There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

[aonsquared 9]

36 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

No it’s bit more nuanced than that.  I will break it down for you.

1. No evidence of: more floods, droughts, wildfires, hurricanes,(AKA the Four Horsemen of the climate apocalypse) tornadoes, desertification, a Midwest dust bowl, mass population evacuations, polar bear extinction, or an ice free Arctic by 2013.

2. The increase in CO2 and tiny bit of warming that we have had, is not an existential threat and has thus far been been beneficial. (Less deserts, more food, (exactly the opposite of what was predicted))

3. CO2 mitigation efforts are nothing more than futile gestures that hamstring economic development and reduce our ability to deal with disasters when they do occur.  (Carbon footprint and deaths from natural disasters have an inverse relationship)

Basically, it should be:

1) You see no evidence of AGW (anthropogenic global warming). (You only mention the Four Horsemen/apocalypse to bait people)

2) The increase of CO2 and WARMING we had is....blah blah blah (now see how it's incompatible with 1?)

Have fun!

[brenthutch 383]

36 minutes ago, aonsquared said:

1) Is again a strawman argument - again, quote me directly and address my arguments directly. If these are hallucinations, I would highly recommend seeing a neurologist.

2) Again, this is not consistent with your position in 1).

3) This is a fallacy called ad hoc, ergo prompter hoc.

You also seem to like declaring yourself the winner, and declaring that you're right. You seem very insecure...

Why don't you restate your argument (this is the second time I have asked).  

[aonsquared 9]

Just now, brenthutch said:

Why don't you restate your argument (this is the second time I have asked).  

1. CO2 emissions from human activity are causing the climate to change due to increased absorption of solar energy.
   1. now while the exact effect is difficult to predict, this will make more energy available to drive weather systems such as hurricanes.
   2. following the laws of thermodynamics the long term effect will be higher average temperatures.
   3. there may also be feedback mechanisms that may either dampen this large input of extra energy, or feedback mechanisms that could amplify this input.
   4. The fluid dynamics of the earth's oceans and atmosphere appears to be an unstable system. This can be reasonably deduced from the Navier-Stokes equations.
   5. kicking a large unstable system with a large extra amount of energy (from CO2) has the potential to put the earth into extremes of hot OR cold as seen in the past fossil record.
2. Following from 1.5, due to the large uncertainties and large changes that could result from this CO2 forcing, the safest strategy is to reduce CO2 emissions as quickly as possible to provide civilisation with a stable climate.
   1. If we don't, it means that changes to precipitation, weather systems and temperatures will be hard to predict and might not follow past cycles.
   2. Predictability is good for us. Farmers like it so they can create farms where it won't suddenly stop raining, etc.
   3. Predictability is good for business. For example, skiing businesses sometimes have no snow one winter, then too much snow the next. In both cases, they can't earn money. Much better to have a constant predictable snowfall.
   4. Stability is good for saving money. If sea levels rose for whatever reason, cities like New York, London will suddenly have to move, and it will be very expensive. Not to mention how hissy people get with mass immigration.

Got it?

 

[SkyDekker 1,122]

1 hour ago, aonsquared said:

This is a fallacy called ad hoc, ergo prompter hoc.

No such thing.

There is a post hoc, ergo prompter hoc fallacy and there is an ad hoc fallacy.

And to be even more correct, the ad hoc fallacy isn't really a fallacy, but a fallacious debate tactic.

I am indeed no fun at parties.

[aonsquared 9]

Just now, SkyDekker said:

No such thing.

There is a post hoc, ergo prompter hoc fallacy and there is an ad hoc fallacy.

And to be even more correct, the ad hoc fallacy isn't really a fallacy, but a fallacious debate tactic.

I am indeed no fun at parties.

whoops, thanks for the correction! It turns out, Latin is not my first language either

[SkyDekker 1,122]

1 minute ago, aonsquared said:

whoops, thanks for the correction! It turns out, Latin is not my first language either

High School was no fun, first 4 years included the following mandatory languages:

• Dutch
• English
• German
• French

And the classics:

• Latin
• Greek

 

[brenthutch 383]

1 minute ago, aonsquared said:

1. CO2 emissions from human activity......the exact effect is difficult to predict.....may also be feedback mechanisms......may either dampen or could amplify...appears to be ...deduced...has the potential...large uncertainties....could result

Got it?

 

Got it.

[aonsquared 9]

5 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Got it.

"difficult to predict" is all you understood from that?

Well...small steps I guess.

[brenthutch 383]

16 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

High School was no fun, first 4 years included the following mandatory languages:

• Dutch
• English
• German
• French

And the classics:

• Latin
• Greek

 

That is impressive (seriously I'm not being a dick).  Where did you go to school?

I only managed German 1 German 2 and then German 2 again in high school.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

1 minute ago, brenthutch said:

Where did you go to school?

The Netherlands.

[brenthutch 383]

Thought it might be Belgium.  When I was in Brussels, in the early 80's. I asked a girl if she spoke English, she rolled her eyes, said yes....and German and French and Dutch. 

[BIGUN 1,053]

5 hours ago, aonsquared said:

Have fun!

So,  I see you've been dragged down to a circular argument for the past couple of pages. Can I encourage you to take a more linear approach to the issue and continue educating those of us interested in learning more. On a similar note; I read this and thought you might find it interesting.

https://www.npr.org/2020/01/14/796252481/worlds-largest-asset-manager-puts-climate-at-the-center-of-its-investment-strate

. 

[aonsquared 9]

2 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

So,  I see you've been dragged down to a circular argument for the past couple of pages. Can I encourage you to take a more linear approach to the issue and continue educating those of us interested in learning more. On a similar note; I read this and thought you might find it interesting. 

https://www.npr.org/2020/01/14/796252481/worlds-largest-asset-manager-puts-climate-at-the-center-of-its-investment-strate

. 

That actually just popped into my news feed - it's a good start! Renewables actually make better financial sense now.

Like how various revolutions have been won without a proper military, the flexible free market approach may eventually overcome the lack of government support on this issue.

For example, electric cars actually have a lot of other benefits over traditional ones - less brake wear, MUCH higher reliability, lower fuel cost. As an aerospace engineer, I was sceptical at first about electric aircraft - but now I'm quite excited by the cost savings that could be achievable (see the NASA X-57 Maxwell:https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/news/FactSheets/FS-109.html)

BUT...really, governments should still chip in more. Or, at the very least, help remove legal obstacles and enable a level playing field (meaning no fossil fuel subsidies).

In any case, I had to speak up as the inconsistencies in the anti-AGW propaganda were just too glaring to ignore. Hopefully now it's back to work in helping get better technology out.

[BIGUN 1,053]

19 minutes ago, aonsquared said:

now I'm quite excited by the cost savings that could be achievable (see the NASA X-57

That is exciting. And, I think anyone who doesn't start investing in EV now is going to miss out on a very lucrative portfolio. I am in the process of building out an electric golf cart for use in my area. We can use them here on roads that are 35 MPH or less. One thing I struggle with and maybe you can enlighten me (I am not an engineer type, but have been interested in this since 2008). I simply do not understand how EV can have moving parts, but it isn't possible to have some kind of "generator" on it to re-charge it for virtually unlimited time & mileage in a single trip. BillV tried to explain this to me one time - but, I'm still not tracking. 

Personally, I think once they were self-charging - the EV world would increase exponentially.   

Edited January 14, 2020 by BIGUN

[BIGUN 1,053]

11 hours ago, brenthutch said:

2. The increase in CO2 and tiny bit of warming that we have had, is not an existential threat and has thus far been been beneficial. (Less deserts, more food, (exactly the opposite of what was predicted))

3. CO2 mitigation efforts are nothing more than futile gestures that hamstring economic development and reduce our ability to deal with disasters when they do occur.  (Carbon footprint and deaths from natural disasters have an inverse relationship)

Lemme try this one more time - 

Quote

 

Our planet's oceans are warmer than they've ever been in recorded human history. And ocean temperatures are not only increasing, they are heating up at an accelerating rate, according to a new analysis. 

In 2019, the ocean temperature was about 0.135 degrees Fahrenheit (0.075 degrees Celsius) higher than the average between 1981 and 2010, an international group of researchers reported on Jan. 13 in the journal Advances in Atmospheric Sciences. 

That means that the ocean — which absorbs almost all of the greenhouse gases humans spew into the atmosphere — has taken in 228 sextillian (228,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) joules of heat above its average, according to a statement. By comparison, the energy released by the Hiroshima atom-bomb explosion was about 63,000,000,000,000 Joules.

They compared data taken between 1987 and 2019 with that taken from 1955 to 1986 and found that the oceans warmed 450% more in the more recent time stint than in the earlier bracket, according to the statement. The ocean has been the warmest in the past 10 years than it's been since measurements were first taken in the 1950s.

The oceans can be a good measure of the effect of climate change since they absorb the majority of excess heat from the atmosphere, the researchers wrote. The effects of the warming are already appearing as more extreme weather, rising sea levels and harm to ocean animals, according to the statement.

Though humans can work to reverse the effects of climate change, the oceans — which absorbed more than 90% of the excess heat — will take longer to bounce back than the land and atmosphere, which only absorbed 4%, according to the statement.

"Even with that small fraction affecting the atmosphere and land, the global heating has led to an increase in catastrophic fires in the Amazon, California and Australia in 2019, and we're seeing that continue into 2020," Cheng said. "The global ocean warming has caused marine heat waves in Tasman Sea and other regions."

One famous marine heat wave was the "blob," which led to major loss of marine life in the North Pacific between 2013 and 2015. Another hotspot found in 2017 in the Gulf of Mexico helped to fuel Hurricane Harvey; and in 2018, another hotspot in the Atlantic Ocean was blamed for fueling Hurricane Florence.

"Global warming is real, and it's getting worse," co-author John Abraham, professor of thermal sciences at the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota, said in the statement. "And this is just the tip of the iceberg for what is to come." 

https://www.livescience.com/ocean-temperatures-break-record.html

 

And, if you'd like a little more reading - the title says it all:

https://www.livescience.com/10-signs-of-climate-change-in-2019.html

[billvon 2,400]

12 hours ago, ryoder said:

Omigawd.

Anyone too ignorant to even be able to point to Australia, is too ignorant to vote.

Hey - no Australia, no evidence of climate change!

[billvon 2,400]

15 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Wrong that AGW hasn't caused more floods, droughts, wildfires, hurricanes, tornadoes, desertification, a Midwest dust bowl, mass population evacuations, polar bear extinction, and an ice free Arctic by 2013?

And smoking doesn't cause diabetes, fractures, eczema, acne or anemia!  Therefore anyone who warns you about the health effects of smoking is a clueless alarmist.

[aonsquared 9]

9 hours ago, BIGUN said:

That is exciting. And, I think anyone who doesn't start investing in EV now is going to miss out on a very lucrative portfolio. I am in the process of building out an electric golf cart for use in my area. We can use them here on roads that are 35 MPH or less. One thing I struggle with and maybe you can enlighten me (I am not an engineer type, but have been interested in this since 2008). I simply do not understand how EV can have moving parts, but it isn't possible to have some kind of "generator" on it to re-charge it for virtually unlimited time & mileage in a single trip. BillV tried to explain this to me one time - but, I'm still not tracking. 

Personally, I think once they were self-charging - the EV world would increase exponentially.   

The "generator" is actually used now for regenerative braking in electric cars. (disc brakes are now just a backup on electrics, so instead of having to change pads every 10-20,000 miles they last 100,000 or more, and there is much less brake dust in the air)

IF things were 100% efficient, yes you would never have to recharge an electric car. But you have friction losses, air resistance and efficiency losses. But tech is getting better quickly - Tesla is actually buying the entire world's supply of SiC mosfets, a new type of transistor that's a lot more efficient than plain silicon.

There's an electric aircraft thread in General Skydiving Discussions which is probably better for this topic :)

[kallend 1,623]

Must . . .not. . .feed. . . the . . Troll.

[brenthutch 383]

6 hours ago, billvon said:

Hey - no Australia, no evidence of climate change!

Try this on for size,

It is just weather and it is only local after all Australia covers only 5% of the planet.

(Or does that argument only work when you are dismissing record cold?)

You don't like the way it fits, do you?

Then there is this

https://climatechangedispatch.com/australia-droughts-longer-severe/

Edited January 15, 2020 by brenthutch

[turtlespeed 212]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

Try this on for size,

It is just weather and it is only local after all Australia covers only 5% of the planet.

(Or does that argument only work when you are dismissing record cold?)

You don't like the way it fits, do you?

Then there is this

https://climatechangedispatch.com/australia-droughts-longer-severe/

Do you have anything from anyone with a good reputation?

[brenthutch 383]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277379119301945

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/2017JD027749

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277379110003768

So it is just a case of weather + arson = wildfires

The fertilization effect of CO2 actually REDUCES the threat of wildfires

 

Edited January 15, 2020 by brenthutch

[DJL 232]

6 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277379119301945

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/2017JD027749

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277379110003768

So it is just a case of weather + arson = wildfires

 

But but but....there's always been arson....

[kallend 1,623]

2019 climate data:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/15/climate/hottest-year-2019.html?auth=login-email&login=email

[billvon 2,400]

8 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Try this on for size,

It is just weather and it is only local after all Australia covers only 5% of the planet.

There ya go; way to dismiss anything that disturbs your political worldview.  Love to see you try that in Australia.