PaulS
Touchdown! Greaser!
It's Theory!!!!!!!
2014 hottest year on record
- Thread starter steingar
- Start date
docmirror
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2007
- Messages
- 12,008
- Display Name
Display name:
Cowboy - yeehah!
I sometimes wonder when the climate folks are going to find their Robert Boyle who took the world from Alchemy and made it into the modern science of chemistry. The history of climatology doesn't bode well for finding someone like that now. Far too much money to be made by the Alclimatists.
Ghery
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2005
- Messages
- 10,945
- Location
- Olympia, Washington
- Display Name
Display name:
Ghery Pettit
I understand they have vineyards on Greenland back then, too. I wonder why it's call "Green"land? Some warmer weather would be fine with me.
The problem is the climate is far more complex than chemistry. Chemistry is a simple set of interactions, climate is a myriad of complex and compounding energy sources interacting on a global scale. Software to predict the yields and effects of thermonuclear detonations was child's play compared to what it took to make an accurate climate prediction product that would span just 3 days, and it is still a very incomplete program and always will be because of all the energy input variables.
What I find depressing is all the people who deny that we control one of those variable inputs, we most certainly do. In our production and consumption of energy we put 200-300% that energy value in heat into the environment as straight up waste. At the same time we reinforce the greenhouse gas blanket to retain that energy within the troposphere. To deny that this will produce an effect on the climate at the rate of energy we pump into the environment is illogical, it defies the laws of nature.
The thing is, nobody wants to deal with the real question, "What are we going to do going forward? What is our plan? How will we cope with our increasing population density and resource deficit?"
There is only one answer that doesn't involve genocide or extinction, and that is to go to space. The resources available to us in the asteroid belt alone are phenomenal, and are ours to use. We just have to get along well enough to have the resources available to do it.
JOhnH
Touchdown! Greaser!
If we sent a billion or two people to some other planet, within a few years we would replace them, plus extra, and the planet we send them to would either be wiped out or would see their own population explosion. Sort of like transplanting weeds.
The only answer is genocide or extinction. Maybe a plague or two could thin the herd some. Some "Roundup" for people, or nuclear war, which is lately is looking more and more likely. Or perhaps requiring photo ID to get food stamps and section 8 housing.
Planets are not efficient. Large space colonies are the only efficient way to keep sending people off as we produce them. We start with them tasked to mine the asteroid belt for things like Chengdeite which can be used to make more.
The only solution to population is to just keep sending people off into space in self sustaining colonies, that's what mankind's destiny is, we're just screwing it up. It'll be easier and more efficient to build large space faring colonies than trying to inhabit any planetary body we can reach at this point.
PaulS
Touchdown! Greaser!
Henning, even at our present rates of energy consumption, what we add to the mix (you call it waste) is miniscule, it has to be or our systems wouldn't work.
It's tough to find info on this stuff, but one source I googled put the sun's out put to the earth's surface at about 128 petawatts. So over 24 hours that should equate to 3,072 petawatt hours of power. Which would equal 1.12 zetawatt hours for a year. In 2008, the IEA estimated we used 144,000 terawatt hours of energy. So the amount of energy we added was 0.013% of what the sun adds to our environment..... miniscule, insignificant, the variation of solar output each year is probably orders of magnitude more than what humans add.
(I used the amount of energy that makes it to the surface, I probably should have used the amount of energy that the earth is exposed to, 173 petawatts as the difference is absorbed by our atmosphere, which makes our contribution even more insignificant.)
Texastaildragger
Pre-takeoff checklist
What happened to the holes in the ozone ? Remember how styrofoam was causing them?
JOhnH
Touchdown! Greaser!
Remember, I'm on your side, but I think it was CFC's primarily blamed for the hole. And I believe, although I have heard contradictory reports, we have significantly replaced a lot of the CFCs with other harmful chemicals.
It coalesced into a big assed hole over Australia giving it the most brutal sunshine on the planet and minimum exposure time to sunburn. However, since in this hemisphere we have slowed on the destruction of Ozone, natural processes such as lightning have replenished it. BTW, there's basically 2 layers of Ozone, one way up that we need as a radiation filter, and one down low that isn't healthy.
Last edited:
azure
Final Approach
So what? Different data sets, from measurements of different things (UAH TLT = tropospheric temperatures inferred from satellite-based radiance measurements, NCDC reports = surface temp data). To my knowledge, no one has yet claimed that either UAH or RSS would show 2014 to be a record calendar year. And ISTR that even the surface-based projections assume that an El Nino will develop in time with sufficient strength to throw December over the top. Seems unlikely at this point, but we'll see. Anyway satellite and surface-based temperature measurements often disagree on short time scales (not just month to month but even year to year), e.g. there is much more short-term variability in satellite measured atmospheric temps than in surface-based temps. This is not news to anyone, and the reasons are understood. The UAH data used to show a decadal-scale cooling trend, and that WAS a significant disagreement and not understood for a time, until the early 2000s I believe. Then the discrepancies were explained and corrections were applied. Now all data sets agree that the long term trend is upward, and long term trends are what are relevant to global warming/climate change, not which calendar year is warmest.
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-...er-So-long-as-you-ignore-all-the-hotter-years
2014 ON COURSE TO BE HOTTEST YEAR EVER (SO LONG AS YOU IGNORE ALL THE HOTTER YEARS)
azure
Final Approach
See this page. Short answer: nothing has happened to them, they're still there. And they were never thought to be due to styrofoam. JohnH has it right: CFCs and other man-made halocarbons release highly reactive free radicals (especially atomic chlorine) on exposure to UV in the stratosphere. Those free radicals then react with and deplete O3. I believe we are no longer pumping the stuff into the atmosphere faster than it can degrade, but it will still take decades for the effects of what we have already put up there to drop to insignificant levels.
Coal exhaust does a fair bit of damage as well.
CharlieTango
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2013
- Messages
- 878
- Location
- Mammoth Lakes, California
- Display Name
Display name:
CharlieTango
Either it is the hottest year on record or it isn't.
I cannot reconcile hearing this year after year when the warming stopped 18 years and 2 months ago.
If it really isn't then tell the truth.
Here, read the NOAA report for yourself, hottest October.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/
What you need to pay specific attention to is sea water temp. That is the biggest driving force in weather patterns. The higher the temp, the stronger the storms. The energy from the SE Asia region is what feeds our winter storms.
Last edited:
Exonerated by the people involved?
You only have to read them for yourself to see the level of corruption involved. Colluding to limit who reviews or what publications get used?
You're conflating particulate pollution with CO2....nice try. We've done pretty well on cleaning up our particulates. CO2 isn't a pollutant.
azure
Final Approach
1. Depends on the record. It might be for surface based, almost certainly won't be for satellites.
2. It didn't. ALL data lines that I'm aware of agree there.
3. No one knows what it "really" is, science doesn't have a direct line from God. Scientists measure, analyze the data, and report. With VERY few exceptions, they ARE telling the truth. The public is unfortunately largely science illiterate and does not correctly interpret that truth.
azure
Final Approach
So we're back in tinfoil-hat territory.Exonerated by the people involved?
And I'm done here.
Captain
Final Approach
So we're back in tinfoil-hat territory.
I'd urge you not to leave. When we all depart it becomes an echo chamber and they start to become embolden in their crazy. We need you...
ClimbnSink
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2007
- Messages
- 6,997
- Display Name
Display name:
Greg
So we're back in tinfoil-hat territory.
Name calling and running away won't convince anyone of a warming trend.
Agreed....
When the facts override the hype.... They take their ball and go home...
..
ChrisK
En-Route
Agreed....
When the facts override the hype.... They take their ball and go home...
Facts like "there is corruption in science so we should stop using it"?
ChrisK
En-Route
You'd have to scroll up a few posts. It is the conversation string to which you were replying more or less.
And... I thought this was in Spin Zone based on some of the comments. Whoops.
Hmmm..
Ms Azure seems to think global warming is real... Others like me seem to think differently......
PaulS
Touchdown! Greaser!
Please link to the post from where that quote came...... just because you use the word fact doesn't make a fact......
ChrisK
En-Route
I made a mistake. Thought this was a SZ thread. If I find the energy I will post it there
Will the NOAA report I posted be sufficient? No? I didn't think so.
Agreed....
When the facts override the hype.... They take their ball and go home...
I posted real facts, now, who is hyping BS? Denial of reality is retarded Ben, straight up. Now, if you don't care and think that securing proofs for next quarters executive bonuses is more important than reinvesting in cleaner and more efficient infrastructure to secure our future needs, that's fine; just be honest and say you are old and don't give a **** about future costs.
azure
Final Approach
Several of us have posted the facts... seems no one is interested. So why waste my time? If someone believes that the whole field is corrupt then there isn't much to say. It's like arguing with someone who thinks our government was behind the 9//11 attacks. I can't PROVE they didn't, but it makes no sense. Same thing with the scientific community conspiring to fake the climate data and bully journal editors into rejecting the truth. Isolated cases of that, I'll believe. But in science that's a career ender. The guys who were accused are still very much around. "Exonerated by the people involved"... that's accusing the whole community. That's where I bow out. Y'all have fun.Agreed....
When the facts override the hype.... They take their ball and go home...
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
You keep saying that, and yet you keep coming back...
steingar
Taxi to Parking
Can't blame the lass. Sorry, when some one calls you a liar and a cheat it really doesn't foster a climate of calm equanimous discussion. Those of you claiming all climatologists are just a bunch of liars fabricating data to whore off grant money are basically doing just that. The mistrust of the scientific community is just breathtaking. This is a frightening development in America, since the folks looking at this are likely in the upper echelons of the socioeconomic ladder. I hesitate to think what's going on around the lower rungs.
A society that mistrusts science and technology will not be blessed with such. A dangerous turn for a society that's made its living from technological development.
A society that mistrusts science and technology will not be blessed with such. A dangerous turn for a society that's made its living from technological development.
PaulS
Touchdown! Greaser!
All climatologists believe global warming huh? People are claiming all climatologists are liars??? Why do progressives always mischaracterize the positions of those they don't agree with? Could it be because their beliefs fall apart if they don't?????
Yeah, the trend has been a bad one for a while now, however the scientific community has not been completely guilt free from the cause of this effect by their vehement denial of an intelligence behind the universe, trying to prove it's all just chaos and coincidence, at least in the view of the general public. The problem is, most people do not believe that to be true. When a person like me has been raised to be an atheist can only make sense of everything we have learned and can perceive by applying an all encompassing dimension of information acting upon an only indirectly perceivable proto matter; well then you have lost the majority of people who do believe in God when you take away the all the assigned dogmas.
Science was created to understand God and provide a better definition, not to deny God. The denial of God is basically a political rivalry grown out of religion's need to maintain an incorrect definition to maintain control. Without a base of intelligence, there would be no use for intelligence in the universe. Without understanding the intelligence that drives the universe, we have no sense of greater place and purpose beyond our own existence, and that is what is bringing about the extinction of mankind.
Science loses credibility by denying what the majority sense to be true, and that sense comes from the information injected at the Big Bang.
PaulS
Touchdown! Greaser!
What does that have to do with what I said????
Do you claim all climatologists believe in AGW??
ClimbnSink
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2007
- Messages
- 6,997
- Display Name
Display name:
Greg
The academy is broken. Dark ages 2.0 is right around the corner. The academy while not wholly responsible is not without fault in its demise. As goes the empire so goes its learning.
I asked a simple, pointed, question, please answer.