04 Jan 1908 – A STARTLING THOUGHT. DO WE CATCH DISEASES FROM O…
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- What’s At Stake?
- Too Hot To Live
- What’s At Stake?
- “The world began to end on 12th May 2024”
- “Climate change is a myth”
- Racist Gas
- RFK Jr. Discusses The Green New Deal And Climate
- “world is on edge of climate abyss, UN warns”
- Ivy Echo Chamber
- Climate Homicide
- Much Ado About Nothing
- Homophobic Gas
- World Bank Expectations
- Trained Not To Learn
- Protecting Endangered Species
- Record Climate Cynicism
- Record Cynicism
- The Latest In Climate Science Rhetoric
- Climate Desperation
- Artificial Stupidity
- Climate Obsession
- The Climate Empire Strikes Back
- Climate Scam Parrots
- “I’ve dealt with him before ”
- “I’ve dealt with him before.”
Recent Comments
- Francis Barnett on “Climate change is a myth”
- Gordon Vigurs on What’s At Stake?
- Paul Marks on What’s At Stake?
- Disillusioned on What’s At Stake?
- Gordon Vigurs on “Climate change is a myth”
- Gamecock on What’s At Stake?
- arn on What’s At Stake?
- Petit_Barde on “Climate change is a myth”
- dm on “Climate change is a myth”
- Gordon Vigurs on “Climate change is a myth”
Probably a misrepresentation in the press. Panspermy was the notion that life evolved one time in one place then spread from planet to planet. This hypothesis is alive and well today.
Remember Panspermia theory.
It’s not particularly a radical idea and has been around for hundreds if not thousands of years in one form or another. Then again climate religion has been around for thousands of years too.
If there was once a planet in the asteroid belt that exploded or broke up (per Dr Van Flandern and others) then it follows that asteroids and small comets formed from its remains might contain germs. Secondly, stars do go super nova. likely destroying their planets, and the solar system is likely to pass through the resulting debris from time to time. This “space germ” theory is not mainstream, but it appears much more plausible than CAGW.
Reminds me of the ‘Son of a Gun’ caper….
http://theunexplainedmysteries.com/Son-of-a-Gun.html
Well it was a nice try – very imaginative and doctors bribable as always. I do remember, in my youth, reading a paper by Fred Hoyle linking global epidemics with comet and asteroid events. It fell to advances in genetics and DNA technology. I also read his very convincing “steady-state” cosmology, which I believe is making a bit of a comeback.
What goes round – comes round.
Lots of Science Guys believe in Panspermia because
*drum roll*
the Earth hasn’t been around long enough to account for life evolving.
Oh well.
Richard Moore
‘so-called climate change on Earth is a naturally occurring process from the Sun-Earth electromagnetic relationship.’
https://youtu.be/QxVfJ2HXCU4
If you throw enough crap against the wall, eventually you get lucky and something sticks. A lot of todays scientists are no different than Arhennius, they just keep throwing crap in all directions like a loose cannon, hoping something sticks. On those rare occasions when they are right about something, they act as if being right one time validates all the times they have been wrong.
No choice this elections. Cndidates already selected, Bush or Clinton.
Not my cup of tea.
Lord, R. de
I hope not
I am not sure why Arrhenius would be considered the father of global warming.
But, if he is, he is.
He was a big contributor to chemistry, and his definition of acids/bases is a basic but not
totally accurate or at least complete definition used today.
He determined that CO2 in the atmosphere was saturated with respect to the frequencies of
IR waves that could be absorbed, so he thought adding more would not make any difference.
He also thought that, if anything, adding more would probably cool the earth.
The saturation understanding was held for a long time before quantum mechanics and a widening of absorption bands was understood. The intricacies of quantum mechanics and eventually along with the Stephan Boltzmann constant for black body radiation and much more models were formed, each different, each its own hypothesis.
The models are kind of a hodgepodge of hypothesis’ and observations emanating from various sources. As I see it, kind of like an engineer building building a machine from the atoms on up.
The last and most challenging part being the combining of the atmosphere over the land and the oceans. To be sure, much of the science is correct. But much of the feedbacks and unknowns as well as unknown unknowns persist. Otherwise, how could there be so many different models, each with different outcomes.
I expect that had the earth continued to cool after the 1970,s the cooling and all the predicted perils of the cooling planet which were scientifically in vogue at that time would have been the United Nations banner for its one world cause with it supreme leaders in charge.
—and us little guys, we of course could serve our supreme masters.
I am sure Gail C. our queen of chemistry (and more) would have much to say about this, and I for one almost never disagree with her. But then again, this is Mothers day.
Gail?
American Meteorological Society’s 1951 Compendium of Meteorology:
“Carbon dioxide absorbs long-wave radiation and so helps to maintain the temperature of the earth’s surface above that at which it would otherwise be in equilibrium with solar radiation. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere must have varied greatly during geological time, being depleted by the formation of limestones (carbonates) and coal measures, and replenished by volcanic action. Ordinarily the variation was slow, because a great reserve of CO2 is dissolved in the oceans. Arrhenius and Chamberlin saw in this a cause of climatic changes, but the theory was never widely accepted and was abandoned when it was found that all the long-wave radiation absorbed by CO2 is also absorbed by water vapour.
”In the past hundred years the burning of coal has increased the amount of CO2 by a measurable amount (from 0.028 to 0.030 per cent), and Callendar [7] sees in this an explanation of the recent rise of world temperature. But during the past 7000 years there have been greater fluctuations of temperature without the intervention of man, and there seems no reason to regard the recent rise as more than a coincidence.”
And then along came Roger Revelle, Al Gore’s supposed mentor, who showed that additional CO2 could affect temperature. But what did Revelle actually say about CO2 and climate change?
From a 1984 interview:
“I estimate that the total increase [in CO2] over the past hundred years has been about 21 percent. But whether the increase will lead to a significant rise in global temperature, we can’t absolutely say…
”Increased CO2 in the air acts like a fertilizer for plants…you get more plant growth. Increasing CO2 levels also affect water transpiration, causing plants to close their pores and sweat less. That means plants will be able to grow in drier climates…
”People are always saying the weather’s getting worse. Actually, the CO2 increase is predicted to temper weather extremes.”
Hey Nutso,,
I have not seen the quote from the 1984 interview before. Thank You.
The quotes are from S. Fred Singer, here.
In 1992, Revelle’s daughter claimed her father was being quoted out of context.
I think the truth about what Revelle believed lies somewhere between Singer and Gore. Revelle certainly disagreed that the “science was settled,” but, as you can see from his article “What Can We Do About Climate Change?”, he was not advocating inaction.
Here’s a 1989 interview with Revelle that’ll have you feeling like you’ve met him. He clearly did not believe climate change was the most important problem facing mankind.
(Hmm. On second thought, saying Revelle’s beliefs lay somewhere between Singer’s and Gore’s is sort of like saying a black panther’s appearance lies somewhere between a jaguar’s and a black rat’s.)
Streptococcus survived 2.6 years on the moon.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1998/ast01sep98_1/