Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
tmcom

Its a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World

592 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

tmcom
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, tortugabob said:

I would let the US government give me $7,500 to buy an electric car.   If I lived California the state would give me another $4,000. My $94K Tesla Model S 100D (dual motor, not performance) would then only cost me $82.5K. That's cheap to drive the Tesla with the longest range 335 miles.  Now I wouldn't try to drive from Lost Angeles to Phoenix because I would have to stop once to charge the batteries. I just hope the gas station has a clean restroom  because my wait to get a re-fill could be up to  96.7 hours if the voltage was 110V. That's 4 days for all the people who failed math in second grade.  But if I was fortunate enough to hit one of those gas stations with lights above the pumps they might have 220V (like an electric oven would use) and I'd only have to wait 10.72 hours to re-charge my beautiful Tesla.  And if I found one of those fancy charging stations at a super modern gas station it would charge at 440V.  Then I would only have to spend 1.33 hours to get going again. I could use that time buying PowerBall and Mega Million Lottery tickets  because I knew it was my lucky day.  

Yes, and you may have to pay 100k for the fast one...

https://www.pluglesspower.com/learn/tesla-model-s-charging-home-public-autonomously/

Our cops have one, only $127k, which is a drop in the bucket for our dimwit.

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/australia-gets-its-first-fully-electric-cop-car-as-victoria-police-adds-tesla-model-x-to-highway-patrol-2019-6

Which can charge up to 170kms in 30 minutes, which is tolerable.

I may also design a bumper sticker for electric cars saying, "this Car Runs of Wind" or "This Car Runs on Hot Air" for politicians, lol.

I guess in France it would be, "This Car Runs on the Smell of an oily Yellow Rag"?

B)

Edited by tmcom
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
On 6/10/2019 at 7:37 AM, tortugabob said:

Well London should be underwater already.  Quoting the article:

"Sea levels are expected to rise by over 40cm unless global warming is limited to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels, the more ambitious target set by the Paris climate agreement. An analysis released by Christian Aid as nations meet in Korea to finalise a major UN climate change report concerning the 1.5C target looks at some of the coastal cities most at risk."

NASA and the climate experts say the temp has already gone up 1.7C.

We have already lost the 1.5C race.

Doug

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, tmcom said:

Ironic thing about this is cult members saying that oil companies are behind the Gore 2006 - 2016 prediction failure. And apparently the scientific community behind Gore where also dodgy.

I don't know about "oil companies," per se.  Some, like Shell, are pretty good stewards, all things considered.

For the most-part, the companies try to take good care of their lease holders and will bend over backwards to avoid environmental damage.

 

Exxon has had some integrity problems, though.  Its own employees call it "Double Cross Oil Company."  And it has been putting out false climate-change "facts" for some time.

Exxon's new refinery in Metaire, LA was wrecked by Hurricane Katrina before it even got into production.  I wonder if that had something to do with their attitude.  Mitt Romney said "We haven't built a new refinery in 35 years."  He has talking about Exxon.  The US has built 14 of them.  Nice to know who butters his toast.

 

Don't be too hard on oil companies.  They are the ones who will be selling you all the green energy you can buy.

Doug

Edited by Doug1o29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmcom
6 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

I don't know about "oil companies," per se.  Some, like Shell, are pretty good stewards, all things considered.

For the most-part, the companies try to take good care of their lease holders and will bend over backwards to avoid environmental damage.

Exxon has had some integrity problems, though.  Its own employees call it "Double Cross Oil Company."  And it has been putting out false climate-change "facts" for some time.

Exxon's new refinery in Metaire, LA was wrecked by Hurricane Katrina before it even got into production.  I wonder if that had something to do with their attitude.  Mitt Romney said "We haven't built a new refinery in 35 years."  He has talking about Exxon.  The US has built 14 of them.  Nice to know who butters his toast.

Don't be too hard on oil companies.  They are the ones who will be selling you all the green energy you can buy.

Doug

No, oil companies actually were the first to push climate change, probably becuase of the EXXON mess, and trying to repair the global negative pr. Then they reversed or downplayed that later on, since they could see it was going to bite them.

 

Others elsewhere are saying that Gores predictions failed since oil companies made sure Gore's and apparently 10k's worth of PRP over 10 years were fake or wrong, so the 2016 end is nigh would not happen.

Unfortunately that means that current data for future predictions are also wrong or the oil companies have got to it as well.

Unless Gores data was wright, and in 2016 he and others were 100% wrong, which also means future predictions are also flawed or won't occur.

 

Thankfully being a mod l was able to see some of the self deleted comments, and nothing about answering it since it cannot be answered. But plenty of "why bother" and "cesspool", deleted remarks, which means, "You Got Me" when translated.

B)

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
11 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

We have already lost the 1.5C race.

Doug

Nice thread. Lets just go at it gloves off. I'm SO tired of being called a "Denier" or having it being suggested that my favorite thing in life since I was a child (Science) is something I must despise and reject simply because I don't drink the same flavor of Cool-Aid as the rest of the Herd!

I'm actually not ashamed that I don't mentally Zig and Zag with the School like a Fish!

That said, there is no Race Doug. Yeah Earth may have warmed 1.5 C but that is simply a rebound from the Little Ice Age. It is still likely cooler now than the Roman Warm Period (which we all survived!). 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
8 hours ago, tmcom said:

No, oil companies actually were the first to push climate change, probably becuase of the EXXON mess, and trying to repair the global negative pr. Then they reversed or downplayed that later on, since they could see it was going to bite them.

EXXON actually did some climate research way back when and it showed man-caused warming.  Then they figured out that the news might cut into their bottom line and started putting out bull.

But I do agree that it is wrong to paint all oil companies with the same brush.  After all, we're the ones burning the oil.

8 hours ago, tmcom said:

Others elsewhere are saying that Gores predictions failed since oil companies made sure Gore's and apparently 10k's worth of PRP over 10 years were fake or wrong, so the 2016 end is nigh would not happen.

Why don't we compare what Gore said in his two programs, point by point, with what has actually happened?  I suspect there's a lot of bull floating around and it would be good to clear the air.

8 hours ago, tmcom said:

Thankfully being a mod l was able to see some of the self deleted comments, and nothing about answering it since it cannot be answered. But plenty of "why bother" and "cesspool", deleted remarks, which means, "You Got Me" when translated.

What are you talking about?

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
3 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

Nice thread. Lets just go at it gloves off. I'm SO tired of being called a "Denier" or having it being suggested that my favorite thing in life since I was a child (Science) is something I must despise and reject simply because I don't drink the same flavor of Cool-Aid as the rest of the Herd!

I'm actually not ashamed that I don't mentally Zig and Zag with the School like a Fish!

That said, there is no Race Doug. Yeah Earth may have warmed 1.5 C but that is simply a rebound from the Little Ice Age. It is still likely cooler now than the Roman Warm Period (which we all survived!). 

 

OK.  I appologize.  You're not a "denier," per se.  You are on the second step of the global warming ladder - the one that denies people had anything to do with it.

Sometime between 1841 and 1855, the Little Ice Age ended.  There is no clear diving line, so 1850 has been adopted by convention.  That makes a handy date for the IPCC to use as a baseline - that's the year we are now 1.5+ C warmer than.  About that time, the rate of warming increased - it started getting warmer faster and has continued to do so with several minor hickups (the "hiatuses") since.

The reasons for concluding that the Little Ice Age ended in 1850 are that the volcanic emissions that triggered it had long since been cleared out of the air, after 594 years the earth's axis was pointing in a different direction, affecting the length of the seasons, and the Arctic ice feedback loop was getting progressively warmer.  So when the rate of warming increased, that determined the year (approximately).  It was probably a shift in oceanic circulation that caused the increase in the rate of warming, but it is now far too late to figure out exactly what changed.

There are a number of indices that suggest that the Roman Warm Period was warmer.  The only tree-ring record of summer land temperatures that goes back that far fails to reolve the issue.  Other indices are things like sea surface temperature estimates and stalagmite records suggest it was warmer.  Mostly what records we have fail to shed any light on land surface temperatures.

The Roman Warm Period corresponded to a peak in the Bond Cycle, a 1500-year warming/cooling cycle.  We are now at the peak again.  These are natural cycles that are largely uninfluenced by modern warming.  It little matters whether we were on top of the curve in 1850, or at the bottom of one.  The important issue is how much CO2 has influenced warming since then.

Doug

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmcom
2 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

EXXON actually did some climate research way back when and it showed man-caused warming.  Then they figured out that the news might cut into their bottom line and started putting out bull.

But I do agree that it is wrong to paint all oil companies with the same brush.  After all, we're the ones burning the oil.

Why don't we compare what Gore said in his two programs, point by point, with what has actually happened?  I suspect there's a lot of bull floating around and it would be good to clear the air.

What are you talking about?

Doug

And the last one for laughs.

The cesspool remark was related to my detractor elsewhere, who after l explained the above issue, had kittens, or he was effectively spitting the dummy, since he was wrong, but couldn't admit it since MMGW is his hockey stick.

He will find a way around this of course given time, more is the pity.

B)

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

OK.  I appologize.  You're not a "denier," per se.  You are on the second step of the global warming ladder - the one that denies people had anything to do with it.

Even this is untrue. I absolutely am positive Humans influence Climate, we cut/burn Forests, plow fields for crops, build concrete jungles, all of which alter the Earths albedo. We also do release CO2 and other trace gasses and these influence Climate, what I disagree with is the Climate Sensitivity to CO2 which I believe is low. Of course you should know this by now because you and I have been discussing this for going on about 3 years. Apparently this is STILL going over your head.

Edit: Forgot to add...

d4-gfs-gta-daily-2014-2019-06-12.gif

OMG!!! Look at all the catastrophic Warming! Where is Bill Nye and his burning Globe when we need him?!?

Edited by lost_shaman
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tortugabob

These are the kind of folks who believe in man made global warming.  Do you see a pattern here? 

 

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
1 hour ago, lost_shaman said:

Even this is untrue. I absolutely am positive Humans influence Climate, we cut/burn Forests, plow fields for crops, build concrete jungles, all of which alter the Earths albedo. We also do release CO2 and other trace gasses and these influence Climate, what I disagree with is the Climate Sensitivity to CO2 which I believe is low. Of course you should know this by now because you and I have been discussing this for going on about 3 years. Apparently this is STILL going over your head.

Edit: Forgot to add...

d4-gfs-gta-daily-2014-2019-06-12.gif

OMG!!! Look at all the catastrophic Warming! Where is Bill Nye and his burning Globe when we need him?!?

All those things you named are part of the problem, as well as CFCs, methane and some others.

But why is cutting forests and burning crops bad?  Not just albedo.  Tropical forests regrow a green canopy in about four years, returning to their original albedo.  Most temperate forests take a little longer, but generally do so in ten.  Cutting trees releases CO2 to the air as roots, leaves, soil fungi and other living things die and decay.  Same thing happens with land clearing.  But there are ways to encourage farmers to use practices that sequester more carbon.

 

Your chart covers six years.  Climate change takes 30.  Do I have to explain the difference between climate and weather to you AGAIN?

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

Climate change takes 30. 

That's just an arbitrary number, remember we've discussed this.

Edit: But anyway nice dodge there Doug. You mischaracterized my position and I gave you the change to apologize and acknowledge that fact but you chose not to do that.

Edited by lost_shaman
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmcom
13 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

That's just an arbitrary number, remember we've discussed this.

Edit: But anyway nice dodge there Doug. You mischaracterized my position and I gave you the change to apologize and acknowledge that fact but you chose not to do that.

Nice dodges, l guess we cleaned the air and broke it down? I must have missed it, lol.

B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
16 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

That's just an arbitrary number, remember we've discussed this.

Edit: But anyway nice dodge there Doug. You mischaracterized my position and I gave you the change to apologize and acknowledge that fact but you chose not to do that.

That's true.  But whatever reference period you pick has to be long enough that it isn't affected by the finite population problem.  That minimum is 30.  Look it up in any standard statistics book.  It's in all the beginner textbooks.  At 30 the t-distribution blends into the Z-distribution.  That's why it is used.

So use 30, or quit pretending you're talking about climate.  Nice doidge yourself.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
2 hours ago, tmcom said:

Nice dodges, l guess we cleaned the air and broke it down? I must have missed it, lol.

B)

You have to actually read stuff in order not to miss it.

Doug

  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Doug1o29 said:

That's true.  But whatever reference period you pick has to be long enough that it isn't affected by the finite population problem.  That minimum is 30.  Look it up in any standard statistics book.  It's in all the beginner textbooks.  At 30 the t-distribution blends into the Z-distribution.  That's why it is used.

So use 30, or quit pretending you're talking about climate.  Nice doidge yourself.

 

Well that is not the baseline that the U.S. National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) are using, they are using the 1979 - 2000 baseline. Maybe you should send them an e-mail and tell them they are doing it all wrong Mr. Smug!!!

In fact the 1979 - 2000 baseline shows higher anomalies than when compared to the 1981 - 2010 baseline. Probably why they are using it.

Edited by lost_shaman
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman

And since we are talking about baselines... Look at how easy it is to make an anomaly chart look ALARMIST if you just use the coldest part of the 20th century baseline 1951 - 1980 which is the most popular baseline that Alarmist use.

fig-15-ncar-r1-gata-daily-2019-02-28-ref

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmcom
Posted (edited)
22 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

Even this is untrue. I absolutely am positive Humans influence Climate, we cut/burn Forests, plow fields for crops, build concrete jungles, all of which alter the Earths albedo. We also do release CO2 and other trace gasses and these influence Climate, what I disagree with is the Climate Sensitivity to CO2 which I believe is low. Of course you should know this by now because you and I have been discussing this for going on about 3 years. Apparently this is STILL going over your head.

Edit: Forgot to add...

d4-gfs-gta-daily-2014-2019-06-12.gif

OMG!!! Look at all the catastrophic Warming! Where is Bill Nye and his burning Globe when we need him?!?

 

22 hours ago, tortugabob said:

These are the kind of folks who believe in man made global warming.  Do you see a pattern here? 

 

 

4 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

You have to actually read stuff in order not to miss it.

Doug

True, the end isn't nigh, Trumps kid kills a seriously endangered species, (kidding) and Gore stuffed it, l think that covers it unless l missed something?

 

This is how dumb it is getting here...

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/questions-on-climate-action-dumb-says-shorten/news-story/67b825cce4fccab918a933edaf03778e

Quote

“That is such a dumb question to say, what does it cost without looking at the cost of inaction,” he said. “You can’t have a debate about climate change without talking about the cost of inaction.”

Mr Shorten has repeatedly raised the cost of inaction of climate change.

Or in other words he was sucking up to the  18+ year old voters, or keeping it emotional than intellectual.

Intellectually Au, could go back to the stone ages tomorrow and it would make virtually no difference globally, the US and China could make a big difference, but AU is too small.

That is why the "take action on climate change" in Australia at least is so stupid, cause we can dance around fires, put up with a freezing house and pray to our wind turbine for deliverance, but it still will make very little difference.

We can turn off everything tomorrow and instead of the world supposedly frying it would fry 1-3% slower or virtually no difference.

But true aussie believers still want to see action, and they refuse to see the facts, or they want to see action for the sake of action.

Maybe l should go and see 2040, probably like walking into a church and laugh-ting at the Paster?

Or see if the two sitting on the wind turbine, discussing converting the repentant, fall off, (that would be worth the cost of admission).

:lol:

Edited by tmcom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
7 hours ago, tmcom said:

Nice dodges, l guess we cleaned the air and broke it down? I must have missed it, lol.

B)

You don't even know the difference between climate and weather and yet you're on here making a fool of yourself.

Weather is what you see when you look out the window.  Climate is the 30-year average of everything visible from that window.  Thirty years is used because smaller numbers are subject to the finite population correction.  It can be used, but it is a pain and small sample sizes are not very reliable, anyway.

Doug

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, tmcom said:

 

 

True, the end isn't nigh, Trumps kid kills a seriously endangered species, (kidding) and Gore stuffed it, l think that covers it unless l missed something?

 

This is how dumb it is getting here...

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/questions-on-climate-action-dumb-says-shorten/news-story/67b825cce4fccab918a933edaf03778e

Or in other words he was sucking up to the  18+ year old voters, or keeping it emotional than intellectual.

Intellectually Au, could go back to the stone ages tomorrow and it would make virtually no difference globally, the US and China could make a big difference, but AU is too small.

That is why the "take action on climate change" in Australia at least is so stupid, cause we can dance around fires, put up with a freezing house and pray to our wind turbine for deliverance, but it still will make very little difference.

We can turn off everything tomorrow and instead of the world supposedly frying it would fry 1-3% slower or virtually no difference.

But true aussie believers still want to see action, and they refuse to see the facts, or they want to see action for the sake of action.

Maybe l should go and see 2040, probably like walking into a church and laugh-ting at the Paster?

Or see if the two sitting on the wind turbine, discussing converting the repentant, fall off, (that would be worth the cost of admission).

:lol:

Mr. Shorten is correct.  There is a cost to inaction.  Willing or not, we'll pay it.

In fact, we already are:  beef prices in the US are higher because of the 2011 drought.  The cost of repairing hurricane damage along the east coast and Puerto Rico is in the billions.  The dead number in the thousands.  That's NOW, not sometime in a vague future.

Doug

Edited by Doug1o29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
28 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

In fact, we already are:  beef prices in the US are higher because of the 2011 drought. 

Weather.

29 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

The cost of repairing hurricane damage along the east coast and Puerto Rico is in the billions.

Weather.

29 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

  The dead number in the thousands. 

Weather. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Essan
Posted (edited)

Weather is what we get on a daily, weekly, monthly basis

Climate is what we get over a (internationally accepted) minimum year period

Climate change is the trend towards an increase/decrease in frequency/extent/magnitude of weather types

Edited by Essan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Essan

If there is a trend towards major tropical storms making more frequent landfall, or landfall in areas they traditionally have not often affected, or for more frequent floods, droughts, snowstorms, heatwaves etc, then it will have a major impact on modern civilisation (much more than it would have even 100 years ago, let alone 2,000 years ago!).

And that is the concern with climate change.

Are we seeing an increase in frequency of such events?

Some would say yes.  And I have to admit, having been monitoring global weather for some time now, I am leaning towards that conclusion.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
10 minutes ago, Essan said:

Climate is what we get over a (internationally accepted) minimum year period

Do you have a source for this claim, because I see different length base lines all the time.

 

12 minutes ago, Essan said:

Climate change is the trend towards an increase/decrease in frequency of weather types

Yes and this has been ongoing for around 4 billion years or more.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Essan
12 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

Do you have a source for this claim, because I see different length base lines all the time.

 

"Historical practices regarding climate normals, as described in the Guide to Climatological Practices (WMO, 2011), the Technical Regulations (WMO, 2016b) and the Handbook on CLIMAT and CLIMAT TEMP Reporting (WMO, 2009), date from the first half of the twentieth century. The general recommendation is to use 30-year periods of reference. The 30-year period of reference was set as a standard mainly because only 30 years of data were available for summarization when the recommendation was first made. The early intent of normals was to allow comparison among observations from around the world. The use of normals as predictors slowly gained momentum over the course of the twentieth century (WMO, 2011, section 4.8)."

https://library.wmo.int/doc_num.php?explnum_id=4166

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.