NASA head changes mind on Climate Change

135

Replies

  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 26,294 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.


    If the U.S. Congress was put in charge of the Sahara Desert, there would be a shortage of sand in under six months.



  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 26,294 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! :)
    If the U.S. Congress was put in charge of the Sahara Desert, there would be a shortage of sand in under six months.



  • FisheadgibFisheadgib Senior Member Posts: 5,797 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: 8,908 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: 7,272 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.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,908 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
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,908 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
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 26,294 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 )


    If the U.S. Congress was put in charge of the Sahara Desert, there would be a shortage of sand in under six months.



  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 26,294 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.
    If the U.S. Congress was put in charge of the Sahara Desert, there would be a shortage of sand in under six months.



  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 4,083 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: 8,908 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: 5,797 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: 4,380 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: 26,294 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
    If the U.S. Congress was put in charge of the Sahara Desert, there would be a shortage of sand in under six months.



  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,908 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: 8,908 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
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 4,083 Senior Member
    Soooooo, no carbon tax then?

    🏃
  • MichakavMichakav Senior Member Posts: 2,474 Senior Member

    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.

    Do you drive a car? Do you change the oil? Do you buy tires for that car? Do you drink from plastic? Do you use electricity?....etc...You are part of the problem that you are SO concerned about. That makes what you say worth a pile of beans.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 26,294 Senior Member
    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! 
    Actually, NO. It proves that your massive fixation on CO2 is indicative of a neurosis. An increase or decrease in solar output has a HUGE effect on cloud formation and the amount of water in the atmosphere. Or did you forget that.

    Why is it hotter this year than the last few years? Maybe it is because of the La Nina effect in the Pacific Ocean that started last Fall. We'd been in a longer than normal El Nino pattern, and then La Nina showed up and messed up both ocean currents AND the jet stream. You're confusing weather with climate change. Which just goes to prove that little things that happen, like warming or cooling surface temperatures in the Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian Oceans have some profound effects on weather. The Earth's climate..........er..............weather patterns can change in big ways with warming and cooling of ocean surface temps. And a large upwelling of really cold deep ocean currents can throw a wrench in the works that lasts for years. Those deep cold ocean currents change from time to time, and wreak havoc on the weather. And those deep ocean currents haven't been studied all that long with any high dollar funding like global warming/global cooling/climate change. No scary scenario to get money for funding for that.

    And you have not acknowledged that the volcanic activity at the South Pole is a large part of the ice melt. I suspect that since it doesn't fit your narrative that you are content to ignore that fact. I've also thrown out some other things that effect the climate, and you've ignored those, too. They must not fit your narrative or 'lens', either.

    Without CO2 plants would die off pretty rapidly, and the remaining ones would be severely stunted. That would solve the overpopulation thing pretty definitively, though.

    When all y'all climate change fanatics show me DEFINITIVE PROOF that the climate models show a 100 out of 100 same conclusion run on the model, then I might put some weight to them. As they are now, they are about as accurate as shooting at a target 10,000 kilometers away with a Daisy Red Rider BB gun. The climate of Earth is WAY more complicated than you make it out to be, and has some really erratic inputs. That's why the models don't give the same results over many runs of the program.

    Here's an idea. Instead of being a 'sand crab' contractor with the Navy, why don't you sign up with some folks doing THIS stuff. Renewable fuel from CO2.

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170605110809.htm

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/splitting-carbon-dioxide/


    If the U.S. Congress was put in charge of the Sahara Desert, there would be a shortage of sand in under six months.



  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,908 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?
    Was a direct response to your proposal that I stop breathing. Admittedly neither of our best exchanges on the forum. Anyway.

    I think 30 years from now you'll either look back with significant regret at the world your grandchildren and great grandchildren are inheriting or you'll thank you're lucky stars that despite all the heel dragging and denial of people like you as a society we we're able to make enough change to avoid some of the worst potential outcomes. I'd be willing to bet any 3 firearms in my collection against your Wilson combat 1911...
    "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: 8,908 Senior Member
    tennmike said:
    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! 
    Actually, NO. It proves that your massive fixation on CO2 is indicative of a neurosis. An increase or decrease in solar output has a HUGE effect on cloud formation and the amount of water in the atmosphere. Or did you forget that.

    Why is it hotter this year than the last few years? Maybe it is because of the La Nina effect in the Pacific Ocean that started last Fall. We'd been in a longer than normal El Nino pattern, and then La Nina showed up and messed up both ocean currents AND the jet stream. You're confusing weather with climate change. Which just goes to prove that little things that happen, like warming or cooling surface temperatures in the Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian Oceans have some profound effects on weather. The Earth's climate..........er..............weather patterns can change in big ways with warming and cooling of ocean surface temps. And a large upwelling of really cold deep ocean currents can throw a wrench in the works that lasts for years. Those deep cold ocean currents change from time to time, and wreak havoc on the weather. And those deep ocean currents haven't been studied all that long with any high dollar funding like global warming/global cooling/climate change. No scary scenario to get money for funding for that.

    And you have not acknowledged that the volcanic activity at the South Pole is a large part of the ice melt. I suspect that since it doesn't fit your narrative that you are content to ignore that fact. I've also thrown out some other things that effect the climate, and you've ignored those, too. They must not fit your narrative or 'lens', either.

    Without CO2 plants would die off pretty rapidly, and the remaining ones would be severely stunted. That would solve the overpopulation thing pretty definitively, though.

    When all y'all climate change fanatics show me DEFINITIVE PROOF that the climate models show a 100 out of 100 same conclusion run on the model, then I might put some weight to them. As they are now, they are about as accurate as shooting at a target 10,000 kilometers away with a Daisy Red Rider BB gun. The climate of Earth is WAY more complicated than you make it out to be, and has some really erratic inputs. That's why the models don't give the same results over many runs of the program.

    Here's an idea. Instead of being a 'sand crab' contractor with the Navy, why don't you sign up with some folks doing THIS stuff. Renewable fuel from CO2.

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170605110809.htm

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/splitting-carbon-dioxide/


    All good Mike I get it, you will go to your grave insisting that climate change is a giant hoax. That's ok. When that happens there will still be lots of us here to deal with it and keep working on mitigation and adaptation. 

    As for the technology it's just another energy storage system, basically like using electrolysis to turn electricity into hydrogen. Seems possibly slightly better because you don't have all the terrible issues with hydrogen like pressurization, storage, etc, but it's not an energy source and on net a significant energy loser. Could possibly be a solution for solar and wing powered fuel production for the few things that aren't able to be electrified like ocean transport and air travel. Still probably better than most biofuels.
    "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
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,774 Senior Member
    Once again, it's all conjecture if you can't eliminate the possibility, or actually the likelihood, that natural weather cycles, volcanic activity, solar flares, and a few hundred other natural changes have greater effect on the earth than the piddly changes that humans have had on the evolution of the earth.

    Man-made climate change, evolution, atheism, and white racism make up the religion of leftists, worldwide, and they are all based on unproven theory...just as surely as any other religion is based on faith. If you want to believe it, fine, but don't change the scientific rules about what is fact and what is theory to advance your religion. It is no different from a Baptist telling you that you're going to hell for not believing that Jesus was the son of God.
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,272 Senior Member
    Michakav said:

    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.

    Do you drive a car? Do you change the oil? Do you buy tires for that car? Do you drink from plastic? Do you use electricity?....etc...You are part of the problem that you are SO concerned about. That makes what you say worth a pile of beans.
    And then there are those big jets he will fly around the planet on checking out energy wasting military bases.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,272 Senior Member
    cpj said:
    Here’s my beef with climate change, or whatever it’s called today. 

    Assume the earth is only 100,000 years old. (Its older, roll with it)

    We are studying a 125-ish year period. Why do I say that? That’s roughly (I’m not researching) how long records have been kept. We are looking at a few degrees either way. 

    To say this time period is statistically insignificant is an understatement. 

    And with that, the accuracy of which temps are measured has improved. 

    Please  don’t bother with “well, they have drilled holes in ice and rocks and trees and through dinosaur skulls and it says the earth was X degrees cooler 8 million years ago. “

    Some ice/rock/tree/petrified dinosaur dick is going to be accurate enough to tell the diffence in two degrees over time? Bull ****. 

    That's exactly the point of the opposition to this "climate change" dogma. When you factor in the fact that earths actual age is BILLIONS of years, with fluctuations between molten rock, thousands of years of rains, creating tropical inland seas and then frozen wastelands, that is why a lot of us are skeptical. I couldn't give a crap less about the left-wing hysteria on this subject. Their "evidence" is going to have to be a LOT more convincing to make me believe this is nothing more than a worldwide tax scam.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,774 Senior Member
    cpj said:
    Here’s my beef with climate change, or whatever it’s called today. 

    Assume the earth is only 100,000 years old. (Its older, roll with it)

    We are studying a 125-ish year period. Why do I say that? That’s roughly (I’m not researching) how long records have been kept. We are looking at a few degrees either way. 

    To say this time period is statistically insignificant is an understatement. 

    And with that, the accuracy of which temps are measured has improved. 

    Please  don’t bother with “well, they have drilled holes in ice and rocks and trees and through dinosaur skulls and it says the earth was X degrees cooler 8 million years ago. “

    Some ice/rock/tree/petrified dinosaur dick is going to be accurate enough to tell the diffence in two degrees over time? Bull ****. 

    That is the gist of the problem.

    The current climate change narrative contains some actual scientific evidence that man is capable of contributing to a slight increase in temperatures, but zero proof that naturally occurring weather change events don't dwarf the input of man, to global warming.

    The temperature estimates by scientists during the time that life has been present indicate that the average temperature of the entire earth was once at about 73 degrees, which is about 20 degrees higher than it is now. But they also can prove that we have had at least five major ice ages, suggesting that the temperature was likely much lower than now. The 'mini ice age' that afflicted Europe for about 500 years was coming to an end about the same time that the temperature started to be accurately measured and recorded, so that raises questions about the starting temperature of the computer model used in climate change arguments, and whether the industrial age actually had any significant effect on rising temperatures.

    So, if you apply the scientific threshold that every other theory has to meet, to become scientific fact, the current climate change narrative is...nowhere. All of the dire predictions may come true, but if they do, they would have anyway. More likely, the weather cycle will, at some point, swing back to cooler temperatures.

    An honest climate change study would be trying to predict that, instead of using half-baked science to press a political position.


  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 26,294 Senior Member
    All good Mike I get it, you will go to your grave insisting that climate change is a giant hoax. That's ok. When that happens there will still be lots of us here to deal with it and keep working on mitigation and adaptation. 

    As for the technology it's just another energy storage system, basically like using electrolysis to turn electricity into hydrogen. Seems possibly slightly better because you don't have all the terrible issues with hydrogen like pressurization, storage, etc, but it's not an energy source and on net a significant energy loser. Could possibly be a solution for solar and wing powered fuel production for the few things that aren't able to be electrified like ocean transport and air travel. Still probably better than most biofuels.
    You'd be wrong. I KNOW from the science already done on the past going back millions of years that the climate changes on a (geological time) frequent basis. It has done so since the molten planet cooled enough for liquid water to form. There have been supervolcanoes  like the one in Yellowstone that have changed the climate for long periods of time when they erupted; nuclear winter without the nuclear part. VERY large meteors have hit this planet and caused worldwide climate change that killed off most life. The Sun has pitched fits and bombarded the planet with high energy particle and EM energy  from solar mass ejections and wiped out huge amounts of life. Proton, neutron, gamma, and X-ray radiation are bad, K? The magnetic poles have flipped a few times leaving the Earth vulnerable to the full force of the solar wind and particle bombardment for thousands of years while the poles realigned. Over geologic time, CO2 and other greenhouse gases have fluctuated with wild swings. I BELIEVE the climate changes because of ACTUAL PROOF and the application of logic. Where we differ is the human input and the effect on climate. If it wouldn't cause ME a problem, and I could do it, I'd shut off the light from the Sun for a few weeks and let you Disciples of the Church of Manmade Climate Change figure out that the Sun is pretty important to our climate. It would be a fun experiment, and probably produce a lot of heretics in the manmade climate change camp.

    You're in or at least near Washington, D.C. It might interest you to know that there are HUGE deposits of Methane hydrates along the Atlantic Coast and in the Gulf of Mexico. The  methane deposits along the coasts are actually worldwide. And they are ALL seeping methane gas. A few good earthquakes along these deposits and they would outclass anything we're doing with CO2 production as a greenhouse gas. Gigantic Earth farts. If there's actually earthquakes or landslides in the ocean where those deposits exist, and there's a strong East wind, don't go around striking matches. :D

    Libtard news source:
    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/underwater-methane-gas-plumes-erupting-along-atlantic-coast/

    Gooberment news source:
    https://www.energy.gov/fe/science-innovation/oil-gas-research/methane-hydrate

    Actual science news source:
    http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/08/numerous-methane-leaks-found-atlantic-sea-floor



    If the U.S. Congress was put in charge of the Sahara Desert, there would be a shortage of sand in under six months.



  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 26,294 Senior Member
    There are roughly 7.6 billion people on the planet. Each person emits 2.3 lbs of CO2 per day with the heavy exercisers/workers emitting up to 8 times that figure. That equals to 17,480,000,000 lbs of CO2 emissions per day, or 8,740,000 tons of CO2 per day. Burning a gallon of gasoline emits 19.6 pounds of CO2.
    How to reduce CO2 emissions? Reduce the population to pre Dark Ages level. ALL CO2 production from the population would be reduced to an insignificant level. See! EZPZ!
    If the U.S. Congress was put in charge of the Sahara Desert, there would be a shortage of sand in under six months.



  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,908 Senior Member
    tennmike said:
    There are roughly 7.6 billion people on the planet. Each person emits 2.3 lbs of CO2 per day with the heavy exercisers/workers emitting up to 8 times that figure. That equals to 17,480,000,000 lbs of CO2 emissions per day, or 8,740,000 tons of CO2 per day. Burning a gallon of gasoline emits 19.6 pounds of CO2.
    How to reduce CO2 emissions? Reduce the population to pre Dark Ages level. ALL CO2 production from the population would be reduced to an insignificant level. See! EZPZ!
    Since we're doing mass balances, the world consumes 93 Million barrels of oil a day. a barrel is 42 gallons so that's 3.9 Billion gallons a day. As you suggested each gallon produces 19.6 lbs of CO2. Doing the math I get 38 million tons a day from just burning oil or close to 5 times the amount from breathing alone. That's just oil and doesn't include natural gas and coal which are also huge emitters. I could quickly look up totals, but it's safe to say energy alone is at least 10x the emissions before we even touch agriculture, deforestation, and other anthropogenic sources of emissions.
    "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
  • JayJay Senior Member Posts: 3,339 Senior Member

    So 42 gallons of oil in a barrel equates to 42 gallons of gasoline?

  • JayJay Senior Member Posts: 3,339 Senior Member
    Or all 42 gallons of oil are burned. so every gallon produces co2, I guess? 
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.