Page 166 of 289 FirstFirst ... 66116156159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173176216266 ... LastLast
Results 2,146 to 2,158 of 3756
  1. #2146
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    762
    Post Likes
    Thread Starter
    Quote Originally Posted by vin lashon View Post
    From the article:

    "A one-degree global change is significant because it takes a vast amount of heat to warm all the oceans, atmosphere, and land by that much. In the past, a one- to two-degree drop was all it took to plunge the Earth into the Little Ice Age. A five-degree drop was enough to bury a large part of North America under a towering mass of ice 20,000 years ago."
    now we are scheduled for an about +10°C rise in global temperatures. This is the effects of the CO2 already in the atmosphere however it takes time for the temperature to rise. And the worst: we do NOT stop, at the contrary CO2 rise is speeding up! Thus we will be at +30 or even +40°C temperature rise somewhere in the future, that means the oceans will boil around the equator (we are talking about average).

  2. #2147
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    2,009
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by BNME8EZ View Post
    Gee, that's a lot like the degree day chart I posted that showed no warming for this part of the country.
    I don't understand your point in relation to MMCC. You are in 1 of 2592 squares (trapezoidal quadrilaterals).

    The US represents 2% of Earth's land mass. Like stated previously, the entire US could drop 10C, the other 98% only has to rise more than 0.2C for GW to hold true.

  3. #2148
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    2,009
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by hurtinhvac View Post
    You are merely demonstrating you have little understanding of even common sense, much less science.

    FF are here to stay. Your masters will make some noise long enough to try to get elected and take off in separate jets. Always have, always will. The rules are not for them anyway - they're for you. And you can shove 'em.
    What? Masters, jets, rules, me, shovels...

    What's that got to do with the interaction of solar energy, our atmospheres composition that has changed due to humans use of FFs and the resulting increase in average global temperature???

    You are merely demonstrating your inability to separate politics, bias and science.

  4. #2149
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    2,009
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by Answer-Man View Post
    I have 2 issues I have had a hard time with:

    1 what is the starting point. What is the temperture we drive a stake into and say, "we sart here!" Who has said or proven that 30 years is the correct way to establish that normal point. If we use the scientists explanation the earth has been here 4 to 5 million years. 30 years is less than a blink of the eye. 30 years compared to 4 million is not much different than starting to take temp readings at 6 AM and stopping at Noon then proclaiming that should be enough to make a real average temperature

    2 If as stated we are conitunously monitoring/ collecting and reporting temperature changes withing one degree and reporting on an annual basis, then our accuracy and calibration of these million temperature deviation points must be in the tenths (0.01) degree C. That is physically not possible to cordinate and achieve world wide
    I've pretty much covered this in a previous response to you on this topic. Basically, I too find the whole 1degC change misleading.

    Solar forcing is a much better explanation in my opinion. This is being directly measured and it's increasing.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lahrs View Post
    Let's not skip over this post. It's a really good one AM.

    Despite everything I've said in this thread, I think the 1C temp change number (or whatever) is BS. Compared to what? The simple answer is pre-industrial times, again, so what? Maybe pre-industrial was at a low point and now we are up in comparison!

    There is some logic and alot of math behind the temp increase number, but I suspect it was just used as a way to explain what is going on to the public. Everyone knows what a degree of temperature change is right? But this simple approach has backfired in my opinion.

    A better and way more relevant metric is radiative forcing. Basically, incoming radiation minus outgoing radiation equals radiative forcing. If it's positive temp goes up, negative temp goes down.

    For a way better explanation: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

    Radiative forcing natively takes into account sun activity. Less solar activity (less radiation), less radiation bounced back from Earth... Is the net result up or down? The absolute numbers will change but it's the differential that matters.

    Since our use of FFs there has been no reduction in radiative forcing (as best as I could find!!) This key metric tells us we are adding more 'btus' to the planet than removing. We all know the result of that.

    Again, yes, IMO the temperature increase number used is suspect. Sciences PR department should have given the public credit and used real terms rather than dumbing it down which has only caused confusion.

    If you go to that link above > History, there is a nice breakdown of different components of the radiation.
    (Small print: when I originally wrote that on phone, I missed autocorrect changing radiative to radioactive. Fixed it here.)

  5. #2150
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    2,009
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by vin lashon View Post
    From the article:

    "A one-degree global change is significant because it takes a vast amount of heat to warm all the oceans, atmosphere, and land by that much. In the past, a one- to two-degree drop was all it took to plunge the Earth into the Little Ice Age. A five-degree drop was enough to bury a large part of North America under a towering mass of ice 20,000 years ago."

    ...

    "Global temperature records start around 1880 because observations did not sufficiently cover enough of the planet prior to that time. The period of 1951-1980 was chosen largely because the U.S. National Weather Service uses a three-decade period to define “normal” or average temperature."

    Global temp measurements start around 1880, but I doubt accuracy and consistency was up to standard. They take a 30 yr period (1951-1980) to define 'normal' and go from there. But how do they accurately determine what temps existed 20,000 yrs ago? And how do they determine that a "two degree drop" caused the ice age? Is it undeniable scientifically proven, or are the "facts" being shaped to make the point?
    It is scientifically proven. Based on ice cores and geological/fossil formations primarily. These also give data about atmospheric composition and volcanic activity.

    https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_01/

    The science of CC is way more sophisticated than some of you give it credit for. It ain't a couple of k-type probes strung up on the porch of the local weather man's house.

  6. #2151
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Deep Southeast
    Posts
    8,237
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by Lahrs View Post
    It is scientifically proven. Based on ice cores and geological/fossil formations primarily. These also give data about atmospheric composition and volcanic activity.

    https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_01/

    The science of CC is way more sophisticated than some of you give it credit for. It ain't a couple of k-type probes strung up on the porch of the local weather man's house.
    I can't say that I understand the science and math behind their conclusions (nor care to educate myself beyond casual research). And I don't really have 'a dog in this hunt' other than my distrust of the Left and their underwriting and support of this and other issues. Other than that, it can be true or not, as far as I'm concerned. It doesn't change how I do things one way or the other. But there is another relative question that really should be put forth:


    Is Science infallible?

  7. #2152
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    762
    Post Likes
    Thread Starter
    Quote Originally Posted by Lahrs View Post
    What? Masters, jets, rules, me, shovels...

    What's that got to do with the interaction of solar energy, our atmospheres composition that has changed due to humans use of FFs and the resulting increase in average global temperature???

    You are merely demonstrating your inability to separate politics, bias and science.
    Lahrs: he lives in a kind of dark ages... and worships beings from another dimensions

  8. #2153
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    2,009
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by vin lashon View Post


    Is Science infallible?
    No.

  9. #2154
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    7,369
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by Lahrs View Post
    What? Masters, jets, rules, me, shovels...

    What's that got to do with the interaction of solar energy, our atmospheres composition that has changed due to humans use of FFs and the resulting increase in average global temperature???

    You are merely demonstrating your inability to separate politics, bias and science.
    It's been stated, multiple times in this thread alone; that all those conditions have existed apart from the use of FF. It therefore has everything to do with junk science and contrived data being manipulated to a political end.

    A horrific political end were it allowed to succeed.
    Is the Religious Right to blame for Christianity's decline?

    They argued that, as the Religious Right became increasingly visible and militant, it became associated with Christianity itself. And if being a Christian meant being associated with the likes of Jerry Falwell, many people—especially political moderates and liberals—decided to simply stop identifying as Christians altogether.

    http://www.theamericanconservative.c...nitys-decline/

  10. #2155
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    9,568
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by vin lashon View Post
    Evolution vs Creation would make a good thread, but if you follow this thread back, you'll see that the point was that Origin Evolution, though flawed on many levels has somehow become accepted "science". Thus the point as pertains to this thread: Science is not infallible.


    Many theories are at best incomplete but provable. We function on theories. You could think of a theory as a base hit but still able to score.
    Bad science is when a theory is created with no evidence. Scientific theories are evidence based and if creationists want to go to that playground, that's how it's played.
    Creationists should stick with metaphysics. That brings up another ?? Do they understand metaphysics?
    You can't prove or disprove the existence of God. Proof is the realm of science. When creationists dabble in science they look foolish.

    Do I care what creationists think about MMCC? Not at all.
    Give me a relay with big enough contacts, and I'll run the world!

    You can be anything you want......As long as you don't suck at it.

    If a person wants to create a machine that will be more likely to fail...Make it complicated.

    USAF 98 Bomb Wing 1960-66 SMW Lu49

  11. #2156
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    2,009
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by hurtinhvac View Post
    It's been stated, multiple times in this thread alone; that all those conditions have existed apart from the use of FF. It therefore has everything to do with junk science and contrived data being manipulated to a political end.

    A horrific political end were it allowed to succeed.
    It has been stated in this thread multiple times that something can change from more than one cause. I think this is a rudimentary concept to understand.

    Of all the arguments against MMCC this is the most flawed. Political reasons isn't far behind.

    Has climate always changed? Yes. Does this somehow prove humans can't change it also? NO!!!

    Listen, you've come along, repeated some well worn science literate statements. Come back when you have a more reasoned and researched response.

    Until someone can prove atmospheric CO2 has no effect on Earth's temperature, y'all are just p!ssing in the wind.

  12. #2157
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    9,568
    Post Likes
    Full urinary flow. To bring politics to a semi-scientific discussion causes me to ponder.....Why?
    If someones understanding of CC is from politicians or worse Limpballs, it's no wonder they seem confused.

    For myself, even if MMCC proves untrue, science will find out. But in the meantime, we might end with a better world. That alone is worth the money.
    Give me a relay with big enough contacts, and I'll run the world!

    You can be anything you want......As long as you don't suck at it.

    If a person wants to create a machine that will be more likely to fail...Make it complicated.

    USAF 98 Bomb Wing 1960-66 SMW Lu49

  13. Likes Lahrs liked this post
  14. #2158
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    napping on the couch
    Posts
    13,201
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by hvacker View Post
    Full urinary flow. To bring politics to a semi-scientific discussion causes me to ponder.....Why?
    If someones understanding of CC is from politicians or worse Limpballs, it's no wonder they seem confused.

    For myself, even if MMCC proves untrue, science will find out. But in the meantime, we might end with a better world. That alone is worth the money.
    We didn't bring politics into the debate. They did.

Page 166 of 289 FirstFirst ... 66116156159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173176216266 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •