anonymoose
Classical Liberal
Well that goes without saying. In fact you reaffirm what I said.
And that's a healthy tension.
Was Global Warming responsible for the many deaths in freezing-snow packed Buffalo?
- Thread starter Libhater
- Start date
the problem is Paris puts the US/west at a real competitive disadvantage in the meantime.
Which is why China pledges a full transition, but is exempt in the meantime -
and those are just unenforceable target dates - no hard mandatory dates
The monstrosity just passed is full of unrealistic/unusable green crap.
(Thank you McConnell and moronic Republicans as well)
As you said market transition to a COMBINATION of fossil and renewables is ideal
Renewables have their place , but no way on earth they can supply all the energy needed
to run a modern industrialized state. Greeniacs may wish otherwise, but they at at best a subsidiary to fossils
anonymoose
Classical Liberal
I know. We only have 12 years . Occasional-Cortex said so (a couple of years ago).
anonymoose
Classical Liberal
Diesel
Well-known member
Not in this case. Your position is irrational. You literally support a position that goes against your own self interest. Like a MAGA.
Records were made to be broken. The fact remains, a shit load of snow is hardly unusual there. Its totally predictable.
Saint Guinefort
Verified User
WRONGO. You didn't even understand that point did you?
We have waaay more than 12 years....but the problem is that maybe within those 12 years we will blow past so many "tipping points" (that we don't even realize at the time) that it effectively means that we won't be able to fix it after that.
We will still go along as normal and you denialists and "skeptics" will go on complaining about AGW while it steadily makes things much worse in about 50 to 100 years.
That's the whole point of the "12 year" thing. You won't necessarily see much different (except more swings in the weather) at 12 years. But folks many decades later will be able to point to our time as being the time that we frittered away our last chances at fixing it.
anonymoose
Classical Liberal
Supporting research into renewable energy goes against my self interest? Now, that's irrational. And highly speculative. You have no idea what my (self) interests are.
May as well say "like Hitler". Maybe Godwin's Law can be amended to include Trump.
Oh well, I've seen worse cases of TDS.
Diesel
Well-known member
Supporting research into renewable energy goes against my self interest? Now, that's irrational. And highly speculative. You have no idea what my (self) interests are.
May as well say "like Hitler". Maybe Godwin's Law can be amended to include Trump.
Oh well, I've seen worse cases of TDS.
The research to convert is available now. What else do you want researched before you'll support any conversion efforts now?
If I meant Hitler, I would say Hitler.
Saint Guinefort
Verified User
Might I recommend you actually read some SCIENCE on the topic? You know, from actual legitimate scientists in this area?
NiftyNiblick
1960s Chick Magnet
They don't do a good enough job of explaining the phenomenon.
Conservative pols won't vote to fund the education.
The oil companies and such will withhold their campaign contributions.
you mean corrupted computer models, that use bogus metrics?
Been there /done that.
When AGW is blamed for the main reason forglobal warming -not increased solar activity -
can see the whole thing is bogus
Also the compute "modeling" is impossible to verify, since we dont even fully understand climate change
But if you want to believe it -fine by me -just dont try to sell me on renewables being able to replace fossil fuels .
It's a scam and it's impossible to construct that many solar panels/windmills/ compost heaps etc.
anonymoose
Classical Liberal
Of course there is but not by a significant amount. You actually believe that suddenly (within the next 25 years) we'll all be able to drive solar power vehicles or convert all shipping back to wind power? You do realize we have the technology to power shipping with wind, don't you? It's called "sails".
Any? You have me confused with somebody else. I own and use a solar powered wristwatch.
Yet you invoke Trump in the same way. A sure sign of desperation in a debate AFAIC.
Saint Guinefort
Verified User
Couple points:
EVERY Science uses models
YOU don't know a thing about models
You wouldn't know a good one from a corrupted one.
No you haven't. You don't even understand what is measured.
When AGW is blamed for the main reason forglobal warming -not increased solar activity -
can see the whole thing is bogus
Too bad people who actually study the sun disagree with you.
You don't know a THING about science! LOL.
Guess I'll take my university degree in geology and believe it in peace then.
What in god's name do YOU know about fossil fuels?
Diesel
Well-known member
I don't know why you keep pulling random numbers out of thin air. I'm saying that there is systemic resistance to clean energy because it costs big energy money that they don't want to lose or invest, and the government is owned and controlled by money.
Then there are the MAGA types who don't want to convert because they don't understand science and think every thing even remotely sounding like progress is evil. That's the MAGA comparison I made, and it's true. Clutch your pearls about Hitler to someone else.
We can be replacing our power plants now. We can be replacing our vehicles now. The only small scales we've achieved have been the work of governments and activists. I understand that you claim to be open to some form of conversion, but that's not what the far right wants as a policy. They think we should be drilling more oil and mining more coal.
Into the Night
Verified User
The Church of Global Warming has tried to rebrand itself as 'climate change'. People stopped believing in the old name because of instances like this, and the religion wanted to be more inclusive of weather events in the winter.
They still blame CO2 of course, and continue to state the Earth is warming.
But it isn't possible.
The 1st law of thermodynamics states E(t+1) = E(t) - U, where 'E' is energy, 't' is time, and 'U' is work. In other words, the ONLY way to increase energy (in this case average thermal energy) is to provide work. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. It cannot be created out of nothing. CO2 is not an energy source or work. It, like any other gas or vapor, is incapable of warming the Earth.
The Church of Global Warming discards this theory of science by claiming the CO2 has magickal properties to warm the Earth.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics states e(t+1) >= e(t) where 'e' is entropy (or the randomness of a system), and 't' is time. In other words, entropy always increases or stays the same. This law defines the concept of 'heat', which is the flow of thermal energy. Heat is from hot to cold, NEVER from cold to hot. If both regions are the same temperature, there is no heat. (The concept of 'temperature' is defined by the 0th law of thermodynamics, which the Church of Global Warming also discards).
The Church of Global Warming discards this theory of science by claiming that CO2, a colder gas in the atmosphere, can somehow heat the Earth's surface by some kind of 'reflection'.
The Stefan-Boltzmann law describes how thermal energy is converted to electromagnetic energy (light). It's the relation: E = C*e*t^4, where 'E' is electromagnetic energy, 'C' is a natural constant (converting the relation to our units of measurement), 'e' is the emissivity of the radiating surface, or how well it can emit or absorb light (the inverse of emissivity is 'albedo', a measure of how reflective a surface is) expressed as a percentage, and 't' is temperature in deg K, or the average thermal energy of the radiating surface. Emissivity (or albedo) is a measured constant. Measuring it requires knowing precisely the temperature of the radiating surface.
In other words, the higher the temperature, the more energy is converted to light, cooling the radiating surface. It is NEVER the inverse. You cannot heat a warmer substance by radiant heat using a colder radiating surface. This also conforms to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
The Stefan-Boltzmann law is the integration of Plank's law over ALL frequencies of light combined.
When light strikes an object, the photon is destroyed, utterly. The energy it had is converted into some other form of energy. What that form takes is governed by quantum mechanics. Much of this work was by Rutherford.
UV light strips electrons off of atoms and can produce ions directly. If high enough frequency (such as UV-C, this can be particularly dangerous, since it destroys human tissue exposed to it. This is why the medical world and airports limit the amount of X-ray exposure (even higher frequency than UV-C!).
Fortunately, UV-C light from the Sun is absorbed by ozone, and none of it reaches the surface.
Visible light converts to chemical energy (photosynthesis being an obvious example). It is visible light and lower bands of UV light (that DO reach the surface) that destroy plastics, paint, gives us sunburn and suntan, and allow us to see. All of them are chemical reactions caused by visible light and the lower bands of UV.
Infrared light, when absorbed, converts to thermal energy (heating the absorbing surface). Most of the energy put out by the Sun is infrared light. Despite the intensity of it, we can't see it. We can feel and observe it's effects as it heats the Earth. Like a little glowing coal in the edge of the fire, Earth orbits an incredibly powerful star and basks in the energy that streams out from it.
That coal cannot heat itself.
The Church of Global Warming discards the Stefan-Boltzmann law and Planck's law with it. Photons are not created equal. It is not possible to heat a warmer object using a colder one, even by radiant heating. No surface will absorb a photon of equal or less energy than the surface already has. quantum mechanics explains why.
Typically, the Church of Global warming tries to impose a 'sequence' to try to set aside the Stefan-Boltzmann law for some period of time, or try to add terms to the equation such as frequency (and discard the law that way!).
Thus, the Church of Global Warming discards these three theories of science. Instead they claim The sCiEnCe, which is just a buzzword to them to justify their circular argument fallacy.
Further, the Church of Global Warming claims to know the temperature of the Earth and the global atmospheric concentration of CO2. Neither is possible to measure.
Statistical mathematics requires the use of unbiased raw data to select from. Because selection is by randN (once selected, you cannot select it again), and because the selection set is normalized by paired randR (like two or more dice, which produces the familiar bell curve), statistical mathematics is incapable of predicting anything. It is merely a useful summary tool.
For any statistical summary, TWO values must be published: the average, and the margin of error. This 2nd number is calculated from the possible variances the data may take (not the data itself). For temperature, this means the sharpest temperature gradient observed in a reasonably common basis.
Raw data MUST be used. You cannot use cooked data, since that is simply running a statistical analysis WITHOUT DATA to 'predict' what the data 'should be'. In other words, it's guessing by circular argument.
Measuring temperature has two common sources of bias. These MUST be eliminated to even begin to build an unbiased raw data set.
The first is location grouping bias. Thermometers today are located in cities and along roads (they must be serviced). They do not exist in remote locations. One hundred thermometers in a city tells you NOTHING about temperature outside the city or in any other city. In other words, to eliminate this bias, thermometers MUST be uniformly placed. They aren't.
The second is time bias. As air masses move, weather moves, the Sun moving across the sky, rapidly moving storm fronts, etc., measuring MUST be made at the same time by the same authority (people who are collecting the raw data). This doesn't happen. Thermometers are read by widely different authorities and at different times.
Now we come to the problem of the margin of error calculation.
To begin, one must choose a sensible source of variance. For temperature this is temperature gradient per given distance (say, a mile). I have personally seen several times temperature varying by as much as 20 deg F per mile, usually across storm fronts, across the day/night terminator in mountainous regions, and even from an asphalt surface such as a road or parking lot to forest, grass, or lake or ocean water. It can change dramatically simply by a cloud passing overhead. If you ever go to experience a total eclipse of the Sun yourself someday, you will find the temperature drops RAPIDLY just as soon as the Sun is covered by the Moon. Further causes of sharp temperature gradients can occur from mountain wave compression (as air travels over the mountain, the leeward side sees rapidly descending air, compressing the air beneath it, and dramatically warming it). This can be quite dramatic on windy days in the mountains.
Next, we must consider the number of data sites collected. NASA uses the larger number (NOAA tends to concentrate on domestic thermometers only), so we'll use that. NASA uses some 7500 thermometers to build it's data set. (Remember, these are still biased by location grouping and by time, but we'll ignore that little inconvenience for now.) 7500 uniformly spread across the Earth's surface will result in ONE thermometer measuring an area about the size of West Virginia.
Since temperature can vary as much as 20 deg F per mile, the possible variance to the next thermometer is greater than the difference between the highest and lowest temperatures (due to weather) ever measured on Earth, so we'll use that as our upper fence.
Mathematically, then, the claim to know the temperature of Earth is guessing. It is a type of random number called a randU, which is a psuedo random number thought up in someone's head (or a computer algorithm that does the same thing, also thought up in someone's head).
This is to say, that ANY claim to know the Earth's temperature is BS. To claim the Earth is warming means you MUST know the Earth's temperature at two different points in time, in order to calculate a delta value. To claim that 'most' thermometers are showing increasing temperatures is a math error, by discarding the distributive law.
To measure CO2, it's even worse. There are only a few dozen stations even capable of measuring CO2. The favorite one, the Mauna Loa observatory in the Big Island of Hawaii, is located on an active volcano (which erupted several times in the past year), which vents CO2 to the atmosphere. The Mauna Loa observatory has no way to determine if CO2 is coming from the volcano, the increasing number of hotels and cars along the coast, or CO2 normally present at that location in the atmosphere. Further, CO2 in the atmosphere is NOT uniformly concentrated. It varies quite dramatically with altitude and with plant growth and decay in a given area as it changes through the seasons and from day to day and hour to hour.
It makes no difference anyway, since CO2 is incapable of warming the Earth.
Does CO2 absorb infrared light? Sure. Pretty much anything does.
Does CO2 become warmer when it absorbs infrared light? Sure. Anything does.
Does CO2 emit infrared light and heat the Earth? No. That would violate quantum mechanics and the 2nd law of thermodynamics. CO2 gas in the atmosphere is generally colder than the surface.
The Church of Global Warming is a fundamentalist style religion that routinely discards these theories of science and statistical, probability, algebra, and random number mathematics.
Be aware that pointing to any weather event as 'proof' of global warming or global cooling or even to try to falsify any claim of such, is itself a math error. It is again ignoring the distributive law. It is also a logic error (a fallacy) called a compositional error fallacy. This fallacy occurs when one tries to extend an element of a set across the entire set or to the set itself. This is the fallacy behind bigotry (where the set is people), and racism (which is bigotry where the property being extended is a genetic trait). The compositional error itself is a fallacy, even if there is no bigotry or racism.
So much for the Church of Global Warming. It's goal is the same as any other religion by Democrats. To gain power. To lord over every aspect of your life.
Into the Night
Verified User
I understand your religion very well. So does Libhater.
Into the Night
Verified User
Climate is a subjective description of conditions in an area (it doesn't even have to be about weather!). It has no value associated with it. There is nothing to change. Earth has many climates. There is no such thing as a global climate.
Climate cannot change. WEATHER changes. There is no such thing as global weather.
Jet engines operating at altitude are the most efficient engine ever built by the hand of man. The 2nd most efficient is the diesel electric locomotive.
You are quite right. It's either warm, hot, cool, or cold. That really IS the end of the story.
Into the Night
Verified User
Post about something you understand, and it isn’t this subject.
I understand your religion quite well. I know where it comes from. I know what theories of science you routinely discard and the math you routinely discard. I understand the fundamentalist nature of your religion.
I have decided to enlighten LibHater on what you are and how you discard science and mathematics, all while claiming The sCiEnCe.