Global warming

[Mithrae]

When I ask you to do sums using your numbers to estimate the impact of anti C02 policies on the numbers of people dying due to them you run a mile.

'tis not us that will not answer questions.

Notice how I cited scientific sources regarding the observed changes in rainfall patterns? I realise that in every case you want everyone else to descend into your world of imagination where made-up numbers and ignorant guess-work is as good as fact; in fact even better than fact, since you seem to think that the actual total death rates are irrelevant and trumped by your made-up numbers. I choose not to do that. However I have repeatedly made reference to an academic estimate of the figures you seek - one which you begged others to provide and Jack obliged from a right-wing think tank. Accurate or not, its conclusion is at least plausible and (if anything) its authors' leanings would incline them to exaggerate the figures; yet you keep regurgitating your unsubstantiated bull**** claims a hundred times larger than that!

If you want to pretend that others' refusal to descend to your level is "running a mile," we can chalk that up as just another of your fantasies.

 

[Jack Hays]

I am remarkably unconvinced about this.

If there is the situation of 2 planets being close in orbital path then long before collisions the inevitable clos pass will sling them off in wild directions.

Given that this has not happened so far I think they must be wrong.

Their point is that it has happened.

In the context of the solar system, the phenomenon occurs when two orbiting bodies periodically tug at one another, as occurs when a planet in its track around the sun passes in relative proximity to another planet in its own orbit. These small but regular ticks in a planet’s orbit can exert big changes on the location and orientation of a planet on its axis relative to the sun and, accordingly, change the amount of solar radiation a planet receives over a given area. Where and how much solar radiation a planet gets is a key driver of climate.

 

[Mithrae]

I know that when all the other variables are the same, CO2 Improves plant growth, but CO2 alone will not allow plants to grow where
there is insufficient water.
While it seems to be somewhat difficult to find, Global precipitation levels seem to be increasing.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/productio...blic/2016-07/precipitation-download2-2016.png

That would be expected in a warmer world, yes. But also (as I originally pointed out) one of the most obvious things we would expect of the changes in rainfall patterns is to generally make wet areas wetter, and dry areas dryer. And that's what has been observed.

Given that you acknowledge that water shortages are a problem for plant growth, and even moreso for humans globally, why do you not seem to be concerned about this? One study comparing observational records of rainfall over 1951-2005 with model simulations of the same period suggests that the model simulations if anything may well be under-estimating the extent and severity of precipitation declines in often already-dry regions which the changing climate is likely to produce (Polsen et al 2013, Causes of Robust Seasonal Land Precipitation Changes):

Figure 5 - observation (% change per decade over 1950 to 2005):

Figure 6 - simulation: Note the change in scale from <20% to <5%, and the less widespread simulated precipitation declines (eg. over NE Russia or the Sahara's SON)

 

[Deuce]

I'm just pointing out your analogy is not valid.

I am saying that in order to reduce human CO2 emissions significantly, every country has to be on board. Otherwise, the countries that are not on board will just ramp up emissions by using more energy to produce more of the world's goods.

In order to reduce bank robberies significantly, just get China, Russia, India, Brazil, and the U.S. to get on board.

No, I don't think that's true. If every country but Belgium is on board, there would be a massive decrease in CO2 simply due to population.

The idea that Belgium could "just ramp up production" to produce everything for 7 billion people is ludicrous.

 

[Deuce]

Its more of an anti human agenda in my view. The environmentalists just hate that there are so many of us and the Earth is deemed too 'precious' for us to keep existing on it. They will oppose anything that may benefit us and will impede human progress wherever they can

Its been that way for decades now

Climate "skeptics" are the anti-human people because I get to decide their motivation.

 

[flogger]

Climate "skeptics" are the anti-human people because I get to decide their motivation.

Sorry but you won't make me feel guilty about putting mankind first and wanting people to have a decent quality of life :wink:

 

[longview]

That would be expected in a warmer world, yes. But also (as I originally pointed out) one of the most obvious things we would expect of the changes in rainfall patterns is to generally make wet areas wetter, and dry areas dryer. And that's what has been observed.

Given that you acknowledge that water shortages are a problem for plant growth, and even moreso for humans globally, why do you not seem to be concerned about this? One study comparing observational records of rainfall over 1951-2005 with model simulations of the same period suggests that the model simulations if anything may well be under-estimating the extent and severity of precipitation declines in often already-dry regions which the changing climate is likely to produce (Polsen et al 2013, Causes of Robust Seasonal Land Precipitation Changes):

Figure 5 - observation (% change per decade over 1950 to 2005):


Figure 6 - simulation: Note the change in scale from <20% to <5%, and the less widespread simulated precipitation declines (eg. over NE Russia or the Sahara's SON)
[

The problem is the statement "we would expect of the changes in rainfall patterns is to generally make wet areas wetter, and dry areas dryer." is an assumption.
Note your statement attached to the second figure, " Figure 6 - simulation: Note the change in scale from "
If we see a global increase in humidity, I would think we would see an expansion of wet areas and a reduction of dryer areas.
This is an assumption on my part, but if there is more water in the air it will spread around further.

 

[Deuce]

Sorry but you won't make me feel guilty about putting mankind first and wanting people to have a decent quality of life :wink:

Ditto.

 

[code1211]

Musk's solar shingles are an interesting idea, but come with a high markup, for an aesthetic feature.
His system looks to be about twice the cost of conventional solar panels, yet does the same basic job.

I think the key to this is dual purpose of the shingles.

If the cost can approach the cost of normal roofing, then the transition to these becomes a no-brainer.

Suddenly the cost to operate a car is zero and the use of oil to run the car is reduced to only the lubrication.

 

[Lord of Planar]

That isn't really so. Lake Chad is a prime example of this. It was once a massive lake straddling the borders of 4 African nations. Some 70 million people rely on this lake for drinking and irrigation water. It looked like this in its prime:

View attachment 67214362

Climate change induced by human activity changed the weather patterns and seasonal rains no longer fully replenish the Lake - reducing it to this:

View attachment 67214363

What do you think will happen when a lake relied upon by 70 million people in 4 nations is nearly gone or evaporates entirely due to unmitigated human induced climate change? Famine? War? The Pentagon takes these things seriously and so should you.

lake Chad is drying up because water is being used by humans faster than nature is replenishing it.

Not because of CO2.

I suggest you reference a science paper instead of what ever blogger told you those lies.

 

[Mithrae]

Figure 5 - observation (% change per decade over 1950 to 2005):

The problem is the statement "we would expect of the changes in rainfall patterns is to generally make wet areas wetter, and dry areas dryer." is an assumption.
Note your statement attached to the second figure, " Figure 6 - simulation: Note the change in scale from "
If we see a global increase in humidity, I would think we would see an expansion of wet areas and a reduction of dryer areas.
This is an assumption on my part, but if there is more water in the air it will spread around further.

Um... have you been paying attention at all?

"Generally, observed seasonal precipitation changes yield climatologically wet regions wetter, and dry regions dryer."
~ Changes in seasonal land precipitation during the latter twentieth-century, Noake et al 2012

"To first order, anthropogenic forcings are expected to influence the hydrological cycle through two basic mechanisms. “Thermodynamic” changes follow from the Clausius–Clapeyron relation, which dictates that saturation-specific humidity increases roughly exponentially with temperature, and from the vertical warming profile (2, 3). In the absence of other changes, this increase in tropospheric water vapor will make wet regions wetter and dry regions drier. Tropospheric water vapor is indeed increasing in response to human activities (4), and there is evidence that this increase has contributed to the moistening of wet regions and drying of dry regions (5–7)."
~ Identifying external influences on global precipitation, Marvel and Bonfils 2013​

It's not a universal rule - from the figure above outback Australia is a dry region which seems to have seen increases in precipitation in most seasons for example - but areas like the Sahara and Kalahari deserts (and central Africa too for that matter), Gobi desert and much of the Middle East have all evidently had declines in precipitation. The Amazon basin is another exception to the generalization, a wet region which seems to be getting dryer - for all the comfort that a drying of the world's biggest rainforest brings anyone - though that may be linked to deforestation as much as global warming. Southern Europe and substantial areas of North America also seem to have had declines in precipitation.

In fact, your earlier graph suggests an increase in global land precipitation since 1900, but both it and this figure suggest that there may have been no strong trend (or even a slight negative trend, over land) since 1950. If warmer sea surfaces evaporate enough water that it reaches saturation almost immediately, and much of it is rained out before it reaches land, a warmer world might end up meaning more global precipitation even as half or more of land areas dry out.

 

[longview]

I think the key to this is dual purpose of the shingles.

If the cost can approach the cost of normal roofing, then the transition to these becomes a no-brainer.

Suddenly the cost to operate a car is zero and the use of oil to run the car is reduced to only the lubrication.

Yes, but they are counting the savings from lower electrical cost as part that cost balance, the solar roof cost about 40K more than a normal roof,
the hope is the saving over 20 years will bring the cost closer in line with a normal roof.
It may, but is a complex system.

 

[longview]

Um... have you been paying attention at all?



It's not a universal rule - from the figure above outback Australia is a dry region which seems to have seen increases in precipitation in most seasons for example - but areas like the Sahara and Kalahari deserts (and central Africa too for that matter), Gobi desert and much of the Middle East have all evidently had declines in precipitation. The Amazon basin is another exception to the generalization, a wet region which seems to be getting dryer - for all the comfort that a drying of the world's biggest rainforest brings anyone - though that may be linked to deforestation as much as global warming. Southern Europe and substantial areas of North America also seem to have had declines in precipitation.

In fact, your earlier graph suggests an increase in global land precipitation since 1900, but both it and this figure suggest that there may have been no strong trend (or even a slight negative trend, over land) since 1950. If warmer sea surfaces evaporate enough water that it reaches saturation almost immediately, and much of it is rained out before it reaches land, a warmer world might end up meaning more global precipitation even as half or more of land areas dry out.

Human activity, through land use change can change the rainfall patterns, millions of acres of rain forest removed from the Amazon, the drying up of the Aral sea, ect.
This is very different than saying those things happened because of the warming we have observed from added CO2.
We do have a water problem, overuse, and an energy problem, addressing those two critical path items will take care of any issues with CO2 as a side effect.

 

[code1211]

Yes, but they are counting the savings from lower electrical cost as part that cost balance, the solar roof cost about 40K more than a normal roof,
the hope is the saving over 20 years will bring the cost closer in line with a normal roof.
It may, but is a complex system.

It's a first step into this particular part of the process.

If a normal, run of the mill roof shingle was to be made aa one-off, it would cost a fortune.

When Firestone makes a ba-zillion of them every day, the cost reduces. It will be exciting when the production and retail costs are reduced by the production in large numbers.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Its more of an anti human agenda in my view. The environmentalists just hate that there are so many of us and the Earth is deemed too 'precious' for us to keep existing on it. They will oppose anything that may benefit us and will impede human progress wherever they can

Its been that way for decades now

Yes but that is the communist type's modus opperandi/mind set.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Their point is that it has happened.

In the context of the solar system, the phenomenon occurs when two orbiting bodies periodically tug at one another, as occurs when a planet in its track around the sun passes in relative proximity to another planet in its own orbit. These small but regular ticks in a planet’s orbit can exert big changes on the location and orientation of a planet on its axis relative to the sun and, accordingly, change the amount of solar radiation a planet receives over a given area. Where and how much solar radiation a planet gets is a key driver of climate.

They have planets colliding.

That would be extremely improbable as the close approach 10 years before the collision would have thrown both plantes all over the place.

I get that orbital effects of one planet on another will have effects on the climate I just can't see any reason to see these guys as credable.

 

[Jack Hays]

They have planets colliding.

That would be extremely improbable as the close approach 10 years before the collision would have thrown both plantes all over the place.

I get that orbital effects of one planet on another will have effects on the climate I just can't see any reason to see these guys as credable.

That's just an illustration. There were planetary collisions long long ago. That's how we got the moon.

 

[Tim the plumber]

That's just an illustration. There were planetary collisions long long ago. That's how we got the moon.

Yes but they have a progression of increasing instability of orbits.

If that's the case then how have we ended up with the stable situation we have now?

 

[longview]

It's a first step into this particular part of the process.

If a normal, run of the mill roof shingle was to be made aa one-off, it would cost a fortune.

When Firestone makes a ba-zillion of them every day, the cost reduces. It will be exciting when the production and retail costs are reduced by the production in large numbers.

But the new process has a finite cost of goods sold, that no amount of volume will fix.
the question is that level below what it is for conventional panels?
For Solyndra, the answer was no!

 

[Jack Hays]

Yes but they have a progression of increasing instability of orbits.

If that's the case then how have we ended up with the stable situation we have now?

No, they do not.

 

[Pin dÁr]

No kidding! The sun! No way! the sun has nothing to do with warmth eh!? or does it? lol

Climate change myth SMASHED as scientists confirm solar activity is a significant driver of Earth’s climate



‘Results from a recent Swiss study suggest that fluctuations in the sun’s activity may provide insight to the apparent changes in the planet Earth’s climate. The study revealed that the Sun’s current activity is expected to diminish over time, which in turn may lead to slight reductions in global warming over the next few decades. According to researchers, these changes may result in a small decrease in the planet Earth’s temperature. The research was funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation

Climate change myth SMASHED as scientists confirm solar activity is a significant driver of Earth’s climate ? NaturalNews.com



Because you have to reverse anything the mainstream tells us, a global COOLING is coming!

 

[Deuce]

No kidding! The sun! No way! the sun has nothing to do with warmth eh!? or does it? lol



Climate change myth SMASHED as scientists confirm solar activity is a significant driver of Earth’s climate ? NaturalNews.com



Because you have to reverse anything the mainstream tells us, a global COOLING is coming!

Everybody already knew this buddy. The sun being a factor doesn't magically make CO2 not a factor.

 

[Pin dÁr]

Everybody already knew this buddy. The sun being a factor doesn't magically make CO2 not a factor.

You are wrong. The infuence of the sun is denied most of the time.

and CO2 isn't that important at all. But it has to be demonised so our industries can be destroyed.

It is all a ploy to destroy our industries and rebuild the world, see also 'agenda 21'

The whole 'Global warming" thingy is one big hoax.See also "The report from Iron Mountain"

 

[Deuce]

You are wrong. The infuence of the sun is denied most of the time.

No, it's not. The sun is a factor, it just hasn't done much. For about the last 50 years, it has been pretty flat. (up until this last cycle in which it has dipped a bit) Temperatures in that same period rose.

So, people say "the sun didn't have much influence on the trend's seen over the last 50 years" doesn't mean "the sun isn't a factor." I hope this clears your confusion.

and CO2 isn't that important at all. But it has to be demonised so our industries can be destroyed.

It is all a ploy to destroy our industries and rebuild the world, see also 'agenda 21'

Do you even know what UN Agenda 21 actually says? Like, have you read the actual document?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Everybody already knew this buddy. The sun being a factor doesn't magically make CO2 not a factor.

So true, but the sun is a far larger factor than the IPCC et. al. gives credit for.