July 1, 2019 at 8:27 pm #20689
Notice they mention solar minimum.. are you ready for a crazy cold winter?
I have not verifies map… but if true better stock up things have just gone off the deep end
July 2, 2019 at 10:47 am #20696
We’ve been bouncing along two solar minimums for more than a decade now. Winters are cold with deep snowpack (in places) elsewhere not. Especially not in the Arctic and Antarctic, where folks were predicting the advance of glaciation in the coming new ice age. At the same time, we have extreme weather, floods, droughts, and heatwaves. All that energy has to come from somewhere, and apparently it’s not from the sun if you believe the solar minimum = ice age propaganda.
Looks like the sun isn’t all that big an influence on what happens climate-wise. It’s what our atmosphere does with that sunlight.
July 2, 2019 at 3:12 pm #20702
if that where true when ozone hole opened up we should have all died…. hmmm guess what we are still here.
Atmosphere of large percentage co2 as stated by the climate guys means warming…. explain why nothing happens…. why no abundant rain forests and melting caps? Co2 is heavier than air then at night is should smother us in our sleep. …. hmmm that’s not happening either.
As for the sun….. EVERYTHING ON THIS EARTH that is living in powered by it. Other than asteroids there has been no addition of matter to this planet only energy and what is here to create the functioning biosphere. Without energy input it has to radically change to survive ie we had giant fungi take over because they don’t need light and convert 02 to co2 during decay..
Everything depends on solar inpUT of energy as at some point it has to come from a plant and they need sun light.
Think of it this way as California reduces and browns out the state what happens the energy in reduces and causes the electronics not to function at capacity while damaging them. When over powered it does same thing but in reverse. Saying the amount of energy in the electrical lines has nothing to do with productivity in California is that a reasonable statement? Why because the computers and a/c still chug along…
We have a pollution problem not a co2 problem.
July 3, 2019 at 1:27 pm #20719
why no abundant rain forests and melting caps?
Plants thrive in the temperature and humidity zone they are adapted to. Rain forests are drying out / succumbing to insects and dying off, amount of CO2 be damned. In western North America, we have bark beetles killing wide swaths of trees (the term “red and dead” was unheard of in the ’60s). Again, amount of CO2 not a factor other than the fact that the heat range has shifted upward.
No melting caps? Now you’re just messing with me…
Call it pollution if you want. Either way, crop losses are happening, insects are disappearing (how buggy has your windshield been since 2000?) and warming is directly observable by the lay person in their local area.
When the weather is nuts year after year after year, that’s climate change.
July 3, 2019 at 1:53 pm #20721
Actually I just heard a report that in Brazil, they are cutting down the size of a football field of rainforest every minute.
We need green plants to convert CO2 into O2. Call me crazy, but destroying the means to remove CO2 from the atmosphere is just plain dumb.
Arctic and Antarctic ice is in constant flux. Just heard a report about how both flow and ebb.
Our real problem is population density, and consumption of energy. Our carbon foot print is obscene. And the Left wants to bring the internet to everyone on the plant, because “. . . it is a basic human right!” Currently the IT industry, the industry that brings you videos of cats, consumes as much energy as the entire airline industry.
And it is only going to get bigger.
July 3, 2019 at 4:26 pm #20725
I’m going to take the long way around, but bear with me. I’ll get to the point eventually.
Back in the Y2K days (yes, it was real, but that’s another story) there was a common denial response that “we’ll just go back to paper” if the computers go tits up. In fact, one of our managers said that very thing. So we sat down and did the math for him. To revert the 5 current business processes he was responsible for (managed efficiently by ten people and a minicomputer) would require what turned out to be the equivalent of 50,000 square feet of office space to handle the 1,200 people and their typewriters, calculators, and filing cabinets he would need to process the 5 streams of paperwork with enough efforts in parallel that the paperwork could be managed in only twice the time it took his unit to do the same thing each day.
The thing with computers is that they compress time. Things happen faster, therefore those things can be more complex, or more flexible, or more adaptive than the original processes. We’re doing more with less, substantially less. How much energy would it take to handle the expanded office space described above? Compare that with 10 people and a minicomputer. Now multiply that out across banking, stock and commodities trading, the loss of JIT supply chains and the subsequent need to hold inventory on site instead of in transit, automated manufacturing, power plants and power distribution, airline reservations, air traffic routing, loss of coordinated street signals, back to snail mail, back to Plain Old Telephones, back to printed news, and on and on.
Whatever level of energy we are consuming now is a small fraction of what would be needed to “do things by hand” and have this lifestyle, and IT is a key enabler.
Our real problem is population density, and consumption of energy. Our carbon foot print is obscene.
Population density, in combination with lifestyle, defines what level of energy is consumed. Damn near no one is giving up on even a little bit of that lifestyle, and the few who are don’t matter because their impact is down in the noise. Precious few leftists have given up their cars for bicycles, or airline travel for video conferencing, even though both are eminently doable. And for those on the right? “The American way of life is not negotiable.” Nuff said.
So we will continue going the way of Rome in Caesar’s time and everyone will continue to pretend that money has value, that laws are fairly enforced, and that infinite growth on a finite planet is a viable concept. Because pretending has been working since before the turn of the century. If it’s worked so far it’ll work forever, right?
The point? If you’re on the left, adapt away. If you’re on the right, do nothing. Both will have the same impact on what’s coming. But at least go into it with your eyes open to reality.
July 3, 2019 at 4:49 pm #20729
Very good Mouse!
And that is what I have been trying to say.
IF the Left is serious about CC/AGW then instead of trying to sell us all on this Green New Deal techno-fix, then they need to tell us the truth.
The truth being in order to meet the temp limits per the Paris Accords, every single one of us, across the planet, would have to adopt a mid 1800s lifestyle.
And as you mention, no one has the intestinal fortitude to do that. Not AOC, not Greenpeace members, not even the most eco-warrior types.
What? Give up lattees, avocado toast, smartphones, air conditioning, vehicles (even electric ones) and videos of cats?
Only from their cold dead hands.
The Left is adapting to nothing, other than fooling themselves.
And Y2K was a bust. I was in the military at the time. We did an entire series of tests, rolling computers time hacks forward and nothing happened.
And I had to sit on the OPS floor as the Y2K “specialist,” (yay me) watching for computer glitches on Dec 31st 1999. There was a prison in Italy that added 100years to the inmates sentence. Otherwise, nothing significant to report.
- This reply was modified 9 months, 1 week ago by Crow Bar.
July 3, 2019 at 5:09 pm #20731
And there was the factory that rolled their clocks forward and watched all lines shut down. When Y2K happened to a town in Siberia that hadn’t mitigated, there was 6″ of ice on the walls inside the apartment buildings. I saw the pictures.
It was real. It was mitigated in time. It was the lawyers that fixed it.
Denial was running rampant right through the mid ’90s and nothing was being done. For example, no one would authorize rolling the clock forward on a bank mainframe to test. After all IBM said everything was going to be fine.
Then, in 1996 or 1997, some legal conference happened. You know the kind I’m talking about, where the lawyers who were in attendance were all from the “silk stocking” firms and anything less than a $10,000 suit and $30,000 watch got you summarily ostracized. These were attorneys for all the major corporate boardrooms and senior agency leadership basically on the planet. After that conference, they all went to their respective board members and said:
“Y2K is a foreseeable event. People with expertise have been warning you. Whether you believe them or not, you have been warned. If a corporate board fails to act to mitigate a foreseeable event, and the corporation suffers as a direct result, then the corporate shield is eliminated for the members of the board. Each and every one of you would have your personal assets exposed as part of your liability for the failure.”
In 1998 the money floodgates opened.
In 1999, mainframe manufacturers released mandatory upgrades to their operating systems.
In 1999, every PC in every major corporation and government agency was tested individually to insure compatibility. Those that passed got little stickers (remember those?). Those that failed got replaced.
And Y2K turned out fine. Because of the lawyers.
July 3, 2019 at 7:04 pm #20732
Well who has the balls to tell others to stop procreation. .. only one place did and they reversed it. The problem is with religious type on this subject. Personally I think we should have world wide one child policy till under a billion. …. but I think that is way too little too late as we are off the road over the cliff and people still arguing about what seat they are in.
All problems go away if you reduce population enough… well I guess it’s time for ( shakes magic 8 ball) choose a disaster.
As for insects…. when new neonicanoids where used it’s cascading failure of eco system like ddt.
Lots of bugs here as well as frogs and toads. Did you know a single light can affect your night time polonators reducing amount of yield and that 60 percent of polination is done at night.
- This reply was modified 9 months, 1 week ago by namelus.
July 4, 2019 at 7:29 am #20738
According to several reports, world population is dropping off. Japan and Italy have a big population problem.
Meanwhile, the Western males are seeing a decrease in sperm quantity and motility.
Toss in the legalization of pot (HTC decreases the motility of sperm) and we are well on our way to decreasing our own population.
There have been a few reports suggesting sedentary lifestyle, the ultra-processed food stuff, various chemicals in plastics are all contributing to low sperm counts.
Population reduction? We are doing it to ourselves.
July 4, 2019 at 1:02 pm #20743
Except those places like Africa and other third world…. look at which places are producing tons of kids. Look at how big a shit holes they are and then look at predominant religion…. black /brown Muslim world.
These are the replacements for you. Part of the reason they are shit holes are the national iq is way lower. This is jot to say by amount they don’t have more high iq but as a look at iq to population ratio. If iq played zero role then Africa should be the world leader because of population, resources and when the white man left a working moden institutes. … in stead where does it go…. South Africa is prime example.
This sounds racist but carefully look at the success and the iq of the population. This translates into people who put effort into more than just thier family unit, more than just what’s in it for me….. a trainable population… success from nothing but hard work….. china, singapore, Germany, Japan, luckier countries like usa canada russia with both land resources and people.
Only country in my opinion that has population growth framed correctly is Hungary with Victor orban at helm. Pay for locals to have more kids by easing costs instead of importing non assimilating forgieners.
The problem here is the only ones producing 4 kids per household on average are the section 8 handout class because everyone else too busy working for the ever mounting tax burden of the government gone wild spending.
India now has to export men because not enough women in India due to male preferable just like in China.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.