Climate change

Is Climate change a threat that concens you


  • Total voters
    28
Status
Not open for further replies.

tcmtech

Joined Nov 4, 2013
2,867
What I have been gathering over the last few years about the global warming issue is that no one with any degree of an open mind and a memory of past weather occurrences is seeing any drastic life altering weather changes regardless of where they live. Summer is hot winter is cold and storms do damage in numerous ways some more so and others less so like they always have and so on. :rolleyes:

What those of us who are watching things are seeing is politicians trying to find more ways to tax what ever they can or put more restrictions on our lives in any way they can in the name of combating climate change then admitting that their actions will likely have zero net effect on anything related to the climate. :mad:

Personally where I live my climate did change over the past 30 years. Things have been getting better here both summer and winter for years so I have zero reasons to want to stop it from continuing on. :cool:
 

JoeJester

Joined Apr 26, 2005
4,390
The hard facts are ... you live, you die, case closed. No one making predictions on the future will be around to see if they were correct.
Those that made predictions 30 years ago were .... incorrect on the most part. The Climatologists will become the next Nostradamus, lots of predictions that may resemble the future.

As far as funding, yes we are already funding studies, and if they are not classified, the fruits of the labor is a public record. How they manipulate the data, paid for by public funds, makes the programming public domain.

As far as the oceans rising because of the Artic Ocean's Ice cap melting ... Put two ice cubes in a glass of water and see how much it rises when the ice melts. That's just my WAG on the prospective of the artic ice cap raising the world's ocean level. Not going to happen. The world is approximately 197 million square miles with about 137.9 million square miles of ocean. Maybe my two ice cubes is a bit too much ice. Greenland is 836900 square miles. I don't think there is enough ICE on all the exposed land to make a difference in the water level ... at least not to the extent people are saying.

If your scaling it down, the oceans have enough water to fill about 352,670,000,000,000,000,000 gallon-sized milk containers!
 

Brownout

Joined Jan 10, 2012
2,390
Right ... heat coming from a nearby AC doesn't influence the instruments.
That would depend on several factors, including what one means by "nearby'

The same could be said for an energized 100W lamp in one of those Stevenson sheds.
Not really. We weren't talking about heat sources inside the screen.

Nice to know CO2 only started to exist in the 90s.
It increases as a result of combustion of fossile fuels. See post #93.
 

Brownout

Joined Jan 10, 2012
2,390
As far as funding, yes we are already funding studies, and if they are not classified, the fruits of the labor is a public record. How they manipulate the data, paid for by public funds, makes the programming public domain.
Since they are public knowledge, then it should be easy to show how all these data were manipulated. But nobody has been able to to that.

As far as the oceans rising because of the Artic Ocean's Ice cap melting ... Not going to happen. The world is approximately 197 million square miles with about 137.9 million square miles of ocean. Maybe my two ice cubes is a bit too much ice. Greenland is 836900 square miles. I don't think there is enough ICE on all the exposed land to make a difference in the water level ... at least not to the extent people are saying.
Why not do the math. Greenland has 1,736,095 square km of land ice area, and average thickness of 1.5km. That's 2,604,142 cubic km of ice. If all the ice were to melt and enter the ocean, that converts to 2,343,728 cubic km of ocean water, accounting for the difference of density for ocean water( multiplication by .9) Now devide that by the total sea area of 361,132,000 square km, and the result is 0.0064km or 6.4 meters of sea level rise. No need to guess as a simple numerical analysis easily demonstrates that the Iceland ice sheet holds enough water to make a significant rise in sea levels.

Now, this simple analysis makes some simplifying assumptions, but it's a good first-order approximation, and clearly shows that there is significant potential for a rising sea level, while only considering the Iceland ice sheet. And this is only a single contributor. It is the most likely, but there are others that could have an effect.
 

GopherT

Joined Nov 23, 2012
8,009
Since they are public knowledge, then it should be easy to show how all these data were manipulated. But nobody has been able to to that.


Why not do the math. Greenland has 1,736,095 square km of land ice area, and average thickness of 1.5km. That's 2,604,142 cubic km of ice. If all the ice were to melt and enter the ocean, that converts to 2,343,728 cubic km of ocean water, accounting for the difference of density for ocean water( multiplication by .9) Now devide that by the total sea area of 361,132,000 square km, and the result is 0.0064km or 6.4 meters of sea level rise. No need to guess as a simple numerical analysis easily demonstrates that the Iceland ice sheet holds enough water to make a significant rise in sea levels.

Now, this simple analysis makes some simplifying assumptions, but it's a good first-order approximation, and clearly shows that there is significant potential for a rising sea level, while only considering the Iceland ice sheet. And this is only a single contributor. It is the most likely, but there are others that could have an effect.

And..
The world's interconnected oceans are about 28 times bigger than Antarctica. Antarctica is the continent with the highest average elevation - average 8200 feet. Mostly ice - sitting on a continental shelf (not floating in an ocean like the funny example of ice cubes in a glass (thanks for the joke whoever said that - it made me laugh out loud. For a minute, I was thinking you might be as big of an idiot as the congressman discussed in the jokes thread - the guy talking about Guam tipping over). Anyhow, half mile average ice thickness (keep the math simple) is 2800 feet, means (divide by 28 from first sentance) yields 100 feet of water elevation increase.

In reality, the ice-covered Antarctica ice shelf is much bigger than continental Antarctica so '28 times' is too much, I didn't bother to do the math but, deeper than 100 feet.
 
Last edited:

JoeJester

Joined Apr 26, 2005
4,390
Since they are public knowledge, then it should be easy to show how all these data were manipulated. But nobody has been able to to that.
I know V1 and V2 of the climate data is available, but I've yet seen where to snatch the raw data. Without knowing the steps taken, the general phrase homogenizing the data is useless. I said the data, paid by the public funding, makes it public domain. That doesn't mean the holders have complied with making it public. Generally when that happens, it becomes an FOIA fight.
 

Wendy

Joined Mar 24, 2008
23,408
I was listening to a story on PBS making the point that there is only one real ocean, since they are all interconnected. Water introduce anywhere raises all of the equally over a little time.
 

tcmtech

Joined Nov 4, 2013
2,867
My thoughts on this. *(Reprint from another forum I am on cause I am lazy.):p

What I find interesting is that for the first 25 years of my life the hole in the Ozone layer was the end all beat all thing to worry about right up until the average public (or at least people like me who actually question this sort of stuffs validity) started to point out that the hole is not a hole but a seasonal thinning that completely disappears for 8 - 9 month a year every year and as best as all data suggests, since we figured out how to measure the ozone layers density, it has always had this seasonal variations in every part of the planet just like every part of the planet has seasonal temperature and climatic variations through the seasons.

To me its about as big of valid concern as like saying that we just figured out how to measure temperature and all of a sudden wouldn't you know it the average temperatures in some places get way colder than others at certain times of year.

Unfortunately since the Ozone hole issue became a dead horse subject to the majority or the public due to its location and actual significance someone had to come up with a whole new super scare to use and this one had to encompass everyone everywhere every day so low and behold the whole climate of the planet is changing but its not changing like it always had. this time it's different.

So unfortunately since we can't pin it down as to what exactly is changing or what it is affecting for certain and no one can agree on any part of it or if and or what it will affect for good or bad ( so of course its all going to be bad since the good part cannot be verified either) it has to be real and it has to be human induced too!

Welcome to global climate change. It was always here and and always happening but now its different. We can't prove it is but there's no reason to believe that is isn't different so we have to assume for safety's sake and the outcome of the human race that it is different and there for is all bad every where.

Unless of course it's better where you live. In that case you and where you live don't count because you are a statistical anomaly that goes against what we are looking for. :p
 

Thread Starter

ronv

Joined Nov 12, 2008
3,770
Wouldn't you know it... Now they say the hole in the ozone is starting to close up so it will get warmer over all that ice. :D
 

tcmtech

Joined Nov 4, 2013
2,867
Wouldn't you know it... Now they say the hole in the ozone is starting to close up so it will get warmer over all that ice. :D
Actually around this time of year it should be getting ready to start thinning out again and will reach its minimal density around December - February then start filling in and be closed by about May - June.

Bring back R-12 with good old Chlorinated and Fluorinated solvents again. :D
Well as one of my college chemistry professors pointed out in class a number of times in class relating to chemical reactions you have to look at the whole reaction and how it takes place before you can say Chemical compound A in proximity to chemical compound B react to form chemical compounds D - Z.

As in Hydrogen plus Oxygen does not make flames heat and water vapor automatically in normal STP conditions. They are happy to sit there together doing nothing until given the right conditions plus a ignition source to set things off.

With chlorofluorocarbon type refrigerants they too do not automatically react with ozone to any great degree in the atmospheric conditions present where the ozone layer is present. They need heat and pressure of which at the near vacuum of space found at the ozone layers altitude plus typically -50 to -100 or more below zero they don't do much reaction on their own. Add in Ozone is slightly lighter than typical air and that most chlorofluorocarbons are slightly heavier (Likes to stay at ground level in high concentrations) and it just makes the whole process happening in nature all that much less likely to happen on a grand scale.

Or at least that's how someone I felt was pretty knowledgeable on the real subjects at hand explained things to me. Basically in chemistry 1+2 doesn't automatically equal 3 unless the conditions are right. If they are wrong all you have is a #1 and a #2 sitting beside each other quite happy to stay by themselves.
 

tcmtech

Joined Nov 4, 2013
2,867
No one can agree on any part of it.. except 97% of the people who study it.
Which 97%? :rolleyes:
So far no one but you claims to know who they are and whether or not their credentials and findings mean diddly to anyone who is not part of your claimed 97%.

Which BTW you have never ever let on to whom they are after having been called out on it countless times which rather leads most everyone else to think they are just figments of your imagination. o_O

The skeptical group seems to have no problem providing information as to why they are skeptical and have doubts so if they are representing the 3% why is proving the other 97% are real and have things figured out correctly so damn hard for someone like you who seems to know who they are and where they and all their research paper work that proves them correct is? :oops:

I mean if you want people to understand and believe then providing them with credible scientific data and how it was collected, sorted, factored, and summed up plus who did each and every part of the work should not be a problem now should it? :confused:
 

Wendy

Joined Mar 24, 2008
23,408
I will disagree with the last. I follow the news, and scientific consensus is forming. It will never be 100%, there is too much money at stake. I tend to stay out of these discussions because I may have to shut it down, but performing a grand experiment because it is economical seems reckless. Fortunately alternatives will mature, I do believe in human natures ability to adapt. Still, a lot of innocent people will die in the process.
 

GopherT

Joined Nov 23, 2012
8,009
Which 97%? :rolleyes:
How is it that you always have a statistic or insightful data on everything unless you are on the wrong side of an argument? Then you elect to ask for the info and claim ignorance. Be sure to google global surveys instead of US, The US is an aberration on this topic.
 

tcmtech

Joined Nov 4, 2013
2,867
How is it that you always have a statistic or insightful data on everything unless you are on the wrong side of an argument?
Well when someone claims 97% agreement on a topic of such widespread controversy how am I not supposed to question it?

Especially so when all of the searches I have done as deliberately unbiased as I can make them consistently keep coming back to the problem there being a sizable percentage of people being in the same skeptical boat for the same reason as me wanting exactly what I want which is to simply see the raw data and how it was collected and handled from start to finish including every stages honest percentages of error that had to be accounted for each step of the way.

As of the moment others here have been pointing out the same problem. How can we define it as a confirmed and proven fact when there is no solid credible accountable data trails to look at being presented from any side?

If someone tells me that the whole planet warming up a few degrees is going to kill off everyone and everything, yet when it has happened in the past historical and geological records it clearly, didn't I want to know their logic and reasoning behind their claims. otherwise the rational part of me starts screaming BS on their claim.:p
 

Thread Starter

ronv

Joined Nov 12, 2008
3,770

tcmtech

Joined Nov 4, 2013
2,867
Might I suggest that there is no similar data showing a problem?
So are you implying that when looked at objectively and without bias all of the data tends to come out highly inconclusive? o_O

Inconclusive as so many people seem to be finding also opposed to factual and definitively proving something terrible is going to happen with "97%" certainty within a calculated and predictable time line that does not rely on something like the sun going supernova to kick it off? :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top