141–150 of 185 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would be interesting if resulting bursts of gamma radiation increase the entropy of global DNA causing higher population of new virus candidates.
CMEs are composed of hydrogen plasma not gamma radiation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems unreasonable to regroup by yourself, no?
Seems unreasonable to expect people to work together during a civilization-ending catastrophe.
But I think GPs point was that if it starts getting colder we go back to carelessly pumping CO2 into atmosphere, but for now we should go with the mainstream science and keep on reducing that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't shoot the messenger. It's all theory and conjecture until it actually happens, and it has in the past, and it WILL happen again in the future.
It is important not to conflate "I have a hunch that x will happen" with "theoretically motivated predictions". Also, you are conflating a mild temperature drop that would be expected to be caused by solar minimum with an ice age and a "pole shift".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is important not to conflate "I have a hunch that x will happen" with "theoretically motivated predictions". Also, you are conflating a mild temperature drop that would be expected to be caused by solar minimum with an ice age and a "pole shift".
An Ice Age doesn't lead to "mild" temperature drops. It's catastrophically cold for centuries. Civilization is unlikely to survive it, and we don't have records of any that have save the Neanderthals, who lived in small groups.
You might want to read up on terminology.
Physics, thermodynamics, informs us that the glaciers aren't coming back while the insulation in the atmosphere is high and still increasing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In what way is it interesting? And how is it trivia?
If there is a correlation, it’s definitely interesting, the same way all science is interesting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems unreasonable to expect people to work together during a civilization-ending catastrophe.
This actually sound very reasonable. About the only time people can agree is when there's a danger. Nothing unites people more than a common enemy (or, in this case, a phenomena). But I think GPs point was that if it starts getting colder we go back to carelessly pumping CO2 into atmosphere, but for now we should go with the mainstream science and keep on reducing that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The theory is that we're due for another ice age and that there's going to be a pole shift. Pumping CO2 into the atmosphere would then be the best thing to do to stave off this scenario.
Well if that were true it would be the opposite of inconvenient. It would be like a truth that’s, I dunno, what’s a good word for something that isn’t inconvenient?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An Ice Age doesn't lead to "mild" temperature drops. It's catastrophically cold for centuries. Civilization is unlikely to survive it, and we don't have records of any that have save the Neanderthals, who lived in small groups.
We're in an ice age now. Humans have always lived in an Ice Age. It's called the Quaternary glaciation and it's been filled with individual glacial periods. You might want to read up on terminology. Physics, thermodynamics, informs us that the glaciers aren't coming back while the insulation in the atmosphere is high and still increasing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation
That's pedantic.
> Physics, thermodynamics, informs us that the glaciers aren't coming back while the insulation in the atmosphere is high and still increasing.
Meh. The running hypothesis on the "other side" is that we're going to have a pole shift and grand solar minimum at the same time. Now, as you can see, I haven't really done the prerequisite reading. I have, however, read about all the stupidity surrounding "global warming" and how it was totally going to end the planet in 2000 and 1980 and 2024 and whenever, every year's the last one so that people that don't have anyone's best interests at heart can get more leverage off this supposedly inevitable-and-totally-close scenario. Meanwhile, the "fringe" has decidedly stuck to one thing, and has repeatedly criticized the very real corruption of (climate) science by monetary interests (and now national / global policy decisions) and popular opinion. This only makes me NOT want to spend my free time untangling "conclusive" climate decisions backed by ""science"" and who-knows-what leverage by a slimy bureaucrat.
I, as an individual, don't have a horse in this race. I don't believe in either one because my carbon emissions can be eclipsed by a volcano or a plane in a few hours. It's completely useless to expect me to not buy a car or to watch my energy consumption when it's not going to make a dent anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps. The Carrington event was 2-4 times as strong as the one last month, but on the other hand it also looks like most of the electrical systems are a lot more resilient than they used to be.
When we had the CME headed towards Earth recently, I was pretty amazed at the sheer number of highly-upvoted HN comments whose authors seemed to believe that the power grid, copper phone lines, and communications satellites were all about to be wiped out. Fortunately, most engineers in all of the fields above are well aware of the Carrington Event. And while it's not beyond possibility that there might be some corner…
The visibility may be unrepresentative, newspapers always amplify what's bad rather than what's good.