Global Climate Status Report

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

  1. babe

    babe Well-Known Member

    10,154
    793
    203
    Dec 7, 2010
     

  2. Douchebag K

    Douchebag K Well-Known Member

    7,651
    1,952
    213
    Nov 12, 2014
    so according to AOC we only have 12 years until hugely catastrophic world ending climate change ... f#$**** I hope i can still make it to a Jazz game before then ...
     
    LogGrad98, fishonjazz and babe like this.
  3. babe

    babe Well-Known Member

    10,154
    793
    203
    Dec 7, 2010
    El Nino is hardly "local" weather, but it can be impressive locally, especially in California.

    I read the warmist reports too, and see their attributions and discussions of "natural processes". No, they diss more than they consider.

    But they have improved of the time I've been watching....a lot.
     
  4. babe

    babe Well-Known Member

    10,154
    793
    203
    Dec 7, 2010
    I've already been to a Jazz game. It's like my wife's announcement of her bucket-list trip to Israel to see Lehi's Cave....it will not be the end of the world if you miss it.

    I see a tinge of humor here in regard to the urban legends of JazzFanz. I'm always happy to see some humor.
     
  5. Red

    Red Well-Known Member

    2,841
    673
    148
    Mar 17, 2015
    The Heritage Institute and their "ilk" are reactionaries, history's losers. I wonder who their donors are? I wonder, wonder....

    Like my own generation, back in the day, youth will lead the way:

    https://climateprotection.org/the-youth-climate-response-when-impatience-is-a-virtue/
     
  6. babe

    babe Well-Known Member

    10,154
    793
    203
    Dec 7, 2010
    you're wrong.

    The Russian idealists of the early twentieth century were wrong, too.

    Marx and a thousand variants of clever progressives have all been wrong.

    Facts are not political. Human intelligence is not programmatic or ideological. People who are committed to any fixed idea of the world will miss the point.

    History is generally wrong, as well. We are no better today than the first civilizations in terms of morals, intelligence, or wisdom. Sure we have technology.... but we don't know any better what to do with it than the first cave man with the first fire, or the inventor of the wheel. We are lost in our own conceits.

    The facts I presented briefly about the relative scales of atmospheric inventories vs oceanic or even land surface temps are in line with continuing ice age/interglacial warm cycles, but all that is still dwarfed potentially by possible cycles in the Sun or even galactic/cosmic environments which we hardly understand.

    Far better than going off into disproven political idealism and heavily managed societies and economics, nature has proven repeatedly that individual choices and adaptations to change are the key to survival.

    The Brick in the Wall lyrics are the truth in regard to social indoctrination/education ….

    Teacher!!!!!!! Leave those kids alone!!!!!!
     
    Joe Bagadonuts likes this.
  7. silesian

    silesian Well-Known Member

    3,615
    485
    133
    May 30, 2010
    You can't use one season as isolated evidence, there is too much seasonal variation. It devolves into the "look at this snowball, global warming is fake" argument. Gotta look at the macro trends.
     
  8. Red

    Red Well-Known Member

    2,841
    673
    148
    Mar 17, 2015
    Can't argue with that....

    Well maybe I could, in certain particulars, but basically human nature is human nature....

    https://owlcation.com/stem/massive-solar-flare-1859
     
    babe likes this.
  9. babe

    babe Well-Known Member

    10,154
    793
    203
    Dec 7, 2010
    "Global Warming", is a fact. All around the whole world, when the sun rises, it starts getting warming. It's also true locally near campfires and in auto exhaust. I have to take it you're another political perverter of what science was once....well... for a while.... sometime back after Galileo was force to recant his views on geocentrism, because it was politically problematic to think the earth is not the center of the universe because the Bible, in some folks' minds, placed it in the center.

    ideas like spontaneous generation were very credibly evident and supported by your "scientific" statists, too. I mean, obviously, if you filled a bottle with cowpoop and covered it and left it in the sun, those flies all came out.... well, as maggots first.... with no help at all.

    So the particular issue claimed by globalist advocates using scare tactic to abuse the public mind, is that humun use of combustible fuels not only warms the atmosphere directly, but the CO2 generated helps to keep heat from radiating out into space. I know what the physical chemistry principles involved are, and it's true. CO2 has a higher heat capacity, with modes of molecular vibration and all, than nitrogen or oxygen. H2O also has a significantly higher heat capacity. If you go some near the ocean where there's humidity in the air, it's known to moderate the temperatures when the sun shines, and when the sun goes down.... by capturing and holding heat.... which is nevertheless eventually redistributed if you care to follow the clouds.

    Our current political scientists are off their true center of credibilitly when they join or advocate alarmist projections based on a relatively short span of a hundred years or so. It appears we have 1.9 F so far, and very well might spike much higher from here, and it's a fact that CO2 increases, with other "greenhouse gases" like water or hydrocarbons or cow farts must be given a place on the increased atmospheric temp trend. I've never disputed that.

    But we are still within the "normal" cycles some studies have shown over interglacial warm time spans that occurred before we burned our fuel.

    I don't work for any oil interests, or coal interests.... I recognize that nuclear fuel is available, and that with good responsible engineering and storage, we can produce our electricity less expensively and with far less human labor inputs. Nuclear is the best way forward. But the damn political scientists with their fear mongering media and educational smear machines have done us out of that.

    And I think, if we have any kind of policy on energy, we need to conserve our fossil fuels for the next(coming soon) soon ice age.

    If you can pull your head outta that commie indoctrination butt that is so dedicated to using whatever tactics it takes to create global fascism with incontestable power all around the world, you would notice that I did not argue the "snowball" proof against warmism. I argued the opposite. I said we have warming going on, and the oceans are getting warmer, but it reflects factors like solar cycles and the putative earth thermostat cycle. When the ice caps melt off, the ocean waters at depth get warmer. The mixing currents change.... you have heard of salt, haven't you? ice melt has little salt.... subtropical oceans where evaporation greatly exceeds precipitation, natural get saltier on the surface. This is one of the factors that drives ocean currents.... the diffusion of salts creates currents locally, but taken as a whole, they help direct ocean currents globally. In El Nino years, the amount of rising cold water taking the place of diffusing warm saltier water, reduces the surface sea temps.... etc etc etc.

    Take it all in, and just realize that warm water evaporates faster.... more humidity available to form atmospheric storms.... more snowfall in places like Hudson Bay. That is the first thing that happens in the onset of an ice age. Every ice age we have studied has been preceeded by above normal ocean temps which spike just before it starts....

    That is the global fact, Jack.

    Then, in my early links, there's this bit about our solar cycles, predicting a substantial reduction in solar flares not just for the current cycles, but for several cycles out.

    Warm oceans..... less sun..... more snow. Ice Age.
     
  10. babe

    babe Well-Known Member

    10,154
    793
    203
    Dec 7, 2010
    Some things in nature are truly well beyond anything we can do about them.... I mean they happen...


    But it would be smart of us to make some efforts to be prepared, to ensure survival. And we should do such things on not only local, state, and federal venues, but around the world.

    wrt carbon policy, I am mainly concerned about misallocation of scarce resoucrses. Obama did the big pump and dump thing on the coal industry, almost driving them outta business.... but picking up the cheap stock from the panicked sellers, while diverting scads of moolah to Solyndra without real results.

    So it is our corruption..... our leaders.... our political systems.... that I think is our worst scare.
     
  11. Heathme

    Heathme Well-Known Member

    361
    107
    78
    May 26, 2010
  12. One Brow

    One Brow Well-Known Member

    11,616
    1,168
    228
    May 26, 2010
    Left it uncovered, you mean.If you leave it covered, no maggots appear.

    https://xkcd.com/1732/

    Make sure you scroll all the way to the bottom.

    The real issue are NIMBYs spent fuel storage. No one wants to be close to a potential Three Mile Island/Chernobyl, and we don't have great places to store things for thousands of years.
     
  13. silesian

    silesian Well-Known Member

    3,615
    485
    133
    May 30, 2010
    Along those lines, last night global warming happened under my electric blanket.

    I seriously hope you are joking.
     
    fishonjazz likes this.
  14. silesian

    silesian Well-Known Member

    3,615
    485
    133
    May 30, 2010
    No you don't
    The physical principles are driven by the orbital structure of CO2, causing it to absorb lower frequency light, trapping heat. The differences in heat capacity is not what drives climate change.

    This truth is accepted by even the staunchest climate deniers, because it is just simple science.

    Seriously, where did you study P Chem? This is pretty basic stuff and you should write to your alma mater for a refund.
     
    fishonjazz likes this.
  15. silesian

    silesian Well-Known Member

    3,615
    485
    133
    May 30, 2010
    Spontaneous generation was the doctrine introduced by Aristotle. It was never a scientific theory. It existed many hundreds of years before the scientific method was conceived. Early scientists called BS on this and it never stood up to scrutiny. But there was no viable competing idea so it remained untested conventional wisdom. And of course it was disproved using the scientific method.
     
  16. babe

    babe Well-Known Member

    10,154
    793
    203
    Dec 7, 2010

    Lets just say "covered" is a part of the logic of spontaneous generation theory. Can't let anything in to change the "spontaneous" phenomena. Of course, you do have to use cowpoop that has already had some flies on it before you put it in the bottle. Then cover it with a fine wire screen or something. I think the maggots grow in pretty oxygen-depleted conditions. But I have not done this experiment scientifically. I have shoveled a lot of poop, and I think you have to cover the stuff with some dirt to stop it. I find the sg apparently going on in pretty deep stuff.
     
  17. babe

    babe Well-Known Member

    10,154
    793
    203
    Dec 7, 2010
    The scientific method was part of the Renaissance I suppose. But spontaneous generation was pushed on the experimental basis even after the sm was developing. Hypothesis..... proposed test..... experiment..... result..... interpretation......

    All that process actually means that any subject is open, and will always be open..... to further investigation..... having a government or priestly class of experts concluding anything as "Truth" is not science. That is and always will be Religion. In our day, State-sanctioned Religion.
     
  18. babe

    babe Well-Known Member

    10,154
    793
    203
    Dec 7, 2010
    I'd say you're the one who needs to ask for the refund.

    What do you imagine it means when I state that the existence of rotational and stretching modes of chemical bonds in a molecule mean there is a higher heat capacity?

    A molecule can absorb light without converting it to physical momentum of any kind, but that generally means an electronic orbital is in an "excited" state, which will in some probability return to ground state with the emission of light. That will result in a small fraction of that light proceeding on down to earth.... or on out to space....depending on which direction you are speaking of as the source. In either case, the atmosphere has a higher net energy content while that is going on. It also means less extraterrestrial energy reaches the Earth, and less terrestrial energy goes out to space. Which do you think is the bigger issue? Well, I admit.... as more heat is stored in the surface and atmosphere, more is radiated out. It will attain equilibrium. But if we did not have polyatomic stuff it'd get damn cold at night. Intolerably hot in the day.

    It is the presence of the vibrational modes, and polyatomic electron clouds,that gives greenhouse gases their capacity to convert light energy to stored heat energy. It is the reason why in the sun, metal heats up faster and cools faster than wet soil or anything polyatomic. Metal is atomic not in general polyatomic, with some crystal lattice energy sure, but nothing like actual polyatomic materials.

    So with the greenhouse gases, the sun's light, absorbed, is in large part converted to heat, to simple physical motion. Warm. Long lasting Warm.

    The presence of polyatomic electronic orbital structure is necessary for the absorption of light of lower frequencies, sure. But heat capacity is the reservoir that holds it and warms the atmosphere.
     
  19. babe

    babe Well-Known Member

    10,154
    793
    203
    Dec 7, 2010
    I jokingly hope you're serious.....
     
  20. babe

    babe Well-Known Member

    10,154
    793
    203
    Dec 7, 2010
    This single sentence contains all the evils I decry in the current "debates".

    A slur against some alleged class of despicable "deniers", which actually only exist in your argumental structure.

    A Postivist assertion of "Truth" only a true religious fanatic could embrace.

    The invocation of "Science" in support of thinking that is about as opposite of investigative research or questioning search for better understanding as is humanly possible.
     

Share This Page