Global warming err Climate change HOAX

[ComradeKayAdams]

On 4/11/2024 at 10:05 AM, Orlando Tim said:

I should not have called you nuts, that is definitely my mistake. You are one of the  people here who always respond with a well thought out response and I regret posting that. I will blame it on dealing high schoolers all day. To the science part:

 

I hate extrapolation because it always starts from your assumption. You are arguing that the stratosphere and troposphere going in different directions is a historical outlier, but truly we don't know. What was the stratosphere and troposphere doing in the last ice age? We can only guess. When I was in high school in the 1990s I was told the finger lakes were carved by glaciers, but I have been informed by my nephews that is not the belief anymore. 

 

But you and I have one major difference which we will never bridge- I don't trust government to enact meaningful change. Lowering pollution is a good thing but not at the cost of stopping our economy. Politicians main goal is to get re elected, and that is why California is a mess despite being an "environmental" state.

 

But we’re doing so much more than mere guessing! The theme of these climate science discussions should be “data confluence.” The confluence of data is what gives us our confidence in the consensus science. With respect to the stratosphere topic, we have all of the following support:

 

1. Predictive theories based on very well-established physics subfields (mostly stat mech and a/m/o physics, mixed in with some fluid mech at the troposphere below, plasma physics at the ionosphere above, and a delightful dash of basic quantum mech throughout).

2. Computational models whose guiding equations are based on the aforementioned theories.

3. Tabletop experiments of the atmosphere layers, analogous in spirit to what aeronautical engineers do with scale modeling in wind tunnels.

4. Direct measurements taken from air balloons and satellites over the past century, which NACA and later NASA recorded.

 

I’ll argue that the structural simplicity of the stratosphere is what further increases our confidence. At steady-state conditions, it’s basically an altitude-dependent thermodynamic system of temperature, pressure, and gaseous composition (nitrogen, oxygen/ozone, and a few trace gases). There’s very little water vapor, carbon dioxide, or air turbulence to complicate things. You have typical transient behavior and diffusion at boundary layers, but nothing that can individually explain a global temperature variation trend sustained on the order of several decades!

 

So there’s nothing wrong with extrapolation when your assumptions are so strong. Historical behavioral extrapolation comes down to two basic cases, each unassailable without some sort of paradigm-shifting explanation from physics or atmospheric science:

 

1. Uniform temperature growth in each atmospheric layer, due to solar activity.

2. Inverse temperature growth, divergent at the stratosphere-troposphere boundary, due to major volcanic emissions or life-induced (i.e. plants, microbes, humans) changes to atmospheric composition that, in turn, alter the greenhouse effect.

 

P.S. Your apology is kindly accepted, though it wasn’t necessary to offer one! The prerequisite for PPP subforum participation should be a thick skin. All of us here have failed the mantra of “attack the message, not the messenger” from time to time. It happens often enough that the subforum moderator** has given up moderating personal attacks.

 

P.S.P.S. The Finger Lakes were likely ancient river valleys. Glaciers from the most recent ice age likely carved them further into their current form.

 

(P.S.) x 3: I trust government and politicians about as much as I do private corporations. Trust is earned with proof over time, buttressed with systems of oversight and power checks/balances.

 

** - His moderating presence, in fact, is so light that some have suggested he’s not even technically a moderator!! << Commie Kay shockface emoji >> But um…I’ve already said too much, lest I be banished to an even lower Dante-esque forum circle of heck than PPP, with nothing but a red stapler in hand.

 

EDIT: Additional notes on extrapolation case #2: “Major volcanic emissions” was more a reference to Earth’s volatile early atmospheric history, not to random individual volcano eruptions. Effects from isolated cases of meteorites and major wildfires can be similarly transient. Certain human-generated industrial air pollutants can actually mitigate the stratosphere cooling effect from greenhouse gases.

 

 

Edited April 15 by ComradeKayAdams

[4th&long]

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. 
 

Good for you for doing what you can.  If I think long and hard enough on meat consumption, there are days when I think I could go vegetarian…then I eat some good wings.  Or a BLT.  Or whatever.  
 

So, on your issue with electric vehicles, assume you’re correct and the policy issue is indeed a scam.  Extrapolate a bit—-and I see @All_Pro_Bills has done a much better job than I can highlighting his thoughts above—-and consider other policy initiatives and you begin to understand that how you get to be declared a climate heretic when you question the narrative. 
 

Welcome to the club. 
 

 

 

I’m the same way with wings or meat lovers pizza. But I am trying to get away from meat more because I’m worried about what they are putting in it. Whatever they are putting in it to make them grow is making me grow! I gained weight installing flooring and going to the gym. It can’t be all age can it?🥴

[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 Tim]

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 Tim]

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 Tim]

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?