The Risk of Death by Meteor greater than the Risk of Death by Global Warming

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 2nd, 2014

Week in Review

There is an oft used expression that goes something like this.  In the long run we’ll all be dead.  So the long-term isn’t as important as the short-term.  Politicians live their lives by this.  As they irresponsibly borrow and spend to win votes.  Who don’t worry about the long-term damage they’re doing to the country.  Because in the long run they’ll be dead.  But they don’t have that same sentiment when it comes to global warming.  Where they say we must act now before it’s too late.  And we give our children a future devastated by global warming.  Giving them a future devastated by their reckless and irresponsible financial policies they’re okay with.  But not a future ruined by global warming.  Even though the financial devastation will probably come first.  Or this (see 400-kg meteor hits the moon by QMI Agency posted 2/24/2014 on the Toronto Sun).

On Sept. 11, 2013, a 400-kg rock hurtling through space at 61,000 km/h in the Mare Nubium smashed into the surface of the moon, releasing as much energy as 15 tonnes of TNT.

The meteor was 10 times bigger than the last record-holder, a 40-kg rock NASA observed hitting the moon March 17, 2013.

They say this rock was as big as a small car.  We better hope that nothing bigger than this hits the moon.  For if something does it could break the moon apart.  Disrupting tidal currents on earth.  And sending a chunk of the moon much larger than a small car into Earth.  Doing more damage than we can even imagine.  A real concern.  For a current hypothesis for the formation of the moon is from something as large as Mars smashing into Earth.  So there is a lot of space crap zinging around out there.  And we would probably be better served in trying to think of a way to defend against getting crushed to death by a rock from outer space than worrying about global warming.  For the odds are probably greater for getting hit by a piece of space crap than dying from global warming.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , ,

The Carbon we pull from the Earth and the Atmosphere is now too Dangerous for the Earth and the Atmosphere

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 13th, 2013

Week in Review

The conservation of matter states that we cannot create or destroy matter.  We can only rearrange it.  Meaning everything on this earth has been on this earth since this earth became the earth.  Except, of course, stuff falling out of space.  And the few moon rocks brought back by our astronauts.  But other than that if something is here today it means it was here yesterday.  Last week.  Last year.  Last decade.  Last century.  And last millennium.  Get the picture?  For this process goes all the way back to the big bang theory.  To the day this spinning planet became a planet.

The elements on the periodic table are the building blocks of everything around you.  Even you.  All we have ever done throughout time is find these elements.  Combine these elements.  And separate these elements.  To make the things in our world.  But we use the same old elements that have been here since the big bang and are still here.  We dig atoms out from the earth and pull them out of the atmosphere and rearrange them in new forms.  Then chemical reactions rearrange them yet again.  And they return to the earth and to the atmosphere from whence they came.  This remarkable closed system.  Where we can neither create nor destroy matter.  But only rearrange it.  Yet today this matter that has been here since the beginning is now too dangerous to be in the earth or the atmosphere (see Cowper mutiny on carbon capture by Daniel Mercer posted 7/9/2013 on The West Australian).

Premier Colin Barnett is facing another backbench revolt from former minister Murray Cowper, this time over proposed carbon capture and storage legislation.

The State Government wants to amend laws to allow carbon dioxide to be injected into underground reservoirs as part of efforts to reduce pollution and tackle climate change…

Mr Cowper said they “trampled” on landowners’ rights by giving drillers unfettered access to property and betrayed Liberal policy.

He also attacked the proposal as environmentally reckless, saying it amounted to “pumping and dumping” waste and would put groundwater at risk.

The State and Federal governments and industry plan to sequester carbon from Kwinana, Collie, Pinjarra and Wagerup under- neath Mr Cowper’s South West electorate.

Yes, you can mix together some elements from the periodic table and make a substance that can contaminate the groundwater.  Yes, you can mix some elements from the periodic table together that can be dangerous to breathe.  But carbon?  The very building block of organic chemistry.  Of life itself?  That stuff we exhale when we breathe?  This element is now so toxic that it’s too dangerous for the atmosphere?  And too dangerous for the earth?

It’s time we dial back the crazy.  Before the global warming people proclaim all carbon toxic.  Limiting the amount of breath we may exhale.  And the carbon we may carry within our bodies that make up our life-forms.  Which isn’t a far stretch with Obamacare charging obese people more for their health insurance because of their greater at-risk status of weight-related disease.  What’s to stop these people from identifying them as dangerous life forms due the abundance of carbon they carry within them?  Don’t be surprised if you see a carbon content blank to fill in on the Obamacare paperwork.

Crazy?  That’s exactly what someone would have said a century ago about the idea of sequestering carbon by injecting it into underground reservoirs to tackle climate change.  If these men of yesteryear were here today and heard people talking like this they’d probably spit at them with derision.  Seeing the only danger to mankind being the feminization of men that allowed people to quake with fear over the carbon dioxide we exhale.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Russia’s Ambitious Unmanned Mars Mission Fails

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 15th, 2012

Week in Review

The Russians planned a mission to land a spacecraft on a moon of Mars.  Excavate some material.  And return to Earth.  You’d have to go back to America’s Apollo Moon Program for something as bold.  Unfortunately their mission failed (see Russian space probe crashes into Pacific by VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV posted 1/15/2012 on my way).

A Russian space probe designed to boost the nation’s pride on a bold mission to a moon of Mars came down in flames Sunday, showering fragments into the south Pacific west of Chile’s coast, officials said…

The Phobos-Ground was designed to travel to one of Mars’ twin moons, Phobos, land on it, collect soil samples and fly them back to Earth in 2014 in one of the most daunting interplanetary missions ever. It got stranded in Earth’s orbit after its Nov. 9 launch, and efforts by Russian and European Space Agency experts to bring it back to life failed…

Russia’s space chief has acknowledged the Phobos-Ground mission was ill-prepared, but said that Roscosmos had to give it the go-ahead so as not to miss the limited Earth-to-Mars launch window.

Mars is the Earth’s neighbor.  Phobos-Ground was going to take about 3 years for a round trip to a Mars moon.  The launch was rushed because of the different orbits of Mars and Earth.  It’s sort of like throwing a pass in the NFL.  You don’t throw the ball to the receiver.  You throw it where the receiver will be.  So they had to launch Phobos-Ground so it would arrive where the moon of Mars would be.  Not where it was.

Because of these great distances and the movement of the planets, navigating between these heavenly bodies is not easy.  Also, this was an unmanned mission.  Because as of now the technology does not exist to build a ship large enough with enough food and water and energy to sustain human life for a roundtrip to Mars.  Not to mention the affect of weightlessness, the lack of exercise, fresh air, sunshine, etc.  Or what would happen if an astronaut or a cosmonaut or other space traveler caught a cold or suffered an appendicitis.  An unmanned mission was difficult enough.  A manned mission is beyond the realm of possibility.  For now.

Space travel is costly, difficult and highly risky.  Just to reach Mars.  Let alone intergalactic travel.  The obstacles to overcome may be insurmountable.  Yet if those having the technology were to do so they no doubt would have the technology to end hunger, control the weather and eliminate war.  And have no conceivable reason for contacting a far distant planet.

Unless they’re just incredibly bored.  And have money to burn.  Or are like the Professor on the television show Gilligan’s Island.  Who could build a radio receiver out of coconuts but couldn’t figure out how to patch a hole in a boat.  Smart enough to do the complex.  But not smart enough to something simpler.  Which would negate the necessity of the more complex.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , ,

Solar Activity causing Problems for Global Warming ‘Scientists’

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 15th, 2011

Sunspot Activity is an Important Variable in Climate Forecasting

There’s a consensus in the global warming community.  And it says that global warming exists.  But there’s a problem now.  The sun, the source of our planet’s warmth, is throwing the global warming people a curve ball.  The sun may be getting cooler.  And, being the source of our warmth, our planet may now be getting cooler.  Amidst all this rampant global warming (see Scientists predict rare ‘hibernation’ of sunspots by Kerry Sheridan, AFP, posted 6/14/2011 on Yahoo! News).

According to three studies released in the United States on Tuesday, experts believe the familiar sunspot cycle may be shutting down and heading toward a pattern of inactivity unseen since the 17th century…and may contribute to climate change…”

Sunspot activity may contribute to climate change?  Interesting.  Because I never heard Al Gore say that.  He said man was causing climate change.  Warning that man’s carbon footprint on the planet would melt the polar ice caps and flood coastal areas.  By the way, after he said this he bought a beach house.  A mansion, really.  In a coastal area.  How brave of him.

Experts are now probing whether this period of inactivity could be a second Maunder Minimum, which was a 70-year period when hardly any sunspots were observed between 1645-1715, a period known as the “Little Ice Age.”

Now this is even more interesting.  Because the global warming people told us that unless we took action right now the planet was doomed.  Now we may save the planet by doing just that.  Nothing.  Scientists are saying we may have a cooling period of solar activity.  Just like that during the Little Ice Age.  Climate change caused by the sun.  Now that’s something you can’t blame man for.  Not even the Republicans.

The temperature change associated with any reduction in sunspot activity would likely be minimal and may not be enough to offset the impact of greenhouse gases on global warming, according to scientists who have published recent papers on the topic.

Even though the last time there was solar activity like this was one of the coldest periods known to man it probably means nothing now.  At least according to their computer models.  Those remarkable predicting machines.  That somehow failed to predict this solar activity.  Well, as long as solar activity isn’t a big climate variable.

If the cycle were to stop or slow down, the small fluctuation in temperature would do the same, eliminating the slightly cooler effect of a solar minimum compared to the warmer solar maximum. The phenomenon was witnessed during the descending phase of the last solar cycle.

This “cancelled part of the greenhouse gas warming of the period 2000-2008, causing the net global surface temperature to remain approximately flat — and leading to the big debate of why the Earth hadn’t (been) warming in the past decade,” Lean, who was not involved in the three studies presented, said in an email to AFP.

Wait a minute.  If it cancelled out a decade of global warming it must be a pretty darn big climate variable.  It’s so powerful it held global warming at bay for about a decade.  Single-handedly preventing all sorts of disasters.  And there were a lot of them predicted since the Nineties (and earlier).  Very specific disasters.  And they were all wrong.  Because they didn’t include what appears to be a pretty important variable.  A variable so important that it trumped every other variable in their computer models.  Which doesn’t say much for their predicting models.  Or the predictability of climate.

“A new Maunder-type solar activity minimum cannot offset the global warming caused by human greenhouse gas emissions,” wrote authors Georg Feulner and Stefan Rahmstorf, noting that forecasts by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have found a range of 3.7 Celsius to 4.5 Celsius rise by this century’s end compared to the latter half of the 20th century.

“Moreover, any offset of global warming due to a grand minimum of solar activity would be merely a temporary effect, since the distinct solar minima during the last millennium typically lasted for only several decades or a century at most.”

Funny.  When sunspot activity correlates to similar activity during the Little Ice Age they use the word ‘may’.  Here they use the word ‘cannot’.  There is no way that a reduction in sunspot activity can stop manmade global warming.  Even though they got it wrong in the 2000-2008 period.  Because their models didn’t predict the cooling effect of a reduction in sunspot activity.  Nor did they predict a reduction in sunspot activity.  But despite these misses, their other predictions hold.  The planet is warming.  Because of man.  Even if we may have to wait another 100 years for those temperatures to get where the models said they’d be already.

The Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice Age

So did the Maunder Minimum cause the Little Ice Age?  According to some of the best climate ‘scientists’, it didn’t.  Because although a Maunder-type solar activity minimum held off devastating global warming from 2000-2008, there isn’t really a connection between an even bigger Maunder-type solar activity minimum (the Maunder Minimum itself) and the Little Ice Age (see Scientists see sunspot “hibernation” but no Ice Age by Deborah Zabarenko posted 6/15/2011 on Reuters).

They also wondered whether this possible slowdown, or even a long cessation of sunspot activity, indicates an upcoming return of the Maunder Minimum, a 70-year sunspot drought seen from 1645-1715…

They had no answer as to whether this might be true, and said nothing about whether the Maunder Minimum — named for astronomer E.H. Maunder — was related to a long cold period in Europe and other parts of the Northern Hemisphere known as the Little Ice Age.

How strong a connection is there between a Little Ice Age and a Maunder Minimum? “Not as strong a connection as people would like to believe,” Hill said by phone.

So the Maunder Minimum did not cause the Little Ice Age.  And we know this why?

“In my opinion, it is a huge leap … to an abrupt global cooling, since the connections between solar activity and climate are still very poorly understood,” he said in an e-mail.

Because we don’t understand the connections between solar activity and climate?  That’s your reason for saying there’s no connection between the two?  Because you don’t know?  Of course, if you don’t know, there could very well be a connection between the two.  Look, we know there’s a connection.  If the sun burned out the earth would freeze and all life would die.  Even with manmade global warming.  The sun is that important to the earth.  If you don’t have that factored into your computer models there’s something wrong with your models.

A Cooling Sun will Cool the Planet

Wait a tic.  Apparently there isn’t a consensus on this global warming thing after all.  While some poo poo solar activity’s affect on climate, others see a connection.  They see the correlation between the coldest period of the Little Ice Age and the Maunder Minimum (see Lack of sunspots may have aided ‘little ice age’ by Charles Q. Choi posted 6/6/2011 on MSNBC).

From the 1500s to the 1800s, much of Europe and North America were plunged into what came to be called the little ice age. The coolest part of this cold spell coincided with a 75-year period beginning in 1645 when astronomers detected almost no sunspots on the sun, a time now referred to as the Maunder Minimum.

There’s no connection between the Little Ice Age and the Maunder Minimum per the global warming ‘scientists’.  Yes, the coldest part of that ice age was during the Maunder Minimum.  But isn’t that just a coincidence?

Now scientists suggest there might have been fewer intensely bright spots known as faculae on the sun as well during that time, potentially reducing its brightness enough to cool the Earth.

The dip in the number of faculae in the 17th century might have dimmed the sun by just 0.2 percent, which may have been enough to help trigger a brief, radical climate shift on Earth, researcher Peter Foukal, a solar physicist at research company Heliophysics in Nahant, Mass., told LiveScience.

“The sun may have dimmed more than we thought,” Foukal said.

Guess not. 

A dimming of the sun may have caused a brief, radical climate shift during the Little Ice Age?  Really?  Wow.  That’s sort of the exact opposite of what the global warming ‘scientists’ said.  Being that the sun is the source of our warmth, it makes sense.  And the dimming may have been even dimmer than we once thought.  So it’s looking more and more like the Maunder Minimum may have caused the Little Ice Age.

Foukal emphasized this dimming might not have been the only or even main cause of the cooling seen during the little ice age. “There were also strong volcanic effects involved — something like 17 huge volcanic eruptions then,” he said.

Foukal also cautioned these findings regarding the sun did not apply to modern-day global warming. “Increased solar activity would not have anything to do with the global warming seen in the last 100 years,” he explained.

Now I’m confused.  Volcanic eruptions send ash, carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere.  So do coal-fired power plants.  Yet volcanoes cool the planet.  While burning coal warms the planet.  How can that be?  I guess anything is possible in the world of global warming and climate change.  Such as how the warming mechanism for the last 100 years can also been the cooling mechanism during the Little Ice Age.

There is no such thing as ‘Consensus’ in Science

We hear over and over again that only man is causing global warming.  But there’s been global warming before man and his Industrial Revolution polluted the planet.  The earth warmed after each ice age.  And the earth warmed after the Little Ice Age. 

And it’s looking like the Little Ice Age was caused by a decrease in sunspot activity.  Which may be happening again.  Which means the planet may start a cooling period.  During the height of global warming.  Which, if true, further lends credence to the claim that global warming is a hoax.  Created by man.  For political purposes.  Money.  Carbon permitsCarbon trading.  It’s all about the money.  As it always is.

This is the problem with scientific consensus.  There is no such thing.  A consensus is political.  Not scientific.  Because science is not about the money.  But politics is. 

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,