Makes up for decades of coal smoke from the Ohio Valley drifting up to SE Canada and the American NE.
Makes up for decades of coal smoke from the Ohio Valley drifting up to SE Canada and the American NE.
On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 16:36:13 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Makes up for decades of coal smoke from the Ohio Valley drifting up to SE Canada and the American NE.Complicated by the reality that the burning of that coal is why the
fires are burning at all.
On Wednesday, 7 June 2023 at 12:47:18 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 16:36:13 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Makes up for decades of coal smoke from the Ohio Valley drifting up to SE Canada and the American NE.Complicated by the reality that the burning of that coal is why the
fires are burning at all.
Last year we had El Nina and it was cool, the global warming opportunists were quiet. This year, we have El Nino a NATURAL heating event and of COURSE
the global warmists are screeching...
On Thu, 8 Jun 2023 19:46:45 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Wednesday, 7 June 2023 at 12:47:18 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 16:36:13 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
Makes up for decades of coal smoke from the Ohio Valley drifting up
to SE Canada and the American NE.
Complicated by the reality that the burning of that coal is why the fires are burning at all.
Last year we had El Nina and it was cool, the global warming opportunists were quiet. This year, we have El Nino a NATURAL heating event and of COURSE the global warmists are screeching...
You are brain damaged.
On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 10:58:05?AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jun 2023 19:46:45 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Wednesday, 7 June 2023 at 12:47:18 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:You are brain damaged.
On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 16:36:13 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Makes up for decades of coal smoke from the Ohio Valley drifting up
to SE Canada and the American NE.
Complicated by the reality that the burning of that coal is why the
fires are burning at all.
Last year we had El Nina and it was cool, the global warming opportunists >> > were quiet. This year, we have El Nino a NATURAL heating event and of
COURSE the global warmists are screeching...
It is not "brain damaged" to point out another logical fallacy:
Makes up for decades of coal smoke from the Ohio Valley drifting up to SE Canada and the American NE.
On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 10:43:59 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
<hit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 10:58:05?AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jun 2023 19:46:45 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, 7 June 2023 at 12:47:18 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
Last year we had El Nina and it was cool, the global warming opportunists
were quiet. This year, we have El Nino a NATURAL heating event and of COURSE the global warmists are screeching...
You are brain damaged.
It is not "brain damaged" to point out another logical fallacy:There is no logical fallacy.
"7. observational selection, also called the enumeration of favorable circumstances,or as the philosopher Francis Bacon described it, counting the hits and forgetting
There is nothing but a lack of logic and a lack of knowledge.
And he is objectively sociopathic,
and that is reasonably described as brain damage.
On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 5:36:15?PM UTC-6, RichA wrote:
Makes up for decades of coal smoke from the Ohio Valley drifting up to SE Canada and the American NE.
And now I hear that Norwegian observers are going to also join in
the misery.
John Savard
Nobody is going to trust experimental theorists with the Earth science of climate when the same theorists can't handle the daily rise and fall in temperatures as the planet turns once giving rise to a sunrise/noon/sunset every 24 hours and a thousandrotations in a thousand 24 hour days.
" It is a fact not generally known that, owing to the difference between solar and sidereal time, the Earth rotates upon its axis once more often than there are 24-hour days in the year" NASA /Harvardand stature exist.
Planetary climate relies on solar system researchers with a full understanding of the daily and annual cycles and what motions are behind them. From over 30 years of experience in this newsgroup, or what is left of it, no such researchers of integrity
On Sunday, 11 June 2023 at 15:51:35 UTC-4, Gerald Kelleher wrote:rotations in a thousand 24 hour days.
Nobody is going to trust experimental theorists with the Earth science of climate when the same theorists can't handle the daily rise and fall in temperatures as the planet turns once giving rise to a sunrise/noon/sunset every 24 hours and a thousand
integrity and stature exist." It is a fact not generally known that, owing to the difference between solar and sidereal time, the Earth rotates upon its axis once more often than there are 24-hour days in the year" NASA /Harvard
Planetary climate relies on solar system researchers with a full understanding of the daily and annual cycles and what motions are behind them. From over 30 years of experience in this newsgroup, or what is left of it, no such researchers of
Begin worrying when these psychotics get plans into their heads like seeding the atmosphere with things like sulfur particles. Screen out sunlight? Allowing acidic conversion of the sulfur to do what those same kooks said it was doing in the 1970's,warming about acid rain. If they want to squander the public's money building billion $ machines to suck CO2 out of the air, put them in jail.
Nobody is going to trust experimental theorists with the Earth science of climate when
the same theorists can't handle the daily rise and fall in temperatures as the planet
turns once giving rise to a sunrise/noon/sunset every 24 hours and a thousand rotations in a thousand 24 hour days.
" It is a fact not generally known that, owing to the difference between solar and sidereal
time, the Earth rotates upon its axis once more often than there are 24-hour days in the
year" NASA /Harvard
On Sunday, June 11, 2023 at 1:51:35 PM UTC-6, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
Nobody is going to trust experimental theorists with the Earth
science of climate when the same theorists can't handle the daily
rise and fall in temperatures as the planet turns once giving rise
to a sunrise/noon/sunset every 24 hours and a thousand rotations in
a thousand 24 hour days.
Nobody? *You* may not trust these "experimental theorists", but
wandering over the newsgroups, neither here, nor in
rec.arts.sf.written, or even in a couple of other ones, you have not
yet found any kindred spirit.
The experimental theorists certainly can handle the daily rise and
fall in temperature. Any location on the Earth is brought to face the
Sun once every 24 hours - by what is, in their eyes, the
_combination_ of the Earth's rotation and the Earth's orbital motion
around the Sun. Since the Earth's orbital motion moves the Earth, so
that the Sun is not in the same direction from the Earth after 24
hours have passed, *of course* the Earth has to make slightly more
than one rotation in order to bring the same locations to face the
Sun again.
What could possibly be the *problem* with that?
" It is a fact not generally known that, owing to the difference
between solar and sidereal time, the Earth rotates upon its axis
once more often than there are 24-hour days in the year" NASA
/Harvard
On the other hand,
"It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in
possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife." - Jane Austen
Of course, she was being facetious.
John Savard
Makes up for decades of coal smoke from the Ohio Valley drifting up to SE Canada and the American NE.Last year we had La Ninya and despite that cooling effect it was the sixth warmest year on record.
On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 10:58:05 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:Gary despite the cooling effect of LaNinya it was the sixth warmest year on record.
On Thu, 8 Jun 2023 19:46:45 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Wednesday, 7 June 2023 at 12:47:18 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 16:36:13 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
Makes up for decades of coal smoke from the Ohio Valley drifting up to SE Canada and the American NE.
Complicated by the reality that the burning of that coal is why the fires are burning at all.
Last year we had El Nina and it was cool, the global warming opportunists
were quiet. This year, we have El Nino a NATURAL heating event and of COURSE the global warmists are screeching...
You are brain damaged.It is not "brain damaged" to point out another logical fallacy:
"7. observational selection, also called the enumeration of favorable circumstances,
or as the philosopher Francis Bacon described it, counting the hits and forgetting
the misses" (which is something we ALL do -- it's a human thing)
and, of course,
1. ad hominem
https://www.themarginalian.org/2014/01/03/baloney-detection-kit-carl-sagan/
On Friday, 9 June 2023 at 18:44:01 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 10:58:05 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jun 2023 19:46:45 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, 7 June 2023 at 12:47:18 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
Complicated by the reality that the burning of that coal is why the fires are burning at all.
Last year we had El Nina and it was cool, the global warming opportunists
were quiet. This year, we have El Nino a NATURAL heating event and of COURSE the global warmists are screeching...
You are brain damaged.
It is not "brain damaged" to point out another logical fallacy:
"7. observational selection, also called the enumeration of favorable circumstances,
or as the philosopher Francis Bacon described it, counting the hits and forgetting
the misses" (which is something we ALL do -- it's a human thing)
and, of course,
1. ad hominem
https://www.themarginalian.org/2014/01/03/baloney-detection-kit-carl-sagan/
Gary despite the cooling effect of LaNinya it was the sixth warmest year on record.
On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 3:57:16?PM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote:
On Friday, 9 June 2023 at 18:44:01 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 10:58:05?AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jun 2023 19:46:45 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
wrote:
You are brain damaged.
On Wednesday, 7 June 2023 at 12:47:18 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote: >> > > > >
Complicated by the reality that the burning of that coal is why the >> > > > > fires are burning at all.
Last year we had El Nina and it was cool, the global warming opportunists
were quiet. This year, we have El Nino a NATURAL heating event and of >> > > > COURSE the global warmists are screeching...
It is not "brain damaged" to point out another logical fallacy:
"7. observational selection, also called the enumeration of favorable circumstances,
or as the philosopher Francis Bacon described it, counting the hits and forgetting
the misses" (which is something we ALL do -- it's a human thing)
and, of course,
1. ad hominem
https://www.themarginalian.org/2014/01/03/baloney-detection-kit-carl-sagan/
Gary despite the cooling effect of LaNinya it was the sixth warmest year on record.
I said nothing about climate. I merely pointed out that calling someone "brain-damaged"
is a personal attack and that everyone seems to see only the evidence that agrees with
their beliefs/agenda and ignores the evidence to the contrary.
On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 3:57:16 PM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote:Let’s start with the fact that the ten warmest years on record (ie since 1880 have all been since 2010.
On Friday, 9 June 2023 at 18:44:01 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 10:58:05 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jun 2023 19:46:45 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, 7 June 2023 at 12:47:18 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
Complicated by the reality that the burning of that coal is why the
fires are burning at all.
Last year we had El Nina and it was cool, the global warming opportunists
were quiet. This year, we have El Nino a NATURAL heating event and of
COURSE the global warmists are screeching...
You are brain damaged.
It is not "brain damaged" to point out another logical fallacy:
"7. observational selection, also called the enumeration of favorable circumstances,
or as the philosopher Francis Bacon described it, counting the hits and forgetting
the misses" (which is something we ALL do -- it's a human thing)
and, of course,
1. ad hominem
https://www.themarginalian.org/2014/01/03/baloney-detection-kit-carl-sagan/
Gary despite the cooling effect of LaNinya it was the sixth warmest year on record.I said nothing about climate. I merely pointed out that calling someone "brain-damaged"
is a personal attack and that everyone seems to see only the evidence that agrees with
their beliefs/agenda and ignores the evidence to the contrary.
But if you would like to discuss climate, I'm willing. To start off, let's say that it was the
"sixth warmest year on record." What conclusion should we draw from that? Or should
we not draw conclusions?
Calling someone "brain-damaged" when they demonstrate mental illness,
as Rich does, is not a personal attack. It is a statement of fact.
On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 8:01:01?AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
Calling someone "brain-damaged" when they demonstrate mental illness,
as Rich does, is not a personal attack. It is a statement of fact.
Although calling someone "stupid" when they express opinions you disagree >with is still an insult, if it's hard to understand how they came to these beliefs,
and it's frustrating to discuss the matter with him or her, is still an insult, I
have to admit it can sometimes be understandable.
But calling someone "brain damaged" states, without evidence, a particular >etiology for the apparent stupidity you percieve. So it is _not_ a statement of fact,
and it's really the sort of thing one should refrain from.
On Sat, 17 Jun 2023 23:15:39 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 8:01:01?AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
Calling someone "brain-damaged" when they demonstrate mental illness,
as Rich does, is not a personal attack. It is a statement of fact.
Although calling someone "stupid" when they express opinions you disagree with is still an insult, if it's hard to understand how they came to these beliefs,
and it's frustrating to discuss the matter with him or her, is still an insult, I
have to admit it can sometimes be understandable.
But calling someone "brain damaged" states, without evidence, a particular etiology for the apparent stupidity you percieve. So it is _not_ a statement of fact,
and it's really the sort of thing one should refrain from.
He is objectively a sociopath.
He is objectively unable to manage anger.
He is objectively a science denier.
All are clinically defined dysfunctions,
which I think can reasonably be summarized as "brain damaged).
Indeed, I do not think he is stupid. Just mentally ill.
On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 7:49:44?AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jun 2023 23:15:39 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 8:01:01?AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
Calling someone "brain-damaged" when they demonstrate mental illness,
as Rich does, is not a personal attack. It is a statement of fact.
Although calling someone "stupid" when they express opinions you disagree >> > with is still an insult, if it's hard to understand how they came to these beliefs,
and it's frustrating to discuss the matter with him or her, is still an insult, I
have to admit it can sometimes be understandable.
But calling someone "brain damaged" states, without evidence, a particular >> > etiology for the apparent stupidity you percieve. So it is _not_ a statement of fact,
and it's really the sort of thing one should refrain from.
He is objectively a sociopath.
I don't see it that way, so maybe it's not as "objective" as you believe.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/antisocial-personality-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20353928
"Antisocial personality disorder, sometimes called sociopathy, is a mental health
condition in which a person consistently shows no regard for right and wrong and
ignores the rights and feelings of others. People with antisocial personality disorder
tend to purposely make others angry or upset and manipulate or treat others harshly
or with cruel indifference. They lack remorse or do not regret their behavior."
In what way does Rich show "no regard for right and wrong and ignores the rights
and feelings of others"?
He is objectively unable to manage anger.
I don't see that behavior.
He is objectively a science denier.
He has opinions, just as you and I do.
When someone disagrees strongly with me, I don't necessarily consider
him either stupid or mentally ill.
I once sat in a meeting at CSU where an invited professor was debunking >global warming. There was a fellow sitting in the row in front of me who
was extremely agitated by what the speaker was saying. In fact, I was
afraid he was going to have a heart attack or a stroke. He acted as if his >religion was being attacked. Could that have been you, Chris? :-)
On Mon, 19 Jun 2023 13:07:00 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
<hit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 7:49:44?AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
He is objectively a sociopath.
I don't see it that way, so maybe it's not as "objective" as you believe.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/antisocial-personality-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20353928
"Antisocial personality disorder, sometimes called sociopathy, is a mental health
condition in which a person consistently shows no regard for right and wrong and
ignores the rights and feelings of others. People with antisocial personality disorder
tend to purposely make others angry or upset and manipulate or treat others harshly
or with cruel indifference. They lack remorse or do not regret their behavior."
In what way does Rich show "no regard for right and wrong and ignores the rights
and feelings of others"?
He is objectively unable to manage anger.
I don't see that behavior.
You mean aside from all the hatred and anger directed at people he
doesn't agree with, and the thread of racism and classism that runs
through much of it?
He is objectively a science denier.
He has opinions, just as you and I do.
You can't have opinions about facts.
But you're a science denier as well, so I don't expect you to get that.
Not until you get therapy.
When someone disagrees strongly with me, I don't necessarily consider
him either stupid or mentally ill.
Neither do I.
But when they deny facts, there's a good chance that's the problem.
I once sat in a meeting at CSU where an invited professor was debunking global warming. There was a fellow sitting in the row in front of me who was extremely agitated by what the speaker was saying. In fact, I was afraid he was going to have a heart attack or a stroke. He acted as if his religion was being attacked. Could that have been you, Chris? :-)
No. But debunking global warming is science denial,
and that guy should not have been present in that venue.
On Monday, June 19, 2023 at 4:41:21?PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jun 2023 13:07:00 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
<hit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 7:49:44?AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
He is objectively a sociopath.
I don't see it that way, so maybe it's not as "objective" as you believe. >> >
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/antisocial-personality-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20353928
"Antisocial personality disorder, sometimes called sociopathy, is a mental health
condition in which a person consistently shows no regard for right and wrong and
ignores the rights and feelings of others. People with antisocial personality disorder
tend to purposely make others angry or upset and manipulate or treat others harshly
or with cruel indifference. They lack remorse or do not regret their behavior."
In what way does Rich show "no regard for right and wrong and ignores the rights
and feelings of others"?
He is objectively unable to manage anger.
I don't see that behavior.
You mean aside from all the hatred and anger directed at people he
doesn't agree with, and the thread of racism and classism that runs
through much of it?
I'd say it's pot; kettle, black.
He is objectively a science denier.
He has opinions, just as you and I do.
You can't have opinions about facts.
"Facts" are slippery things. Particle physicists don't say that a particle >has been discovered unless the evidence says it's five nines certain.
Even then, there's one chance in a 100,000 they're wrong. Most of us
go with two or three nines (one chance in a 100 or 1000) that we're
wrong. So "facts" seldom exist absolutely.
But you're a science denier as well, so I don't expect you to get that.
Nope. I'm not the one that believes in one nines (or less than one nine) >climate opinion and denies DNA.
Not until you get therapy.
Pot, kettle, black.
When someone disagrees strongly with me, I don't necessarily consider
him either stupid or mentally ill.
Neither do I.
:-))
But when they deny facts, there's a good chance that's the problem.
What you call "facts" have a large uncertainty factor.
I once sat in a meeting at CSU where an invited professor was debunking
global warming. There was a fellow sitting in the row in front of me who >> > was extremely agitated by what the speaker was saying. In fact, I was
afraid he was going to have a heart attack or a stroke. He acted as if his >> > religion was being attacked. Could that have been you, Chris? :-)
No. But debunking global warming is science denial,
No, it's not. The problem is, YOU aren't a scientist. Remember, science is >skepticism.
and that guy should not have been present in that venue.
Why not? Shouldn't he be FULLY informed about a subject? How can one be >informed if he doesn't consider the evidence on both sides?
https://www.themarginalian.org/2014/01/03/baloney-detection-kit-carl-sagan/
DO:
1. Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts. >2. Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents
of all points of view.
3. Arguments from authority carry little weight authorities have made mistakes
in the past. They will do so again in the future.
4. Spin more than one hypothesis.
DON'T:
1. ad hominem -- attack the arguer and not the argument
2. argue from authority
3. argue from adverse consequences
6. assume the answer
7. observational selection
12. post hoc, ergo propter hoc
14. false dichotomy
18. straw man
19. half truths
The "left" pundits employs too many of the don'ts and too few of the dos.
The don'ts are only useful to those who want to shut down discussion and >impose fascism. If they were really concerned about global warming, they >would be encouraging debate and spinning more than one solution, but the
only solution is to stop drilling and suffer, whereas there are alternatives, >and the "science" is far from settled.
There are even things we could do right now that are good for the economy
and for global warming, but aren't catastrophic if global warming became >global cooling.
On Tue, 20 Jun 2023 07:52:51 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
<hit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Monday, June 19, 2023 at 4:41:21?PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
You mean aside from all the hatred and anger directed at people he doesn't agree with, and the thread of racism and classism that runs through much of it?
I'd say it's pot; kettle, black.
You can't have opinions about facts.
"Facts" are slippery things. Particle physicists don't say that a particle has been discovered unless the evidence says it's five nines certain.
Even then, there's one chance in a 100,000 they're wrong. Most of us
go with two or three nines (one chance in a 100 or 1000) that we're
wrong. So "facts" seldom exist absolutely.
But you're a science denier as well, so I don't expect you to get that.
Nope. I'm not the one that believes in one nines (or less than one nine) climate opinion and denies DNA.
Not until you get therapy.
Pot, kettle, black.
But when they deny facts, there's a good chance that's the problem.
What you call "facts" have a large uncertainty factor.
No. But debunking global warming is science denial,
No, it's not. The problem is, YOU aren't a scientist. Remember, science is skepticism.
and that guy should not have been present in that venue.
Why not? Shouldn't he be FULLY informed about a subject? How can one be informed if he doesn't consider the evidence on both sides?
https://www.themarginalian.org/2014/01/03/baloney-detection-kit-carl-sagan/
DO:
1. Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.”
2. Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents
of all points of view.
3. Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made mistakes
in the past. They will do so again in the future.
4. Spin more than one hypothesis.
DON'T:
1. ad hominem -- attack the arguer and not the argument
2. argue from authority
3. argue from adverse consequences
6. assume the answer
7. observational selection
12. post hoc, ergo propter hoc
14. false dichotomy
18. straw man
19. half truths
The "left" pundits employs too many of the don'ts and too few of the dos. The don'ts are only useful to those who want to shut down discussion and impose fascism. If they were really concerned about global warming, they would be encouraging debate and spinning more than one solution, but the only solution is to stop drilling and suffer, whereas there are alternatives,
and the "science" is far from settled.
There are even things we could do right now that are good for the economy and for global warming, but aren't catastrophic if global warming became global cooling.
The uncertainty factor regarding the existence and magnitude of human
caused global warming is on the same order as the uncertainty factor
that the Earth isn't flat.
You aren't just a science denier, you are a pseudoscientist.
On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 9:40:05?AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jun 2023 07:52:51 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
<hit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Monday, June 19, 2023 at 4:41:21?PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
You mean aside from all the hatred and anger directed at people he
doesn't agree with, and the thread of racism and classism that runs
through much of it?
I'd say it's pot; kettle, black.
You can't have opinions about facts.
"Facts" are slippery things. Particle physicists don't say that a particle >> > has been discovered unless the evidence says it's five nines certain.
Even then, there's one chance in a 100,000 they're wrong. Most of us
go with two or three nines (one chance in a 100 or 1000) that we're
wrong. So "facts" seldom exist absolutely.
But you're a science denier as well, so I don't expect you to get that. >> >Nope. I'm not the one that believes in one nines (or less than one nine) >> > climate opinion and denies DNA.
Not until you get therapy.
Pot, kettle, black.
But when they deny facts, there's a good chance that's the problem.
What you call "facts" have a large uncertainty factor.
No. But debunking global warming is science denial,
No, it's not. The problem is, YOU aren't a scientist. Remember, science is >> > skepticism.
and that guy should not have been present in that venue.
Why not? Shouldn't he be FULLY informed about a subject? How can one be
informed if he doesn't consider the evidence on both sides?
https://www.themarginalian.org/2014/01/03/baloney-detection-kit-carl-sagan/
DO:
1. Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts.
2. Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents
of all points of view.
3. Arguments from authority carry little weight authorities have made mistakes
in the past. They will do so again in the future.
4. Spin more than one hypothesis.
DON'T:
1. ad hominem -- attack the arguer and not the argument
2. argue from authority
3. argue from adverse consequences
6. assume the answer
7. observational selection
12. post hoc, ergo propter hoc
14. false dichotomy
18. straw man
19. half truths
The "left" pundits employs too many of the don'ts and too few of the dos. >> > The don'ts are only useful to those who want to shut down discussion and >> > impose fascism. If they were really concerned about global warming, they >> > would be encouraging debate and spinning more than one solution, but the >> > only solution is to stop drilling and suffer, whereas there are alternatives,
and the "science" is far from settled.
There are even things we could do right now that are good for the economy >> > and for global warming, but aren't catastrophic if global warming became >> > global cooling.
The uncertainty factor regarding the existence and magnitude of human
caused global warming is on the same order as the uncertainty factor
that the Earth isn't flat.
"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd. -- Voltaire
:-)) We know well beyond five nines certainty that the earth isn't flat, so you are
making a straw man assertion in a back-handed way.
We cannot possibly know to that certainty about global warming, let alone about
what is causing it.
On Monday, June 19, 2023 at 4:41:21 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
No. But debunking global warming is science denial,
No, it's not. The problem is, YOU aren't a scientist. Remember, science is skepticism.
You can't have opinions about facts.
On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 9:40:05 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
The uncertainty factor regarding the existence and magnitude of human caused global warming is on the same order as the uncertainty factor
that the Earth isn't flat.
"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd. -- Voltaire
:-)) We know well beyond five nines certainty that the earth isn't flat, so you are
making a straw man assertion in a back-handed way.
We cannot possibly know to that certainty about global warming, let alone about
what is causing it.
On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 12:23:50 PM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 9:40:05 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
The uncertainty factor regarding the existence and magnitude of human caused global warming is on the same order as the uncertainty factor that the Earth isn't flat.
"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd. -- Voltaire
:-)) We know well beyond five nines certainty that the earth isn't flat, so you are
making a straw man assertion in a back-handed way.
We cannot possibly know to that certainty about global warming, let alone about
what is causing it.
If we only know about global warming to _three_ nines, I don't see that this makes
a significant difference.
Basically, he is right, and you are wrong.
Because the science is very simple.
The science of what carbon dioxide does to infrared light that shines through it.
The quantity of carbon dioxide human fossil fuel burning produces -
which is in addition to what animal respiration produces, which plants
are able to keep up with. It's not as if, since, say, the invention of the automobile, vast new areas of the planet have been covered by
vegetation - if anything, the reverse is the case.
Of course, even with the _science_ basically rock-solid, there are
public policy questions. Bringing nuclear power on the table is one
of them.
And the fear that whatever _we_ might do, China could undo all our
efforts is a legitimate concern. However, it's being used as excuse
to do nothing, and doing nothing is not an option, since that's suicide.
Instead, first we do our part - to show that it's possible.
And then, if we find that China isn't doing it's part, well, we can cross that
bridge now that we've come to it. A trade embargo might be enough to bring them to their senses.
Of course, since they look likely to invade Taiwan sometime soon,
surely that would make the whole question of what China will do
about global warming... moot. Since it instead, in that case, would
end up contributing to global cooling, through nuclear winter.
John Savard
On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 8:52:53 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Monday, June 19, 2023 at 4:41:21 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
No. But debunking global warming is science denial,
No, it's not. The problem is, YOU aren't a scientist. Remember, science is skepticism.
We know, from actual measurements, that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere today is much higher than it was in 1950 or thereabouts.
We know that the temperature of the surface of the Earth is such that its blackbody radiation is chiefly composed of long-wave infrared.
We know that carbon dioxide is significantly opaque to long-wave infrared, while transparent to the wavelengths with which the Sun warms the Earth.
These are very simple facts, and so how it would be possible to "debunk"
the notion that widespread burning of fossil fuels, through increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere,
has meant that places don't cool off as much at night, increasing the Earth's equilibrium temperature... escapes me.
Fallacious arguments, of the same poor quality as those made to defend Creationism, are indeed advanced against AGW. The motive behind advancing such arguments, however, is trivially transparent.
Oil companies make a lot of money.
People in some parts of the country depend on the oil industry or the
coal industry for jobs.
The economy in general benefits from abundant and cheap energy -
and many environmentalists advocate a shift to a lifestyle which uses
vastly less energy,
and concentrate on advocating renewable energy sources like wind
and solar which don't seem to be capable of supporting heavy industry
with intensive energy use.
You wouldn't normally expect an environmentalist, for example, to come
up with an environmentally-sound plan for how the U.S. could sustainably
... produce as many planes, ships, and tanks as it did during World War II, so that they could be shipped to Ukraine in the current situation. Environ- mentalists just don't seem wired to think of these sorts of concerns as of the most pressing and vital importance.
While it _is_ true that, say, the extinction of species due to environmental degradation is something that is far more _long-term_ in its impact
than any change in political systems, individual human beings happen to
have the (inconvenient, apparently, to environmentalists) tendency to put their own personal, individual survival front and center in their concerns.
So it's hard *not* to be suspicious of these environmentalist characters.
Even if, in this particular case, they're right about carbon dioxide emissions
being a problem.
Since we can only build hydroelectric dams in certain locations, and they have environmental impacts, what proven carbon-free sources of large quantities of energy do we have?
There is an obvious answer, but it gives those environmentalists hissy fits.
We don't have fusion power. But we *do* have fission power, and we also have breeder reactors and reprocessing to make efficient use of our uranium supplies.
And thorium reactors, unlike fusion power, really are just an engineering issue.
On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 09:56:26 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
<hit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
1960: 317 ppm
1980: 339 ppm
2000: 370 ppm
2015: 400 ppm
2022: 417 ppm
Looking at https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide
we can see that atmospheric CO2 is climbing at the same rate as CO2 emissions.
Atmospheric CO2 is increasing at a rate of 22 ppm/year. At this rate, it will take
270 years to get to 1000 ppm, a level that will begin to affect people's comfort.
https://www.indoordoctor.com/blog/indoor-carbon-dioxide-levels-health/
So that's plenty of time to solve that part of the problem.
The global warming effect is much more complex, and there has been way too much hyperbole hurled around by yammerheads.
On Wednesday, June 21, 2023 at 1:02:46?AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
We know that the temperature of the surface of the Earth is such that its
blackbody radiation is chiefly composed of long-wave infrared.
This is true.
We know that carbon dioxide is significantly opaque to long-wave infrared,
while transparent to the wavelengths with which the Sun warms the Earth.
Only half-true. If you will look at atmospheric absorption curves, water vapor
has a MUCH greater effect than CO2 to 255K BB radiation.
These are very simple facts, and so how it would be possible to "debunk" the notion that widespread burning of fossil fuels, through increasing the
concentration of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere,
That's IOTTMCO.
has meant that places don't cool off as much at night, increasing the Earth's
equilibrium temperature... escapes me.
Of course it does. But you only asked HALF of the question. The other half is
HOW MUCH? GW pundits have put their thumb on the scale in the "models" they use, accounting for water vapor by increasing the effect of CO2. They started out using a factor of 6x, IIRC. The last I checked, they'd reduced it to
2x, IIRC. I have used a venerable model to determine the effect of both:
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
Fallacious arguments, of the same poor quality as those made to defend Creationism, are indeed advanced against AGW. The motive behind advancing
such arguments, however, is trivially transparent.
What's transparent is that the models used by GW pundits are aggressive. They
have predicted catastrophe several times already, and less-intelligent folk have
tormented themselves into apoplexy.
Oil companies make a lot of money.
And they use it to "go green." Haven't you noticed?
People in some parts of the country depend on the oil industry or the coal industry for jobs.
All people depend on petroleum and coal products for other things than fuels. Killing the fuels part of the business will make insecticides and fertilizers more expensive. If you think grocery stores are charging too much, wait until you see the fallout from the "green new deal."
The economy in general benefits from abundant and cheap energy -
and many environmentalists advocate a shift to a lifestyle which uses vastly less energy,
And how many people will die when they can't air condition their home
in the summer or heat it in the winter?
and concentrate on advocating renewable energy sources like wind
and solar which don't seem to be capable of supporting heavy industry with intensive energy use.
Indeed. And most locations don't have the capability to store energy economically.
You wouldn't normally expect an environmentalist, for example, to come up with an environmentally-sound plan for how the U.S. could sustainably ... produce as many planes, ships, and tanks as it did during World War II,
so that they could be shipped to Ukraine in the current situation. Environ-
mentalists just don't seem wired to think of these sorts of concerns as of
the most pressing and vital importance.
Most legislators don't seem wired that way either. They listen to the loudest
voices, and that's the apoplectic ones.
While it _is_ true that, say, the extinction of species due to environmental
degradation is something that is far more _long-term_ in its impact
What?!! Yammer-mouth AOC said it would happen in 12 years ... FOUR years ago! :-))
than any change in political systems, individual human beings happen to have the (inconvenient, apparently, to environmentalists) tendency to put
their own personal, individual survival front and center in their concerns.
Here in the US we have the hard-left crowd yammering, Biden's admin curtailing energy production and appealing to the woke nonsense while China pollutes by bringing beaucoup de coal plants online. The virulent environmentalists have the upper hand, but they want the ONLY hand.
So it's hard *not* to be suspicious of these environmentalist characters.
Oh, I'm MORE than suspicious. I compare them with the Golgafrinchans.
Even if, in this particular case, they're right about carbon dioxide emissions
being a problem.
It's a concern, but not a primary one.
Since we can only build hydroelectric dams in certain locations, and they
have environmental impacts, what proven carbon-free sources of large quantities of energy do we have?
There is an obvious answer, but it gives those environmentalists hissy fits.
Indeed :-)
We don't have fusion power. But we *do* have fission power, and we also have
breeder reactors and reprocessing to make efficient use of our uranium supplies.
And thorium reactors, unlike fusion power, really are just an engineering issue.
Indeed. Due to Chernobyl, Three mile island and Fukushima ALL nuclear energy
has been painted with the same brush.
Pseudoscientific babble. Indicative of mental illness. Secure help.
On Tue, 20 Jun 2023 11:23:48 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
<hit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
We cannot possibly know to that certainty about global warming,
let alone about what is causing it.
We know beyond all reasonable doubt what it is and what is causing it.
Which is why nobody with any knowledge questions it or seeks other explanations. It is as close to fact as anything can be.
On Wednesday, June 21, 2023 at 1:02:46?AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 8:52:53?AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Monday, June 19, 2023 at 4:41:21?PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
No. But debunking global warming is science denial,
No, it's not. The problem is, YOU aren't a scientist. Remember, science is >> > skepticism.
We know, from actual measurements, that the concentration of carbon dioxide >> in the atmosphere today is much higher than it was in 1950 or thereabouts.
1960: 317 ppm
1980: 339 ppm
2000: 370 ppm
2015: 400 ppm
2022: 417 ppm
Looking at >https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide
we can see that atmospheric CO2 is climbing at the same rate as CO2 emissions. >Atmospheric CO2 is increasing at a rate of 22 ppm/year. At this rate, it will take
270 years to get to 1000 ppm, a level that will begin to affect people's comfort.
https://www.indoordoctor.com/blog/indoor-carbon-dioxide-levels-health/
So that's plenty of time to solve that part of the problem.
The global warming effect is much more complex, and there has been way too >much hyperbole hurled around by yammerheads.
We know that the temperature of the surface of the Earth is such that its
blackbody radiation is chiefly composed of long-wave infrared.
This is true.
We know that carbon dioxide is significantly opaque to long-wave infrared, >> while transparent to the wavelengths with which the Sun warms the Earth.
Only half-true. If you will look at atmospheric absorption curves, water vapor
has a MUCH greater effect than CO2 to 255K BB radiation.
These are very simple facts, and so how it would be possible to "debunk"
the notion that widespread burning of fossil fuels, through increasing the >> concentration of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere,
That's IOTTMCO.
has meant that places don't cool off as much at night, increasing the Earth's
equilibrium temperature... escapes me.
Of course it does. But you only asked HALF of the question. The other half is
HOW MUCH? GW pundits have put their thumb on the scale in the "models"
they use, accounting for water vapor by increasing the effect of CO2. They >started out using a factor of 6x, IIRC. The last I checked, they'd reduced it to
2x, IIRC. I have used a venerable model to determine the effect of both:
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
Fallacious arguments, of the same poor quality as those made to defend
Creationism, are indeed advanced against AGW. The motive behind advancing
such arguments, however, is trivially transparent.
What's transparent is that the models used by GW pundits are aggressive. They >have predicted catastrophe several times already, and less-intelligent folk have
tormented themselves into apoplexy.
Oil companies make a lot of money.
And they use it to "go green." Haven't you noticed?
People in some parts of the country depend on the oil industry or the
coal industry for jobs.
All people depend on petroleum and coal products for other things than
fuels. Killing the fuels part of the business will make insecticides and >fertilizers more expensive. If you think grocery stores are charging too >much, wait until you see the fallout from the "green new deal."
The economy in general benefits from abundant and cheap energy -
and many environmentalists advocate a shift to a lifestyle which uses
vastly less energy,
And how many people will die when they can't air condition their home
in the summer or heat it in the winter?
and concentrate on advocating renewable energy sources like wind
and solar which don't seem to be capable of supporting heavy industry
with intensive energy use.
Indeed. And most locations don't have the capability to store energy >economically.
You wouldn't normally expect an environmentalist, for example, to come
up with an environmentally-sound plan for how the U.S. could sustainably
... produce as many planes, ships, and tanks as it did during World War II, >> so that they could be shipped to Ukraine in the current situation. Environ- >> mentalists just don't seem wired to think of these sorts of concerns as of >> the most pressing and vital importance.
Most legislators don't seem wired that way either. They listen to the loudest >voices, and that's the apoplectic ones.
While it _is_ true that, say, the extinction of species due to environmental >> degradation is something that is far more _long-term_ in its impact
What?!! Yammer-mouth AOC said it would happen in 12 years ... FOUR years >ago! :-))
than any change in political systems, individual human beings happen to
have the (inconvenient, apparently, to environmentalists) tendency to put
their own personal, individual survival front and center in their concerns.
Here in the US we have the hard-left crowd yammering, Biden's admin >curtailing energy production and appealing to the woke nonsense while
China pollutes by bringing beaucoup de coal plants online. The virulent >environmentalists have the upper hand, but they want the ONLY hand.
So it's hard *not* to be suspicious of these environmentalist characters.
Oh, I'm MORE than suspicious. I compare them with the Golgafrinchans.
Even if, in this particular case, they're right about carbon dioxide emissions
being a problem.
It's a concern, but not a primary one.
Since we can only build hydroelectric dams in certain locations, and they
have environmental impacts, what proven carbon-free sources of large
quantities of energy do we have?
There is an obvious answer, but it gives those environmentalists hissy fits.
Indeed :-)
We don't have fusion power. But we *do* have fission power, and we also have >> breeder reactors and reprocessing to make efficient use of our uranium supplies.
And thorium reactors, unlike fusion power, really are just an engineering issue.
Indeed. Due to Chernobyl, Three mile island and Fukushima ALL nuclear energy >has been painted with the same brush.
On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 2:04:12?PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jun 2023 11:23:48 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
<hit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
We cannot possibly know to that certainty about global warming,
let alone about what is causing it.
We know beyond all reasonable doubt what it is and what is causing it.
Which is why nobody with any knowledge questions it or seeks other
explanations. It is as close to fact as anything can be.
It is people without knowledge that is NOT questioning it. But lest assume >that you are correct. What should we do about it? Reduce our emissions?
The US has been doing this:
2000: 5.77x10^6 kilotonnes CO2 emission
2019: 4.82x10^6
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/carbon-co2-emissions
China:
2016: 9.77x10^6 ktonnes CO2 emission
2019: 10.7x10^6
2021: 11.5x10^6
https://www.statista.com/statistics/239093/co2-emissions-in-china/
They are on an upward slope while the US is on a downward slope, so there
is NO way that we can offset that.
There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who >learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and >find out for themselves. -- Will Rogers
On Wednesday, June 21, 2023 at 1:12:13 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 12:23:50 PM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 9:40:05 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
The uncertainty factor regarding the existence and magnitude of human caused global warming is on the same order as the uncertainty factor that the Earth isn't flat.
"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd. -- Voltaire
:-)) We know well beyond five nines certainty that the earth isn't flat, so you are
making a straw man assertion in a back-handed way.
We cannot possibly know to that certainty about global warming, let alone about
what is causing it.
If we only know about global warming to _three_ nines, I don't see that this makesIt wouldn't IF it were three nines. I think it's less than ONE nine.
a significant difference.
Basically, he is right, and you are wrong.
Because the science is very simple.No, he isn't and no, it's not "simple."
The science of what carbon dioxide does to infrared light that shines through it.Check out the narrow absorption band for CO2 and the broad one for
water vapor.
Planting trees is not problematic. Trees live a long time and decay slowly when dead. Not all of the carbon is returned to the atmosphere as it is retained by the organisms which fed on the decaying wood. Some is even fossilised as coal although that isThe quantity of carbon dioxide human fossil fuel burning produces -And when plants die, they give up the CO2 they've sequestered, so
which is in addition to what animal respiration produces, which plants
are able to keep up with. It's not as if, since, say, the invention of the automobile, vast new areas of the planet have been covered by
vegetation - if anything, the reverse is the case.
planting trees is problematic.
Of course, even with the _science_ basically rock-solid, there areAnd getting China to stop building coal plants, otherwise what the
public policy questions. Bringing nuclear power on the table is one
of them.
rest of the world does is immaterial.
And the fear that whatever _we_ might do, China could undo all ourBut we're NOT "doing nothing." We've bent over backwards to "solve"
efforts is a legitimate concern. However, it's being used as excuse
to do nothing, and doing nothing is not an option, since that's suicide.
GW by ourselves and the charts show it's not working. Furthermore,
there are all the third-world countries that are moving up the ladder
and want what first-worlders have. Green technologies aren't ready
for prime time.
Instead, first we do our part - to show that it's possible.NO! FIRST we develop sensible, workable, economical technologies. That
takes ENERGY. Constraining our energy sources now is counterproductive.
And then, if we find that China isn't doing it's part, well, we can cross thatIrrelevant. If we have economical energy technologies, everyone will want them.
bridge now that we've come to it. A trade embargo might be enough to bring them to their senses.
Of course, since they look likely to invade Taiwan sometime soon,
surely that would make the whole question of what China will do
about global warming... moot. Since it instead, in that case, would
end up contributing to global cooling, through nuclear winter.
John SavardWell, that's one solution :-)
Wasn't there a suggestion about putting reflectors on the Iberian peninsula to reduce solar influx? I liked my idea, too: put up solar reflectors in space.
On Wednesday, June 21, 2023 at 3:36:38 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 09:56:26 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
<hit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
1960: 317 ppm
1980: 339 ppm
2000: 370 ppm
2015: 400 ppm
2022: 417 ppm
Looking at https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide
we can see that atmospheric CO2 is climbing at the same rate as CO2 emissions.
Atmospheric CO2 is increasing at a rate of 22 ppm/year. At this rate, it will take
270 years to get to 1000 ppm, a level that will begin to affect people's comfort.
https://www.indoordoctor.com/blog/indoor-carbon-dioxide-levels-health/
So that's plenty of time to solve that part of the problem.
The global warming effect is much more complex, and there has been way too
much hyperbole hurled around by yammerheads.
On Wednesday, June 21, 2023 at 1:02:46?AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
We know that the temperature of the surface of the Earth is such that its
blackbody radiation is chiefly composed of long-wave infrared.
This is true.
We know that carbon dioxide is significantly opaque to long-wave infrared,
while transparent to the wavelengths with which the Sun warms the Earth.
Only half-true. If you will look at atmospheric absorption curves, water vapor
has a MUCH greater effect than CO2 to 255K BB radiation.
These are very simple facts, and so how it would be possible to "debunk"
the notion that widespread burning of fossil fuels, through increasing the
concentration of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere,
That's IOTTMCO.
has meant that places don't cool off as much at night, increasing the Earth's
equilibrium temperature... escapes me.
Of course it does. But you only asked HALF of the question. The other half is
HOW MUCH? GW pundits have put their thumb on the scale in the "models" they use, accounting for water vapor by increasing the effect of CO2. They
started out using a factor of 6x, IIRC. The last I checked, they'd reduced it to
2x, IIRC. I have used a venerable model to determine the effect of both:
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
Fallacious arguments, of the same poor quality as those made to defend Creationism, are indeed advanced against AGW. The motive behind advancing
such arguments, however, is trivially transparent.
What's transparent is that the models used by GW pundits are aggressive. They
have predicted catastrophe several times already, and less-intelligent folk have
tormented themselves into apoplexy.
Oil companies make a lot of money.
And they use it to "go green." Haven't you noticed?
People in some parts of the country depend on the oil industry or the coal industry for jobs.
All people depend on petroleum and coal products for other things than fuels. Killing the fuels part of the business will make insecticides and fertilizers more expensive. If you think grocery stores are charging too much, wait until you see the fallout from the "green new deal."
The economy in general benefits from abundant and cheap energy -
and many environmentalists advocate a shift to a lifestyle which uses vastly less energy,
And how many people will die when they can't air condition their home
in the summer or heat it in the winter?
Green hydrogen.and concentrate on advocating renewable energy sources like wind
and solar which don't seem to be capable of supporting heavy industry with intensive energy use.
Indeed. And most locations don't have the capability to store energy economically.
You wouldn't normally expect an environmentalist, for example, to come up with an environmentally-sound plan for how the U.S. could sustainably
... produce as many planes, ships, and tanks as it did during World War II,
so that they could be shipped to Ukraine in the current situation. Environ-
mentalists just don't seem wired to think of these sorts of concerns as of
the most pressing and vital importance.
Most legislators don't seem wired that way either. They listen to the loudest
voices, and that's the apoplectic ones.
While it _is_ true that, say, the extinction of species due to environmental
degradation is something that is far more _long-term_ in its impact
What?!! Yammer-mouth AOC said it would happen in 12 years ... FOUR years ago! :-))
than any change in political systems, individual human beings happen to
have the (inconvenient, apparently, to environmentalists) tendency to put
their own personal, individual survival front and center in their concerns.
Here in the US we have the hard-left crowd yammering, Biden's admin curtailing energy production and appealing to the woke nonsense while China pollutes by bringing beaucoup de coal plants online. The virulent environmentalists have the upper hand, but they want the ONLY hand.
So it's hard *not* to be suspicious of these environmentalist characters.
Oh, I'm MORE than suspicious. I compare them with the Golgafrinchans.
Even if, in this particular case, they're right about carbon dioxide emissions
being a problem.
It's a concern, but not a primary one.
Since we can only build hydroelectric dams in certain locations, and they
have environmental impacts, what proven carbon-free sources of large quantities of energy do we have?
There is an obvious answer, but it gives those environmentalists hissy fits.
Indeed :-)
We don't have fusion power. But we *do* have fission power, and we also have
breeder reactors and reprocessing to make efficient use of our uranium supplies.
And thorium reactors, unlike fusion power, really are just an engineering issue.
Indeed. Due to Chernobyl, Three mile island and Fukushima ALL nuclear energy
has been painted with the same brush.
Pseudoscientific babble. Indicative of mental illness. Secure help.No, Chris, it's DATA. It's evident that YOU are the one drinking the kool-aid when it
comes to GW since you reject the actual evidence without investigation.
"Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice." -- Grey's law
“To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.” – Thomas Paine
On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 14:32:50 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
<hit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 2:04:12?PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
We know beyond all reasonable doubt what it is and what is causing it. Which is why nobody with any knowledge questions it or seeks other explanations. It is as close to fact as anything can be.
It is people without knowledge that is NOT questioning it. But lest assume that you are correct. What should we do about it? Reduce our emissions? The US has been doing this:
2000: 5.77x10^6 kilotonnes CO2 emission
2019: 4.82x10^6
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/carbon-co2-emissions
China:
2016: 9.77x10^6 ktonnes CO2 emission
2019: 10.7x10^6
2021: 11.5x10^6
https://www.statista.com/statistics/239093/co2-emissions-in-china/
They are on an upward slope while the US is on a downward slope, so there is NO way that we can offset that.
“There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who
learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and
find out for themselves.” -- Will Rogers
We immediately stop all new fossil fuel extraction. We immediately
create a carbon tax.
We immediately invest a few hundred billion dollars in finishing off
nearly ready electricity storage tech
and in building a few tens of thousands of square miles of solar
farms (and residential rooftop solar).
If we do that, China and India will follow quickly.
They are both already ahead of us in going green.
On Wednesday, June 21, 2023 at 10:19:49?PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 14:32:50 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
<hit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 2:04:12?PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
We know beyond all reasonable doubt what it is and what is causing it. >> > > Which is why nobody with any knowledge questions it or seeks other
explanations. It is as close to fact as anything can be.
It is people without knowledge that is NOT questioning it. But lest assume >> > that you are correct. What should we do about it? Reduce our emissions?
The US has been doing this:
2000: 5.77x10^6 kilotonnes CO2 emission
2019: 4.82x10^6
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/carbon-co2-emissions
China:
2016: 9.77x10^6 ktonnes CO2 emission
2019: 10.7x10^6
2021: 11.5x10^6
https://www.statista.com/statistics/239093/co2-emissions-in-china/
They are on an upward slope while the US is on a downward slope, so there >> > is NO way that we can offset that.
There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who >> > learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and
find out for themselves. -- Will Rogers
We immediately stop all new fossil fuel extraction. We immediately
create a carbon tax.
I'm VERT glad you're not in charge of our energy policy!
We immediately invest a few hundred billion dollars in finishing off
nearly ready electricity storage tech
Although I approve of this in principle, it's mot "nearly ready." There is >some hope in solid-state batteries, but throwing money at them may
be premature.
and in building a few tens of thousands of square miles of solar
farms (and residential rooftop solar).
To replace electrical production alone produced by fossil fuels (say,
about 5x10^12 kwhr), at 30,000 kwhr/mi^2, would require 2x10^4 mi^2. >Replacing coal and petroleum for transportation and space heating
would bump that up to 6x10^4 mi^2, so your estimates are in the right >ballpark. A square mile of solar panel costs about 25 million dollars
(at a dollar per square foot), so that will cost $1.5 trillion, quite a few >hundred billion. And it will have to be spread out over several years.
But that price doesn't include the recycling costs of disposing of the panels >at end of life, nor the environmental damage of producing the panels in the >first place. As I see it, though, the BIG problem is that the sun doesn't shine
at night, so battery technology is absolutely critical, as you point out.
The bad news is, battery technology isn't ready for prime time (we don't even >know how many "hundreds of billions" they'll add to the bill. But the good news
is that we have more time to develop it than the climate kooks are yammering.
If we do that, China and India will follow quickly.
Maybe in about ten years.
They are both already ahead of us in going green.
There'a a long, long way to go yet by everyone.
Panels last many decades. And don't need recycling.
Batteries are fully recyclable,
and new technology makes current batteries nothing but a short
term solution.
We could easily make this transition in 10-20 years.
At a fraction of the cost of what we're doing now.
On Wednesday, 21 June 2023 at 23:09:31 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
we can see that atmospheric CO2 is climbing at the same rate as CO2 emissions.
Atmospheric CO2 is increasing at a rate of 22 ppm/year. At this rate, it will take
270 years to get to 1000 ppm, a level that will begin to affect people's comfort.
People will be somewhat uncomfortable when all the world’s coastal cities are flooded.
When the Thames barrier was built it was seldom used. It was thought that it would be
used two to three times per year. Now it’s running at 6 to 7 times a year and one year it
was used 50 times. Each use averts a potential flood of London. The reason for the
increasing use is increased storminess.
My son is a marine biologist dealing with marine surveys. His work initially depended
mostly on oil rigs. But now offshore wind power is a bigger proportion of the work. Jobs
can change.
How many people in Florida will die when the State is underwater.
Indeed. And most locations don't have the capability to store energy economically.
Green hydrogen.
Also pumped storage
And the sold equivalent of pumped storage which effectively consists of piling
up concrete blocks when power is abundant and using their gravitational potential
energy to generate power. A solid state dam.
And satellite power is being seriously investigate now.
And what about geothermal, ocean thermal and tidal power?
Of course fission power still exists.
But CO2 emissions cause rises in the CO2 content of the atmosphere.
Ocean solubility and photosynthesis can’t remove all the emissions.
On Thursday, June 22, 2023 at 5:10:52 PM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote:
And satellite power is being seriously investigate now.
I don't think that's going to fly. It was suggested a few decades
ago and discarded because of worry about emr. Probably best
to put solar panels on the ground.
On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 5:47:16 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Thursday, June 22, 2023 at 5:10:52 PM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote:
And satellite power is being seriously investigate now.
I don't think that's going to fly. It was suggested a few decades
ago and discarded because of worry about emr. Probably best
to put solar panels on the ground.
Interestingly enough, Arthur C. Clarke wrote of the power beams from powersats that they would be "pretty effective death rays". Today, it's claimed that, no, they won't be concentrated enough to be that dangerous, and so large rectenna fields are required.
Based on what I know, the big problem with solar power satellites is economic. They're far too big and heavy to be launched from Earth. Instead, they were considered to make the economic case for L5 type space habitats; mine minerals from the Moon, and build the solar power satellites from them in space.
While establishing space colonies after the fashion outlined in Gerald O'Neill's
_The High Frontier_ may well be a good thing, this involves a collosal investment.
So cheaper solutions to the energy issue will be tried first.
John Savard
There are some automatically fail-safe nuclear technologies
that should also be encouraged. Isn't there one that's potentially sized for home use?
On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 12:58:16 PM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:
There are some automatically fail-safe nuclear technologies
that should also be encouraged. Isn't there one that's potentially sized for home use?
Even if there was, wouldn't there be a proliferation issue with it?
John Savard
On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 12:58:16?PM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:
There are some automatically fail-safe nuclear technologies
that should also be encouraged. Isn't there one that's potentially sized for home use?
Even if there was, wouldn't there be a proliferation issue with it?
John Savard
On Fri, 23 Jun 2023 13:17:37 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 12:58:16?PM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:
There are some automatically fail-safe nuclear technologies
that should also be encouraged. Isn't there one that's potentially sized for home use?
Even if there was, wouldn't there be a proliferation issue with it?
John Savard
It's academic. Nuclear power can never be economical. It's Its only future is in niche
applications.
On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 11:54:05?PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jun 2023 13:17:37 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 12:58:16?PM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:
There are some automatically fail-safe nuclear technologies
that should also be encouraged. Isn't there one that's potentially sized for home use?
Even if there was, wouldn't there be a proliferation issue with it?
John Savard
It's academic. Nuclear power can never be economical. It's Its only future is in niche
applications.
I'm beginning to think that's not true:
"Unlike traditional nuclear reactors the new micro reactor uses no control >rods to initiate the reaction. The new revolutionary technology uses reservoirs
of liquid lithium-6, an isotope that is effective at absorbing neutrons. The >Lithium-6 reservoirs are connected to a vertical tube that fits into the reactor
core. The whole whole process is self sustaining and can last for up to 40 >years, producing electricity for only 5 cents per kilowatt hour, about half the
cost of grid energy."
https://www.wired.com/2007/12/toshibas-home-n/
That 5 cents probably doesn't include reprocessing, but it's still not "a hundred
times more costly than solar." Actually, it will probably be cheaper than solar --
and works at night , in winter and in emergencies.
It will still have to face Chernobyl/Fukushima/3-mile-island syndrome in the >minds of the public.
That is not the cost. It is the price. The cost is many times higher.
On Saturday, June 24, 2023 at 10:14:29?AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
That is not the cost. It is the price. The cost is many times higher.
This does not sound like a viable business model. Perhaps you
are including some (alleged) externalities in the "cost"?
John Savard
On Saturday, June 24, 2023 at 10:14:29 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
That is not the cost. It is the price. The cost is many times higher.
This does not sound like a viable business model. Perhaps you
are including some (alleged) externalities in the "cost"?
John Savard
On Thursday, June 22, 2023 at 5:10:52 PM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote:
On Wednesday, 21 June 2023 at 23:09:31 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
we can see that atmospheric CO2 is climbing at the same rate as CO2 emissions.
Atmospheric CO2 is increasing at a rate of 22 ppm/year. At this rate, it will take
270 years to get to 1000 ppm, a level that will begin to affect people's comfort.
People will be somewhat uncomfortable when all the world’s coastal cities are flooded.Most coastal cities are at least 6 feet above sea level and the seas are rising 0.33 inches
per year. It will take 100 years for sea levels to rise 3 feet.
When the Thames barrier was built it was seldom used. It was thought that it would beNew Orleans is 7 feet BELOW sea level, and along with London has a technology to solve
used two to three times per year. Now it’s running at 6 to 7 times a year and one year it
was used 50 times. Each use averts a potential flood of London. The reason for the
increasing use is increased storminess.
the problem.
My son is a marine biologist dealing with marine surveys. His work initially dependedWe'll always need petroleum and coal for insecticides, pharmaceuticals, plastics, etc.
mostly on oil rigs. But now offshore wind power is a bigger proportion of the work. Jobs
can change.
I attended a lecture by Arthur C. Clarke many years ago. He said the Japanese had
developed a technology to turn petroleum into food and suggested we should stop
burning petroleum ad start eating it! Everyone applauded, except me. I thought it
was sheer stupidity. In fact, we're already eating it by growing and harvesting crops.
How many people in Florida will die when the State is underwater.Baloney detected. At 0.33 inches/year, they'll take their hint from London and New
Orleans. Or move.
Indeed. And most locations don't have the capability to store energy economically.
Green hydrogen.Hindenburg syndrome.
Also pumped storage
Only effective in limited locations.
And the sold equivalent of pumped storage which effectively consists of pilingNow THAT'S an idea. Got any numbers on that?
up concrete blocks when power is abundant and using their gravitational potential
energy to generate power. A solid state dam.
"If it can't be expressed in figures, it is not science; it is opinion.Oil wells and coal mines have limited locations. There are plenty of coastal and offshore sites where small and large scale tidal and wave power are possible. There’s been a tidal power station in Brittany since the 1960s.
– Robert A. Heinlein
And satellite power is being seriously investigate now.I don't think that's going to fly. It was suggested a few decades
ago and discarded because of worry about emr. Probably best
to put solar panels on the ground.
Hmmm, BTW, has anyone thought that solar panels are nearly
black and convert only 20-25% of incident power to electricity?
They're going to decrease the albedo of the earth. We'll have to
offset that by covering nearby land with aluminum reflectors.
And what about geothermal, ocean thermal and tidal power?Again, limited locations.
Of course fission power still exists.Won't fly because of Chernobyl-Fukushima-3mileisland syndrome
But CO2 emissions cause rises in the CO2 content of the atmosphere.IIRC, the largest sink is detritus.
Ocean solubility and photosynthesis can’t remove all the emissions.
On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 5:47:16 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Thursday, June 22, 2023 at 5:10:52 PM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote:
And satellite power is being seriously investigate now.
I don't think that's going to fly. It was suggested a few decadesInterestingly enough, Arthur C. Clarke wrote of the power beams from powersats that they would be "pretty effective death rays". Today, it's claimed that, no, they won't be concentrated enough to be that dangerous, and so large rectenna fields are required.
ago and discarded because of worry about emr. Probably best
to put solar panels on the ground.
Based on what I know, the big problem with solar power satellites is economic. They're far too big and heavy to be launched from Earth. Instead, they were considered to make the economic case for L5 type space habitats; mine minerals from the Moon, and build the solar power satellites from them in space.
While establishing space colonies after the fashion outlined in Gerald O'Neill's
_The High Frontier_ may well be a good thing, this involves a collosal investment.
So cheaper solutions to the energy issue will be tried first.
John Savard
On Friday, 23 June 2023 at 12:47:16 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Thursday, June 22, 2023 at 5:10:52 PM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote:
People will be somewhat uncomfortable when all the world’s coastal cities
are flooded.
Most coastal cities are at least 6 feet above sea level and the seas are rising
0.33 inches per year. It will take 100 years for sea levels to rise 3 feet.
When the Thames barrier was built it was seldom used. It was thought that it would be
used two to three times per year. Now it’s running at 6 to 7 times a year and one year it
was used 50 times. Each use averts a potential flood of London. The reason for the
increasing use is increased storminess.
New Orleans is 7 feet BELOW sea level, and along with London has a technology to solve
the problem.
The problem is not just sea level rise but increased storminess. Storm surges and hurricanes
are causing most of the floods. These are getting worse.
My son is a marine biologist dealing with marine surveys. His work initially depended
mostly on oil rigs. But now offshore wind power is a bigger proportion of the work. Jobs
can change.
We'll always need petroleum and coal for insecticides, pharmaceuticals, plastics, etc.
I attended a lecture by Arthur C. Clarke many years ago. He said the Japanese had
developed a technology to turn petroleum into food and suggested we should stop
burning petroleum ad start eating it! Everyone applauded, except me. I thought it
was sheer stupidity. In fact, we're already eating it by growing and harvesting crops.
How many people in Florida will die when the State is underwater.
Baloney detected. At 0.33 inches/year, they'll take their hint from London and New
Orleans. Or move.
Green hydrogen.
Hindenburg syndrome.
Rubbish. You Americans are fixated on the Hindenburg. A minor disaster with little
loss of life.
And a fire not an explosion.
Prior to the 1960s in the UK heating and some street lighting was town gas. 50%
hydrogen and 50% carbon monoxide ignoring a few minor components. There
were large “gasometers” everywhere containing 50% hydrogen stored over water.
The main danger from town gas was the toxicity of carbon monoxide either from accidents or suicide.
We are far beyond this Victorian technology and safety won’t be a problem.
Also pumped storage
Only effective in limited locations.
And the sold equivalent of pumped storage which effectively consists of piling
up concrete blocks when power is abundant and using their gravitational potential
energy to generate power. A solid state dam.
Now THAT'S an idea. Got any numbers on that?
https://singularityhub.com/2021/09/01/better-than-batteries-a-startup-thats-storing-energy-in-concrete-blocks-just-raised-100-million/
You’ll have to look up the numbers yourself if they’re not in their prospectus.
And satellite power is being seriously investigate now.
I don't think that's going to fly. It was suggested a few decades
ago and discarded because of worry about emr. Probably best
to put solar panels on the ground.
Hmmm, BTW, has anyone thought that solar panels are nearly
black and convert only 20-25% of incident power to electricity?
They're going to decrease the albedo of the earth. We'll have to
offset that by covering nearby land with aluminum reflectors.
And what about geothermal, ocean thermal and tidal power?
Again, limited locations.
Oil wells and coal mines have limited locations.
Of course fission power still exists.Won't fly because of Chernobyl-Fukushima-3mileisland syndrome
Only in the USA. Nuclear power stations are being built elsewhere/
But CO2 emissions cause rises in the CO2 content of the atmosphere. Ocean solubility and photosynthesis can’t remove all the emissions.
IIRC, the largest sink is detritus.
The main carbon sinks are vegetation and the ocean.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sink
... Tropical rain forest is a much better carbon sink.
It’s even possible that the medieval warm period was due to the growth of the Amazonia civilisation which cleared forests and the fall of that civilisation
and consequent forest regeneration after the depopulation caused by the plagues brought by the conquistadores may have caused the little ice age.
On Tuesday, June 27, 2023 at 4:12:00 PM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote:So is every road accident. But you don’t let that decide policy. If you did US roads might. E as safe as British or Swedish ones.
On Friday, 23 June 2023 at 12:47:16 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Thursday, June 22, 2023 at 5:10:52 PM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote:
People will be somewhat uncomfortable when all the world’s coastal cities
are flooded.
Most coastal cities are at least 6 feet above sea level and the seas are rising
0.33 inches per year. It will take 100 years for sea levels to rise 3 feet.
When the Thames barrier was built it was seldom used. It was thought that it would be
used two to three times per year. Now it’s running at 6 to 7 times a year and one year it
was used 50 times. Each use averts a potential flood of London. The reason for the
increasing use is increased storminess.
New Orleans is 7 feet BELOW sea level, and along with London has a technology to solve
the problem.
The problem is not just sea level rise but increased storminess. Storm surges and hurricanesThere wouldn't be such floods if cities were properly located and designed.
are causing most of the floods. These are getting worse.
My son is a marine biologist dealing with marine surveys. His work initially depended
mostly on oil rigs. But now offshore wind power is a bigger proportion of the work. Jobs
can change.
We'll always need petroleum and coal for insecticides, pharmaceuticals, plastics, etc.
I attended a lecture by Arthur C. Clarke many years ago. He said the Japanese had
developed a technology to turn petroleum into food and suggested we should stop
burning petroleum ad start eating it! Everyone applauded, except me. I thought it
was sheer stupidity. In fact, we're already eating it by growing and harvesting crops.
How many people in Florida will die when the State is underwater.
Baloney detected. At 0.33 inches/year, they'll take their hint from London and New
Orleans. Or move.
Green hydrogen.
Hindenburg syndrome.
Rubbish. You Americans are fixated on the Hindenburg. A minor disaster with littleIt's "minor" so long as you or I aren't in it :-)
loss of life.
And a fire not an explosion.Irrelevant to those who died.
Prior to the 1960s in the UK heating and some street lighting was town gas. 50%It will be a problem in people's minds. Hindenburg syndrome = Fukushima syndrome = ...
hydrogen and 50% carbon monoxide ignoring a few minor components. There were large “gasometers” everywhere containing 50% hydrogen stored over water.
The main danger from town gas was the toxicity of carbon monoxide either from
accidents or suicide.
We are far beyond this Victorian technology and safety won’t be a problem.
Also pumped storage
Only effective in limited locations.
And the sold equivalent of pumped storage which effectively consists of piling
up concrete blocks when power is abundant and using their gravitational potential
energy to generate power. A solid state dam.
Now THAT'S an idea. Got any numbers on that?
https://singularityhub.com/2021/09/01/better-than-batteries-a-startup-thats-storing-energy-in-concrete-blocks-just-raised-100-million/
You’ll have to look up the numbers yourself if they’re not in their prospectus.There's enough there to be interesting. It's a giant Grandfather's clock.
And satellite power is being seriously investigate now.
I don't think that's going to fly. It was suggested a few decades
ago and discarded because of worry about emr. Probably best
to put solar panels on the ground.
Hmmm, BTW, has anyone thought that solar panels are nearly
black and convert only 20-25% of incident power to electricity?
They're going to decrease the albedo of the earth. We'll have to
offset that by covering nearby land with aluminum reflectors.
And what about geothermal, ocean thermal and tidal power?
Again, limited locations.
Oil wells and coal mines have limited locations.Not really an apples to apples comparison. The energy per unit
area of ocean thermal and tidal activity is very low compared to
oil, coal and even solar. Electrical linkage is, of course, not the
problem
Of course fission power still exists.Won't fly because of Chernobyl-Fukushima-3mileisland syndrome
Only in the USA. Nuclear power stations are being built elsewhere/New ones in Japan?
But CO2 emissions cause rises in the CO2 content of the atmosphere. Ocean solubility and photosynthesis can’t remove all the emissions.
IIRC, the largest sink is detritus.
The main carbon sinks are vegetation and the ocean.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sink"Soils represent a short to long-term carbon storage medium, and contain more carbon than all terrestrial vegetation and the atmosphere"
... Tropical rain forest is a much better carbon sink.
Soils: detritus is the biggie.
And the warm period?It’s even possible that the medieval warm period was due to the growth ofThe causes of the LIA are varied:
the Amazonia civilisation which cleared forests and the fall of that civilisation
and consequent forest regeneration after the depopulation caused by the plagues brought by the conquistadores may have caused the little ice age.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
I believe the injection of ash, etc. into the upper atmosphere by many volcanoes
that occurred throughout the period is the main driver, enhanced by the Maunder
minimum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age_volcanism
On Thursday, 29 June 2023 at 20:02:33 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Tuesday, June 27, 2023 at 4:12:00 PM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote:
The problem is not just sea level rise but increased storminess. Storm surges and hurricanes
are causing most of the floods. These are getting worse.
There wouldn't be such floods if cities were properly located and designed.
Rubbish. You Americans are fixated on the Hindenburg. A minor disaster with little
loss of life.
It's "minor" so long as you or I aren't in it :-)
So is every road accident. But you don’t let that decide policy. If you did US roads might.
E as safe as British or Swedish ones.
And a fire not an explosion.
Irrelevant to those who died.
35 died 62 survived. Not a major disaster.
Prior to the 1960s in the UK heating and some street lighting was town gas. 50%
hydrogen and 50% carbon monoxide ignoring a few minor components. There were large “gasometers” everywhere containing 50% hydrogen stored over water.
The main danger from town gas was the toxicity of carbon monoxide either from
accidents or suicide.
We are far beyond this Victorian technology and safety won’t be a problem.
It will be a problem in people's minds. Hindenburg syndrome = Fukushima syndrome = ...
Oil wells and coal mines have limited locations.
Not really an apples to apples comparison. The energy per unit
area of ocean thermal and tidal activity is very low compared to
oil, coal and even solar. Electrical linkage is, of course, not the problem
There is a lot of ocean. And a lot of coastline.
Tidal power is limited. Half the European tidal power is on the UK coast.
But it’s still a considerable source (10 GW).
And yes electrical connections are not a problem. But plenty of people in the USA, where you have states like Texas which don’t have good out of state connections think transfer of power over long distance is impossible.
https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
Since I last looked at gridwatch yet another interconnector has been opened.
Power from the Sahara to Northern Europe is technically (but probably not politically feasible..
The main carbon sinks are vegetation and the ocean.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sink
"Soils represent a short to long-term carbon storage medium, and contain more carbon than all terrestrial vegetation and the atmosphere"
... Tropical rain forest is a much better carbon sink.
Soils: detritus is the biggie.
No vegetation (including tropical rain forest and sphagnum moss)
and the ocean are the main carbon sinks.
It’s even possible that the medieval warm period was due to the growth of
the Amazonia civilisation which cleared forests and the fall of that civilisation
and consequent forest regeneration after the depopulation caused by the plagues brought by the conquistadores may have caused the little ice age.
The causes of the LIA are varied:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
I believe the injection of ash, etc. into the upper atmosphere by many volcanoes
that occurred throughout the period is the main driver, enhanced by the Maunder
minimum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age_volcanism
And the warm period?
On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 4:00:32 PM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote:
On Thursday, 29 June 2023 at 20:02:33 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Tuesday, June 27, 2023 at 4:12:00 PM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote:
The problem is not just sea level rise but increased storminess. Storm surges and hurricanes
are causing most of the floods. These are getting worse.
There wouldn't be such floods if cities were properly located and designed.
Rubbish. You Americans are fixated on the Hindenburg. A minor disaster with little
loss of life.
It's "minor" so long as you or I aren't in it :-)
So is every road accident. But you don’t let that decide policy. If you did US roads might.Baloney detected.
E as safe as British or Swedish ones.
Hindenburg was not a blimp.And a fire not an explosion.
Irrelevant to those who died.
35 died 62 survived. Not a major disaster.More baloney detected. Not a major disaster because blimps stopped using hydrogen. Use today is quite limited.
Prior to the 1960s in the UK heating and some street lighting was town gas. 50%
hydrogen and 50% carbon monoxide ignoring a few minor components. There
were large “gasometers” everywhere containing 50% hydrogen stored over water.
The main danger from town gas was the toxicity of carbon monoxide either from
accidents or suicide.
We are far beyond this Victorian technology and safety won’t be a problem.
It will be a problem in people's minds. Hindenburg syndrome = Fukushima syndrome = ...
Oil wells and coal mines have limited locations.
Not really an apples to apples comparison. The energy per unit
area of ocean thermal and tidal activity is very low compared to
oil, coal and even solar. Electrical linkage is, of course, not the problem
There is a lot of ocean. And a lot of coastline.And everyone wants it stuffed up with paraphernalia that beaches whales, limits fishing and generally upsets the view.
will be counterproductive because that will release CO2 stored in the ocean.
Tidal power is limited. Half the European tidal power is on the UK coast. But it’s still a considerable source (10 GW).
A pittance.
And yes electrical connections are not a problem. But plenty of people in the
USA, where you have states like Texas which don’t have good out of state connections think transfer of power over long distance is impossible.
https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
Since I last looked at gridwatch yet another interconnector has been opened.
Power from the Sahara to Northern Europe is technically (but probably not politically feasible..Eventually, solar will be a solution, so nothing to harp about.
The main carbon sinks are vegetation and the ocean.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sink
"Soils represent a short to long-term carbon storage medium, and contain more carbon than all terrestrial vegetation and the atmosphere"
... Tropical rain forest is a much better carbon sink.
Soils: detritus is the biggie.
Read the top paragraphs.No vegetation (including tropical rain forest and sphagnum moss)READ the wiki page that YOU cited.
and the ocean are the main carbon sinks.
The ocean, yes, which you want to upset by dumping heat into the ocean :-)
It’s even possible that the medieval warm period was due to the growth of
the Amazonia civilisation which cleared forests and the fall of that civilisation
and consequent forest regeneration after the depopulation caused by the
plagues brought by the conquistadores may have caused the little ice age.
The causes of the LIA are varied:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
I believe the injection of ash, etc. into the upper atmosphere by many volcanoes
that occurred throughout the period is the main driver, enhanced by the Maunder
minimum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age_volcanism
And the warm period?The earth has been heating and cooling over many millenia.
https://archive.org/details/7da-2748bffc-84a-36fc-276e-61ae-31204f-imagejpeg
Although CO2 and global warm periods are linked, there are many other factors
that intrude. The medieval warm period was ended by the LIA.
The big elephant in the room, however, is that China is continuing to build coal-
fired power plants at an unprecedented rate. Wringing our hands over all this
petty stuff is useless. What's gonna happen is gonna happen. Enjoy the ride.
The earth has been heating and cooling over many millenia.
https://archive.org/details/7da-2748bffc-84a-36fc-276e-61ae-31204f-imagejpeg
And yes electrical connections are not a problem. But plenty
of people in the USA, where you have states like Texas which
don’t have good out of state connections think transfer of
power over long distance is impossible.
https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
Since I last looked at gridwatch yet another interconnector has been opened.
Eventually, solar will be a solution, so nothing to harp about.
On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 4:00:32 PM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote:Those inter connectors are between European Countries not inter - UK and all of them cross seas.
And yes electrical connections are not a problem. But plenty
of people in the USA, where you have states like Texas which
don’t have good out of state connections think transfer of
power over long distance is impossible.
https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
Since I last looked at gridwatch yet another interconnector has been opened.It is true that the U.S. has got an obsolete grid. This is due to things like
the way economic feedbacks are built in. Of course Maine, Vermont, and
New Hampshire feel no reason to pay, out of _their_ own pockets, for the extra capacity required to bring power from Quebec to New York City.
New York should pay for that capacity, but the system isn't set up to let
it do that.
However, your example of interconnectors *in the United Kingdom*
doesn't really have much relevance to the possibility of transmission of power "over long distance" in the United States. After all, the entire United Kingdom could fit _inside_ Texas, couldn't it?
John Savard
On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 4:00:32?PM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote:
And yes electrical connections are not a problem. But plenty
of people in the USA, where you have states like Texas which
dont have good out of state connections think transfer of
power over long distance is impossible.
https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
Since I last looked at gridwatch yet another interconnector has been opened.
It is true that the U.S. has got an obsolete grid. This is due to things like >the way economic feedbacks are built in. Of course Maine, Vermont, and
New Hampshire feel no reason to pay, out of _their_ own pockets, for the >extra capacity required to bring power from Quebec to New York City.
New York should pay for that capacity, but the system isn't set up to let
it do that.
However, your example of interconnectors *in the United Kingdom*
doesn't really have much relevance to the possibility of transmission of >power "over long distance" in the United States. After all, the entire
United Kingdom could fit _inside_ Texas, couldn't it?
Makes up for decades of coal smoke from the Ohio Valley drifting up to SE Canada and the American NE.
On Tuesday, 6 June 2023 at 19:36:15 UTC-4, RichA wrote:
Makes up for decades of coal smoke from the Ohio Valley drifting up to SE Canada and the American NE.
Prancing libbies cancel fireworks in cities over smoke. As if a day of bad air is going to kill everyone.
Meanwhile, probably half of the crybabies smoke dope and cigarettes. Go figure.
On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 7:23:52 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:
Eventually, solar will be a solution, so nothing to harp about.
We need to stop using fossil fuels for energy yesterday, so
eventually doesn't cut it.
John Savard
On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 6:23:52 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
The earth has been heating and cooling over many millenia.
https://archive.org/details/7da-2748bffc-84a-36fc-276e-61ae-31204f-imagejpeg
I like this timeline better...
https://xkcd.com/1732/
It shows that the average global temperature change between 2000 and 2016 is quite
dramatic when compared with any other time period in the last 22,000 years. It shows
that the average global temperature today was never reached in the last 22,000 years.
The limits for the data presented here are explained at about the 16,000 years B.C. mark
on the chart.
On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 9:15:15 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 7:23:52 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:
Eventually, solar will be a solution, so nothing to harp about.
We need to stop using fossil fuels for energy yesterday, so
eventually doesn't cut it.
I strongly disagree, John. (1) Solar and wind aren't ready for prime
time, so stopping fossil fuel use now would be catastrophic.
On Friday, 30 June 2023 at 14:23:52 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 4:00:32 PM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote:
On Thursday, 29 June 2023 at 20:02:33 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Tuesday, June 27, 2023 at 4:12:00 PM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote:
The problem is not just sea level rise but increased storminess. Storm surges and hurricanes
are causing most of the floods. These are getting worse.
There wouldn't be such floods if cities were properly located and designed.
Rubbish. You Americans are fixated on the Hindenburg. A minor disaster with little
loss of life.
It's "minor" so long as you or I aren't in it :-)
So is every road accident. But you don’t let that decide policy. If you did US roads might.
E as safe as British or Swedish ones.
Baloney detected.
Truth is not baloney.
And a fire not an explosion.
Irrelevant to those who died.
35 died 62 survived. Not a major disaster.
More baloney detected. Not a major disaster because blimps stopped using hydrogen. Use today is quite limited.
Hindenburg was not a blimp.
And we carried on using coal gas which was 50% hydrogen for decades afterwards.
And drving round in vehicles powered by inflammable hydrocarbons whose performance was boosted by brain rotting tetraethyl lead
Prior to the 1960s in the UK heating and some street lighting was town gas. 50%
hydrogen and 50% carbon monoxide ignoring a few minor components. There
were large “gasometers” everywhere containing 50% hydrogen stored over water.
The main danger from town gas was the toxicity of carbon monoxide either from
accidents or suicide.
We are far beyond this Victorian technology and safety won’t be a problem.
It will be a problem in people's minds. Hindenburg syndrome = Fukushima syndrome = ...
Oil wells and coal mines have limited locations.
Not really an apples to apples comparison. The energy per unit
area of ocean thermal and tidal activity is very low compared to
oil, coal and even solar. Electrical linkage is, of course, not the problem
There is a lot of ocean. And a lot of coastline.
And everyone wants it stuffed up with paraphernalia that beaches whales, limits fishing and generally upsets the view.
None of this has happened in North Sea wind farms.
Any big time ocean thermal will be counterproductive because that will release
CO2 stored in the ocean.
Methane clathrates would probably be a bigger problem.
Tidal power is limited. Half the European tidal power is on the UK coast.
But it’s still a considerable source (10 GW).
A pittance.
And yes electrical connections are not a problem. But plenty of people in the
USA, where you have states like Texas which don’t have good out of state
connections think transfer of power over long distance is impossible.
https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
Since I last looked at gridwatch yet another interconnector has been opened.
Power from the Sahara to Northern Europe is technically (but probably not
politically feasible..
Eventually, solar will be a solution, so nothing to harp about.
The main carbon sinks are vegetation and the ocean.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sink
"Soils represent a short to long-term carbon storage medium, and contain
more carbon than all terrestrial vegetation and the atmosphere"
... Tropical rain forest is a much better carbon sink.
Soils: detritus is the biggie.
No vegetation (including tropical rain forest and sphagnum moss)
READ the wiki page that YOU cited.
and the ocean are the main carbon sinks.
Read the top paragraphs.
Have you considered where detritus comes from?
Wikipedia
“ In terrestrial ecosystems it is present as leaf litter and other organic matter that is intermixed with soil, which is denominated "soil organic matter". The detritus of aquatic ecosystems is organic material that is suspended in the water and accumulates in depositions on the floor of
the body of water; when this floor is a seabed, such a deposition is denominated "marine snow".
It’s all derived from carbon sequestered by vegetation.
Just as sphagnum bogs store carbon sequestered by live sphagnum moss.
The ocean, yes, which you want to upset by dumping heat into the ocean :-)
It’s even possible that the medieval warm period was due to the growth of
the Amazonia civilisation which cleared forests and the fall of that civilisation
and consequent forest regeneration after the depopulation caused by the
plagues brought by the conquistadores may have caused the little ice age.
The causes of the LIA are varied:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
I believe the injection of ash, etc. into the upper atmosphere by many volcanoes
that occurred throughout the period is the main driver, enhanced by the Maunder
minimum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age_volcanism
And the warm period?
The earth has been heating and cooling over many millenia.
Note my use of the word “possible”
To use your word baloney. Yes the Earth has been heating and cooling for millennia.
With lots of different contributions. Yet now the Earth is heating rapidly despite being in
a cooling phase of the Milankovitch cycles.
Suggest an explanation for the medieval warm period? https://archive.org/details/7da-2748bffc-84a-36fc-276e-61ae-31204f-imagejpeg
Although CO2 and global warm periods are linked, there are many other factors
that intrude. The medieval warm period was ended by the LIA.
The big elephant in the room, however, is that China is continuing to build coal-
fired power plants at an unprecedented rate. Wringing our hands over all this
petty stuff is useless. What's gonna happen is gonna happen. Enjoy the ride.
China is building more coal fired plants. But most of these are associated with
extensive solar power and wind farms as backup power sources.
On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 4:34:22 PM UTC-6, palsing wrote:
On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 6:23:52 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
The earth has been heating and cooling over many millenia.
https://archive.org/details/7da-2748bffc-84a-36fc-276e-61ae-31204f-imagejpeg
I like this timeline better...
https://xkcd.com/1732/
It shows that the average global temperature change between 2000 and 2016 is quite
dramatic when compared with any other time period in the last 22,000 years. It shows
that the average global temperature today was never reached in the last 22,000 years.
The limits for the data presented here are explained at about the 16,000 years B.C. mark
on the chart.
The earth was in an ice age back then, so measuring from that point is irrelevant.
It looks like present temperatures match the 1100 B.C. maximum. How come your chart
doesn't show it? Are you confident of your source?
" It is a fact not generally known that, owing to the difference between solar and sidereal time, the Earth rotates upon its axis once more often than there are 24-hour days in the year" NASA /Harvard
On Tuesday, 6 June 2023 at 19:36:15 UTC-4, RichA wrote:
Makes up for decades of coal smoke from the Ohio Valley drifting up to SE Canada and the American NE.
Prancing libbies cancel fireworks in cities over smoke. As if a day of bad air is going to kill everyone.
Meanwhile, probably half of the crybabies smoke dope and cigarettes. Go figure.
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 7:55:06 PM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 9:15:15 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 7:23:52 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:
Eventually, solar will be a solution, so nothing to harp about.
We need to stop using fossil fuels for energy yesterday, so
eventually doesn't cut it.
I strongly disagree, John. (1) Solar and wind aren't ready for prime
time, so stopping fossil fuel use now would be catastrophic.
I agree that solar and wind aren't ready for prime time. Others wouldn't, citing advances in energy storage, but I think you're right there.
However, I don't get from there to your conclusion. Because there
is a proven method of carbon-free electrical power generation that
doesn't require the special geography needed for building hydroelectric dams.
All you need is someplace that isn't a dangerous earthquake zone, and
so on. And people smarter than Homer Simpson to oversee it.
John Savard
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 7:45:13 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 4:34:22 PM UTC-6, palsing wrote:
On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 6:23:52 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
The earth has been heating and cooling over many millenia.
https://archive.org/details/7da-2748bffc-84a-36fc-276e-61ae-31204f-imagejpeg
I like this timeline better...
https://xkcd.com/1732/
It shows that the average global temperature change between 2000 and 2016 is quite
dramatic when compared with any other time period in the last 22,000 years. It shows
that the average global temperature today was never reached in the last 22,000 years.
The limits for the data presented here are explained at about the 16,000 years B.C. mark
on the chart.
The earth was in an ice age back then, so measuring from that point is irrelevant.
It looks like present temperatures match the 1100 B.C. maximum. How come your chart
doesn't show it? Are you confident of your source?
Are you confident of yours is the better question...
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskScienceDiscussion/comments/a3bmip/what_do_you_say_to_this_infographic_in_comments/
"Cliff operates a weather station in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho and wrote a popular weekly column
called 'Gems' for the Coeur d'Alene Press."
Randy Mann, on the other hand, has a bachelor's degree in geography and is working on his
Masters of Geography degree even now. He has been a weatherman on TV! He is currently
the Chief Meteorologist for the Coeur d'Alene Press weather page and writes a weekly
weather column for the Coeur d'Alene Press." What stunning credentials!
https://theinkblotnews.com/6495/opinion/climate-change-deniers-check-the-evidence/
"There are a few arguments against this chart. For one, Harris is not actually a scientist.
The article “Climate Change Has Happened Before, So Why Worry?” by the Education for
Sustainable Development debunks the very theory that the two support. The article states
that while the climate has fluctuated a lot in the past, there have always been obvious
natural causes for those changes. This time, there are not."
There are lots and lots of negative views of this pair of authors if one were to go looking for them.
On the other hand, the source for my graphic was based on the work of Marcott and Shakun,
actual scientists from the University of Oregon and Harvard (and not by weather-station
owners), respectively...
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1228026
... but I think you need to pay to read the paper... but this follow-up is interesting...
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/03/response-by-marcott-et-al/
So yes, I have more confidence in my source than I do of your own.
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 10:05:16 PM UTC-7, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
" It is a fact not generally known that, owing to the difference between solar and sidereal time, the Earth rotates upon its axis once more often than there are 24-hour days in the year" NASA /HarvardJust because you do not understand this simple concept does not mean that it is not true.
It is true. It is drop-dead easy to understand. Read a dang textbook.
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 7:09:57 AM UTC+2, palsing wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 10:05:16 PM UTC-7, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
" It is a fact not generally known that, owing to the difference between solar and sidereal time, the Earth rotates upon its axis once more often than there are 24-hour days in the year" NASA /HarvardJust because you do not understand this simple concept does not mean that it is not true.
It is true. It is drop-dead easy to understand. Read a dang textbook.
The wonderful abbreviations of AM and PM anchor 24-hour timekeeping to noon and one sunrise/noon/sunset cycle.
The scientific method and clockwork solar system modeling is based on RA/Dec.
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 9:27:28 PM UTC-6, palsing wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 7:45:13 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 4:34:22 PM UTC-6, palsing wrote:
On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 6:23:52 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
The earth has been heating and cooling over many millenia.
https://archive.org/details/7da-2748bffc-84a-36fc-276e-61ae-31204f-imagejpeg
I like this timeline better...
https://xkcd.com/1732/
It shows that the average global temperature change between 2000 and 2016 is quite
dramatic when compared with any other time period in the last 22,000 years. It shows
that the average global temperature today was never reached in the last 22,000 years.
The limits for the data presented here are explained at about the 16,000 years B.C. mark
on the chart.
The earth was in an ice age back then, so measuring from that point is irrelevant.
It looks like present temperatures match the 1100 B.C. maximum. How come your chart
doesn't show it? Are you confident of your source?
Are you confident of yours is the better question...
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskScienceDiscussion/comments/a3bmip/what_do_you_say_to_this_infographic_in_comments/You want to put your money on someone named "karantza" who didn't bother to look at the
sources listed for the graph:
"I'll be honest, I am not going to look into those... but given that they're books and not, you
know, actual scientific papers that present raw data, ..."
"Cliff operates a weather station in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho and wrote a popular weekly column
called 'Gems' for the Coeur d'Alene Press."
Randy Mann, on the other hand, has a bachelor's degree in geography and is working on hisThe world needs more "scientist-citizens" who understand science even though they may not
Masters of Geography degree even now. He has been a weatherman on TV! He is currently
the Chief Meteorologist for the Coeur d'Alene Press weather page and writes a weekly
weather column for the Coeur d'Alene Press." What stunning credentials!
have advanced degrees. The sheer ponderousness of information makes advanced training
overly-specialized, anyway, so it comes down to trust in those that are spinning a story. What
is their motive? Why would Harris and Mann go to the trouble of creating a false graphic?
Balance that against specialized "climatologists" who are ringing the alarm bell. What do they
have to gain? What do they have to lose? Their jobs, for one. Also:
In academia, there's an in-breeding effect to supports the status quo (see baloney detection
kit, argu,emts from authority). Climatologists have been wrong before (hockey sticks), why
would we believe they're right now?
https://theinkblotnews.com/6495/opinion/climate-change-deniers-check-the-evidence/
"There are a few arguments against this chart. For one, Harris is not actually a scientist.
The article “Climate Change Has Happened Before, So Why Worry?” by the Education for
Sustainable Development debunks the very theory that the two support. The article states
that while the climate has fluctuated a lot in the past, there have always been obvious
natural causes for those changes. This time, there are not."
There are lots and lots of negative views of this pair of authors if one were to go looking for them.So who is "Colin Martin"? What are his "credentials"?
On the other hand, the source for my graphic was based on the work of Marcott and Shakun,
actual scientists from the University of Oregon and Harvard (and not by weather-station
owners), respectively...
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1228026
... but I think you need to pay to read the paper... but this follow-up is interesting...I found another paper by them that I was able to download for free. I'll study it.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/03/response-by-marcott-et-al/
So yes, I have more confidence in my source than I do of your own.
I think it's all irrelevant because the question is, given that the global temperature and
CO2 levels are rising, what should we do about it? I suspect you and I have different
opinions on that :-)
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 7:09:57 AM UTC+2, palsing wrote:In 24 hour timekeeping there’s no need for am and pm. It’s especially useless because people use AM and PM to describe noon and midnight.
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 10:05:16 PM UTC-7, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
" It is a fact not generally known that, owing to the difference between solar and sidereal time, the Earth rotates upon its axis once more often than there are 24-hour days in the year" NASA /HarvardJust because you do not understand this simple concept does not mean that it is not true.
It is true. It is drop-dead easy to understand. Read a dang textbook.The wonderful abbreviations of AM and PM anchor 24-hour timekeeping to noon and one sunrise/noon/sunset cycle.
The scientific method and clockwork solar system modeling is based on RA/Dec.
On Friday, 14 July 2023 at 20:47:26 UTC+1, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 7:09:57 AM UTC+2, palsing wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 10:05:16 PM UTC-7, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
" It is a fact not generally known that, owing to the difference between solar and sidereal time, the Earth rotates upon its axis once more often than there are 24-hour days in the year" NASA /HarvardJust because you do not understand this simple concept does not mean that it is not true.
It is true. It is drop-dead easy to understand. Read a dang textbook.The wonderful abbreviations of AM and PM anchor 24-hour timekeeping to noon and one sunrise/noon/sunset cycle.
The scientific method and clockwork solar system modeling is based on RA/Dec.In 24 hour timekeeping there’s no need for am and pm. It’s especially useless because people use AM and PM to describe noon and midnight.
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 12:01:56 AM UTC+2, Mike Collins wrote:How can noon be before noon. And in a 24 hour clock AM and PM are not necessary noon is 12:00 and, at least on my 24 hour watch midnight is 24:00. Although using an analogue display there’s no consensus on whether 12 or 24 is at the top.
On Friday, 14 July 2023 at 20:47:26 UTC+1, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 7:09:57 AM UTC+2, palsing wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 10:05:16 PM UTC-7, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
" It is a fact not generally known that, owing to the difference between solar and sidereal time, the Earth rotates upon its axis once more often than there are 24-hour days in the year" NASA /HarvardJust because you do not understand this simple concept does not mean that it is not true.
It is true. It is drop-dead easy to understand. Read a dang textbook.The wonderful abbreviations of AM and PM anchor 24-hour timekeeping to noon and one sunrise/noon/sunset cycle.
Good evening Mr. Cool.The scientific method and clockwork solar system modeling is based on RA/Dec.In 24 hour timekeeping there’s no need for am and pm. It’s especially useless because people use AM and PM to describe noon and midnight.
12 AM or noon within the 24-hour cycle is anchored to Noon hence 12:01 PM is the afternoon or PM stands for post meridiem or "after midday" .
The 24-hour day is anchored to noon with the length of time from sunrise to noon symmetrical with noon to sunset.
Wait until people discover that the entire scientific method and all empirical modeling, beginning with the clockwork solar system modeling, is based on RA/Dec.
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 12:01:56 AM UTC+2, Mike Collins wrote:
On Friday, 14 July 2023 at 20:47:26 UTC+1, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 7:09:57 AM UTC+2, palsing wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 10:05:16 PM UTC-7, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
" It is a fact not generally known that, owing to the difference between solar and sidereal time, the Earth rotates upon its axis once more often than there are 24-hour days in the year" NASA /HarvardJust because you do not understand this simple concept does not mean that it is not true.
It is true. It is drop-dead easy to understand. Read a dang textbook.The wonderful abbreviations of AM and PM anchor 24-hour timekeeping to noon and one sunrise/noon/sunset cycle.
Good evening Mr. Cool.The scientific method and clockwork solar system modeling is based on RA/Dec.In 24 hour timekeeping there’s no need for am and pm. It’s especially useless because people use AM and PM to describe noon and midnight.
12 AM or noon within the 24-hour cycle is anchored to Noon hence 12:01 PM is the afternoon or PM stands for post meridiem or "after midday" .
The 24-hour day is anchored to noon with the length of time from sunrise to noon symmetrical with noon to sunset.
Wait until people discover that the entire scientific method and all empirical modeling, beginning with the clockwork solar system modeling, is based on RA/Dec.
On Saturday, 15 July 2023 at 19:43:14 UTC+1, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 12:01:56 AM UTC+2, Mike Collins wrote:
On Friday, 14 July 2023 at 20:47:26 UTC+1, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 7:09:57 AM UTC+2, palsing wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 10:05:16 PM UTC-7, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
" It is a fact not generally known that, owing to the difference between solar and sidereal time, the Earth rotates upon its axis once more often than there are 24-hour days in the year" NASA /HarvardJust because you do not understand this simple concept does not mean that it is not true.
It is true. It is drop-dead easy to understand. Read a dang textbook.The wonderful abbreviations of AM and PM anchor 24-hour timekeeping to noon and one sunrise/noon/sunset cycle.
Good evening Mr. Cool.The scientific method and clockwork solar system modeling is based on RA/Dec.In 24 hour timekeeping there’s no need for am and pm. It’s especially useless because people use AM and PM to describe noon and midnight.
12 AM or noon within the 24-hour cycle is anchored to Noon hence 12:01 PM is the afternoon or PM stands for post meridiem or "after midday" .
The 24-hour day is anchored to noon with the length of time from sunrise to noon symmetrical with noon to sunset.
Wait until people discover that the entire scientific method and all empirical modeling, beginning with the clockwork solar system modeling, is based on RA/Dec.How can noon be before noon. And in a 24 hour clock AM and PM are not necessary noon is 12:00 and, at least on my 24 hour watch midnight is 24:00. Although using an analogue display there’s no consensus on whether 12 or 24 is at the top.
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 11:05:03 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:voted out of power in favor of folks who will throttle back any such activity. We have been advised by some that the "tipping point" of climate change is either really near or has already been passed, but I doubt that anyone actually can prove this with
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 9:27:28 PM UTC-6, palsing wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 7:45:13 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 4:34:22 PM UTC-6, palsing wrote:
On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 6:23:52 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
The earth has been heating and cooling over many millenia.
https://archive.org/details/7da-2748bffc-84a-36fc-276e-61ae-31204f-imagejpeg
I like this timeline better...
https://xkcd.com/1732/
It shows that the average global temperature change between 2000 and 2016 is quite
dramatic when compared with any other time period in the last 22,000 years. It shows
that the average global temperature today was never reached in the last 22,000 years.
The limits for the data presented here are explained at about the 16,000 years B.C. mark
on the chart.
The earth was in an ice age back then, so measuring from that point is irrelevant.
It looks like present temperatures match the 1100 B.C. maximum. How come your chart
doesn't show it? Are you confident of your source?
Are you confident of yours is the better question...
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskScienceDiscussion/comments/a3bmip/what_do_you_say_to_this_infographic_in_comments/You want to put your money on someone named "karantza" who didn't bother to look at the
sources listed for the graph:
"I'll be honest, I am not going to look into those... but given that they're books and not, you
know, actual scientific papers that present raw data, ..."
"Cliff operates a weather station in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho and wrote a popular weekly column
called 'Gems' for the Coeur d'Alene Press."
Randy Mann, on the other hand, has a bachelor's degree in geography and is working on hisThe world needs more "scientist-citizens" who understand science even though they may not
Masters of Geography degree even now. He has been a weatherman on TV! He is currently
the Chief Meteorologist for the Coeur d'Alene Press weather page and writes a weekly
weather column for the Coeur d'Alene Press." What stunning credentials!
have advanced degrees. The sheer ponderousness of information makes advanced training
overly-specialized, anyway, so it comes down to trust in those that are spinning a story. What
is their motive? Why would Harris and Mann go to the trouble of creating a false graphic?
Balance that against specialized "climatologists" who are ringing the alarm bell. What do they
have to gain? What do they have to lose? Their jobs, for one. Also:
In academia, there's an in-breeding effect to supports the status quo (see baloney detection
kit, argu,emts from authority). Climatologists have been wrong before (hockey sticks), why
would we believe they're right now?
https://theinkblotnews.com/6495/opinion/climate-change-deniers-check-the-evidence/
"There are a few arguments against this chart. For one, Harris is not actually a scientist.
The article “Climate Change Has Happened Before, So Why Worry?” by the Education for
Sustainable Development debunks the very theory that the two support. The article states
that while the climate has fluctuated a lot in the past, there have always been obvious
natural causes for those changes. This time, there are not."
There are lots and lots of negative views of this pair of authors if one were to go looking for them.So who is "Colin Martin"? What are his "credentials"?
On the other hand, the source for my graphic was based on the work of Marcott and Shakun,
actual scientists from the University of Oregon and Harvard (and not by weather-station
owners), respectively...
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1228026
... but I think you need to pay to read the paper... but this follow-up is interesting...I found another paper by them that I was able to download for free. I'll study it.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/03/response-by-marcott-et-al/
So yes, I have more confidence in my source than I do of your own.
I think it's all irrelevant because the question is, given that the global temperature andYou mentioned a couple of names that I don't know, so I have no comment. All I can say is that if it comes down to the work of 2 scientists versus 2 amateur weather guys from Coeur d'Alene, I'll go with the published professionals every time.
CO2 levels are rising, what should we do about it? I suspect you and I have different
opinions on that :-)
I have little confidence that the world's leaders will do what needs to be done at any kind of accelerated rate. The cost is too high and the general populace does not have the appetite for that kind of expenditure. Governments that try will just be
I don't worry too much about climate change myself because of my age but I do worry about my 5 children and 11 grandchildren and I fear that they will suffer mightily in a few decades and there will be practically nothing to be done about that exceptmaybe to keep moving closer to the poles!
\Paul
On Friday, 14 July 2023 at 16:28:29 UTC-4, palsing wrote:voted out of power in favor of folks who will throttle back any such activity. We have been advised by some that the "tipping point" of climate change is either really near or has already been passed, but I doubt that anyone actually can prove this with
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 11:05:03 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 9:27:28 PM UTC-6, palsing wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 7:45:13 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 4:34:22 PM UTC-6, palsing wrote:
On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 6:23:52 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
The earth has been heating and cooling over many millenia.
https://archive.org/details/7da-2748bffc-84a-36fc-276e-61ae-31204f-imagejpeg
I like this timeline better...
https://xkcd.com/1732/
It shows that the average global temperature change between 2000 and 2016 is quite
dramatic when compared with any other time period in the last 22,000 years. It shows
that the average global temperature today was never reached in the last 22,000 years.
The limits for the data presented here are explained at about the 16,000 years B.C. mark
on the chart.
The earth was in an ice age back then, so measuring from that point is irrelevant.
It looks like present temperatures match the 1100 B.C. maximum. How come your chart
doesn't show it? Are you confident of your source?
Are you confident of yours is the better question...
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskScienceDiscussion/comments/a3bmip/what_do_you_say_to_this_infographic_in_comments/You want to put your money on someone named "karantza" who didn't bother to look at the
sources listed for the graph:
"I'll be honest, I am not going to look into those... but given that they're books and not, you
know, actual scientific papers that present raw data, ..."
"Cliff operates a weather station in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho and wrote a popular weekly column
called 'Gems' for the Coeur d'Alene Press."
Randy Mann, on the other hand, has a bachelor's degree in geography and is working on hisThe world needs more "scientist-citizens" who understand science even though they may not
Masters of Geography degree even now. He has been a weatherman on TV! He is currently
the Chief Meteorologist for the Coeur d'Alene Press weather page and writes a weekly
weather column for the Coeur d'Alene Press." What stunning credentials!
have advanced degrees. The sheer ponderousness of information makes advanced training
overly-specialized, anyway, so it comes down to trust in those that are spinning a story. What
is their motive? Why would Harris and Mann go to the trouble of creating a false graphic?
Balance that against specialized "climatologists" who are ringing the alarm bell. What do they
have to gain? What do they have to lose? Their jobs, for one. Also:
In academia, there's an in-breeding effect to supports the status quo (see baloney detection
kit, argu,emts from authority). Climatologists have been wrong before (hockey sticks), why
would we believe they're right now?
https://theinkblotnews.com/6495/opinion/climate-change-deniers-check-the-evidence/
"There are a few arguments against this chart. For one, Harris is not actually a scientist.
The article “Climate Change Has Happened Before, So Why Worry?” by the Education for
Sustainable Development debunks the very theory that the two support. The article states
that while the climate has fluctuated a lot in the past, there have always been obvious
natural causes for those changes. This time, there are not."
There are lots and lots of negative views of this pair of authors if one were to go looking for them.So who is "Colin Martin"? What are his "credentials"?
On the other hand, the source for my graphic was based on the work of Marcott and Shakun,
actual scientists from the University of Oregon and Harvard (and not by weather-station
owners), respectively...
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1228026
... but I think you need to pay to read the paper... but this follow-up is interesting...I found another paper by them that I was able to download for free. I'll study it.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/03/response-by-marcott-et-al/
So yes, I have more confidence in my source than I do of your own.
I think it's all irrelevant because the question is, given that the global temperature andYou mentioned a couple of names that I don't know, so I have no comment. All I can say is that if it comes down to the work of 2 scientists versus 2 amateur weather guys from Coeur d'Alene, I'll go with the published professionals every time.
CO2 levels are rising, what should we do about it? I suspect you and I have different
opinions on that :-)
I have little confidence that the world's leaders will do what needs to be done at any kind of accelerated rate. The cost is too high and the general populace does not have the appetite for that kind of expenditure. Governments that try will just be
maybe to keep moving closer to the poles!I don't worry too much about climate change myself because of my age but I do worry about my 5 children and 11 grandchildren and I fear that they will suffer mightily in a few decades and there will be practically nothing to be done about that except
\Paul
Well, if the climate3 kooks are right, your age group caused it all so you should feel very guilty.
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 8:07:19 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
Well, if the climate3 kooks are right, your age group caused it all so you should feel very guilty.Just what is your definition of a climate kook? For me, it is someone who ignores the science and denies the problem. I think that might >be you!
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 298 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 01:22:55 |
| Calls: | 6,673 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 12,219 |
| Messages: | 5,339,424 |