Global Climate Status Report

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by babe, Mar 4, 2019.

  1. babe

    babe Well-Known Member

    10,520
    838
    203
    Dec 7, 2010
    So, in overview......

    I generally enjoy the attempt to be a contrarian, in almost any subject...... even in religion..... but especially in science. Many people just flop down on their knees and do some sort of oooh.... or ahhhh.... as they boy repetitively to the great God of Science, at whatever "Science" has been made out to be for the popular mind or for the unwashed masses of humanity.

    I've sat in on a few research report seminars and heard the quibbling among "The Scientists". From that standpoint, I would infer that "Settled Science" will go on being a myth for some time.

    So here's the kiddy breakdown of the issues I think have not been adequately researched, all of which have been assumed to be irrelevant in the hysteria of Climate Change.

    (1) Space Environment. The nature of the areas we are impacting as we move on through space. We have a certain orbit around the Sun, which we know something about. We know about the other planets and their movements, we know about the Moon. We know a very little about solar "wind" and the Sun processes which appear to present some cycles which affect us.... changing radiance flux, changing particle wind flux, particle character.

    We also have an orbit around the Milky Way Galaxy, in which some speculate some cycles due to changing relations to other galactic realities, like debris fields, hydrogen clouds, and radiative regions. We know nothing, practically speaking.

    We must accept that even the Milky Way Galaxy is on a journey..... into regions we know little about. We look out with our telescopes of different sorts, and see stuff that is beyond our expectations.

    Being on this ride is not something people with great normality biases can expect to be "normal", really. We have geologic history or cataclysmic events like huge chunks of whatever colliding with us.

    Then there is the space within the Earth we know little about......

    Science is changing in this field, quite rapidly. No room for "Settled Science" here. Within the past 50 years, the much-derided science of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions has nevertheless been gaining ground. This is the Cold Fusion Science our petroleum political establishment intended to sink the bottom of the sea, never to rise again. But recent data relevant to internal earth nuclear processes has come up, within the past year, that forces scientists to revise their ideas about the Earth Core. Now they are scrambling to explain about half of the Core Heat balance. Known fission, as measured by certain radiative measures, does not account for half of it. Residual heat from the Earth's original molten ball theory, cannot explain it..So at last, serious mainstream Science publications have admitted publication of the first LENR proposal for a reaction that is possibly happening within the Core. An iron-hosted hydrogen fusion reaction going on under extreme pressure and heat..... a sort of halfway reaction between Cold Fusion and unassisted Hydrogen Fusion believed to be the heat engine of the Sun. But this reaction has not been an "Earth Constant"..... it is believed to have started a mere 2 billion years ago.... and we have no idea of how it is changing now. Stuff is moving within our molten insides. And while the iron core is believed to be a solid, under the pressure imposed, it is absorbing hydrogen into the crystal lattice of the iron, it is being proposed.

    So, in terms of fissionable nucleides in our composition, we have U and TH, and K, with known half-lives, but whose decay rates do vary in terms of neutron fluxes and such. These fission events give off radiation that can escape to where we can measure it, and so determine the current rates. The current rates are only about half of the current heat being generated.

    So, while Scientists consider the Earth's heat neglible in comparison to the Sun, it can no longer be assumed to be a constant. We need to know how it is changing. 1 C difference under the sea will be "Climate Changing".

    But overall, I am not really a Science Skeptic. I am just saying we don't have enough understanding of the whole situation.

    Politically, I am opposed to globalism and socialism as top-down political "causes" because we just don't have people we can trust that much to run the world.

    I assert that the Climate Accords are scandalously corrupt deals that favor some few "winners" in the Grand Chase for Global Monopolies.
     
  2. babe

    babe Well-Known Member

    10,520
    838
    203
    Dec 7, 2010
    Food storage....stuff in tin cans or even grain in plastic buckets.... is pretty short term provisions....

    When the sea is rising a fraction of an inch in a year, or an inch in a lifetime..... the idea of panic is just unrealistic. If we know what is happening.... if we know plate tectonics and earthquakes, we can make plans long term. We know some mountins are rising six or twelve inches per year.... we know some plates are moving a foot in a year. We can build to be safe from earthquakes, to some extent. We can build in places where the buildings will have their expected useful lives above the sea's incursion.

    I'd day we need to abandon New Orleans and the Mississippi River dikes, and just build a new city about fifty feet higher , and dredge a channel for the new port.... stuff like that.

    Trying to keep the river barges and the seagoing ships able to meet in New Orleans is just useless. We've built the river dikes up so high, if it breaks there's a whole new route to the sea thirty five feet lower. Go build a new port city somewhere along that....

    A few degrees in temp can change the best crops to grow in a location, though. But that's a short term decision any year.

    The whole idea of urban concentration probably needs to be revisited. We can build smaller cites that function more effectively..... less commute.... less transportation expenses.

    One idea I really like is a whole new "Interstate" highway project. An electric suspended rail. vehicles of all types could be hooked, and hoisted, and taken to their offload site, where they could drive away. All it takes is designing vehicles so they can be securely carried by the "hooks". Electric generation along the route rather than megaplants in a few locations. Instead of so much concrete and oil in the roads, more steel. A lot more copper because of all the electric motors though.

    LA to Vegas, and LA to San Francisco, could be the initial projects in the West. Boston to DC in the East.

    With any kind of electric generation plant, we can do the pollution control effectively, not like it is with cars and emission controls in each car.
     
  3. JazzyFresh

    JazzyFresh Well-Known Member

    3,627
    1,139
    178
    Feb 19, 2015
    I don't have cable/dish TV but I baby sat my parents dog this last weekend and got to watch a little. I was watching CNN and they showed a stat the 50% of global emissions comes from 10% of the richest people in the world. I found that absolutely insane, yet I never hear anybody talk about that. All I see is the rich telling others how they need to change while they travel the world in their gas guzzling yachts and private airplanes.
     
  4. NAOS

    NAOS Well-Known Member

    18,732
    3,243
    263
    May 27, 2010
    This post demonstrates is that you need to get out more. That’s about it.
     
  5. JazzyFresh

    JazzyFresh Well-Known Member

    3,627
    1,139
    178
    Feb 19, 2015
    Huh?
     
  6. Zombie

    Zombie Well-Known Member

    4,463
    2,766
    268
    Dec 20, 2011
    Most of the richest ten percent aren't as rich as you seem to think. You yourself are likely among them, you only need to have a net worth of around 90k to qualify.
     
    fishonjazz likes this.
  7. JazzyFresh

    JazzyFresh Well-Known Member

    3,627
    1,139
    178
    Feb 19, 2015
    Nope, y'all need to get your **** together and stop ruining my planet!

    Thanks
     
  8. fishonjazz

    fishonjazz Well-Known Member Contributor 2019 Award Winner 2018 Award Winner

    54,262
    9,978
    388
    Nov 4, 2010
    I bet you have a net worth more than 90,000. Do you have a house? Cars?


    Sent from my iPad using JazzFanz mobile app
     
  9. JazzyFresh

    JazzyFresh Well-Known Member

    3,627
    1,139
    178
    Feb 19, 2015
    Nope and yes. My 2009 Camry and 96 tacoma are paid off. Money is the least if my worries in life. I make what I need to live comfortable and have no debt.
     
  10. fishonjazz

    fishonjazz Well-Known Member Contributor 2019 Award Winner 2018 Award Winner

    54,262
    9,978
    388
    Nov 4, 2010
    Ok. Just saying if the top 10% in the world only have a net worth around 90,000 then it's not hard to be in that 10%. I don't make much money, never went to college, am not very ambitious, and live paycheck to paycheck but I bet I have a net worth over 90,000 since I think net worth includes all your assets (not positive on that though)
    Just my home equity alone puts me over 90,000 net worth. That's without including my vehicles, 401k and stuff like that.

    Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
     
  11. Heathme

    Heathme Well-Known Member

    992
    286
    113
    May 26, 2010
     
  12. Jonah

    Jonah Well-Known Member

    527
    117
    93
    Jul 25, 2010
    Living comfortably without debt is a solid scenario for accumulating a sizable nest egg for retirement. It’s certainly the risk adverse and fiscally conservative approach. Hope that’s what you’re working toward and why you don’t have any financial worries.
     
  13. Heathme

    Heathme Well-Known Member

    992
    286
    113
    May 26, 2010
     
  14. babe

    babe Well-Known Member

    10,520
    838
    203
    Dec 7, 2010
    yah. sounds like a homebody, right???

    I think you missed the point about the jet-setters' carbon footprint, en route from one posh babylonic child-sex trafficking hotspot to another in their private jets.

    A homeboy at least has the right to state the obvious.

    nobody needs to believe the Clinitons, or Al Gore are good judges of science. Nor anyone in their pay, for that matter.



    Andrew Wilkow has this little mantra..... socialism is for the dupes, not for the socialists. If you don't have a private jet, and six post vacation mansions scattered around the world, and don't have some kind of UN badge, and don't send your kids to a very expensive private academy that employs many armed guards brandishing real assault rifles, and if you don't have a team of top notch CPAs/tax experts creating more dodges for you than owed taxes,, and several well-paid lobbyists on staff to push your little idyllic legislative agenda, and if you're not invited to at least one private islands somewhere within the yeand don't make it to Napa Valley or the Grove each July, and Tahoe in August, and the Black Forest in October, or Phuket om Febriary, you hardly count as a real "socialist".

    But that's OK, every grand scheme needs a LOT OF REALLY DEDICATED DUPES.

    Marxism or Communism, or any brand of socialism or fascism, are just convenient lies to be used to run the tables politically. Nobody who is really anybody believes any of them. They hire folks to do the staged plays. Community organizers like Barry Obama, low-rent dupes to manage little recruitment websites, thugs to beat up on one another at "demonstrations".

    The one essential result is to maintain the cash cows..... the cartels or niche operations that can NOT be efficient if there's too much competition. That's what governments are for. Write up regulations enough to keep the upstarts outta the game. Lock up resources until "The Right People" wanna exploit them.Global Warming is great. "The Right People" have a plan. They've cut up the carbon pie and are going to make many fortunes selling carbon dioxide "credits", for not burning their stuff.

    The population of planet earth is going to be reduced to less than 1B, totally compliant serfs .

    And anybody who questions the scheme will be a totally "deplorable" denier with no place in the game.

    Not that the world isn't getting warmer, or the ice melting, mind you.... or that the plan actually involves doing anything about that.
     
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2019
  15. Heathme

    Heathme Well-Known Member

    992
    286
    113
    May 26, 2010
     
  16. babe

    babe Well-Known Member

    10,520
    838
    203
    Dec 7, 2010
    Cold Winter Forecast

    I heard this on a SLC news TV channel......

    Hadn't heard it before. El Nino is down below defined criteria, but the relevant SST still above normal, and other North Pacific areas above normal, and Alaska, and other near-Arctoc areas jave been having unprecedented heat events, or way above normal heat in July at least.

    So to get a basis for a forecast "Cold Winter" ahead, I imagine some meterologists are looking at signs of a bimodal oscillation event over Hudson Bay..... a common harbinger of the Artic Express that dives over the plains and burrows south to Florida. But in those events, the West gets a persistent big High Pressure and aside from inversions, doesn't get much storm activity and while the valleys pool cold air, the mountains are warmer than usual.....

    So now that I've laid out the hypothesis, I'll go see what the real scientists are saying....
     
  17. babe

    babe Well-Known Member

    10,520
    838
    203
    Dec 7, 2010
  18. babe

    babe Well-Known Member

    10,520
    838
    203
    Dec 7, 2010
    The "2020 Farmer's Almanac" gets some support in the NOAA 3-month forecast.....

    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/predictions/long_range/seasonal.php?lead=4

    looking at the proffered forecast maps, it does indeed look like the persistent low over the Hudsan bay, but maybe centered a little south and west of the bay. New England looks like warmer, as well as Alaska and the American Southwest. It looks like the forecast is for drought in Californaia central valley and the Sierras, with most Great Basin storms being Alberta clippers.

    There has been a persistent, stable trough over the northern Pacific, north of Hawaii and south of Adak Island (Alaska's westernmost island where we maintain critical weather stations and other government activities.... It's where Pacific Storms usually form, but if they move north, Alaska warms up and gets snow, and the system then would sink over the northern plains.
     
  19. babe

    babe Well-Known Member

    10,520
    838
    203
    Dec 7, 2010
    SSTs.

    A year ago I was right about the coming wet year across the US, saying 1C+ is huge. Climatically huge. So I'm gonna look around today and see if the data still says 1C+ worldwide.

    So here is a recent product.

    https://iridl.ldeo.columbia.edu/maproom/Global/Ocean_Temp/Anomaly.html

    At a quick visual estimate of the graph, it doesn't look like last year. No El Nino.

    There is a large central Pacific area that is graphed as above normal, with the reference period just since satellite data is available, still nearly 1C+ above what little data we have from circa 1880.

    SST data reflects only the top few centimeters of the oceans. Lower temps generally correlate to upwelling areas and higher temps correlate to areas of subsidence, and positively correlate with transient sea level stats.

    People more generally are aware of rotational currents like the Gulf Stream or the Pacific circulation bringing cooler water down to California from Alaska, and other currents long relied upon for favorable sailing routes. The vertical currents are determined by salinity conditions, evaporation regionally exceeding rainfall. Cooler waters rising along the Pacific equator are what causes La Nina. El Nino is when those mixing currents reverse. The atmospheric winds shift generally with the SSTs and change the formation of storms.

    But what we're looking at is long-term climate changing trends, with rising SSTs over the decades.

    Long-term, the melting of polar ice is a huge "tipping point" sort of thing. But it is actually orders of magnitude less important that solar changes or precession of the earth's rotation around its axis, changing angles of sunlight slightly. And less important, possibly, than space environment variations and earth heat processes.

    I have been looking for evidence of changing heat flux from the interior of the earth as a possible factor.....
     
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2019
  20. babe

    babe Well-Known Member

    10,520
    838
    203
    Dec 7, 2010
    So here's 2018, a year ago....

    https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/Products/ocean/sst/anomaly/2018.html

    https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2018/anomnight.8.30.2018.gif

    next to the latest map...

    https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2019/anomnight.7.29.2019.gif


    In these products, it looks to me like the oceans are even warmer this year than last. Can't help but see there are some data products that don't line up well. I consider this source the most direct and best.

    I think these charts outweigh The Farmers Almanac. I'm now thinking this coming winter will also be wet..... maybe not El Nino pattern, but "above normal" even for the West and particularly for the eastern two thirds of the continent.
     
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2019

Share This Page