Sunday, November 19, 2017

Universe (Copy of Facebook Post.)

When I think of the Universe, I think of space. Lots and lots of space. There are around 100 billion galaxies, although I have heard that there might be more, and most galaxies contain at least 100 billion stars. Our Milky Way galaxy alone has between 100 and 400 billion stars and is a hundred thousand light years across. Our galaxy is so big that its gravitational attraction is strong enough to have smaller galaxies orbit it the way the moon orbits the earth.

But what the universe is made of is energy. Enormous amounts of it. Even empty space has energy. Most of the mass of elementary particles comes from the huge amount of energy inside those particles. Energy created the universe and energy causes it to expand at an ever accelerating rate. Energy created space itself.

Empty space is not empty, but full of fields that have energy in them. Everywhere there are fields that correspond to each elementary particle that makes up the universe, and a field for every force that defines how those particles interact. We can't see the fields, but we can observe the results of those fields. The universe is like a boiling pot of water full of energy, and we only observe what is on the surface.


Thursday, September 28, 2017

Quantum Fields: The Real Building Blocks of the Universe - with David Tong

If you have any interest in science, here is a recent hour long video that explains what quantum field theory is, in an easy to understand and entertaining way.


Wednesday, September 13, 2017


The Expanse looks promising as a "hard sci-fi", but the first season seemed to drag out without advancing the story that much.  The show has a ton of characters, so none of them stand out.

RIP Dark Matter.  It was brilliant.

Stargate Atlantis was the best of the 3 Stargate series.  It was consistently good.  Stargate SG-1 that preceded it was uneven, and a little rough in the first season, but it turned out to be a great series.  Stargate Universe got off to a very weak start, but by the second (and last) season it was really wonderful.

​Babylon 5 in the 1990's was science fiction on the cheap.  They used workstation computers to generate their special effects to save money.  The first season was not that great.  But it had an extremely rich storyline.  The show improved in the second season and it turned into a wonderful TV series.

Star Trek Enterprise was my favorite of all the Star Trek series.  

As far as "space" shows go, I don't think anything beats Battlestar Galactica.  

LOST is more fantasy than science fiction, although it had a few science fiction elements.  It is mostly a drama series that blew everyone away at how great it is.  It is also more complicated and harder to follow than most shows.


Insulin, Brown Fat & Ketones w/ Benjamin Bikman, PhD

Sunday, September 10, 2017

Fwd: Google Alert - telomeres

The link might interest you.  :-)

Weekly update September 6, 2017
This is the secret to a longer life
The researchers focused on telomeres, which are proteins found in the cell's nucleus that stabilize the ends of chromosomes. Confused? Let me ...

Saturday, September 9, 2017

What if We Never Went to the Moon?

This video is remarkably statist. Everybody looks at the benefit of government spending, and not the cost. Suppose the $200 billion adjusted for inflation dollars had been spent on something more useful? Cure diseases? Not go into as much debt, which has been compounding for the last 50 years? Reduce the burden of government on the free enterprise system? For a long time we have had more government than we can afford.


Earth. A global map of wind.

Tuesday, September 5, 2017

Fwd: Reducing many age related diseases

The drugs being tested are called senolytic agents, because they target senescent cells. These are cells that have stopped dividing and secrete toxic chemicals that damage adjacent cells. Accumulation of senescent cells, which increases with age, is associated with chronic conditions, including diabetes, cardiovascular disease, most cancers, dementia, arthritis, osteopetrosis, and frailty.

Researchers at Mayo Clinic's Robert and Arlene Kogod Center on Aging developed the first senolytic drugs to target these harmful cells. In a recent study led by The Scripps Research Institute, Mayo Clinic researchers and others confirmed that the senolytic drugs discovered at Mayo effectively clear senescent cells while leaving normal cells unaffected. The study, which was published in Nature Communications, also describes a new screening platform for finding additional senolytic drugs that will more optimally target senescent cells. The platform, together with additional human cell assays, identified and confirmed a new category of senolytic drugs, which are called HSP90 inhibitors.

Friday, August 18, 2017


We are made off stuff. If you break the stuff down to the smallest possible level, you get elementary particles.  But according to Quantum Field Theory, what we experience as elementary particles are just fluctuations in the fields for those particles, in the same way a photon is a fluctuation in the electromagnetic field, and an electron is just a fluctuation the electric field.  These fields overlap each other and exist throughout all of space.  They interact, like the way the Higgs field gives particles mass.  Reality for us is what we perceive, but the true reality may be just the fields.  You could think of them as God's computer program for the Universe. 

Best wishes,

John Coffey

Monday, August 14, 2017

The Quantum Experiment that Broke Reality | Space Time | PBS Digital Studios

There are aspects of this experiment not mentioned that get even weirder. The bottom line is that particles moving through space act like waves. They don't become particles again until they are observed. The act of observing influences the event, and in some cases can influence the event after it has already happened. This is where it gets really weird.

There are alternate theories like the pilot wave theory, that more or less says that particles are just particles, but moving through an invisible field of waves.

Monday, August 7, 2017

Re: Top 10 Climate Change Lies Exposed

On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 2:47 AM, Albert Nelms <alnelms
​> ​
Another quick rundown of global warming lies. You've mentioned most of these issues in your debates with friends online.

1.  There is a long term consequence of raising the temperature 5 degrees celsius or more that is very bad, which is that the polar ice caps will completely melt.  Based on current temperature trends, I don't think that this is likely to happen, and if it does happen, it will take 5000 years, giving us plenty of time to do something about it.

2. The direct effect of doubling CO2 in the atmosphere is an increase of 1.1 degrees celsius.  Almost everybody agrees on this.  There are a couple of dissenters who say that over geological periods of time you can't find a clear correlation, but there is so much else going on over geological periods, usually solar and orbital variation, that confuses the issue.  

There are additional positive and negative feedbacks that are in dispute.  Whereas the direct effect is 1.1 degrees celsius, the data since 1880 indicates to me that the Climate sensitivity is slightly under 2 degrees.  That means that there is positive feedback, although solar variation could also be the cause.  It also means that the climate sensitivity is less than the alarmists are claiming.  I heard one lecturer say that the positive feedback was "0.6", which seems to me to be close.

Until about a week ago, I didn't see any evidence of positive feedback, but that was because I had miscalculated the Climate Sensitivity.

#3 and #4 are interesting points.

#12 He doesn't explain his point about acidity very well.  

Warming does cause the oceans to release more CO2.  There is also very little doubt that CO2 causes warming.  The real issue is how much?  The warming caused by CO2 is a logarithmic function, which means that you have to keep doubling the CO2 level to achieve the same result.  Based on current temperature trends, we will run out of fossil fuels long before we reach an increase of 5 degrees celsius.

Wednesday, August 2, 2017


Scientists rejuvenate aging cells from children with progeria

Re: Global Climate


As I recall, the human contribution to total emitted carbon dioxide gasses is around 5%.  The usual argument is that the CO2 both leaving and being put in the atmosphere was in balance before, and now it is not.  Since about 1880 we have seen the atmospheric CO2 level go from about 280 PPM to around 400 PPM.  It was 230 PPM in the preindustrial period.   It is expected to reach 800 PPM by the year 2100.  As long as it doesn't go higher than that, I think that this is more beneficial than detrimental.

Previously, I did my math wrong.  I thought that an atmospheric increase of CO2 from 280 PPM to 400 PPm was a 70% increase, but that was because I did a brain fart on the math.  Instead, it is about a 43% increase.  I just now discovered my mistake.  Doing a new calculation, based upon the 0.85 temperature increase since 1880, I get a new climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 of 1.98 degrees Celsius.  However, the IPCC changed the low end of their range to only 1.5 degrees because they accepted papers that said that this was the climate sensitivity based upon 20nth century data.  So other people are looking at recent data and are coming up with Climate Sensitivity numbers.  The generally accepted range by the IPCC is from 1.5 to 4.5 degrees.  Whereas the skeptics think that 1.5 degrees is the most the climate sensitivity could be, the IPCC think that it will be at least this much, if not much higher.  I just watched a climate scientist claim that it is 6 degrees celsius.

I just found yet another source claiming that it will take 5,000 years for the polar ice caps to melt.  This is the disaster scenario that the alarmists warn about.  The temperature has to warm about 5 degrees celsius for this to happen.  Obviously we have plenty of time to change course if the Climate Sensitivity is more than I think it is.

Correlation is not the same as causality.  The biggest driver of temperature is solar variation.  Ice core samples going back hundreds of thousands of years show that temperature increases precedes CO2 increases, and not the other way around.  This is because warmer air causes the oceans to release more CO2.  Although the two things are correlated, it doesn't necessarily mean that there is a clear causality relationship between CO2 and temperature.  When I looked at temperature data, sometimes the two went in opposite directions.  Although I am certain there is a greenhouse effect, CO2 may not the main driver of temperature.


Wednesday, June 21, 2017

Climate Change

See if you can follow my reasoning here. If I am wrong, I would like concrete reasons as to why I am wrong. Let's say that the predictions are correct, and the atmospheric CO2 levels by the year 2100 are 800 PPM, double of what we have now. I have no reason to doubt this. Based on the temperature record of the last 137 years, where the CO2 level has gone up roughly 72%, the likely atmospheric temperature increase would be about 1.2 degrees celsius, and there are a number of people who believe this. (However, during the Cretaceous period, a doubling of CO2 only resulted in an increase of 0.6 degrees Celsius, and there are some skeptics who think that this is what would happen again.) This is not enough to melt the polar ice caps, which is the doomsday scenario some have predicted. However, the IPCC predicts a different temperature increase, giving a range anywhere from 1.5 to 4.5 degrees, with the average being about 3 degrees. Again, not sufficient enough to melt the polar ice caps. However, if we take the upper figure to be true, then we are indeed in danger of melting the polar ice caps, but I have read from multiple sources that it would take thousands of years for the polar ice caps to melt. This would give us plenty of time to remedy the situation, and we do have remedies. It is almost certain that we will have nuclear fusion by the mid 21st century, and therefor we could phase out fossil fuels as much as we need to. There is also this thing called Iron Fertilization that would allow us to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Therefor I see no reason to panic, nor any reason to impose onerous energy taxes that would make energy unaffordable to many, nor any reason to impose any other kind of government mandate. At least not in the short term.


Wednesday, May 3, 2017

Monckton's Mathematical Proof - Climate Sensitivity is Low

I don't pretend to understand the math, which he doesn't bother to explain, but if the math presented here is correct, then this could be one of the most significant findings of our lifetime.

Lord Monckton is a bit wordy, so I created the link above to start 27 minutes into the video where he gets to his main points.

This seems to give credence to my earlier observation that existing data suggests a relatively low climate sensitivity.  Other people have noted that predictions of large climate sensitivity are not supported by the observations.

Lord Monckton sees the climate debate as a struggle between freedom and those who oppose it, and he sees this as a conspiracy.  Although I am also concerned about how climate alarmism will impact our freedom, it really should be a separate issue from the climate science, because it could bias how we view this.  However, it is possible that the alarmists are also biased. 

I also watched some other videos by climate alarmists who noted that if we don't act we will face dire consequences.  These same videos further claimed that the reason we don't act is that the threat is not very visible to us.  It is not the same as seeing a tiger coming at you, but these videos claim that the threat is real nevertheless.  

If the alarmists are correct, then I certainly want to know that.  I tried to find a refutation to Monckton's recent claims above, but I think that it is too soon.  I hope that the science community takes this seriously and either refutes Monckton's math or confirms it.  The consequences to us either way are quite significant, and we need good sound science in to determine the correct course of action.

There are a couple of other factors that I have commented on before, but are almost never mentioned by anybody else.  The first is that nuclear fusion as a power source will very likely happen in our lifetime, which in my opinion will make the entire argument mute.  The second is that a technique called iron fertilization would allow us to remove as much CO2 from the atmosphere as we want.  

Then there is this:  

In other words, if you argue that the Earth has a low climate sensitivity to CO2, you are also arguing for a low climate sensitivity to other influences such as solar irradiance, orbital changes, and volcanic emissions.  In fact, as shown in Figure 1, the climate is less sensitive to changes in solar activity than greenhouse gases.  Thus when arguing for low climate sensitivity, it becomes difficult to explain past climate changes.  For example, between glacial and interglacial periods, the planet's average temperature changes on the order of 6°C (more like 8-10°C in the Antarctic).  If the climate sensitivity is low, for example due to increasing low-lying cloud cover reflecting more sunlight as a response to global warming, then how can these large past climate changes be explained?


Sunday, April 30, 2017

Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered

Final climate sensitivity

Substituting in Eqn. (1) the revised values derived for the three factors in ΔTλ, our re-evaluated central estimate of climate sensitivity is their product –

ΔTλΔF2x κ f ≈ 1.135 x 0.242 x 2.095 ≈ 0.58 °K (30)

Theoretically, empirically, and in the literature that we have extensively cited, each of the values we have chosen as our central estimate is arguably more justifiable – and is certainly no less justifiable – than the substantially higher value selected by the IPCC. Accordingly, it is very likely that in response to a doubling of pre-industrial carbon dioxide concentration TS will rise not by the 3.26 °K suggested by the IPCC, but by <1 °K.


We have set out and then critically examined a detailed account of the IPCC's method of evaluating climate sensitivity. We have made explicit the identities, interrelations, and values of the key variables, many of which the IPCC does not explicitly describe or quantify. The IPCC's method does not provide a secure basis for policy-relevant conclusions. We now summarize some of its defects.

The IPCC's methodology relies unduly – indeed, almost exclusively – upon numerical analysis, even where the outputs of the models upon which it so heavily relies are manifestly and significantly at variance with theory or observation or both. Modeled projections such as those upon which the IPCC's entire case rests have long been proven impossible when applied to mathematically-chaotic objects, such as the climate, whose initial state can never be determined to a sufficient precision. For a similar reason, those of the IPCC's conclusions that are founded on probability distributions in the chaotic climate object are unsafe.

Not one of the key variables necessary to any reliable evaluation of climate sensitivity can be measured empirically. The IPCC's presentation of its principal conclusions as though they were near-certain is accordingly unjustifiable. We cannot even measure mean global surface temperature anomalies to within a factor of 2; and the IPCC's reliance upon mean global temperatures, even if they could be correctly evaluated, itself introduces substantial errors in its evaluation of climate sensitivity.

The IPCC overstates the radiative forcing caused by increased CO2 concentration at least threefold because the models upon which it relies have been programmed fundamentally to misunderstand the difference between tropical and extra-tropical climates, and to apply global averages that lead to error.

The IPCC overstates the value of the base climate sensitivity parameter for a similar reason. Indeed, its methodology would in effect repeal the fundamental equation of radiative transfer (Eqn. 18), yielding the impossible result that at every level of the atmosphere ever-smaller forcings would induce ever-greater temperature increases, even in the absence of any temperature feedbacks.

The IPCC overstates temperature feedbacks to such an extent that the sum of the high-end values that it has now, for the first time, quantified would cross the instability threshold in the Bode feedback equation and induce a runaway greenhouse effect that has not occurred even in geological times despite CO2 concentrations almost 20 times today's, and temperatures up to 7 ºC higher than today's.

The Bode equation, furthermore, is of questionable utility because it was not designed to model feedbacks in non-linear objects such as the climate. The IPCC's quantification of temperature feedbacks is, accordingly, inherently unreliable. It may even be that, as Lindzen (2001) and Spencer (2007) have argued, feedbacks are net-negative, though a more cautious assumption has been made in this paper.

It is of no little significance that the IPCC's value for the coefficient in the CO2 forcing equation depends on only one paper in the literature; that its values for the feedbacks that it believes account for two-thirds of humankind's effect on global temperatures are likewise taken from only one paper; and that its implicit value of the crucial parameter κ depends upon only two papers, one of which had been written by a lead author of the chapter in question, and neither of which provides any theoretical or empirical justification for a value as high as that which the IPCC adopted.

The IPCC has not drawn on thousands of published, peer-reviewed papers to support its central estimates for the variables from which climate sensitivity is calculated, but on a handful.

On this brief analysis, it seems that no great reliance can be placed upon the IPCC's central estimates of climate sensitivity, still less on its high-end estimates. The IPCC's assessments, in their current state, cannot be said to be "policy-relevant". They provide no justification for taking the very costly and drastic actions advocated in some circles to mitigate "global warming", which Eqn. (30) suggests will be small (<1 °C at CO2 doubling), harmless, and beneficial.


Even if temperature had risen above natural variability, the recent solar Grand Maximum may have been chiefly responsible. Even if the sun were not chiefly to blame for the past half-century's warming, the IPCC has not demonstrated that, since CO2 occupies only one-ten-thousandth part more of the atmosphere that it did in 1750, it has contributed more than a small fraction of the warming. Even if carbon dioxide were chiefly responsible for the warming that ceased in 1998 and may not resume until 2015, the distinctive, projected fingerprint of anthropogenic "greenhouse-gas" warming is entirely absent from the observed record. Even if the fingerprint were present, computer models are long proven to be inherently incapable of providing projections of the future state of the climate that are sound enough for policymaking. Even if per impossibile the models could ever become reliable, the present paper demonstrates that it is not at all likely that the world will warm as much as the IPCC imagines. Even if the world were to warm that much, the overwhelming majority of the scientific, peer-reviewed literature does not predict that catastrophe would ensue. Even if catastrophe might ensue, even the most drastic proposals to mitigate future climate change by reducing emissions of carbon dioxide would make very little difference to the climate. Even if mitigation were likely to be effective, it would do more harm than good: already millions face starvation as the dash for biofuels takes agricultural land out of essential food production: a warning that taking precautions, "just in case", can do untold harm unless there is a sound, scientific basis for them. Finally, even if mitigation might do more good than harm, adaptation as (and if) necessary would be far more cost-effective and less likely to be harmful.

In short, we must get the science right, or we shall get the policy wrong.

Friday, January 27, 2017

Metallic hydrogen

Metallic hydrogen, once theory, becomes reality.

"This is the holy grail of high-pressure physics," Silvera said. "It's the first-ever sample of metallic hydrogen on Earth, so when you're looking at it, you're looking at something that's never existed before."

To create it, Silvera and Dias squeezed a tiny hydrogen sample at 495 gigapascal, or more than 71.7 million pounds-per-square inch - greater than the pressure at the center of the Earth. At those extreme pressures, Silvera explained, solid molecular hydrogen -which consists of molecules on the lattice sites of the solid - breaks down, and the tightly

bound molecules dissociate to transforms into , which is a metal.

 predictions suggest metallic hydrogen could act as a superconductor at room temperatures.

Among the holy grails of physics, a room temperature superconductor, Dias said, could radically change our transportation system, making magnetic levitation of high-speed trains possible, as well as making electric cars more efficient and improving the performance of many electronic devices.

The material could also provide major improvements in energy production and storage - because superconductors have zero resistance energy could be stored by maintaining currents in superconducting coils, and then be used when needed.

"It takes a tremendous amount of energy to make metallic hydrogen," Silvera explained. "And if you convert it back to molecular hydrogen, all that energy is released, so it would make it the most powerful rocket propellant known to man, and could revolutionize rocketry."

The most powerful fuels in use today are characterized by a "specific impulse" - a measure, in seconds, of how fast a propellant is fired from the back of a rocket - of 450 seconds. The specific impulse for metallic hydrogen, by comparison, is theorized to be 1,700 seconds.

"That would easily allow you to explore the outer planets," Silvera said. "We would be able to put rockets into orbit with only one stage, versus two, and could send up larger payloads, so it could be very important."

Sunday, March 13, 2016

Neil deGrasse Tyson thinks that global warming skeptics are insufficiently educated.

Neil deGrasse Tyson thinks that global warming skeptics are insufficiently educated.

Been following this issue since the late 1980's.  I was very concerned about it.  Since the early 90's I started reading skeptics who thought that this issue is overblown.

When a model doesn't agree with the data, then one should modify the theory.  This is how science is suppose to work.  The whole argument is about positive feedbacks versus negative feedbacks.  The data supports the negative feedback models.  Instead of the climate sensitivity being 3.3 or 2.2 celsius per doubling of CO2, it is much less than 1.

The positive feedback models proposed by the alarmists do not logically make sense:  If heat causes positive feedback then we should have a runaway greenhouse.  It would not be unlike the perturbation when a microphone gets too close to a speaker.

When it took a hundred years for the temperature to increase 1 degree fahrenheit, and when you consider just how costly the transition away from fossil fuels is, both in terms of cost and millions of human lives lost, then it makes more sense to adapt to the very gradual changes in temperature. 

The benefits of increased CO2 have been enormous in terms of increased crop yield, and will continue to be benefit humanity as it goes up.  If I had the power to make the CO2 level 600 parts per million, I would do so, but it will happen anyway regardless of what western countries do.  During the last period of glaciation, CO2 levels became dangerously low to the point of being 30 parts per million away from threatening all life above sea level.  If  you look at CO2 levels through the entire history of the earth, it has been one of enormous decline, dangerously so, until humans reversed the trend.


Wednesday, February 24, 2016

Fwd: easy C02 to fuel

'Proven one-step process to convert CO2 and water directly into liquid hydrocarbon fuel

A team of University of Texas at Arlington chemists and engineers have proven that concentrated light, heat and high pressures can drive the one-step conversion of carbon dioxide and water directly into useable liquid hydrocarbon fuels.

This simple and inexpensive new sustainable fuels technology could potentially help limit global warming by removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to make fuel. The process also reverts oxygen back into the system as a byproduct of the reaction, with a clear positive environmental impact, researchers said.

"Our process also has an important advantage over battery or gaseous-hydrogen powered vehicle technologies as many of the hydrocarbon products from our reaction are exactly what we use in cars, trucks and planes, so there would be no need to change the current fuel distribution system," said Frederick MacDonnell, UTA interim chair of chemistry and biochemistry and co-principal investigator of the project.

In an article published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences titled "Solar photothermochemical alkane reverse combustion," the researchers demonstrate that the one-step conversion of carbon dioxide and water into liquid hydrocarbons and oxygen can be achieved in a photothermochemical flow reactor operating at 180 to 200 C and pressures up to 6 atmospheres.'


Tuesday, January 12, 2016

Fwd: efficient incandescent

'The incandescent bulb is an example of a high temperature thermal emitter. It's very useful, but only a small fraction of the emitted light-and therefore energy-is actually used. In fact, most of the light is emitted in the infrared, which is invisible to the human eye. That's why researchers decided to find a way to recycle this infrared light and potentially help light at visible wavelengths….

surrounding the hot object with special nanophotonic structures that spectrally filter the emitted light, meaning that they let the light reflect or pass through based on its color. Because the filters are not in direct physical contact with the emitter, temperatures can be very high.

The researchers also redesigned the incandescent filament from scratch. In this case, they turned it into a piece that was laser-machined out of a flat sheet of tungsten, which makes it completely planar. Since a planar filament has a large area, it's efficient at re-absorbing the light that was reflected by the filter.

In the new-concept light bulb prototype, the efficiency approaches some fluorescent and LED bulbs. This could be huge for the future of light bulbs.'



Fwd: Gravity Waves

'There is a strong rumour that gravitational waves – one of astronomy's holy grails – have been found. Rumours have been circulating since November that 'something' was detected in September 2015. Analysis is currently ongoing and if everything checks out an announcement is expected in February.

The rumour of this possible detection was first mentioned in The Guardian on 7 December by Paul Davies. Now the story has now taken on a life of its own, thanks to a tweet by the physicist and author Lawrence Krauss.'

  My earlier rumor about LIGO has been confirmed by independent sources. Stay tuned! Gravitational waves may have been discovered!! Exciting.

— Lawrence M. Krauss (@LKrauss1) January 11, 2016

Friday, January 1, 2016

My "The Carbon Cycle" article and all Facebook responses.

See if you can follow me on this ...

The amount of carbon on planet Earth by definition remains pretty much the same. Man has been burning fossil fuels, which puts carbon into the atmosphere. Where did the carbon in the fossil fuels come from? It mostly came from plants and bacteria that got buried underground due to geological processes. Over millions of years natural processes turned the plants and bacteria into fossil fuels. Where did the plants and bacteria get their carbon from? They got it from the atmosphere. The carbon that we are now putting into the atmosphere originally came from the atmosphere.

To better understand this, we have to understand the complete history of atmospheric carbon dioxide on planet Earth. The original earth atmosphere was an amazing 43% carbon dioxide compared with the roughly .04% that we have now. That original atmosphere had so much pressure that it could crush a man flat. About 2.5 billion years ago, cyanobacteria began using photosynthesis to convert carbon dioxide into free oxygen, which lead to the creation of our oxygen rich "third atmosphere" 2.3 billion years ago. At that time the carbon dioxide levels were about 7,000 parts per million, but it went into a somewhat steady but uneven decline because geological processes would sequester carbon underground. The decline was uneven because as part of the "carbon dioxide cycle", sometimes geological processes like volcanoes would cause massive amounts of carbon dioxide to be released back into the atmosphere.

Thirty million years ago during the Oligocene Epoch, the average temperature of the earth was about 7 degrees Celsius warmer than it is now. There was no ice on the poles, but the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was in rapid decline during this epoch. About 23 million years ago, at the beginning of the Neogene period, ice began to form on the poles. About ten million years ago, a series of intermittent ice ages began that continue to this day. I found one source that said that we are still technically in an ice age because we still have ice at the poles.

These ice ages helped create human evolution. The ice ages caused Africa to dry up which lead to some deforestation. This forced some arboreal (tree dwelling) apes to venture onto land. About 7 million years ago, the first apes that could comfortably walk upright appeared. They had evolved a new type of pelvis that allowed upright locomotion, which is about three times more efficient when trying to cross land.

The first tool making ape that resembled modern humans, Homo habilis, arose 2.5 million years ago. It would be soon followed by Homo erectus, and then about 200,000 years ago, modern humans, Homo sapiens would arise. However, Homo sapiens almost died out. About 50,000 years ago an ice age in Europe had caused Africa to almost completely dry up. The total human population had dropped to 7,000 individuals living on the southern coast of Africa. During this period humans learned how to fish, make new tools, and create permanent dwellings. When the ice age abated, these humans with their new tools spread out to rest of the world at a pace of about a mile per year. This was the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic (Late Stone Age) period.

More ice ages would follow, and during each ice age human population would decline. It is no coincidence that all of human civilization (i.e. agriculture, use of metals) would arise during a "brief" warm period between two ice ages starting about 10,000 years ago. I have heard that no matter what we do, we will enter a new ice age in about 10,000 years from now, but I have also heard speculation that the next ice age will be delayed by global warming. This actually should be our goal, since humans have always declined during the ice ages and always prospered during the intermittent warm periods.

During the geological time period of the earth, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been on an uneven decline and mostly disappeared. Atmospheric carbon dioxide is necessary for plant growth, and I have read that we were running dangerously low on atmospheric carbon dioxide, about 00.02%, before mankind at least temporarily reversed the trend. I just read a wikipedia article that said that atmospheric carbon dioxide will eventually get so low that all plants and animal will die off. What mankind has done is put carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere that was previously there, thus possibly delaying the next ice age. Currently the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is about 00.04%.

Carbon dioxide by itself cannot cause significant global warming. There are diminished returns. Carbon dioxide has to double again to produce the same effect as the last doubling. The effect is not linear but logarithmic. What the alarmists are worried about, and they could be correct, is positive feedback. The warming of the earth causes more water vapor to enter the atmosphere, and water vapor is a much stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, thus causing more warming. If this were true, however, the last warming period around the year 2000 should caused a continuous positive feedback, a runaway greenhouse, which didn't happen. Instead temperatures went into a major decline and hit a really big low point in the year 2007.

The skeptics believe that increased cloud cover reflects sunlight back into space thus causing a negative feedback. The skeptics are not "global warming deniers", which is a pejorative phrase used by global warming theorists to make the skeptics sound like holocaust deniers. These skeptics actually believe in global warming. At least, the legitimate skeptical scientists do. They just think that global warming is happening at a rate slower than predicted by the theorists. I can point you to an article that shows that the positive feedback models have been contradicted by the actual temperature data, which in reality has been closer to the negative feedback models.

The worst case scenario is that the polar ice caps will melt. If that happens we will lose some coastlines and all of Florida due to sea level rise. However, according to what I just read, it will take 5,000 years for the polar ice caps to melt. In other words, these are processes that take a very long time to happen. In this century we are only looking at modest temperature increases. In the meantime, humans are very adaptable. We are only five to ten years away from creating the first workable prototypes of nuclear fusion. It might take 25 years for this to be practical, but at that point if we wanted to get rid of fossil fuels altogether, we could. I think that we will also see advances in solar power, which is already happening, and battery technology to store the energy created by solar. In other words, we have it within our means to avoid any possible disasters that might be coming.

Stephen W Gordon
Stephen W Gordon Glad you pointed out humans nearly went extinct during the last period of extreme climate change. 
I don't worry about the Earth. I'm just concerned future Earth might not be a place that can support humanity. Or at least not billions of us. 
So if we gamble and get this wrong we might just be waving bye bye to 6 billion or more of our closest friends.
John Coffey
John Coffey Humans almost went extinct because the atmospheric levels of CO2 declined and the earth got too cold, not the other way around. The term "climate change" is meaningless because the climate is always changing.
John Coffey
John Coffey This is like Pascal's Wager where the consequence of not believing in the ordained doctrine is so terrible that you might as well throw away all your incredulity and ability to reason and believe it anyway.
John Coffey
John Coffey Thanks for replying. I appreciate knowing that people are reading my posts.
John Coffey
Write a reply...

Chip Evans
Chip Evans The oceans heat and become more and more acidic. This heating slowly releases co2 and methane trapped in both land and deep ocean permafrost, further amplifying the greenhouse effect in a way that we cannot control. This is also complicated by rapid deforestation, reducing the rates at which co2 is removed from the air. Tectonic shifts are also a result, dramatically increasing seismic activity, and further adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. The possibility of a runaway greenhouse effect is real and will have severely detrimental longterm effects on the climate; ones that will be beyond our control. It's not just some water rising, but irreversible damage to our ecosystem.
John Coffey
John Coffey Ocean PH is 8.1, which is basic. There has been a change, but that change doesn't seem to me to be drastic. Yet.
John Coffey
Write a reply...

John Coffey
John Coffey My point was that the CO2 that we now put in the atmosphere was previously in the atmosphere. Previous time periods were warmer and had higher levels of CO2, but were relatively stable. The long term trend over geological time periods have been for the CO2 to decline and for the earth to get cooler. The decline in CO2 has also been a threat to the environment, and I think that a modest increase is an improvement to the environment.
John Coffey
John Coffey My other point is that if this really is a problem, we are rapidly headed toward a technological solution.
Stephen W Gordon
Stephen W Gordon John, warming isn't like getting a few extra days of summer. 
Over 2/3 of the world's population live with in a 100 miles of the coast. The two largest American cities are on the coast. Rising ocean levels represent a GRAVE concern. 
Places we now grow food will be come unavailable. 
If the oceans warm the plankton in the top layers die, the food chain in the ocean will collapse. The only thing missing from this scenario is the zombie apocalypse.
But good job on finding the 8 scientists who dispute climate change. I'm sure they are right and NASA is wrong. I'm sure they are right and the 150+ world leaders who showed up in Paris last month are wrong. I'm sure they are right and the science agencies of the UN are wrong. You are on the wrong side of this one.
John Coffey
John Coffey
Argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ad verecundiam) also appeal to authority, is a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy.[1][2]
John Coffey
John Coffey Polar ice caps will take 5,000 years to melt. Seas rising at 10 cm per century. The coasts are not disappearing any time soon.
Stephen W Gordon
Stephen W Gordon Don't agree with your sunny (pun intended) predictions of how slight and slow the ocean will rise. The lsland nations of the pacific are in panic mode as they don't share your optimistic outlook.
John Coffey
John Coffey Steve,

What would you do if a majority of people believed in something that you know is wrong? I think that I know exactly what you would do. You would call them idiots.

I am sorry that you are not able to see the truth. All the information is available to those willing to look at it.

There are certain red flags that are so flagrant, that a rational person should be able to look at these and realize that something is wrong:

Politicized science is dangerous. It means that there is an agenda behind the science. When the US Government is spending 3 Billion dollars per year on Global Warming research, and so are other countries, then there is a financial incentive for people to keep saying there is a problem. If there is no problem, then there is no funding.

When many people claim the science is 100% settled then this should immediately be a cause for concern. Science is never 100% settled.

Therefor some people have suggested that we should not allow debate on the matter, and even suggested that global warming skeptics should be jailed!

Carl Sagan would have never supported the suppression of scientific information. He supported someone who he thought was wrong only because others scientists were trying to suppress the man's views. Yet that is what is happening. An editor got fired for publishing a skeptical viewpoint. Major scientific journals are refusing to publish any peer reviewed skeptical articles. Global warming theorists have actively campaigned to have such articles suppressed. This alone should cause a rational person think that maybe the skeptics might have a point, otherwise people wouldn't be trying so hard to suppress their views

Real science makes hypotheses and then tests those hypotheses with data. If the hypotheses don't match the data then real science either discards the hypotheses or changes them. We should be concerned that previous predictions of warming have been off by several fold, and yet we are still told that we are headed for disastrous warming.

We should be concerned that climate scientist were trying to hide the cooling that took place in the last decade, have altered past temperature records to make the warming seem more pronounced, have used only a fraction of the data available, and when asked to turn over their data threatened to delete the data and then actually did so!

There is this notion that there is an arbitrary temperature that we should never vary from. This should be some cause for reflection. In reality, temperature is always changing, and there is no "correct" temperature. It is likely that the earth being a couple of degrees warmer is actually a good thing. The problem is that some people think that we should never change anything.

The mentality that "the sky is falling" should cause some concern.

CO2 is a trace gas. It contributes to only 3.6% of the greenhouse effect and humans are only responsible for 7% of the CO2 emitted into the environment.

There is not a clear causality between CO2 and temperature. I hope that you understand that the issue of weather is more complex than just saying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and therefor more CO2 means more temperature. It does, but it is not a real clear relationship. Actual weather is complex with many variables, and many possible feedbacks in the system. Any stable system is going to have negative feedbacks to perturbation. Ice core studies have shown that temperature increases have *always* *preceded* CO2 increases, and not the other way around.

Best wishes,

John Coffey
John Coffey
John Coffey Was aware of the island nations panic mode. Some of these atolls were nearly at sea level to begin with, so any sea level increase could erase the atoll.
John Coffey
John Coffey
Good news: posited global warming won't kill off ocean phytoplankton
Like · Reply · 11 mins
John Coffey

John Coffey
John Coffey Sea levels have been rising about 10 cm per century for around 400 years and have not accelerated due recent CO2 rise.
John Coffey
John Coffey My feeling is that the global warming has become a new religion not interested in facts and motivated and funded by people with political agendas. Of course carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and of course there has been some warming. It has always been a question of how much is happening and will this lead to disaster. The biggest point of contention has been the issue of positive feedback versus negative feedback. Twenty five years ago I was reading about how negative feedback mitigates the effect of CO2. At present, the data doesn't support the positive feedback models and agrees with the negative feedback models. However, the people driving the current hysteria, mostly politicians, aren't interested in the data.
John Coffey
John Coffey The point of my article is to look at the history of atmospheric CO2 of the earth and how CO2 has gone into extreme decline. We were literally running out of CO2. Carbon dioxide is an important nutrient to plant growth, and the increase has resulted in a greening of the earth that has made a huge difference in our ability to feed the world.
John Coffey
John Coffey This has been a topic of deep interest to me since the late 1980's. I have tried to find as much information about it as I could. About ten years ago I was curious about how much warming we could expect in the 21st century. I tried to look up as many experts as I could, and the range of expected temperature I got was from about 1 to 3 degrees Fahrenheit increase over a hundred years, with most predictions being around 1.5 degrees. I didn't find this particularly troubling, because my reasoning was, as I stated in the article above, that by mid century we should have the technology to eliminate fossil fuels altogether. I do not think that we will need to, nor do I think that we will want to, but if we decide that it is necessary, I think that it will be well within our means to do that. (I also think that the iron fertilization method described above would be a great way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, but only if we need to.)
John Coffey
John Coffey "During glaciations the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere has fallen to as low at 180 parts per million. It needs to be stressed that plant life shuts down at 150 parts per million, as plants are unable to operate with the partial pressure differential of carbon dioxide between their cells and the atmosphere. Several times during the last 3 million years, life above sea level was within 30 parts per million of being extinguished by a lack of carbon dioxide."
Toly Zharkikh
Toly Zharkikh This thread was a good read. Thanks for posting. I do believe the climate change issue has become a religion for people, just like various political ideologies. The politicians are hyping it up because it creates justification for increase in government control over industry. From everything I have seen, our dictators are not benevolent. You can find an ulterior motive behind every act that they advertise as benefiting humanity.
Toly Zharkikh
Toly Zharkikh I used to believe in the runaway warming theory, but then I realized that nature tends toward stability. I believe the same about free market capitalism. Instead of the popular myth that it tends toward centralized wealth and monopoly, it actually tends toward decentralization, a more equal distribution of wealth, and none of these boom-bust cycles that most people accept as normal.
John Coffey
Write a reply...

John Coffey
John Coffey The term greenhouse effect is misleading, because the purpose of a greenhouse is to prevent convection. Our atmosphere is turbulent. A 2003 article stated that warm areas of the ocean create strong updrafts that carry heat to the upper atmosphere where some of the heat is lost to space as infrared.
Toly Zharkikh
Toly Zharkikh Finally something I can understand.
John Coffey
Write a reply...

John Coffey
John Coffey I don't know if I want to watch the whole thing, but the first 24 minutes is very good.