NASA head changes mind on Climate Change

135

Replies

  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 6,615 Senior Member
    tennmike said:
    Earthlings: The Sun doesn't control Earth's climate. OUR input is greater.
    Sun: Not true; I control the climate of the Earth, you puny Earthlings.
    Eartlings: No you don't!
    Sun: How about I turn down my thermostat to 50% output, or turn it up 30% higher.
    Earthlings several weeks later: YOU WIN! GO BACK TO NORMAL VARIABLE OUTPUT!!!!!!!!!!
    :D
    All you have to do is compare the difference in air temperature of night and day and you get the answer....LOL
    I HAVE HATED COMMUNISTS EVEN BEFORE THEY CHANGED THEIR NAME TO LIBERALS AND PROGRESSIVES
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 14,181 Senior Member
    I guess "new behavior" and "discarding traditional values" would include forcing men and women, boys and girls all to pee in the same bathroom. Yeah, got it!!
    Call me radical, but we have been doing that at my house for as long as I can remember.
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 6,615 Senior Member
    I guess "new behavior" and "discarding traditional values" would include forcing men and women, boys and girls all to pee in the same bathroom. Yeah, got it!!
    Call me radical, but we have been doing that at my house for as long as I can remember.
    You know damn well I was talking about public restrooms.
    I HAVE HATED COMMUNISTS EVEN BEFORE THEY CHANGED THEIR NAME TO LIBERALS AND PROGRESSIVES
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,071 Senior Member
    Putting man-made climate change at higher priority than protection of the infrastructure from naturally occurring electro-magnetic pulse protection is absolutely insane. First, with climate theory, you have theory that has not come close to crossing the threshold into scientific fact, due to huge variables that can only be extrapolated from scant data.

    Compare that to a known fact - that the incidence of 'solar flares' have, in relatively recent history (1859), been documented to have surged briefly and caused a catastrophic failure of all of the man-made electrical infrastructure that existed at that time. It was not considered catastrophic, at the time, because telegraphy was the only electrically based technology that existed, at least to any sort of world-wide degree.

    But it is possible to quantify the effect of that known and well documented solar anomaly by measuring what sort of power was required to disable telegraph keys and other components of that era. That is real science, that can be reproduced, over and over again, using man-made EMP tecnology. It is absolutely possible to accurately predict the damage to the current level of technology, today, and it is not theoretical. We know that it has happened at least once, and that it can happen, again. We also know how to mitigate the damage from it, with relatively low-tech devices (Faraday cages), that don't cost a lot.

    If protection from naturally occurring EMP is not enough incentive, you would think that having at least 9 or 10 countries with nuclear weapons capable of doing the same thing on a more localized level would be. Instead we waste our time and money on theoretical ideas that can't even be partially proved for another 100 years, if ever.


  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,032 Senior Member
    bisley said:
    Putting man-made climate change at higher priority than protection of the infrastructure from naturally occurring electro-magnetic pulse protection is absolutely insane. First, with climate theory, you have theory that has not come close to crossing the threshold into scientific fact, due to huge variables that can only be extrapolated from scant data.

    Compare that to a known fact - that the incidence of 'solar flares' have, in relatively recent history (1859), been documented to have surged briefly and caused a catastrophic failure of all of the man-made electrical infrastructure that existed at that time. It was not considered catastrophic, at the time, because telegraphy was the only electrically based technology that existed, at least to any sort of world-wide degree.

    But it is possible to quantify the effect of that known and well documented solar anomaly by measuring what sort of power was required to disable telegraph keys and other components of that era. That is real science, that can be reproduced, over and over again, using man-made EMP tecnology. It is absolutely possible to accurately predict the damage to the current level of technology, today, and it is not theoretical. We know that it has happened at least once, and that it can happen, again. We also know how to mitigate the damage from it, with relatively low-tech devices (Faraday cages), that don't cost a lot.

    If protection from naturally occurring EMP is not enough incentive, you would think that having at least 9 or 10 countries with nuclear weapons capable of doing the same thing on a more localized level would be. Instead we waste our time and money on theoretical ideas that can't even be partially proved for another 100 years, if ever.


    Katrina, Sandy, Harvey, Maria....

    How many acres have burned and how many homes have been destroyed by wildfires in the past few years?

    How many floods, droughts (TX, CA), mudslides have we heard about in the past decade? How many "100 year storms"?

    Nope, can't be proved, we should continue doing exactly what we've been doing, running a missive uncontrolled experiment with the Earth's atmosphere. What's the worst that could happen? I'm sure if we just continue on our current path of burning a million years worth of dead dinosaurs a year and go ahead and double or even triple the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, nothing bad will happen. I mean it's not like we can scientifically prove that CO2 traps heat within the earth's atmosphere and doesn't allow it to emit back into space...oh wait, that one we actually can scientifically prove down to the exact atomic mechanisms by which it occurs. What do I care anyway, I'll probably dead before the worst of it hits anyway and kids these days are spoiled little brats so who cares if their lives suck as long as I don't have to change one bit while I'm still breathing.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 23,001 Senior Member
    Katrina, Sandy, Harvey, Maria....

    How many acres have burned and how many homes have been destroyed by wildfires in the past few years?

    How many floods, droughts (TX, CA), mudslides have we heard about in the past decade? How many "100 year storms"?

    Nope, can't be proved, we should continue doing exactly what we've been doing, running a missive uncontrolled experiment with the Earth's atmosphere. What's the worst that could happen? I'm sure if we just continue on our current path of burning a million years worth of dead dinosaurs a year and go ahead and double or even triple the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, nothing bad will happen. I mean it's not like we can scientifically prove that CO2 traps heat within the earth's atmosphere and doesn't allow it to emit back into space...oh wait, that one we actually can scientifically prove down to the exact atomic mechanisms by which it occurs. What do I care anyway, I'll probably dead before the worst of it hits anyway and kids these days are spoiled little brats so who cares if their lives suck as long as I don't have to change one bit while I'm still breathing.
    Hey, Chikkin Little, you like graphs and schizzle like that. Chew on these three sites that report on CO2 from a few million years ago to present. There was life back in some of those previous times, like dinosaurs, and they didn't die from excessive CO2, and they had a lot more than we do!

    https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth103/node/1018

    http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_1.shtml
    (Click on the graph on the right of the page to expand the graph, and your mind)

    This link gets into some pretty complicated stuff, but it's pretty well explained.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/99/7/4167



    I may be a Deplorable, but at least I'm not a Liberal!!!



  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,032 Senior Member
    tennmike said:
    Katrina, Sandy, Harvey, Maria....

    How many acres have burned and how many homes have been destroyed by wildfires in the past few years?

    How many floods, droughts (TX, CA), mudslides have we heard about in the past decade? How many "100 year storms"?

    Nope, can't be proved, we should continue doing exactly what we've been doing, running a missive uncontrolled experiment with the Earth's atmosphere. What's the worst that could happen? I'm sure if we just continue on our current path of burning a million years worth of dead dinosaurs a year and go ahead and double or even triple the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, nothing bad will happen. I mean it's not like we can scientifically prove that CO2 traps heat within the earth's atmosphere and doesn't allow it to emit back into space...oh wait, that one we actually can scientifically prove down to the exact atomic mechanisms by which it occurs. What do I care anyway, I'll probably dead before the worst of it hits anyway and kids these days are spoiled little brats so who cares if their lives suck as long as I don't have to change one bit while I'm still breathing.
    Hey, Chikkin Little, you like graphs and schizzle like that. Chew on these three sites that report on CO2 from a few million years ago to present. There was life back in some of those previous times, like dinosaurs, and they didn't die from excessive CO2, and they had a lot more than we do!

    https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth103/node/1018

    http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_1.shtml
    (Click on the graph on the right of the page to expand the graph, and your mind)

    This link gets into some pretty complicated stuff, but it's pretty well explained.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/99/7/4167



    And during those times of high CO2, the average temperature of the earth was also way higher. Yes life will still exist. But I don't care about that. I care if the earth will continue to support 7Billion human beings and $80 trillion in economic activity and growing. I care if the climate changes enough that we can no longer grow enough food to feed the global population. I care if drought and famine lead to major wars. I care if tropical diseases spread  widely acrosd the globe. Lots of things to care about short of if life will survive on Earth.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 6,615 Senior Member
    edited July 9 #69
    Oh, woe is us. Chikkin little was the right name. I'll remember that while I blast down the highway in my 5.7 liter, 17mpg, 5000 pound truck........ :D
    I HAVE HATED COMMUNISTS EVEN BEFORE THEY CHANGED THEIR NAME TO LIBERALS AND PROGRESSIVES
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,071 Senior Member
    And during those times of high CO2, the average temperature of the earth was also way higher. Yes life will still exist. But I don't care about that. I care if the earth will continue to support 7Billion human beings and $80 trillion in economic activity and growing. I care if the climate changes enough that we can no longer grow enough food to feed the global population. I care if drought and famine lead to major wars. I care if tropical diseases spread  widely acrosd the globe. Lots of things to care about short of if life will survive on Earth.
    When you can make a hard case that none of this would have occurred without the intrusion of modern man, I will be listening - oh, wait, I'll be several hundred years old when you have enough hard data to prove that.

    There are dozens of theories that may turn out to be true about the fate of planet earth. This is the one a few scientists chose to home in on for government enforced funding. After a few trillion more dollars are spent, they will likely still be hunting for the proof that will turn this into scientific fact, instead of popular theory. The naturally occurring EMP is a solid fact, now, and has been for over a hundred years.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 23,001 Senior Member
    BREAKING NEWS!!!!
    JUST WHEN YOU THOUGHT CO2 WAS A PROBLEM!
    Half of the heat generated by the Earth if from tidal forces from the Moon and Sun. The OTHER half is from..........................................wait for it..................................RADIOACTIVE DECAY! OH, NOES!!!!

    Hey, Alpha, all you anti nuke nuts are hereby required to get off the planet ASAP as you do not think nuclear power is safe! :D :D :D :D :D :D
    And if you wonder where all that radon in houses comes from.........................HERE'S YOUR SIGN!!!! :)

    https://physicsworld.com/a/radioactive-decay-accounts-for-half-of-earths-heat/

    About 50% of the heat given off by the Earth is generated by the radioactive decay of elements such as uranium and thorium, and their decay products. That is the conclusion of an international team of physicists that has used the KamLAND detector in Japan to measure the flux of antineutrinos emanating from deep within the Earth. The result, which agrees with previous calculations of the radioactive heating, should help physicists to improve models of how heat is generated in the Earth.

    Geophysicists believe that heat flows from Earth’s interior into space at a rate of about 44 × 1012 W (TW). What is not clear, however, is how much of this heat is primordial – left over from the formation of the Earth – and how much is generated by radioactive decay.

    The most popular model of radioactive heating is based on the bulk silicate Earth (BSE) model, which assumes that radioactive materials, such as uranium and thorium, are found in the Earth’s lithosphere and mantle – but not in its iron core. The BSE also says that the abundance of radioactive material can be estimated by studying igneous rocks formed on Earth, as well as the composition of meteorites.

    As a result of this model, scientists believe that about 20 TW is generated by radioactive decay – 8 TW from the uranium-238 decay chain; 8 TW from the thorium-232 decay chain and the final 4 TW from potassium-40. Fortunately, these decay chains also produce anti-electron-neutrinos, which travel easily through the Earth and can be detected, thereby giving physicists a way to measure the decay rates and ultimately the heat produced deep underground.


    I may be a Deplorable, but at least I'm not a Liberal!!!



  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 23,001 Senior Member
    Oh yeah. One thing I forgot to mention. The magma or lava from volcanoes contains a few parts per million of radioactive elements, and they can be aerosol at that temperature. The Earth is trying to kill ya! :)
    I may be a Deplorable, but at least I'm not a Liberal!!!



  • FisheadgibFisheadgib Senior Member Posts: 5,212 Senior Member
    I care if the earth will continue to support 7Billion human beings and $80 trillion in economic activity and growing. I care if the climate changes enough that we can no longer grow enough food to feed the global population. I care if drought and famine lead to major wars. I care if tropical diseases spread  widely acrosd the globe. Lots of things to care about short of if life will survive on Earth.

    From what I see by your activity on this forum is that you care mostly about staying in high paying, taxpayer funded jobs while being expected to produce little in return. When you aquired your current job, you listed all the lofty responsibilities that were part of your job and we've seen nothing about how you've helped any Navy bases environmentally or how you've reduced the energy consumption of any Navy bases. What I do notice is that the majority of your activity on this forum is during business hours so basically the taxpayers are paying you to troll conservatives on the internet.
    snake284 wrote: »
    For my point of view, cpj is a lot like me
    .
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,032 Senior Member
    I care if the earth will continue to support 7Billion human beings and $80 trillion in economic activity and growing. I care if the climate changes enough that we can no longer grow enough food to feed the global population. I care if drought and famine lead to major wars. I care if tropical diseases spread  widely acrosd the globe. Lots of things to care about short of if life will survive on Earth.

    From what I see by your activity on this forum is that you care mostly about staying in high paying, taxpayer funded jobs while being expected to produce little in return. When you aquired your current job, you listed all the lofty responsibilities that were part of your job and we've seen nothing about how you've helped any Navy bases environmentally or how you've reduced the energy consumption of any Navy bases. What I do notice is that the majority of your activity on this forum is during business hours so basically the taxpayers are paying you to troll conservatives on the internet.
    Maybe. But now I've got some good job security because if there's one thing with bipartisan support it's always increasing and never questioned DoD budgets! 

    Seriously though the DoD inefficiencies make DOE look like a top level fortune 500 company. It makes the DMV look efficient by comparison. The few min a day I spend posting here while taking a crap, waiting for my lunch, or waiting 15 min for a system I need to load on the slow as heck Navy internet doesn't make a dent. 
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 6,615 Senior Member
    Maybe. But now I've got some good job security because if there's one thing with bipartisan support it's always increasing and never questioned DoD budgets

    Seriously though the DoD inefficiencies make DOE look like a top level fortune 500 company. It makes the DMV look efficient by comparison. The few min a day I spend posting here while taking a crap, waiting for my lunch, or waiting 15 min for a system I need to load on the slow as heck Navy internet doesn't make a dent. 
    Hey far-out, man. You've hit the jack-pot, and now you'll never have to find a job that includes actual work.
    I HAVE HATED COMMUNISTS EVEN BEFORE THEY CHANGED THEIR NAME TO LIBERALS AND PROGRESSIVES
  • Wambli SkaWambli Ska Moderator Posts: 26,703 Senior Member
    bisley said:
    Putting man-made climate change at higher priority than protection of the infrastructure from naturally occurring electro-magnetic pulse protection is absolutely insane. First, with climate theory, you have theory that has not come close to crossing the threshold into scientific fact, due to huge variables that can only be extrapolated from scant data.

    Compare that to a known fact - that the incidence of 'solar flares' have, in relatively recent history (1859), been documented to have surged briefly and caused a catastrophic failure of all of the man-made electrical infrastructure that existed at that time. It was not considered catastrophic, at the time, because telegraphy was the only electrically based technology that existed, at least to any sort of world-wide degree.

    But it is possible to quantify the effect of that known and well documented solar anomaly by measuring what sort of power was required to disable telegraph keys and other components of that era. That is real science, that can be reproduced, over and over again, using man-made EMP tecnology. It is absolutely possible to accurately predict the damage to the current level of technology, today, and it is not theoretical. We know that it has happened at least once, and that it can happen, again. We also know how to mitigate the damage from it, with relatively low-tech devices (Faraday cages), that don't cost a lot.

    If protection from naturally occurring EMP is not enough incentive, you would think that having at least 9 or 10 countries with nuclear weapons capable of doing the same thing on a more localized level would be. Instead we waste our time and money on theoretical ideas that can't even be partially proved for another 100 years, if ever.


    Katrina, Sandy, Harvey, Maria....

    How many acres have burned and how many homes have been destroyed by wildfires in the past few years?

    How many floods, droughts (TX, CA), mudslides have we heard about in the past decade? How many "100 year storms"?

    Nope, can't be proved, we should continue doing exactly what we've been doing, running a missive uncontrolled experiment with the Earth's atmosphere. What's the worst that could happen? I'm sure if we just continue on our current path of burning a million years worth of dead dinosaurs a year and go ahead and double or even triple the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, nothing bad will happen. I mean it's not like we can scientifically prove that CO2 traps heat within the earth's atmosphere and doesn't allow it to emit back into space...oh wait, that one we actually can scientifically prove down to the exact atomic mechanisms by which it occurs. What do I care anyway, I'll probably dead before the worst of it hits anyway and kids these days are spoiled little brats so who cares if their lives suck as long as I don't have to change one bit while I'm still breathing.
    CO2, the stuff we breathe out and plants use to fuel photosynthesis and produce oxygen so we can all live.  Ok I'm in, we'll breathe in turns.  You hold your breath while I take a couple of lungfuls in, then we'll switch.....
    "Attack rapidly, ruthlessly, viciously, without rest, however tired and hungry you may be, the enemy will be more tired, more hungry. Keep punching." General George S. Patton
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,032 Senior Member
    bisley said:
    Putting man-made climate change at higher priority than protection of the infrastructure from naturally occurring electro-magnetic pulse protection is absolutely insane. First, with climate theory, you have theory that has not come close to crossing the threshold into scientific fact, due to huge variables that can only be extrapolated from scant data.

    Compare that to a known fact - that the incidence of 'solar flares' have, in relatively recent history (1859), been documented to have surged briefly and caused a catastrophic failure of all of the man-made electrical infrastructure that existed at that time. It was not considered catastrophic, at the time, because telegraphy was the only electrically based technology that existed, at least to any sort of world-wide degree.

    But it is possible to quantify the effect of that known and well documented solar anomaly by measuring what sort of power was required to disable telegraph keys and other components of that era. That is real science, that can be reproduced, over and over again, using man-made EMP tecnology. It is absolutely possible to accurately predict the damage to the current level of technology, today, and it is not theoretical. We know that it has happened at least once, and that it can happen, again. We also know how to mitigate the damage from it, with relatively low-tech devices (Faraday cages), that don't cost a lot.

    If protection from naturally occurring EMP is not enough incentive, you would think that having at least 9 or 10 countries with nuclear weapons capable of doing the same thing on a more localized level would be. Instead we waste our time and money on theoretical ideas that can't even be partially proved for another 100 years, if ever.


    Katrina, Sandy, Harvey, Maria....

    How many acres have burned and how many homes have been destroyed by wildfires in the past few years?

    How many floods, droughts (TX, CA), mudslides have we heard about in the past decade? How many "100 year storms"?

    Nope, can't be proved, we should continue doing exactly what we've been doing, running a missive uncontrolled experiment with the Earth's atmosphere. What's the worst that could happen? I'm sure if we just continue on our current path of burning a million years worth of dead dinosaurs a year and go ahead and double or even triple the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, nothing bad will happen. I mean it's not like we can scientifically prove that CO2 traps heat within the earth's atmosphere and doesn't allow it to emit back into space...oh wait, that one we actually can scientifically prove down to the exact atomic mechanisms by which it occurs. What do I care anyway, I'll probably dead before the worst of it hits anyway and kids these days are spoiled little brats so who cares if their lives suck as long as I don't have to change one bit while I'm still breathing.
    CO2, the stuff we breathe out and plants use to fuel photosynthesis and produce oxygen so we can all live.  Ok I'm in, we'll breathe in turns.  You hold your breath while I take a couple of lungfuls in, then we'll switch.....
    While we're at it we can do an experiment with the greenhouse effect. It's only 95 degrees here in DC. We can lock you in a black car with all the windows up and leave you for a few hours...I mean it's all a fiction right? What's the worst that can happen?
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • Wambli SkaWambli Ska Moderator Posts: 26,703 Senior Member
    bisley said:
    Putting man-made climate change at higher priority than protection of the infrastructure from naturally occurring electro-magnetic pulse protection is absolutely insane. First, with climate theory, you have theory that has not come close to crossing the threshold into scientific fact, due to huge variables that can only be extrapolated from scant data.

    Compare that to a known fact - that the incidence of 'solar flares' have, in relatively recent history (1859), been documented to have surged briefly and caused a catastrophic failure of all of the man-made electrical infrastructure that existed at that time. It was not considered catastrophic, at the time, because telegraphy was the only electrically based technology that existed, at least to any sort of world-wide degree.

    But it is possible to quantify the effect of that known and well documented solar anomaly by measuring what sort of power was required to disable telegraph keys and other components of that era. That is real science, that can be reproduced, over and over again, using man-made EMP tecnology. It is absolutely possible to accurately predict the damage to the current level of technology, today, and it is not theoretical. We know that it has happened at least once, and that it can happen, again. We also know how to mitigate the damage from it, with relatively low-tech devices (Faraday cages), that don't cost a lot.

    If protection from naturally occurring EMP is not enough incentive, you would think that having at least 9 or 10 countries with nuclear weapons capable of doing the same thing on a more localized level would be. Instead we waste our time and money on theoretical ideas that can't even be partially proved for another 100 years, if ever.


    Katrina, Sandy, Harvey, Maria....

    How many acres have burned and how many homes have been destroyed by wildfires in the past few years?

    How many floods, droughts (TX, CA), mudslides have we heard about in the past decade? How many "100 year storms"?

    Nope, can't be proved, we should continue doing exactly what we've been doing, running a missive uncontrolled experiment with the Earth's atmosphere. What's the worst that could happen? I'm sure if we just continue on our current path of burning a million years worth of dead dinosaurs a year and go ahead and double or even triple the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, nothing bad will happen. I mean it's not like we can scientifically prove that CO2 traps heat within the earth's atmosphere and doesn't allow it to emit back into space...oh wait, that one we actually can scientifically prove down to the exact atomic mechanisms by which it occurs. What do I care anyway, I'll probably dead before the worst of it hits anyway and kids these days are spoiled little brats so who cares if their lives suck as long as I don't have to change one bit while I'm still breathing.
    CO2, the stuff we breathe out and plants use to fuel photosynthesis and produce oxygen so we can all live.  Ok I'm in, we'll breathe in turns.  You hold your breath while I take a couple of lungfuls in, then we'll switch.....
    While we're at it we can do an experiment with the greenhouse effect. It's only 95 degrees here in DC. We can lock you in a black car with all the windows up and leave you for a few hours...I mean it's all a fiction right? What's the worst that can happen?
    I grew up in PR, I'll open the windows (what a concept) and be happily sipping a beer when you get back to me.  

    BTW it has never been 95 degrees in DC before?  Is this new?
    "Attack rapidly, ruthlessly, viciously, without rest, however tired and hungry you may be, the enemy will be more tired, more hungry. Keep punching." General George S. Patton
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,032 Senior Member
    bisley said:
    Putting man-made climate change at higher priority than protection of the infrastructure from naturally occurring electro-magnetic pulse protection is absolutely insane. First, with climate theory, you have theory that has not come close to crossing the threshold into scientific fact, due to huge variables that can only be extrapolated from scant data.

    Compare that to a known fact - that the incidence of 'solar flares' have, in relatively recent history (1859), been documented to have surged briefly and caused a catastrophic failure of all of the man-made electrical infrastructure that existed at that time. It was not considered catastrophic, at the time, because telegraphy was the only electrically based technology that existed, at least to any sort of world-wide degree.

    But it is possible to quantify the effect of that known and well documented solar anomaly by measuring what sort of power was required to disable telegraph keys and other components of that era. That is real science, that can be reproduced, over and over again, using man-made EMP tecnology. It is absolutely possible to accurately predict the damage to the current level of technology, today, and it is not theoretical. We know that it has happened at least once, and that it can happen, again. We also know how to mitigate the damage from it, with relatively low-tech devices (Faraday cages), that don't cost a lot.

    If protection from naturally occurring EMP is not enough incentive, you would think that having at least 9 or 10 countries with nuclear weapons capable of doing the same thing on a more localized level would be. Instead we waste our time and money on theoretical ideas that can't even be partially proved for another 100 years, if ever.


    Katrina, Sandy, Harvey, Maria....

    How many acres have burned and how many homes have been destroyed by wildfires in the past few years?

    How many floods, droughts (TX, CA), mudslides have we heard about in the past decade? How many "100 year storms"?

    Nope, can't be proved, we should continue doing exactly what we've been doing, running a missive uncontrolled experiment with the Earth's atmosphere. What's the worst that could happen? I'm sure if we just continue on our current path of burning a million years worth of dead dinosaurs a year and go ahead and double or even triple the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, nothing bad will happen. I mean it's not like we can scientifically prove that CO2 traps heat within the earth's atmosphere and doesn't allow it to emit back into space...oh wait, that one we actually can scientifically prove down to the exact atomic mechanisms by which it occurs. What do I care anyway, I'll probably dead before the worst of it hits anyway and kids these days are spoiled little brats so who cares if their lives suck as long as I don't have to change one bit while I'm still breathing.
    CO2, the stuff we breathe out and plants use to fuel photosynthesis and produce oxygen so we can all live.  Ok I'm in, we'll breathe in turns.  You hold your breath while I take a couple of lungfuls in, then we'll switch.....
    While we're at it we can do an experiment with the greenhouse effect. It's only 95 degrees here in DC. We can lock you in a black car with all the windows up and leave you for a few hours...I mean it's all a fiction right? What's the worst that can happen?
    I grew up in PR, I'll open the windows (what a concept) and be happily sipping a beer when you get back to me.  

    BTW it has never been 95 degrees in DC before?  Is this new?
    Unfortunately we can't just open a window on the Atmosphere...
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • Wambli SkaWambli Ska Moderator Posts: 26,703 Senior Member
    So again, it’s never been 95 degrees in Washington before?  I seem to recall a lot rather miserable days I DC in the 80s and in them old days the whole government would take the summer off because of the heat/humidity...  I read that in Teddy Roosevelt’s bio...
    "Attack rapidly, ruthlessly, viciously, without rest, however tired and hungry you may be, the enemy will be more tired, more hungry. Keep punching." General George S. Patton
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 23,001 Senior Member
    So again, it’s never been 95 degrees in Washington before?  I seem to recall a lot rather miserable days I DC in the 80s and in them old days the whole government would take the summer off because of the heat/humidity...  I read that in Teddy Roosevelt’s bio...
    Back in the 1800's they couldn't stand the heat, mosquitoes, and flies, so they recessed for the summer. They had a part time Congress back then, anyway, and didn't spend all their time in D.C. trying to figure out new ways to screw their constituents.

    Anyway, Alpha is just peeing down your neck and claiming it's raining. Funny thing about the internet is that you can look up all kinds of data.
    LIKE THIS!

    https://www.currentresults.com/Yearly-Weather/USA/DC/Washington/extreme-annual-washington-high-temperature.php

    OR THIS!

    https://www.weather.gov/lwx/dcanme

    (He should have seen this coming! :D :D :D :D :D )


    I may be a Deplorable, but at least I'm not a Liberal!!!



  • Wambli SkaWambli Ska Moderator Posts: 26,703 Senior Member
    tennmike said:
    So again, it’s never been 95 degrees in Washington before?  I seem to recall a lot rather miserable days I DC in the 80s and in them old days the whole government would take the summer off because of the heat/humidity...  I read that in Teddy Roosevelt’s bio...
    Back in the 1800's they couldn't stand the heat, mosquitoes, and flies, so they recessed for the summer. They had a part time Congress back then, anyway, and didn't spend all their time in D.C. trying to figure out new ways to screw their constituents.

    Anyway, Alpha is just peeing down your neck and claiming it's raining. Funny thing about the internet is that you can look up all kinds of data.
    LIKE THIS!

    https://www.currentresults.com/Yearly-Weather/USA/DC/Washington/extreme-annual-washington-high-temperature.php

    OR THIS!

    https://www.weather.gov/lwx/dcanme

    (He should have seen this coming! :D :D :D :D :D )


    So historically July and August have been stupid hot in DC?!?!?!?!  If there was only a way to let that happen without snowflakes melting in a convulsive, emotional way it would be awesome!!!
    "Attack rapidly, ruthlessly, viciously, without rest, however tired and hungry you may be, the enemy will be more tired, more hungry. Keep punching." General George S. Patton
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 23,001 Senior Member
    It got worse when folks discovered asphalt made good serviceable roads and parking lots. And concrete; lots and lots of concrete. Both absorb AND reflect heat back up into the surrounding air and make the temperature higher where they are at. And all those brick and reinforced concrete buildings absorbing and reflecting heat. D.C. in the summer with all those heat sinks absorbing and radiating heat onto the streets makes it an awful place, like any big city. Atlanta, GA has gotten so big and so covered in asphalt and concrete that it creates its own weather patterns. Noo Yawk City does, too.
    I may be a Deplorable, but at least I'm not a Liberal!!!



  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 1,485 Senior Member
    A man by the name of George Templeton Strong likely gave a pretty accurate first hand account of Washington DC in the mid nineteenth century, if anyone wants to look it up. I believe Willards Hotel was his vantage point.
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,032 Senior Member
    So again, it’s never been 95 degrees in Washington before?  I seem to recall a lot rather miserable days I DC in the 80s and in them old days the whole government would take the summer off because of the heat/humidity...  I read that in Teddy Roosevelt’s bio...
    Wasn't remotely the point. The point is the greenhouse efffect is scientific fact and can be easily proven in ways that even the most obstinate of deniers can understand. 
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • FisheadgibFisheadgib Senior Member Posts: 5,212 Senior Member
    Wasn't remotely the point. The point is the greenhouse efffect is scientific fact and can be easily proven in ways that even the most obstinate of deniers can understand. 

    I believe that most of the folks here realize that human activity contributes to climate change but your constant rants suggest that humans are the sole cause and that's the point that gets argued.
    snake284 wrote: »
    For my point of view, cpj is a lot like me
    .
  • BAMAAKBAMAAK Senior Member Posts: 4,204 Senior Member
    One volcano wipes out every effort we make to reduce so called greenhouse gases X1000.  Besides, I'm convinced the human race will be wiped out by some microorganism either on purpose or by accident.  So live it up before you start bleeding from your eyeballs.
    "He only earns his freedom and his life Who takes them every day by storm."

    -- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, German writer and politician
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 23,001 Senior Member
    So again, it’s never been 95 degrees in Washington before?  I seem to recall a lot rather miserable days I DC in the 80s and in them old days the whole government would take the summer off because of the heat/humidity...  I read that in Teddy Roosevelt’s bio...
    Wasn't remotely the point. The point is the greenhouse efffect is scientific fact and can be easily proven in ways that even the most obstinate of deniers can understand. 
    Some facts from actual scientists, not sound bite talking points on global climate:

    https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives/its-water-vapor-not-the-co2.html


    It’s Water Vapor, Not the CO2

    ACS Climate Science Toolkit | Narratives

    Remark: “The Earth has certainly been warming since we have added so much CO2 to the atmosphere from fossil fuel burning.”
    Reply: “Forget the CO2. Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It controls the Earth’s temperature.”
    It’s true that water vapor is the largest contributor to the Earth’s greenhouse effect. On average, it probably accounts for about 60% of the warming effect. However, water vapor does not control the Earth’s temperature, but is instead controlled by the temperature. This is because the temperature of the surrounding atmosphere limits the maximum amount of water vapor the atmosphere can contain. If a volume of air contains its maximum amount of water vapor and the temperature is decreased, some of the water vapor will condense to form liquid water. This is why clouds form as warm air containing water vapor rises and cools at higher altitudes where the water condenses to the tiny droplets that make up clouds.

    The greenhouse effect that has maintained the Earth’s temperature at a level warm enough for human civilization to develop over the past several millennia is controlled by non-condensable gases, mainly carbon dioxide, CO2, with smaller contributions from methane, CH4, nitrous oxide, N2O, and ozone, O3. Since the middle of the 20th century, small amounts of man-made gases, mostly chlorine- and fluorine-containing solvents and refrigerants, have been added to the mix. Because these gases are not condensable at atmospheric temperatures and pressures, the atmosphere can pack in much more of these gases . Thus, CO2 (as well as CH4, N2O, and O3) has been building up in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution when we began burning large amounts of fossil fuel.

    If there had been no increase in the amounts of non-condensable greenhouse gases, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere would not have changed with all other variables remaining the same. The addition of the non-condensable gases causes the temperature to increase and this leads to an increase in water vapor that further increases the temperature. This is an example of a positive feedback effect. The warming due to increasing non-condensable gases causes more water vapor to enter the atmosphere, which adds to the effect of the non-condensables.

    There is also a possibility that adding more water vapor to the atmosphere could produce a negative feedback effect. This could happen if more water vapor leads to more cloud formation. Clouds reflect sunlight and reduce the amount of energy that reaches the Earth’s surface to warm it. If the amount of solar warming decreases, then the temperature of the Earth would decrease. In that case, the effect of adding more water vapor would be cooling rather than warming. But cloud cover does mean more condensed water in the atmosphere, making for a stronger greenhouse effect than non-condensed water vapor alone – it is warmer on a cloudy winter day than on a clear one. Thus the possible positive and negative feedbacks associated with increased water vapor and cloud formation can cancel one another out and complicate matters. The actual balance between them is an active area of climate science research.

    :D Booyah, Baby! :D
    I may be a Deplorable, but at least I'm not a Liberal!!!



  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,032 Senior Member
    BAMAAK said:
    One volcano wipes out every effort we make to reduce so called greenhouse gases X1000.  Besides, I'm convinced the human race will be wiped out by some microorganism either on purpose or by accident.  So live it up before you start bleeding from your eyeballs.
    Actually the warming impact of Volcanoes is a fart in the wind compared to the volume of emissions from human and human induced activities (deforestation, concentrated farming operations). Volcanoes actually have a strong short term cooling effect (because of their large ash clouds which increase cloud formation which blocks sunlight also known as albedo) and a tiny long term warming effect (from the relatively small amount of green house gassed emitted). Also volcanic activity and it's impacts are included in every climate model.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,032 Senior Member
    tennmike said:
    So again, it’s never been 95 degrees in Washington before?  I seem to recall a lot rather miserable days I DC in the 80s and in them old days the whole government would take the summer off because of the heat/humidity...  I read that in Teddy Roosevelt’s bio...
    Wasn't remotely the point. The point is the greenhouse efffect is scientific fact and can be easily proven in ways that even the most obstinate of deniers can understand. 
    Some facts from actual scientists, not sound bite talking points on global climate:

    https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives/its-water-vapor-not-the-co2.html


    It’s Water Vapor, Not the CO2

    ACS Climate Science Toolkit | Narratives

    Remark: “The Earth has certainly been warming since we have added so much CO2 to the atmosphere from fossil fuel burning.”
    Reply: “Forget the CO2. Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It controls the Earth’s temperature.”
    It’s true that water vapor is the largest contributor to the Earth’s greenhouse effect. On average, it probably accounts for about 60% of the warming effect. However, water vapor does not control the Earth’s temperature, but is instead controlled by the temperature. This is because the temperature of the surrounding atmosphere limits the maximum amount of water vapor the atmosphere can contain. If a volume of air contains its maximum amount of water vapor and the temperature is decreased, some of the water vapor will condense to form liquid water. This is why clouds form as warm air containing water vapor rises and cools at higher altitudes where the water condenses to the tiny droplets that make up clouds.

    The greenhouse effect that has maintained the Earth’s temperature at a level warm enough for human civilization to develop over the past several millennia is controlled by non-condensable gases, mainly carbon dioxide, CO2, with smaller contributions from methane, CH4, nitrous oxide, N2O, and ozone, O3. Since the middle of the 20th century, small amounts of man-made gases, mostly chlorine- and fluorine-containing solvents and refrigerants, have been added to the mix. Because these gases are not condensable at atmospheric temperatures and pressures, the atmosphere can pack in much more of these gases . Thus, CO2 (as well as CH4, N2O, and O3) has been building up in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution when we began burning large amounts of fossil fuel.

    If there had been no increase in the amounts of non-condensable greenhouse gases, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere would not have changed with all other variables remaining the same. The addition of the non-condensable gases causes the temperature to increase and this leads to an increase in water vapor that further increases the temperature. This is an example of a positive feedback effect. The warming due to increasing non-condensable gases causes more water vapor to enter the atmosphere, which adds to the effect of the non-condensables.

    There is also a possibility that adding more water vapor to the atmosphere could produce a negative feedback effect. This could happen if more water vapor leads to more cloud formation. Clouds reflect sunlight and reduce the amount of energy that reaches the Earth’s surface to warm it. If the amount of solar warming decreases, then the temperature of the Earth would decrease. In that case, the effect of adding more water vapor would be cooling rather than warming. But cloud cover does mean more condensed water in the atmosphere, making for a stronger greenhouse effect than non-condensed water vapor alone – it is warmer on a cloudy winter day than on a clear one. Thus the possible positive and negative feedbacks associated with increased water vapor and cloud formation can cancel one another out and complicate matters. The actual balance between them is an active area of climate science research.

    :D Booyah, Baby! :D
    Wait do you even read what you post. You just posted an article that uses science to debunk the exact point you were trying to make. Nice one Mike! 
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • Wambli SkaWambli Ska Moderator Posts: 26,703 Senior Member
    So again, it’s never been 95 degrees in Washington before?  I seem to recall a lot rather miserable days I DC in the 80s and in them old days the whole government would take the summer off because of the heat/humidity...  I read that in Teddy Roosevelt’s bio...
    Wasn't remotely the point. The point is the greenhouse efffect is scientific fact and can be easily proven in ways that even the most obstinate of deniers can understand. 
    If it wasn’t “remotely the point” what on God’s earth could your comment about locking me for a few hours in a black car in Washington’s typical summer weather could possibly bring to this conversation except hearing yourself propose something silly?
    "Attack rapidly, ruthlessly, viciously, without rest, however tired and hungry you may be, the enemy will be more tired, more hungry. Keep punching." General George S. Patton
Sign In or Register to comment.