MigL

Seems someone learned a few scientific terms, and thinks that by stringing them together in a post, he's doing science. It is gibberish. Learn some science !

Doesn't matter...

I fail to see any science, logic or even proper language in any of this babbling.

Seems kind of pointless to rail against 'the news'. they are in the business of sensationalizing and 'selling' the news. I think it may have been INow who previously posted a link to a graphic showing the various levels of objectivity and subjectivity of various news organizations. There are not very many that are objective anymore. The best option has always been inform ( and think for ) yourself to the best of your ability.

Don't know what's made Jebus1969 so cynical. But Matt Damon survived on Mars, alone, for quite a while, eating potatoes, before being brought home.

You guys are all pessimists. The study doesn't say ACC will destroy civilization. It says societal pressures will destroy civilization as a result of conditions caused by ACC. IOW we will kill ourselves off through war and greed for the few remaining resources ( land, food water, etc. ) I happen to believe in people. For every bad person there are hundreds, if not thousands, of good people who will help each other. Even if we have gotten the message a little late about ACC, I don't believe people will descend into a Mad Max type future where we are killing each other for the last bits of fuel. We are a highly adaptable species. We certainly can't continue as we are, with populations outstripping available resources, living close to sea level or away from currently inhospitable areas ( all the population of China could reside in Northern Canada and we wouldn't even notice ), and dumping even more greenhouse gas into the atmosphere. We may not be able to live as large in the future, But I don't see humans becoming extinct by any stretch. And I still have hope for plentiful, affordable and compact Fusion energy reactors. ( expect the best, but plan for the worst )

I recalled that none other than S Hawking had made the claim that Earth could become like Venus. Finally found it, and posting a link to the rebuttal of S Hawking's statement by several prominent scientists. https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/earth-is-not-at-risk-of-becoming-a-hothouse-like-venus-as-stephen-hawking-claimed-bbc/ I won't go into the details. Read it if you are interested.

"Sorry for not answering for a few days. Because of MigL's comments, I was depressed. " I apologize. Didn't mean to stress you out. but I see no evidence, rhyme, or reason, for the relations you presented.

A radial trajectory WILL take you straight in. Its like an orbit through the center of the Sun. You're NOT coming out the other side.

It seems both sides agree that the cycles will continue, but may be modified by ACC. Can we move on. On the subject of 'runaway' ACC, such that the Earth becomes like Venus, I was asked 'Why not ?". The Earth is a closed system. Its chemical composition will not change. Its orbital dynamics and the composition of its outer 'active' layers ( atmosphere, seas and surface ) are not suitable for ever becoming like Venus. At various times in the past, the composition of its atmosphere has had CO2 levels 10-15 times higher than the current high ( causing ACC ) levels. And there was no 'runaway' then. Rather, various feedback mechanisms force conditions back towards ( somewhat of an ) equilibrium. One of these feedback mechanisms is the extinction of the species causing the elevated levels of CO2 and ACC. Bad news for us if we don't do something about it. Incidentally the Earth has already gotten so hot that dinosaurs have made a comeback. Canada and the US are dominated by RAPTORS. ( you have to watch NBA basketball )

You do know what "If" means, don't you INow ? Seriously, who's moving goalposts ? And as an example of well intentioned motivation, but ultimately wrong, I present Dimreepr's post... The earth cannot become like Venus. Implying that ACC on Earth will make it like Venus, IS presenting misleading information. ( and if that's not what Dimreepr meant, I apologize. I never know with his replies )

What did you have in mind... Every city would have its own geosynchronous orbiting, artificial miniature Black Hole to be used as a garbage dump ? They'd have to put up a tall fence around it. Anyone falls in; there's no getting them out. As for 'landing' on a Black Hole, what would you land on ? There's nothing there. Our best theory says the event horizon is a mathematical construct, and the central singularity is a dimensionless point.

I am simply not in favor of distorting evidence to further one's argument, BeeCee , iNow and Et Pet. If the Park posted misleading signs to motivate people against ACC, I don't agree with the tactic. ( although I can certainly understand the reasoning behind it ) If Et Pet is using the fact that the signs are incorrect and have been removed to argue against ACC, I don't agree with that either. ( although I do agree that the cyclic nature of climate change will continue, but may be modified by ACC ) And I certainly didn't mean INow doesn't care about ACC; I know he's passionate about it. I was referring to the inherent orbital causes of climate change ( as opposed to human activity causes of ACC ), to which he replied ( flippantly ) "who cares". But I've got to ask BeeCee… What does the expression "having 2 bob each way" actually mean ?

On the contrary... An understanding of the climate cycles will give us a better understanding of how human activity is modifying those cycles. In effect, those cycles may, or may not, persist. I have to wonder why you do NOT care.

For those of us who do care... This video from PBS Digital Studios does an excellent job of describing the three cycles that affect the climate of our planet. And gives some insight as to how human activity ( ACC ) may modify the cyclic nature of the expected climate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztninkgZ0ws You can watch it if you are interested. If not, who cares.

Myself, I would not have used 'hysterical', but 'premature' is obviously more fitting with respect to the signs. And this is confirmed by observation/facts. That is science, is it not ? I would say that posting signs that disagree with observations/facts is not science, and is actually sowing FUD. ( thanks for the new acronym INow )

You turn green, get really strong and yell "HULK SMASH" a lot.

So he has a 'history'... Do you not believe people can be educated and change their opinions/ways ?

Thanks for the correction and clarification, Swansont.

And you're the one making accusations. ( well Zap also ) So tell us what YOU are discussing. Lets give people the benefit of the doubt when they present their ideas; without jumping to conclusions or putting words in their mouth.

I think you have some preconceived notions regarding the intent of the OP, INow. Your remarks are not fair. I know you don't believe we should censor a large part of climate science because it might 'dilute' the message of ACC.

Some 'flash' memory will be retained for quite a while ( decades ); even without battery back-up. ( think USB storage sticks or SSDs )

Sometimes the 'fuel' evaporating from the wick of the candle ( paraffin ) is too rich to support combustion. As it moves further out and gets diluted with oxygenated air to a favorable stoichiometric mixture, it can, and the flame results. The area immediately surrounding the tip of the candle's wick will stay dark, and be surrounded by a bright flame. You see this in fires sometimes. When the explosive limit is too high ( or too low ) combustion/explosion will not occur. But open a door or a window to dilute the 'fuel' and... Remember the movie Backdraft ?

Even momentum conservation depends on the kind of collision. And yes, getting more energy out than you put in, is the definition of a perpetual motion machine. And those simply don't exist. ( not even 100 % energy conversion; except for special cases )

Most Tantalum capacitors I've seen were used for decoupling on old computer boards from the 80s, as they are more stable ( and expensive ) than cheap electrolytics. As such they were only rated for 5 ( or 12 ) volt use. I'm not even sure of the technology used in current surface mount decoupling capacitors, but the on-board regulation of supply voltage is much more robust in modern computer equipment