The Science of Climate Change

kbd512 · 2023-02-18 19:59:52

Void,

It's not "news", it's propaganda and ideology mixed with cult-like behavior.

Some of us will never be good cult members because we ask too many questions and use too much logic.

We're not supposed to think for ourselves or "do our own research"? Didn't you get the memo?

The "news outlets" actually committed that to print during COVID.

We need to be reeducated with the latest "group think", for the crime of "wrong think".

Void · 2023-02-19 09:11:41

Agreed, but at least some science-oriented people are trying to be rational: https://phys.org/news/2023-02-earth-glo … oling.html Quote:

FEBRUARY 19, 2023
Was Earth already heating up, or did global warming reverse a long-term cooling trend?
by Ellie Broadman and Darrell Kaufman, The Conversation

Quote:

Our two types of evidence offer different answers regarding the Earth's temperature trend over the 6,000 years before modern global warming. Natural archives generally show that Earth's average temperature roughly 6,000 years ago was warmer by about 0.7 C (1.3 F) compared with the 19th century median, and then cooled gradually until the Industrial Revolution. We found that most evidence points to this result.

So technically we may have been lucky to have escaped the little ice age due to the industrial revolution.

https://www.science.smith.edu/climateli … 0to%201850. Quote:

The Little Ice Age was a period of wide-spread cooling from around 1300 to around 1850 CE when average global temperatures dropped by as much as 2°C (3.6°F), particularly in Europe and North America.
Cooling happened in phases, with an initial drop around 1300 and an even colder climate starting around 1560 and lasting to 1850.

This quote contains some precipitation information:

Changes in climate did not happen uniformly around the globe. Cooling episodes in the Southern Hemisphere, such as in New Zealand and Patagonia, did not occur at the same time as cooling in the Northern Hemisphere. Some areas did not even experience cooling, such as eastern China. Europe experienced heavy rainfall while Africa and central and southern Asia experienced droughts. North America experienced both cooler temperatures and a drier period.

All of it fits, generally a dryer planet, except for Europe, and I am guessing that the gulf stream may have pushed moisture into Europe as Europe cooled, but maybe it was something else.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2023-02-19 09:19:47)

SpaceNut · 2023-11-30 20:46:47

Earth’s rotation is shifting towards a 25-hour day

The device uses a complex system of lasers and mirrors to accurately detect variances in the speed of Earth's rotation. These differences are indicated by the fluctuating frequencies between two laser beams, with larger discrepancies signifying faster rotation.
For instance, at the equator, where the Earth rotates at 15 degrees per hour, the ring laser records a frequency of 348.5 Hz, which subtly changes by mere millionths of a Hertz daily.

kbd512 · 2023-12-01 02:23:11

SpaceNut,

Oh, boy. Anthropogenic Global Spinning Change. Somehow humans are to blame, we just haven't figure out how to blame. Don't worry, we're working on that. Everyone start doing nonsensical things offered up as solutions to basic physics problems by equally nonsensical people. If you don't support building a giant merry-go-round to speed up the planet's rotation, then you're a "spinning denier"!

Calliban · 2023-12-01 15:15:17

SpaceNut wrote:

Earth’s rotation is shifting towards a 25-hour day
The device uses a complex system of lasers and mirrors to accurately detect variances in the speed of Earth's rotation. These differences are indicated by the fluctuating frequencies between two laser beams, with larger discrepancies signifying faster rotation.
For instance, at the equator, where the Earth rotates at 15 degrees per hour, the ring laser records a frequency of 348.5 Hz, which subtly changes by mere millionths of a Hertz daily.

This is due to tidal interaction between the Earth and Moon. The Earth's gravitational field is not perfectly symetrical because we have continents. So with passing year, the moon is pushed about an inch further away and the Earth's rotation slows slightly. The same thing happened with Pluto and Charon until they both tidally locked to each other. Earth is too massive and the moon too distant for that to happen here. But billions of years into the future, the moon will escape Earth's gravity and pursue its own orbit around the sun. At that point, it may end up colliding with Earth. But the sun will be a red giant by then.

Last edited by Calliban (2023-12-01 15:18:40)

RobertDyck · 2023-12-01 15:41:07

They used to measure time with an atomic clock. Compare that to observed length of time of a solar day. And distance from Earth to Moon was measured with a laser bouncing off a mirror in the Moon, placed by an Apollo astronaut. They found the Moon is slowly receding. They estimate Earth's rotation was 8 hours immediately after the impact that formed the Moon. Tides were more massive when the Moon was closer, causing Earth's rotation to slow more rapidly. The Moon receded, causing tides to be less strong.

Gravity from the Moon doesn't just cause tides in the ocean. It also causes tides in the crust. Remember the crust is 3 to 43 miles (4.8 to 69km) thick. Mostly 4-6 miles (7 to 10km) under the ocean, mostly 22 miles (35km) under continents. This is a planet 12,750km diameter. It's mostly mantle, which is soft like plasticine. When pressure is reduced, mantle becomes magma, but it's mostly soft. Tides of the crust move slowly, causing a bulge toward the Moon, and a matching bulge on the opposite side of the Earth. Those bulges move slow, so lag behind direct alignment. Behind in time, just past direct alignment in space. The Moon's gravity pulls on that bulge causing Earth's rotation to slow.

SpaceNut · 2023-12-03 12:47:12

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy

The Earth receives 174 petawatts (PW) of incoming solar radiation (insolation) at the upper atmosphere. Approximately 30% is reflected back to space while the rest, 122 PW, is absorbed by clouds, oceans and land masses. The spectrum of solar light at the Earth's surface is mostly spread across the visible and near-infrared ranges with a small part in the near-ultraviolet. Most of the world's population live in areas with insolation levels of 150–300 watts/m2, or 3.5–7.0 kWh/m2 per day

Since earths radius is not changing but the hours are which means the amount of energy that earth is absorbing is going to rise. It is not manmade, but we are not helping with creating more gasses that hold energy longer.

Sun energy, or solar radiation, is the energy that reaches the Earth from the Sun. About 71% of the sun energy that reaches the Earth is absorbed by its surface and atmosphere.
The rest is reflected back to space by clouds and Earth's surface. The absorbed energy causes the molecules of the object or surface it strikes to vibrate faster, increasing its temperature.
The energy is then re-radiated by the Earth as longwave, infrared radiation, also known as heat. Some of the Sun’s energy reaches Earth in the form ultraviolet (or UV) radiation.
Fortunately, the ozone layer high in Earth’s atmosphere absorbs a lot of this UV radiation and blocks it from reaching Earth’s surface.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/featu … rgyBalance

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-12-24 10:30:20

People, not the climate, caused the decline of the giant mammals
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1011172
For years, scientists have debated whether humans or the climate have caused the population of large mammals to decline dramatically over the past several thousand years. A new study from Aarhus University confirms that climate cannot be the explanation

SpaceNut · 2023-12-28 20:33:07

From what I can find the NH winter is 4 degrees warmer than it is usually and with that we are getting rain and not snow.

?url=http%3A%2F%2Fnpr-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2F8b%2F51%2F08eb17bb4cea9e51a2d32bcc28b1%2Fimg-2989.jpg

https://usafacts.org/issues/climate/sta … hampshire/

recent image from the rain
6510d5402d165.image.jpg?crop=1793%2C1009%2C0%2C73&resize=990%2C557&order=crop%2Cresize

current radar map
?url=http%3A%2F%2Fnpr-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2F00%2Fa1%2F8b95f7fc45f0b2d9508edf212569%2Fkgyx-loop.gif

kbd512 · 2023-12-29 15:18:03

SpaceNut,

You were complaining about how cold it was a few years back and that your family had trouble staying warm during the winter.

Is it vitally necessary to have feet of snow on the ground for you to live in New Hampshire, or do you appreciate not being barricaded in your own home or sliding across ice and snow-covered streets while driving to work?

SpaceNut · 2023-12-29 15:31:19

It's just strange to have no snow at all and a mild temperature.
Of course, if it were another southern state and you were receiving 1 ft of snow and sudden cold polar vortex one would then be wondering why the power has failed.
So yes, I am happy that it's not a freezing just wonder if this is the new normal as temperatures continue their upward trend.

kbd512 · 2023-12-29 16:22:49

SpaceNut,

Normal is a subject that's beholden to everyone's personal normalcy bias.

Earth was much warmer and wetter over a very large portion of its entire history, in comparison to the past 100 years that everyone is so fixated on. Scientists have repeatedly stated that Earth's biodiversity was at an all-time high during that period of time. If we return to that epoch of Earth's history, rather than "Snowball Earth", it wouldn't be the worst thing that's ever happened.

Most plant and animal life flourishes in warmth, but nearly goes extinct in cold. There are drastically fewer species of plants and animals in Antarctica than in South America. Throughout all of Earth's history, the planet itself didn't care one little bit if one species went extinct while new ones were created and thrived. The only constant was change. Species either adapted or died out. There was no statement of morality attached to that reality, either, until human higher cognitive function came along. It was not perceived as "good" or "bad", it just was.

Over time, life processes extracted so much Carbon from the environment that Earth swung between "full snowball" and "partial snowball". Unwittingly, humanity came along and, through use of stored hydrocarbon energy reserves, purchased another hundred million years of survivable temperatures for most of the life here on Earth. This was not done without a cost to ourselves or environment, but the alternative was all life being snuffed out as plants died off from CO2 starvation. We did a good thing by accident, that happened to provide great benefits to us at the same time, which is probably how and why we did it. We restored balance to "The Force", which doesn't mean "everything is peaches and cream" or "there are no consequences for doing so". If we lived on a mostly desert-like planet but by happy accident unlocked vast stored reserves of liquid water, then yes, some part of the desert would be lost during that process, but overall life improved over time, because it had more opportunity to grow.

SpaceNut · 2023-12-29 17:38:28

Well seeing the usual 15 inches of snow and temperatures in the evening near freezing is what I would expect for NH. Then again, I would see for Texas would be none and temperatures mid 60's.

Yes, animals and most plants do not fare well with it being to hot or to cold for sure and that is why man has learned how to control its environment such as in a greenhouse.

We are still debating the effects and cause for the grand swing in temperatures. The ice only captured co2 but that is not all that caused the swing and we know this.

kbd512 · 2023-12-29 22:51:57

SpaceNut,

Weather is highly variable and unpredictable. Figuring out what can be considered "normal" or typical depends greatly upon what length of time you look at. Over large enough periods of time, what you will note is very dramatic swings in weather and precipitation.

There were record high temperatures in New Hampshire in the late 1800s and across most of the US during the 1930s. Given how ridiculously short the period of time has been over which we had accurate direct observation of large areas of the planet, jumping to immediate worst-case conclusions was and is an absurdity.

Actual scientists, as opposed to political activists with science degrees, have far more measured commentary on what happened, why it most likely happened, and what the limits are of our ability to accurately predict weather phenomenon. Their comments tend to be none-too-exciting or over-the-top about anything they're witnessing, mostly because it's something they've all seen before, so becoming overly excited about it wouldn't serve any public interest.

Given the plainly stated fact from our meteorologists that our predictive capability regarding weather is basically garbage when we attempt to predict the weather more than a week into the future, what on Earth makes us think we can predict weather 50, 100, or 200 years into the future?

Climate is merely weather over time. We arbitrarily define it as weather over 30 years. I've never seen a good argument as to why it's defined that way, because Earth and the entire rest of the universe doesn't operate over 30 year time periods. Fully developed human brains can conceptualize how long that is, but even 30 years (half to a third of a human lifetime) holds different significance for different people. As animated as leftists become over the weather, short-term radical weather shifts are very few and far between.

Leftism's latest "weather scare" is a bit like getting amped up about the price of real estate. Over enough time, the price of real estate always goes up, which is why everyone says it's generally a good investment and the primary way inter-generational wealth is created. Sometimes it goes up a lot, sometimes only a little, but the direction it's headed in isn't very debatable or contentious unless you're trying to manipulate people into behaving in a way that benefits you or your company.

I'm not dumb. I can see weather changes over time. I can see that things are getting a little bit warmer. I'm not freaked out about it, though, because it was changing since the Earth was formed and will continue to do so long after I'm gone and my children are gone.

All catastrophes and emergencies are very rapid destructive events that happen over seconds to perhaps weeks at most. Whenever a dam breaks, the water does the damage in minutes to hours. Humanity may spend months or even years cleaning up after that, but the actual emergency is already over before much of anything meaningful can be done about it. When you know something is coming and you can't do much of anything meaningful to stop it, then you start mitigating the damage or risk that likely event poses to your people by preparing for that eventuality. At the very least, that's what you do in the military. Ships can sink, so you teach sailors how to swim. You don't teach sailors to be terrified of the ocean. Murphy's Law states that anything that can happen, will happen. The corollary to Murphy's Law, is that since you know Murphy was an optimist, you prepare the battlefield to achieve the most favorable outcome with the minimum loss of life.

Why is there so very little emphasis placed on recycling a substance as endlessly recyclable as CO2?

It should be painfully clear by this point that humanity requires on-demand energy production and easy storability for its primary energy systems, in order to function as it presently does. Gasoline, diesel, kerosene, Uranium, and Thorium beat the snot out of all competing technologies when it comes to all the properties that make them good at producing or storing energy. The fact that there's some waste product involved is of lesser importance than what we do with that waste product. We have the technology to do that, we're simply choosing not to use it, which makes very little sense from a holistic perspective.

At the present time, we're running around with our hair on fire, pretending that we're going to stop using the most dense forms of stored energy while we make radical and incredibly energy-intensive changes to every aspect of how we live in modern industrialized societies. Both courses of action are wildly practical and thoroughly unhelpful.

SpaceNut · 2023-12-30 10:19:50

Thank you kbd512, for what is weather versus climate and change their in. I also saw that the use of dammed water for power was also a problem as it caused more harm to crop land.
The again we have foreign interests now in the US buying up land for there own devices. A Saudi company abusing water rights in the US lost its leases I am sure this will not be the last of these efforts.
Then again, our farmers are choosing a new path as well Farmers reveal unsettling reason they are struggling to produce seeds: ‘It’s a lot more time for things to go wrong’

kbd512 · 2023-12-30 19:31:58

SpaceNut,

The issue is that there's no differentiating "the weather" from "the climate". We're still talking about the exact same thing over different periods of time. We lack the ability to accurately predict the weather more than a week in advance, ergo our ability to accurately predict weather over decades to centuries is nonexistent. Within the field of statistics, as you attempt to predict further and further into the future, all forecasting errors magnify over time. That means the overall accuracy of your predictions decreases over greater and greater periods of time. This is Statistics 101, as taught in virtually any college, anywhere on the planet. We can produce an estimate of what we think the range of probable values are, but even that will be hampered by our limited predictive accuracy.

Asserting that you know with certainty what the weather will be like, over decades to centuries, is tantamount to outright lying. The very best you can hope to do is to account for and control for all input variables, and then you end up with a confidence interval for your predicted values (stock prices, total number of new cars sold, mean surface temperatures, etc).

Since there's no freak-out over the fact that "the temperature" changes by 20+ degrees, every single day, why is there a freak-out over the temperature changing by fractions of a single degree over decades?

Stating silly obvious things like "climate change is real", "climate change is happening now", or "climate change is the greatest threat to humanity", is exactly like saying "day and night is real", "the weather is changing right now", or "when it heats up during the day or gets colder at night, that's the greatest threat to humanity". Well... It was some 30 degrees warmer during the day here in Houston than the coldest it was at night. Nobody or almost nobody died as a result. If you were going to freak out about something, then why not freak out over the fact that it was about 30 degrees warmer at sunset than at sunrise?

There was no point in time during the past when mean surface temperatures, precipitation levels or patterns, mean sea level altitude, ocean tides, vegetation, or any other aspect of the natural world remained fixed and unchanging. Whether anyone was paying attention to or recording the changes or not, they were always taking place. The natural world was always been in a state of constant flux and it always will be.

Rather than biting my nails over the fact that the natural world always changes, I choose to respond such that those changes don't completely upend or outright end my life. If it's cold outside, I put a jacket and pants on. If it's hot, I wear a T-shirt and shorts. If it rains, I stay indoors or carry an umbrella. If I find myself in a radically different environment like the ocean, then I learn how to swim and take a life jacket that floats well. If it floods, I move to higher ground, either on my feet or in a vehicle. My adaptability to my current environment is why I'm still alive and well after 40+ years. Most other plants and animals, at least the ones which haven't already gone extinct, do the exact same thing.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2024-02-11 06:26:43

NASA’s new climate satellite will offer ‘an unprecedented view’ of our heating planet

https://www.euronews.com/green/2024/02/ … ing-planet

to monitor natural and pollution events on the planet, it unfortunately is political at times

and sometimes US congressman would cite Bible 'evidence', stories of Noah, his religion tale of animals on the ship and biblical flood story and a promise of rainbows using the Bible writings to dispute human link to climate change

Fort Worth Star-Telegram urged that Barton not seek re-election Tim O'Hare, the Chairman of the Tarrant County Republican Party, called on Barton "to not seek re-election and to retire from Congress" saying he is guilty of "sexual immorality".

Barton accused the Obama administration of a "$20 billion shakedown" of oil giant BP after the company reached an agreement with the administration to establish an escrow account to pay the claims of people harmed by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill

Joe Barton voted against Hurricane Harvey relief, he liked open borders and illegal entry if the person could become American, Barton called on the House leadership to pass naturalization legislation for children who came across the border illegally with their parents, Joe Barton liked other sins and vices and has sought to permit online poker, and regulate it on a federal level.

Climate scientist Michael Mann wins defamation case against conservative writers

https://www.npr.org/2024/02/08/12302365 … ation-case

Void · 2024-02-14 10:36:26

This is interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AY4jUPQ4fBo
Quote:

Why the climate doom-mongers are always wrong
spiked
92.7K subscribers
Subscribe

And this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqcDyHdbYd4
This one describes a "Climate Religion"

Done

Last edited by Void (2024-02-14 11:11:57)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#276 2023-02-18 19:59:52

Re: The Science of Climate Change

#277 2023-02-19 09:11:41

Re: The Science of Climate Change

#278 2023-11-30 20:46:47

Re: The Science of Climate Change

#279 2023-12-01 02:23:11

Re: The Science of Climate Change

#280 2023-12-01 15:15:17

Re: The Science of Climate Change

#281 2023-12-01 15:41:07

Re: The Science of Climate Change

#282 2023-12-03 12:47:12

Re: The Science of Climate Change

#283 2023-12-24 10:30:20

Re: The Science of Climate Change

#284 2023-12-28 20:33:07

Re: The Science of Climate Change

#285 2023-12-29 15:18:03

Re: The Science of Climate Change

#286 2023-12-29 15:31:19

Re: The Science of Climate Change

#287 2023-12-29 16:22:49

Re: The Science of Climate Change

#288 2023-12-29 17:38:28

Re: The Science of Climate Change

#289 2023-12-29 22:51:57

Re: The Science of Climate Change

#290 2023-12-30 10:19:50

Re: The Science of Climate Change

#291 2023-12-30 19:31:58

Re: The Science of Climate Change

#292 2024-02-11 06:26:43

Re: The Science of Climate Change

#293 2024-02-14 10:36:26

Re: The Science of Climate Change

Board footer