307 replies to this topic

[MID]

Michelle, on 09 October 2012 - 10:12 PM, said:

On a lighter note...I demand the government stop the next tornado or hurricane that threatens us. It is just about as futile...IMO.

Yes.  It's all futility, Michelle.
Despite the fact that we have absolutely no power to control of influence the weather, you will continually encounter specially trained climatologists here who will say things like "...by reducing warming, we can reduce the number and severity of both.  If we don't, we'll just have to get used to more destruction."

Yet...

...Convection, thundercell formation, sometimes tornadoes, winds, heavy rain, hail, and destruction all occur without any influence of man.  They happen because it's summer, and the conditions for formation are favorable.  Those hurricanes and typhoons that (have always) plagued Japan and asia  occur through similar (although much larger scale) mechanics at sea.

Oddly enough, we can't do a thing about them.  They just happen, and we monitor, and try to keep people safe by helping them avoid it all.  We can't get rid of them, and curiously enough, not a one has ever had any indication that man made it.



How could we make those things happen?

A little while ago, it was 102 degrees F outside in July.  Hot as heck, and the humidity was 90% that morning, and was still in the upper 70s all day.  Oddly enough, a thunderstorm warning went up for my area that afternoon, and clearly, radar showed convective cells forming and moving toward me.

Oddly enough, nang, boom, an inch of rain in a half hour, water running down the street, the power went out for about a half hour....and then the sun came out and it was 80 some degrees out.  Still humid, and flood waters flowed in low lying or poor drainage areas.

I was going to call and lodge a complaint with the NWS because global warming needed to be addressed, but my wife looked at me and wasn't smiling....

"Don't you even think of playing tht game!"  said she, wisely...

Thinking, I never saw anything more frequent, more severe, or somehow bearing signatures of some influence other than summer.   It was all normal weather.

And in all that normal weather (been many decades observing the stuff), never have I observed "MORE" rain, or snow, or destruction, or problems.  I've just observed normal weather (although running like hell from a tornado...but that's kind of normal too).  Hurricanes are a pain in the ****, especially if you're in one!

I'm not sure I expect any more of this.   It's always been pretty much the same.


But never did we create one, and never will we, nor never shall we get rid of one.
I'd like to know how we cool the warming we're allegedly, yet not evidently, cusing on this planet.  If we could actually do that, we could certainly get rid of a storm too!

Maybe the "climatologist" will tell us how!

[Doug1o29]

MID, on 10 October 2012 - 01:37 PM, said:

Despite the fact that we have absolutely no power to control of influence the weather,

Ever hear of silver iodide?

Quote

you will continually encounter specially trained climatologists here who will say things like "...by reducing warming, we can reduce the number and severity of both.  If we don't, we'll just have to get used to more destruction."

I am not a climatologist and have never claimed to be one.  But I note that since 1892, temperatures on the Ouachita National Forest have tracked very nicely with Hansen's list of global temperature anomalies, which show rising temps.  I use records from 31 local weather stations recorded by well over a  hundred different observers over 120 years - and they show rising temps.  That's the instrumental record, not tree rings.  Are you trying to say that there is some kind of conspiracy to rig the data and that they're all lying and yet the secret has been kept for over a century?  That's what I would call paranoid thinking.

Quote

...Convection, thundercell formation, sometimes tornadoes, winds, heavy rain, hail, and destruction all occur without any influence of man.  They happen because it's summer, and the conditions for formation are favorable.  Those hurricanes and typhoons that (have always) plagued Japan and asia  occur through similar (although much larger scale) mechanics at sea.

You are mistaking weather for climate.  They're not the same.  You will never understand climate until you understand this.


How might we change climate?  We're already doing it by adding CO2 to the atmosphere.  If we could bring down the level of CO2 and keep it below 350 ppm we might reverse that.  That will not be easy to do.  First, stop the increase in CO2 by converting to solar and wind power.  We are already doing that, but slowly.  The issue is a political one:  the conservatives are opposing it just for political reasons, ignoring the fact that wind power is already cheaper than coal and oil and is comparable to gas - basically, making us pay more just to protect inefficient and wasteful monopolies.

Once the increase in CO2 is stopped, we may have to work on lowering it.  That would mean terra-forming earth - harvesting biomass and putting it where it can't decompose into CO2 - like dry landfills.  In forestry, silvicultural operations result in the cutting of junk and low-grade trees, which are usually allowed to decay on site.  Those could be chipped and buried.  So could waste paper.  We could ferment cellulose, harvest the alcohol and bury the rest.  The process would even pay for itself.

We are not talking about large government projects or major inconveniences to consumers.  We are talking about small changes in infrastructure that have big environmental impacts.

The idea that industries should be allowed to release poisons into the air and water just to make profits, is an idea that has to go.  Profits are fine, but deliberately killing people because you won't clean up your mess, is not.  That's what this "debate" is really all about.

So which side are you on?  Would you prefer to die of coal smoke, or would you prefer to live in a clean place?
Doug

[BFB]

MID i have in many cases explained you that we can control weather to some extent.

How to control i.e change the storms path and reduce wind speeds. Either you have a really bad memory or you choose to ignore what's being explained to you.

I can see Br and Doug have tried, way to many times in my opinion, to educate you scientifically.

Its always fun and educating to have a debate about the scientifically principles behind AGW with someone. Do what LF does, find something to debate over instead of just saying it's all bull**** and you don't want to explain why(I think its because you don't know how to).

[Br Cornelius]

I always come away from a conversation with MID feeling like I do after a Chinese meal - bloated but ultimately dissatisfied and still hungry for some actual substance.
I've said it before - but he forces me to say it again - time with MID is always time wasted.

He claims to be an engineer but I have my doubts.

Br Cornelius

[questionmark]

Br Cornelius, on 10 October 2012 - 04:55 PM, said:

I always come away from a conversation with MID feeling like I do after a Chinese meal - bloated but ultimately dissatisfied and still hungry for some actual substance.
I've said it before - but he forces me to say it again - time with MID is always time wasted.

He claims to be an engineer but I have my doubts.

Br Cornelius

Depends if you use American or British terminology to define the job, in American terminology this guy is an engineer too:


In British he would be a train driver.

[MID]

Doug1o29, on 10 October 2012 - 03:20 PM, said:

You are mistaking weather for climate.  They're not the same.  You will never understand climate until you understand this.

Ah...thank you so much!
As you should've been plainly seeing, I was discussing specific weather events, as they had been discussed as aspects of climate influenced by men.
And weather, is in fact, reflective of the climate.  I do not know why asuch a reasonably elucidated statement should be an argumentive point for you, but it is, even though you're inaccurate in using it as such.

Quote

How might we change climate? We're already doing it by adding CO2 to the atmosphere. If we could bring down the level of CO2 and keep it below 350 ppm we might reverse that. That will not be easy to do. First, stop the increase in CO2 by converting to solar and wind power. We are already doing that, but slowly. The issue is a political one: the conservatives are opposing it just for political reasons, ignoring the fact that wind power is already cheaper than coal and oil and is comparable to gas - basically, making us pay more just to protect inefficient and wasteful monopolies.

And wind power has worked where... In what large scale environment, pragmatically, and economically?

Oh and by the way, Conservatives (who built this country and made it what it was before socialism came to the fore in certain mindsets)...don't spend needlessly, nor do they propose making people spend their money on things that don't work, or making them buy things unconstitutionally.

It's simple when disucussing any aspect...just take gasoline:


We haven't made enough in decades.  We haven't built a refinery in...how long?  But lord knows, they'll tax the hell out of gasoline, taking more profit than the companies who make the stuff do (and that's minimal).  Conservatives want to become energy independent, and do so by the only manner that makes sense in the economy as it presently exists:

To drill ourselves for the vast reserves we have here, and to refine our fuel as we need it.   We'd create hundreds of thousands of jobs, boost this economy, and make the money we need to supoport Research and Development in alternative fuel sources (and of course, our oil companies will be the ones to do that!).

Lower prices, greater supplies, and increasing economy with unemployment going way down.

That's what conservatives do...not the sillines you propose. It would be best to cease using the term until you actually understand it, and that all the greats in this country's history, were Conservatives!






And finally:

We're doing this global warming by keeping the  concentration of C0₂  at 350ppm or greater?
How do we do that, and...

How would you propose we lower that?

We could all stop breathing.  I guess that would help a whole lot, eh?
After all, we humans exhale about 2 1/2 opounds of CO2 per day...EACH.  That's over 16 billion pounds per day across the planet! 8million tons of CO2!

And even THAT is a microsscopic fraction of the atmospheric volume of the planet  We put out 8000 tons of the stuff into a 500,000,000,000,000 ton atmosphere.  That's 16 trillionths of a percent.

The total CO2 put into the atmosphere in a year by cars worldwide is a mere  6/1,000 % of the atmospheric volume!

All this, of course is causing global warming (which has been happening as it does happen, for thousands of years, due to the Sun's actions).   But you know, we never notice a damned thing about it.

Further, the planet doesn't care, and if it was conscious and knew what people were claiming and talking about, well....we lilely all would've been swallowed by the Earths fit of laughter!

[MID]

questionmark, on 10 October 2012 - 05:00 PM, said:

Depends if you use American or British terminology to define the job, in American terminology this guy is an engineer too:


In British he would be a train driver.

Actually, there is (or should be() no confusion if using the correct nomenclature.

This fellow, no matter where you are is a Railroad  Engineer.

This is not to be confused with the Professional Engineer, who may be called simply an "Engineer" in normal conversation.  This is the person who completed his or her 4 or 5 year course to receive a B.S. degree in engineering, civil, mechanical, chemical, electrical, archetectural, railway systems,   or aerospace.

(The gentleman pctured is not a railway systems engineer).

How utterly boring was all that?!

[Br Cornelius]

CFC's MID - at concentrations of 1/1000th that of CO2 created the Ozone hole. Absolute volume is immaterial.
If you disagree may I suggest you take a dose of cyanid at 1 millionth of your body mass to prove the point

Br Cornelius

[MID]

Doug1o29, on 10 October 2012 - 03:20 PM, said:

Ever hear of silver iodide?

I am not a climatologist and have never claimed to be one.  But I note that since 1892, temperatures on the Ouachita National Forest have tracked very nicely with Hansen's list of global temperature anomalies, which show rising temps.  I use records from 31 local weather stations recorded by well over a  hundred different observers over 120 years - and they show rising temps.  That's the instrumental record, not tree rings.  Are you trying to say that there is some kind of conspiracy to rig the data and that they're all lying and yet the secret has been kept for over a century?  That's what I would call paranoid thinking.

You are mistaking weather for climate.  They're not the same.  You will never understand climate until you understand this.


How might we change climate?  We're already doing it by adding CO2 to the atmosphere.  If we could bring down the level of CO2 and keep it below 350 ppm we might reverse that.  That will not be easy to do.  First, stop the increase in CO2 by converting to solar and wind power.  We are already doing that, but slowly.  The issue is a political one:  the conservatives are opposing it just for political reasons, ignoring the fact that wind power is already cheaper than coal and oil and is comparable to gas - basically, making us pay more just to protect inefficient and wasteful monopolies.

Once the increase in CO2 is stopped, we may have to work on lowering it.  That would mean terra-forming earth - harvesting biomass and putting it where it can't decompose into CO2 - like dry landfills.  In forestry, silvicultural operations result in the cutting of junk and low-grade trees, which are usually allowed to decay on site.  Those could be chipped and buried.  So could waste paper.  We could ferment cellulose, harvest the alcohol and bury the rest.  The process would even pay for itself.

We are not talking about large government projects or major inconveniences to consumers.  We are talking about small changes in infrastructure that have big environmental impacts.

The idea that industries should be allowed to release poisons into the air and water just to make profits, is an idea that has to go.  Profits are fine, but deliberately killing people because you won't clean up your mess, is not.  That's what this "debate" is really all about.

So which side are you on?  Would you prefer to die of coal smoke, or would you prefer to live in a clean place?
Doug

Br Cornelius, on 10 October 2012 - 04:55 PM, said:

I always come away from a conversation with MID feeling like I do after a Chinese meal - bloated but ultimately dissatisfied and still hungry for some actual substance.
I've said it before - but he forces me to say it again - time with MID is always time wasted.

He claims to be an engineer but I have my doubts.

Br Cornelius

I do?
I claim to be an engineer, eh?
You have your doubts???


Oh boy!

Well, in that case, I suspend all projects I'm working on, and return all certificates to the appropriate agencies.
If Brother Cornelius has doubts, then I'm shakin' in my booties!

[MID]

Br Cornelius, on 10 October 2012 - 06:10 PM, said:

CFC's MID - at concentrations of 1/1000th that of CO2 created the Ozone hole. Absolute volume is immaterial.
If you disagree may I suggest you take a dose of cyanid at 1 millionth of your body mass to prove the point

Br Cornelius

Oh, OK, Thanks, Br. C.

I'll do that!  I'll try within the next half hour.
I have to leave for an engineering meeting with an aerospace staff in Cleveland.


....Shhhhh, I won't tell 'em you pulled my certs!

Edited by MID, 10 October 2012 - 07:17 PM.

[Br Cornelius]

Lets us know how it turns out

Br Cornelius

[Doug1o29]

MID, on 10 October 2012 - 05:48 PM, said:

As you should've been plainly seeing, I was discussing specific weather events, as they had been discussed as aspects of climate influenced by men.
And weather, is in fact, reflective of the climate.  I do not know why asuch a reasonably elucidated statement should be an argumentive point for you, but it is, even though you're inaccurate in using it as such.

We can and do control specific weather events, like rain-making with silver iodide crystals.  There was a lawsuit back in the 70s charging that government efforts to increase rainfall over the San Juan Mountains was depriving Sangre de Cristo residents of needed water.  The court ruled that while rainfall increased in the San Juans, there was nothing to indicate it decreased rainfall in the Sangre de Cristos.  So, at least in the opinion of the judge, silver iodide increased rainfall - i.e. people were controlling weather.

Quote

And wind power has worked where... In what large scale environment, pragmatically, and economically?

Right here.  In the good ol' USA.

2896 megawatts of capacity were added to US totals in the first half of this year, bringing our total wind capacity to 49,802 megawatts.  Wind power now produces 3.23% of all US power.  We are second to China in adding new wind capacity.  New wind generators are coming online at a cost of 5 to 8 cents per kilowatt hour.  Fourteen states now have at least 1000 megawatts of capacity.  Texas is the leader with 10,377 megawatts.  Iowa is second with 4322 megawatts.  Altamont in California has the largest wind farm with a capacity greater than most states.  10,312 megawatts of capacity were under construction as of last June 30th.  The department of energy estimates the US will generate 20% of its power needs from wind by 2030.

Is that pragmatic and economical enough for you?

Quote

Oh and by the way, Conservatives (who built this country and made it what it was before socialism came to the fore in certain mindsets)...don't spend needlessly, nor do they propose making people spend their money on things that don't work, or making them buy things unconstitutionally.

Ore boats on the Great Lakes used to sail with hatches open.  It was a way to save money - the crew were supposed to secure the hatches while under way.  It took the loss of several ships and crews before the unions put a stop to it.  It was the unions who forced the mining companies to adopt safety procedures to protect both men and equipment.

Most of this country was built through cooperation.  Whole towns were built by everybody pitching in.  My favorite is Fort Garland, Colorado which was built in one day by a massive effort of the entire town.  Conservative propaganda notwithstanding, the roads and highways of this country were a cooperative effort and continue to be.  Everybody uses them and up until recently, everybody paid for them.  Education:  since the Northwest Ordinance of 1789 the US government has contributed money to education.  That's before the term "socialism" had even been invented.

If you'd stop to think about it:  socialism and capitalism have a common enemy.  It's monopoly.  Monopoly stifles the free market, enabling a powerful few to control everything.  That's what we're approaching in the US and that's not what democracy is supposed to be about.  Tell me how you envision freedom without a free market?  Freedom means freedom for me, as well as for Mitt Romney.

Quote

We haven't made enough in decades.  We haven't built a refinery in...how long?

There are 144 operating refineries in the US as of January 1.  The newest is in Douglas, Wyoming and began operations in 2008.  The second newest is in Metairie, Louisiana and began operations in 2005.  Atmore, Alabama in 1998.  Valdez, Alaska 1993; Eagle Springs, Nevada 1992;  North Pole, Alaska 1987.  Don't believe that conservative BS about "we haven't built any new refineries in 35 years."  It ain't so.

Quote

But lord knows, they'll tax the hell out of gasoline, taking more profit than the companies who make the stuff do (and that's minimal).

It's the states who are raising taxes on gasoline.  Federal taxes remain at 36 cents per gallon, exactly what they were in 1980 when I worked in the gasoline business.  In Oklahoma, low taxes on fuels is a point of pride stemming from our large oil industry.

Quote

Conservatives want to become energy independent, and do so by the only manner that makes sense in the economy as it presently exists:

So blanket the Great Plains with windfarms and make energy independence happen.

Quote

To drill ourselves for the vast reserves we have here, and to refine our fuel as we need it.   We'd create hundreds of thousands of jobs, boost this economy, and make the money we need to supoport Research and Development in alternative fuel sources (and of course, our oil companies will be the ones to do that!).

According to Mr. Big Oil - T. Boone Pickens - we can't drill our way out of this one (Google:  Pickens Plan).  There isn't enough capacity for a permanenet solution.  The Bakken will take another ten years to fully develop.  And the Obama Administration has sold more permits, including in the Gulf, than either the Bush or Clinton Administrations.

Money spent by private companies on Research and Development is a tax deductible business expense.  Private businesses do not pay taxes on that, so their whining about taxes preventing them from doing it is so much BS.

Quote

Lower prices, greater supplies, and increasing economy with unemployment going way down.

Of course, simply forgiving the student loan debt, tax free, would give the economy a trillion-dollar shot in the arm.  Taxes on the resulting spending would repay the Federal government's investment in about 18 months.  But it's not liberals who are opposing that.

Quote

That's what conservatives do...not the sillines you propose. It would be best to cease using the term until you actually understand it, and that all the greats in this country's history, were Conservatives!

Conservatives have their own brand of silliness.

Quote

We're doing this global warming by keeping the  concentration of C0₂  at 350ppm or greater?
How do we do that, and...

No.  CO2 concentration is about 400 ppm right now.  It is doudtful that we will be able to turn it around before it reaches 450 ppm, even if we could get the conservatives on board.

Quote

How would you propose we lower that?

See above.

Quote

We could all stop breathing.

I can think of a few who should.

Quote

And even THAT is a microsscopic fraction of the atmospheric volume of the planet  We put out 8000 tons of the stuff into a 500,000,000,000,000 ton atmosphere.  That's 16 trillionths of a percent.

The total CO2 put into the atmosphere in a year by cars worldwide is a mere  6/1,000 % of the atmospheric volume!

All this, of course is causing global warming (which has been happening as it does happen, for thousands of years, due to the Sun's actions).   But you know, we never notice a damned thing about it.

Further, the planet doesn't care, and if it was conscious and knew what people were claiming and talking about, well....we lilely all would've been swallowed by the Earths fit of laughter!

The dose of cyanide that will kill 50% of humans if exposed to undamaged skin is 100 millgrams per kilogram.  That's 100 parts per million, or one part in 10,000 or 1/1000%.  That's one sixth of the concentration of CO2 in the air.  By your line of reasoning, you should be able to safely consume enough cyanide to kill six people.  Have at it.
Doug

[Little Fish]

I guess Doug and BC have conceded since there was no response to post#281, you have both declared yourselves to be scientists in a relevant field yet you chose to ignore the substantive post and instead use your energy with two pages of tittle tattle.

http://www.unexplain...70#entry4492133

[Doug1o29]

Little Fish, on 10 October 2012 - 10:17 PM, said:

I guess Doug and BC have conceded since there was no response to post#281, you have both declared yourselves to be scientists in a relevant field yet you chose to ignore the substantive post and instead use your energy with two pages of tittle tattle.

So what's the problem?  I don't see anything surprising in there.  Those links are to abstracts.  Have you read the articles?

They're just fine-tuning the system.  Climate varies from place to place.  Nothing new there.  Climate change varies from place to place.  Nothing new there, either.
Doug

[MID]

Br Cornelius, on 10 October 2012 - 06:31 PM, said:

Lets us know how it turns out

Br Cornelius

It went well.  A wee discussion about a new idea for airfoils.
Not the kind of stuff to insipre all kinds of discussion about climate change, but nontheless, beneficial, espacially since I didn't admit I was a fake engineer and my certifications had been pulled by a wanna be global warming climatologist.

Stating that would've garnered laughter  initially.   But it would also have got me stoned eventually!
I'm home because I didn't mention this nonsense at the conference.   Wasn't enough time for it anyway!   It was over in maybe 50 minutes!