Climate Hoax

[WrestlingRasta]

They one I probably won’t check out. As I said I just don’t get into the climate debate. 

[WrestlingRasta]

7 hours ago, ionel said:

 

So 1 good year or 10 good years?  Are you say'n FL climate is changing to fewer hurricanes.  Curious in that 1 year did you keep the hemi in the garage and walk to purchase the ribs? 

I know you’re joking around….but damn that was confusing!!

[ionel]

1 hour ago, WrestlingRasta said:

I know you’re joking around….but damn that was confusing!!

Sometimes I make no sense.  

[Scouts Honor]

9 hours ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Okay was going to say, we’ve had nine major hurricanes in the last ten years. 

wiki says there has been 4 since 2005

[WrestlingRasta]

Wiki is close, there’s been six from 2005 to 2023.  And obviously my comprehension was off, as there have been nine majors in the last twenty years, not ten.  2004 (a huge year in Florida) to 2023. 

[Offthemat]

4 hours ago, WrestlingRasta said:

They one I probably won’t check out. As I said I just don’t get into the climate debate. 

There are a few remarks about climate change, but mostly he’s a hurricane expert, hurricane historian, hurricane predictor.  He explains why the Atlantic is warmer this year and that he predicted the higher activity back in December, based on the information that was available then.  He doesn’t attribute it to CO2 or man.  That the storms run in cycles; while this season is more active in the Atlantic it is much less active in the Pacific.  The inaccuracy in rating storms; how one major storm does massive damage inland while another one rated in the same category dies down quickly once ashore.  On that, he rates storms of the ‘30s and’ ‘40s as much stronger than recent storms.  He wrestled for Penn State and still has a connection to the team, his dad was a meteorologist, he’s a meteorologist and knows more about hurricanes than anyone.  I find him fascinating and I don’t live in Florida. 

[WrestlingRasta]

5 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

There are a few remarks about climate change, but mostly he’s a hurricane expert, hurricane historian, hurricane predictor.  He explains why the Atlantic is warmer this year and that he predicted the higher activity back in December, based on the information that was available then.  He doesn’t attribute it to CO2 or man.  That the storms run in cycles; while this season is more active in the Atlantic it is much less active in the Pacific.  The inaccuracy in rating storms; how one major storm does massive damage inland while another one rated in the same category dies down quickly once ashore.  On that, he rates storms of the ‘30s and’ ‘40s as much stronger than recent storms.  He wrestled for Penn State and still has a connection to the team, his dad was a meteorologist, he’s a meteorologist and knows more about hurricanes than anyone.  I find him fascinating and I don’t live in Florida. 

Good stuff, thank you. There is definitely a cyclist aspect to it. If you go back through the history of our hurricanes (just talking Florida landfalls) you can see it.  2004-2005 were very bad years for Florida re: Major hurricanes, then there was a 12 year break before Irma. Since Irma it’s picked back up again.  
 

Gotta be honest each year I do the prep and get the items stored that you need to have ready, but I’ve never been nervous heading into a season, I’m a little nervous about this season. May be Ian hangover still, but….

[Offthemat]

1 minute ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Good stuff, thank you. There is definitely a cyclist aspect to it. If you go back through the history of our hurricanes (just talking Florida landfalls) you can see it.  2004-2005 were very bad years for Florida re: Major hurricanes, then there was a 12 year break before Irma. Since Irma it’s picked back up again.  
 

Gotta be honest each year I do the prep and get the items stored that you need to have ready, but I’ve never been nervous heading into a season, I’m a little nervous about this season. May be Ian hangover still, but….

Your post reminded me that he joked that we should ban naming storms that begin with I.  

[WrestlingRasta]

1 minute ago, Offthemat said:

Your post reminded me that he joked that we should ban naming storms that begin with I.  

Yes, they have not been good to us lately. Irma, Ian, Idellia….

They retire names that are a certain level of destruction, I believe all three above have been retired, they can just retire the letter. 

[Lipdrag]

CO2 has zero impact on climate change.

 

https://thehighwire.com/editorial/new-peer-reviewed-study-co2-has-zero-impact-on-climate-change/

 

Long(ish) read but worth it.  A couple of pull quotes:

 

"As reported by Slay News, much like a sponge, the Earth’s atmosphere can only hold so much, meaning that carbon dioxide cannot increase temperatures anymore since the saturation point was reached a long time ago. The study uses a hypothetical concept of a fire inside a greenhouse consistently emitting heat. The glass walls and ceiling can contain only so much heat before emitting it outside. CO2 in the atmosphere is very similar in that it can act as a “greenhouse” gas, but all the CO2 together can only contain so much heat, much like the hypothetical greenhouse. The CO2 Coalition agrees with this conclusion as well. Thus, amidst all the fearmongering around climate change—and the knowledge that many things, including changes in solar activity heavily influence Earth’s weather . . ."

"And now, following Dr. Curry’s sound advice and insight, we have the Science Direct study reaffirming . . .  Conducted by researchers from the Institute of Optoelectronics, Military University of Technology in Warsaw, Poland, the study authors found that even if we dug up all the world’s coal, extracted all the world’s oil, and burned it in one giant pyre, the CO2 emissions from that endeavor would not heat up planet Earth. Indeed, this is because carbon dioxide does not cause the Earth to warm up indefinitely.

[ionel]

17 minutes ago, Lipdrag said:

CO2 has zero impact on climate change.

 

https://thehighwire.com/editorial/new-peer-reviewed-study-co2-has-zero-impact-on-climate-change/

yeah but ...

[Offthemat]

40 minutes ago, ionel said:

yeah but ...

This one’s for you:  https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2024/07/today-in-science.php

[ionel]

12 hours ago, Offthemat said:

This one’s for you:  https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2024/07/today-in-science.php

One of the guys I cycle with in previous home state works part time at Lawrence Livermore Lab.  Heading back and will ride with him this weekend.  I'll ask him about element 116, good chance he helped create it.    ⚛ 

Edited July 26 by ionel

[Husker_Du]

 

[Husker_Du]

 

[jross]

Midwesterners solved climate change in 1936.

[Offthemat]

The report is that the average  temperature is highest.  The honest reporting includes that warmer winter temperatures in the southern hemisphere are the main contributing factor.  So the climate is actually getting milder, not catastrophically aflame. 

[billyhoyle]

On 7/25/2024 at 8:01 PM, Lipdrag said:

CO2 has zero impact on climate change.

 

https://thehighwire.com/editorial/new-peer-reviewed-study-co2-has-zero-impact-on-climate-change/

 

Long(ish) read but worth it.  A couple of pull quotes:

 

"As reported by Slay News, much like a sponge, the Earth’s atmosphere can only hold so much, meaning that carbon dioxide cannot increase temperatures anymore since the saturation point was reached a long time ago. The study uses a hypothetical concept of a fire inside a greenhouse consistently emitting heat. The glass walls and ceiling can contain only so much heat before emitting it outside. CO2 in the atmosphere is very similar in that it can act as a “greenhouse” gas, but all the CO2 together can only contain so much heat, much like the hypothetical greenhouse. The CO2 Coalition agrees with this conclusion as well. Thus, amidst all the fearmongering around climate change—and the knowledge that many things, including changes in solar activity heavily influence Earth’s weather . . ."

"And now, following Dr. Curry’s sound advice and insight, we have the Science Direct study reaffirming . . .  Conducted by researchers from the Institute of Optoelectronics, Military University of Technology in Warsaw, Poland, the study authors found that even if we dug up all the world’s coal, extracted all the world’s oil, and burned it in one giant pyre, the CO2 emissions from that endeavor would not heat up planet Earth. Indeed, this is because carbon dioxide does not cause the Earth to warm up indefinitely.

This doesn't make any sense. The atmosphere consists largely of N2, O2, and CO2.  N2 and O2 do not absorb in the IR spectrum because they are symmetric molecules. So as the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the atmosphere will absorb more IR radiation emitted from land, and retain more heat on the planet. You can prove it to yourself if you'd like if you just look up the IR spectra of the three molecules and then look up the recorded amounts of atmospheric CO2 by year. 

 

I think something that might help is understand what heat actually is.  Here's Feyman explaining it in simple terms.  So the question is what causes the atoms to jiggle more? One answer is atoms absorbing radiation and emitting vibrational energy. 

 

Edited August 5 by billyhoyle

[Scouts Honor]

a poster tries to nail the usa... is quickly shut down

 

[Scouts Honor]

but science

 

[ionel]

50 minutes ago, Scouts Honor said:

but science

 

but ... but ... they fart!    

[Offthemat]

But suppose we did it. Suppose we spent countless trillions, destroyed our electric grid and reduced our standard of living to a pre-industrial level. How much would an American “net zero” affect global temperatures?

This paper by three of the world’s leading scientists, Richard Lindzen, William Happer and W. A. van Wijngaarden, of MIT, Princeton and York University respectively, undertakes a mathematical calculation to answer that question:

Using feedback-free estimates of the warming by increased atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and observed rates of increase, we estimate that if the United States (U.S.) eliminated net CO2 emissions by the year 2050, this would avert a warming of 0.0084 ◦C (0.015 ◦F), which is below our ability to accurately measure. If the entire world forced net zero CO2 emissions by the year 2050, a warming of only 0.070 ◦C (0.13 ◦F) would be averted. If one assumes that the warming is a factor of 4 larger because of positive feedbacks, as asserted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the warming averted by a net zero U.S. policy would still be very small, 0.034 ◦C (0.061 ◦F). For worldwide net zero emissions by 2050 and the 4-times larger IPCC climate sensitivity, the averted warming would be 0.28 ◦C (0.50 ◦F).
 

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2024/08/net-zero-is-a-zero.php

[Scouts Honor]

it wouldn't

[ionel]

9 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

 

But suppose we did it. Suppose we spent countless trillions, destroyed our electric grid and reduced our standard of living to a pre-industrial level. How much would an American “net zero” affect global temperatures?

This paper by three of the world’s leading scientists, Richard Lindzen, William Happer and W. A. van Wijngaarden, of MIT, Princeton and York University respectively, undertakes a mathematical calculation to answer that question:

Using feedback-free estimates of the warming by increased atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and observed rates of increase, we estimate that if the United States (U.S.) eliminated net CO2 emissions by the year 2050, this would avert a warming of 0.0084 ◦C (0.015 ◦F), which is below our ability to accurately measure. If the entire world forced net zero CO2 emissions by the year 2050, a warming of only 0.070 ◦C (0.13 ◦F) would be averted. If one assumes that the warming is a factor of 4 larger because of positive feedbacks, as asserted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the warming averted by a net zero U.S. policy would still be very small, 0.034 ◦C (0.061 ◦F). For worldwide net zero emissions by 2050 and the 4-times larger IPCC climate sensitivity, the averted warming would be 0.28 ◦C (0.50 ◦F).
 

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2024/08/net-zero-is-a-zero.php

Well sure but don't ya think we should try it anyway?  

[Offthemat]

23 minutes ago, ionel said:

Well sure but don't ya think we should try it anyway?  

Not with taxpayer money.