Sign in to follow this  
BillDBastard

MAGNETIC NORTH on the move.............

Recommended Posts

The good news is that it's moving in the right direction for a confluence between geographic and magnetic north, at least until it overshoots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How cool would that be to experience in your lifetime?

But damn, I just compensated the compass last summer and created a deviation card for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI - the Earth's magnetic field is why radiation does not kill us. A switch might have a really nasty period of not enough shielding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, IStream said:

The good news is that it's moving in the right direction for a confluence between geographic and magnetic north, at least until it overshoots.

Sort of depends on one's perspective. What is interesting is the Artic ice melt may not necessarily about climate change and more about polar shift.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, BillDBastard said:

Cool? Suggest you read up on magnetic reversal and what that likely means to life on Earth.

There've been 183 reversals in 83,000,000 years and there are 7,000,000,000 people on earth today.  I'll be able to sleep just fine tonight.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Glenn McCarthy said:

There've been 183 reversals in 83,000,000 years and there are 7,000,000,000 people on earth today.  I'll be able to sleep just fine tonight.

 

...in your anti gamma ray jammies? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, BillDBastard said:

Sort of depends on one's perspective. What is interesting is the Artic ice melt may not necessarily about climate change and more about polar shift.

Yeahhh, no.

2018NCA_TempCO2_UPDATED.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, kinardly said:

...in your anti gamma ray jammies? 

Tin foil beanie, mylar blankie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's more the lead-lined cup...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting:

“They [NOAA] realised [sic] that it was so inaccurate that it was about to exceed the acceptable (safe) limit for navigational errors,” Nature reports.

 

[Edit] Here's the primary source:

The website you are trying to access is not available at this time due to a lapse in appropriation.

NOAA.gov and specific NOAA websites necessary to protect lives and property are operational and will be maintained during this partial closure of the U.S. Government.

Oh, well, that's lovely...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, IStream said:

Yeahhh, no.

2018NCA_TempCO2_UPDATED.jpg

Ummmm, did you read the linked article and watch the video? You may want to do that sir or ma'am.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I thought it was my aging sails that caused me not to point as high. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, duncan (the other one) said:

You're looking at a time scale so long that it starts with the establishment of the ozone layer. Needless to say, the composition of the atmosphere and oceans have changed dramatically over that time period. CO2 isn't the only influence on global temperature or even one of the largest on that time scale.

Humans have only been on the scene for the last 2 million years, which is less than the line thickness of your graph. Notably, the whole of human history has been spent in the neighborhood of a global average temperature of 13-14C. Over the last century there's been no huge asteroid strikes, enormous volcanic eruptions, or other forcing functions that would change the temperature. There's only really been one variable, which is CO2 concentration, and it's the dominant temperature driver of the human era. We're on track to hit 17C and beyond in the next century, which we've never dealt with before.

If you insist on keeping your head in the sand and these long timescale data give you comfort, I suggest you go and look up the timing of all the mass extinctions that have taken place. Every single one has coincided with a period of significant change in global temperature on your graph.  Also note that the slope of the current temperature change over time is at least as fast if not faster.   

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, IStream said:

You're looking at a time scale so long that it starts with the establishment of the ozone layer. Needless to say, the composition of the atmosphere and oceans have changed dramatically over that time period. CO2 isn't the only influence on global temperature or even one of the largest on that time scale.

Humans have only been on the scene for the last 2 million years, which is less than the line thickness of your graph. Notably, the whole of human history has been spent in the neighborhood of a global average temperature of 13-14C. Over the last century there's been no huge asteroid strikes, enormous volcanic eruptions, or other forcing functions that would change the temperature. There's only really been one variable, which is CO2 concentration, and it's the dominant temperature driver of the human era. We're on track to hit 17C and beyond in the next century, which we've never dealt with before.

If you insist on keeping your head in the sand and these long timescale data give you comfort, I suggest you go and look up the timing of all the mass extinctions that have taken place. Every single one has coincided with a period of significant change in global temperature on your graph.  Also note that the slope of the current temperature change over time is at least as fast if not faster.   

gisp220temperaturesince1070020bp20with20

 

I'm more worried about freezing to death than a little bit of warming..

400000yearslarge1.gif

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, IStream said:

You're looking at a time scale so long that it starts with the establishment of the ozone layer. Needless to say, the composition of the atmosphere and oceans have changed dramatically over that time period. CO2 isn't the only influence on global temperature or even one of the largest on that time scale.

Humans have only been on the scene for the last 2 million years, which is less than the line thickness of your graph. Notably, the whole of human history has been spent in the neighborhood of a global average temperature of 13-14C. Over the last century there's been no huge asteroid strikes, enormous volcanic eruptions, or other forcing functions that would change the temperature. There's only really been one variable, which is CO2 concentration, and it's the dominant temperature driver of the human era. We're on track to hit 17C and beyond in the next century, which we've never dealt with before.

If you insist on keeping your head in the sand and these long timescale data give you comfort, I suggest you go and look up the timing of all the mass extinctions that have taken place. Every single one has coincided with a period of significant change in global temperature on your graph.  Also note that the slope of the current temperature change over time is at least as fast if not faster.   

Your problem is that, unlike the right wingers,  you fail to accept the fact that the Earth is only 6000 years old.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Your problem is that, unlike the right wingers,  you fail to accept the fact that the Earth is only 6000 years old.

Guilty.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, duncan (the other one) said:

gisp220temperaturesince1070020bp20with20

 

I'm more worried about freezing to death than a little bit of warming..

400000yearslarge1.gif

Your graphs conveniently end before industrialization. Take a look at current data, as shown in the one I posted. It starts in 1880 at ~285ppm CO2, We're currently at 400ppm. If your graphs went to present day, they'd each end in a rocket ship heading straight up and off the graph. That trajectory will continue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IStream said:

Yeahhh, no.

2018NCA_TempCO2_UPDATED.jpg

Uh Oh. Someone's been drinking the Kool-Aid. FYI, the relationship between atmospheric CO2 content and greenhouse temperature increase due to IR absorption is not even close to linear.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, toecutter said:

Uh Oh. Someone's been drinking the Kool-Aid. FYI, the relationship between atmospheric CO2 content and greenhouse temperature increase due to IR absorption is not even close to linear.

Well, since you seem so confident in your assertion without any actual scientific citation, I'll assume you learned that from the internet. I think I know where but please cite a peer-reviewed scientific paper from a recognized journal, not a pay-to-publish sham journal, and we can go from there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no worries about reversals and life.  no one has found any good correlation between magnetic reversals and mass extinction events.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, IStream said:

Well, since you seem so confident in your assertion without any actual scientific citation, I'll assume you learned that from the internet. I think I know where but please cite a peer-reviewed scientific paper from a recognized journal, not a pay-to-publish sham journal, and we can go from there.

Fine. Point me to a peer reviewed paper that demonstrates the linear relationship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, duncan (the other one) said:

It's an interesting graph. I'm not informed enough to comment on it except to say it isn't news to climate scientists. They have taken it into consideration. Kindness of the Google, here is some commentary by a NOAA climate scientist specific to your graph:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/03/can-we-make-better-graphs-of-global-temperature-history/#ITEM-17010-2)

One of the most common fallacies in climate is the notion that, because the climate was hotter than now in the Eocene or Cretaceous or Devonian periods, we should have no concern for current global warming. Often this is combined with an implication that mainstream scientists are somehow unaware of these warmer periods (despite many of us having written multiple papers on previous warm climates). This is fallacious on multiple grounds, not least because everyone (including IPCC) has been discussing these periods for ages. Additionally, we know that sea levels during those peak warm periods were some 80 meters higher than today, and that impacts of the current global warming are going to be felt by societies and existing ecosystems that are adapted for Holocene climates – not climates 100 million years ago.

In making this point the most common graph that gets used is one originally put online by “Monte Hieb” on this website. Over the years, the graphic has changed slightly ...

BTW the spurious correlations site is a hoot but you aren't suggesting that climate scientist are collectively conspiring to hack climate data, are you?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, IStream said:

The good news is that it's moving in the right direction for a confluence between geographic and magnetic north, at least until it overshoots.

wouldn't that be nice!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, toecutter said:
1 hour ago, IStream said:

Well, since you seem so confident in your assertion without any actual scientific citation, I'll assume you learned that from the internet. I think I know where but please cite a peer-reviewed scientific paper from a recognized journal, not a pay-to-publish sham journal, and we can go from there.

Fine. Point me to a peer reviewed paper that demonstrates the linear relationship.

Sure:

Collins, M., and Coauthors, 2013: Long-term climate change: Projections, commitments and irreversibility. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, T. F. Stocker et al., Eds., Cambridge University Press, 1029–1136.

Allen, M. R., D. J. Frame, C. Huntingford, C. D. Jones, J. A. Lowe, M. Meinshausen, and N. Meinshausen, 2009: Warming caused by cumulative carbon emissions towards the trillionth tonne. Nature, 458, 1163–1166, doi:10.1038/nature08019.

Zickfeld, K., M. Eby, H. D. Matthews, A. Schmittner, and A. J. Weaver, 2011: Nonlinearity of carbon cycle feedbacks. J. Climate, 24, 4255–4275, doi:10.1175/2011JCLI3898.1.

Matthews, H. D., and K. Caldeira, 2008: Stabilizing climate requires near-zero emissions. Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L04705, doi:10.1029/2007GL032388.

Gillett, N. P., V. K. Arora, H. D. Matthews, and M. R. Allen, 2013: Constraining the ratio of global warming to cumulative CO2 emissions using CMIP5 simulations. J. Climate, 26, 6844–6858, doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00476.1.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00500.1

That's through 2013. If you want the last five years, there's plenty more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, IStream said:

Sure:

Collins, M., and Coauthors, 2013: Long-term climate change: Projections, commitments and irreversibility. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, T. F. Stocker et al., Eds., Cambridge University Press, 1029–1136.

Allen, M. R., D. J. Frame, C. Huntingford, C. D. Jones, J. A. Lowe, M. Meinshausen, and N. Meinshausen, 2009: Warming caused by cumulative carbon emissions towards the trillionth tonne. Nature, 458, 1163–1166, doi:10.1038/nature08019.

Zickfeld, K., M. Eby, H. D. Matthews, A. Schmittner, and A. J. Weaver, 2011: Nonlinearity of carbon cycle feedbacks. J. Climate, 24, 4255–4275, doi:10.1175/2011JCLI3898.1.

Matthews, H. D., and K. Caldeira, 2008: Stabilizing climate requires near-zero emissions. Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L04705, doi:10.1029/2007GL032388.

Gillett, N. P., V. K. Arora, H. D. Matthews, and M. R. Allen, 2013: Constraining the ratio of global warming to cumulative CO2 emissions using CMIP5 simulations. J. Climate, 26, 6844–6858, doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00476.1.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00500.1

That's through 2013. If you want the last five years, there's plenty more.

 

CMIP5 simulations.. mmm

cmip5-90-models-global-tsfc-vs-obs1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, IStream said:

Sure:

Collins, M., and Coauthors, 2013: Long-term climate change: Projections, commitments and irreversibility. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, T. F. Stocker et al., Eds., Cambridge University Press, 1029–1136.

Allen, M. R., D. J. Frame, C. Huntingford, C. D. Jones, J. A. Lowe, M. Meinshausen, and N. Meinshausen, 2009: Warming caused by cumulative carbon emissions towards the trillionth tonne. Nature, 458, 1163–1166, doi:10.1038/nature08019.

Zickfeld, K., M. Eby, H. D. Matthews, A. Schmittner, and A. J. Weaver, 2011: Nonlinearity of carbon cycle feedbacks. J. Climate, 24, 4255–4275, doi:10.1175/2011JCLI3898.1.

Matthews, H. D., and K. Caldeira, 2008: Stabilizing climate requires near-zero emissions. Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L04705, doi:10.1029/2007GL032388.

Gillett, N. P., V. K. Arora, H. D. Matthews, and M. R. Allen, 2013: Constraining the ratio of global warming to cumulative CO2 emissions using CMIP5 simulations. J. Climate, 26, 6844–6858, doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00476.1.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00500.1

That's through 2013. If you want the last five years, there's plenty more.

I doubt any of them will demonstrate the linear relationship. The reason being there is no linear relationship. Here's an example of specific research...

https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/wea.2072

But we don't really need that, because it not that complicated. If the CO2/temperature relationship was linear, then current global average temperature would be around 27.8 degrees Celcius, not the frigid 14.7 degrees it currently is.

Let me give you the basic maths...

The effect of GHG's at 280 ppm C02 = 30 degC. This creates a rough baseline of -15 degC sans GHG's. Increase C02 to 400ppm and we get (30/280)*400-15. Yes I know I said GHG's and not CO2, but don't blame me because I'll bet most of your papers above weave CO2 as a catalyst for increased water vapour and methane and other nasties, so it's just GHG's.

Next lesson will be at what point is IR absorption saturation is reached with atmospheric CO2 if you'd like to continue.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, IStream said:

Matthews, H. D., and K. Caldeira, 2008: Stabilizing climate requires near-zero emissions. Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L04705, doi:10.1029/2007GL032388.

 

that's all you need to know.... as if the climate has been stable at any point in the history of the earth

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, duncan (the other one) said:

that's all you need to know.... as if the climate has been stable at any point in the history of the earth

It very much has. The planet has been both much colder and much hotter than it is today and sometimes the changeover was pretty rapid. Human civilization has developed in a fairly stable 6 or 8 thousand year gap between big climate swings. This will not last forever. Thing will change with or without humans, but what we do is like throwing gasoline on a fire. It is actually quite sobering to read how few humans survived the last big climate swing. Homo Sapiens have very little genetic diversity compared to most other species due to this. Whole planet is inbreds :o:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, kent_island_sailor said:

It very much has. The planet has been both much colder and much hotter than it is today and sometimes the changeover was pretty rapid. Human civilization has developed in a fairly stable 6 or 8 thousand year gap between big climate swings. This will not last forever. Thing will change with or without humans, but what we do is like throwing gasoline on a fire. It is actually quite sobering to read how few humans survived the last big climate swing. Homo Sapiens have very little genetic diversity compared to most other species due to this. Whole planet is inbreds :o:rolleyes:

Are these the same homo sapiens that currently live in regions from tropical rainforests to mid latitude deserts to frozen tundra?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, toecutter said:

Are these the same homo sapiens that currently live in regions from tropical rainforests to mid latitude deserts to frozen tundra?

Are you confusing the ability to make clothes with genetics?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No I'm confusing the fragility of a species that allows it to be one of, if not the most,  diverse species on the planet. But since you mention clothes, most naked tribes live in tropical and subtropical regions. I'll leave you to connect the dots with that one.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, toecutter said:

Are these the same homo sapiens that currently live in regions from tropical rainforests to mid latitude deserts to frozen tundra?

exactly.

 

I can wash off 2deg temperature rise by moving 120nm South.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, toecutter said:

I doubt any of them will demonstrate the linear relationship. The reason being there is no linear relationship. Here's an example of specific research...

https://skepticalscience.com/C02-emissions-vs-Temperature-growth.html

Temperature-cumulative-co2-emisions-2014

The graph shows that the temperature increases almost linearly with the growth of cumulative emissions, and in case of “business as usual” scenario (red line RCP8.5) the temperature increase actually accelerates from decade to decade (as seen from the growing distance between circles marking subsequent decades). How can this observation be consistent with the logarithmic dependence between temperature increase and atmospheric CO2 concentration?
Let’s summarize several basic facts, which we will then use to reproduce Figure 1:

  • Not all CO2 emissions are accumulating in the atmosphere – only about 45% of our emissions end up in the atmosphere.
  • For each ppm increase of CO2 concentration the atmosphere must absorb 2.12 GtC.
  • The relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentration and the corresponding increase in radiative forcing is given (3rd Report IPCCTAR, table 6.2) by the logarithmic formula: RF = 5.35·ln (C/C0), where RF denotes radiative forcing in W/m2, C is CO2 concentration in parts per million (ppm), C0 is a reference concentration (usually the latter is 280 ppm – the concentration before the industrial revolution).
  • Doubling the CO2 concentration (which is equivalent to 3.7 W/m2 increase in radiative forcing) causes temperature increase of 3°C.

Table 1 contains results of simple calculations based on observations listed above. For example, if we assume that from the beginning of the industrial era the cumulative emissions were 500 GtC (equivalent to 1833 bn tons CO2), then the atmosphere absorbed 45% of the emitted CO2, or 225 GtC. As a result atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased by 225/2.12=106 ppm, reaching level of 386 ppm, which, in turn, increases the radiative forcing by 5.35·ln (386/280) = 1.72 [W/m2]. The expected (equilibrium) temperature rise will therefore be 3·1.72/3.7=1.39 [°C].

Cumulative emissions
[GtC]

Left in the
 atmosphere
[GtC]
CO2 concentration
[ppm]

 Radiative forcing RF
[W/m2]

Equilibrium
  temp. anomaly
[°C]

0 0 280 0.00 0.00
500 225 386 1.72 1.39
1000 450 492 3.02 2.44
1500 675 598 4.06 3.29
2000 900 705 4.94 3.99
2500 1125 811 5.69 4.60

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, weightless said:

https://skepticalscience.com/C02-emissions-vs-Temperature-growth.html

Temperature-cumulative-co2-emisions-2014

The graph shows that the temperature increases almost linearly with the growth of cumulative emissions, and in case of “business as usual” scenario (red line RCP8.5) the temperature increase actually accelerates from decade to decade (as seen from the growing distance between circles marking subsequent decades). How can this observation be consistent with the logarithmic dependence between temperature increase and atmospheric CO2 concentration?
Let’s summarize several basic facts, which we will then use to reproduce Figure 1:

  • Not all CO2 emissions are accumulating in the atmosphere – only about 45% of our emissions end up in the atmosphere.
  • For each ppm increase of CO2 concentration the atmosphere must absorb 2.12 GtC.
  • The relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentration and the corresponding increase in radiative forcing is given (3rd Report IPCCTAR, table 6.2) by the logarithmic formula: RF = 5.35·ln (C/C0), where RF denotes radiative forcing in W/m2, C is CO2 concentration in parts per million (ppm), C0 is a reference concentration (usually the latter is 280 ppm – the concentration before the industrial revolution).
  • Doubling the CO2 concentration (which is equivalent to 3.7 W/m2 increase in radiative forcing) causes temperature increase of 3°C.

Table 1 contains results of simple calculations based on observations listed above. For example, if we assume that from the beginning of the industrial era the cumulative emissions were 500 GtC (equivalent to 1833 bn tons CO2), then the atmosphere absorbed 45% of the emitted CO2, or 225 GtC. As a result atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased by 225/2.12=106 ppm, reaching level of 386 ppm, which, in turn, increases the radiative forcing by 5.35·ln (386/280) = 1.72 [W/m2]. The expected (equilibrium) temperature rise will therefore be 3·1.72/3.7=1.39 [°C].

Cumulative emissions
[GtC]

Left in the
 atmosphere
[GtC]
CO2 concentration
[ppm]

 Radiative forcing RF
[W/m2]

Equilibrium
  temp. anomaly
[°C]

0 0 280 0.00 0.00
500 225 386 1.72 1.39
1000 450 492 3.02 2.44
1500 675 598 4.06 3.29
2000 900 705 4.94 3.99
2500 1125 811 5.69 4.60

Is it April fool's day already? You realise that link is explaining a logarithmic relationship between CO2 concentration and temperature rise?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, toecutter said:

You realise that link is explaining a logarithmic relationship between CO2 concentration and temperature rise?

That's not what it's explaining per se. It does discuss the logarithmic relation between RF and C/CO. It also shows the nearly linear relationship between cumulative CO2 emissions and temperature.  ie. ln(exp(x)). That's the trend. To be clear, I think you're correct as far as you're going. As nearly as I can tell (full disclosure, I'm PUI and this is all new to me today) the numerical and theoretical models seem to agree on the trend. So that seems like the key takeaway to me. What'd I miss?

Co2-emissions-exponential-20140211.png

And this one shows your ln delta T relationship.

1-s2.0-S0160932716300308-gr5.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, IStream said:

The good news is that it's moving in the right direction for a confluence between geographic and magnetic north, at least until it overshoots.

Heading towards Russia. I bet that nasty Putin has bought it off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, weightless said:

That's not what it's explaining per se. It does discuss the logarithmic relation between RF and C/CO. It also shows the nearly linear relationship between cumulative CO2 emissions and temperature.  ie. ln(exp(x)). That's the trend. To be clear, I think you're correct as far as you're going. As nearly as I can tell (full disclosure, I'm PUI and this is all new to me today) the numerical and theoretical models seem to agree on the trend. So that seems like the key takeaway to me. What'd I miss?

Co2-emissions-exponential-20140211.png

And this one shows your ln delta T relationship.

1-s2.0-S0160932716300308-gr5.jpg

 

You missed that 10 doubled = 20 and 20 doubled = 40 and 500 doubled = 1000; And temperature is a linear scale. I do see where you're coming from with every increasing CO2 output though. The graph iStream produced as some kind of evidence of something totally unrelated to magnetic shift misrepresented this relationship because both temperature and C02 content are shown with very similar curves. If you want proof that graph stinks, look at the temperature chart difference between the link you last posted and the graph iStream posted. Most obvious is the 30's to 50' warming has dulled and the 50's to 70's cooling has vanished in iStream's chart. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, toecutter said:

No I'm confusing the fragility of a species that allows it to be one of, if not the most,  diverse species on the planet. But since you mention clothes, most naked tribes live in tropical and subtropical regions. I'll leave you to connect the dots with that one.

I didn't say anything about humans being fragile - far from it. This genetic bottleneck is well known if you study these kinds of things. More like what should have killed us off didn't.  You are using the word "diverse" to mean lives everywhere, not confined to a small area. That is true, we live in every climate on the planet. Genetic diversity is another thing entirely.

 

* there are about 10,000 papers on this, here is a popular media version:

https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2012/0/Dogballs/163397584/how-human-beings-almost-vanished-from-earth-in-70-000-b-c

Because once in our history, the world-wide population of human beings skidded so sharply we were down to roughly a thousand reproductive adults. One study says we hit as low as 40.

Forty? Come on, that can't be right. Well, the technical term is 40 "breeding pairs" (children not included). More likely there was a drastic dip and then 5,000 to 10,000 bedraggled Homo sapiens struggled together in pitiful little clumps hunting and gathering for thousands of years until, in the late Stone Age, we humans began to recover. But for a time there, says science writer Sam Kean, "We damn near went extinct."

Another popular reference to our smallish gene pool:
It has been estimated that a small troupe of chimpanzees (the nearest relative of to Homo sapiens ) contains more genetic variation than that of all humans alive today.
 
TLDR; Humans almost killed off at least once or twice already.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, BillDBastard said:

Sort of depends on one's perspective. What is interesting is the Artic ice melt may not necessarily about climate change and more about polar shift.

Excellent another dubious reason to retard our shift to cleaner energy sources.... shhhhh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

I didn't say anything about humans being fragile - far from it. This genetic bottleneck is well known if you study these kinds of things. More like what should have killed us off didn't.  You are using the word "diverse" to mean lives everywhere, not confined to a small area. That is true, we live in every climate on the planet. Genetic diversity is another thing entirely.

 

* there are about 10,000 papers on this, here is a popular media version:

https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2012/0/Dogballs/163397584/how-human-beings-almost-vanished-from-earth-in-70-000-b-c

Because once in our history, the world-wide population of human beings skidded so sharply we were down to roughly a thousand reproductive adults. One study says we hit as low as 40.

Forty? Come on, that can't be right. Well, the technical term is 40 "breeding pairs" (children not included). More likely there was a drastic dip and then 5,000 to 10,000 bedraggled Homo sapiens struggled together in pitiful little clumps hunting and gathering for thousands of years until, in the late Stone Age, we humans began to recover. But for a time there, says science writer Sam Kean, "We damn near went extinct."

Another popular reference to our smallish gene pool:
It has been estimated that a small troupe of chimpanzees (the nearest relative of to Homo sapiens ) contains more genetic variation than that of all humans alive today.
 
TLDR; Humans almost killed off at least once or twice already.

 

Well that is interesting. Something I was unaware of. Perhaps this is related to the uniquely human trait of killing off competition that we could otherwise have diversified our gene pool with - like Neanderthals, for instance. However, I still doubt that a warming environment will kill us off. Disease maybe, but weathering a variety of environmental conditions is something that we are already proven to very good at. Especially in regards warming, as I suspect our near extinction occurred during a non-interglacial period of the present ice age?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Humans are like cockroaches, we are incredibly hard to kill entirely. As long as any mammals can exist somehow, we will be among them. Technological civilization with buildings, indoor plumbing, and coffee shops is vastly easier to kill off. The idea is not only to not go extinct, but also avoid living in an endless rerun of "Mad Max".

Speaking of Neanderthals, we apparently interbred with a few before killing them all off. Some humans have Neanderthals DNA.

Neanderthals have contributed approximately 1-4% of the genomes of non-African modern humans, although a modern human who lived about 40,000 years ago has been found to have between 6-9% Neanderthal DNA (Fu et al 2015). The evidence we have of Neanderthal-modern human interbreeding sheds light on the expansion of modern humans out of Africa. These new discoveries refute many previous hypotheses in which anatomically modern humans replaced archaic hominins, like Neanderthals, without any interbreeding. However, even with some interbreeding between modern humans and now-extinct hominins, most of our genome still derives from Africa. Neanderthals could not have contributed to modern African peoples’ genomes because Neanderthals evolved and lived exclusively in Eurasia and therefore could not have bred with the humans living in Africa at that time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love this debate manufactured or not that is being used to slow the adaptation of cleaner technology. In the end that is all this debate really informs. 

Yes the planet goes through cycles, just like we breath and our heart beats, just on an exceptionally longer scale, but to suggest that we ignore what appears to be a pretty solid correlation and a far cleaner more environmentally friendly future for all of out kids and grand kids... well it seem like a pretty stupid argument. Sure some people will lose their fortunes, some countries will lose their influence, and some people will have to stop rolling coal but in the end the future of our planet (until Musk opens up Mars for us to destroy) depends on us moving into the future and not rely on the past. Grow the hell up and lets all move to a better cleaner future, if you are concerned about your paycheck learn a new skill invest in a new industry. American can thrive in a new world, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and those single act economies not so much, but the rest of us will do just fine and be healthier because of it. 

Any Who, the Magnetic North movement is pretty interesting. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, BillDBastard said:

Sort of depends on one's perspective. What is interesting is the Artic ice melt may not necessarily about climate change and more about polar shift.

 

18 hours ago, Glenn McCarthy said:

There've been 183 reversals in 83,000,000 years and there are 7,000,000,000 people on earth today.  I'll be able to sleep just fine tonight.

 

This does happen lots in terms of the galactic time. About every 400,000 years is the total cycle. Pretty inconsequential in terms of the human life cycle. This is how nature clears out the riff raff from the planet.. If the Human being has been around about 3 million years, we have experienced this and survived. Maybe this is why the Mayan Long Count (not really Mayan) predicted a new age (about every 35k years) of Man was starting in 2012. https://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/mayan.html
Remember, our solar system passed through the Galactic Plane in 2012 and started moving to the other side of the Milky Way. Why do we never hear anything about this from our great astrophysicists. Personally I'm tired of being blamed for everything. You must realize, Governments cannot tax nature, they only tax us.

A good read and what is taught.

https://ocean.tamu.edu/academics/resources/ocean-world/iceages/what-turns-ice-ages-on-and-off/index.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Plausible said:

STOP IT !!!! We're all going to die !!!!

Part of the problem is we're NOT dying. At least not like we used to.  Modern medicine has enabled us to skirt around disease that used to be our population control and allow us to live longer.  I'm surprised no one discusses the earth's "carrying capacity".  I've heard it's about 10 billion.  Wonder how long it will take to get there?  In the end the human race is the earths parasite.  There will come a time when we suck her dry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in reality, regardless of why the planet is warming and what humans are doing to exacerbate that,  most of our plant / animal stocks may not adapt fast enough to survive and thus we will start by eating the rich...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Grande Mastere Dreade said:

in reality, regardless of why the planet is warming and what humans are doing to exacerbate that,  most of our plant / animal stocks may not adapt fast enough to survive and thus we will start by eating the rich...

And then we look at fresh water, which of course drives the above.  Can't survive long without it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

time to move this to political anarchy

Science isn't political.....  denying the science is.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Incidentally, even if the magnetic north pole were to migrate and become coincident with the geographic north pole that would not mean that the magnetic variation (declination) would everywhere necessarily be zero. Simplified descriptions of the Earth's field as an inclined bar magnet at the center of the Earth give that impression, but they're over-simplifications.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, BillDBastard said:

Cool? Suggest you read up on magnetic reversal and what that likely means to life on Earth.

FFS, who cares? Everyone reading this thread will be long-dead within 100 years, tops.

 Après nous, le déluge.

sky-is-falling.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Sweare Deep said:

Incidentally, even if the magnetic north pole were to migrate and become coincident with the geographic north pole that would not mean that the magnetic variation (declination) would everywhere necessarily be zero. Simplified descriptions of the Earth's field as an inclined bar magnet at the center of the Earth give that impression, but they're over-simplifications.

Sure, but my OCD will subside incrementally. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"

FFS, who cares? Everyone reading this thread will be long-dead within 100 years, tops.

 Après nous, le déluge."

 

I just don't want to do my sailing at the poles while I'm stlll breathing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Svanen said:

FFS, who cares? Everyone reading this thread will be long-dead within 100 years, tops.

 Après nous, le déluge.

sky-is-falling.jpg

My kids and grand kids won't

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Meat Wad said:

 

This does happen lots in terms of the galactic time. About every 400,000 years is the total cycle. Pretty inconsequential in terms of the human life cycle. This is how nature clears out the riff raff from the planet.. If the Human being has been around about 3 million years, we have experienced this and survived. Maybe this is why the Mayan Long Count (not really Mayan) predicted a new age (about every 35k years) of Man was starting in 2012. https://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/mayan.html
Remember, our solar system passed through the Galactic Plane in 2012 and started moving to the other side of the Milky Way. Why do we never hear anything about this from our great astrophysicists. Personally I'm tired of being blamed for everything. You must realize, Governments cannot tax nature, they only tax us.

A good read and what is taught.

https://ocean.tamu.edu/academics/resources/ocean-world/iceages/what-turns-ice-ages-on-and-off/index.html

one factor (i'd say the one of the main factors) that this paper seems to fail to acknowledge is the variations in solar activity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

Your problem is that, unlike the right wingers,  you fail to accept the fact that the Earth is only 6000 years old.

And flat. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<rant>Wholly Shite! or is it Holy Shite! You people could hijack a wet dream!!!

Stop the nonsense about global warming, global cooling and climate change for one freakin' minute. I started this thread because I thought it might just have something to do with sailing..... ya know, because this is a sailing site and those of us who sail tend to use magnetic compasses. Maybe we could talk about that for one damn minute?</rant>

I feel better now, thanks. Carry on.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/10/2019 at 3:59 PM, BillDBastard said:

Sort of depends on one's perspective. What is interesting is the Artic ice melt may not necessarily about climate change and more about polar shift.

 

22 minutes ago, BillDBastard said:

<rant>Wholly Shite! or is it Holy Shite! You people could hijack a wet dream!!!

Stop the nonsense about global warming, global cooling and climate change for one freakin' minute. I started this thread because I thought it might just have something to do with sailing..... ya know, because this is a sailing site and those of us who sail tend to use magnetic compasses. Maybe we could talk about that for one damn minute?</rant>

I feel better now, thanks. Carry on.

Glad you feel better, just thought I would point out who hijacked your thread.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Snaggletooth said:

Howe cane the polles moove?

stock-vector-vector-christmas-illustrati

Anything going on down  at the  south  pole ?

891c94a848263cea9900538b9d3d8d18--ladybo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, VWAP said:

Anything going on down  at the  south  pole ?

I thick she mabey eqipted with peeshootere.                            :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

South Pole???

Cool story on NPR this morning about scientists sending an ROV many meters down through the ice to underground lakes, finding large quantities of bacteria and viruses down there, where they had been floating, buried in darkness for millions of years.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎11‎/‎2019 at 7:20 PM, d'ranger said:

 

Glad you feel better, just thought I would point out who hijacked your thread.

Thanks for that.

It was of the points made in the article though......

 

 

 

 

And GW is being caused by water vapor. But H2O would not be a good boogieman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/11/2019 at 10:05 AM, Grande Mastere Dreade said:

in reality, regardless of why the planet is warming and what humans are doing to exacerbate that,  most of our plant / animal stocks may not adapt fast enough to survive and thus we will start by eating the rich...

Most aren't fat enough.  I suggest starting by eating Americans.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Left Shift said:

Most aren't fat enough.  I suggest starting by eating Americans.  

You might try Samoans but I suspect you would end up on the pointy end of the fork.

I'm no Libertarian, but I wonder if we all agreed to eat them voluntarily if they might be okay with that philosophically?

Who's navigating this thread? We've gone from magnetism to logarithms to the horrors of Malthusianism. Where next?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Screw it, apparently we are all fucked. I think I will go drink some Pappy Van Winkle...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, weightless said:

You might try Samoans but I suspect you would end up on the pointy end of the fork.

I'm no Libertarian, but I wonder if we all agreed to eat them voluntarily if they might be okay with that philosophically?

Who's navigating this thread? We've gone from magnetism to logarithms to the horrors of Malthusianism. Where next?

 

Peanuts?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, IStream said:

WTAF?

Yes, H2O, greater than 90% of all gw drivers, do your homework and get back to us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scientific American

 

Are the Earth's magnetic poles moving? How do navigators adjust to this change?

 

  •  
 
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on Reddit
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share via
  • Print
 
 
The answer comes from Paul Perreault, marketing manager for university and government research programs at Trimble Navigation Ltd., a manufacturer of advanced navigation systems.
map
Image: Canadian National Geomagnetism Program
 
WANDERING POLE. The North magnetic pole has moved steadily northward at an average rate of 10 kilometers per year since it was first located in 1831.
The earth's geographic poles are generally right where you would expect them to be: at the two opposing points about which the Earth seems to rotate. Magnetic poles used in compass navigation are another matter altogether. And neither pole pair is completely stationary.

The North magnetic pole is at a point where a dipping compass--a compass that allows the needle to move freely in a vertical plane (as opposed to the horizontal needle movements seen in most compasses)--points straight down into the earth. The South magnetic pole is the point where a dipping compass points up. A dipping compass points horizontally on the Earth's magnetic equator, also called the Earth's dip equator.

The magnetic poles are quite distant from their geographic counterparts. The North magnetic pole is located to the south in Northern Canada; the geographic South pole is at the center of the Antarctic continent, but the magnetic pole is hundreds of miles away, near the coast. In regions near the magnetic poles, compasses are virtually useless.

Complicating this issue is that these pole positions are not static--for either magnetic or geographic poles. The location of the North geographic pole wanders in a small erratic circle-like path, called the "Chandler wobble." This motion is less than 6 meters per year on the surface; a worldwide network of very precise global positioning satellite (GPS) receivers is used to determine this wander.

 
Advertisement

The magnetic poles are far more restless. They move under the influence of the dynamo currents in the Earth's core, as well as electric currents flowing in the ionosphere, the radiation belts and the Earth's magnetosphere. The North magnetic pole seems to be moving northward at an average rate of 10 kilometers per year. Yet there is also some elliptical motion to this general trend. On any given day, the magnetic pole may be as much as 80 kilometers away from its average position, depending on the geomagnetic disturbances in the ionosphere and magnetosphere.

Modern navigators normally are not affected by the wandering of the poles because they can regularly determine their position from satellites and Earth-based observatories. The degree of difference between the position of these two poles when seen at various locations is called magnetic declination. These angles allow navigators to determine their actual geographic position. Charts and handbooks for navigation regularly update these values and are published by government agencies.

Maritime and air navigation regulations require use of these up-to-date charts and tables. Without GPS, the navigator would use a new version of the chart or table. With GPS, navigators update their receiver database by purchasing new data from the Government or from the GPS manufacturer and loading it into the onboard GPS unit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

From; Nature 09 January 2019

 

Earth’s magnetic field is acting up and geologists don’t know why

Erratic motion of north magnetic pole forces experts to update model that aids global navigation.
 

Alexandra Witze

Something strange is going on at the top of the world. Earth’s north magnetic pole has been skittering away from Canada and towards Siberia, driven by liquid iron sloshing within the planet’s core. The magnetic pole is moving so quickly that it has forced the world’s geomagnetism experts into a rare move.

On 15 January, they are set to update the World Magnetic Model, which describes the planet’s magnetic field and underlies all modern navigation, from the systems that steer ships at sea to Google Maps on smartphones.

The most recent version of the model came out in 2015 and was supposed to last until 2020 — but the magnetic field is changing so rapidly that researchers have to fix the model now. “The error is increasing all the time,” says Arnaud Chulliat, a geomagnetist at the University of Colorado Boulder and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA’s) National Centers for Environmental Information.

The problem lies partly with the moving pole and partly with other shifts deep within the planet. Liquid churning in Earth’s core generates most of the magnetic field, which varies over time as the deep flows change. In 2016, for instance, part of the magnetic field temporarily accelerated deep under northern South America and the eastern Pacific Ocean. Satellites such as the European Space Agency’s Swarm mission tracked the shift.

By early 2018, the World Magnetic Model was in trouble. Researchers from NOAA and the British Geological Survey in Edinburgh had been doing their annual check of how well the model was capturing all the variations in Earth’s magnetic field. They realized that it was so inaccurate that it was about to exceed the acceptable limit for navigational errors.

Wandering pole

“That was an interesting situation we found ourselves in,” says Chulliat. “What’s happening?” The answer is twofold, he reported last month at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union in Washington DC.

First, that 2016 geomagnetic pulse beneath South America came at the worst possible time, just after the 2015 update to the World Magnetic Model. This meant that the magnetic field had lurched just after the latest update, in ways that planners had not anticipated.

d41586-019-00007-1_16383826.jpg <img class="" alt="" src="//media.nature.com/w800/magazine-assets/d41586-019-00007-1/d41586-019-00007-1_16383826.jpg">

Source: World Data Center for Geomagnetism/Kyoto Univ.

Second, the motion of the north magnetic pole made the problem worse. The pole wanders in unpredictable ways that have fascinated explorers and scientists since James Clark Ross first measured it in 1831 in the Canadian Arctic. In the mid-1990s it picked up speed, from around 15 kilometres per year to around 55 kilometres per year. By 2001, it had entered the Arctic Ocean — where, in 2007, a team including Chulliat landed an aeroplane on the sea ice in an attempt to locate the pole.

In 2018, the pole crossed the International Date Line into the Eastern Hemisphere. It is currently making a beeline for Siberia.

The geometry of Earth’s magnetic field magnifies the model’s errors in places where the field is changing quickly, such as the North Pole. “The fact that the pole is going fast makes this region more prone to large errors,” says Chulliat.

To fix the World Magnetic Model, he and his colleagues fed it three years of recent data, which included the 2016 geomagnetic pulse. The new version should remain accurate, he says, until the next regularly scheduled update in 2020.

Core questions

In the meantime, scientists are working to understand why the magnetic field is changing so dramatically. Geomagnetic pulses, like the one that happened in 2016, might be traced back to ‘hydromagnetic’ waves arising from deep in the core1. And the fast motion of the north magnetic pole could be linked to a high-speed jet of liquid iron beneath Canada2.

The jet seems to be smearing out and weakening the magnetic field beneath Canada, Phil Livermore, a geomagnetist at the University of Leeds, UK, said at the American Geophysical Union meeting. And that means that Canada is essentially losing a magnetic tug-of-war with Siberia.

“The location of the north magnetic pole appears to be governed by two large-scale patches of magnetic field, one beneath Canada and one beneath Siberia,” Livermore says. “The Siberian patch is winning the competition.”

Which means that the world’s geomagnetists will have a lot to keep them busy for the foreseeable future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NASA; Magnetic Reversal

 
Nov. 30, 2011
 

2012: Magnetic Pole Reversal Happens All The (Geologic) Time

Schematic illustration of Earth's magnetic field.
Schematic illustration of Earth's magnetic field.
Credits: Peter Reid, The University of Edinburgh
 



Scientists understand that Earth's magnetic field has flipped its polarity many times over the millennia. In other words, if you were alive about 800,000 years ago, and facing what we call north with a magnetic compass in your hand, the needle would point to 'south.' This is because a magnetic compass is calibrated based on Earth's poles. The N-S markings of a compass would be 180 degrees wrong if the polarity of today's magnetic field were reversed. Many doomsday theorists have tried to take this natural geological occurrence and suggest it could lead to Earth's destruction. But would there be any dramatic effects? The answer, from the geologic and fossil records we have from hundreds of past magnetic polarity reversals, seems to be 'no.'

Reversals are the rule, not the exception. Earth has settled in the last 20 million years into a pattern of a pole reversal about every 200,000 to 300,000 years, although it has been more than twice that long since the last reversal. A reversal happens over hundreds or thousands of years, and it is not exactly a clean back flip. Magnetic fields morph and push and pull at one another, with multiple poles emerging at odd latitudes throughout the process. Scientists estimate reversals have happened at least hundreds of times over the past three billion years. And while reversals have happened more frequently in "recent" years, when dinosaurs walked Earth a reversal was more likely to happen only about every one million years.


Sediment cores taken from deep ocean floors can tell scientists about magnetic polarity shifts, providing a direct link between magnetic field activity and the fossil record. The Earth's magnetic field determines the magnetization of lava as it is laid down on the ocean floor on either side of the Mid-Atlantic Rift where the North American and European continental plates are spreading apart. As the lava solidifies, it creates a record of the orientation of past magnetic fields much like a tape recorder records sound. The last time that Earth's poles flipped in a major reversal was about 780,000 years ago, in what scientists call the Brunhes-Matuyama reversal. The fossil record shows no drastic changes in plant or animal life. Deep ocean sediment cores from this period also indicate no changes in glacial activity, based on the amount of oxygen isotopes in the cores. This is also proof that a polarity reversal would not affect the rotation axis of Earth, as the planet's rotation axis tilt has a significant effect on climate and glaciation and any change would be evident in the glacial record.

Earth's polarity is not a constant. Unlike a classic bar magnet, or the decorative magnets on your refrigerator, the matter governing Earth's magnetic field moves around. Geophysicists are pretty sure that the reason Earth has a magnetic field is because its solid iron core is surrounded by a fluid ocean of hot, liquid metal. This process can also be modeled with supercomputers. Ours is, without hyperbole, a dynamic planet. The flow of liquid iron in Earth's core creates electric currents, which in turn create the magnetic field. So while parts of Earth's outer core are too deep for scientists to measure directly, we can infer movement in the core by observing changes in the magnetic field. The magnetic north pole has been creeping northward – by more than 600 miles (1,100 km) – since the early 19th century, when explorers first located it precisely. It is moving faster now, actually, as scientists estimate the pole is migrating northward about 40 miles per year, as opposed to about 10 miles per year in the early 20th century.

Another doomsday hypothesis about a geomagnetic flip plays up fears about incoming solar activity. This suggestion mistakenly assumes that a pole reversal would momentarily leave Earth without the magnetic field that protects us from solar flares and coronal mass ejections from the sun. But, while Earth's magnetic field can indeed weaken and strengthen over time, there is no indication that it has ever disappeared completely. A weaker field would certainly lead to a small increase in solar radiation on Earth – as well as a beautiful display of aurora at lower latitudes - but nothing deadly. Moreover, even with a weakened magnetic field, Earth's thick atmosphere also offers protection against the sun's incoming particles.

The science shows that magnetic pole reversal is – in terms of geologic time scales – a common occurrence that happens gradually over millennia. While the conditions that cause polarity reversals are not entirely predictable – the north pole's movement could subtly change direction, for instance – there is nothing in the millions of years of geologic record to suggest that any of the 2012 doomsday scenarios connected to a pole reversal should be taken seriously. A reversal might, however, be good business for magnetic compass manufacturers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Relax, listen below, read below. Relax again.  Crichton makes a good point about the silliness of thinking that Teddy Roosevelt's opinion of a hundred years ago has any bearing today.  But somehow, now, we are different and better?

Which way is North?  Should we live in a state of fear?  Check out the first link, first map.  Michael Crichton didn't think so:
http://www.blc.arizona.edu/courses/schaffer/182h/Climate/Fear, Complexity, &amp; Environmental Management in the 21st Century.htm

I hadn't seen Crishton's "three speeches" before:  http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/commentaries/crichton_3.pdf

Perpetual change.  Plus ca change... 

We will embrace complexity, and abandon "control" so that we might remain in control through evolution and adaptation.  Or not, and die out, and the ants and termites win.

https://genius.com/Yes-perpetual-change-lyrics

 

I had forgotten how great this album is.  Thanks all for reminding me of "Perpetual Change"
Can Man survive Fossil Fuels, and Big Everything?  (Especially, Big Banks, Big Government, Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Food...)

Yes.  KISS.  Keep It Small, Stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BillDBastard said:

Yes, H2O, greater than 90% of all gw drivers, do your homework and get back to us.

Yes, I'm aware of that, I just couldn't believe you made the argument. Water vapor is:

1. Condensable, so it can exit the atmosphere easily unlike CO2 and other non-condensable gasses

2. An effect, not a cause. The atmosphere can hold only so much water, dictated by the temperature. Above the dewpoint, it condenses and precipitates out. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites