When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

kbd512 · 2022-09-12 01:42:14

SpaceNut,

If you live very near to the water's edge, the "sea swallowing your home" is always a possibility, with or without climate change. These people claim they believe in this stuff, but do they? Did the Obamas buy a multi-million dollar beachfront house near Martha's Vineyard? If Al Gore believed climate change was real, then why does he continue flying around the world on his private jet and live in a beachfront house? Why did Al Gore, of all people, buy a beach house in Montecito, California in 2010? That was about the same time he said we'd all be under water. If they truly believed this was the only likely outcome, then what kind of morons do stuff like that? They do the exact opposite of what they should be doing if they actually believe the stuff they spout off to everyone who will listen. You vote for these sorts of clowns, but why?

Is it not painfully obvious that all of their ideas are trash, much like their treatment of their fellow citizens, often their fellow Democrats, which stems from their ideology, and that they have no intention of ever doing anything except making you poorer than you already are?

Why does a college graduate need their student loans repaid by the rest of the tax payers? What is the point of educating these kids unless they can do something useful for themselves, if no one else, using the best education money can buy? Now kids that didn't get to go to college need to pay for the ones who did? You know, the ones who supposedly have higher earning potential and fancy themselves "better" than the other kids who didn't go to college? The kids who lived within their financial means now have to pay for the ones who didn't? How is it that we send kids to college and they come out dumber than when they went in, and even less capable of taking care of themselves? Please tell me you don't think "the rich" are going to pay for your son or daughter's education. When was the last time a rich person gave you something for free?

This Al Gore clown no doubt took your $19.95 that you paid for his stupid book, and then used it for one of two purposes:

1. To enrich himself by taking money from you, leaving you poorer and less able to, oh I don't know, move the hell away from the ocean if y'all really believe what he asserts.
2. To continue the same special kind of stupid he's promoting, but with more flair.

They must not teach Business 101 or Introduction to Business in college anymore, but when I went we were taught that the way most people "get rich" is by not giving your money away to people selling things you can't afford, especially using money you don't have. These politicians have used our federal government to loot ordinary people, like you and I. Meanwhile, they make off like bandits in the night with our money.

They keep leaving you worse off than you were before, but somehow repeating the same mistakes that left you poorer is "the way it has to be"? Says who? Them? They're thieves, boss. Stealing is what they do. They're professional liars, I mean lawyers, I mean what's the difference? They'll pull whatever con job is required to make off with more of your money, legal or otherwise. As long as you keep voting for them, they'll keep robbing you blind.

With the amount of money they stole from us for COVID, we could've built a solar farm big enough to power all of America, which would cost just shy of $366B USD at $60/m^2 (commercial solar farm prices, not residential installations). If it was as simple as buying more solar panels, then that problem was easily solvable using 1/3rd of the money initially spent on COVID lockdowns. They spent another $400B USD of our money jerking off on climate changing, instead of simply buying what they claim will fix the problem. People like me know it won't solve anything because we also understand grammar school math, but don't let any math get in the way of you spending our tax money. Just buy the electronic trash already, see where that leaves us, and then see if your conundrum is "solved" at that point. What else are we supposed to do at that point? Should we threaten to nuke every other country which can't afford your party's non-solution? Just buy the damn hardware already. I'm already paying for it. How many times do I have to pay for something they have no intention of doing before you figure out what they're actually doing to us?

Did you learn anything from COVID? These people will lie about anything, for any reason, no matter how stupid the result. President Trump's great unforgivable sin was telling the world exactly what they were doing, very publicly and in his own special way intended to ruffle feathers. If they'll lie in a way that leaves you vulnerable to a lethal virus, then why would they give a second thought to lying about anything else? Why would they ever change their behavior so long as you keep lining their pockets by voting them into office?

I don't doubt for a second that ocean levels would rise if all the ice on Earth melted, because that's pretty much the only thing that can happen, but why would you employ someone who hasn't done anything in the past to solve your personal problems and isn't likely to start any time soon? Why continue to be further impoverished by these "limited pie" cretins who think the best way to get rich is to steal from the rest of us on whatever the "scam du jour" happens to be? What are they selling to you that you find so appealing? Is it so important that you're willing to be destitute in your final years? That's where they'll leave you. They got theirs. How about you?

These are not rhetorical questions. This is literally what's happening. They're not going to solve anything, no matter how much money and power you hand over to them. This is not a problem that thieves know how to solve. They never had any intention of doing so. They're looters wearing suits. They think the party is over, so they're stealing anything not chained down on their way out the door. I seriously don't get what y'all find so appealing about choosing to be victims of thieves and murderers. It's baffling to me. What does this do for you?

SpaceNut · 2022-09-17 19:19:56

Here is a natural solution to the global warming. According to new research, Mexican mangroves are playing a helpful role in fighting climate change because they have been trapping carbon for thousands of years

AA11TVBR.img?w=768&h=432&m=6

The team specifically studied marine mangroves off the coast of La Paz, Mexico, which is located in Baja California. What they found surprised them -- carbon that had been trapped in a layer of peat dating back at least 5,000 years.
"This research area has taken on special urgency due to an alarming 2% global loss of mangrove area annually from 1980−2000."

tahanson43206 · 2022-09-18 05:57:10

For SpaceNut re #602

Thanks for the update (and the image) about mangroves!

I've always liked mangroves, because they've worked out how to reject salt and "make a living" at the boundary between land and sea.

The loss of mangrove area is news to me, but perhaps there is an explanation "out there" if someone can find it.

Quite likely there will be new land made available as the seas rise for the next several decades.

Mangroves may need some help "settling" on new land.

Speaking of land ... I heard a report recently that human laws about land ownership are being tested (in the US at least) because in some States, I gather that land is determined by the location of the sea. As the sea makes it's way inland, land title has to be adjusted.

It seems to me time for those States to adjust their laws so that "land" is owned by a human (or I suppose a corporation) regardless of what the ocean is doing.

The land isn't going anywhere, but the ocean comes and goes according to a number of influences.

Coming full circle ... if land title laws are adjusted, the owners can install mangrove trees, and set up conditions for good fishing.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2022-09-18 11:42:30

Property value loss comes to mind for those that have paid higher than away from the shore taxation and higher property values at time of purchase as well without a means to compensate for nature.
Insurance companies will call this an act of God and will not pay out for the loses.
This is not just a California problem, and the US government should help to lead the way since in many ways this is a disaster.

As for the farming creation of new mangrove areas that's not addressed in the article but should have follow-up investigation.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-10-19 08:48:23

Stem Cells Highlighted as Potential Therapeutic Option in Huntington Disease

https://www.ajmc.com/view/stem-cells-hi … on-disease

Following an injury to a female player at a high school volleyball caused by a biologically male athlete, a school board in North Carolina has blocked further games with a school, citing student safety concerns. During a tournament, a Hiwassee Dam High School student was hit in the face with the ball, sent over the net by a Highlands High School student who was born male and then started wearing and dress and wanted to be called female?

US already sues North Carolina over the transexual shemale female to male or male to female bathroom laws?

'North Carolina high school female volleyball player injured after trans opponent spikes ball into her face'
https://meaww.com/north-carolina-high-s … -ball-face

Turkish opposition calls new media law 'censorship', will appeal to top court

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/turkish-oppos … 01819.html

Lightfoot Refuses To Listen to Criticisms on Crime. Bad Idea

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2022/ … 80897.html

She thinks Ice-Hockey, Shinny, Bandy should have been a historical sport for islamists and Black Panther BLM types?

https://mobile.twitter.com/AP_Sports/st … 8296532992

The NHL's first internal demographic study found its workforce to be overwhelmingly white.

Kim Davis, NHL EVP of social impact, growth and legislative affairs, says seeing the numbers is a first step toward fixing the problem.

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2022-10-19 12:59:07)

kbd512 · 2022-10-19 13:20:48

Mars_B4_Moon,

All of this culture war nonsense is hurting everyone and helping no one.

Men are men. Women are women. Sporting games, which are a proxy for combat, are not egalitarian in nature. Destroying women's sports is bad for biological women and girls, who should not be competing against biological men and boys.

Censorship is a sign of a weak argument. A "strong and empowered argument" doesn't require censorship or other "special rules" for "special people".

Refusing to address criminality is a sign of societal and moral decay, and again, hurts everyone.

Do we really want to return to "survival of the fittest"?

I think that's a terrible idea.

SpaceNut · 2022-10-21 17:39:47

White House Plan to Research Cooling Earth by Reflecting Back Sunlight Causes Controversy

All depends on where that reflection is and is it seasonal for being actively used.

6 slides of information for cause and effect

kbd512 · 2022-10-21 17:52:34

SpaceNut,

When you can no longer afford to drive to work, buy groceries, obtain health care, or pay your electricity bill, then it won't make any difference how much sunlight is or isn't reflected back into space. The only remaining controversy is related to exactly how loony the left has become, and how fast they lost the plot. Nobody outside of loony toon land cares about this latest way to squander even more tax payer money, one way or the other. This is yet another bridge to nowhere, driven by ideologically-fueled psychosis. The sky is not falling.

SpaceNut · 2022-10-21 18:00:29

When I cannot afford to pay for the ability to transport myself to work there is ride share and busses plus bikes for that last mile. If those do not pan out, I will walk that nearly 30 miles 1 way to keep working. If there is not enough money to buy food, I will make use of gardening as best I can and food pantries like everyone else will need to do. When I cannot pay for power, I will solve my energy needs by other sources and methods of creation. I will not run tail and hide my head in the sand. I have been there before and made it through out all of it with family not missing out for what they needed while growing up under these conditions.

Global emissions in 2022 are projected to rise just a fraction of the amount they increased by last year, thanks in large part to a surge in renewables installation and electric vehicle use, a major global energy organization said this week.

New Technologies For Splitting Hydrogen Atoms May Provide The Way Forward

kbd512 · 2022-10-21 19:05:08

SpaceNut,

So you're committed to a life of poverty if the domestic energy policies of the current administration continues?

There was no significant number of electric vehicles added this year or last year, in comparison to the total number of vehicles. This sounds like more magical thinking from our magical thinkers.

SpaceNut · 2022-10-22 08:03:45

A devaluation of our moneys value is what is partially driving poverty and work hour cheating those of a full-time paycheck where the work performed has a value that corresponds.

Well, I put back into service a hybrid, that was off the road going to a junkyard, but I am sure I can google the answer and here is that data

How many electric cars in the United States

Global electric vehicle numbers set to hit 145 million by end of the decade, IEA says

5 things to know about the future of electric vehicles

There were 11 million registered electric vehicles on the road at the end of last year 10 million of these were cars. The total number of electric cars, buses, vans and trucks is projected to rise to 145 million, or 7% of road transportation

So back to what energy policy that says to rise energy costs and price gouge Americans?

Add more pipelines sure may or may not lower the cost to the consumer but they need to be constructed for long lasting ability not to the lower grade materials that rot and allow oil to contaminate the land and water we need.

Drilling has always been the ability of the company to add in more wells but the claim that they need to explore protected lands to gain more is another false claim as adding more wells like pipelines are not that answer to guaranteeing a lower cost as more quantity of fuels being pumped from the well does not mean a lower cost product can be delivered to the consumer.

kbd512 · 2022-10-22 14:18:12

SpaceNut,

Currency is devalued when your government prints a bunch of money to pay for their profligate spending. They don't seem capable of controlling themselves, whether we're talking about Democrat or Republican legislators, which would be why people like me want their power taken away from them. They're not being good custodians of the public money and trust placed in them. Afterwards, you and I and all other Americans pay the price for their behavior in the form of inflation and higher taxes. We don't need any more of that.

I think it's great that you put an already fuel-efficient vehicle back into service. I've never stated otherwise.

The electric cars, in another 10 years, will barely have affected fossil fuel consumption at all, and for reasons stated elsewhere, all the batteries created for them will have INCREASED fossil fuel consumption at an absurd rate. This is due to basic math. It takes 100 barrels of oil to make a battery that stores the energy contained within 1 barrel of oil. Every Tesla battery consumes 100 barrels of oil to store the same energy in 1 barrel of oil. That is what a non-solution to the over-consumption problem looks like, but it does drastically increase the cost of the car and drastically increase emissions from fossil fuels, because the batteries are not made using energy stored in existing batteries or photovoltaics or wind turbines.

From talking to people presently engaged in the drilling for oil and gas, they are all telling me that they're being prevented from pursuing more drilling permits, prevented from obtaining capital to undertake that activity by banks (were explicitly told that the banks will not lend money for more oil and gas drilling), and that they're being punished in other ways such as taxation or lending rates that would be considered usury.

Unless they're all lying, which seems improbable, then there's a coordinated campaign against domestic oil and gas drilling. At the same time, President Biden is going to Iran, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia asking them to increase their oil and gas output. So... Why is that? If the administration doesn't want oil and gas, then why go overseas to countries that don't have America's interests at heart when we can make our own oil and gas here in America? What is the reason for that?

You can't even get new batteries without new oil and gas, because batteries are made using oil and gas and coal energy. Do you see how asinine that is? The thing you think is your salvation, which ultimately isn't the savior you want it to be, whether you have the math skills to figure that out or not, can't even be produced without the cheap and reliable energy source that the Democrats are trying to remove "because climate change" (so, even if batteries were our salvation, we're running ourselves out of energy before they're even made).

Adding more pipelines will definitely lower cost, because it's drastically cheaper to ship oil via pipeline than shipping oil by rail car. The person who owns the rail cars is a big Democrat Party donor. Shipping oil via train also burns more oil than shipping it via pipeline. It's not like the oil isn't still going to the same refineries, they're just charging you more for the oil because they're using BNSF tanker cars instead of oil and gas pipelines.

If any part of what I asserted is untrue, then...

1. You should be able to show me a report about how shipping oil via tanker car is chaper than shipping it via pipeline.

2. You should be able to show me a report about how emissions from oil producers in foreign countries don't affect global warming.

3. You should be able to show me refutation of the notion that banks are refusing to lend capital to oil and gas drillers, under their ESG programs.

Until and unless you can furnish that kind of evidence, your claims boil down to your personal beliefs. You can believe what you want to believe, but my personal beliefs have to be based in objective observable reality. Those are my observations, based upon empirical publicly available evidence.

kbd512 · 2022-11-05 13:58:34

Thugocracy: Science in the Postmodern World (Roger Pielke Jr. as victim)

“Scientists try to discover the truth through observation and open inquiry; thugs try to impose their version of the truth through force and intimidation. As Roger Pielke learned, thuggery works.”
There’s an old trope among lawyers: if the law is on your side, pound the law; if the facts are on your side, pound the facts; if neither the law nor the facts are on your side, pound the table. For thugs, the third option is to pound your opponent.
Today, thugs have taken over much of our politics, many of our universities, and much of our science. Their response to dissent is not to assemble facts and logic to support their claims but to slander, intimidate, and muzzle the opposition.
Canadian investigative journalist, Donna Laframboise, has documented one such case in her paper, The Hounding of Roger Pielke Jr. Pielke is a political scientist and professor of Environmental Studies at the University of Colorado Boulder. He is the author or co-author of dozens of peer-reviewed papers related to extreme weather events, and has authored or co-authored over a half dozen books, including The Climate Fix: What Scientists and Politicians Won’t Tell You About Global Warming. From 2001 to 2007, Pielke was the director of his university’s Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, and he was a visiting scholar at Oxford University during the 2007-2008 academic year.
All of which is to say that Pielke is a serious guy, and, on the surface, not the obvious target of a vendetta by environmental activists. As Laframboise writes:
[Pielke] says he has ‘never questioned the climatic importance of human emissions of carbon dioxide’, and fully supports a dramatic ‘decarbonization of the global economy’. [His book] The Climate Fix calls for a modest carbon tax to fund the development of innovative energy technologies. Moreover, Pielke leans left politically. In 2018, he told an audience he has never once voted for a Republican presidential candidate. Yet he has endured more than a decade of harassment and persecution from US Democratic Party operatives, green campaigners, journalists, and academic colleagues.
Pielke’s original sin was committed in 2006 when “he delivered the prestigious Roger Revelle annual lecture, a gala event sponsored by the US National Academy of Sciences and hosted by the Smithsonian Institute in the nation’s capital.” Although he told the audience that, “human influence on the climate system has been well established” and that CO2 emission reductions were “essential,” he also stated that there was no increase in either the number or intensity of natural disasters. Worse, he had the effrontery to back up his claims with data.
Still worse, Pielke wouldn’t back down. In 2013, for example:
[He] appeared before a US Senate committee on the environment. Explaining that he had, during the previous 20 years, ‘collaborated with researchers around the world to publish dozens of peer-reviewed papers…related to extreme events’, his ten-page written statement restated his longstanding position: ‘It is misleading, and just plain incorrect, to…associate the increasing costs of disasters with the emission of greenhouse gases.’
Increasing costs, Pielke argued, were due, not to bigger and more frequent weather events, but to increasing wealth around the world; there is just more stuff to be damaged than before. Pielke based his arguments on “internationally recognized historical datasets and IPCC reports.” The data in Pielke’s written statement showed that there had been “no clear severity trend in one direction or another, when averaged across the entire U.S.”
John Holdren, a physics PhD who served as President Obama’s science advisor, wrote a six-page rebuttal that “refuted” Pielke historical data with computer models that predicted more severe weather events in the future.
Holdren also accused Pielke of taking a statement from a 2008 U.S. government report out of context. The statement: “droughts have, for the most part, become shorter, less frequent and cover a smaller portion of the US over the last century,” was followed in the report by the caveat that there were local exceptions in the “U.S. Southwest and parts of the interior of the West.” Though Pielke documented the exceptions in a footnote, Holdren accused him of leaving out the information entirely. Holdren’s false accusation “remained on the White House website for nearly three years.”
In 2015, Arizona Representative Raul Grijalva, enraged by Pielke’s 2013 testimony, went after him and six other scientists (including MIT’s Richard Lindzen) who had also testified “incorrectly” about global warming. Grijalva wrote the universities employing the seven academics demanding “comprehensive records extending back eight years.” In Pielke’s case, this included: “‘total annual compensation’ between 2007 and 2015, all drafts of ‘Prof. Pielke’s testimony before any government body or agency’, emails Pielke wrote while composing his testimony, plus a long list of detailed financial information concerning research grants, consulting fees, speaking fees, ‘promotional considerations’, and travel expenses, together with all emails connected to any funding source.”
Laframboise writes:
In 2018, Pielke delivered his first public talk on climate since the launch of Grijalva’s 2015 fishing expedition. He’d gone, he said, from two or three speaking invitations per month to one in three years. In his words: ‘Delegitimization works’
Laframboise documents many ad hominem attacks on Pielke. While such attacks are commonplace (as anyone who has ever published anything can attest), in Pielke’s case they are noteworthy because they came from PhD scientists. Joseph Romm, who has a doctorate in oceanography, used the once influential (and now defunct) Center for American Progress blog, Climate Progress, to attack Pielke, variously labeling him the “head cheerleader for climate chaos,” a “denier,” and (slipping in the obligatory Nazi allusion) “the uber-denier.”
Not content to smear Pielke, thugs-with-PhDs also worked to deny him any platform for his ideas. Romm used the Climate Progress blog to go after journalists who interviewed or even quoted Pielke. Pulitzer Prize-winning Los Angeles Times reporter, Paige St. John, learned this the hard way when she interviewed Pielke in 2015. “Quoting Roger Pielke,” she later wrote, “Will bring a hailstorm down on your work from the London Guardian, Mother Jones and Media Matters.” The Center for American Progress also organized a “Climate Science Rapid Response Team” that mounted a successful campaign to have Pielke removed as a contributor to FiveThirtyEight.com.
Colorado University Boulder has mounted its own campaign against Pielke. The four academic programs he developed and led have all been shut down. Though the senior professor in his department, Pielke was moved into the smallest office in his building – one with no windows, telephone, or Internet connection. It was made entirely useless when “his desk was pushed onto its side to make room for a delivery of filing cabinets and file boxes.”
Scientists try to discover the truth through observation and open inquiry; thugs try to impose their version of the truth through force and intimidation. As Pielke learned, thuggery works.

SpaceNut · 2022-11-05 16:23:18

Today's New Hampshire temperature has been quite warm at 75' F when we are normally in the 40's
https://www.currentresults.com/Weather/ … vember.php

kbd512 · 2022-11-05 22:48:45

Temperature Extremes by State:

kbd512 · 2022-11-06 00:39:32

Summer 2013 - This summer was hotter in Concord than it has been in 144 years

144 years ago, as of 2013, was 1869.

Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and Methane (CH4) levels, 1800–present

In 1869, when CO2 levels were 288ppm, the temperature was still as hot as it was in 2013, when CO2 levels had risen to 396.74ppm.

If it wasn't the CO2 levels which created those extreme temperatures, then what was the cause of the record high temperatures in 1869?

Dr. Roger Pielke proved that no evidence or correlation exists to support a causal link between extreme weather events or natural disasters and climate changes. For having the audacity to report what the evidence indicated to him or anyone else willing to put aside their confirmation bias long enough to learn something, he was bullied and harassed by the very men and women who should have no other allegiances to anyone or anything except the data. The data is not lying. When the data does not agree with your theory, it's not the data's fault.

kbd512 · 2022-11-06 17:20:45

From casual observation of the temperature extremes displayed in my Post #615, it should be fairly obvious that America is the land of temperature / weather / climate extremes. In other words, expect some wild weather. The extremes are not indicative of what's "normal". If you cherry pick temperature values from specific days of the year, then you're liable to find highly divergent values that are not indicative of what's typical.

SpaceNut · 2022-11-06 17:27:41

So is evidence to climate change as 100-Year-Old Community Forced To Move As Caribbean Island Gardi Sugdub Sinks leaving 1,200 indigenous Guna people to move to the mainland.

Gardi Sugdub is one of 365 islands, most of them uninhabited, in the San Blas archipelago. Some 39 of the islands were settled more than a century-and-half ago by 30,000 Guna, who came from the Colombian and Panamanian mainland. “Based on current sea-level rise predictions, it is almost certain that within the next 20 years the Guna will have to start leaving these islands, and by the end of the century, most will probably have to be abandoned likely be under water by 2050.

tahanson43206 · 2022-11-06 17:56:23

For SpaceNut re #618...

The topic seems (to me at least) a poor match for what I am about to report, which is the opposite....

The audio news feed today (not sure which due to channel switching while shopping) included a story about a region of an African nation that is adapting to climate change by increasing floating homes ... Apparently (as I recall the story) the region already had a population living in floating accommodation in a river delta. As the sea has risen, the amount of water surface area has increased, and the population has grown .

The presentation was offered in the context of islands (such as the one you cited) becoming uninhabitable.

The downside to the report was the behavior of the local government, which is attempting to eliminate floating city growth instead of promoting it as would make sense if the officials understood the situation better.

It seems to me that since a great part of the population of Earth is going to be forced to adapt to rising seas, it would make sense to learn/work out how to build floating cities with the amenities we take for granted in land-based cities. Water, power, sewerage , postal services, Internet .... all of these services and many more are needed to provide a decent place to live for families, and if the families are already floating, then rising sees will be less threatening than would otherwise be the case.

If you have a better topic you're welcome to copy this post and paste it there.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2022-11-06 18:05:54

We have talked about floating cities in the Ocean topic that we have a couple of.

Remembering that I did one I did a topic search by my profile, and it only shows back to 2012 for the oldest of these.

This one is from 2004
Earths Oceans Explored - but why not colonized

I think Terraformer has one.

kbd512 · 2022-11-13 13:02:17

SpaceNut,

If those on the Climate-Religion Spectrum think Earth will be transformed into some facsimile of "Water World" in the coming decades, then where are the massive ship-building programs?

In broad general terms, ships operate far more efficiently than sprawling cities and suburbs. The crew have far fewer personal belongings, those belongings are far more functional / utilitarian in nature, they don't need other machines to move about the ship so fewer cars and trucks are required, and most of them have centralized control / security that authoritarians so-love. Ships require a lot of energy / labor / capital to construct, but steel ships that are maintained well can conceivably last for centuries. Even well-built and well-maintained wooden ships will last for a century or so.

None of America's retired super carriers, for example, were retired because they were broken or had holes in their hulls. We decided we didn't want to maintain them anymore, so we scrapped them to recycle the steel or sunk them to create new coral reefs. There was no compelling reason to do so, those in the military simply wanted "new toys" to play with. All of those ships could've been refurbished into floating hospital ships or high-speed transports for our Navy, or they could've supplemented existing amphibious ships in our Navy.

I suppose we can make a good case for recycling steel if we want to build something new, but ships are expensive to produce. No new aircraft carriers will be built for equivalent cost to Enterprise, Kitty Hawk, America, Constellation, and John F. Kennedy.

Basically, we're entrapped by the "everything is disposable" mindset. Well... No. That is simply not true.

More to the point, if we needed mobile repair bases for construction or repair, to deal with natural disasters or hurricanes, then how was a ship the size of an aircraft carrier not the most logical and cost-effective means to do so? C-130 cargo transports have both landed and taken off from aircraft carrier decks. There's plenty of room for C-130s and V-22s to ferry cargo ashore, pick up patients in need of medical attention, etc. Maybe we thought our old super carriers were unfit for naval aviation duty, but what about all those other roles our military uses much smaller amphibious ships for?

This seems like very short-sighted think to me. If a large number of people truly believe disaster is on the near horizon and you need ships to at least evacuate people and take them to higher ground, then why are we continually disposing of and then rebuilding from scratch, so many giant ships, instead of repurposing or refurbishing them?

Are we devising ever-more efficient hull forms to move through the water using less power when we do that, or is this more of the same old stuff we've used for the last 50 years?

Void · 2022-11-13 21:19:08

Due to a recent notion of elevated awareness I seem to think I am subject to; I have been tempted to start a new topic, but here instead, I think I will piggyback on this one. But I would first like the set the pointer back to the initial post of this topic, then add my materials:

Quote from Post #1:

Oldfart1939
Member
Registered: 2016-11-26
Posts: 2,305
Email
There have been comments on several other threads as to whether NASA should maintain a role in Earth Science observations, based on the premise that they need to keep monitoring "Global Warming," which has subsequently been morphed into "Climate Change." Over the past 8 years, we've heard a drumbeat of steady propaganda emanating from the White House, the EPA, NOAA, and yes, NASA about the "danger to mankind" from Human Induced Climate Change.
Before I launch into my statements and observations, let me toss out a few qualifiers about my background. In addition to being a retired Ph.D. Physical Chemist and Biochemist, I've had a lifelong hobby and deep interest in Astronomy; in fact it was my first choice for a career, but I wasn't able to pursue that dream. I also am something of a amateur archaeologist and have attended several programs involving working on various "digs' in the American Desert Southwest.
As my astronomy background calls out for me to point out a MAJOR flaw in all the hysterical climate change and Global Warming fantasies: The Sun is a LONG TERM VARIABLE STAR. The solar output isn't constant as embedded in the computer models that the climate change promoters point to. The cycle is approximately 900-950 years maximum to maximum. This is generally reflected in sunspot numbers which have now been recorded for ~ 400 years. Beginning in the early 1600's the sunspots have been observed telescopically and accurate data is available. The absolute sunspot low was recorded in the 1670's, a period which is called the Maunder Minimum. The rivers in Europe remained frozen even into the Summers, and this was commented upon by no less than Sir Isaac Newton. Fast forward to the 1990's. Sunspots were at a record high in numbers, but since 2000, have been declining rapidly, along with the un-doctored Global Temperature readings. However, due to a Political Agenda, scientists have been pressured to make the data fit with this agenda. Scientists at NOAA have been "caught faking data," recently. The University of East Anglia was caught and admonished for faking climate data. How can scientists be pressured to do things like this? Grant funding. Data the "powers that be" don't like? No grant renewals. At NASA, there are also scientists whose jobs depend on satellite observation of icepack, etc. and they sure do like remaining employed; ergo, "melting polar caps." "Melting Glaciers."
Archaeological evidence: Back in 2005, my late wife and I went to a place called "Crow Canyon Archaeological Center," and participated in an excavation of Goodman Point Pueblo near Mesa Verde, and as part of the program went through substantial laboratory training.
What jumped out at me immediately when learning about the science of dendrochronology (tree ring interpretation) was the fact that it gives an unbroken record of climate data extending back to ~ 850 AD, since the national Park has structures that old and there's a complete record of overlapping sample covering the period. The solar sunspot maximum in ~ 1100-1150 AD is mirrored by extremely small growth of trees and low rainfall in that period, reflecting near drought conditions. The Maunder minimum was also reflected by good tree ring data.
So--my "take" on the hypothesis of "Global Warming," or "Climate Change," is yes, there are these observables, but aren't "brought about by human activity." They are natural phenomena independent of humans.
QED.

I think thought that a more proper topic title now would be:

"When Science becomes perverted by Religion."

I do not say this to hope to put an existing and well-established religion on trial, rather to say that it is appearing to me that more and more the popular/press/political dialog and behaviors very closely resemble religious patterns that I am well familiar with.

In effect we have climate claims, which I personally allow may have some substance or at least we should continually keep an eye on and hope to find improved methods to treat.

The threat is now the label "Climate Denier", which is sort of a sinner, it seems. It is the equivalent of not believing in God, almost at this point. Your right to speak is perhaps not allowable, as you are to be excommunicated from those who may be allowed to precipitate.

Keep in mind, that I see this as a fairly ungodly religion. Godly people in many cases would be fairer.

It would be amusing to posture as some other religious sect, and scream a message from a pulpit, waving my hands in the air. But, I will try to give a rational presentation.

This is a real time effect, a physical inherited heritage passed down through time, if we are to believe the story:
It can begin with this: https://www.popularmechanics.com/scienc … e-ice-age/ Quote:

According to new research, deep in the Pacific one region is actually getting colder. This decreasing temperature in the ocean depths is also caused by climate change, but not the modern kind we’re so familiar with. Instead, this cooling is caused by a minor ice age that happened hundreds of years ago.

The above may very well answer why California is drying out. Or at least it is a potential contributor.

I have been very annoyed where people claim that the snowpacks in mountains are shrinking because of global warming. That in general does not seem to make sense. If a greenhouse effect is warming the atmosphere, then it will warm the ocean surfaces to a greater proportion than it will warm elevated snowpacks.

Where in California does it snow? https://getaway.10best.com/13559065/whe … es-it-snow
Quote:

The snowpack, or the amount of snow on the ground, can reach 15 feet deep. About 250 miles north, the peaks around Lake Tahoe rise between 7,000 and 10,000 feet. Snowfall in the higher elevations averages 300 to 500 inches, about 10 feet less than at Mount Whitney.

So, then 7,000 to 10,000 feet of removed greenhouse at some locations of large snowfalls.
So, at sea level, the greenhouse effect is a presumed virgin atmosphere + added greenhouse gasses.
So at sea level @ 7,000 to 10,000 feet, the greenhouse effect is a presumed virgin atmosphere + added greenhouse gasses - 7,000 to 10,000 feet of such a heat retaining atmosphere.

A theory for Venus proposed that Venus heated up so much that water vapor got into the stratosphere, and was then split by UV light, and so Venus lost its oceans, and gained a very thick atmosphere of dominantly CO2.

If there is a greenhouse effect in the atmosphere off of California from the air column bounded by sea level and 7,000 to 10,000 feet, then there will be a differential temperature.

If the greenhouse effect = 0 then the temperature at sea level will be the same as at 7,000 to 10,000 feet. So, the differential temperature will be 0.

If you had greenhouse effect >0 prior to the industrial revolution, then history seems to suggest that snowpacks should have been there in the mountains, as moisture flows from a warmer evaporation place to a cooler condensation place.

After the Industrial Revolution started and up till now, the amount of greenhouse effect should have increased, and so the oceans surfaces should have warmed up more than the elevated areas, and so, the snowpack should have increased, as the differential temperature should now be more, and so the conduction of moisture from the oceans surfaces to the mountains should have increased.

So, if California's major concern is a deficit of water from snowpacks, they should pray that the greenhouse effect will increase.

So, things just were not making sense. But now with this article, perhaps this could explain: https://www.popularmechanics.com/scienc … e-ice-age/
But I am not sure it would explain, except if we allowed for a stirring action that brought the cold up to the surface.
But it definitely is not true that the climate is warming so the snowpack is shrinking. That does not make sense at all.

I like the presenter and the presentation, but it has problems: https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=In … ORM%3DVDRE
Quote:

INSANE Plan Fixes Flooding & Droughts at the Same Time!
YouTube · 1,330,000+ views · 9/29/2022 · by Two Bit da Vinci

Fairly early in the video, he states that climate change is both causing more flooding and more droughts. I would like to see some logic about how that is happening. He also blames wildfires on this. I am not sure. I suppose if droughts are happening then vegetation may burn. But if there is less water, there would be less vegetation.

But wildfires would be a downstream effect, so harder to pin a cause(s) on.

He also says that most precipitation that happens for California is snow in the mountains, and I believe I have presented a very sound explanation as to why an increased greenhouse effect should increase snowfall, not decrease it.

As for the water distribution plan it is very interesting.

I would also suggest a space age method to get more water to the southwest.

It is quite simple. Add heat to the portions of the Pacific Ocean surface waters that are adjacent to California.

Ha Ha! I am sure I am right, and this adds emphasis to the notion that greenhouse effect would not decrease snows and rainfalls in California. Such energy sources could be orbital or on the surface of the Moon. Mirrors or microwaves perhaps.

Temperate water deserts exist because of cold water off of their adjacent coasts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert#:~ … cipitation.

Such temperate deserts are in Namibia, Chile, American Southwest, perhaps Australia?

The claim that Global Warming has increased storms? NO!
https://nypost.com/2018/09/19/no-global … urricanes/
Quote:

No, global warming isn’t causing worse hurricanes
By Bjorn Lomborg
September 19, 2018 7:23pm Updated

So, we went to global warming to climate change to climate crisis to climate catastrophe.

And it appears to be hysteria to me at this point.

Another quote from the just previous link:

It’s human nature to assign blame for catastrophic events. In medieval times, witches were blamed for weather woes. Trials and burnings increased when weather got worse. In hurricane season today, many find a scapegoat in global warming.

So, let's say "Climate Cult", "Religious Hysteria", Millenarianism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millenarianism
Quote:

Millenarianism (also millenarism), from Latin mīllēnārius "containing a thousand", is the belief by a religious, social, or political group or movement in a coming fundamental transformation of society, after which "all things will be changed".[1] Millenarianism exists in various cultures and religions worldwide, with various interpretations of what constitutes a transformation.[2]
These movements believe in radical changes to society after a major cataclysm or transformative event.[3]
Millenarianist movements can be secular (not espousing a particular religion) or religious in nature,[4] and are therefore not necessarily linked to millennialist movements in Christianity.[3]

Well, guess what, that is the diagnosis I have at this point.

Should these organizations be allowed to scare the children, who are easily depressed and have not been hardened to the realities of life?

Freedom of Speach: https://freespeech.fandom.com/wiki/Shou … nstitution. Quote:

"Shouting fire in a crowded theater" is a frequent paraphrasing of a quote from Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919. The quote is used to express the limits on free speech under the terms of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Well, I tend to be a liberal per free speech, but any corporate entity and the like should be required to back up their claims in my opinion. Real science, logic, rationality, not just he said, she said sort of crazy crowd talk from mobs.

They should be required to back up their claims. And if they don't want to, they need to disclaim their publishing's as unconfirmed claims from a source. Then that source should be required to back up their claims.

I think I did pretty good for someone at my level.

Done.

Pardon me for poor communication skills. I have tried to clean things up. When I work hard on a subject, things slip through.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2022-11-13 23:14:06)

SpaceNut · 2022-11-17 23:22:24

From what I am understanding is that the quantity of water in the ocean increasing is why the temperature of the ocean is not rising as the water that is entering is colder since its water from ice melt.

Flooded Earth: How the global map and countries' coastlines will change by 2100

Void · 2022-11-19 19:03:10

Well pretty good. But while fresh cold water will float for a while, it can be expected to mix, with sea water.

And I do not think that much fresh water is getting into the North Pacific from either Greenland or Antarctica.

Any cold fresh water crossing the equator would be warmed up, I expect.

This is a nice Oceans currents map: https://earthhow.com/ocean-currents/

Looking at that, I don't think that I would anticipate fresh cold or cold water arriving off the coast of California, from either Greenland or Antarctica.

A quote from my previous post:

This is a real time effect, a physical inherited heritage passed down through time, if we are to believe the story:
It can begin with this: https://www.popularmechanics.com/scienc … e-ice-age/ Quote:
According to new research, deep in the Pacific one region is actually getting colder. This decreasing temperature in the ocean depths is also caused by climate change, but not the modern kind we’re so familiar with. Instead, this cooling is caused by a minor ice age that happened hundreds of years ago.
The above may very well answer why California is drying out. Or at least it is a potential contributor.

Yes, Yes I R a PEST.

So, it seems more likely that the cold of the Pacific that may be drying out California, is more likely: "One Part of the Ocean Is Getting Colder, Thanks to Medieval Climate Change
The Little Ice Age ended more than a hundred years ago, but its effects are still felt in the deepest parts of the Pacific.

BY AVERY THOMPSONPUBLISHED: JAN 7, 2019".

But I will confess they have not defined what part of the Pacific.

Here is another article of the same type: https://www.sciencealert.com/the-bottom … -years-ago Quote:

There's One Vast, Ancient Swathe of Ocean That's Actually Getting Colder
NATURE
07 January 2019
ByMICHELLE STARR

Quote:

In the depths of the Pacific Ocean, where the water runs cold dark and cold, temperatures are continuing to fall - and it's all because of a period of significant cooling that began in the 16th century.

If I am to interpret the above, stored cold in deep waters is emerging upward to cool the surface, and that cold is from centuries ago, and not from water melt from Greenland or Antarctica. "The Usual Suspects", don't seem very connected to this.

So, if I consider a humidifier that works by heating a pot of water, it should be no surprise that the Pacific may be sending less water vapor into the Troposphere over the Pacific. And so, the temperate desert of the southwest should dry out more. Glaciers in California are fed by snowfalls, that I presume are largely fed by moisture from the pacific.

It is possible that the planet warming in general, the Troposphere further above the Ocean would still warm??? The Troposphere might also expand upward, presuming a warm temperature. But that would only bring the snow line further up the mountains.

I found this very interesting article about Tibet, and its snow lines during the last ice age: https://www.liquisearch.com/tibetan_pla … 00%20ft%29.
Quote:

Tibet During The Ice Age: Today Tibet is the most essential heating surface of the atmosphere. During the Last Ice Age a c. 2,400,000 square kilometres (930,000 sq mi) ice sheet covered the plateau.This glaciation took place in correspondence to a lowering of the snowline by 1,200 metres (3,900 ft).

If the snowline dropped during the ice age, then the Troposphere became lower. At the poles the Troposphere is thinner than at the Equator. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troposphere
Quote:

The troposphere is the first and lowest layer of the atmosphere of the Earth, and contains 75% of the total mass of the planetary atmosphere, 99% of the total mass of water vapour and aerosols, and is where most weather phenomena occur.[1] From the planetary surface of the Earth, the average height of the troposphere is 18 km (11 mi; 59,000 ft) in the tropics; 17 km (11 mi; 56,000 ft) in the middle latitudes; and 6 km (3.7 mi; 20,000 ft) in the high latitudes of the polar regions in winter; thus the average height of the troposphere is 13 km (8.1 mi; 43,000 ft).

So, there may be something you could measure in California. The altitude of the Snow Line. Before, and now.

I do not dispute that adding greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere probably increases the so called "Greenhouse" effect. But I like real data. If the Troposphere is rising, then the snow line should be rising as well. Except you have to account for less moisture in the air, if indeed the Pacific is cooling on its surface. Not a perfect metric, but something that could be evaluated.

------

Pretty much all of the above is to dispute that the glaciers in California are shrinking due to Global Warming.

The warmer the surface of the water, the more evaporation into the troposphere. And the thicker the Troposphere, the higher up will the maximum condensation occur, I would expect. That likely "On Average".

If you ran out of Mountain, then I suppose the snow would not fall, but rain would and if the mountains could not block the flow of moisture across the mountains, then more rains and snows would fall in the interior of the Great Basin. Nevada, Utah, for instance. The eastern portions of Washington and Oregon states, Idaho.

Have we seen that?

The theory of the Run Away Greenhouse Effect for Venus, (Which seems to have sent some of the community into a frenzy), was supposed to have made the Stratosphere of Venus wet, allowing U.V. light to split the water vapor into H2 and O2, and those then floating off into space, at least the O2. The CO2 would then build up as per no running water.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_greenhouse_effect
Quote:

The runaway greenhouse effect is often formulated with water vapor as the condensable species. In this case the water vapor reaches the stratosphere and escapes into space via hydrodynamic escape, resulting in a desiccated planet.[4] This may have happened in the early history of Venus.

But there are at least two other ways to explain the situation of Venus:
1) The impact speeds of objects hitting Venus were so much higher than for Earth, that the planet never cooled down enough to allow water to condense. So, then the water floated into space because of that.
2) A recent theory has it that a large impact at some point determines the nature of the atmosphere of a planet.
In #2, Venus never got one to knock off enough of its atmosphere, Earth was just right, and Mars had too much atmosphere knocked off.

Like most people I liked Carl Sagan, but I believe that if he were alive today, he would say that we don't know yet which is the more correct answer. He is being a true Scientist; I would have to believe that.

So, here is a video about #2, from Anton Petrov: https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Mo … &FORM=VIRE

So, the whole notion that we can cause the Earth to become like Venus though a "Run-Away-Greenhouse-Effect", is not so likely I think.

We should be looking many other things such as the humidity patterns (A greenhouse gas), and those effects on vegetation (Albedo), and snow (Albedo).

Done.

Last edited by Void (2022-11-19 19:56:15)

SpaceNut · 2022-11-20 10:11:35

Seems that The Great Pacific Garbage Patch is finally getting cleaned — but what’s happening to all that trash?

AA14kel3.img?w=534&h=300&m=6

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch (GPGP) is a floating vortex of debris in the North Pacific Ocean. It spans 1.6 million square kilometers (or over 600,000 square miles) from California to Japan with Hawaii in the middle.

Since plastic does not decompose but breaks into smaller micro pieces we now need to filter for these as well to remove it as well.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#601 2022-09-12 01:42:14

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#602 2022-09-17 19:19:56

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#603 2022-09-18 05:57:10

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#604 2022-09-18 11:42:30

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#605 2022-10-19 08:48:23

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#606 2022-10-19 13:20:48

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#607 2022-10-21 17:39:47

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#608 2022-10-21 17:52:34

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#609 2022-10-21 18:00:29

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#610 2022-10-21 19:05:08

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#611 2022-10-22 08:03:45

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#612 2022-10-22 14:18:12

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#613 2022-11-05 13:58:34

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#614 2022-11-05 16:23:18

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#615 2022-11-05 22:48:45

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#616 2022-11-06 00:39:32

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#617 2022-11-06 17:20:45

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#618 2022-11-06 17:27:41

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#619 2022-11-06 17:56:23

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#620 2022-11-06 18:05:54

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#621 2022-11-13 13:02:17

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#622 2022-11-13 21:19:08

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#623 2022-11-17 23:22:24

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#624 2022-11-19 19:03:10

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#625 2022-11-20 10:11:35

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

Board footer