Science & Technology News

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Indeed, and so what {& why] do you conclude, differently.

From the Rutgers synopsis:
“ ... The global rise in sea-level from melting ice and warming oceans from 1900 to 2000 led to a rate that’s more than twice the average for the years 0 to 1800 – the most significant change, according to the study in the journal Nature Communications ...
... They found that regional land subsidence – [isotastic adjustment] sinking of the land since the Laurentide ice sheet retreated thousands of years ago – dominates each site’s budget over the last 2,000 years. Other regional factors, such as ocean dynamics, and site-specific local processes, such as groundwater withdrawal that helps cause land to sink, contribute much less to each budget and vary over time and by location ...”

From the Study Abstract:
“ ... The most significant change in the budgets is the increasing influence of the common global signal due to ice melt and thermal expansion since 1800 CE, which became a dominant contributor to RSL with a 20th century rate of 1.3 ± 0.1 mm yr−1 ...”
Emphasis mine.

The two words that have consistently "eluded" newhaul are "climate" and "change," though he does seem to be having trouble with "alluded" as well!

[geoleo]

Is it true that those people of a leftist collectivist urge and 'bent' blame climate change and ocean s rising and global warming on capitolism by burming fossil fuels? If so, why?? In particular since Communist China is the world leader by far in polluting by burning fossil fuels. Explain that my leftist friends.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

The two words that have consistently "eluded" newhaul are "climate" and "change," though he does seem to be having trouble with "alluded" as well!

You really are not paying much attention to the postings I have made overthe years concerning " Climate Change" I have no issue with the changing climate . It is constantly changing . I just feel that man's influence on it is extremely overrated . We are fleas on a dog .

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by newhaul

You really are not paying much attention to the postings I have made overthe years concerning " Climate Change" I have no issue with the changing climate . It is constantly changing . I just feel that man's influence on it is extremely overrated . We are fleas on a dog .

This is a subjective claim. Depends on how you rate things. Actual climate science so far indicates the activities of our global civilization are a significant contributor to what is driving the current form of climate change.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

This is a subjective claim. Depends on how you rate things. Actual climate science so far indicates the activities of our global civilization are a significant contributor to what is driving the current form of climate change.

No it doesn't. Not the actual science. Remove the media and the politicians and even the ipcc admits that .

[CatNewBee]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

This is a subjective claim. Depends on how you rate things. Actual climate science so far indicates the activities of our global civilization are a significant contributor to what is driving the current form of climate change.

I think, we found a solution for man made climate change and global warming. Solution by dillution, since the gender studies against binary man and woman, we have now 154 genders and man made climate change falls from 1:2 down to 1:154. And we have daily new, so the toxical role of man in man made climate change is declining pretty fast. [emoji1787][emoji1787][emoji1787]

Btw, Newhaul is pretty spot on. climate always changes, with or without humans - and humans are part of the nature - they are inclusive - so even if they have any effect on climate - it is still natural by definition - except one identifies as extraterrestial alien from another universe (not unlikely to get this on your passport nowadays) .

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by newhaul

You really are not paying much attention to the postings I have made overthe years concerning " Climate Change" I have no issue with the changing climate . It is constantly changing . I just feel that man's influence on it is extremely overrated . We are fleas on a dog .

How's that "global cooling" coming along?

Newhaul and Valentina Zarkhova predicted that the planet’s temperature might plummet by 1°C. during the current grand solar minimum. The possible decrease in temperatures has led to some predictions that the solar minimum cooling might even cause a Little Ice Age, and offset the rising temperatures due to global warming.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by newhaul

No it doesn't. Not the actual science. Remove the media and the politicians and even the ipcc admits that .

You're simply wrong, and I think you know it. The IPCC's latest full synthesis report states:

Observed Changes and their Causes:

Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of green-house gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.

Observed changes in the climate system

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.

Causes of climate change

Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era, driven largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher than ever. This has led to atmo-spheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that are unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Their effects, together with those of other anthropogenic driv-ers, have been detected throughout the climate system and are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by GordMay

How's that "global cooling" coming along?

Newhaul and Valentina Zarkhova predicted that the planet’s temperature might plummet by 1°C. during the current grand solar minimum. The possible decrease in temperatures has led to some predictions that the solar minimum cooling might even cause a Little Ice Age, and offset the rising temperatures due to global warming.

Actually the grand minimum is not predicted to begin for a few years yet . 5 or so iirc.

As an aside does anyone else remember the predicted mini ice age from 1974 ?
June issue of time magazine. The stated time frame was begins in 50 years. Well that will be 2024 or the end of solar cycle 25. They may have been off by a couple years.

Has anyone noticed the increase in volcanic activity ?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by geoleo

Is it true that those people of a leftist collectivist urge and 'bent' blame climate change and ocean s rising and global warming on capitolism by burming fossil fuels? If so, why?? In particular since Communist China is the world leader by far in polluting by burning fossil fuels. Explain that my leftist friends.

I'm not a member of, or sympathetic to, any leftist collectivist urge, but I'll give it a shot.

Hmmm. Per-capita, the US CO2 emissions are still over twice that of China.
So maybe... you're wrong.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by CatNewBee

... humans are part of the nature - they are inclusive - so even if they have any effect on climate - it is still natural by definition

Nope. The moment we gained the ability to alter our environment, and to foresee the outcome of chosen actions, we left the realm of nature. We are now responsible for our behaviour and its effects on the planet.

The mere fact that you are able to form and contemplate such an abstraction as "nature" confirms that you've bitten the apple and left the garden.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Actually the grand minimum is not predicted to begin for a few years yet . 5 or so iirc ...
... Has anyone noticed the increase in volcanic activity ?

It seems, we're either beginning the solar minimum already, or are just about to do so.

The new 11-year-cycle of the Sun has begun. Scientists believe the Sun was at its weakest in 2019 in the last 100 years or so — known as the solar minimum — and 2020 marks the beginning of the 25th cycle.

“Modern Grand Solar Minimum will lead to terrestrial cooling” ~ by Valentina Zharkova [August 4, 2020]
In this editorial I will demonstrate with newly discovered solar activity proxy-magnetic field that the Sun has entered into the modern Grand Solar Minimum (2020–2053) that will lead to a significant reduction of solar magnetic field and activity like during Maunder minimum leading to noticeable reduction of terrestrial temperature.
➥ https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full...0.2020.1796243

“There Is No Impending 'Mini Ice Age'” ~ NASA [February 13, 2020]
➥ https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2953/t...-mini-ice-age/

Solar Cycle 25 Prediction Panel experts said Solar Cycle 25 may have a slow start, but is anticipated to peak with solar maximum occurring between 2023 and 2026, and a sunspot range of 95 to 130. This is well below the average number of sunspots, which typically ranges from 140 to 220 sunspots per solar cycle. The panel has high confidence that the coming cycle should break the trend of weakening solar activity seen over the past four cycles.

“We expect Solar Cycle 25 will be very similar to Cycle 24: another fairly weak cycle, preceded by a long, deep minimum,” said panel co-chair Lisa Upton, Ph.D., solar physicist with Space Systems Research Corp. “The expectation that Cycle 25 will be comparable in size to Cycle 24 means that the steady decline in solar cycle amplitude, seen from cycles 21-24, has come to an end and that there is no indication that we are currently approaching a Maunder-type minimum in solar activity.”
➥ https://www.weather.gov/news/190504-...in-solar-cycle


Has volcanic activity been increasing?
"The Global Volcanism Program does not see any evidence that volcanic activity is actually increasing. Data about eruptions has been compiled by the Smithsonian since 1968 in order to provide context for global volcanism. The following figures and discussion are modified from an introductory section in Siebert et al. (2010); data is through 2009, but more recent data is available. ..."
➥ https://volcano.si.edu/faq/index.cfm...oricalactivity

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by GordMay

It seems, we're either beginning the solar minimum already, or are just about to do so.

The new 11-year-cycle of the Sun has begun. Scientists believe the Sun was at its weakest in 2019 in the last 100 years or so — known as the solar minimum — and 2020 marks the beginning of the 25th cycle.

“Modern Grand Solar Minimum will lead to terrestrial cooling” ~ by Valentina Zharkova [August 4, 2020]
In this editorial I will demonstrate with newly discovered solar activity proxy-magnetic field that the Sun has entered into the modern Grand Solar Minimum (2020–2053) that will lead to a significant reduction of solar magnetic field and activity like during Maunder minimum leading to noticeable reduction of terrestrial temperature.
➥ https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full...0.2020.1796243

“There Is No Impending 'Mini Ice Age'” ~ NASA [February 13, 2020]
➥ https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2953/t...-mini-ice-age/

Solar Cycle 25 Prediction Panel experts said Solar Cycle 25 may have a slow start, but is anticipated to peak with solar maximum occurring between 2023 and 2026, and a sunspot range of 95 to 130. This is well below the average number of sunspots, which typically ranges from 140 to 220 sunspots per solar cycle. The panel has high confidence that the coming cycle should break the trend of weakening solar activity seen over the past four cycles.

“We expect Solar Cycle 25 will be very similar to Cycle 24: another fairly weak cycle, preceded by a long, deep minimum,” said panel co-chair Lisa Upton, Ph.D., solar physicist with Space Systems Research Corp. “The expectation that Cycle 25 will be comparable in size to Cycle 24 means that the steady decline in solar cycle amplitude, seen from cycles 21-24, has come to an end and that there is no indication that we are currently approaching a Maunder-type minimum in solar activity.”
➥ https://www.weather.gov/news/190504-...in-solar-cycle


Has volcanic activity been increasing?
"The Global Volcanism Program does not see any evidence that volcanic activity is actually increasing. Data about eruptions has been compiled by the Smithsonian since 1968 in order to provide context for global volcanism. The following figures and discussion are modified from an introductory section in Siebert et al. (2010); data is through 2009, but more recent data is available. Please do not reproduce the figures below without all of the accompanying analysis and proper citation (links are preferred). There is great value in knowing the recent volcanological record, but its limitations are not always apparent. Readers are strongly cautioned against mistaking the record for the reality ..."
➥ https://volcano.si.edu/faq/index.cfm...oricalactivity

You cling to that I will go with the math and science .
As to the article you posted about volcanic activity is long out of date or have you not been watching the events of the last 3 months

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by CatNewBee
... humans are part of the nature - they are inclusive - so even if they have any effect on climate - it is still natural by definition

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Nope. The moment we gained the ability to alter our environment, and to foresee the outcome of chosen actions, we left the realm of nature. We are now responsible for our behaviour and its effects on the planet.

Actually, on this point I agree with Cat. Humans are as natural as anything else in Nature. So our actions are, by definition, natural.

In fact, I think we're behaving just like all other species ever have. All animals maximize their use of their ecosystem, and only stop, or come into balance, when faced with hard limits. No other species proactively reduces their impact on their ecosystem. So why should we be any different?

Of course, the issue is as Lake-Effect says; that Homo sapiens have the capacity to alter the planet's biosphere AND we can foresee the consequences. No other species has been in this position, so in theory we could step outside of Nature.

Unfortunately, we're showing that we're not capable of this step. In effect, it's proving we're just like all the other animals this planet has brought forth.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Actually, on this point I agree with Cat. Humans are as natural as anything else in Nature. So our actions are, by definition, natural.
...Homo sapiens have the capacity to alter the planet's biosphere AND we can foresee the consequences. No other species has been in this position, so in theory we could step outside of Nature.
Unfortunately, we're showing that we're not capable of this step. In effect, it's proving we're just like all the other animals this planet has brought forth.

Obviously I disagree. We have choice and agency, which makes us responsible. Choosing to apply our knowledge and ability to perform destructive and wasteful behaviour is as "unnatural" as choosing to behave more conservatively.

Eg fracking and developing solar generation are equally unnatural, but one might be less harmful overall than the other. We are responsible now to choose the best course. Or the best balance of different courses.

Being "part of nature" is no excuse for behaving irresponsibly. There's no "welp that's just our nature" excuse for the major choices we make. These choices are primarily influenced by a tug of war between groups having different agendas. Best persuader wins; there's no room for nature, other than responding to the levers being pulled.

As someone critical of the manipulation possible through advertising and misinformation, I'd have thought you'd be more inclined to my view here.