Talk-Polywell.org

krenshala wrote:Cue the setting in Fallen Angles.

Not sure if Winnipeg(Winterpeg) would be the last Canadian outpost of civilization during the next ice age, but it is a science fiction novel.

krenshala wrote:Cue the setting in Fallen Angles.

Nah...look at my earlier post; we have already apparently dodged the bullet as far as entering a new ice age by the amount of CO2 we have already added (even possibly well before the industrial revolution).

We narrowly missed a new ice age, and now we won’t see one for a long time. Before fossil fuels rendered this moot, conditions were nearly right.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5964&p=123969&hilit ... ge#p123969


With what we have already added there won't likely be another ice age for 50K + years. Too say nothing of the momentum of the future emissions from our selves and especially China; who already exceeds our emissions. That fact (China) was I assume ignored when "Fallen Angels" was written. If winters started getting colder we would be burning massive amounts of oil/coal/gas to keep warm. Both in our vehicles and of course power plants world wide. There would actually be a massive spike in CO2 emissions; and we haven't even gotten to say the real heavy weight champs. If the world were gripped by an ice age all it would really take to stop it dead in its tracks would be to start producing and releasing super green house gasses like NF3 (Nitrogen Tri-fluoride ) 17K times more powerful than CO2; bye-bye ice age. Just make sure you don't make too much of it; it persists in the atmosphere for a long time. So sorry would be Gloom and Doomers; baring a global collapse of Civilization first you will have to find another way besides nascent ice ages to take us out.

The whole greenhouse gas "theory" is bunk. Most heat transfer between the surface and stratosphere is already connected to convection and phase change of water.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... evel-rise/

More fake "science" supporting AGW.

That, and hairspray and refrigerants did not create ozone holes.

http://nstarzone.com/OZONE.html

"It seemed strange to Tazieff that an ozone hole situated above the Antarctic was blamed on CFC gases, when most deodorants were sprayed in the northern hemisphere. He was surprised to discover an article in the 1950 Annals of Geophysics reporting the existence of ozone holes above Norway in 1926 - years before CFC's were even dreamt of - and was astounded to find that the hole above the Antarctic was not the recent phenomenon ecologists claimed it to be. It was actually discovered as far back as 1957, he says, by the English scientist, Gordon Dobson, but it was only in the mid-eighties that satellite photos began to highlight it in a rather spectacular way.
Tazieff believes that these dramatic images have been used to hoodwink the public. He believes that the hole is due to the low levels of ultraviolet rays (which are necessary to produce ozone) over the Antarctic at the end of the year, and that the large and swift movements of air masses around the continent also play their part. On September 5, 1987, there was a relatively large reduction of 0.1 per cent in the levels of ozone over a surface of three million square kilometres near the Palmer peninsula in the Antarctic. Tazieff is convinced there is no way that the CFCs could have broken down so much ozone in such a short space of time.

Even if CFCs do have an effect, he asserts that it must be an insignificant one. After all, it is alleged that it is the chlorine in the CFCs which breaks down the ozone molecules. However, only 7,500 tons of chlorine are released from the breakdown of CFCs every year, against 600 million tons from the evaporation of seawater and 36 million from volcanoes."

Number one rule who would benefit if it was true?
Proof of the conspiracy supposedly emerges from a pattern of “connecting the dots” between events that need not be causally connected. When no evidence supports these connections except the allegation of the conspiracy or when the evidence fits equally well to other causal connections—or to randomness—the conspiracy theory is likely to be false.
The agents behind the pattern of the conspiracy would need nearly superhuman power to pull it off. People are usually not nearly so powerful as we think they are.
The conspiracy is complex, and its successful completion demands a large number of elements.
Similarly, the conspiracy involves large numbers of people who would all need to keep silent about their secrets. The more people involved, the less realistic it becomes.
The conspiracy encompasses a grand ambition for control over a nation, economy or political system. If it suggests world domination, the theory is even less likely to be true.
The conspiracy theory ratchets up from small events that might be true to much larger, much less probable events.
The conspiracy theory assigns portentous, sinister meanings to what are most likely innocuous, insignificant events.
The theory tends to commingle facts and speculations without distinguishing between the two and without assigning degrees of probability or of factuality.
The theorist is indiscriminately suspicious of all government agencies or private groups, which suggests an inability to nuance differences between true and false conspiracies.
The conspiracy theorist refuses to consider alternative explanations, rejecting all disconfirming evidence and blatantly seeking only confirmatory evidence to support what he or she has a priori determined to be the truth.

paperburn1 wrote:Number one rule who would benefit if it was true?
Proof of the conspiracy supposedly emerges from a pattern of “connecting the dots” between events that need not be causally connected. When no evidence supports these connections except the allegation of the conspiracy or when the evidence fits equally well to other causal connections—or to randomness—the conspiracy theory is likely to be false.
The agents behind the pattern of the conspiracy would need nearly superhuman power to pull it off. People are usually not nearly so powerful as we think they are.
The conspiracy is complex, and its successful completion demands a large number of elements.
Similarly, the conspiracy involves large numbers of people who would all need to keep silent about their secrets. The more people involved, the less realistic it becomes.
The conspiracy encompasses a grand ambition for control over a nation, economy or political system. If it suggests world domination, the theory is even less likely to be true.
The conspiracy theory ratchets up from small events that might be true to much larger, much less probable events.
The conspiracy theory assigns portentous, sinister meanings to what are most likely innocuous, insignificant events.
The theory tends to commingle facts and speculations without distinguishing between the two and without assigning degrees of probability or of factuality.
The theorist is indiscriminately suspicious of all government agencies or private groups, which suggests an inability to nuance differences between true and false conspiracies.
The conspiracy theorist refuses to consider alternative explanations, rejecting all disconfirming evidence and blatantly seeking only confirmatory evidence to support what he or she has a priori determined to be the truth.

You sound like one of those crazy coincidence theorists.

MAYBE, whats your point

paperburn1 wrote:MAYBE, whats your point

Do you believe everything you see and hear on CNN?

And furthermore...

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... existence/

From that article.

"We’re not talking fractions of a degree, here. The adjustments amount to a whopping 3.1 degrees F. This takes us well beyond the regions of error margins or innocent mistakes and deep into the realm of fiction and political propaganda."

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... c-sea-ice/

Delingpole: NOAA Caught Lying About Arctic Sea Ice

One chance. Guess how they lied about Artic Ice.

More of it, or less of it?

https://realclimatescience.com/2018/03/ ... 5-degrees/

Documentation of the fraud is really quite complete.

Another piece of evidence the Earth is cooling

http://notrickszone.com/2018/04/09/new- ... 8ytdF.dpbs

Make fish food, save the world.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 154516.htm

Full disclosure while I do believe the climate is in flux (and always has been) I also believe there are easy sustainable ways to keep it in a fixed closed feedback loop than will keep the changes due to happen from happening.