Starship Asterisk*

by **Chris Peterson** » Thu Aug 25, 2022 10:42 pm

mountainjim62 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 25, 2022 8:09 pm "Compared to the past 250 million years, the Earth is currently enduring a relative cold spell, possibly about four degrees Celsius below average."

Am I a crank too?

I don't know. Are you?

We are currently in an ice age, and have been for about 2.5 million years. That ice age has been marked by repeated glacial and interglacial periods. We're in one of the latter now, so our temperature is above the million year average. And below the 50 million year average. But the absolute temperature isn't really what matters. The problem is caused by the rapidity of the current warming, which is on the order of a century, compared to several thousand years or more for warming (or cooling) in natural cycles. And that's too fast for most of nature to adapt, which is why we are experiencing a mass extinction as well as huge stresses on human society.

by **mountainjim62** » Thu Aug 25, 2022 8:09 pm

"Compared to the past 250 million years, the Earth is currently enduring a relative cold spell, possibly about four degrees Celsius below average."

Am I a crank too?

"It costs the wrong people money."

Actually it costs EVERYBODY money. That doesn't mean it's not worth the money, but we should be honest about it.

by **Chris Peterson** » Mon Aug 22, 2022 8:55 pm

Marge wrote: ↑Mon Aug 22, 2022 8:36 pm I haven't seen anything here discussing the science of measuring historical temperatures. How does anyone know the temperature in Jan, 1880 by scientific "surface temperature analysis"? Might as well look it up in the newspapers of the day.

Going back a bit farther, how do scientists know that the average temperatures during the ice age were 5-7º C colder than now?

There are a lot of questions about implications of a +/- 1º C change, but I'm concentrating here on the question of the science of measuring historical temperatures. How do the wizards of Goddard and those in universities producing studies actually measure the data on which they base their conclusions?

There are many accurate historical records for temperature in 1880, from all over the globe. Before we had accurate instruments, temperatures are estimated by a large number of proxies- tree rings, pollen, various plant and animal fossils, isotopic analysis of materials... a huge list, and usually multiple proxies are available. So paleotemperature records are considered very reliable in most cases.

by **Marge** » Mon Aug 22, 2022 8:36 pm

I haven't seen anything here discussing the science of measuring historical temperatures. How does anyone know the temperature in Jan, 1880 by scientific "surface temperature analysis"? Might as well look it up in the newspapers of the day.

Going back a bit farther, how do scientists know that the average temperatures during the ice age were 5-7º C colder than now?

There are a lot of questions about implications of a +/- 1º C change, but I'm concentrating here on the question of the science of measuring historical temperatures. How do the wizards of Goddard and those in universities producing studies actually measure the data on which they base their conclusions?

by **Chris Peterson** » Mon Aug 22, 2022 8:00 pm

johnnydeep wrote: ↑Mon Aug 22, 2022 7:55 pm
Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Mon Aug 22, 2022 4:31 pm
johnnydeep wrote: ↑Mon Aug 22, 2022 4:23 pm

Ok, now you're being more pessimistic than even I am!
Trying to make you feel good!
Thanks - it worked for a while, but then I read the last few posters' comments before this one. We may be doomed after all. :cry:

[ EDIT: well, the comments are gone now. I guess they were deemed to be spam? ]

I reported them as cranks, and the moderators did the rest. Opinions can vary on what we should do, but opinions can't rest on falsehoods.

by **johnnydeep** » Mon Aug 22, 2022 7:55 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Mon Aug 22, 2022 4:31 pm
johnnydeep wrote: ↑Mon Aug 22, 2022 4:23 pm
Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Mon Aug 22, 2022 3:18 pm

If that happens, I expect the U.S. will collapse. And it's anybody's guess what the climate consequences of that would be.
Ok, now you're being more pessimistic than even I am!
Trying to make you feel good!

Thanks - it worked for a while, but then I read the last few posters' comments before this one. We may be doomed after all.

[ EDIT: well, the comments are gone now. I guess they were deemed to be spam? ]

by **Astronymus** » Mon Aug 22, 2022 5:34 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Mon Aug 22, 2022 11:06 am We, in Germany, have already done these crazy acts. And now, one of the most industrialized nation on Earth will not only suffer a mega crisis due to crazy "green" ideas and a decrease of energy costs of 700%!!!. The politician went totally insane. The prime minister of the most industrialized region of Germany (where the Mercedes are produced) , recommend us to use a washcloth instead of showering to clean our bodies.
Do you really want to get this in the USA????

The crisis is there not because of "green ideas" but because of conservative politics. Instead of change in power mix and investing in alternatives the conservative parties made Germany completely dependent on Russian gas. Now the pipelines are dry and everyone is in panic. What a surprise. Pretty sure some radicals hoping for your vote have the same answer as everywhere else. Sell the country to the bad guys, take the money and vanish to some tropical island. Well, that's not their answer, but that's their plan.
Prime minister Kretschmann is old. Probably close to senility. Other and younger green politicians had more realistic advice. Just shower faster to save energy. Easy and works.

bystander wrote: ↑Mon Aug 22, 2022 4:07 pm I don't understand what the deniers are up in arms about. Most of the proposals to combat climate change make good sense environmentally. What is wrong with reducing pollution and cleaning up the environment. Is that such a bad thing?

It costs the wrong people money.

by **Chris Peterson** » Mon Aug 22, 2022 4:56 pm

bystander wrote: ↑Mon Aug 22, 2022 4:07 pm I don't understand what the deniers are up in arms about. Most of the proposals to combat climate change make good sense environmentally. What is wrong with reducing pollution and cleaning up the environment. Is that such a bad thing?

by **Chris Peterson** » Mon Aug 22, 2022 4:31 pm

johnnydeep wrote: ↑Mon Aug 22, 2022 4:23 pm
Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Mon Aug 22, 2022 3:18 pm
johnnydeep wrote: ↑Mon Aug 22, 2022 2:50 pm

My pessimism may be showing, but I think all bets are off if the gov't switches sides later this year and/or in 2024. My fingers remain crossed however!
If that happens, I expect the U.S. will collapse. And it's anybody's guess what the climate consequences of that would be.
Ok, now you're being more pessimistic than even I am!

Trying to make you feel good!

by **johnnydeep** » Mon Aug 22, 2022 4:23 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Mon Aug 22, 2022 3:18 pm
johnnydeep wrote: ↑Mon Aug 22, 2022 2:50 pm
Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Mon Aug 22, 2022 2:38 pm
We already have bills before Congress that have a good chance of passing to implement a fee-and-dividend system. Once people understand them, they are popular, as most people come out economically ahead, with dividends amounting to more than higher energy prices cost people. The direction the country takes in the next few years will decide if such a system is put into place.
My pessimism may be showing, but I think all bets are off if the gov't switches sides later this year and/or in 2024. My fingers remain crossed however!
If that happens, I expect the U.S. will collapse. And it's anybody's guess what the climate consequences of that would be.

Ok, now you're being more pessimistic than even I am!

by **bystander** » Mon Aug 22, 2022 4:07 pm

I don't understand what the deniers are up in arms about. Most of the proposals to combat climate change make good sense environmentally. What is wrong with reducing pollution and cleaning up the environment. Is that such a bad thing?

by **Chris Peterson** » Mon Aug 22, 2022 3:31 pm

RetiredAP wrote: ↑Mon Aug 22, 2022 3:25 pm I feel a bit sad reading these replies. It's almost as though science has left the building.

I can list the reasons, but it always falls on deaf ears. It will turn into a discussion of politics and not science, which I do not want.

My old colleagues agree with me, and are still actively trying to teach the truth, but I have all but given up hope that anyone actually cares anymore.

Disappointing

There is nothing wrong with discussing the politics of the issue, as that is essential to dealing with it. Report as cranks, however, those who deny the science and let the moderators delete those comments.

by **RetiredAP** » Mon Aug 22, 2022 3:25 pm

I feel a bit sad reading these replies. It's almost as though science has left the building.

I can list the reasons, but it always falls on deaf ears. It will turn into a discussion of politics and not science, which I do not want.

My old colleagues agree with me, and are still actively trying to teach the truth, but I have all but given up hope that anyone actually cares anymore.

Disappointing

by **Chris Peterson** » Mon Aug 22, 2022 3:18 pm

johnnydeep wrote: ↑Mon Aug 22, 2022 2:50 pm
Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Mon Aug 22, 2022 2:38 pm
johnnydeep wrote: ↑Mon Aug 22, 2022 2:27 pm

Taxes and fees depend on the will of those in power to impose them. That will does not yet exists in the U.S. and maybe even less so in the other countries that are the primary burners of fossil fuels. I fear things are going to have to get a lot worse before the needed will materializes.
We already have bills before Congress that have a good chance of passing to implement a fee-and-dividend system. Once people understand them, they are popular, as most people come out economically ahead, with dividends amounting to more than higher energy prices cost people. The direction the country takes in the next few years will decide if such a system is put into place.
My pessimism may be showing, but I think all bets are off if the gov't switches sides later this year and/or in 2024. My fingers remain crossed however!

If that happens, I expect the U.S. will collapse. And it's anybody's guess what the climate consequences of that would be.

by **johnnydeep** » Mon Aug 22, 2022 2:50 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Mon Aug 22, 2022 2:38 pm
johnnydeep wrote: ↑Mon Aug 22, 2022 2:27 pm
Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Mon Aug 22, 2022 1:14 pm

Such taxes (and increasingly, fee-and-dividend systems) are already going in place, and will continue to do so. The pricing on fossil fuels is an example of a classic market failure, where externalities make the price and the cost out of balance. Taxes and source fees correct that. It worked in the past with other pollutants, and it's a market-based approach that is popular even with conservative economists.
Taxes and fees depend on the will of those in power to impose them. That will does not yet exists in the U.S. and maybe even less so in the other countries that are the primary burners of fossil fuels. I fear things are going to have to get a lot worse before the needed will materializes.
We already have bills before Congress that have a good chance of passing to implement a fee-and-dividend system. Once people understand them, they are popular, as most people come out economically ahead, with dividends amounting to more than higher energy prices cost people. The direction the country takes in the next few years will decide if such a system is put into place.

My pessimism may be showing, but I think all bets are off if the gov't switches sides later this year and/or in 2024. My fingers remain crossed however!

by **Chris Peterson** » Mon Aug 22, 2022 2:38 pm

johnnydeep wrote: ↑Mon Aug 22, 2022 2:27 pm
Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Mon Aug 22, 2022 1:14 pm
VictorBorun wrote: ↑Mon Aug 22, 2022 5:54 am I believe the humanity should tax all fossil fuel extraction.
Such taxes (and increasingly, fee-and-dividend systems) are already going in place, and will continue to do so. The pricing on fossil fuels is an example of a classic market failure, where externalities make the price and the cost out of balance. Taxes and source fees correct that. It worked in the past with other pollutants, and it's a market-based approach that is popular even with conservative economists.
Taxes and fees depend on the will of those in power to impose them. That will does not yet exists in the U.S. and maybe even less so in the other countries that are the primary burners of fossil fuels. I fear things are going to have to get a lot worse before the needed will materializes.

We already have bills before Congress that have a good chance of passing to implement a fee-and-dividend system. Once people understand them, they are popular, as most people come out economically ahead, with dividends amounting to more than higher energy prices cost people. The direction the country takes in the next few years will decide if such a system is put into place.

by **johnnydeep** » Mon Aug 22, 2022 2:27 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Mon Aug 22, 2022 1:14 pm
VictorBorun wrote: ↑Mon Aug 22, 2022 5:54 am I believe the humanity should tax all fossil fuel extraction.
Such taxes (and increasingly, fee-and-dividend systems) are already going in place, and will continue to do so. The pricing on fossil fuels is an example of a classic market failure, where externalities make the price and the cost out of balance. Taxes and source fees correct that. It worked in the past with other pollutants, and it's a market-based approach that is popular even with conservative economists.

Taxes and fees depend on the will of those in power to impose them. That will does not yet exists in the U.S. and maybe even less so in the other countries that are the primary burners of fossil fuels. I fear things are going to have to get a lot worse before the needed will materializes.

by **Chris Peterson** » Mon Aug 22, 2022 1:14 pm

VictorBorun wrote: ↑Mon Aug 22, 2022 5:54 am I believe the humanity should tax all fossil fuel extraction.

Such taxes (and increasingly, fee-and-dividend systems) are already going in place, and will continue to do so. The pricing on fossil fuels is an example of a classic market failure, where externalities make the price and the cost out of balance. Taxes and source fees correct that. It worked in the past with other pollutants, and it's a market-based approach that is popular even with conservative economists.

by **orin stepanek** » Mon Aug 22, 2022 1:06 pm

I believe that there are several contributions to climate change! We
have more homes that need heating;. population increase; a lot
more cars; jets burning fuel; how many tons of rocket fuel used to
place a rocket in orbit! Burning fuel adds tons of water vapor into
the air: the list goes on and on!

: ws8MosQggVDs2RuK8Rs2oH-1200-80.jpg (18.93 KiB) Viewed 3975 times

Kitty is working on it!

by **Guest** » Mon Aug 22, 2022 11:06 am

VictorBorun wrote: ↑Mon Aug 22, 2022 5:54 am I believe the humanity should tax all fossil fuel extraction.
Current UN and national governments are not up to such task.
There is going to be a war on climate crime, against free riding regimes trespassing the fossil tax.

Another war is going to start around nuclear power stations. Some nations and groups will grab plutonium from fuel rods or threaten to blow up a reactor, and they possibly are going to make the nuclear power too costly to use.

Those two wars are going be bad for freedom and democracy but, like pirates or robbers, the climate tricksters are not going to stop life altogether; in the end some pirates will destroy each other, some starve, some get caught and some adopt to rules

We, in Germany, have already done these crazy acts. And now, one of the most industrialized nation on Earth will not only suffer a mega crisis due to crazy "green" ideas and a decrease of energy costs of 700%!!!. The politician went totally insane. The prime minister of the most industrialized region of Germany (where the Mercedes are produced) , recommend us to use a washcloth instead of showering to clean our bodies.
Do you really want to get this in the USA????

by **Guest** » Mon Aug 22, 2022 11:01 am

The world has gone COMPLETELY insane. We don't even begin to understand the complex workings of the atmosphere and now groups of totally insane and megalomaniac scientists want to terraform the earth without us being able to even assess the consequences.
This would be a criminal act!

by **VictorBorun** » Mon Aug 22, 2022 5:54 am

I believe the humanity should tax all fossil fuel extraction.
Current UN and national governments are not up to such task.
There is going to be a war on climate crime, against free riding regimes trespassing the fossil tax.

Another war is going to start around nuclear power stations. Some nations and groups will grab plutonium from fuel rods or threaten to blow up a reactor, and they possibly are going to make the nuclear power too costly to use.

Those two wars are going be bad for freedom and democracy but, like pirates or robbers, the climate tricksters are not going to stop life altogether; in the end some pirates will destroy each other, some starve, some get caught and some adopt to rules

by **Rauf** » Mon Aug 22, 2022 5:01 am

Andrew Joron wrote: ↑Mon Aug 22, 2022 4:27 am The solution(s) to the climate emergency, while perhaps not simple, will not consist of technological fixes but in making social and political changes leading to a sustainable green economy, and away from the short-term-profit-driven extractive economy that has led to the current crisis.

If we could somehow stop overpopulation and this great increase in the number of humans, many problems can be solved.

by **Chris Peterson** » Mon Aug 22, 2022 4:40 am

Andrew Joron wrote: ↑Mon Aug 22, 2022 4:27 am The solution(s) to the climate emergency, while perhaps not simple, will not consist of technological fixes but in making social and political changes leading to a sustainable green economy, and away from the short-term-profit-driven extractive economy that has led to the current crisis.

It would be more precise, perhaps, to say that the solutions largely depend upon technological fixes, but that those fixes require significant social and political changes to take place.

by **Andrew Joron** » Mon Aug 22, 2022 4:27 am

The solution(s) to the climate emergency, while perhaps not simple, will not consist of technological fixes but in making social and political changes leading to a sustainable green economy, and away from the short-term-profit-driven extractive economy that has led to the current crisis.

Starship Asterisk*

APOD: Earth's Recent Climate Spiral (2022 Aug 22)

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: APOD: Earth's Recent Climate Spiral (2022 Aug 22)

Re: APOD: Earth's Recent Climate Spiral (2022 Aug 22)

Re: APOD: Earth's Recent Climate Spiral (2022 Aug 22)

Re: APOD: Earth's Recent Climate Spiral (2022 Aug 22)

Re: APOD: Earth's Recent Climate Spiral (2022 Aug 22)

Re: APOD: Earth's Recent Climate Spiral (2022 Aug 22)

Re: APOD: Earth's Recent Climate Spiral (2022 Aug 22)

Re: APOD: Earth's Recent Climate Spiral (2022 Aug 22)

Re: APOD: Earth's Recent Climate Spiral (2022 Aug 22)

Re: APOD: Earth's Recent Climate Spiral (2022 Aug 22)

Re: APOD: Earth's Recent Climate Spiral (2022 Aug 22)

Re: APOD: Earth's Recent Climate Spiral (2022 Aug 22)

Re: APOD: Earth's Recent Climate Spiral (2022 Aug 22)

Re: APOD: Earth's Recent Climate Spiral (2022 Aug 22)

Re: APOD: Earth's Recent Climate Spiral (2022 Aug 22)

Re: APOD: Earth's Recent Climate Spiral (2022 Aug 22)

Re: APOD: Earth's Recent Climate Spiral (2022 Aug 22)

Re: APOD: Earth's Recent Climate Spiral (2022 Aug 22)

Re: APOD: Earth's Recent Climate Spiral (2022 Aug 22)

Re: APOD: Earth's Recent Climate Spiral (2022 Aug 22)

Re: APOD: Earth's Recent Climate Spiral (2022 Aug 22)

Re: APOD: Earth's Recent Climate Spiral (2022 Aug 22)

Re: APOD: Earth's Recent Climate Spiral (2022 Aug 22)

Re: APOD: Earth's Recent Climate Spiral (2022 Aug 22)

Re: APOD: Earth's Recent Climate Spiral (2022 Aug 22)

Re: APOD: Earth's Recent Climate Spiral (2022 Aug 22)