Climate Change Report

[LouderVol]

All of our waste heat combined is only about 1% of the magnitude of the extra heat trapped by that extra insulation (and most of that heat still escapes to space despite the greenhouse effect). It's not significant.

Al Gore caught flak from a very quiet majority then. I can think of instances where the Big Oil guys got called out, and other various hacks. But it seems that as long as the hack agrees you dont hear them get called out. The issue is that it pushes the public opinion and by extension public/government intervention in ways that arent efficient and it compounds the issue.

To the section I left on 1%: i would say the heat generation is directly tied to the CO2 production. So if our production of CO2 is enough to change things, the heat is at least as bad. And as i pointed out it is the actual driver to the climate change. We are talking about 1 degree over a century. So that 1 percent may seem insignificant, but it could be a big chunk of the acceleration we are seeing.

I also doubt it's only 1% heat production. Not saying it's going to be 50% vs the sun. But i would take an educated guess its somewhere around 10%. One of the major reasons being is it's impossible to create cooling. All you do is move heat from one area to another. So there is a lot more you have to consider than just heat production bia burning a fuel. Even just the transmission of electricity creates heat.

Lastly i think we have talked about this before and i honestly cant remember how it went but on the insulation it works both ways. If we are somehow trapping heat in, it means we would be excluding it as well. Most materials and processes for the movement of heat work just as well forward as they do backwards. Up vs down in this case. If we are trapping 10% more heat in it means we should be excluding 10% more heat gain from solar radiation heating the atmosphere. It would typically require some type of phase change for a material to work differently in a different direction. I doubt that happens naturally.

 

[AM64]

Al Gore caught flak from a very quiet majority then. I can think of instances where the Big Oil guys got called out, and other various hacks. But it seems that as long as the hack agrees you dont hear them get called out. The issue is that it pushes the public opinion and by extension public/government intervention in ways that arent efficient and it compounds the issue.

To the section I left on 1%: i would say the heat generation is directly tied to the CO2 production. So if our production of CO2 is enough to change things, the heat is at least as bad. And as i pointed out it is the actual driver to the climate change. We are talking about 1 degree over a century. So that 1 percent may seem insignificant, but it could be a big chunk of the acceleration we are seeing.

I also doubt it's only 1% heat production. Not saying it's going to be 50% vs the sun. But i would take an educated guess its somewhere around 10%. One of the major reasons being is it's impossible to create cooling. All you do is move heat from one area to another. So there is a lot more you have to consider than just heat production bia burning a fuel. Even just the transmission of electricity creates heat.

Lastly i think we have talked about this before and i honestly cant remember how it went but on the insulation it works both ways. If we are somehow trapping heat in, it means we would be excluding it as well. Most materials and processes for the movement of heat work just as well forward as they do backwards. Up vs down in this case. If we are trapping 10% more heat in it means we should be excluding 10% more heat gain from solar radiation heating the atmosphere. It would typically require some type of phase change for a material to work differently in a different direction. I doubt that happens naturally.

Remember the masses don't understand that air conditioners and refrigerators really create heat as the net product.

 

[Roustabout]

What was your argument against the climate science? It seems to me it's more about economics than the actual science. Do you have an argument against the climate science or not?

This is a bad angle. Evidence doesn’t have an opinion. People do.

It’s real simple, what is the average carbon footprint of a human being and how does that correlate to temp?

Take the population 10k years ago and the population today. I’d love to see the “science.”
Science doesn’t start with a conclusion and then fund research to affirm the hypothesis.

 

[LouderVol]

Those things are measurable correct? We have 100+ years of data, specifically data that measures such things correct? We also have carbon data from millions of years ago correct? Is it your contention that we don't have enough data points or the amount of carbon in the atmosphere does not influence Hurricanes, wildfires, temperature, or the Climate?

I am saying you cant take a hundred year event and extrapolate to a 500 year event.

And I seriously doubt we have 100 years of good information.

And I also doubt we have great apples to apples data. If you look at the temp of New York City now compared to 50/100 years ago of course its higher. More stuff there, worse heat island. But do we have the same data for undeveloped countryside, or like Mt Rushmore?

You can make the data say what you want. Which is where a lot of the controversy still comes from. You get inane comparisons. Both sides do it to fit their argument.

 

[LouderVol]

Remember the masses don't understand that air conditioners and refrigerators really create heat as the net product.

Yup. There is a ish ton of hidden heat created by building systems. The funny part is that that all the heat stacks upon each other. As we fill our homes with more stuff we produce more heat. That requires more cooling. Which creates more heat.

And those same hidden heat production issues occur in everything.

 

[VolStrom]

Yup. There is a ish ton of hidden heat created by building systems. The funny part is that that all the heat stacks upon each other. As we fill our homes with more stuff we produce more heat. That requires more cooling. Which creates more heat.

And those same hidden heat production issues occur in everything.

I can walk around my house at midnight with all of the lights off and see just fine. Every damn thing you buy now days has an LED to say it's alive, or on, or off, or connected to something else etc.

 

[AM64]

I can walk around my house at midnight with all of the lights off and see just fine. Every damn thing you buy now days has an LED to say it's alive, or on, or off, or connected to something else etc.

Remember power lights that lit when something was on ... in the good ole days? Now there's a plethora of LEDs that are on but go off when you turn something on ... that's just strange.

 

[VolStrom]

Remember power lights that lit when something was on ... in the good ole days? Now there's a plethora of LEDs that are on but go off when you turn something on ... that's just strange.

My main TV is like that. No LED's at all when it's on, turn it off and there is a bright red one telling me it's turned off, like I couldn't tell. When I turn it on it blinks for several seconds, thanks Samsung. My dishwasher takes the cake though, it has a bright red light that it shines on the floor to let me know it's cleaning my dishes. I suppose that would be great if I were completely deaf.

 

[Roustabout]

I am saying you cant take a hundred year event and extrapolate to a 500 year event.

And I seriously doubt we have 100 years of good information.

And I also doubt we have great apples to apples data. If you look at the temp of New York City now compared to 50/100 years ago of course its higher. More stuff there, worse heat island. But do we have the same data for undeveloped countryside, or like Mt Rushmore?

You can make the data say what you want. Which is where a lot of the controversy still comes from. You get inane comparisons. Both sides do it to fit their argument.

We absolutely don’t have a 100 years of good info.
No way to know whether instruments from the past were properly calibrated or placed. My cars thermometer says it’s 110 degrees outside.

 

[1972 Grad]

Remember the masses don't understand that air conditioners and refrigerators really create heat as the net product.

That does it for me. Out with the A/C and the fridge.

 

[Mick]

This is a bad angle. Evidence doesn’t have an opinion. People do.

It’s real simple, what is the average carbon footprint of a human being and how does that correlate to temp?

Take the population 10k years ago and the population today. I’d love to see the “science.”
Science doesn’t start with a conclusion and then fund research to affirm the hypothesis.

It was actually a simple question. the second one.

What was your argument against the climate science? It seems to me it's more about economics than the actual science. Do you have an argument against the climate science or not?

 

[Mick]

I am saying you cant take a hundred year event and extrapolate to a 500 year event.

And I seriously doubt we have 100 years of good information.

And I also doubt we have great apples to apples data. If you look at the temp of New York City now compared to 50/100 years ago of course its higher. More stuff there, worse heat island. But do we have the same data for undeveloped countryside, or like Mt Rushmore?

You can make the data say what you want. Which is where a lot of the controversy still comes from. You get inane comparisons. Both sides do it to fit their argument.

We work with what the science allows, and the science says that carbon is bad and the increased carbon is bad, It seems to me that you want to refute the science on the argument that we don't have enough data points, which i'm telling you that you are wrong.

 

[Roustabout]

It was actually a simple question. the second one.

And my point is that raw data and opinion are not the same thing. My sister is a PhD research scientists for the Federal government. My sister-in-law is a PHD veterinary virologist at a major university and is government funded.
Would you like to hear how my sisters years of research was mishandled and misused to get funding? Or, how my sister-in-law had to leave UGA because a superior was messing with her research?

We already know that a major climate summit fudged facts to suit their own agenda. It is now career suicide to go against the narrative. Show me otherwise.

I’m waiting on those stats. Show us where we know the data for 100 years is reliable. What were the standards and calibrations in place?

 

[LouderVol]

We work with what the science allows, and the science says that carbon is bad and the increased carbon is bad, It seems to me that you want to refute the science on the argument that we don't have enough data points, which i'm telling you that you are wrong.

Not arguing the carbon levels are bad. I dont know why you keep going back to that except that you dont understand the point I am making, or you just dont have a way to deal with it.

I am saying the severity of events that we say are getting "worse" could be baseless. We, at best, have terrible info, of actual events. Not carbon levels, events. I will say it again as you continue to misquote me, the events themselves, in this case the hurricanes and wildfires. We have no idea what is the actual norm. For all we know this post ice age era where civilization developed could be the anomaly for the events we complain about. We could just be returning to normal for all we know.

 

[Mick]

And my point is that raw data and opinion are not the same thing. My sister is a PhD research scientists for the Federal government. My sister-in-law is a PHD veterinary virologist at a major university and is government funded.
Would you like to hear how my sisters years of research was mishandled and misused to get funding? Or, how my sister-in-law had to leave UGA because a superior was messing with her research?

We already know that a major climate summit fudged facts to suit their own agenda. It is now career suicide to go against the narrative. Show me otherwise.

I’m waiting on those stats. Show us where we know the data for 100 years is reliable. What were the standards and calibrations in place?

It's all a grand conspiracy to sell solar panels. I don't think you even need to worry about it since you don't believe the science. Basically someone had to tell you not to believe the science and here you are. I'm not here to give data or stats or methodology or instrumentation. If you want to refute the science you need to get to work and not just repeat that climate science is a hoax, sham, and ploy to get funding.

 

[Roustabout]

It's all a grand conspiracy to sell solar panels. I don't think you even need to worry about it since you don't believe the science. Basically someone had to tell you not to believe the science and here you are. I'm not here to give data or stats or methodology or instrumentation. If you want to refute the science you need to get to work and not just repeat that climate science is a hoax, sham, and ploy to get funding.

You are basically using your he term “science” in an unscientific manner.
Science is, is, is the methodology and instrumentation. You just told the forum a lot with this last post.

 

[Mick]

Not arguing the carbon levels are bad. I dont know why you keep going back to that except that you dont understand the point I am making, or you just dont have a way to deal with it.

I am saying the severity of events that we say are getting "worse" could be baseless. We, at best, have terrible info, of actual events. Not carbon levels, events. I will say it again as you continue to misquote me, the events themselves, in this case the hurricanes and wildfires. We have no idea what is the actual norm. For all we know this post ice age era where civilization developed could be the anomaly for the events we complain about. We could just be returning to normal for all we know.

Actually the wildfires and hurricanes are what they predict from the climate science. They predict bigger hurricanes because they know what variables are in play. If you know the variables in play you don't need a thousand years of recorded data to try to get a "baseline", They don't need a baseline to know a 1 degree change in ocean temperature increases the odds that a big hurricane will develop. They don't need a baseline to determine that prolonged drought increases the chances of bigger fires. Do you need a baseline to know that?

 

[Mick]

You are basically using your he term “science” in an unscientific manner.
Science is, is, is the methodology and instrumentation. You just told the forum a lot with this last post.

If I had those answers for you I would give them to you. Believe it or not I'm not a climate scientist. I don't know their methodology or instrumentation, do you? I suggest since you don't believe it, maybe you could study up and come back to refute 98 % of the scientific community. Go get em tiger.

 

[LouderVol]

Actually the wildfires and hurricanes are what they predict from the climate science. They predict bigger hurricanes because they know what variables are in play. If you know the variables in play you don't need a thousand years of recorded data to try to get a "baseline", They don't need a baseline to know a 1 degree change in ocean temperature increases the odds that a big hurricane will develop. They don't need a baseline to determine that prolonged drought increases the chances of bigger fires. Do you need a baseline to know that?

If you are saying "bigger" then yes, by definition you need to know what ot is "bigger" than.

Funny how you are now separating your argument from carbon to temperature and drought. Congrats on finally figuring out that it isnt the carbon dioxide itself causing those issues. The CO2 is a knock on effect that leads to that. But so could any number of items which haven't been addressed here. Including the increase in human heat production.

Another thing that just hit me on the earth axis tilt change was that back when China built the three gorges dam people were saying there was enough weight there to change the axis by some measurable amount. No idea if those numbers checked out but it's another thing worth discussing imo.

 

[Mick]

If you are saying "bigger" then yes, by definition you need to know what ot is "bigger" than.

Funny how you are now separating your argument from carbon to temperature and drought. Congrats on finally figuring out that it isnt the carbon dioxide itself causing those issues. The CO2 is a knock on effect that leads to that. But so could any number of items which haven't been addressed here. Including the increase in human heat production.

Another thing that just hit me on the earth axis tilt change was that back when China built the three gorges dam people were saying there was enough weight there to change the axis by some measurable amount. No idea if those numbers checked out but it's another thing worth discussing imo.

We have historical data on forest fires so bigger may be measured in acreage.

I'm not separating the argument because the climate science says increased carbon in the atmosphere increases the temperature of the earth. Has there been any studies to determine if the Earth wobble increases the temperature of the planet?
This is a good quick read.
Humans Contribute to Earth’s Wobble, Scientists Say

 

[82_VOL_83]

Why is Earth’s axis shifting? | Cosmos

Cow farts are propelling it off it's axis.

 

[AirVol]

Cow farts are propelling it off it's axis.

I think I’ll grab a six pack and some cigs, carry some old tires to the farm and watch them burn while watching the cows sh!t all over the green pasture.

 

[Roustabout]

Actually the wildfires and hurricanes are what they predict from the climate science. They predict bigger hurricanes because they know what variables are in play. If you know the variables in play you don't need a thousand years of recorded data to try to get a "baseline", They don't need a baseline to know a 1 degree change in ocean temperature increases the odds that a big hurricane will develop. They don't need a baseline to determine that prolonged drought increases the chances of bigger fires. Do you need a baseline to know that?

The UN Climate Panel found in its latest report that hurricanes (aka tropical cyclones) haven’t increased: “Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century.”

For the United States, the trend of all land-falling hurricanes has been falling since 1900, as has that of major hurricanes. In the 51 years from 1915, Florida and the Atlantic coast were hit by 19 major hurricanes. In the 51 years to 2016, just seven. In the last 11 years, only two hurricanes greater than category 3 hit the continental USA — a record low since 1900. From 1915 to 1926, 12 hit.
Source New York Post

 

[AM64]

The UN Climate Panel found in its latest report that hurricanes (aka tropical cyclones) haven’t increased: “Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century.”

For the United States, the trend of all land-falling hurricanes has been falling since 1900, as has that of major hurricanes. In the 51 years from 1915, Florida and the Atlantic coast were hit by 19 major hurricanes. In the 51 years to 2016, just seven. In the last 11 years, only two hurricanes greater than category 3 hit the continental USA — a record low since 1900. From 1915 to 1926, 12 hit.
Source New York Post

It's a variant of the classic thing about a tree falling in the woods with nobody around to hear it. With the explosion of "news" media, there's not a chance of a silent hurricane. At this rate they may be chasing cow farts like they do tornadoes now. Just wait til the city boys (libs) figure out what wild bears do in the woods ... methane bombs.

 

[ajvol01]

Isn’t it ironic