ZME Science - Latest Comments

Re: Australia lobbies coal mine at climate talks

Reza N. — Sun, 03 Aug 2025 13:06:43 -0000

I’m researching minimally invasive treatments and came across laser hemorrhoid surgery. Has anyone here heard about it or had personal experience with it?

Re: Oddly enough, some Republicans think climate change is real

disqus_3BrONUAJno — Fri, 04 Dec 2020 17:29:29 -0000

That' s what all kinds of fascists have always done. It is time for those who fight them to get better at it.

Re: Probabilistic computing is a game changer

ric torres — Mon, 13 Apr 2020 05:06:19 -0000

have you watched the documentry "the black whole" explaining a unified field theory that includes signs and symbols around the world possibly verifying this theory by nassim harriman i think was his name

Re: First peer review paper on chemtrails finds exactly what you’d expect — it’s all gibberish

bccarver — Thu, 24 Oct 2019 15:43:34 -0000

so when did you stop using fossil fuels???

Re: Despite spending $200 million, NASA still doesn’t have a new space suit and that could delay an important deep space mission

Ivan S Kirkpatrick — Mon, 26 Mar 2018 18:56:21 -0000

good point but I think SpaceX did. Put it this way, put out an RFP for a new suit and include the prospective quantity required and see what responses you get. NASA is just not capable of cost-effective anything.

Re: The minimum and maximum possible temperatures

Zombie Chicken — Fri, 02 Feb 2018 22:55:40 -0000

No way, I searched it up tho didn't see anything like that. Source?

Re: Chinese factory replaces 90% of human workers with robots. Production rises by 250%, defects drop by 80%

joe schmo — Sat, 11 Nov 2017 22:51:30 -0000

I fundamentally disagree. I honestly believe there are better things for humans to spend their life doing besides mining coal while dying inside just to (albeit nobly) provide for their families.

Re: Australia lobbies coal mine at climate talks

waxliberty — Mon, 07 Aug 2017 03:30:22 -0000

(1) "CO2 led temperature upwards"

Well, the current situation is the best documented simply because we have been directly monitoring the cause and effect.

e.g. "the top panel of Figure 3 compares global mean, annual-mean, clear-sky spectra of Earth observed by the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) satellite instrument with spectra calculated after the radiative transfer equations were applied to output of a climate model driven by observed surface temperatures. The agreement between the two is nearly perfect, which confirms the validity of the radiative transfer theory, the spectroscopy used to implement it, and the physics of the climate model."
https://geosci.uchicago.edu...

Also, CO2 was a major factor in the most recent glacial (ice age) advances (where we have more recent ice core records), e.g. major role in melting the last ice age glaciers.

Case closed, says study: C02 melted Ice Age glaciers
https://www.yahoo.com/news/...

But what I think you mean to ask is an example of a case where CO2 was the clear initiating factor for warming, not just cases where it "led temperature upward" i.e. caused warming. The PETM and its associated mass extinctions were result of massive carbon excursion, though not sure how granular/clear the data is on that and expect the specifics are still debated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...

(2) I am not reflecting any views here that are out of step with mainstream climate science, as expressed in IPCC, national academy statements etc. "essentially all" would agree with these comments.

(3) "what first-world luxuries and essentials are you willing to forgo"

That you are not willing to forgo? None – I do not believe your contrarian rejection of climate science and supporting observational evidence should be rewarded.

My most general answer would be that if we implemented reasonable emission-capping regulation and/or fixed carbon pricing to better get the market to optimize for the full cost of fossil fuel burning, I am prepared to live with whatever consequences resulted in terms of my purchasing power or standard of living. Studies have tended to find that this cost appears affordable on a global basis, but it is getting more expensive over time.

Delaying appropriate action is a false economy (i.e. you and I do not come out ahead by dong nothing, we all likely come out behind in the long run), and a consequence of the collective reality denial that you are demonstrating for everyone.

Re: Australia lobbies coal mine at climate talks

Richard A. Fletcher — Sun, 06 Aug 2017 00:37:09 -0000

Hopefully, this will be worth your bother, and that is can you answer these 3 questions: (1) can you pinpoint a single instance in the history of the Earth, where CO2 led temperature upwards? (2) can you name a single climatologist who supports your views? (3) finally, what first-world luxuries and essentials are you willing to forgo, for example, get rid of your computer and Internet access, to prevent the so-called CAGW? Maybe by the time I get back from vacation in a week and a half or so, you will have an answer for me on those 3 questions.

Re: Australia lobbies coal mine at climate talks

TreeParty — Fri, 04 Aug 2017 21:55:39 -0000

https://www.heartland.org/a...

Oh, she's wrong!

Re: Australia lobbies coal mine at climate talks

Richard A. Fletcher — Fri, 04 Aug 2017 19:15:20 -0000

Cheryl Chumley is online opinion writer for the Washington Times, with no connections to the Heartland Institute that I could find You may not like her opinions or articles but does mean they are wrong, http://bit.ly/2wtcCUX

Re: Australia lobbies coal mine at climate talks

Richard A. Fletcher — Fri, 04 Aug 2017 18:59:45 -0000

I'm not aware that we've see steep solar lows over the past decade, just the opposite, https://go.nasa.gov/2vYpCT4, and also so-called warming, http://bit.ly/2hkpOZ7, and as far as your contention that the Earth has contained warming over the past decade, not just normal natural variation still coming out of the LIA, in my opinion, http://bit.ly/2iJtlwC, http://bit.ly/2gcnBOO, http://bit.ly/2iihxEE, http://bit.ly/2hPf3hN, and http://bit.ly/2hRuDET. Can you defend your position by answering the following questions; (1) Can you point out one single incident where CO2 led temperature upwards? (2) Do you have a single named climatologist, meteorologist, or oceanographer who support your view? (3) For the sake of discussion, what first-world conveniences are you willing to forgo simply to prevent the so-called CAGW?

Re: Australia lobbies coal mine at climate talks

waxliberty — Mon, 31 Jul 2017 14:11:08 -0000

Just not lucid enough to be worth the bother.

Re: Australia lobbies coal mine at climate talks

Richard A. Fletcher — Mon, 31 Jul 2017 13:35:32 -0000

"Instead of repeating this sort of nonsense, can you answer questions?
We've already seen steep solar lows over the past decade, this would be
just a notch cooler. Why has the world warmed in the past decade,
shattering temp records in 2016-17?"
I'm not aware that we've see steep solos over the past decade, just the opposite, https://go.nasa.gov/2vYpCT4, and also so-called warming, http://bit.ly/2hkpOZ7, and as far as your contention that the Earth has contained warming over the past decade, not just normal natural variation still coming out of the LIA, in my opinion, http://bit.ly/2iJtlwC, http://bit.ly/2gcnBOO, http://bit.ly/2iihxEE, http://bit.ly/2hPf3hN, and http://bit.ly/2hRuDET. You know TreeParty you seem to be a perfect John Cook minion who are known as Skeptical Scientists (SkS) who tried their best to follow Cook's orders to forward the 97% falsehood. Even more importantly, I asked you for data in my initial reply to you, and I haven't seen any yet,, How come get you find any the data supporting your view? Also, can you pinpoint a single so-called climatologist?

Re: Australia lobbies coal mine at climate talks

TreeParty — Thu, 27 Jul 2017 09:57:11 -0000

Cheryl Chumley wrote the article you just linked:
http://www.newsmax.com/News...
Wow. Blink your eyes three times if you are being held against your will....
Then read this:
http://www.snopes.com/30000...

Thank you.

Re: Australia lobbies coal mine at climate talks

cunudiun — Thu, 27 Jul 2017 02:59:40 -0000

"How else can YOU explain the fact that CO2 levels were 7 or 8 times ashigh in times than today in times gone by, particularly when the earth was in a glaciation period."
The sun was weaker.
https://www.nature.com/arti...

Re: Australia lobbies coal mine at climate talks

Richard A. Fletcher — Thu, 27 Jul 2017 00:24:48 -0000

where did you get the name, Cheryl Chumley, tout of this article? I can't see it myself

Re: Australia lobbies coal mine at climate talks

TreeParty — Wed, 26 Jul 2017 23:49:31 -0000

Cheryl Chumley?!?! Cheryl Chumley is a HACK for the Heartland Institute, that well-known, petroleum-industry funded "think"-tank that is at the forefront of climate science denial.
And her defense of the "Petition Project", a mere 31,000 mostly NON-climate scientists, is what you'd expect from a spokestooge for the petroleum industry. Could you be a tragically gullible, or otherwise sympathetic fellow traveler?

Re: Australia lobbies coal mine at climate talks

waxliberty — Wed, 26 Jul 2017 23:45:16 -0000

"a good bit of that is fraudulent data fiddling as David Dilley so softly terms it, in fact it's really FRAUD"

Unsupported internet conspiracy theory.

If scientists are "fiddling with the data", why are they fiddling with it to make it look like there is *less* global warming over the last century, according to your conspiracy theory?

http://variable-variability...

"do you realize that the CO2 affect on temperature is logarithmic"

This is true. Quick exercise for you: why do you think climate sensitivity is given as "degrees warming per doubling of CO2" in mainstream climate science. And does this make you think the logarithmic nature is hidden, or not used in projecting future temp?

"meaning that you have to double it many many times over to get any kind of temperature increase"

This part is incorrect though, we have only increased CO2 40% and already we have warmed the planet fast and rapidly enough to start wiping out our coral reefs. You do not need to argue about "logarithmic" anything, you just need to observe what is happening in the actual world.

http://www.independent.co.u...

"How else can YOU explain the fact that CO2 levels were 7 or 8 times as high in times than today in times gone by, particularly when the earth was in a glaciation period"

Generally when CO2 was that high, the planet was warmer than today. However, hundreds of millions of years ago, solar intensity was quite a bit lower.

"Why worry about physics, when logic is all that's required"

Logic involves the application of physics, on questions like this.

Though, your comments are not logical. For example, you seem to think your "7 or 8 times as high" comment somehow contradicts physics. It doesn't.

Re: Australia lobbies coal mine at climate talks

TreeParty — Wed, 26 Jul 2017 23:32:17 -0000

WAY TOO LONG, did not read. I have a life, believe it or not...
"First, I agree I gave you the wrong link regarding Greenland’s temperature record, a mistake on my part, probably in my haste to get to school that day, I believe."
Carelessness duly noted.
And MULTIPLE variations of font, size, color, etc. duly noted. Your whole response reads like a bad ransom note!
1) It is NOT TRUE that the planetary temperature has not increased in 18, or 20, years. The average global temperature continues to increase by EVERY measurement, and every year for the last three years has been the hottest year ever measured.
2) It IS true that the OBSERVED global warming can only be explained by human activity, specifically massive emissions of CO2, that well-known greenhouse gas. Adding to the certainty is the rapid acidification of the world's oceans due to the surfeit of CO2 in the atmosphere.
3) Ivar Giaever?! Really?!
“I am not really terribly interested in global warming. Like most physicists I don't think much about it. But in 2008 I was in a panel here about global warming and I had to learn something about it. And I spent a day or so - half a day maybe on Google, and I was horrified by what I learned.” - Ivar Giaever
Wow - this is your "expert"?!
4) Global Warming Petition Project - Major fraud:
https://skepticalscience.co...
5) You got nothin'. The planet is clearly, demonstrably and incontrovertibly WARMING, and you cherry pick the least believable BS to try to deny the OBVIOUS FACTS. Shame on you.

Re: Australia lobbies coal mine at climate talks

Richard A. Fletcher — Wed, 26 Jul 2017 21:02:56 -0000

To get to the Nut of your question, no I don't bet on even card games, certainly not weather and climate.. As far as the SO-CALLED warming that is going on, a good bit of that is fraudulent data fiddling as David Dilley so softly terms it, in fact it's really FRAUD. As far as your insulation to the earth goes, again, do you realize that the CO2 affect on temperature is logarithmic, meaning that you have to double it many many times over to get any kind of temperature increase. How else can YOU explain the fact that CO2 levels were 7 or 8 times as high in times than today in times gone by, particularly when the earth was in a glaciation period. Why worry about physics, when logic is all that's required

Re: Australia lobbies coal mine at climate talks

waxliberty — Wed, 26 Jul 2017 20:07:51 -0000

Hehe. Zharkova again. And quite a gish gallop of nuttery in the video.

So... where's the cooling? Always just around the corner?

Instead of repeating this sort of nonsense, can you answer questions? We've already seen steep solar lows over the past decade, this would be just a notch cooler. Why has the world warmed in the past decade, shattering temp records in 2016-17?

Thinking about the physical world for a moment, is it really the case that the sun can be the only factor? When determining if a room is warm enough in winter, is it only the state of the central heating unit that matters, or does the existence of insulation (or walls) in a room make a difference as well?

On a % basis, in terms of actual energy (joules), which has changed more – earth's insulation (greenhouse effect) or the amount of solar energy arriving (per claims like Zharkova)? Whoops, that one would force you to deal with physics, wouldn't it, and then all of this cooling hopefulness vanishes into wisps, unfortunately.

Richard, are you willing to bet on the coming global cooling or no?

Re: Australia lobbies coal mine at climate talks

Richard A. Fletcher — Wed, 26 Jul 2017 19:22:17 -0000

delivered from the great economist, Bjorn Lomborg, “Paris is Not the Solution by Bjørn Lomborg - Project Syndicate”, http://bit.ly/2uDwRzA, Lomborg is the Director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and author of “The Skeptical Environmentalist” and “Cool It”...

But if green energy were already competitive or near-competitive with fossil fuels,
the Paris agreement would be unnecessary. The entire world would be dumping fossil fuels for the cheaper, better option.

It’s not very complicated: We must end wasteful subsidies for both fossil fuels and inefficient solar and wind. And we should focus on investment in innovation to improve green energy.

Re: Australia lobbies coal mine at climate talks

Richard A. Fletcher — Wed, 26 Jul 2017 19:13:39 -0000

It’s the smallest cycle in 100 years,” NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center research scientist David Hathaway said during a recent press teleconference conducted by the Marshall Space Flight Center. Recently, the National Solar Observatory's Matt Penn and colleagues analyzed more than 13 years of sunspot data collected at the McMath-Pierce Telescope at Kitt Peak, Arizona. They noticed a long-term trend of sunspot weakening, and if the trend continues, the sun's magnetic field won't be strong enough to produce sunspots during Solar Cycle 25, Penn and colleagues predict. Astronomy Now reported in July 2015 that Professor V. Zharkova (Northumbria University) presented a paper with conclusions that the world
would enter a Little Ice Age in 2030-2040

Here's another video for you to watch, this one, http://bit.ly/2h3Gh4j, by David Dilley, former NOAA Meteorologist and current CEO and senior research scientist - Global Weather Oscillations, Inc., will answer all of your questions and disbeliefs regarding Global Cooling
Cooling, I believe

Re: Australia lobbies coal mine at climate talks

Richard A. Fletcher — Wed, 26 Jul 2017 19:01:51 -0000

“However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1% consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook,
shows just 0.3% endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. “,
The 97 percent figure is highly misleading considering that only 32.6
percent of the scientists endorsed anthropogenic global warming, while two-thirds expressed no position."

http://nws.mx/2hhh2vf