| 31-08-2018 09:51 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(21589) |
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
My bad, I thought you were trying to say I didn't take the pic and stole it off the TV.
I guess you were just rambling on about nothing again. Sorry.
This is the same storm looking west at around the same time...and the view I wanted to get...and I just realized my camera is an hour off on the time. I did steal this one off the web.
How many supper cells are stacked in this one do you think??
That's a neat cloud formation. It looks like the arc of doom.
Yeah, very cool. The odd part of this was it was not so much a super cell, but more of a squall line with a kink. It was tornado warned, which is somewhat of a joke. I really don't know why they bother with warning QLC tornadoes. They're almost always rain wrapped so they are rarely spotted, and the straight line winds almost always outpace the "tornadic" winds. That was the case Tue also. There was an F-0 with 80 mph wind and there was straight line measured at 90. At 60mph forward storm motion, what's the difference? Not much.
... of course reading some of the social media, there were the typical idiots blaming climate change for a run of the mill Midwest severe storm. Do they have any flipping clue how much COLD air was involved in the birth of that storm?!!
No, they haven't a clue. It's the same with the hurricane or cyclone. It can't form without cold air either.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 31-08-2018 14:22 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
...I think everyone knows it takes a cold front from the north and warm, moist gulf air to form a tornado. This is taught in elementary school. With hurricanes, they're heat engines.
https://www.livescience.com/24417-how-hurricanes-work-infographic.html
..@All, I like this. itn and GasGuzzler are trying to reestablish their credibility. But what does the name GasGuzzler suggest ? He really doesn't give a sh1t and itn is his friend. Tiresome and predictable.
Edited on 31-08-2018 14:23 |
| 31-08-2018 17:29 |
GasGuzzler★★★★★
(2932) |
James___ wrote:
...I think everyone knows it takes a cold front from the north and warm, moist gulf air to form a tornado. This is taught in elementary school. With hurricanes, they're heat engines.
https://www.livescience.com/24417-how-hurricanes-work-infographic.html
..@All, I like this. itn and GasGuzzler are trying to reestablish their credibility. But what does the name GasGuzzler suggest ? He really doesn't give a sh1t and itn is his friend. Tiresome and predictable.
Tornadoes don't need a cold front. Quite often they form on warm fronts, and they will be positioned a bit differently in the storm structure. In Oklahoma/Texas panhandles region they often form on a simple dry line.
Yes, there is a lot of heat in a hurricane, what your point?
It is you that is trying to establish credibility after pointing out 2 supercells in a shelf cloud, and then claiming they were stacked on top of one another.
My name suggests that I drive a big truck that uses a lot of gas. It is needed for the work I do. What I don't give a shit about is how much CO2 I put out because all I am doing is helping the farmers get bigger yields.
And yeah, I'd consider ITN a friend. Never met the guy but I have no doubt we could toss down a few cold ones and have a good time.
Edited on 31-08-2018 17:32 |
| 31-08-2018 19:56 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21589) |
GasGuzzler wrote:
James___ wrote:
...I think everyone knows it takes a cold front from the north and warm, moist gulf air to form a tornado. This is taught in elementary school. With hurricanes, they're heat engines.
https://www.livescience.com/24417-how-hurricanes-work-infographic.html
..@All, I like this. itn and GasGuzzler are trying to reestablish their credibility. But what does the name GasGuzzler suggest ? He really doesn't give a sh1t and itn is his friend. Tiresome and predictable.
Tornadoes don't need a cold front. Quite often they form on warm fronts, and they will be positioned a bit differently in the storm structure. In Oklahoma/Texas panhandles region they often form on a simple dry line.
Yes, there is a lot of heat in a hurricane, what your point?
It is you that is trying to establish credibility after pointing out 2 supercells in a shelf cloud, and then claiming they were stacked on top of one another.
My name suggests that I drive a big truck that uses a lot of gas. It is needed for the work I do. What I don't give a shit about is how much CO2 I put out because all I am doing is helping the farmers get bigger yields.
And yeah, I'd consider ITN a friend. Never met the guy but I have no doubt we could toss down a few cold ones and have a good time.
We probably could!
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 31-08-2018 21:01 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
GasGuzzler wrote:
James___ wrote:
...I think everyone knows it takes a cold front from the north and warm, moist gulf air to form a tornado. This is taught in elementary school. With hurricanes, they're heat engines.
https://www.livescience.com/24417-how-hurricanes-work-infographic.html
..@All, I like this. itn and GasGuzzler are trying to reestablish their credibility. But what does the name GasGuzzler suggest ? He really doesn't give a sh1t and itn is his friend. Tiresome and predictable.
Tornadoes don't need a cold front. Quite often they form on warm fronts, and they will be positioned a bit differently in the storm structure. In Oklahoma/Texas panhandles region they often form on a simple dry line.
Yes, there is a lot of heat in a hurricane, what your point?
It is you that is trying to establish credibility after pointing out 2 supercells in a shelf cloud, and then claiming they were stacked on top of one another.
My name suggests that I drive a big truck that uses a lot of gas. It is needed for the work I do. What I don't give a shit about is how much CO2 I put out because all I am doing is helping the farmers get bigger yields.
And yeah, I'd consider ITN a friend. Never met the guy but I have no doubt we could toss down a few cold ones and have a good time.
...GasGuzzler, did you make so many mistakes in your post to make me laugh ? If that's the reason why then you were successful. You're starting to post like your girlfriend. her name is Into The Night and between the sheets, right ? And I'm sure that the 2 of you would enjoy more than just a couple of drinks together if you catch my drift
Edited on 31-08-2018 21:03 |
|
| 31-08-2018 22:16 |
GasGuzzler★★★★★
(2932) |
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
James___ wrote:
...I think everyone knows it takes a cold front from the north and warm, moist gulf air to form a tornado. This is taught in elementary school. With hurricanes, they're heat engines.
https://www.livescience.com/24417-how-hurricanes-work-infographic.html
..@All, I like this. itn and GasGuzzler are trying to reestablish their credibility. But what does the name GasGuzzler suggest ? He really doesn't give a sh1t and itn is his friend. Tiresome and predictable.
Tornadoes don't need a cold front. Quite often they form on warm fronts, and they will be positioned a bit differently in the storm structure. In Oklahoma/Texas panhandles region they often form on a simple dry line.
Yes, there is a lot of heat in a hurricane, what your point?
It is you that is trying to establish credibility after pointing out 2 supercells in a shelf cloud, and then claiming they were stacked on top of one another.
My name suggests that I drive a big truck that uses a lot of gas. It is needed for the work I do. What I don't give a shit about is how much CO2 I put out because all I am doing is helping the farmers get bigger yields.
And yeah, I'd consider ITN a friend. Never met the guy but I have no doubt we could toss down a few cold ones and have a good time.
...GasGuzzler, did you make so many mistakes in your post to make me laugh?......deleted insecurity BS
Can you name a few of my messteaks? |
| 31-08-2018 22:38 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
GasGuzzler wrote:
Can you name a few of my messteaks?
..I'll point out 1, okay ? You're attacking me because I believe that we need CO2 in our atmosphere so we can have a healthy ozone layer. That just let's me know what a jerk you are. And with itn, he's an anarchist. And this is his outlet for it.
..Ever hear of Loki ? The Norwegian God of Mischief ? itn only wishes. Then again itn is a troll; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
..And the 2 of you are friends. I wish I was making this stuff up but the 2 of you are for real, right ? |
| 31-08-2018 23:52 |
GasGuzzler★★★★★
(2932) |
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Can you name a few of my messteaks?
..I'll point out 1, okay ? You're attacking me because I believe that we need CO2 in our atmosphere so we can have a healthy ozone layer. That just let's me know what a jerk you are.
.......Deleted spineless BS
I'll let ITN deal with the ozone BS.
You are the one making personal attacks and not talking about anything relevant....and you still have yet to point out my messteaks. Did I make a factually incorrect statement?
Grow some skin dude.
Edited on 31-08-2018 23:53 |
| 01-09-2018 00:25 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21589) |
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Can you name a few of my messteaks?
..I'll point out 1, okay ? You're attacking me because I believe that we need CO2 in our atmosphere so we can have a healthy ozone layer.
Ozone is not made up of CO2. It is not affected by CO2. See the Chapman cycle.
James___ wrote:
That just let's me know what a jerk you are. And with itn, he's an anarchist. And this is his outlet for it.
Now you are just lying. I have already told you why republics work and democracies don't.
...deleted remaining insults...
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 01-09-2018 00:44 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Can you name a few of my messteaks?
..I'll point out 1, okay ? You're attacking me because I believe that we need CO2 in our atmosphere so we can have a healthy ozone layer.
Ozone is not made up of CO2. It is not affected by CO2. See the Chapman cycle.
James___ wrote:
That just let's me know what a jerk you are. And with itn, he's an anarchist. And this is his outlet for it.
Now you are just lying. I have already told you why republics work and democracies don't.
...deleted remaining insults...
...This is rather depressing. Neither of you can come up with a decent insult. That just doesn't give me much to work with. And this is all because neither one of you can tell the difference between a thunderhead and the rest of the cloud. I mean itn wants to define what he hasn't seen or experienced and gas guzzler might literally have his back. I find this hilarious. The 2 Stooges of Climate Change. If you guys got a 3rd person then you could have a pretty good comedy routine and come up with a catchy name like the 3 Stooges.
..You know; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0Jg7pvVzKk |
| 01-09-2018 01:13 |
GasGuzzler★★★★★
(2932) |
James wrote:
...This is rather depressing. Neither of you can come up with a decent insult. Not here to insult. You'd know it if I was.
And this is all because neither one of you can tell the difference between a thunderhead and the rest of the cloud.
Can you tell me the difference between a person and the rest of their body?
Edited on 01-09-2018 01:20 |
| 01-09-2018 01:58 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Can you name a few of my messteaks?
..I'll point out 1, okay ? You're attacking me because I believe that we need CO2 in our atmosphere so we can have a healthy ozone layer. That just let's me know what a jerk you are. And with itn, he's an anarchist. And this is his outlet for it.
..Ever hear of Loki ? The Norwegian God of Mischief ? itn only wishes. Then again itn is a troll; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
..And the 2 of you are friends. I wish I was making this stuff up but the 2 of you are for real, right ?
I think that you mean carbon monoxide requires the presence of carbon dioxide. Ozone is simply O3 and doesn't require the presence of CO2. Or O1 for that matter. |
| 01-09-2018 02:18 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Can you name a few of my messteaks?
..I'll point out 1, okay ? You're attacking me because I believe that we need CO2 in our atmosphere so we can have a healthy ozone layer. That just let's me know what a jerk you are. And with itn, he's an anarchist. And this is his outlet for it.
..Ever hear of Loki ? The Norwegian God of Mischief ? itn only wishes. Then again itn is a troll; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
..And the 2 of you are friends. I wish I was making this stuff up but the 2 of you are for real, right ?
I think that you mean carbon monoxide requires the presence of carbon dioxide. Ozone is simply O3 and doesn't require the presence of CO2. Or O1 for that matter.
...I was wondering if you were okay Wake. Haven't seen you in here for a while. I was saving this one for itn and gas guzzler [url] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7fMMjATjIc[/url]
...As for CO2 and ozone there is this Holy Link which does not define the relationship, just acknowledges that one exists.
Click on Chapter 5 to find the quote after the link.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2014/
Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are each important to climate forcing and to the levels of stratospheric ozone (see Chapter 2). In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels. Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4. The net impact on ozone recovery and future levels of stratospheric ozone thus depends on the future abundances of these gases.
...The funny part about this is that GasGuzzler will hate people who support this but will like itn who will call it a Holy Link and delete it.
..Wake, this would go over well in a comedy. Kind of why I'm posting a lot of it. Just have to have a sense of humor about things.
Edited on 01-09-2018 02:20 |
| 01-09-2018 02:45 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Can you name a few of my messteaks?
..I'll point out 1, okay ? You're attacking me because I believe that we need CO2 in our atmosphere so we can have a healthy ozone layer. That just let's me know what a jerk you are. And with itn, he's an anarchist. And this is his outlet for it.
..Ever hear of Loki ? The Norwegian God of Mischief ? itn only wishes. Then again itn is a troll; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
..And the 2 of you are friends. I wish I was making this stuff up but the 2 of you are for real, right ?
I think that you mean carbon monoxide requires the presence of carbon dioxide. Ozone is simply O3 and doesn't require the presence of CO2. Or O1 for that matter.
...I was wondering if you were okay Wake. Haven't seen you in here for a while. I was saving this one for itn and gas guzzler [url] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7fMMjATjIc[/url]
...As for CO2 and ozone there is this Holy Link which does not define the relationship, just acknowledges that one exists.
Click on Chapter 5 to find the quote after the link.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2014/
Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are each important to climate forcing and to the levels of stratospheric ozone (see Chapter 2). In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels. Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4. The net impact on ozone recovery and future levels of stratospheric ozone thus depends on the future abundances of these gases.
...The funny part about this is that GasGuzzler will hate people who support this but will like itn who will call it a Holy Link and delete it.
..Wake, this would go over well in a comedy. Kind of why I'm posting a lot of it. Just have to have a sense of humor about things.
The numbers they are quoting are smaller than the yearly variations. |
| 01-09-2018 10:15 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21589) |
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Can you name a few of my messteaks?
..I'll point out 1, okay ? You're attacking me because I believe that we need CO2 in our atmosphere so we can have a healthy ozone layer. That just let's me know what a jerk you are. And with itn, he's an anarchist. And this is his outlet for it.
..Ever hear of Loki ? The Norwegian God of Mischief ? itn only wishes. Then again itn is a troll; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
..And the 2 of you are friends. I wish I was making this stuff up but the 2 of you are for real, right ?
I think that you mean carbon monoxide requires the presence of carbon dioxide. Ozone is simply O3 and doesn't require the presence of CO2. Or O1 for that matter.
...I was wondering if you were okay Wake. Haven't seen you in here for a while. I was saving this one for itn and gas guzzler [url] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7fMMjATjIc[/url]
...As for CO2 and ozone there is this Holy Link which does not define the relationship, just acknowledges that one exists.
Click on Chapter 5 to find the quote after the link.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2014/
Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are each important to climate forcing and to the levels of stratospheric ozone (see Chapter 2). In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels. Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4. The net impact on ozone recovery and future levels of stratospheric ozone thus depends on the future abundances of these gases.
...deleted rants and insults...
Ozone is created (and destroyed) by the action of different bands of UV light. See the Chapman cycle. CO2, N2O, CH4, does not significantly affect it.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
|
| 01-09-2018 16:13 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
Into the Night wrote:
Ozone is created (and destroyed) by the action of different bands of UV light. See the Chapman cycle. CO2, N2O, CH4, does not significantly affect it.
..This is what you're talking about itn. https://binged.it/2Pl2FlO
.It's incomplete. Incomplete means not whole. It should include this as well.
When h < 242nm is mentioned it does mention the amplitude. The amplitude would need to be at least...
..For this, read the link. Where it says For 1 molecule , that's what's being left out. And that is only for breaking the covalent bonds of an oxygen (O2) molecule to form two atomic oxygen (O) molecules.
..Just to be clear everyone, E = hc/wavelength equals
Energy = frequency x Planck's constant divided by wavelength. I don't think everyone really needs to understand this but when it is known how much energy it takes to break a covalent bond then what scientists can show is that there is that energy in the stratosphere. While many frequencies of energy exist in our upper atmosphere they haven't shown the amplitude of those frequencies. This is what I'm on about at times.
..So when you say bands of energy itn that really isn't saying much. After all, what are you referring to ? You see, when you know the AMOUNT of energy that it takes to break a covalent bond then you can consider what has that much energy. Interactions in the stratosphere can be complex because for all we know it might be like a game of pool. Someone has to break the rack and then after that many different combinations of shots are available. And in pool Conservation of Momentum is always at work. And if you use "English" then Angular Momentum comes into play as well. So a game of pool could be like a field off gasses.
Edited on 01-09-2018 16:26 |
| 01-09-2018 19:21 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21589) |
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Ozone is created (and destroyed) by the action of different bands of UV light. See the Chapman cycle. CO2, N2O, CH4, does not significantly affect it.
..This is what you're talking about itn. https://binged.it/2Pl2FlO
.It's incomplete. Incomplete means not whole. It should include this as well.
When h < 242nm is mentioned it does mention the amplitude. The amplitude would need to be at least...
..For this, read the link. Where it says For 1 molecule , that's what's being left out. And that is only for breaking the covalent bonds of an oxygen (O2) molecule to form two atomic oxygen (O) molecules.
..Just to be clear everyone, E = hc/wavelength equals
Energy = frequency x Planck's constant divided by wavelength. I don't think everyone really needs to understand this but when it is known how much energy it takes to break a covalent bond then what scientists can show is that there is that energy in the stratosphere. While many frequencies of energy exist in our upper atmosphere they haven't shown the amplitude of those frequencies. This is what I'm on about at times.
..So when you say bands of energy itn that really isn't saying much. After all, what are you referring to ? You see, when you know the AMOUNT of energy that it takes to break a covalent bond then you can consider what has that much energy. Interactions in the stratosphere can be complex because for all we know it might be like a game of pool. Someone has to break the rack and then after that many different combinations of shots are available. And in pool Conservation of Momentum is always at work. And if you use "English" then Angular Momentum comes into play as well. So a game of pool could be like a field off gasses.
So you are saying the Sun is putting out less energy, and that's why the ozone is thinning??
If that's true, the Earth must be cooling as well, not warming as you claim.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 01-09-2018 19:22 |
| 01-09-2018 22:29 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
Into the Night wrote:
So you are saying the Sun is putting out less energy, and that's why the ozone is thinning??
If that's true, the Earth must be cooling as well, not warming as you claim.
...It seems we're back to this now.........posting with itn and friends
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkqz3lpUBp0 |
| 02-09-2018 17:05 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
...This needs to be watched on full screen;
https://www.facebook.com/visitsenja/videos/1845282075559778/?t=24 |
| 02-09-2018 17:51 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21589) |
James___ wrote:
...This needs to be watched on full screen;
https://www.facebook.com/visitsenja/videos/1845282075559778/?t=24
Nice storms...what's your point (if any)?
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 02-09-2018 20:17 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
...This needs to be watched on full screen;
https://www.facebook.com/visitsenja/videos/1845282075559778/?t=24
Nice storms...what's your point (if any)?
...sometimes there doesn't need to be a point. I thought it was pretty cool footage myself and decided to share it. Just a lot of energy in one place doing it's thing. Probably best left undefined. |
| 04-09-2018 05:11 |
GasGuzzler★★★★★
(2932) |
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
...This needs to be watched on full screen;
https://www.facebook.com/visitsenja/videos/1845282075559778/?t=24
Nice storms...what's your point (if any)?
...sometimes there doesn't need to be a point. I thought it was pretty cool footage myself and decided to share it. Just a lot of energy in one place doing it's thing. Probably best left undefined.
Another fun day in Eastern Iowa. This storm took a bit of a right turn on me so you can see the pic is looking south with spinning wall cloud to south/southeast with east northeast storm motion......I'm not in a good place!! I believe this is what they call the proverbial "bears cage". I need to find a different hobby...maybe airplanes?
Attached image:
 |
| 04-09-2018 20:04 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21589) |
GasGuzzler wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
...This needs to be watched on full screen;
https://www.facebook.com/visitsenja/videos/1845282075559778/?t=24
Nice storms...what's your point (if any)?
...sometimes there doesn't need to be a point. I thought it was pretty cool footage myself and decided to share it. Just a lot of energy in one place doing it's thing. Probably best left undefined.
Another fun day in Eastern Iowa. This storm took a bit of a right turn on me so you can see the pic is looking south with spinning wall cloud to south/southeast with east northeast storm motion......I'm not in a good place!! I believe this is what they call the proverbial "bears cage". I need to find a different hobby...maybe airplanes?
I find airplanes to be an enjoyable hobby, but you don't want to combine the two!
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 04-09-2018 20:05 |
| 05-09-2018 01:12 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
GasGuzzler wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
...This needs to be watched on full screen;
https://www.facebook.com/visitsenja/videos/1845282075559778/?t=24
Nice storms...what's your point (if any)?
...sometimes there doesn't need to be a point. I thought it was pretty cool footage myself and decided to share it. Just a lot of energy in one place doing it's thing. Probably best left undefined.
Another fun day in Eastern Iowa. This storm took a bit of a right turn on me so you can see the pic is looking south with spinning wall cloud to south/southeast with east northeast storm motion......I'm not in a good place!! I believe this is what they call the proverbial "bears cage". I need to find a different hobby...maybe airplanes?
...When I was a kid we were going from Florida back to Ohio. We were going to stop at my grandmother's in central Kentucky. We did but we missed the exit. What happened was that we caught a tornado from behind.
..We missed our exit because it wasn't possible to see the next lane. It was raining way to hard. My dad slowed to about 5 mph on the freeway to let the storm move further in front of us. After we got to the next city we turned around and headed back to the exit we missed.
..A 2 story hotel/motel had it's roof removed in one piece and deposited between the north and south bound lanes of I-75. That would've had to have been because of how strong the updraft of a tornado is or else it would've just rolled the roof off of the building.
..It was impressive to see the roof in one piece like that. |
| 05-09-2018 02:12 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21589) |
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
...This needs to be watched on full screen;
https://www.facebook.com/visitsenja/videos/1845282075559778/?t=24
Nice storms...what's your point (if any)?
...sometimes there doesn't need to be a point. I thought it was pretty cool footage myself and decided to share it. Just a lot of energy in one place doing it's thing. Probably best left undefined.
Another fun day in Eastern Iowa. This storm took a bit of a right turn on me so you can see the pic is looking south with spinning wall cloud to south/southeast with east northeast storm motion......I'm not in a good place!! I believe this is what they call the proverbial "bears cage". I need to find a different hobby...maybe airplanes?
...When I was a kid we were going from Florida back to Ohio. We were going to stop at my grandmother's in central Kentucky. We did but we missed the exit. What happened was that we caught a tornado from behind.
..We missed our exit because it wasn't possible to see the next lane. It was raining way to hard. My dad slowed to about 5 mph on the freeway to let the storm move further in front of us. After we got to the next city we turned around and headed back to the exit we missed.
..A 2 story hotel/motel had it's roof removed in one piece and deposited between the north and south bound lanes of I-75. That would've had to have been because of how strong the updraft of a tornado is or else it would've just rolled the roof off of the building.
..It was impressive to see the roof in one piece like that.
Yup. No doubt about it. Tornadoes suck.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 07-10-2018 21:58 |
AK_User☆☆☆☆☆
(25) |
Gamul1 wrote:
Hi All,
New to the group. Been reading several of the posts and have found them interesting. I wanted to get some feedback on a paper I put together around ice ages in Earth's history. It should be attached to this post. I put this together more as a way to gather my thoughts on the topic - to get it out of my head and put it on paper. Its about 15 pages of content (but a lot of graphs and short text) but considering the topic (which one could write a 1,000 page paper on if they tried) its more of a cliff notes.
As I said, its sort of a very brief history of climate change as it relates to ice ages. I am *NOT* trying to focus on climate change as it is discussed today in its highly politicized format, although one cant help but at least touch on it a little. If I were to very quickly sum up the paper I might make these points:
- Assert that we are technically still in an ice age (just that we're in the interglacial period)
- Note that Earth's natural normal temperature when not in an ice age is much hotter than today
- Theorize about 3 possible outcomes for our future, regardless of if humans are impacting climate change.
Would love to discuss the observations/opinions I make in the paper to find its flaws/weaknesses, and maybe expand/change from how climate change is currently discussed in todays political environment. I do hope the discussion can be constructive. I'm sure I have errors and/or my observations are flawed. I'm hoping to learn and make corrections. Note that this "paper" is just personal. It is not for any other purpose, it is not for publication or posting somewhere (beyond this forum and another like it), its not homework (I'm 54, not 15) and its not for work (I'm sure I'd be fired if this was meant for professional use). Just my thoughts and observations to fuel my interest in the topic.
Thanks in advance for your thoughts and feedback.
Glenn
I thought it was a pretty good summation of Earth's climate history. It covered all the salient points. I'm pleased to see that you understand ice-ages. Unfortunately, too many people think the last period of glaciation was the entire "ice-age," and that just smacks of a piss poor education.
However, there were a couple of issues.
You have one graphic that displays "400 years of sunspot observations," but we have only been observing and recording sunspot activity since 1755, which makes it 263 years of sunspot observations. Everything prior to 1755 is merely supposition made during the late 19th century and not actual observations. The Maunder Minimum that supposedly took place between 1645 and 1715 was calculated by Edward Maunder between 1890 and 1894. Whereas the Dalton Minimum (between 1790 and 1830) was actually observed.
You also do not take into account that Earth's orbit has changed over the years. For example, in just the last 9,000 years alone Earth's axial tilt has gradually changed from 24.15° to 23.45°. Earth's closest point to the sun is now in early January when it use to be in July. That has had a significant effect on Earth's climate, and still does. That change is suspected to be the chief cause behind the desertification of northern Africa.
The Minoan Warming Period (from ~3,500 to ~3,000 years ago) occurred just prior to the Roman Warming Period. It should also be noted that during each of these warming periods (Minoan, Roman, and Medieval, and the current yet to be named warming period) humanity has prospered artistically, socially, and technologically. We made huge strides in our development during these warming periods. The cold periods inbetween these warming periods were full of famine and disease, and generally not very pleasant.
The only logical conclusion is that Global Warming is a good thing for humanity and Global Cooling is not. |
| 07-10-2018 22:09 |
AK_User☆☆☆☆☆
(25) |
Gamul1 wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Personally I see no problem with the most extreme predictions of the IPCC. A slightly warmer and wetter world is a good thing as I see it.
Oh - and I would agree if the amount of change ends up "only" being a couple degrees, I think we'll be fine and for some, maybe even better off. But I do think our best hope is maintaining around the status quo for only a relatively short time.
Eventually - either the Earth will return to full ice age conditions, or it will return to its historic norms of 17F higher as a global average. Either of those conditions would be much more catastrophic. Are the current changes we're seeing a warning sign that it will tip one direction or the other?
We have been gradually getting cooler for the last 8,200 years. Each of the prior warming periods have been cooler than the last.
Eventually the Holocene Interglacial Period is going to end and we will return to another very long period of glaciation where between 20% and 30% of the planet will be covered by ice. However, there is no reason to panic just yet.
There will be very clear signs that this interglacial period is ending. For one thing, the majority of the world's glaciers will begin advancing instead of retreating as they are today. So I don't think we need to be worried about this interglacial period ending just yet.
As long as we continue to warm a few degrees nothing catastrophic is going to happen. We always prosper during warming periods. It is when this current warming period ends that we need to be concerned. |
| 07-10-2018 22:25 |
AK_User☆☆☆☆☆
(25) |
GasGuzzler wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
...This needs to be watched on full screen;
https://www.facebook.com/visitsenja/videos/1845282075559778/?t=24
Nice storms...what's your point (if any)?
...sometimes there doesn't need to be a point. I thought it was pretty cool footage myself and decided to share it. Just a lot of energy in one place doing it's thing. Probably best left undefined.
Another fun day in Eastern Iowa. This storm took a bit of a right turn on me so you can see the pic is looking south with spinning wall cloud to south/southeast with east northeast storm motion......I'm not in a good place!! I believe this is what they call the proverbial "bears cage". I need to find a different hobby...maybe airplanes?
Damn! Very nice photograph, but you're nuts.
It reminds me when I use to live in Fremont, NE. I live in Alaska now were we average 27 earthquakes every day. I would much rather live with 27 earthquakes every day than just one tornado in any given year. I was living in Fremont, 33 miles away, when an F5 plowed threw Omaha in 1975. There was nothing standing taller than 3" in that tornado's path.
Tornadoes are far more destructive than earthquakes. |
| 07-10-2018 22:43 |
Gamul1☆☆☆☆☆
(35) |
AK_User wrote:
You also do not take into account that Earth's orbit has changed over the years. For example, in just the last 9,000 years alone Earth's axial tilt has gradually changed from 24.15° to 23.45°. Earth's closest point to the sun is now in early January when it use to be in July. That has had a significant effect on Earth's climate, and still does. That change is suspected to be the chief cause behind the desertification of northern Africa.
The only logical conclusion is that Global Warming is a good thing for humanity and Global Cooling is not.
I bring up Earth's tilt and revolution briefly in the last bullet under other stuff that impacts climate. I don't harp on it because I have not really seen much scientific study around this. I absolutely believe this 100,000 year cycle impacts our climate but I just have not seen it discussed. I'd be interested in reading more if you have some good links to it.
I agree, warmer is probably just fine for humans and Earth. But I am not as confident about that if warmer means we fully leave the ice age and return to non ice age warmth that is 17 degrees F warmer on average Earth wide. Would places where humans now live that see highs around 110F (or higher) start seeing highs around 140F?
And yes - I find it highly annoying that 99% of the people I speak to think the last 20,000 years defines all we need to know about ice ages, or not. Too many think the last 1000 years tells the whole story. It annoys me and was the motivator for why I put words to paper. I think my main goal in this paper is only to try and broaden the discussion to better understand climate history and ice ages. |
| 08-10-2018 03:04 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
Gamul1 wrote:
AK_User wrote:
You also do not take into account that Earth's orbit has changed over the years. For example, in just the last 9,000 years alone Earth's axial tilt has gradually changed from 24.15° to 23.45°. Earth's closest point to the sun is now in early January when it use to be in July. That has had a significant effect on Earth's climate, and still does. That change is suspected to be the chief cause behind the desertification of northern Africa.
The only logical conclusion is that Global Warming is a good thing for humanity and Global Cooling is not.
I bring up Earth's tilt and revolution briefly in the last bullet under other stuff that impacts climate. I don't harp on it because I have not really seen much scientific study around this. I absolutely believe this 100,000 year cycle impacts our climate but I just have not seen it discussed. I'd be interested in reading more if you have some good links to it.
I agree, warmer is probably just fine for humans and Earth. But I am not as confident about that if warmer means we fully leave the ice age and return to non ice age warmth that is 17 degrees F warmer on average Earth wide. Would places where humans now live that see highs around 110F (or higher) start seeing highs around 140F?
And yes - I find it highly annoying that 99% of the people I speak to think the last 20,000 years defines all we need to know about ice ages, or not. Too many think the last 1000 years tells the whole story. It annoys me and was the motivator for why I put words to paper. I think my main goal in this paper is only to try and broaden the discussion to better understand climate history and ice ages.
...I think you try to ignore the last 400,000+ years. You keep referring to a technical ice age. You haven't considered the possibility over the last 100 million years that the Earth might have gained mass. The Sun is constantly gaining mass as a result of gravity so no reason the Earth can't do likewise.
..And by ignoring the last 400,000+ years you can ignore the apparent cycles that have shown themselves. You just gloss over them as in another 1 million years we can look back and then and only then know what was happening.
..You should've become a historian or a reporter. Those 2 fields can tell you what happened and when it happened but not if something is happening or is a part of a larger trend. |
|
| 08-10-2018 05:16 |
AK_User☆☆☆☆☆
(25) |
Gamul1 wrote:
AK_User wrote:
You also do not take into account that Earth's orbit has changed over the years. For example, in just the last 9,000 years alone Earth's axial tilt has gradually changed from 24.15° to 23.45°. Earth's closest point to the sun is now in early January when it use to be in July. That has had a significant effect on Earth's climate, and still does. That change is suspected to be the chief cause behind the desertification of northern Africa.
The only logical conclusion is that Global Warming is a good thing for humanity and Global Cooling is not.
I bring up Earth's tilt and revolution briefly in the last bullet under other stuff that impacts climate. I don't harp on it because I have not really seen much scientific study around this. I absolutely believe this 100,000 year cycle impacts our climate but I just have not seen it discussed. I'd be interested in reading more if you have some good links to it.
I agree, warmer is probably just fine for humans and Earth. But I am not as confident about that if warmer means we fully leave the ice age and return to non ice age warmth that is 17 degrees F warmer on average Earth wide. Would places where humans now live that see highs around 110F (or higher) start seeing highs around 140F?
And yes - I find it highly annoying that 99% of the people I speak to think the last 20,000 years defines all we need to know about ice ages, or not. Too many think the last 1000 years tells the whole story. It annoys me and was the motivator for why I put words to paper. I think my main goal in this paper is only to try and broaden the discussion to better understand climate history and ice ages.
Earth's orbit has changed a great deal in its 4.5 billion year history. At one point the planet Jupiter moved in to where Mars orbits today, completely disrupting the inner solar system, and moving through the asteroid belt twice. Earth has been pushed and pulled. Everything from its axial tilt and its eccentricity, to the distance it orbits from the sun has changed significantly over the last several billion years. A great deal of our climate was, and continues to be, determined by forces exterior to the planet.
I do not think there is much chance of this current ice-age coming to an end any time soon. As your own paper demonstrates, ice-ages last for tens of millions of years and we aren't even 3 million years into this ice-age yet. If I recall correctly, your paper suggested that the average ice-age lasted ~135 million years, (~83 million years when you took out the long 300 million year ice-age as an outlier).
So it is far more likely that this interglacial period will come to an end eventually and we will be returned to another very long period of glaciation. The odds of the ice-age ending after only 2.58 million years seems to me to be astronomically high.
We have the warming periods and cold periods, which you identified in your paper, but even those warm and cold cycles also have cycles. The warming period that began in 1880 and continues through today consists of 35-year cooler periods and 30-year warmer periods based upon NASA's GISS data.
1880 to 1915 = Cooling
1915 to 1945 = Warming
1945 to 1980 = Cooling
1980 to 2010 = Warming
If the trend continues we can expect another cooling period from 2010 until 2045. By "cooling" I do not mean the temperature will get cooler. I mean that the temperature will not increase as rapidly during a cooling period as it does during the warming periods. NASA's GISS data shows a total increase of 0.85°C and a total decrease of 0.34°C, resulting in a net increase of 0.51°C between 1880 and 2010.
I also find it annoying when people refer to the last period of glaciation as "the last ice-age." It tells me immediately that I cannot have an intelligent conversation with that individual because they are largely ignorant. |
| 08-10-2018 05:34 |
AK_User☆☆☆☆☆
(25) |
James___ wrote:
Gamul1 wrote:
AK_User wrote:
You also do not take into account that Earth's orbit has changed over the years. For example, in just the last 9,000 years alone Earth's axial tilt has gradually changed from 24.15° to 23.45°. Earth's closest point to the sun is now in early January when it use to be in July. That has had a significant effect on Earth's climate, and still does. That change is suspected to be the chief cause behind the desertification of northern Africa.
The only logical conclusion is that Global Warming is a good thing for humanity and Global Cooling is not.
I bring up Earth's tilt and revolution briefly in the last bullet under other stuff that impacts climate. I don't harp on it because I have not really seen much scientific study around this. I absolutely believe this 100,000 year cycle impacts our climate but I just have not seen it discussed. I'd be interested in reading more if you have some good links to it.
I agree, warmer is probably just fine for humans and Earth. But I am not as confident about that if warmer means we fully leave the ice age and return to non ice age warmth that is 17 degrees F warmer on average Earth wide. Would places where humans now live that see highs around 110F (or higher) start seeing highs around 140F?
And yes - I find it highly annoying that 99% of the people I speak to think the last 20,000 years defines all we need to know about ice ages, or not. Too many think the last 1000 years tells the whole story. It annoys me and was the motivator for why I put words to paper. I think my main goal in this paper is only to try and broaden the discussion to better understand climate history and ice ages.
...I think you try to ignore the last 400,000+ years. You keep referring to a technical ice age. You haven't considered the possibility over the last 100 million years that the Earth might have gained mass. The Sun is constantly gaining mass as a result of gravity so no reason the Earth can't do likewise.
..And by ignoring the last 400,000+ years you can ignore the apparent cycles that have shown themselves. You just gloss over them as in another 1 million years we can look back and then and only then know what was happening.
..You should've become a historian or a reporter. Those 2 fields can tell you what happened and when it happened but not if something is happening or is a part of a larger trend.
His paper included the last 400,000+ years of Earth's climate history, and we are still in an ice-age. Whenever the planet's mean surface temperature drops by 8°C to 10°C below the average of 22°C ± 1°C it means we are in an ice-age. His paper places the current mean surface temperature of Earth at 14.51°C, I have it at 14.8°C, but it is close enough. There is no doubt that we have been in an ice-age for at least the last 2.58 million years.
Earth has not gained mass, nor has the sun. Just the opposite in fact. Every second the sun converts 600 million tons of hydrogen into 596 million tons of helium. Which means the sun is losing 4 million tons of mass per second.
This also means the sun's gravity is getting weaker. Every year the sun's diameter expands and its gravitational grip on the planets weaken. Earth's orbit is moving away from the sun at a rate of approximately 1.5 cm per year.
Earth is also losing mass, but at a significantly slower rate. Earth is losing approximately 3 kg of hydrogen and 50 grams of helium per second due to atmospheric escape.
Edited on 08-10-2018 05:50 |
| 08-10-2018 06:20 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
AK_User wrote:
James___ wrote:
Gamul1 wrote:
AK_User wrote:
You also do not take into account that Earth's orbit has changed over the years. For example, in just the last 9,000 years alone Earth's axial tilt has gradually changed from 24.15° to 23.45°. Earth's closest point to the sun is now in early January when it use to be in July. That has had a significant effect on Earth's climate, and still does. That change is suspected to be the chief cause behind the desertification of northern Africa.
The only logical conclusion is that Global Warming is a good thing for humanity and Global Cooling is not.
I bring up Earth's tilt and revolution briefly in the last bullet under other stuff that impacts climate. I don't harp on it because I have not really seen much scientific study around this. I absolutely believe this 100,000 year cycle impacts our climate but I just have not seen it discussed. I'd be interested in reading more if you have some good links to it.
I agree, warmer is probably just fine for humans and Earth. But I am not as confident about that if warmer means we fully leave the ice age and return to non ice age warmth that is 17 degrees F warmer on average Earth wide. Would places where humans now live that see highs around 110F (or higher) start seeing highs around 140F?
And yes - I find it highly annoying that 99% of the people I speak to think the last 20,000 years defines all we need to know about ice ages, or not. Too many think the last 1000 years tells the whole story. It annoys me and was the motivator for why I put words to paper. I think my main goal in this paper is only to try and broaden the discussion to better understand climate history and ice ages.
...I think you try to ignore the last 400,000+ years. You keep referring to a technical ice age. You haven't considered the possibility over the last 100 million years that the Earth might have gained mass. The Sun is constantly gaining mass as a result of gravity so no reason the Earth can't do likewise.
..And by ignoring the last 400,000+ years you can ignore the apparent cycles that have shown themselves. You just gloss over them as in another 1 million years we can look back and then and only then know what was happening.
..You should've become a historian or a reporter. Those 2 fields can tell you what happened and when it happened but not if something is happening or is a part of a larger trend.
His paper included the last 400,000+ years of Earth's climate history, and we are still in an ice-age. Whenever the planet's mean surface temperature drops by 8°C to 10°C below the average of 22°C ± 1°C it means we are in an ice-age. His paper places the current mean surface temperature of Earth at 14.51°C, I have it at 14.8°C, but it is close enough. There is no doubt that we have been in an ice-age for at least the last 2.58 million years.
Earth has not gained mass, nor has the sun. Just the opposite in fact. Every second the sun converts 600 million tons of hydrogen into 596 million tons of helium. Which means the sun is losing 4 million tons of mass per second.
This also means the sun's gravity is getting weaker. Every year the sun's diameter expands and its gravitational grip on the planets weaken. Earth's orbit is moving away from the sun at a rate of approximately 1.5 cm per year.
Earth is also losing mass, but at a significantly slower rate. Earth is losing approximately 3 kg of hydrogen and 50 grams of helium per second due to atmospheric escape.
...He also said the last 400,000 years doesn't matter because it only appears to be cyclical. You and him seem to have no interest in considering the difference between an inter-glacial and a glacial period. And I could care less if we are in a technical ice age. Many scientists will say that ice ages occur once every 100,000 years while the 2 of you will disagree with them. I know, by being technical you want everyone to think that you know what you're talking about, right?
..The current state of science has only been around for over a little over 100 years. You can't believe we've got everything figured out already do you? That's why the Catholic church placed Copernicus on house arrest until his death. He made the mistake of saying that the Earth orbited the Sun. He should have listened to his elders. His life would have been better for it.
..Am terribly sorry but this article uses the term epoch and;
The Pleistocene Epoch is typically defined as the time period that began about 2.6 million years ago and lasted until about 11,700 years ago. The most recent Ice Age occurred then, as glaciers covered huge parts of the planet Earth.
https://www.livescience.com/40311-pleistocene-epoch.html |
| 08-10-2018 06:50 |
AK_User☆☆☆☆☆
(25) |
James___ wrote:
AK_User wrote:
James___ wrote:
Gamul1 wrote:
AK_User wrote:
You also do not take into account that Earth's orbit has changed over the years. For example, in just the last 9,000 years alone Earth's axial tilt has gradually changed from 24.15° to 23.45°. Earth's closest point to the sun is now in early January when it use to be in July. That has had a significant effect on Earth's climate, and still does. That change is suspected to be the chief cause behind the desertification of northern Africa.
The only logical conclusion is that Global Warming is a good thing for humanity and Global Cooling is not.
I bring up Earth's tilt and revolution briefly in the last bullet under other stuff that impacts climate. I don't harp on it because I have not really seen much scientific study around this. I absolutely believe this 100,000 year cycle impacts our climate but I just have not seen it discussed. I'd be interested in reading more if you have some good links to it.
I agree, warmer is probably just fine for humans and Earth. But I am not as confident about that if warmer means we fully leave the ice age and return to non ice age warmth that is 17 degrees F warmer on average Earth wide. Would places where humans now live that see highs around 110F (or higher) start seeing highs around 140F?
And yes - I find it highly annoying that 99% of the people I speak to think the last 20,000 years defines all we need to know about ice ages, or not. Too many think the last 1000 years tells the whole story. It annoys me and was the motivator for why I put words to paper. I think my main goal in this paper is only to try and broaden the discussion to better understand climate history and ice ages.
...I think you try to ignore the last 400,000+ years. You keep referring to a technical ice age. You haven't considered the possibility over the last 100 million years that the Earth might have gained mass. The Sun is constantly gaining mass as a result of gravity so no reason the Earth can't do likewise.
..And by ignoring the last 400,000+ years you can ignore the apparent cycles that have shown themselves. You just gloss over them as in another 1 million years we can look back and then and only then know what was happening.
..You should've become a historian or a reporter. Those 2 fields can tell you what happened and when it happened but not if something is happening or is a part of a larger trend.
His paper included the last 400,000+ years of Earth's climate history, and we are still in an ice-age. Whenever the planet's mean surface temperature drops by 8°C to 10°C below the average of 22°C ± 1°C it means we are in an ice-age. His paper places the current mean surface temperature of Earth at 14.51°C, I have it at 14.8°C, but it is close enough. There is no doubt that we have been in an ice-age for at least the last 2.58 million years.
Earth has not gained mass, nor has the sun. Just the opposite in fact. Every second the sun converts 600 million tons of hydrogen into 596 million tons of helium. Which means the sun is losing 4 million tons of mass per second.
This also means the sun's gravity is getting weaker. Every year the sun's diameter expands and its gravitational grip on the planets weaken. Earth's orbit is moving away from the sun at a rate of approximately 1.5 cm per year.
Earth is also losing mass, but at a significantly slower rate. Earth is losing approximately 3 kg of hydrogen and 50 grams of helium per second due to atmospheric escape.
...He also said the last 400,000 years doesn't matter because it only appears to be cyclical. You and him seem to have no interest in considering the difference between an inter-glacial and a glacial period. And I could care less if we are in a technical ice age. Many scientists will say that ice ages occur once every 100,000 years while the 2 of you will disagree with them. I know, by being technical you want everyone to think that you know what you're talking about, right?
..The current state of science has only been around for over a little over 100 years. You can't believe we've got everything figured out already do you? That's why the Catholic church placed Copernicus on house arrest until his death. He made the mistake of saying that the Earth orbited the Sun. He should have listened to his elders. His life would have been better for it.
..Am terribly sorry but this article uses the term epoch and;
The Pleistocene Epoch is typically defined as the time period that began about 2.6 million years ago and lasted until about 11,700 years ago. The most recent Ice Age occurred then, as glaciers covered huge parts of the planet Earth.
https://www.livescience.com/40311-pleistocene-epoch.html
There are no scientists who say ice ages occur every 100,000 years. There is also nothing "technical" about it. We are at least 8°C below the normal mean surface temperature of the planet. Which means we are in an ice age.
All ice ages are cyclical. In the 2.58 million years since the current ice age began there have been more than 50 glacial and interglacial periods. Interglacial periods range anywhere from just a few thousand years to 25,000 years in duration. While periods of glaciation are always much longer. The last period of glaciation that ended 11,700 years ago lasted for 103,300 years. The last interglacial period before the current one was the Eocene Interglacial Period and it lasted for 15,000 years, beginning 130,000 years ago.
Because the last 50 interglacial periods have come to an end, and your average ice age lasts anywhere from 80 to 130 million years, the odds are extremely good that the current Holocene Interglacial Period will also come to an end and we will be returned to another very long period of glaciation. That is what it means to be cyclical.
Why would you assume that the ice age has ended when the mean surface temperature is still 8°C below average? That makes no sense.
Edited on 08-10-2018 07:02 |
| 08-10-2018 11:12 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
AK_User wrote:
There are no scientists who say ice ages occur every 100,000 years. There is also nothing "technical" about it. We are at least 8°C below the normal mean surface temperature of the planet. Which means we are in an ice age.
...Over the last 800,000 years it hasn't been much warmer than it is now. It makes no sense for you to ignore so much history. I guess since you know Yiddish it makes you arrogant? I know it doesn't make you special. It does make trying to discuss anything with you a waste of time. Hold it, you are saying now if we trash the environment it doesn't matter because over many millennia it will change. Those do seem to be your arguments.
Edited on 08-10-2018 11:14 |
| 08-10-2018 14:16 |
Gamul1☆☆☆☆☆
(35) |
James___ wrote:
...He also said the last 400,000 years doesn't matter because it only appears to be cyclical. You and him seem to have no interest in considering the difference between an inter-glacial and a glacial period. And I could care less if we are in a technical ice age. Many scientists will say that ice ages occur once every 100,000 years while the 2 of you will disagree with them. I know, by being technical you want everyone to think that you know what you're talking about, right?
..The current state of science has only been around for over a little over 100 years. You can't believe we've got everything figured out already do you? That's why the Catholic church placed Copernicus on house arrest until his death. He made the mistake of saying that the Earth orbited the Sun. He should have listened to his elders. His life would have been better for it.
..Am terribly sorry but this article uses the term epoch and;
The Pleistocene Epoch is typically defined as the time period that began about 2.6 million years ago and lasted until about 11,700 years ago. The most recent Ice Age occurred then, as glaciers covered huge parts of the planet Earth.
https://www.livescience.com/40311-pleistocene-epoch.html
No where did I say it does not matter. YOU have been trying to put those words in my mouth. To the contrary - I have been saying it ALL matters: 400,000 years, 600 million years, 4.5 billion years. Too many arm chair scientists look at the last 1,000 years, or if we're "lucky", the last 12,000 years - and spout nonsense as if that is all that matters and the recent changes in climate herald human made disaster. You have no clue about climate works across Earth's history and spout nonsense at every turn. |
| 08-10-2018 14:27 |
Gamul1☆☆☆☆☆
(35) |
James___ wrote:
...Over the last 800,000 years it hasn't been much warmer than it is now.
Congratulations, you stated something reasonably true. Unfortunately you were not able to connect the dots and make sense from it.
The reason it has not been much warmer than it is now over the last 800,000 years is because WE HAVE BEEN IN AN ICE AGE FOR THE LAST 2.588 MILLION YEARS! We are currently in an interglacial phase of the ice age, which is a relatively warm period, but we're still in an ice age. If we were not in an ice age, the average Earth temperature would be about 17F higher than it is today.
James___ wrote:
It makes no sense for you to ignore so much history.
You have done a superb job of ignoring history and facts. And yet you accuse AK of ignoring history when he has been trying to expand your own horizon?? Whats that word? Oh year, chutzpah.
James___ wrote:
I guess since you know Yiddish it makes you arrogant?
What is your excuse?
James___ wrote:
I know it doesn't make you special. It does make trying to discuss anything with you a waste of time.
I would use the expression Pot meet Kettle, but you're just the pot here. No kettle.
James___ wrote:
Hold it, you are saying now if we trash the environment it doesn't matter because over many millennia it will change. Those do seem to be your arguments.
There you go again. Putting nonsense words into others mouths and then acting outraged over your own conclusions. |
| 08-10-2018 20:03 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21589) |
AK_User wrote:
Why would you assume that the ice age has ended when the mean surface temperature is still 8°C below average? That makes no sense.
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. An 'average' temperature is not 8 degC below average!
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 08-10-2018 20:04 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21589) |
James___ wrote:
AK_User wrote:
There are no scientists who say ice ages occur every 100,000 years. There is also nothing "technical" about it. We are at least 8°C below the normal mean surface temperature of the planet. Which means we are in an ice age.
...Over the last 800,000 years it hasn't been much warmer than it is now. It makes no sense for you to ignore so much history. I guess since you know Yiddish it makes you arrogant? I know it doesn't make you special. It does make trying to discuss anything with you a waste of time. Hold it, you are saying now if we trash the environment it doesn't matter because over many millennia it will change. Those do seem to be your arguments.
What you have you got against Yiddish?
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 08-10-2018 20:22 |
Gamul1☆☆☆☆☆
(35) |
Into the Night wrote:
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. An 'average' temperature is not 8 degC below average!
Will you stop being so dense. You take the surface temperature at a spot, and take that temperature in 1,000 different places around the planet, pole to pole, average them up and What La! Earths averages temp.
Stop being moronic. Your mother raised you better than that. |