Climate Change And Covid19

JayCardinal wrote:
I have noticed a pattern involving human activity (or inactivity, rather) and am wondering if someone more experienced can shed some light on it or if they can add to it. I know that most Global Warming theories link Greenhouse warming and human carbon emissions to be the most impact on the climate as far as human impact goes. But I have noticed something more. Satellite images of Italy from before and after the lockdown from covid19 show significant decreases in overall temperature in the region. More than just what could be accounted for by the decrease in carbon emissions. So my question is this. What if the real culprit of human influence on Global Warming and climate change actually lies in literal human activity. Meaning, us just moving around. I started to think about it and came to the conclusion that weather is mostly determined by energy in the system. And in the case of Italy, when people stayed home and stopped moving around, stopped pushing around the air in their environment so much, less cars driving around, almost 0 plane activity... well all of this MUST add up to a LOT less energy in the system right? Can someone please confirm or deny this hypothesis or maybe give me some insight into research that may have been done on this?

Thanks
Jay~

JayCardinal wrote:
I think more research needs to be done on human impact on weather systems in all forms. Not just carbon emissions, Greenhouse effect etc. I believe we have a greater impact on weather systems simply by moving around and moving the air around us. Thereby injecting energy into the system. Energy is energy, whether is it introduced by more of the suns rays being trapped in our atmosphere, OR the literal kinetic energy that we as humans input into our environment.

JayCardinal wrote:
I have noticed a pattern involving human activity (or inactivity, rather) and am wondering if someone more experienced can shed some light on it or if they can add to it. I know that most Global Warming theories link Greenhouse warming and human carbon emissions to be the most impact on the climate as far as human impact goes.

JayCardinal wrote:
But I have noticed something more. Satellite images of Italy from before and after the lockdown from covid19 show significant decreases in overall temperature in the region.

JayCardinal wrote:
More than just what could be accounted for by the decrease in carbon emissions.

JayCardinal wrote:
So my question is this. What if the real culprit of human influence on Global Warming and climate change actually lies in literal human activity.

JayCardinal wrote:
Meaning, us just moving around. I started to think about it and came to the conclusion that weather is mostly determined by energy in the system. And in the case of Italy, when people stayed home and stopped moving around, stopped pushing around the air in their environment so much, less cars driving around, almost 0 plane activity... well all of this MUST add up to a LOT less energy in the system right?

JayCardinal wrote:
Can someone please confirm or deny this hypothesis

JayCardinal wrote:
or maybe give me some insight into research that may have been done on this?

JayCardinal wrote:
I think more research needs to be done on human impact on weather systems in all forms. Not just carbon emissions, Greenhouse effect etc. I believe we have a greater impact on weather systems simply by moving around and moving the air around us. Thereby injecting energy into the system. Energy is energy, whether is it introduced by more of the suns rays being trapped in our atmosphere, OR the literal kinetic energy that we as humans input into our environment.

Into the Night wrote:

JayCardinal wrote:
I think more research needs to be done on human impact on weather systems in all forms. Not just carbon emissions, Greenhouse effect etc. I believe we have a greater impact on weather systems simply by moving around and moving the air around us. Thereby injecting energy into the system. Energy is energy, whether is it introduced by more of the suns rays being trapped in our atmosphere, OR the literal kinetic energy that we as humans input into our environment.

It is not possible to trap light.
ALL the kinetic energy we get is from the food we eat. That means sunlight, since all the food we eat comes from plants, either directly, or indirectly (by eating meat that eats plants, or eating meat that eats meat that eats plants, etc.).

It is not possible to create energy out of nothing.
Even chemical energy, whether in potential form or kinetic form, is not created out of nothing.

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

JayCardinal wrote:
I think more research needs to be done on human impact on weather systems in all forms. Not just carbon emissions, Greenhouse effect etc. I believe we have a greater impact on weather systems simply by moving around and moving the air around us. Thereby injecting energy into the system. Energy is energy, whether is it introduced by more of the suns rays being trapped in our atmosphere, OR the literal kinetic energy that we as humans input into our environment.

It is not possible to trap light.
ALL the kinetic energy we get is from the food we eat. That means sunlight, since all the food we eat comes from plants, either directly, or indirectly (by eating meat that eats plants, or eating meat that eats meat that eats plants, etc.).

It is not possible to create energy out of nothing.
Even chemical energy, whether in potential form or kinetic form, is not created out of nothing.

And yet you can't explain existence.

James___ wrote:
Kind of why I don't spend too much time on your mantras. Everything would become about religion.

JayCardinal wrote: Satellite images of Italy from before and after the lockdown from covid19 show significant decreases in overall temperature in the region.

JayCardinal wrote: I think more research needs to be done on human impact on weather systems in all forms.

James___ wrote: With me, I think a better solar panel would make a difference. Then it could convert ambient heat into electricity.

duncan61 wrote:
Trust me JayCardinal that is IBDM being extremely polite.We had a hot April day here a few weeks ago at 37.7C the next day it was 27.7C how does that compute.I am with IBDM and ITN the average global temperature can not be accurately measured to compare with other time frames and places.So we had a 10 degree swing in 24 hours and nothing died or went extinct.Funny that

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote: With me, I think a better solar panel would make a difference. Then it could convert ambient heat into electricity.

This is a great thought, and you are not the first to whom this idea has occurred. Big money has reasoned that if we were to string transistors together and throw them into the ocean where there is essentially limitless thermal energy, the transistors would channel the energy into one direction ... creating a DC current for free.

The problem is that you have to understand how transistors actually work in order to realize why the plan won't work.

If you examine closely, plans to generate electricity from "ambient" surroundings actually violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and will operate at a net loss.

Nonetheless, your thinking is to be applauded and you should be encouraged to keep thinking of new and better applications for energy conversion.


.

James___ wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
Trust me JayCardinal that is IBDM being extremely polite.We had a hot April day here a few weeks ago at 37.7C the next day it was 27.7C how does that compute.I am with IBDM and ITN the average global temperature can not be accurately measured to compare with other time frames and places.So we had a 10 degree swing in 24 hours and nothing died or went extinct.Funny that

And how would your employer know if you did any work if every time they saw you, you were on break? Likewise, it's not possible for your employer to know that you can work. And if you say it is over the course of a day, a week or even a year, is that really possible?
Needless to say, when you make an absurd statement like multiple observations many times during the day over many days at many different locations does not allow us to know anything. It's sad you don't understand why your employer is able to stay in business and pay you for what they don't see you doing.
You guys ignore some very basic facts. Then again Seattle doesn't have a light rail when it used to have the Inter-Urban rail line. But they wanted everyone to live in Seattle or commute there using motor cars.

HarveyH55 wrote:

James___ wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
Trust me JayCardinal that is IBDM being extremely polite.We had a hot April day here a few weeks ago at 37.7C the next day it was 27.7C how does that compute.I am with IBDM and ITN the average global temperature can not be accurately measured to compare with other time frames and places.So we had a 10 degree swing in 24 hours and nothing died or went extinct.Funny that

And how would your employer know if you did any work if every time they saw you, you were on break? Likewise, it's not possible for your employer to know that you can work. And if you say it is over the course of a day, a week or even a year, is that really possible?
Needless to say, when you make an absurd statement like multiple observations many times during the day over many days at many different locations does not allow us to know anything. It's sad you don't understand why your employer is able to stay in business and pay you for what they don't see you doing.
You guys ignore some very basic facts. Then again Seattle doesn't have a light rail when it used to have the Inter-Urban rail line. But they wanted everyone to live in Seattle or commute there using motor cars.

Most work places have security cameras all over the place, and often used for multiple reasons. Amazon has them in all their warehouses. Probably why you got fired. Not to mention, they know how many items were ordered, and about how long it takes, the number employees to select those items. They also know how much stuff, they can pack onto a truck, and how long it takes to load, approximate departure time. Time is money, and they know when people are slaking off, because trucks aren't leaving on time.

JayCardinal wrote:
And **** whoever said we will never be able to measure something on that grand of a scale, and to that degree of accuracy.

JayCardinal wrote:
So... let me get this straight here. According to you, several of you actually. There is a) no real measurable human impact on the environmental weather systems

JayCardinal wrote:
and b) no way to accurately measure it even if there was?

JayCardinal wrote:
I find that hard to believe considering the Planck Length is still technically measurable and we "apparently" know this to be fact.

JayCardinal wrote:
AND BEFORE EVERYONE GOES OFF ON ME ABOUT PLANCK I SAID "APPARENTLY" you savages.

JayCardinal wrote:
I feel like if we were really determined to find out the truth about things instead of hiding data and pushing theories that don't make sense we could absolutely create some kind of controlled experiment to determine this.

JayCardinal wrote:
And **** whoever said we will never be able to measure something on that grand of a scale, and to that degree of accuracy.

JayCardinal wrote:
It is not that we have 0 influence. It is that we have not accurately taken into account all given variables of that influence in all aspects, and measured them just as accurately. And this does not necessarily mean that we do not have the means to accomplish this either. It just means that we have not yet been motivated enough to try. There is evidence that a single volcanic eruption emits more carbon into the atmosphere than all of human carbon emissions from all of humanity put together. So to say that our carbon footprint is the determining factor in Global Warming/Global Cooling trends is not based in fact. However, to say that human activity in all aspects has no measurable affect on Global Warming,

JayCardinal wrote:
or for that matter global weather patterns etc. I believe is wrong.

JayCardinal wrote:
We may be small as far as our actual bodies occupying space on the surface of this planet, but our impact on the planet is much greater than just the surface area we occupy. If you take into consideration that 1 human being can have a sphere of influence in their immediate environment of hundreds of meters if not more, then the space on the surface of the globe that we impact can be viewed differently, with overlapping spheres of influence, hot spots of human activity where there are millions of these spheres all having varying levels of impact could indeed have greater consequences in relation to weather systems and global temperatures than we realize.

JayCardinal wrote:
Hundreds of years ago, human beings were much more restricted in their forms of travel, and thus their sphere of influence would have been much smaller. But today, our sphere of influence bounces all over the globe in some cases, affecting hundreds of cities, moving around like high speed bullets across the surface of the globe. In this way we can say that human influence on the surface can not be determined simply by the surface area that we occupy. All of humanity can be fit shoulder to shoulder in the state of North Dakota. And yet, we have conquered the planet. And humanity's sphere of influence continues to grow into outer space in the form of radio waves etc. And again, the consequences of this influence unknown to us.

James___ wrote: In the US, someone is either being served or is the servant.

JayCardinal wrote: So... let me get this straight here. According to you, several of you actually. There is a) no real measurable human impact on the environmental weather systems and b) no way to accurately measure it even if there was?

JayCardinal wrote: I find that hard to believe considering the Planck Length is still technically measurable and we "apparently" know this to be fact.

JayCardinal wrote: I feel like if we were really determined to find out the truth about things instead of hiding data and pushing theories that don't make sense we could absolutely create some kind of controlled experiment to determine this.

JayCardinal wrote: And **** whoever said we will never be able to measure something on that grand of a scale, and to that degree of accuracy.

JayCardinal wrote:They said that about finding evidence for anti-particles and the LHC.

gfm7175 wrote: What "global weather"? Weather is a very localized thing and can vary rather drastically by locality.

duncan61 wrote:
And how would your employer know if you did any work if every time they saw you, you were on break? Likewise, it's not possible for your employer to know that you can work. And if you say it is over the course of a day, a week or even a year, is that really possible?
Needless to say, when you make an absurd statement like multiple observations many times during the day over many days at many different locations does not allow us to know anything. It's sad you don't understand why your employer is able to stay in business and pay you for what they don't see you doing.
You guys ignore some very basic facts. Then again Seattle doesn't have a light rail when it used to have the Inter-Urban rail line. But they wanted everyone to live in Seattle or commute there using motor cars.

I read this a lot of times as it was for me but I can not get the connection.I was referring to the claim that if the temperature goes up a few degrees lots of species will go extinct or migrate.When is this going to happen??Why is the planet warming a problem??Assuming it is and you can measure it. I will be following the Hurricane season with interest this year to see if it goes out of control

JayCardinal wrote:
It is not that we have 0 influence.

JayCardinal wrote:
It is that we have not accurately taken into account all given variables of that influence in all aspects, and measured them just as accurately.

JayCardinal wrote:
And this does not necessarily mean that we do not have the means to accomplish this either.

JayCardinal wrote:
It just means that we have not yet been motivated enough to try.

JayCardinal wrote:
There is evidence that a single volcanic eruption emits more carbon into the atmosphere than all of human carbon emissions from all of humanity put together.

JayCardinal wrote:
So to say that our carbon footprint is the determining factor in Global Warming/Global Cooling trends is not based in fact.

JayCardinal wrote:
However, to say that human activity in all aspects has no measurable affect on Global Warming, or for that matter global weather patterns etc. I believe is wrong.

JayCardinal wrote:
We may be small as far as our actual bodies occupying space on the surface of this planet, but our impact on the planet is much greater than just the surface area we occupy.

JayCardinal wrote:
If you take into consideration that 1 human being can have a sphere of influence in their immediate environment of hundreds of meters if not more, then the space on the surface of the globe that we impact can be viewed differently, with overlapping spheres of influence, hot spots of human activity where there are millions of these spheres all having varying levels of impact could indeed have greater consequences in relation to weather systems and global temperatures than we realize. Hundreds of years ago, human beings were much more restricted in their forms of travel, and thus their sphere of influence would have been much smaller. But today, our sphere of influence bounces all over the globe in some cases, affecting hundreds of cities, moving around like high speed bullets across the surface of the globe. In this way we can say that human influence on the surface can not be determined simply by the surface area that we occupy.

JayCardinal wrote:
All of humanity can be fit shoulder to shoulder in the state of North Dakota. And yet, we have conquered the planet.

JayCardinal wrote:
And humanity's sphere of influence continues to grow into outer space in the form of radio waves etc.

JayCardinal wrote:
And again, the consequences of this influence unknown to us.

JayCardinal wrote:
If you take into consideration that 1 human being can have a sphere of influence in their immediate environment of hundreds of meters if not more....

JayCardinal wrote:
That is a very elegant and humble argument. One that I am fully open to entertaining. That then also begs the question, IS there a way to predict these things accurately? Understand them better. Knowing your enemy is half the battle.

Reducing the evil CO2, to prevent global warming, is dangerous, and a little silly. We are pretty sure there are ice ages, and inter-glacial periods. We are enjoying an interglacial period, with a big long winter coming, eventually. Fortunately, beyond my lifetime. But, why would anyone want to speed up the cooling to come? CO2, is literally a trace gas in the atmosphere, even with the alarming levels of pollution, we a suppose to be dumping. CO2 is essential to all life, plants love the stuff, and produce the most basic food, everything else need to survive. All life is based on carbon molecules. We don't get carbon from eating coal, or drinking oil, nor does anything else. Plants bring in carbon from the environment, by breathing in CO2, and converting through photosynthesis. Plants are the only source of dietary carbon. Messing with CO2, is messing with our only source of food.

JayCardinal wrote: 1) I am not arguing that our influence is either harmful, or not. I am simply arguing that it is measurable

JayCardinal wrote: 2)All the variables may be vague. But in totality, could they all equate to a difference of any significance?

JayCardinal wrote: 3)Accomplish what? The measuring of the full scope of human influence on our environment (specifically, I suppose Global Warming and its relation to change in weather patterns... IF one exists)

JayCardinal wrote: 4)Try what? Try to accurately measure human impact on our environment in its entirety in relation to how we influence weather patterns and the average temperature of the globe, or if there is any LOCAL change in temperature/weather due to human influence

JayCardinal wrote: 5)Carbon dioxide is not the only carbon based molecule that is ejected into the atmosphere during a volcanic euption.

JayCardinal wrote: 6)Carbon dioxide and other carbon emissions are "said" to have the so-called "Greenhouse Gas Effect" within our atmosphere.

JayCardinal wrote:. But I know for sure there are more ways to increase the temperature of the earth than moving it closer to the sun.

JayCardinal wrote: 7)I dont think I should have to define terms to you, the definitions of words and terms are readily available on Google.

JayCardinal wrote: 9)I am not advocating removing human beings, the question I am trying to pose is how drastically different would weather/temperature be around the globe if humanity was not a part of the equation?

JayCardinal wrote: 10)I would say we are the dominant species on the planet. Ergo = planet conquered.

JayCardinal wrote: 11)I didnt say humanity was made up of radio waves. I said our sphere of influence extends far into outer space in the form of radio waves. Giving a large scale example of a "sphere of influence" to give perspective

JayCardinal wrote: 12)I am not saying consequences are all bad.

JayCardinal wrote: Things happen consequently as a result of other things. Period.

JayCardinal wrote:Whether they are good or bad is a matter of perspective. Whats good for us may be bad for an ant. Whats good for the earth may be bad for us. Perspective.

HarveyH55 wrote: CO2 levels around the 800 ppm range is ideal for most plants. 1200 ppm is the upper limit of whats safe for humans, continuous exposure. I haven't seen any studies of how much CO2 is actually harmful to plants, but seems a lot higher than what we tolerate.

IBdaMann wrote:

JayCardinal wrote: 1) I am not arguing that our influence is either harmful, or not. I am simply arguing that it is measurable

Until you explain HOW it is measurable, you are not arguing that it is measurable; you are merely informing us of your speculation that it might be measurable.

I'm sure any argument that you have of "it's" measurability would actually be of interest.

[hint: first you will need to unambiguously define whatever it is that you will be arguing is measurable]

JayCardinal wrote: 2)All the variables may be vague. But in totality, could they all equate to a difference of any significance?

The undefined is always of zero significance, of zero impact and of zero concern.

JayCardinal wrote: 3)Accomplish what? The measuring of the full scope of human influence on our environment (specifically, I suppose Global Warming and its relation to change in weather patterns... IF one exists)

There is no such thing as a weather "pattern." Weather is random, i.e. without relationships for correlation or causation to anything, precluding any "patterns."

Try this: Start flipping a coin. Flip it many times and annotate the "patterns." Gather boatloads of data on the "patterns" that you discern. Then notice that no one cares about your research because there are no relationships to glean. Your work is not repeatable.

You can't have patterns among random events.

JayCardinal wrote: 4)Try what? Try to accurately measure human impact on our environment in its entirety in relation to how we influence weather patterns and the average temperature of the globe, or if there is any LOCAL change in temperature/weather due to human influence

What do you consider to be "impact"?
What might you be trying to express if you were to remove "weather patterns"?
What do you consider to be "accurate", i.e. what margin of error?
What units of measure apply to "impact"?
What units of measure apply to "influence"?
What distinguishes human influence from other influence?
Do you care about direct human influence only or do you include indirect as well?
What comprises our "environment" in its entirety?

Aside from these trivial quibbles I'm sure we could think of something.

JayCardinal wrote: 5)Carbon dioxide is not the only carbon based molecule that is ejected into the atmosphere during a volcanic euption.

Why do we care? It seems less relevant and less interesting than a baby shower.

JayCardinal wrote: 6)Carbon dioxide and other carbon emissions are "said" to have the so-called "Greenhouse Gas Effect" within our atmosphere.

Only by scientifically illiterate warmizombie zealots who deny physics. There is no truth to it outside religious belief.

JayCardinal wrote:. But I know for sure there are more ways to increase the temperature of the earth than moving it closer to the sun.

Nope. You don't know that because it's not true. The only way to sustain an increase in the average temperature of the earth to any discernible extent for any amount of time is to increase the power received from its heat source, which is the sun. Presuming a constant power output of the sun, the only way to increase the power received by the earth is to either move the earth closer to the sun or to move the sun closer to the earth.

So let's address your certainty that there are other ways to sustain an increase to earth's average global temperature by noting that you suck at physics, right? Yep, that's where your problem is. We can point to all the times you let someone else do your thinking for you and you were told that humans are increasing the earth's temperature, ... and you NEVER once questioned what you were being told to believe. As a result, you mindlessly regurgitated stupid and embarrassing shit that makes you look like a moron.

I trust that we have now covered this point sufficiently.

JayCardinal wrote: 7)I dont think I should have to define terms to you, the definitions of words and terms are readily available on Google.

Nope. You need to define them unambiguously or your arguments are summarily dismissed.

Define them or we move on to something else.

JayCardinal wrote: 9)I am not advocating removing human beings, the question I am trying to pose is how drastically different would weather/temperature be around the globe if humanity was not a part of the equation?

If you remove that which has no impact, nothing changes.

JayCardinal wrote: 10)I would say we are the dominant species on the planet. Ergo = planet conquered.

I'm guessing that any sentient hyperthermophile would disagree, and they don't affect the weather either.

JayCardinal wrote: 11)I didnt say humanity was made up of radio waves. I said our sphere of influence extends far into outer space in the form of radio waves. Giving a large scale example of a "sphere of influence" to give perspective

Define "influence." Are you talking about the Zynethians on Segzen II who intercepted our radio chatter and are now imposing carbon taxes planet-wide ... even though Segzen II has only silicon-based life forms?

JayCardinal wrote: 12)I am not saying consequences are all bad.

Oh please, please, please ... tell me that you are arguing "externalities." I'm just looking for a convenient segue into Marxism.

JayCardinal wrote: Things happen consequently as a result of other things. Period.

I'm thinking Nobel Prize for you.

JayCardinal wrote:Whether they are good or bad is a matter of perspective. Whats good for us may be bad for an ant. Whats good for the earth may be bad for us. Perspective.

What do you imagine is bad for planet earth?

Are you saying that perhaps humans eating beef might be bad for the cow?



.