Climate change could cause mass exodus by mid century

On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 12:59:50 PM UTC-4, SlurpieMcDoublegulp wrote:
On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 6:57:09 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 5:37:51 AM UTC-4, SlurpieMcDoublegulp wrote:

Accepting established science is not political. It's just data and reason.
Denying climate science and environmentalism is entirly political as there are
only political and profit motives and no scientific basis for it.

You really need to slow down on the caffeine, dude.

You really need to slow down on your fossil fuel use too... your words say one thing, your actions say something entirely different.

"Elliptic Curve" cryptography.

The concept is that a randomly selected 3D surface is defined by a random elliptic curve equation and the public and private key pair are selected from random points on the random surface created using the random equation, kinda sorta.

Once the keys are generated, the exact equation used to generate them is tossed and impossible to repeat.

The time taken to crack a public-private key pair of a length equivalent to
the lengths of more "traditional" methods of generating public/private key
pairs is said to be measured in "Geological time" with the only longer measure
of time being solar fuel cycles.

Did you have something relevant to the discussion to say?

On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 1:25:36 PM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Thu, 5 May 2016 10:03:58 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel

So what is dark matter?

Almost certainly a type of particle.

Hey, great tautology!

On Thu, 5 May 2016 11:09:29 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 1:25:36 PM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Thu, 5 May 2016 10:03:58 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel

So what is dark matter?

Almost certainly a type of particle.

Hey, great tautology!

How so? There are those who believe it doesn't exist as a form of
matter at all.

On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 6:12:04 PM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 5:20:54 PM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:
SlurpieMcDoublegulp wrote:
On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 4:42:32 AM UTC-5, SlurpieMcDoublegulp wrote:
On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 3:31:49 AM UTC-5, oriel36 wrote:
On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 9:17:44 AM UTC+1, SlurpieMcDoublegulp wrote:
Scorching temperatures brought on by climate change could leave large
swaths of the Middle East and North Africa uninhabitable by the middle
of this century, a new study predicts.


Chill out my boy, the big astronomical news is that midday and
midsummer share a common trait when it comes to temperature
fluctuations for any given location at habitable latitudes -

https://weather-and-climate.com/uplo...dom-london.png

http://prairieecosystems.pbworks.com...0variation.jpg

The temperature graphs are such a lovable means to express that our
planet turns in two distinct ways to the Sun and how to fix both
midday and midsummer by their common feature.

In Colorado it is illegal to drive with a giraffe in the car...in
Florida it is illegal to bathe naked (in your own home)...in California
it is illegal to eat a live crow......

in England its illegal to buy fish on a Sunday .. Yet it is illegal to
sell fried fish on Sunday (although in some areas the law is not
enforced). This means that fast food of foreign origin can be sold
freely, whilst the main native fast food, fish & chips, cannot legally be sold on Sunday.


It is illegal to sell fish and chips on Sunday. The law dates back to when
there was no refrigeration. When I was much younger fish and chip shops
were always closed on Sunday. Nowadays they are all open although it's
still illegal. I can get fish and chips from my village chip shop on
Sundays but I usually buy kebabs,

You missed the point of what that dope was trying to do.

Have you figured out how Midday at 12 noon and Midsummer on June 21st
share the same trends using the temperature graphs and therefore May 1st begins Summer.


You are wrong of course. The concept of summer predates any astronomy. It's
just a local name for the season of the year when it's hottest.

It is basically an academic form of ISIS in the complete disregard for historical and technical details as all societies celebrated Midsummer and Midwinter on the Solstices in some form or other -

https://stonehengetours.files.wordpr...ce-2003-01.jpg

I visited Newgrange this evening when nobody is around and take in the sounds of nature by the monument as the annual day/night cycle brings so much to life this time of the year. In roughly 6 weeks when the North pole is between polar sunrise and polar sunset at polar Midday people will come to Stonehenge to mark Midsummer in the great tradition of humanity.

There is no term for meteorological noon as opposed to astronomical noon as there is for the meteorological seasons as there is the astronomical seasons, there is just astronomical Midday and Midsummer assigned as 12 noon for the former and the Solstice for the latter.

Must be hard to ignore your astronomical ancestors in Britain and the monuments that still stand as a testament to their style, class, intelligence and all those things which no longer exist.

On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 11:25:36 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Thu, 5 May 2016 10:03:58 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 7:51:24 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Thu, 5 May 2016 05:24:11 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 3:37:51 AM UTC-6, SlurpieMcDoublegulp wrote:

Accepting established science is not political. It's just data and
reason.

But the "established science" is regularly overturned by new thinking
and new instrumentation.

Actually, major scientific theories are rarely overturned. It's been a
long time since that's happened. Maybe never for any theory that was
robustly supported by evidence.

So what is dark matter?

Almost certainly a type of particle. But the discovery of dark matter
didn't overturn any previous major theory- it extended existing
theory.

When I said "established science" I wasn't referring to a "major theory"
although I believe your claim is still a bit extreme. A theory is a model,
or a map, of reality. It never has and never will exactly fit the real
universe. GR happens to be a better model than Newtonian gravitation, and
QED is a better model than Maxwell's e/m. But something else will supplant
both of them.

But what I was referring to was the way scientists interpret reality. This
has happened several times since 1905 (Albert did it again in 1915). He
also started QM in 1905 and it evolved into QED by the mid 20th century.
Presently we have the standard model of cosmology based on GR and the
standard model of QM based on QED, but they're incompatible. Sure, one
can make certain QM assumptions and get GR's field equations, but doing
that refutes the "reality" of spacetime and support the graviton (which
isn't part of the standard model of QM).

Dark matter may just be a new particle, but it's unlikely that it is WIMPS
or axions. An extension of present theories may cover it, but it may
completely upset our concept of the universe.

Dark energy?

Good question. There are several theories. None of which overturn any
previous major theory.

Well, GR can "handle" it by adding back in the cosmological constant, but
that really doesn't explain anything.

General relativity is "robustly supported" by all local experimental
evidence but is it supported at the galactic level?

Yes.

One cannot honestly make that claim at present. If MOND turns out to be
correct, then GR is wrong. Personally, I think MOND is wrong, but who
knows?

Does dark matter really exist or is GR coming up short?

Beyond reasonable doubt, dark matter exists.

I believe so, too, but it's only a belief (albeit a strong one).

In fact, the concept of "spacetime" is most likely an emergent property
of quantum gravity, a very different theory.

Quantum gravity certainly hasn't displaced any existing theory. And in
fact, if it is developed, it is unlikely to.

Well, I disagree with you there. Before Einstein, there was a lot of
effort uncovering lots of phenomena that eventually didn't agree with the
scientific world view. Then along came Einstein and the revolution was
under way. I believe we are on the verge of another tremendous revolution
and it will be ushered in by quantum gravity (my bet is on brane theory).
We just need another Einstein:

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=204

http://www.coolgreenhills.com/2011/1...-einstein.html

" Now I believe we are at another of those nexus points where the scientific
evidence is pointing us, not toward any clear path, just somewhere beyond
where we are now. I'm not sure that just one century is long enough for
another Einstein to come along, but I'm hoping we can get lucky. We could
very much use that 21st century physics gunslinger."

On Thu, 5 May 2016 15:15:28 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

So what is dark matter?

Almost certainly a type of particle. But the discovery of dark matter
didn't overturn any previous major theory- it extended existing
theory.

When I said "established science" I wasn't referring to a "major theory"
although I believe your claim is still a bit extreme. A theory is a model,
or a map, of reality. It never has and never will exactly fit the real
universe. GR happens to be a better model than Newtonian gravitation, and
QED is a better model than Maxwell's e/m. But something else will supplant
both of them.

Well, I disagree that a theory can't be a perfect representation of
reality. Most of our major ones aren't, yet, but they come close.

I think most of our modern theory will be extended, not supplanted by
new theory.

Dark energy?

Good question. There are several theories. None of which overturn any
previous major theory.

Well, GR can "handle" it by adding back in the cosmological constant, but
that really doesn't explain anything.

I disagree. If a theory produces results that match reality, it
perfectly explains reality.

General relativity is "robustly supported" by all local experimental
evidence but is it supported at the galactic level?

Yes.

One cannot honestly make that claim at present. If MOND turns out to be
correct, then GR is wrong. Personally, I think MOND is wrong, but who
knows?

Would you prefer "yes, beyond reasonably doubt"? MOND is, of course,
almost entirely rejected on the basis of observations. GR is robustly
supported by all experimental evidence from scales of nanometers to
the size of the Universe.

On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 5:49:58 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Thu, 5 May 2016 15:15:28 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

So what is dark matter?

Almost certainly a type of particle. But the discovery of dark matter
didn't overturn any previous major theory- it extended existing
theory.

When I said "established science" I wasn't referring to a "major theory"
although I believe your claim is still a bit extreme. A theory is a model,
or a map, of reality. It never has and never will exactly fit the real
universe. GR happens to be a better model than Newtonian gravitation, and
QED is a better model than Maxwell's e/m. But something else will supplant
both of them.

Well, I disagree that a theory can't be a perfect representation of
reality.

Wow! Really? Then you are fatally out of step with scientific thought.
This represents a characteristic example of that:

http://vixra.org/abs/1405.0244

Tom Roberts, a particle physicist at FermiLab, who is a regular contributor
to the relativity group also shares this view. In essence, it says that we
can never understand all of existence. All of or science can take us closer
to that goal but it will require an infinite number of steps to get there.
Nature is MUCH more complicated than any theory is capable of achieving.
Even when the so-called "theory of everything" is finally achieved, it won't
really explain everything.

Most of our major ones aren't, yet, but they come close.

Close, yes; there, no.

I think most of our modern theory will be extended, not supplanted by
new theory.

So you don't believe GR supplanted Newtonian gravity?

Dark energy?

Good question. There are several theories. None of which overturn any
previous major theory.

Well, GR can "handle" it by adding back in the cosmological constant, but
that really doesn't explain anything.

I disagree. If a theory produces results that match reality, it
perfectly explains reality.

Wow! Agin you fail to understand physics. There is no such thing as
"perfectly explains": close but no cigar.

General relativity is "robustly supported" by all local experimental
evidence but is it supported at the galactic level?

Yes.

One cannot honestly make that claim at present. If MOND turns out to be
correct, then GR is wrong. Personally, I think MOND is wrong, but who
knows?

Would you prefer "yes, beyond reasonably doubt"? MOND is, of course,
almost entirely rejected on the basis of observations.

Not so fast.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stacy_McGaugh

"his predictions for the mass distribution of the Milky Way[15] and the
velocity dispersions of the dwarf Spheroidal satellites of the Andromeda
spiral galaxy have largely been confirmed by subsequent observations."

It looks to me that support for any given theory is a matter of the gut
at this point in time.

GR is robustly supported by all experimental evidence from scales of
nanometers to the size of the Universe.

GR is pretty much a nonentity at "nanometer" scales since e/m effects
totally dominate and gravitation is insignificant.

The fact that GR's equations can be derived from quantum thinking, but not
the reverse, says that GR ain't the cat's meow:

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0501135

On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 11:59:50 AM UTC-5, SlurpieMcDoublegulp wrote:
On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 6:57:09 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 5:37:51 AM UTC-4, SlurpieMcDoublegulp wrote:

Accepting established science is not political. It's just data and reason.
Denying climate science and environmentalism is entirly political as there are
only political and profit motives and no scientific basis for it.

You really need to slow down on the caffeine, dude.

You really need to slow down on your fossil fuel use too... your words say one thing, your actions say something entirely different.

"Elliptic Curve" cryptography.

The concept is that a randomly selected 3D surface is defined by a random elliptic curve equation and the public and private key pair are selected from random points on the random surface created using the random equation, kinda sorta.

Once the keys are generated, the exact equation used to generate them is tossed and impossible to repeat.

The time taken to crack a public-private key pair of a length equivalent to the lengths of more "traditional" methods of generating public/private key pairs is said to be measured in "Geological time" with the only longer measure of time being solar fuel cycles.

The solar industry is booming. The millionth set of solar panels in the United States was installed sometime in the last two months, and industry leaders expect the number of solar-powered systems to double within two years.

That's a huge deal, experts say. While solar still only makes up 1 percent of the country's energy mix, the swift rise in solar capacity portends a bright future for an energy source that, less than 10 years ago, a leading solar tech scientist dismissed as "green bling for the wealthy."

Just 30,000 residential solar installations dotted the country a decade ago.. Since then, the cost of generating power from solar has dropped by over 70 percent. Falling production costs, combined with improvements in electricity storage and a decline in the number of coal-fired power plants, has fueled the industry's breakneck growth, according to Rhone Resch, president and CEO of the Solar Energy Industries Association.

"The power sector is being turned on its head," Resch told reporters on Wednesday. "The ones that land on their feet are the ones that figure out how to produce clean energy at scale."

The million-installation mark is just the latest milestone reached by the solar industry in recent months. In 2015, for the first time ever, the U.S. added more new energy capacity from solar than from natural gas. And in December, 2015, Congress extended the Solar Investment Tax Credit, which provides generous tax incentives for homeowners and businesses that install solar panels.

The industry's rapid growth shows no signs of slowing.

"It's entirely possible that over next five years solar could be single largest new source of electricity in the country," Shayle Kann, senior vice president of research at GreenTech Media, told reporters.

Solar panels might even be "contagious," according to one study. In Colorado and Hawaii, solar installations spread rapidly after a few people put them up.

That's good news for the climate. The energy industry in the U.S. spews more climate-warming greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than any other sector, due to its reliance on fossil fuels. Carbon-free energy sources like solar promise to cut the country's greenhouse gas emissions and help the U.S. meet carbon reduction goals outlined in the Paris climate deal, which aims to keep planetary warming under 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

But the solar boom isn't just helping to wean the country off fossil fuels. It could also change the way Americans consume electricity. Unlike traditional power sources, producing electricity from solar doesn't require people to hook up to a centralized power grid. They can slap panels on their roof and generate power at home. At-home power production could supplement energy from the grid and help people weather blackouts, according to Resch.

While most solar-generated electricity in the U.S. comes from large industrial sources, around 900,000 of the country's million solar installations are small-scale, residential systems, Resch said. The expansion of home systems represents a major shift in how energy is generated and distributed in the U.S., according to Adam Browning, executive director of the nonprofit Vote Solar.

"For a century we've depended on a centralized, monopoly system," Browning told reporters. "Today, power generation is in the hands of the people."

Solar is taking off just as the coal industry is tanking. In 2015, coal's share of energy production in the U.S. dipped below 40 percent for the first time in 30 years. Several major coal producers have filed for bankruptcy in recent months, and dozens of coal plants have shuttered, most recently on Wednesday, when Illinois announced it would close three coal-fired plants in the state.

While the decline of coal means fewer jobs in the industry, solar advocates hope the rapid shift towards solar and other renewable industries will make up for job losses in the fossil fuel sector.

"The transition to renewable energy isn't going to be just as good as the power system as we've enjoyed in the past," Browning said. "It's going to be a lot better."

On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 12:56:10 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 12:59:50 PM UTC-4, SlurpieMcDoublegulp wrote:
On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 6:57:09 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 5:37:51 AM UTC-4, SlurpieMcDoublegulp wrote:

Accepting established science is not political. It's just data and reason.
Denying climate science and environmentalism is entirly political as there are
only political and profit motives and no scientific basis for it.

You really need to slow down on the caffeine, dude.

You really need to slow down on your fossil fuel use too... your words say one thing, your actions say something entirely different.

"Elliptic Curve" cryptography.

The concept is that a randomly selected 3D surface is defined by a random elliptic curve equation and the public and private key pair are selected from random points on the random surface created using the random equation, kinda sorta.

Once the keys are generated, the exact equation used to generate them is tossed and impossible to repeat.

The time taken to crack a public-private key pair of a length equivalent to
the lengths of more "traditional" methods of generating public/private key
pairs is said to be measured in "Geological time" with the only longer measure
of time being solar fuel cycles.

Did you have something relevant to the discussion to say?

Oil companies are getting hammered by investors for being oil companies.

The price of a barrel of crude is down 60 percent in the last two years. The New York Stock Exchange index for oil and gas stocks has fallen about 25 percent over the same period. Exxon Mobil has been downgraded by Standard and Poor's for the first time since the 1930s. Royal Dutch Shell reported Wednesday its earnings fell 58 percent in the first three months of 2016 from the same period a year earlier. The Paris climate treaty aims to keep global warming below 2 degrees Celsius by cutting fossil fuel emissions. Even Saudi Arabia is trying to get out of the oil business.

How can oil companies react to that sort of decline? They could quit spending billions of dollars to find oil that may eventually be worth nothing, according to Carbon Tracker, an environmental think tank.

Telling an oil company to stop looking for oil is a bit like wanting a car to become a bicycle. Searching for oil in remote, harsh locations is what oil companies have built themselves to do. But Carbon Tracker says in a report released Wednesday that companies may indeed give up ambitious, expensive exploration because, in part, such a move could be profitable.

The world's seven largest publicly traded oil companies could boost the market value of their assets by a combined $100 billion if they built their businesses around the assumption that the world's economy will become low-carbon, according to Carbon Tracker's financial analysis. That would mean they would have to stop spending billions of dollars trying to find new, expensive sources of oil and instead rely on deposits that are easier to reach.

It may seem counterintuitive to think that oil companies would be worth more if they cut back on their perpetual search for places to drill new wells. But it makes sense in a world that responds to emissions restrictions by reducing the need for oil.

Carbon Tracker estimates $2 trillion worth of energy assets could be rendered essentially worthless if climate change is addressed. That means petroleum deposits claimed by oil companies would be stranded assets -- something that has become obsolete and must be recorded as a financial loss.

Some big oil companies are beginning to acknowledge that climate change poses a risk to their usual way of doing business. But the industry is still a long way from making the huge shift that Carbon Tracker argues would be truly beneficial to shareholders.

On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 10:50:22 PM UTC-5, SlurpieMcDoublegulp wrote:
On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 12:56:10 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 12:59:50 PM UTC-4, SlurpieMcDoublegulp wrote:
On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 6:57:09 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 5:37:51 AM UTC-4, SlurpieMcDoublegulp wrote:

Accepting established science is not political. It's just data and reason.
Denying climate science and environmentalism is entirly political as there are
only political and profit motives and no scientific basis for it.

You really need to slow down on the caffeine, dude.

You really need to slow down on your fossil fuel use too... your words say one thing, your actions say something entirely different.

"Elliptic Curve" cryptography.

The concept is that a randomly selected 3D surface is defined by a random elliptic curve equation and the public and private key pair are selected from random points on the random surface created using the random equation, kinda sorta.

Once the keys are generated, the exact equation used to generate them is tossed and impossible to repeat.

The time taken to crack a public-private key pair of a length equivalent to
the lengths of more "traditional" methods of generating public/private key
pairs is said to be measured in "Geological time" with the only longer measure
of time being solar fuel cycles.

Did you have something relevant to the discussion to say?

Oil companies are getting hammered by investors for being oil companies.

The price of a barrel of crude is down 60 percent in the last two years. The New York Stock Exchange index for oil and gas stocks has fallen about 25 percent over the same period. Exxon Mobil has been downgraded by Standard and Poor's for the first time since the 1930s. Royal Dutch Shell reported Wednesday its earnings fell 58 percent in the first three months of 2016 from the same period a year earlier. The Paris climate treaty aims to keep global warming below 2 degrees Celsius by cutting fossil fuel emissions. Even Saudi Arabia is trying to get out of the oil business.

How can oil companies react to that sort of decline? They could quit spending billions of dollars to find oil that may eventually be worth nothing, according to Carbon Tracker, an environmental think tank.

Telling an oil company to stop looking for oil is a bit like wanting a car to become a bicycle. Searching for oil in remote, harsh locations is what oil companies have built themselves to do. But Carbon Tracker says in a report released Wednesday that companies may indeed give up ambitious, expensive exploration because, in part, such a move could be profitable.

The world's seven largest publicly traded oil companies could boost the market value of their assets by a combined $100 billion if they built their businesses around the assumption that the world's economy will become low-carbon, according to Carbon Tracker's financial analysis. That would mean they would have to stop spending billions of dollars trying to find new, expensive sources of oil and instead rely on deposits that are easier to reach.

It may seem counterintuitive to think that oil companies would be worth more if they cut back on their perpetual search for places to drill new wells. But it makes sense in a world that responds to emissions restrictions by reducing the need for oil.

Carbon Tracker estimates $2 trillion worth of energy assets could be rendered essentially worthless if climate change is addressed. That means petroleum deposits claimed by oil companies would be stranded assets -- something that has become obsolete and must be recorded as a financial loss.

Some big oil companies are beginning to acknowledge that climate change poses a risk to their usual way of doing business. But the industry is still a long way from making the huge shift that Carbon Tracker argues would be truly beneficial to shareholders.



Devastating wildfires tore through the town of Fort McMurray in Alberta, Canada, on Tuesday, razing entire neighborhoods and displacing nearly 80,000 people. Unusually hot, dry weather contributed to the blaze, which experts say may be linked to temperature increases associated with climate change.

"The conditions that made these wildfires possible -- namely, the unusually warm and dry winter the region has experienced -- almost certainly had a climate change component," director of Pennsylvania State University's Earth System Science Center, told The Huffington Post on Wednesday.

The past few months have been some of the hottest in history. Temperatures in Alberta reached records heights in May, topping 90 degrees on Tuesday -- 40 degrees above average for early spring. While unusual, those sorts of record temperatures are consistent with the steady warming of Canada's western provinces.

"Historical data show that this region has warmed appreciably over the past half century," Mann said. "Alberta lies right within the bullseye of this pattern of anomalous warmth."

Hotter-than-usual temperatures, combined with with high winds and low snow melt, have significantly increased wildfire risk in the region. "The forest area burned in Alberta has more than doubled" over the last 50 years, Mann said.

Over 300 wildfires have rocked Alberta since March, a full month before fire season usually begins, according to the province's Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Over 7,000 wildfires burned through 4 million hectares of land across the country last year, according to the Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre.

The conditions are also due in part to El Nino, which typically causes dry weather in Canada, experts say. But rising global temperatures have made an already dry winter even drier, according to Kevin Trenberth, a distinguished senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

"Things dry out a bit quicker, the vegetation gets tinder dry, setting the stage for wildfires," Trenberth told HuffPost. "In general in the west of North America the fire season has become many weeks longer that it was prior to the 1970s as a result."

In addition to getting longer, fire season is also becoming more intense.

"[Wildfires] have certainly come more ferociously in the years gone by," Darby Allen, a fire chief in Alberta, told the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on Monday. "We've had four significant fires in the last five days or so, and that is pretty intense."

Wildfires burned over 10 million acres in the U.S. last year, setting a national record. This year's fire season may be even longer and hotter in some parts of the country than it has been in the past, experts say.