the worst that could happen? I'm sure if we just continue on our current path of burning a million years worth of dead dinosaurs a year and go ahead and double or even triple the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, nothing bad will happen. I mean it's not like we can scientifically prove that CO2 traps heat within the earth's atmosphere and doesn't allow it to emit back into space...oh wait, that one we actually can scientifically prove down to the exact atomic mechanisms by which it occurs. What do I care anyway, I'll probably dead before the worst of it hits anyway and kids these days are spoiled little brats so who cares if their lives suck as long as I don't have to change one bit while I'm still breathing.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 26,181 Senior Member
    Katrina, Sandy, Harvey, Maria....

    How many acres have burned and how many homes have been destroyed by wildfires in the past few years?

    How many floods, droughts (TX, CA), mudslides have we heard about in the past decade? How many "100 year storms"?

    Nope, can't be proved, we should continue doing exactly what we've been doing, running a missive uncontrolled experiment with the Earth's atmosphere. What's the worst that could happen? I'm sure if we just continue on our current path of burning a million years worth of dead dinosaurs a year and go ahead and double or even triple the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, nothing bad will happen. I mean it's not like we can scientifically prove that CO2 traps heat within the earth's atmosphere and doesn't allow it to emit back into space...oh wait, that one we actually can scientifically prove down to the exact atomic mechanisms by which it occurs. What do I care anyway, I'll probably dead before the worst of it hits anyway and kids these days are spoiled little brats so who cares if their lives suck as long as I don't have to change one bit while I'm still breathing.
    Hey, Chikkin Little, you like graphs and schizzle like that. Chew on these three sites that report on CO2 from a few million years ago to present. There was life back in some of those previous times, like dinosaurs, and they didn't die from excessive CO2, and they had a lot more than we do!

    https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth103/node/1018

    http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_1.shtml
    (Click on the graph on the right of the page to expand the graph, and your mind)

    This link gets into some pretty complicated stuff, but it's pretty well explained.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/99/7/4167



    If the U.S. Congress was put in charge of the Sahara Desert, there would be a shortage of sand in under six months.



  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,775 Senior Member
    tennmike said:
    Katrina, Sandy, Harvey, Maria....

    How many acres have burned and how many homes have been destroyed by wildfires in the past few years?

    How many floods, droughts (TX, CA), mudslides have we heard about in the past decade? How many "100 year storms"?

    Nope, can't be proved, we should continue doing exactly what we've been doing, running a missive uncontrolled experiment with the Earth's atmosphere. What's the worst that could happen? I'm sure if we just continue on our current path of burning a million years worth of dead dinosaurs a year and go ahead and double or even triple the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, nothing bad will happen. I mean it's not like we can scientifically prove that CO2 traps heat within the earth's atmosphere and doesn't allow it to emit back into space...oh wait, that one we actually can scientifically prove down to the exact atomic mechanisms by which it occurs. What do I care anyway, I'll probably dead before the worst of it hits anyway and kids these days are spoiled little brats so who cares if their lives suck as long as I don't have to change one bit while I'm still breathing.
    Hey, Chikkin Little, you like graphs and schizzle like that. Chew on these three sites that report on CO2 from a few million years ago to present. There was life back in some of those previous times, like dinosaurs, and they didn't die from excessive CO2, and they had a lot more than we do!

    https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth103/node/1018

    http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_1.shtml
    (Click on the graph on the right of the page to expand the graph, and your mind)

    This link gets into some pretty complicated stuff, but it's pretty well explained.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/99/7/4167



    And during those times of high CO2, the average temperature of the earth was also way higher. Yes life will still exist. But I don't care about that. I care if the earth will continue to support 7Billion human beings and $80 trillion in economic activity and growing. I care if the climate changes enough that we can no longer grow enough food to feed the global population. I care if drought and famine lead to major wars. I care if tropical diseases spread  widely acrosd the globe. Lots of things to care about short of if life will survive on Earth.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,181 Senior Member
    edited July 2018 #60
    Oh, woe is us. Chikkin little was the right name. I'll remember that while I blast down the highway in my 5.7 liter, 17mpg, 5000 pound truck........ :D
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,697 Senior Member
    And during those times of high CO2, the average temperature of the earth was also way higher. Yes life will still exist. But I don't care about that. I care if the earth will continue to support 7Billion human beings and $80 trillion in economic activity and growing. I care if the climate changes enough that we can no longer grow enough food to feed the global population. I care if drought and famine lead to major wars. I care if tropical diseases spread  widely acrosd the globe. Lots of things to care about short of if life will survive on Earth.
    When you can make a hard case that none of this would have occurred without the intrusion of modern man, I will be listening - oh, wait, I'll be several hundred years old when you have enough hard data to prove that.

    There are dozens of theories that may turn out to be true about the fate of planet earth. This is the one a few scientists chose to home in on for government enforced funding. After a few trillion more dollars are spent, they will likely still be hunting for the proof that will turn this into scientific fact, instead of popular theory. The naturally occurring EMP is a solid fact, now, and has been for over a hundred years.
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.