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

883 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Doug1029
On 11/19/2019 at 8:40 PM, tmcom said:

No, l don't buy colder meaning the planet is warming since it is insane. What happens when we get less colder winters???? It is still planet warming, as l said insane.

Global temperatures are about AVERAGES.  On average, the earth is getting warmer.  But not everywhere.  While Laborador suffers unseasonable cold, Australia suffers unseasonable heat.  When a chinook hits Alberta, a blue norther hits Oklahoma.  All the temperature figures get averaged together.  It is a rising global average that defines global warming.  So, yes.  While you getting a colder winter, I am suffering through a heat wave.  The world is getting warmer om AVERAGE.  The planet is still getting warmer.

But not at the moment.  Global temp this year will be below that of 2016.  Whether that will put 2019 into the second or third-hottest year ever, remains to be seen.

On 11/19/2019 at 8:40 PM, tmcom said:

We blamed the jet stream for the mini ice age in the 70's and blame it again for the opposite, anything to sell papers and give the faithful something to use their right hand on.

This is wrong.  The cause was sulfates reflecting heat back to space.  The Polar Jet Stream moves north or south in response to the amount of heat in the atmosphere.  It flows around the planet in great undulating waves, called Rosby waves.  When the jet moves northward, more heat is delivered to the southern side.  When it moves south, less heat is delivered (I am referring to the North Polar Jet Stream; there is another, corresponding one in the Southern Hemisphere that controls Australia's weather).  So heat controls where the jet streams are and the jet streams determine what weather a particular place gets.  Heat controls the jet, not the jet controlling heat.

When global temps started going above +0.60C, the Polar Vortex shifted from the North Pole to Greenland during the months of October to March.  That happened in 2002, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2012 to present.  Storms moving with the prevailing winds have to divert south to get around the Polar Vortex over Greenland.  This drives them southward into Canada and northeast United States.  The Rosby waves then carry them eastward across the North At;antic to Great Britain and Europe.

The coldest years of the 1950s hiatus were 1954, 1955 and 1956 (corresponding to the 1950s Drought), 1964-1968, 1971, and 1974-1976.  These all are drought years in Oklahoma.  Altogether, the 1950s hiatus lasted about 16 years and cleared up almost immediately once the world started reducing sulfate emissions.

On 11/19/2019 at 8:40 PM, tmcom said:

And it is also called insanity, or it is a well know fact that closing coal plants and replacing them with wind/solar dramatically drives up electricity prices. Then pensioners living in harsh environments like the US and Canada, either burn books, or freeze to death, or starve they have that option.

AU has disconnected over 100k or households over the last couple of years, and even with our minus -3 at worst winters at night our poor are dying also. The f...witted faithful should releaze this and stop closing them down, but no, climate emergency which equals no brains at all, and they keep doing it.

You do not have to let your elderly die from cold (or hot) weather.  It is a choice you make as a society.  If you want them to have heat, just void their power bills.  It's a no-brainer.  Of course, if the rest of you want to have power, you'd better come up with some other way to pay for it.  But it is more of a reflection on your society's values than it is on the availability of power.

On 11/19/2019 at 8:40 PM, tmcom said:

Sea levels are not rising, and going down slightly, but still climate emergency, we would make a 1.3% global difference if we went back to the stone ages tomorrow, still climate emergency, banning choking coal to China, would mean they use their own, (which is durtier or less efficent) still blah blah.

Sea level in Sydney Harbor rose about four inches over the last century, one of the lowest rates of rise on the planet.  It is projected to rise another foot by 2100.  Not exactly a disaster for Sydney.  Personally, I wouldn't worry about sea level rise - maybe because I live a thousand miles from the sea.  It will be disastrous in some places, like the Oceanic Islands, Bangla Desh and the Mississippi Delta, but most people now living won't be much affected.

Why should you go back to the stone age?  Wind is currently the cheapest source of power, but perovskites are catching up quickly.  They have gone from 3% efficiency in 2009 to 23% efficiency this year with another 5% expected next year.  There's one company saying they can reach 37%.  There are over 600 perovskite compounds yet to be tested.  Perovskites are already cheaper than oil.  So far, they are only being used for individual houses or businesses, but there is no reason why they can't be used commercially.  And the panels can be put almost anywhere, or even painted onto a surface.  I just drove 860 miles from a conference.  Just think if each freeway bridge was paneled with perovskites. There are all kinds of surfaces that would work.

Wind is cheaper than any power source except gas-fired turbines.  Perovskites are now cheaper than oil.  Both are cheaper than coal.  There is no reason for you not to provide your elderly with adequate heating and cooloing.  Sheer ignorance is the only thing stopping you.

On 11/19/2019 at 8:40 PM, tmcom said:

Add climate emergency to this cult and you get wall to wall stupid.

I do not use the term "emergency."  We still have time to clean up the mess if we get to work.  There is no need for despair or your gloom-and-doom.  Ten years ago there was no perovskite industry.  Today, it is poised to become a leading player in energy supply.  In 2001 Oklahoma had two wind farms; today there are 31 with five more licensed.  The US has shut down four coal plants in the last ten years.  The ones that are left are on the verge of breakdown.  One way or the other, we're phasing out coal, mostly because we're burning it up - supplies are running ot.

On 11/19/2019 at 8:40 PM, tmcom said:

Yes, when the Liberals won SA, after labor destroyed it with 47% w/s, they built a fast online, gas plant, that shores up the mess by 10%, Our d....head premier has almost banned gas exploration in our state, and Bass Straight is showing signs of depletion. So what can we do, build a pipeline to Queensland, and pay a lot more for it,...this is seriously stupid.

Powerlines are cheaper than pipelines.  Generate the power in Queensland and send it to you on transmission lines (We're using DC lines for long-distance transport because there is less power loss.).  I would be lookign at ways to generate ypour power closer to home - like windmills, like perovskites.  Why go the expensive route when you have cheaper sources available?

Doug

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmcom

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/10/south-australia-demolishes-their-last-coal-power-station/

I thaught that the Liberals won that state, but l guess there are enough faithful nutters in that party they will screw things up.

Quote

Now their job has been made impossible by idiot politicians whose future energy plans are based on harnessing sunbeams and unicorn farts. The reward for years of service in often hazardous conditions is utter disdain and contempt from green fanatics who despise them as planet wreckers, green fools who never pause to think about what makes all the modern conveniences they take for granted possible.

Unicorn ......, lol, this guy l like.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/02/aussie-chief-scientist-renewable-energy-push-hurts-the-poor/

Quote

Australian Stock Exchange data showed yesterday that base future contract prices for March were highest in South Australia, which yesterday had its third major blackout in four months. For companies to buy a megawatt of electricity in March, it would cost South ­Australian buyers almost $152.91, compared with $100 in Queensland, $63.75 in NSW and $54.50 in Victoria.

THis article was two years ago, when Labor was in power, and currently they blew up their last coal plant, which means SA is ....ed!

Tie up the faithful show them solid evidence, and they don't want to see, they just keep .....ing things up more and more, for some mythical disaster, these people need to be tied up for their and owns own good.

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
6 hours ago, tmcom said:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/10/south-australia-demolishes-their-last-coal-power-station/

I thaught that the Liberals won that state, but l guess there are enough faithful nutters in that party they will screw things up.

Unicorn ......, lol, this guy l like.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/02/aussie-chief-scientist-renewable-energy-push-hurts-the-poor/

THis article was two years ago, when Labor was in power, and currently they blew up their last coal plant, which means SA is ....ed!

Tie up the faithful show them solid evidence, and they don't want to see, they just keep .....ing things up more and more, for some mythical disaster, these people need to be tied up for their and owns own good.

:rolleyes:

You are describing yourself!

Doug

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029

Not much to report this week.  Just the aftermath of my FIA conference.  Three articles on the slopover problem just got added to my workload.  My plans to show the FIA PowerPoint got put off until next fall - they said it's too complicated for ordinary scientists!  Really?  SO:  a little more administrivia and then I start my Edge plot outline.  Hope to finish it tomorrow then take the rest of the week and snooze.

Back to data-entry next week.

Doug

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saru

Keep it civil please folks.

@tmcom - your points would be better served by toning down the venom, using words like "nutter", "faithful", "cult", "brainwashed", "indoctrinated" etc. when referring to those who disagree with your point of view only serves to weaken your argument, it doesn't strengthen it.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
On 11/26/2019 at 3:36 AM, tmcom said:

Anthony Watts is a paid industry shill.  His business is climate disinformation.  Mr. Watts has a BS in weather, but is not certified as a weatherman.  His one-and-only award is from a society that no longer exists.

That being said, he is a good inverse barometer of what is going on in climate.  If he likes it, it is retrograde; if he doesn't like it, it shows promise.

One quote in a paper he listed by Eric Worrall is worth looking at a little deeper.  "people who rented properties or lived in apartments were limited in their ability to install new technologies."

Absolutely true.  If you don't own the property, you are not allowed to install something new.  Even if the landlord permits an installation, he owns it and as soon as you move, you've lost your investment.  The only way to get it back is to rent the property until your investment has been amortized.  But even that doesn't work because with an improved heating/cooling system, the property is worth more and the landlord raises your rent.  Perhaps some changes to the rental laws are in order.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
On 11/27/2019 at 3:13 PM, tortugabob said:

Didn't read the paper, did you?

It says that the GCMs used in IPCC AR5 (2014) do not accurately reflect the effects of low-lying clouds on surface temps.

So what?  First, IPCC AR5 was published in 2014, five years ago.  IPCC AR6 (2016) is already out and that problem has been corrected.

Second, my own research is independent of cloud cover and indicates a warming locally of 2F (1.11C since 1920.).  Instrumental readings, also independent of cloud cover, indicate a world-wide increase in surface temps of about 1.5C since 1750.  In Kansas they indicate warming of 1.6C since 1828.

GCMs ARE NOT NEEDED TO CONFIRM HUMAN-CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING.  What that paper is doing is pointing out a problem with the model, not the reality.

Doug

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmcom

This is what global warming looks like in Colorado!

Not sure what all of that white stuff is, or the stuff that looks like cement, (lake)?

The song, pretty much explains it all, as does the screenshots at the end.

The more the evidence builds,.....but at least the entertainment value is there.

B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmcom

Groan!

Yes, our coral reef has had a tipping point since 1970!

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/12/151202-bill-nye-climate-change-101-video-science/

Apparently the engineer knows!

97% based on a dodgy survey, and a global chart based on ....grants, but the video is well funded, l will give them that.

Quote

“When it comes to climate change, the main takeaway is it’s real,” says Nye. “And although we are part of the problem, we can also be part of the solution.”

Its, real, he should ask himself, after doing several, "deniers are insane" videos online, who is insane for seeing no sea level rise, anywhere on this planet, by comparing museum images with present day!

10 years out of the last 13 are the hottest ever recorded, apart from the one in the late 1800's, that actually was. They put on the blinkers, and lap it all up, and attack deniers and take action, by becoming vegan, and recycling more.

And my Popco, stocks keep rising.

:lol:

Edited by tmcom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saru

@tmcom Just to clarify, are you arguing that man-made climate change is not a thing, or are you saying that our planet's climate isn't changing at all ?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmcom
9 hours ago, Saru said:

@tmcom Just to clarify, are you arguing that man-made climate change is not a thing, or are you saying that our planet's climate isn't changing at all ?

Our planets climate is always changing, although all indications show that it is cooling, based on reputable data sets. But man made global warming and the climate emergency and us being beyond the point of no return, in 10 years time, is a lie.

@tortugabob, nailed it, with clouds and water vapor being the overall driver of ciimate, which is impossible to add to predicting weather models as our super computers just cannot handle that part, so it is removed and C02, which we can do something about, is the main driver, (which it isn't).

Human beings, l thought put in about 1.3% of global emissions, but it appeals to be .01%, or negligible.

And one good eruption will make CHina/Indias emissions look like a joke, by comparison.

^_^

Share this post


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

Our planets climate is always changing, although all indications show that it is cooling, based on reputable data sets.

Human beings, l thought put in about 1.3% of global emissions, but it appeals to be .01%, or negligible.

Can you link me to your sources ?

  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmcom
17 hours ago, Saru said:

@tmcom Just to clarify, are you arguing that man-made climate change is not a thing, or are you saying that our planet's climate isn't changing at all ?

https://www.youtube.com/user/TonyHeller1/videos

All reputable sites data sets are listed throughout most of these videos.

B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
Quote

Screenshot_2019_1129_193649.thumb.png.23403bbc5870022913cc51a23ebba507.png

https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/hosted-by-former-australian-senator-tony-heller-repeats-false-claim-that-scientists-fake-the-warming-trend/

Quote

Hosted by former Australian senator, Tony Heller repeats false claim that scientists fake the warming trend

~

AKA - charlatan 

Quote

I’m climate change denier Tony Heller. You might know me better by my pen name, “Steven Goddard,” or Twitter handle, @SteveSGoddard. This is my story.

First, you should know that I’m pretty much a nobody in the climate debate. I’m laughed at by all climatologists. I’m not even taken seriously by true climate skeptics. I don’t have a degree in climatology. I haven’t written a single academic paper about climate change and I don’t have a job related to climatology or the weather. What I do have is a blog and a Twitter account. And as it turns out, that’s pretty much all you need to be a somebody in the climate debate.

https://tonyhellerakastevengoddard.com/who-is-tony-heller/

~

https://sciencefeedback.co/authors/tony-heller/

~

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saru
1 hour ago, tmcom said:

https://www.youtube.com/user/TonyHeller1/videos

All reputable sites data sets are listed throughout most of these videos.

Unfortunately I haven't got time to go through hundreds of videos.

I'm just looking for an example or two of reputable studies that back up your two main arguments on the topic of climate change.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Manwon Lender
10 hours ago, tmcom said:

Our planets climate is always changing, although all indications show that it is cooling, based on reputable data sets. But man made global warming and the climate emergency and us being beyond the point of no return, in 10 years time, is a lie.

@tortugabob, nailed it, with clouds and water vapor being the overall driver of ciimate, which is impossible to add to predicting weather models as our super computers just cannot handle that part, so it is removed and C02, which we can do something about, is the main driver, (which it isn't).

Human beings, l thought put in about 1.3% of global emissions, but it appeals to be .01%, or negligible.

And one good eruption will make CHina/Indias emissions look like a joke, by comparison.

^_^

How does the ocean affect climate and weather on land?

The ocean influences weather and climate by storing solar radiation, distributing heat and moisture around the globe, and driving weather systems.

This illustration shows the major ocean currents throughout the globe. Ocean currents act as conveyer belts of warm and cold water, sending heat toward the polar regions and helping tropical areas cool off, thus influencing both weather and climate.

This illustration shows the major ocean currents throughout the globe. Ocean currents act as conveyer belts of warm and cold water, sending heat toward the polar regions and helping tropical areas cool off, thus influencing both weather and climate. Download image (jpg, 105 KB).

One way that the world’s ocean affects weather and climate is by playing an important role in keeping our planet warm. The majority of radiation from the sun is absorbed by the ocean, particularly in tropical waters around the equator, where the ocean acts like a massive, heat-retaining solar panel. Land areas also absorb some sunlight, and the atmosphere helps to retain heat that would otherwise quickly radiate into space after sunset.

The ocean doesn't just store solar radiation; it also helps to distribute heat around the globe. When water molecules are heated, they exchange freely with the air in a process called evaporation. Ocean water is constantly evaporating, increasing the temperature and humidity of the surrounding air to form rain and storms that are then carried by trade winds. In fact, almost all rain that falls on land starts off in the ocean. The tropics are particularly rainy because heat absorption, and thus ocean evaporation, is highest in this area.

Outside of Earth’s equatorial areas, weather patterns are driven largely by ocean currents. Currents are movements of ocean water in a continuous flow, created largely by surface winds but also partly by temperature and salinity gradients, Earth’s rotation, and tides. Major current systems typically flow clockwise in the northern hemisphere and counterclockwise in the southern hemisphere, in circular patterns that often trace the coastlines.

Ocean currents act much like a conveyor belt, transporting warm water and precipitation from the equator toward the poles and cold water from the poles back to the tropics. Thus, ocean currents regulate global climate, helping to counteract the uneven distribution of solar radiation reaching Earth’s surface. Without currents in the ocean, regional temperatures would be more extreme—super hot at the equator and frigid toward the poles—and much less of Earth’s land would be habitable.

https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/facts/climate.html

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmcom
1 hour ago, Saru said:

Unfortunately I haven't got time to go through hundreds of videos.

I'm just looking for an example or two of reputable studies that back up your two main arguments on the topic of climate change.

This is probably one of the best ones in regards to data sets from reputable site references.

^_^

Edited by tmcom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saru
7 minutes ago, tmcom said:

This is probably one of the best ones in regards to data sets from reputable site references.

This video just shows one climate change denier's (rather questionable) interpretations of some cherry-picked graphs and articles.

I'm looking for actual peer-reviewed studies that support these arguments.

  • Thanks 3

Share this post


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

Unfortunately I haven't got time to go through hundreds of videos.

I'm just looking for an example or two of reputable studies that back up your two main arguments on the topic of climate change.

 

2 hours ago, third_eye said:

Lol, of course they do, CC, will knock any facts!

5 minutes ago, Saru said:

This video just shows one climate change denier's (rather questionable) interpretations of some cherry-picked graphs and articles.

I'm looking for actual peer-reviewed studies that support these arguments.

@tortugabob, covered that in post #832.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saru
29 minutes ago, tmcom said:

 

@tortugabob, covered that in post #832.

Ok so for reference, the study being referenced is this:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf

Quote

NO EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE FOR THE SIGNIFICANT ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE J. KAUPPINEN AND P. MALMI

Abstract. In this paper we will prove that GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 fail to calculate the influences of the low cloud cover changes on the global temperature. That is why those models give a very small natural temperature change leaving a very large change for the contribution of the green house gases in the observed temperature. This is the reason why IPCC has to use a very large sensitivity to compensate a too small natural component. Further they have to leave out the strong negative feedback due to the clouds in order to magnify the sensitivity. In addition, this paper proves that the changes in the low cloud cover fraction practically control the global temperature.

A quick search reveals some issues with this though:

https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/non-peer-reviewed-manuscript-falsely-claims-natural-cloud-changes-can-explain-global-warming/

Quote

CLAIM: "Man-made Climate Change Doesn't Exist In Practice... During the last hundred years the temperature is increased [sic] about 0.1°C because of carbon dioxide. The human contribution was about 0.01°C."

Some news outlets are publishing articles stating that this claim is based on a new study. In reality, there is no new published study. The claim comes from a six-page document uploaded to arXiv, a website traditionally used by scientists to make manuscripts available before publication. This means that this article has not been peer-reviewed, so there is no guarantee to its credibility.

So it doesn't appear to be peer-reviewed and there's nothing to say that it is accurate.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Manwon Lender
11 hours ago, Saru said:

Ok so for reference, the study being referenced is this:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf

A quick search reveals some issues with this though:

https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/non-peer-reviewed-manuscript-falsely-claims-natural-cloud-changes-can-explain-global-warming/

So it doesn't appear to be peer-reviewed and there's nothing to say that it is accurate.

I am a believer in man made climate change. If you look at what is currently going on it's pretty obvious that our problems are caused by Co2 build up in our atmosphere. This has increased temperatures that are serious enough to cause the major ice sheets and glaciers around the world to melt at an unprecedented rate which is having a major effect on our weather, and the rise of our Oceans. 

In recent years sensors stationed across the North Atlantic have picked up a potentially concerning signal: The grand northward progression of water along North America that moves heat from the tropics toward the Arctic has been sluggish. If that languidness continues and deepens, it could usher in drastic changes in sea level and weather around the ocean basin.


That northward flow is a key part of the larger circulation of water, heat and nutrients around the world’s oceans. Climate scientists have been concerned since the 1980s that rising global temperatures could throw a wrench in the conveyor belt–like system, with possibly stark climatic consequences. Sea levels could ratchet upward along the U.S. east coast, key fisheries could be devastated by spiking water temperatures and weather patterns over Europe could be altered.              

https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2017/06/06/could-climate-change-shut-down-the-gulf-stream/

Edited by Manwon Lender

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Manwon Lender
11 hours ago, tmcom said:

 

Lol, of course they do, CC, will knock any facts!

@tortugabob, covered that in post #832.

Well thanks for the laughing Emogi in my post below, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. 

Please have a good day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Manwon Lender
12 hours ago, tmcom said:

 

Lol, of course they do, CC, will knock any facts!

@tortugabob, covered that in post #832.

The link that tortugabob provide cites are SO-CALLED NASA findings. But while they are using Nasas name the reports are not by NASA. I am sending that link to NASA, they need to know the site is using their name and reporting falsified information.

Here is a link to NASA on the subject covered in post #832

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Edited by Manwon Lender

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.