Global warming err Climate change HOAX

[Pokebball]

10 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

One of the first album purchases I ever made, sadly not long after the plane crash.   @muppy saw them at Rich Stadium, as did a good friend of mine.  I was a late to the table so I missed it. 
 

 

 

Saw 'em three times. They, The Allman Bros and Marshall Tucker. Dang good musicians!

 

Edited April 12 by Pokebball

[BillsFanNC]

When is the world going to end again AOC?

 

 

[B-Man]

 

These two stories were published on the same day a few weeks ago.

 

https://notthebee.com/article/cbs-news-and-nbc-news-published-these-two-stories-on-the-same-day-a-few-weeks-ago

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

[B-Man]

 

 

                                        

 

 

.

[BillsFanNC]

 

[All_Pro_Bills]

On 4/16/2024 at 10:50 AM, B-Man said:

 

These two stories were published on the same day a few weeks ago.

 

https://notthebee.com/article/cbs-news-and-nbc-news-published-these-two-stories-on-the-same-day-a-few-weeks-ago

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

The Moon is moving away from the Earth at a rate of about 1 inch per year.  That change in gravitational pull will result in the Earth's rotation slowing and change the magnitude of tidal movements. 

In 1 million years it will be almost 15.8 miles further away.  Should we be worried? 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

32 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

The Moon is moving away from the Earth at a rate of about 1 inch per year.  That change in gravitational pull will result in the Earth's rotation slowing and change the magnitude of tidal movements. 

In 1 million years it will be almost 15.8 miles further away.  Should we be worried? 

I’m only worrying about when to start worrying,  but can see some real concern blossoming in early 2096, God willing.  
 

Btw, they closed down the local taco place a few months back, and the closest one is now about 16 miles away.  I have not noticed any substantial change beyond on occasion, wishing the return ride was only 11 or 12 miles for reasons beyond the scope of the board.  

[Doc]

6 hours ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

The Moon is moving away from the Earth at a rate of about 1 inch per year.  That change in gravitational pull will result in the Earth's rotation slowing and change the magnitude of tidal movements. 

In 1 million years it will be almost 15.8 miles further away.  Should we be worried? 

 

I'll be dead within another 40".  So...no.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

On 4/18/2024 at 3:45 PM, Doc said:

 

I'll be dead within another 40".  So...no.

https://www.uscannenbergmedia.com/2024/04/12/jane-fonda-challenges-usc-students-to-combat-climate-issues/

I saw this morning that Comrade Jane Fonda was advising students at USC on the subject of climate change.  She’s been lauded as an activist, of course, and has lent her image to a number of high profile causes, the government of North Vietnam a few low rent skin flicks, and a decent movie or two, too. 
 

Anyway, one of the student activists expressed how she connected with CJF in spite of their age difference.  
 

That caused me to check out her commitment to saving the world, comments she has made about climate change, and her personal lifestyle. 
 

Seems the bottom line is CJF blames the patriarchy, white men, corporatism, and a few others for our collective predicament.  The strange part is that w google returns an awful lot of articles about her lifestyle choices, and it seems she’s perfectly comfortable as a white woman of privilege indulging in all sorts of climate-busting activity.  Travel. Real estate.  Opulent furnishings. Indulgence in all manner of goods and services that huge corporations no doubt availing themselves of cheap labor have to offer.  That’s not even considering the impact of the occasional nip n tuck indulgences and the impact of elective surgery that has a massive impact on energy consumption. 
 

I wonder if there comes a time when that student, or someone like her, comes to terms with what was being sold to her, and what reality actually shows. 

 

While I recognize the impact of the patriarchy mentality on the world, and the need for more voices with diverse backgrounds at the table, is it fair to say this 80+ year old woman, living in the seat of power for multiple decades, engaging in any variety of destructive activity, represents a part of the problem v the solution?  How long does she get a pass, and more importantly, what was USC thinking?  

[Wacka]

On 4/12/2024 at 12:33 PM, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

"Quietly dropping" in the "we're telling everyone" mode.  Tricky. 

My friend (the concert goer)  had the Street Survivor's album with the flames on the album cover.  It was quite creepy for a youngster with an overactive imagination.  Right up there with Keith Moon is sitting on the Who Are You album in a chair with the words "Not to be taken away".  

 

 

I trrmrmber seeing the Street Survivors album in Cavages. I have the  Who album.

[Orlando Buffalo]

On 4/16/2024 at 10:50 AM, B-Man said:

 

These two stories were published on the same day a few weeks ago.

 

https://notthebee.com/article/cbs-news-and-nbc-news-published-these-two-stories-on-the-same-day-a-few-weeks-ago

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

@ComradeKayAdams this is what I mean by computer model start with assumptions. Both study models are valid, but at least one of them is fundamentally flawed and in such an enormous way that not only is there reasoning wrong, but the conclusion is 100% wrong. I want to point out that I don't which is correct but both are stating the change has already started.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

23 hours ago, Wacka said:

I trrmrmber seeing the Street Survivors album in Cavages. I have the  Who album.

The other day, I was trying to remember the names of local record stores from that time.  I forgot about “Cavages”! Ty, and hope you’re feeling well! 

[Wacka]

The Cavages  I went to was at the Como Mall, about a mile from my house.

 

I'm feeling fine, better than I have in several years.  All vitals are in the normal range.  Back to driving. Went for labs Wed.   No call from  docs, so they must be OK. My incision is healed.  On Apr 29th, going for a  biopsy of the new kidney to make sure it is OK. Sister has to take me to ECMC because they will sedate me for the short procedures and they said I will be recovering from the sedation for about 4 hours. I  have lost 40 lbs from my high in 2022 and 20  lbs since the transplant on 2/15.  Have a pair of nice (dress) pants that were snug but  not tight in February,but look like clown pants now.

Edited April 21 by Wacka

[ComradeKayAdams]

On 4/20/2024 at 10:06 PM, Orlando Tim said:

@ComradeKayAdams this is what I mean by computer model start with assumptions. Both study models are valid, but at least one of them is fundamentally flawed and in such an enormous way that not only is there reasoning wrong, but the conclusion is 100% wrong. I want to point out that I don't which is correct but both are stating the change has already started.

 

But the claims from the two articles don’t contradict each other!

 

One is describing the larger NET RESULT of an increase in Earth’s angular velocity, mainly due to movement of mass in the liquid outer core beneath the mantle. The other is describing the smaller GROSS RESULT of a decrease in Earth’s angular velocity, due to mass redistribution from melting polar ice caps. Note that this observed net result of increasing angular velocity is an extremely temporary one, on the order of a human lifetime, compared to the vastly larger long-term trend of decreasing angular velocity due to Moon-induced tidal force friction.

 

So all this has next to nothing to do with anthropogenic climate change and everything to do with the conservation of angular momentum. And we know that modern data collection for this science is exceptional, as are the computational models that depend on the accuracy of moment of inertia modeling (i.e. how the Earth’s mass is distributed). Even the geological data matches well with the modeling predictions: as early as around 600 million years ago, an Earth day was around 22 hours long. There’s no geological data beyond that time, but physical modeling suggests that an Earth day about 4 billion years ago was about 8 hours long.

 

In conclusion: everyone please read these types of articles and blog posts more carefully. Apply the same skeptical energy to the skeptical crowd (who have their own agendas!) as you do to the mainstream science crowd.

[Orlando Buffalo]

6 minutes ago, ComradeKayAdams said:

 

But the claims from the two articles don’t contradict each other!

 

One is describing the larger NET RESULT of an increase in Earth’s angular velocity, mainly due to movement of mass in the liquid outer core beneath the mantle. The other is describing the smaller GROSS RESULT of a decrease in Earth’s angular velocity, due to mass redistribution from melting polar ice caps. Note that this observed net result of increasing angular velocity is an extremely temporary one, on the order of a human lifetime, compared to the vastly larger long-term trend of decreasing angular velocity due to Moon-induced tidal force friction.

 

So all this has next to nothing to do with anthropogenic climate change and everything to do with the conservation of angular momentum. And we know that modern data collection for this science is exceptional, as are the computational models that depend on the accuracy of moment of inertia modeling (i.e. how the Earth’s mass is distributed). Even the geological data matches well with the modeling predictions: as early as around 600 million years ago, an Earth day was around 22 hours long. There’s no geological data beyond that time, but physical modeling suggests that an Earth day about 4 billion years ago was about 8 hours long.

 

In conclusion: everyone please read these types of articles and blog posts more carefully. Apply the same skeptical energy to the skeptical crowd (who have their own agendas!) as you do to the mainstream science crowd.

Both can't be correct as they both state they have already seen the changes happening time wise, you cannot have both a longer day and a shorter day at the same time, they are mutually exclusive. I also understand both versions of science are valid, I acknowledged that when I said " both study models are valid" but each weighs it's own variable as the more important one and does not take into consideration the other variable. Finally acknowledging the massive changes the earth has gone through you seem quite confident that all the changes happening now are man made, vs all of the massive changes that have happened throughout time with minimal impact from man

[ComradeKayAdams]

On 4/22/2024 at 7:13 AM, Orlando Tim said:

Both can't be correct as they both state they have already seen the changes happening time wise, you cannot have both a longer day and a shorter day at the same time, they are mutually exclusive. I also understand both versions of science are valid, I acknowledged that when I said " both study models are valid" but each weighs it's own variable as the more important one and does not take into consideration the other variable. Finally acknowledging the massive changes the earth has gone through you seem quite confident that all the changes happening now are man made, vs all of the massive changes that have happened throughout time with minimal impact from man

 

I’m guessing you never skimmed through the articles or the Nature paper?? I’ll explain it another way: D = A – B – C

 

D is the observed increase in Earth’s angular velocity.

C is the calculated decrease in Earth’s angular velocity due to polar ice cap melting.

A is the increase in Earth’s angular velocity due to mass movement within its liquid outer core.

B is the long-term decrease in Earth’s angular velocity due to the Moon’s gravitational pull.

 

“D” is what everyone agrees is happening. “C” is the subject of the Nature paper. “D” is positive and greater than “C.”  So “C” is saying that global warming effects are slowing Earth down, but not enough to reverse the effects from “A” that are speeding up Earth (in the short-term). Did that clarify?

 

And yes, I’m still quite confident in the science of anthropogenic climate change! If you have been paying attention to my posts, then you know why: data confluence plus an effective process of isolation/elimination of climate change-inducing variables.

 

Any progress on an alternative scientific explanation for the cooling stratosphere?? Or on a scientific refutation of the causal relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide ppm and planetary mean surface temperature??

 

Ugh. This thread was at its peak when it was just Muppy and I analyzing awesome dresses. Somewhere between Leh-nerd Skin-erd posts, we must have leapfrogged a megalodon or two.

[ScotSHO]

13 minutes ago, ComradeKayAdams said:

Any progress on an alternative scientific explanation for the cooling stratosphere?? Or on a scientific refutation of the causal relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide ppm and planetary mean surface temperature??

 

Literally the first thing that pops up on google - aka a study that struggles to link CO2 and temps: https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/5/4/76

[Orlando Buffalo]

2 hours ago, ComradeKayAdams said:

 

I’m guessing you never skimmed through the articles or the Nature paper?? I’ll explain it another way: D = A – B – C

 

D is the observed increase in Earth’s angular velocity.

C is the calculated decrease in Earth’s angular velocity due to polar ice cap melting.

A is the increase in Earth’s angular velocity due to mass movement within its liquid outer core.

B is the long-term decrease in Earth’s angular velocity due to the Moon’s gravitational pull.

 

“D” is what everyone agrees is happening. “C” is the subject of the Nature paper. “D” is positive and greater than “C.”  So “C” is saying that global warming effects are slowing Earth down, but not enough to reverse the effects from “A” that are speeding up Earth (in the short-term). Did that clarify?

 

And yes, I’m still quite confident in the science of anthropogenic climate change! If you have been paying attention to my posts, then you know why: data confluence plus an effective process of isolation/elimination of climate change-inducing variables.

 

Any progress on an alternative scientific explanation for the cooling stratosphere?? Or on a scientific refutation of the causal relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide ppm and planetary mean surface temperature??

 

Ugh. This thread was at its peak when it was just Muppy and I analyzing awesome dresses. Somewhere between Leh-nerd Skin-erd posts, we must have leapfrogged a megalodon or two.

 

The cooling of the stratosphere I finally looked up and it was presented less than 5 years ago based on the findings of people looking for global warming. I am not stating the cause is not what they state it is, I simply will wait for a little more time and until more people have gone through the data. This does bring us to our next point, which is what is the solution? Is turning it over to the government a good idea? We just saw what happened with COVID and how they messed it up, why do you believe they will do better? 

[BillsFanNC]

 

[ComradeKayAdams]

On 4/23/2024 at 12:48 PM, ScotSHO said:

Literally the first thing that pops up on google - aka a study that struggles to link CO2 and temps: https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/5/4/76

 

Yay!! You can use an internet search engine! Now use it once more for any critiques of that paper’s flaws and limitations. Doing so may help explain why a paper that is 7 years old has negligible citations and no follow-up research, from the author himself or from any peers within the skeptical climate science community.

 

The theme of my posts has been to direct some of that same skeptical energy toward the skeptics, too. The correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and surface temperature has been exhaustively researched over the years, so any future hypothesis that challenges the conventional wisdom has a steep mountain of scientific tests to climb.

 

On 4/23/2024 at 4:40 PM, Orlando Tim said:

The cooling of the stratosphere I finally looked up and it was presented less than 5 years ago based on the findings of people looking for global warming. I am not stating the cause is not what they state it is, I simply will wait for a little more time and until more people have gone through the data. This does bring us to our next point, which is what is the solution? Is turning it over to the government a good idea? We just saw what happened with COVID and how they messed it up, why do you believe they will do better? 

 

You just looked up the stratosphere cooling effect NOW?? We’ve been talking about it for several weeks! The theory has been around for many decades, soon after the discovery of the stratosphere itself. How much more time is needed for the data to persuade you? 1 year? A decade? A century? A full geological epoch? I have already explained why the data is so persuasive. Climate skeptics always have unreasonable standards that are never rooted in scientific reasoning…

 

A solution to anthropogenic climate change is way too nuanced for me to address in full right now (and I’d rather focus on NFL draft gossip, to be honest, because this is my personal Christmas in April!). So a very brief summary:

 

1. What private industries should mostly control: market-driven technological innovation in solar energy, electric vehicle battery technology, nuclear energy, other green energy (wind, geothermal, hydro, biofuel), carbon sequestration, planetary terraforming, civil engineering, agricultural tech, and lab-grown meat.

 

2. What the government should mostly manage: fundamental STEM research funding in everything related to the climate change problem, carbon market legislation for industries, green economy training programs for displaced workers of old energy economy, public transportation upgrades, all other civil infrastructure upgrades, regulations/land acquisitions for curbing suburban sprawl, land reforestation, and EPA oversight of environmental conservation practices.

 

You brought up COVID, by the way, as if managing a sudden pandemic in real time is comparable to long-term planning for climate change… Ironically enough, the absence of effective government economic intervention (in the form of financially compensating citizens who were forced to not work) was an enormous socioeconomic stressor but a policy that libertarian types supported. The standard free-market solution was to keep everything open as normal, but doing so would have rapidly overloaded hospitals and led to many more deaths.