Is global warming a scam?

[saganaga]

ekvh » Today, 4:57 pm[/url]":1h1qmkym]
I’ve not seen any science. I’ve seen data, and a conclusion. No support of the conclusion. That’s not science. Ask for information about how the data has been collected and you get buried in reports. I have queried a few “experts” as to whether weather data (it’s right) has been compared to non-city collected data over the years. The answer was that it has not.

I know they've tried to account for the heat island effect in several ways and failed to demonstrate it. Windy days correlate with non-windy days for temperature rise, which should be false if the heat island effect is the cause. Data from rural regions correlate well with urban regions. And the areas of greatest warming don't appear to be cities. There's other, historical data we can use to show the same - such as dates of frost.

The other “science” is the melting of parts of the poles. There’s no science, just data and observation, and then we’re told it’s from carbon. It’s a giant leap. It is not substantiated.

What would it take to substantiate it for you? Carbon dioxide holds in heat - that's easily demonstrated.

It’s walking like a duck, it’s quacking like a duck, maybe the scientists are ducks??? You can’t help but realize the money that is being pumped into this. I saw yesterday that Bezos of Amazon committed 10 billion to research. I’m sure people are lining up for that.

It goes both ways. One of the studies you may like, considering your skepticism of the data, was the study partially funded by Charles Koch's charitable foundation, and was lead by someone frequently critical of the quality of data, which still found a global warming effect.

 

[joedrum]

O f course there is global warming and ice ages also ...no tax is going to.change that ..yes to me the science is junk it lacks all common sense and like democrats it accepts no rebuttal and it's track.record is strait up.less than zero. I know of nothing that plays out so wrong ..not one thing ever said came close to.happening ..mostly complete opposite

 

[saganaga]

joedrum » Today, 12:24 pm[/url]":1x0xpy24]
O f course there is global warming and ice ages also ...no tax is going to.change that ..yes to me the science is junk it lacks all common sense and like democrats it accepts no rebuttal and it's track.record is strait up.less than zero. I know of nothing that plays out so wrong ..not one thing ever said came close to.happening ..mostly complete opposite

Not sure where you are, but where I'm at, we are seeing milder winters, a longer growing season, and other effects.

 

[DaveKamp]

The problem with the Carbon Dioxide argument, is that the gaseous heat retention coefficient is not greater than any other gas or gaseous mixture with enough significance, and with it's concentration being so low, the theory, if true, would not have the thermodynamic capture volume, even if CO2 was 50% of our atmosphere.

Carbon dioxide accounts for LESS THAN 0.05%.
Nitrogen is 78%.

As far as absorptive compounds go, Water Vapor is by far the greatest, but we don't consider that to be a serious problem, especially in Tucson and Abu Dhabi.

The nutshell of Occam's Razor, is that the simplest answer is most often the most correct... and there's a reason for it: Complexity, by virtue of dependancy, reduces likelyhood of success.

In order for the 'carbon dioxide' argument to be relied upon, there are many, many other dependent variables, most of which are too small, too distributed, and too highly skewed to measure and plot with any level of accuracy.

On the contrary, we already KNOW, based on incredibly accurate data, verified not only by visual, but through very direct and easily tracked tools available to average people (your AM radio), that a very large variation in a simple variable (solar output) which impacts the earth's absorption over the ENTIRE electromagnetic spectrum, is relatively predictable, and the earth's climate responds ALMOST IMMEDIATELY to that change in output.

In order to isolate the dependant variables of 'CO2 greenhouse effect', the first and foremost requirement, is to perform the large-scale experiment with a totally regulated, constant energy input. That would require us to build a containment and closed-circuit control regulation on the output of the sun.

What is the simplest explanation?

 

[Ansimp]

DaveKamp » Fri Feb 28, 2020 4:38 am[/url]":3ma04yox]
The problem with the Carbon Dioxide argument, is that the gaseous heat retention coefficient is not greater than any other gas or gaseous mixture with enough significance, and with it's concentration being so low, the theory, if true, would not have the thermodynamic capture volume, even if CO2 was 50% of our atmosphere.

Carbon dioxide accounts for LESS THAN 0.05%.
Nitrogen is 78%.

As far as absorptive compounds go, Water Vapor is by far the greatest, but we don't consider that to be a serious problem, especially in Tucson and Abu Dhabi.

The nutshell of Occam's Razor, is that the simplest answer is most often the most correct... and there's a reason for it: Complexity, by virtue of dependancy, reduces likelyhood of success.

In order for the 'carbon dioxide' argument to be relied upon, there are many, many other dependent variables, most of which are too small, too distributed, and too highly skewed to measure and plot with any level of accuracy.

On the contrary, we already KNOW, based on incredibly accurate data, verified not only by visual, but through very direct and easily tracked tools available to average people (your AM radio), that a very large variation in a simple variable (solar output) which impacts the earth's absorption over the ENTIRE electromagnetic spectrum, is relatively predictable, and the earth's climate responds ALMOST IMMEDIATELY to that change in output.

In order to isolate the dependant variables of 'CO2 greenhouse effect', the first and foremost requirement, is to perform the large-scale experiment with a totally regulated, constant energy input. That would require us to build a containment and closed-circuit control regulation on the output of the sun.

What is the simplest explanation?

:thanks:

 

[DaveKamp]

By the way... Happy Kelly Johnson Day, Everybody!!!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_Johnson_(engineer)

 

[saganaga]

DaveKamp » Yesterday, 12:38 pm[/url]":9991k8us]
The problem with the Carbon Dioxide argument, is that the gaseous heat retention coefficient is not greater than any other gas or gaseous mixture with enough significance, and with it's concentration being so low, the theory, if true, would not have the thermodynamic capture volume, even if CO2 was 50% of our atmosphere.

Carbon dioxide accounts for LESS THAN 0.05%.
Nitrogen is 78%.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe nitrogen and oxygen are both transparent to infrared. Carbon dioxide is not. Neither is water vapor, but obviously a warmer climate tends to increase the amount of water vapor in the air.

In order to isolate the dependant variables of 'CO2 greenhouse effect', the first and foremost requirement, is to perform the large-scale experiment with a totally regulated, constant energy input. That would require us to build a containment and closed-circuit control regulation on the output of the sun.

Why couldn't one measure the sun's output and correct for it? I believe NASA has some satellites monitoring this - one could look at the data and see if it correlates to temperature increases.

 

[Rednaxs60]

Interesting topic that pops up on a lot of forums. Climate change is the issue, and the earth's climate will continue to change long after we are gone.

I agree with the post on our arrogance, in that in recorded history man is the primary contributor to this issue. We contribute, but are not the primary contributor. The earth will do what it will do.

Volcanic eruptions are looked at in the climate change model, but the science and data from eruptions and how these affect the issue is still in its infancy.

Canada has touted itself as needing to be a world leader in the fight against climate change. With less than 2% of the world population, our policies regarding recycling and such, Canada is a mere spec in the overall issue.

We are inundated with social media that is fear mongering at its best. Unfortunately it is very effective, and a large portion of the population use social media for their insight into the world. My issue with this is that the news may be true, but that it is a truncated version of the complete issue. You have to look at so many different sites and articles to put together a more accurate picture, and once this is done, the truncated version(s) have already been accepted as gospel.

The issue of fads, or flavour of the day comes into this issue as well. Votes and money are at the root of this. Votes and money for politicians, money for industry that reports on these fads.

It's a wicked web we weave. Is there an answer, probably. Will we hear or know of it, maybe. Until there is a bit of common sense and a balance proposed, Chicken Little will be King.

 

[DaveKamp]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe nitrogen and oxygen are both transparent to infrared. Carbon dioxide is not. Neither is water vapor, but obviously a warmer climate tends to increase the amount of water vapor in the air.

That is fairly accurate- different gases have spectral absorption variations, which is how we can, from a very great distance, determine the atmospheric content of distant celestial bodies- spectroscopy... but with any circumstance, the circumstance, especially concentration, is very relevant in doing any sort of energy absorption proof. Realize in this, that the infrared portion of solar emission is only a tiny, tiny, tiny fragment of the sun's output spectrum... it's huge... from extremely low frequencies, to crazy high frequencies. The sun is literally distorting the magnetic flux of the earth's core. Suggesting that, with all the spectral output and variables, acting on such minute segment of spectral output, is so extreme that a tiny, tiny component of our atmosphere is resulting in a huge change, would be the equivalent of saying that the headlight of an oncoming automobile is the reason your Goldwing overheats... the magnitudes of mathematics simply aren't there.

In order to isolate the dependant variables of 'CO2 greenhouse effect', the first and foremost requirement, is to perform the large-scale experiment with a totally regulated, constant energy input. That would require us to build a containment and closed-circuit control regulation on the output of the sun.

Why couldn't one measure the sun's output and correct for it? I believe NASA has some satellites monitoring this - one could look at the data and see if it correlates to temperature increases.[/quote]

Actually, this is being done, both in a modern scientific exploration of forensic samples (ice core samples, ocean floor data, etc) and also in basic direct observation of activity has been in progress for over 500 years... hence my reference to the Maunder Minimum, and all the meterological data involved.

It doesn't take much study of the Midatlantic Rift's geomagnetic anomalies to realize that the earth has made a huge 8-track tape recording of it's magnetic field, and following that rift, calculating the years passing, and the polarity indicated, to realize that around 250,000 years ago, the earth's magnetic poles flipped. it made a partial flip (a very low magnetic flux dip occurred) but returned, and when that happens, the magnetic field which helps deflect a MASSIVE amount of solar radiation around our planet is lost.

Captain- Our 'Shields Are Down'.

When that happens, the horseshoe crab remains on the bottom of the ocean show evidence of mutations.

The energy striking the earth is NOT constant, and that magnetic field is protecting us, and they're coupled- change in the sun's emmission causes the magnetic field to modulate. When solar emission changes, our weather changes... and there's no amount of governmental restriction, no environmental tarriff, no political party that could stop it... that would be akin to a newt stopping an atomic bomb blast.

We ARE seeing climate change- it's a given, and it would happen with, or without us. I'm not saying we should not take care of our environment- on the contrary, I am very conscientious of waste and pollution's circumstances, and very much a proponent of stewardship, but I'm also not blind, ignorant, or easily fooled by power-seekers.

---------------------------

Today's funny clip:

"Are you suggesting, Sir, that coconuts are migratory?"

 

[saganaga]

DaveKamp » 28 minutes ago[/url]":3srfgvmj]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe nitrogen and oxygen are both transparent to infrared. Carbon dioxide is not. Neither is water vapor, but obviously a warmer climate tends to increase the amount of water vapor in the air.

That is fairly accurate- different gases have spectral absorption variations, which is how we can, from a very great distance, determine the atmospheric content of distant celestial bodies- spectroscopy... but with any circumstance, the circumstance, especially concentration, is very relevant in doing any sort of energy absorption proof. Realize in this, that the infrared portion of solar emission is only a tiny, tiny, tiny fragment of the sun's output spectrum... it's huge... from extremely low frequencies, to crazy high frequencies. The sun is literally distorting the magnetic flux of the earth's core. Suggesting that, with all the spectral output and variables, acting on such minute segment of spectral output, is so extreme that a tiny, tiny component of our atmosphere is resulting in a huge change, would be the equivalent of saying that the headlight of an oncoming automobile is the reason your Goldwing overheats... the magnitudes of mathematics simply aren't there.

A quick google search indicates that sunlight at the earth's surface is primary infrared (>50%), with most of the remainder being visible light, and the rest being ultraviolet. There's other wavelengths the sun emits energy on, of course, but peak output (before it hits our atmosphere) is in the IR-UV range.

In order to isolate the dependant variables of 'CO2 greenhouse effect', the first and foremost requirement, is to perform the large-scale experiment with a totally regulated, constant energy input. That would require us to build a containment and closed-circuit control regulation on the output of the sun.

Why couldn't one measure the sun's output and correct for it? I believe NASA has some satellites monitoring this - one could look at the data and see if it correlates to temperature increases.

Actually, this is being done, both in a modern scientific exploration of forensic samples (ice core samples, ocean floor data, etc) and also in basic direct observation of activity has been in progress for over 500 years... hence my reference to the Maunder Minimum, and all the meterological data involved.

It doesn't take much study of the Midatlantic Rift's geomagnetic anomalies to realize that the earth has made a huge 8-track tape recording of it's magnetic field, and following that rift, calculating the years passing, and the polarity indicated, to realize that around 250,000 years ago, the earth's magnetic poles flipped. it made a partial flip (a very low magnetic flux dip occurred) but returned, and when that happens, the magnetic field which helps deflect a MASSIVE amount of solar radiation around our planet is lost.

Captain- Our 'Shields Are Down'.

When that happens, the horseshoe crab remains on the bottom of the ocean show evidence of mutations.

The energy striking the earth is NOT constant, and that magnetic field is protecting us, and they're coupled- change in the sun's emmission causes the magnetic field to modulate. When solar emission changes, our weather changes... and there's no amount of governmental restriction, no environmental tarriff, no political party that could stop it... that would be akin to a newt stopping an atomic bomb blast.

We aren't seeing a large variation in the sun output, and IIRC, the short-term cycle is 11 years. Temperature does seem to be increasing independently of that cycle.

Note we already have a large amount of a "natural" greenhouse effect - the reason why the average temperature of the earth is above freezing is because of that. What "global warming" is saying that we're shifting that percentage a little more to retain more heat, potentially flipping the earth from its current cold climate to a hot climate once again, as earth has had in the distant past. Some of that is through CO2 directly, but a lot of it is indirect - increased CO2 warms up the earth a little, allowing more water vapor which, as another greenhouse gas creates more warming, snow and ice diminishes which reduces the amount of sunlight reflected), etc.

The magnetic reversal argument is a new one to me, but should be easy to see if it has an effect on the climate. The theory is (correct me if I'm wrong) magnetic reversals are associated with a warming phase. Which seems to me that there's an obvious way to test that - check if previous magnetic reversals are associated with unexplained warming. I've spent about 10 minutes searching, and the only thing I'm seeing is a theory with some evidence suggesting the opposite - increased radiation leads to more clouds, increasing albedo, and resulting in cooling.

Anyways, I like debating this (and staying civil) because it always gives me something new to look up.

 

[DaveKamp]

You are correct in noting that IR through UV is the predominant spectra reaching the earth's surface... but the electromagnetic spectrum is huge- the span between IR and UV is TINY... and the sun is the most formidable wideband emmitter... beyond imagination.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum

the sun's energy acts on our earth in much the same way as the stator coils of an AC induction motor act upon the rotor, frame, and shaft... but the coherence of the result is really crazy, because the incoming radiation is constantly changing in frequencies and intensities. Suffice to say that what's hitting the earth at the ground, in the 3 to 600 Thz range, is a drop in the bucket in comparison to all the rest, and while the earth seems to 'reflect' lots, it's absorbing energy at wavelengths FAR out of visible ranges, and FAR from UV and IR... and that energy DOES impact our planet. Imagine sticking a fork in a chicken leg, and putting it in your microwave oven. There's a light in the oven, and everything gets warm on account of the light. Turn on the microwave, the chicken gets hot, but the FORK... it gets CRAZY hot and starts sparking. The earth's core is that fork. Wanna hear what's happening inside that core? Tune a radio set down to the ELF ranges. Why is the magma's magnetic field changing? Because solar radiation is 'bending' that field.

Look at the Station K and A indicies:
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/station-k-and-indices
This is data from equipment in space, reading the sun's output. See that it changes? During a sunspot cycle peak, this graph is totally different. K and A indicies show what's happening in solar output that is NOT within the visible spectra.

By the way, we are very directly impacted by solar energy well outside the UV-to-IR spectra. One of my business partners wore a dosimeter card... he had one on basicall all times from the day he went into Navy Nuke school... and after retiring from Navy, wore it at the nuclear power plant upriver from us about 12 miles... and still wears it today, as the USN very well could 'call him up'. He noted, though, that his dosimeter card rarely showed much of a change while down in the submarine. The reactor's shielding in our boats is excellent... but even moreso, with the boat under several hundred feet of saltwater, the SUN's radiation was not getting to the boat. He noted that as we flew from job to job, his dosimeter showed a greater exposure flying from Chicago to Portland Oregon, than 2 years in a submarine.

We ARE seeing substantial changes in solar output- the 11-year solar cycle sits atop several other cycles of much longer timeframe. the radiation indicies make very substantial changes during peaks, and deep dips during minimas.

take a look at this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle#/media/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png


The basic 11-year is very obvious. Draw a line following all the peaks, draw another following the valleys, and now draw a line exactly centered between the two... notice the erratic curve? When you integrate-out the 11-year frequency, the second and third cycles start appearing. Applying a fast-fourier transformation to the data since just 1750 illustrates one cycle of about 46 years, and another occuring around 112 tears.

If you're a musician, you'd recognize this as being at least a 3-note chord. if you're an ocean sailor, you'd recognize it as 'neap' and 'wain' tide cycles. Regardless of how you see it, the result is that the variation of solar output is not a flat line, not linear, not a simple waveform, it's complex.

Look back at 1600 through 1750... the Maunder Minimum. Read the historical reports of the weather circumstances, they're amazingly detailed... and the sunspot counting was done, and corroborated by unrelated parties around the globe.... Monks, astronomers, sailors counted sunspots, so the observational data is pleasantly very secure in quality.

 

[joedrum]

For all the things said in this thread is totally why man plays no part in this compare to universe factors trillions times bigger

 

[saganaga]

DaveKamp » Today, 2:32 am[/url]":26vjnxlg]
You are correct in noting that IR through UV is the predominant spectra reaching the earth's surface... but the electromagnetic spectrum is huge- the span between IR and UV is TINY... and the sun is the most formidable wideband emmitter... beyond imagination.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum

The spectrum is large, but the peak of the sun's output is IR-UV. "According to the UCAR COMET Program, about 43% of radiant energy from the sun is in the visible part of the spectrum. That is the total amount of the sun's energy integrated over wavelengths between about 400-700nm. Roughly 49% of solar radiation is infrared between 700nm-1mm; about 7% is from ultra-violet between 100-400mm; less than 1% of solar radiation is emitted as x-rays, gamma rays and radio waves." - NOAA

The basic 11-year is very obvious. Draw a line following all the peaks, draw another following the valleys, and now draw a line exactly centered between the two... notice the erratic curve? When you integrate-out the 11-year frequency, the second and third cycles start appearing. Applying a fast-fourier transformation to the data since just 1750 illustrates one cycle of about 46 years, and another occuring around 112 tears.

If you're a musician, you'd recognize this as being at least a 3-note chord. if you're an ocean sailor, you'd recognize it as 'neap' and 'wain' tide cycles. Regardless of how you see it, the result is that the variation of solar output is not a flat line, not linear, not a simple waveform, it's complex.

Look back at 1600 through 1750... the Maunder Minimum. Read the historical reports of the weather circumstances, they're amazingly detailed... and the sunspot counting was done, and corroborated by unrelated parties around the globe.... Monks, astronomers, sailors counted sunspots, so the observational data is pleasantly very secure in quality.

If this is true, then we should be seeing an 11-year, 46-year, and 112-year cycle in earth's temperature. AFAIK, this ain't the case - temperature increase doesn't correlate well, and if we subtract out the effects of the 11 year cycle, the global warming problem IIRC gets worse - the lower sun output caused a slower rate of warming. (So does our global dimming problem, but I digress.)

 

[joedrum]

Well I just must.say ..not everything is mathmatical...math is just a tool ..not something life is based on ..science dives.deeply into math it makes them look like fools .i for one see the complexity of this so above 2 plus 2 equals 4

 

[DaveKamp]

The spectrum is large, but the peak of the sun's output is IR-UV. "According to the UCAR COMET Program, about 43% of radiant energy from the sun is in the visible part of the spectrum. That is the total amount of the sun's energy integrated over wavelengths between about 400-700nm. Roughly 49% of solar radiation is infrared between 700nm-1mm; about 7% is from ultra-violet between 100-400mm; less than 1% of solar radiation is emitted as x-rays, gamma rays and radio waves." - NOAA

And because of the presence of a very strong magnetosphere (charged as a result of reluctance from solar wind), only a small fraction of it actually makes it through the Van Allen belts, into our atmosphere. It seems strange, but the sun's electromagnetic radiation is responsible for creating the magnetosphere around the earth which PROTECTS it. When that protection varies, so does everything within it. When the soar indicies change, the earth's magnetic flux modulates... and here we are, sitting in the equivalent of a large microwave oven.

The sunspot cycle (in it's 11 year AND other cycles) is an instability, and concordantly, affects the stability of our magnetosphere. During the peak of a sunspot cycle, the sun 'flares'... Coronal Mass Ejections... like a big zit popping, and chunks of hot plasma get thrown out. It's not unusual for one of these to hit the earth. it takes about two days to get here, and here's a really neat video of what happened:

https://www.universetoday.com/100969/this-is-what-can-happen-when-a-cme-hits-earth/

And here's a nice documentary on the relationship of our magnetosphere, with the earth:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5utQxtma2U&feature=emb_rel_end

During the peak of the last solar cycle, we had three CMEs that impacted our weather, and interestingly enough, the most powerful had very little noticeable impact, while the other two were very noticeable, particularly to a friend of mine who came to visit me in my radio room to learn more about electromagnetic radiation. (BTW... he's a great keyboard player, and really good at distilling liquor, but electricity and radio were total voodoo until I showed him). But his curiosity was why a CME would totally screw up his (admittedly already wrong) forecasts.

The reason why the most powerful had no impact, is because the Pacific Ocean was facing the CME's approach when it hit.
The oceans provide us with a very critical energy absorber when these things slap us... and while it seems to be a catch-all, it ain't for free- a CME can raise the ocean's temperature by a half-degree for the top 100 feet of water over a HUGE amount of area, and that slight change has a substantial impact on ocean currents, evaporation, and storm creation.

Simply put- a solar storm ALWAYS results in atmospheric storms. Geomagnetic fluctuations change the level (and frequency range) of radiation which is reflected, vs., what is absorbed.

Look back at 1600 through 1750... the Maunder Minimum. Read the historical reports of the weather circumstances, they're amazingly detailed... and the sunspot counting was done, and corroborated by unrelated parties around the globe.... Monks, astronomers, sailors counted sunspots, so the observational data is pleasantly very secure in quality.

If this is true, then we should be seeing an 11-year, 46-year, and 112-year cycle in earth's temperature. AFAIK, this ain't the case - temperature increase doesn't correlate well, and if we subtract out the effects of the 11 year cycle, the global warming problem IIRC gets worse - the lower sun output caused a slower rate of warming.

We DO, but how the earth's weather IN SPECIFIC, is totally dependant upon many, many factors. It has a very RAPID effect on 2-way radio communications, which is why HAM Radio Operators have sites like this:

https://www.wm7d.net/hamradio/solar/index.shtml

The simplest fact, is that the fluctuations we see in solar output, are very slight in comparison to it's AVERAGE output, but those fluctuations are easily 100 orders-of-magnitude greater than that which the concentration of CO2 could ever be even remotely significant.

From a similar perspective, let's say I'm driving southwest out of Portales, New Mexico on US Hwy 70. Because of the (extremely flat, but atop somewhat of a high area) terrain, I can see the headlights of oncoming vehicles down in Elkins (it's a LONG way...). Per my prior example, we blame the overheating of my vehicle on the energy coming from the headlights of the oncoming truck. As he gets closer, the headlights get closer, and my engine is getting hotter, but that truck is still 18 miles away. It makes sense that the truck, getting closer, is therefore the cause of my engine overheating, right?

Now I come up over the next rise, my engine is really hot, and in my fatigue, find myself splattered to the front of that Kenworth.

The energy of the Kenworth totally annhilates not only me, but my motorcycle. Stands to reason that the headlights of the truck were the problem all along, right?

Of course not. The energy emitted by those lights, even though very visible, and increasing steadily, was not in any way responsible for the failure of my engine to cool... and as for the demise of my Aspy, and of course, myself... it COULD have been attributed to the overheating, but in reality, if it were daytime, and I was not dehydrated, and not fatigued, I would not have crossed the centerline.

Just to be really clear:

The climate IS changing. It has been in a constant state-of-change since the very first existance... LONG before there were cars... long before their were people. Long before there were animals, fish, and plants. WE (humanity) are so small in comparision, that we're statistically insignificant in this planet's macroclimactic impact.

BTW... the earth is gaining weight. My father-in-law disagrees, but he doesn't seem to realize that in an average year, the earth gains about 200,000lbs, and you can actually WATCH it happen... each time there's a meteor shower. We might lose 35,000lbs of mass by sending up a rocket, but very little material here actually 'leaves' our little spinning space-port.

Long ago, when I was a little boy, I walked 17 miles to school, both ways, uphill, with no shoes, carrying my sister. Once by brother turned 14, Dad handed him controls to the family Brontosaurus. Me, and my 19 of my brothers and sisters rode to school on that sweet old Bronte, and parked it out in the school lot, 'till the one day the neighborhood bully rode in on a T-Rex... it turned the lot into a bloodbath, and it was back to walkin' for us. We never got the Bronte replaced... Before insurance, we had a club, and it provided good protection for our cave, it didn't provide coverage for road hazards.

(So does our global dimming problem, but I digress.)

Global Dimming? Holy $#it... all this time, I just thought it went along with arthritis and having to carry around these damnedreading glasses! :smilie_happy: :smilie_happy: :smilie_happy:

 

[ekvh]

Saganaga?

I’m enjoying this and learning a little.

 

[DaveKamp]

BTW... I just stopped by Walgreens and picked up two more pairs of Foster Grant 1.25's... I'm very good at scratching them, and @#%$ Murphy's Law says they always scratch right in front of what I'm tryin' to see (why is that??).

Here's a really great read of weather archives from the timeframe of the Maunder Minimum...

And it's history, so it doesn't really matter what anyone's opinion is, but it's fascinating. Consider your ancestry, and where they were when it happened (I know some of mine left Scotland at the time... others were in Luxembourg...

https://wiki.iceagefarmer.com/wiki/History:_Extreme_Weather_during_the_Maunder_Minimum

And another fascinating one about 1816:
[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki...//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer[/url]

And another pair of cool videos explaining one facet of solar storms with respect to the earth:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5utQxtma2U&feature=emb_rel_end

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVNRChcQJaE

 

[saganaga]

DaveKamp » Yesterday, 6:22 pm[/url]":3kmy794i]

(So does our global dimming problem, but I digress.)

Global Dimming? Holy $#it... all this time, I just thought it went along with arthritis and having to carry around these damnedreading glasses! :smilie_happy: :smilie_happy: :smilie_happy:

We actually do seem to have a global dimming problem. Some of it is pollution, although it spikes from natural causes as well, such as volcanic eruptions.

As with everything else, the data isn't perfect, since it doesn't stretch as far back as we'd like (IIRC, about 50 years or so) and we tend to ignore the oceans - although one bad volcanic eruption can be measured throughout the world land-based stations, so presumably it has an effect over oceans as well.

But eyes do age as well, with UV exposure, causing some colors to dim. So the odds are against all of us.

 

[DaveKamp]

We actually do seem to have a global dimming problem. Some of it is pollution, although it spikes from natural causes as well, such as volcanic eruptions. As with everything else, the data isn't perfect, since it doesn't stretch as far back as we'd like (IIRC, about 50 years or so) and we tend to ignore the oceans - although one bad volcanic eruption can be measured throughout the world land-based stations, so presumably it has an effect over oceans as well.

Actually, there's some incredibly detailed history of volcanic eruptions causing worldwide impact... 1816 was referred to as the "Year without summer". In April 1815, Mount Tambora in the Indian Ocean erupted... the top 5,000ft of the 14,000ft mountain blew right off, ejecting over 10 million tons of sulphur in excess of 100,000ft into the upper atmosphere. It effectively blocked out light enough to cause crop failures and famine worldwide.

People don't realize the magnitude of nature's forces, and how intimately related they are to our daily lives. They don't realize the sun isn't constant, and that the ground they stand on, is actually moving. They don't realize that the moon is pulling the continents just like it pulls the oceans, and they believe that compass always points exactly north, and that it's spinning in the Bermuda Triangle is the work of the Devil. They've never read up on the magnetic trigger mechanism on the Mark 14 torpedo, and don't realize that Mount St. Helens spit more heavy metals and carbon monoxide into the atmosphere in one week, than all the steel mills and foundries in the US from 1800 to that date.

So the reason for my position isn't because climate doesn't change- it clearly does... but that the numeric values used to support the 'climage change' narrative are so rediculously small (hundreds of orders of magnitude) in proportion to the OTHER forces at play, that it's simply not significant. From a statistical definition, human activity is well below the data 'noise floor'.

Solar variation and volcanic eruptions, on the other hand, are enormous in the scale of significant data... and that's why I say STOP PLATE TECTONICS!!!

We are, as my dad says... "A fart in a hurricane".

I believe very firmly in environmental protection, particularly at the consumer level. Don't dump anti-freeze in the storm sewer, and don't throw trash and lit cigarette butts out the car window... but don't raise hell about debris floating down the river and trapped in backwaters. I can't count the number of times people made comments about people 'not caring' about the river, thinking that what they saw was the direct result of humans throwing refrigerators, old car tires, yard toys, etc., into the flow. They don't realize that when the river floods, and takes away a house, EVERYTHING in that house gets a fair chance to be carried into some other place as an unexpected decoration. Recycle metals and plastics as best you can, and encourage policy makers to invest in methods of making recycling SO SO easy, that people want to do it totally on their own.

BTW... Only You can prevent Wildfires...
...But Mother Nature starts them all the time.

 

[pidjones]

A guy I worked with used to say "You can't teach a hog to dance. You just waste your time and piss off the hog." Such are the climate change discussions.