Kinda funny


baz said:
NASA predicted the coming ice age in 1971
Then the media latched on just as they did with global warming
And now climate change
Click to expand...
NASA never predicted an ice age.
In the 70s a FEW scientists (none attributed to NASA, I believe) speculated about possible global cooling and yes it was blown out of proportion in a couple of magazine articles. But not widespread and not for long.
The overwhelming majority of scientists even back then were more concerned about global warming trends.

NASA has predicted the POSSIBILITY of a reduction in solar activity at some point, which is not an ice age and would not cause an ice age. They say that greenhouse gasses exert six times the influence on global temperatures than what a reduction in solar activity would do. So even if it happened, the overall effect would be a continuation of global warming, but at about 5/6ths of the current speed. No ice ages in sight.

Here's a little further reading on the fallacy that scientists in the 1970s predicted an ice age https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm
 
HopperXL said:
NASA never predicted an ice age.
In the 70s a FEW scientists (none attributed to NASA, I believe) speculated about possible global cooling and yes it was blown out of proportion in a couple of magazine articles. But not widespread and not for long.
The overwhelming majority of scientists even back then were more concerned about global warming trends.

NASA has predicted the POSSIBILITY of a reduction in solar activity at some point, which is not an ice age and would not cause an ice age. They say that greenhouse gasses exert six times the influence on global temperatures than what a reduction in solar activity would do. So even if it happened, the overall effect would be a continuation of global warming, but at about 5/6ths of the current speed. No ice ages in sight.

Here's a little further reading on the fallacy that scientists in the 1970s predicted an ice age https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • Kinda funny
    Screenshot_20230328-075248.png
    465.4 KB · Views: 76
Here is what Stephen Schneider says about that one paper he submitted to a journal, speculatiing on the possibility of global cooling:

Stephen Schneider, a climatologist at Stanford University, recalls those stories well. "I was one of the ones who talked about global cooling," he says. "I was also the one who said what was wrong with that idea within three years." Schneider coauthored a 1971 article in the journal Science about atmospheric aerosols—floating particles of soil dust, volcanic ash, and human-made pollutants. His research suggested that industrial aerosols could block sunlight and reduce global temperatures enough to overcome the effects of greenhouse gases, possibly triggering an ice age. But he soon realized that he had overestimated the amount of aerosols in the air and underestimated the role of greenhouse gases. "Back then this science was so new, so theoretical, it was really hard to sort it out," he says. He and other early climate researchers say they did not predict a global cooling trend but simply suggested the possibility. Evidence suggests that average worldwide temperatures did decrease between the 1940s and the 1970s. Some climatologists partially attribute the temporary cooling trend to industrial smog, which has since been overcome by the effects of growing greenhouse emissions and, ironically, by clean-air laws that have reduced atmospheric particulates. "Science is a self-correcting institution," Schneider says. "The data change, so of course you change your position. Otherwise, you would be dishonest."

One paper submitted to a journal by one scientist speculating on the possibility of global cooling based on date then available does not constitute NASA predicting an ice age. NASA never predicted an ice age.
 
  • Like
Reactions: baz
HopperXL said:
Here is what Stephen Schneider says about that one paper he submitted to a journal, speculatiing on the possibility of global cooling:

Stephen Schneider, a climatologist at Stanford University, recalls those stories well. "I was one of the ones who talked about global cooling," he says. "I was also the one who said what was wrong with that idea within three years." Schneider coauthored a 1971 article in the journal Science about atmospheric aerosols—floating particles of soil dust, volcanic ash, and human-made pollutants. His research suggested that industrial aerosols could block sunlight and reduce global temperatures enough to overcome the effects of greenhouse gases, possibly triggering an ice age. But he soon realized that he had overestimated the amount of aerosols in the air and underestimated the role of greenhouse gases. "Back then this science was so new, so theoretical, it was really hard to sort it out," he says. He and other early climate researchers say they did not predict a global cooling trend but simply suggested the possibility. Evidence suggests that average worldwide temperatures did decrease between the 1940s and the 1970s. Some climatologists partially attribute the temporary cooling trend to industrial smog, which has since been overcome by the effects of growing greenhouse emissions and, ironically, by clean-air laws that have reduced atmospheric particulates. "Science is a self-correcting institution," Schneider says. "The data change, so of course you change your position. Otherwise, you would be dishonest."

One paper submitted to a journal by one scientist speculating on the possibility of global cooling based on date then available does not constitute NASA predicting an ice age. NASA never predicted an ice age.
Click to expand...
All I can say is I remember being taught about it at school
And the feeling it gave to me and my classmates at that time
 
baz said:
All I can say is I remember being taught about it at school
And the feeling it gave to me and my classmates at that time
Click to expand...
Ah, well there is a lot we were taught at school 50 years ago that is not relevant today. I remember being taught Australia was settled peacefully because it was empty when Captain Cook arrived. LOL. Laughable today in light of evidence of hundreds of massacres of some tens of, maybe over a hundred, thousands of Aborigines. But "terra nullius" (empty land) was standard school history in the 1970s.
As Schneider says in the last sentence above, as the data change, you change your position. That is how science works. 50 years is a long time. And the acceleration of science that came with computers has been mindboggling. Lot of new data in half a century. And a lot of advancement in analysing and understanding it.
 
HopperXL said:
Ah, well there is a lot we were taught at school 50 years ago that is not relevant today. I remember being taught Australia was settled peacefully because it was empty when Captain Cook arrived. LOL. Laughable today in light of evidence of hundreds of massacres of some tens of, maybe over a hundred, thousands of Aborigines. But "terra nullius" (empty land) was standard school history in the 1970s.
As Schneider says in the last sentence above, as the data change, you change your position. That is how science works. 50 years is a long time. And the acceleration of science that came with computers has been mindboggling. Lot of new data in half a century. And a lot of advancement in analysing and understanding it.
Click to expand...
Let's see if in 50 years time we are laughing at Al Gore's prediction of boiling sea and rain bombs etc
I predict that we will
 
baz said:
Let's see if in 50 years time we are laughing at Al Gore's prediction of boiling sea and rain bombs etc
I predict that we will
Click to expand...
You may be. I am sure I will be long gone. Al Gore is another media stunt, like Greta Thunberg. No idea about his predictions. But I would be worried about what the scientific consensus predicts. Which is not a good outcome if we keep on keeping on.
 
HopperXL said:
You may be. I am sure I will be long gone. Al Gore is another media stunt, like Greta Thunberg. No idea about his predictions. But I would be worried about what the scientific consensus predicts. Which is not a good outcome if we keep on keeping on.
Click to expand...
Oh he's certainly a "media stunt" alright 😂😂😂😂
You should look at some of his predictions!
 
R.I.P GRETA 😁
In Warsaw, miners carried a coffin with portraits of Greta Thunberg and Ursula von der Leyen at a protest against EU plans to limit methane emissions.
 

Attachments

  • Kinda funny
    Screenshot_20230328-204950_Telegram.jpg
    852.5 KB · Views: 66
KiwiShane said:
R.I.P GRETA 😁
In Warsaw, miners carried a coffin with portraits of Greta Thunberg and Ursula von der Leyen at a protest against EU plans to limit methane emissions.
Click to expand...
With 3000 farms being forced to close in the Netherlands
Whilst food shortages have doubled in the world
I doubt many Dutch people have much support for those two?
 
baz said:
With 3000 farms being forced to close in the Netherlands
Whilst food shortages have doubled in the world
I doubt many Dutch people have much support for those two?
Click to expand...
The Dutch people have massively supported the farmers as seen at the latest ballot box count 15 seats in the senate
I got my money on this girl...far more sensible to boot.
Eva Vlaardingerbroek
 

Attachments

  • Kinda funny
    Screenshot_20230328-223423_Twitter.jpg
    668.1 KB · Views: 81
HopperXL said:
NASA: "Human Activity Is the Cause of Increased Greenhouse Gas Concentrations" which is in turn the cause of global heating. Full story from NASA is here https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

If you reckon you know more about climatology than the scientists at NASA, please post a copy of your doctoral dissertation.

Myself, I struggled to get through first year Physics at college so don't claim that level of expertise in the hard sciences.
The idea that a bunch of internet armchair pogues like us can analyse the data and draw meaningful conclusions on such a complex system is laughable if you understand how science works at all. We might as well all be analysing the data and coming up with our own conclusions on how to build and run a nuclear power station or build a better Hadron particle accelerator. Both of which are very small, simple systems compared with the global environmental system.

Do you really think you could do a better job of designing and running a nuclear power station than a squad of folks with PhDs in Nuclear Physics??? Of course not. But climate science, hey everyone's an expert. They may not know what latent heat is, or understand Boyle's Law, or adiabatic expansion or isothermal compression, or be able to explain the thermodynamics of how their kitchen refrigerator works, but hey they sure know more than those dumb scientists about the thermodynamics of the global ecosystem.

(Not that this has anything to do with Greta Thunberg. She is just a media stunt. )
Click to expand...

Your own arguments regarding the extreme and enormous complexity of the global climatic system is reason enough to doubt that man's activity is 100% driving the climate. The system is too complex for climatologists to come to any well accepted concensus.

As to the NASA reference you cite, it is hardly a rigorous scientific document, more like a museum presentation to explain a complicated subject to the masses. It contains a paucity of references (7), of which only 4 are actually cited within the document, and only 3 are from professionals writing in well established peer review journals. It smacks of being propaganda to push the climate change agenda.

Moreover, the entire crux of the NASA presentation, is focused on and dependant on the green house gas model, i.e. , certain gases are known to increase temperature of an atmosphere inside a glass box with a lid on it. This model is an ultra simplistic model that assumes the earth's atmosphere can be modeled by a glass box with a lid on it, and therefore any additional such gasses into the earth's atmosphere WILL cause increased temperature. More and more, this model is being called into question, by myself with my credentials that include advanced thermodynamics, and two recent papers I have reviewed, one from researchers at MIT, the other from the University of Norway. I cannot cite those references without an exhausting literature search. Your own arguments citing the complexity of the climate system should make you doubt the glass box model is appropriate.

Respectfully,

Slick
 
I find it absolutely nuts that anyone believes a worldwide conversion to alternate energy sources should//could/demand happen in their preferred politicians election cycle.
And, that these conversions will "save the planet".
Those last three word are a monstrous money generating consortium that has become established world wide.

I am all for new energy development...but not at the knee jerk, haphazard hurry up and f%#k up rate demanded by every politically driven, climate conscious advocate out there. Long term research and understanding regarding all the influences of new energy development should be the answer, not the problem.

Consider the influence of battery development. The strip mining hysteria for Lithium in China, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Ghana, the Congo etc. And the little kids doing the digging. Wind turbines are seriously putting the hurt on the avian population, check what the Audubon society has to say about them. And now the wind farms set off the various coast lines world wide are taking a hit for low frequency sound influence (suspected, not proven) disrupting whale populations.

It seems none of the E energy advocates have, in their mad rush for alternate energy/electrical development, considered the long term environmental effects of Lithium harvesting and its disposal as just one example.
Well researched development and application is what's needed...not some politicians advocation for the immediate implementation of their policies to enhance their public/political standing as viewed by some tunnel visioned segment of the voting body.


The politicizing of the science/research/development as the chosen ones steadfastly announce only they can save the planet before the next voting cycle is the real clog in development.
Why is it that nuclear energy and natural gas are admonished when those two sources are a sound transitional energy source?
I guess the they were not the money making flavor of the day for a specific segment of voters and their representatives.

Follow the money.
Always.

"I'm from the Government and I'm here to help."​

 
Last edited:
I remember exactly where I was, at work doing a couple of extra hours one evening and watching the launch on the telly in the workshop.

Local upset around here is an energy company wanting to build huge (220m high..) wind turbines, and a lot of them, plus solar panels on the Radnor Hills, then 60miles of pylons & cables to take the power away. BIG upset all around, but the Welsh government are very keen on green(wash) so there will be a lot of argy bargy over that.

The size of the pylons requires spacing of 800ft between them, so ~6 per mile = 360 pylons. A lot of steel, and a lot of energy to make the steel as well as dig up the iron ore to begin with.

Madness.
 
concours said:
Where were you when the Challenger exploded?

en.m.wikipedia.org

Christa McAuliffe - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org

NASA screws up.
Click to expand...

I was at work and watched the entire tragedy on television.
We were in the lobby of the company I worked for with the company owner and my boss watching the launch.
The shuttle lifted off and was getting to about half size on the television screen when it exploded, at which point there was a lot of confusion from the NBC broadcast about what actually happened.
Their cameras were tracking falling debris and one of the boosters was shown wildly out of control headed for the ocean.
We knew right away.
Our fears were confirmed when one the techs at mission control said over the air in the understatement of the year "obviously a major malfunction".
It was at this point the network turned its cameras from the sky to the family members sitting in the bleachers watching the launch.
Really gut-wrenching images.
 
Last edited:
It always happen when something is too good, something usually does go wrong, going into space is a dangerous business, my old grandmother always said, never had any problem until they started to shoot things into space, no such things as ozone holes or climate change, well she pasted away before the climate debacle but I bet she would have.
And now carbon tax, how the f#*k are they going to stop cows sh#tting to stop methane gas, stop pumping our sh#t into the sea and put it too use on farm lands instead of man made chemical fertilisers
And remember plastics were the best thing ever invented, now we know that was a big mistake of mankind but we still producing it and walk along any beach you always find a old rubber thong (flip flop to others) but it's always one side you never get a matching pair and how long they been floating in the ocean before landing on our beaches.
So really scientists have a lot to answer as a lot of our problems were invented/made by them to find out 40 or more years later to be a big f#%k up for man kind.
Well I am doing my bit I live a simple life, people make a big deal that I don't have AC in my house in our hot climate, I grew up without it but people today can't live without it, can't live without our high technology things that rely on high power consumption, my house is 67 years old and has always had gas supplies connected to the house for the stove and hot water system it only works when you turn it on and now the greens want to phase gas out and replace with electricity systems and yet our power supplies are struggling for demand because every one are running their ACs, plugging in their electic cars or charging up their devices, I can't win by doing my bit and living a simple life.
Now it's overcast here today and be under 30c today, rain and a thunderstorm this afternoon, oooh no climate change is going to get me, give me a break, it's just another day in paradise down under, we just got to live with the good as well the bad.
Rant over lol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top