Remember me
▼ Content

Climate Change And Covid19



Page 1 of 3123>
Climate Change And Covid1924-04-2020 01:46
JayCardinal
☆☆☆☆☆
(10)
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~
24-04-2020 02:46
James___
★★★★★
(2977)
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~



Hi Jay, tends to be difficult in here. With that said, something most won't consider is that heat from human activity might be conserved. Basically at night it does not automatically radiate out into space.
And if you consider friction of tires on pavement generates heat because of friction as well as the heat emitted by engines, could impact regional temps.
24-04-2020 03:13
JayCardinal
☆☆☆☆☆
(10)
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.
24-04-2020 04:43
James___
★★★★★
(2977)
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.



And we can see the problems created by slowing the world economy too quickly. That could cause pollution to increase. China saves money by trashing the environment. With me, I think a better solar panel would make a difference.
Then it could convert ambient heat into electricity. Solar panels have to be pointed towards the Sun. This basically means that particles that pass through our thermosphere become charged to about 8,000 volts. It's this charge that's converted into electrons. As it passes through our atmosphere it loses it's charge.
24-04-2020 05:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13003)
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.

'Global Warming' isn't a theory. It's a religion. So far no one has even been able to define what 'global warming' actually means.

The 'greenhouse effect' theory is not one of science, since it conflicts with existing theories of science that have not been falsified, namely the 1st law of thermodynamics, the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

It is not possible for any gas or vapor to warm the Earth.

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.

Satellites are incapable of measuring an absolute temperature. They can only measure light. The emissivity of the Earth is unknown. The emissivity if Italy is unknown. It is not possible to measure either emissivity value, since the temperature of Earth (or Italy) are unknown. We simply don't have enough thermometers to determine that temperature.
JayCardinal wrote:
More than just what could be accounted for by the decrease in carbon emissions.

It is not possible to measure carbon emissions either, or even the global (or regional) amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. We do not have enough monitoring stations, and CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere. Further, the Mauna Loa station has been caught manipulating their data (that happened a couple of years ago).
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.

An invalid question, since it presupposes:
a) 'global warming' is actually defined.
b) accurate temperature readings of Italy are available and published, pass the test of bias, and the statistical math is performed on that data along with declaring and justify the source of variance and the margin of error is calculated. Since temperature can easily vary as much as 20 deg F per mile, you will need quite a few thermometers to cover an area as large as Italy. Those thermometers must be uniformly placed, and must be read simultaneously, or bias is introduced in the data.
c) accurate concentrations of CO2 are being measured. Again this data must be available and published, and the same statistical requirements apply.
d) the source of the additional CO2 is determined. CO2 has many natural sources as well as man made ones.
e) the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law are falsified. In that case, the tests showing the falsification must be shown, as well as how they were conducted. Such an event, of course, would be major news in physics.
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?

No. Same sun, same Earth, same distance, same energy, same dissipation into space.
JayCardinal wrote:
Can someone please confirm or deny this hypothesis

Denied, for the reasons stated above.
JayCardinal wrote:
or maybe give me some insight into research that may have been done on this?

Science isn't a research or a study. It is a set of falsifiable theories. The data you are requesting is not possible to obtain, for the reasons I have already given. Anyone that tells you the temperature of Earth (or the temperature of Italy) is making shit up. Anyone that tells you the CO2 concentration in the global atmosphere (or the atmosphere of Italy) is making shit up.

It doesn't matter if it's a neighbor, some guy on the internet, a government institution like NASA or NOAA, or a university professor (another government employee). Quoting 'data' like this is making shit up.


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
24-04-2020 05:56
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13003)
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.


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
24-04-2020 06:29
James___
★★★★★
(2977)
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. Kind of why I don't spend too much time on your mantras. Everything would become about religion.
24-04-2020 06:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13003)
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.

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

Compositional error fallacy. The Mantras are simply numbered versions of the chants and Mantras of the religious. It is not me chanting them. I simply note when they are chanted.


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
Edited on 24-04-2020 06:36
24-04-2020 07:26
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(465)
Trust me JayCardinal that is ITN being extremely polite.It is up to you to decide for yourself what is real as I have been doing for at least a year.I am of the belief that there is no manmade warming and we have no control over the weather.I hope you dig deep and find the truth as I set out to do and ignore situations where the proponents attack the author to make a point.

And yet you can't explain existence. Kind of why I don't spend too much time on your mantras. Everything would become about religion.James----

There is a lot of conflicting information is Ice melting is it not? Sea levels are my big deal and I have been shown pretty little charts that show all sorts of stuff however the scientist who held the chair for The IPCC regarding sea levels claims it is not happening and resigned over the issue.Apparently 3 scientists studying sea level are in Austria!!.The anti CO2 brigade make all sorts of claims of mass destruction but none of them ever come true.As I have said before if the extreme events predicted come true I will be the first to cry its not fair and run for the hills
24-04-2020 08:25
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7293)
JayCardinal wrote: Satellite images of Italy from before and after the lockdown from covid19 show significant decreases in overall temperature in the region.

Nope. They do not.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
24-04-2020 08:27
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7293)
JayCardinal wrote: I think more research needs to be done on human impact on weather systems in all forms.

First you need to have some rational reason to believe that humans have any impact in the first place ... which is an absurd notion on its face.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
24-04-2020 08:31
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(465)
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
24-04-2020 08:37
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7293)
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.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
24-04-2020 16:56
James___
★★★★★
(2977)
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.
24-04-2020 17:02
James___
★★★★★
(2977)
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.


.



It's not a great thought. It's the 1/2 Norwegian part of me understanding what would help to make where I live a little better. At the same time, if I get lucky I can move to another country. In the US, someone is either being served or is the servant. That IMHO is not a sustainable policy. But as Americans say, the US is a capitalist country before it is a Democracy. That IMHO is not a sustainable policy.
And for fun, don't be surprised if in the future the US becomes something like the Corporate Congress in the TV series Continuum.
24-04-2020 18:04
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2186)
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.
24-04-2020 18:38
James___
★★★★★
(2977)
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.


And yet it's not possible to know the temperature? You just showed where remote monitoring and using sensors is possible.
I mean a handheld scanner is a sensor. It can identify a bin and an item in that bin. And if the item in the bin has been moved, it can tell you where it is just as it can let someone know if that picker is on what floor and where on that floor. This allows transit times and distances between picks to be known. And yet we cannot know the temperature?
And Harvey, as I've said before, you make me want to be a better person. Then when I survive my situation, I can have a life somewhere. I doubt it will be in the US. Working with other people is Evil socialism which is to be avoided. But following the Ferengi Rules of Aquisition, it's what every American should live by. https://memory-beta.fandom.com/wiki/Ferengi_Rules_of_Acquisition
24-04-2020 20:47
JayCardinal
☆☆☆☆☆
(10)
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? I find that hard to believe considering the Planck Length is still technically measurable and we "apparently" know this to be fact. AND BEFORE EVERYONE GOES OFF ON ME ABOUT PLANCK I SAID "APPARENTLY" you savages. 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. And **** whoever said we will never be able to measure something on that grand of a scale, and to that degree of accuracy.
They said that about finding evidence for anti-particles and the LHC. Booyah bitch.
24-04-2020 22:36
James___
★★★★★
(2977)
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.


I think you meant fück, right? It's pronounced fuuck and not fock. Don't worry, these guys aren't capable of being insulted. And example is that ITN does not exist because if he did then he's violating the 1st law of thermodynamics. ergo, he does not exist. And if he says that he "is", that doesn't make him a man because "is" is not defined. And to be defined is to allow for an understanding greater than "is".
I heard he starts high school next year. Kidz


My bad, it's actually closer to "y" (oo) in Russian.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZT6bzXwwcE
Edited on 24-04-2020 22:45
24-04-2020 23:00
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2186)
How come we have absolutely no influence over any sort of weather event? Climate change, implies, that we can, and that we do, well over hundreds of years, anyway. In theory, there are probably a lot of things, we could potentially do, that are unlikely to happen in practice, or wouldn't really be such a good idea, even if possible to implement. Having an ego the size of a planet, isn't the same as actually having control over such a huge hunk of rock. We man number in the billions, but we still only occupy a very small portion of just the surface. This only makes up an insignificant part, of the massive volume of planet earth.
24-04-2020 23:14
JayCardinal
☆☆☆☆☆
(10)
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, or for that matter global weather patterns etc. I believe is wrong. 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. 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.
25-04-2020 00:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13003)
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

There is no such thing as an 'environmental weather system'. There is only the weather. After all, is there such a thing weather that is not 'environmental'?
JayCardinal wrote:
and b) no way to accurately measure it even if there was?

There is no way to accurately measure the temperature of the Earth, the concentration of global atmospheric CO2, the origin of said CO2, the level of the sea, or the emissivity of Earth. Anyone that tells you a value for any of these is making shit up.
JayCardinal wrote:
I find that hard to believe considering the Planck Length is still technically measurable and we "apparently" know this to be fact.

It is not a measurement. It is a designation.
JayCardinal wrote:
AND BEFORE EVERYONE GOES OFF ON ME ABOUT PLANCK I SAID "APPARENTLY" you savages.

Many people misquote Planck. Much of his material actually requires an understanding of physics and quantum physics to understand.
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.

Okay. Design one. Beware the usual parlor trick of heating CO2 in sealed glass bottles with an infrared light. They only show what we already know...that CO2 can absorb certain frequencies of infrared light and convert it to thermal energy.
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.

Sorry, dude. You can't **** math.


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
25-04-2020 00:10
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1093)
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,

Define "global warming".

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

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

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.

We don't know what the temperature of the Earth is.

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.

Paragraphs are your friend.
25-04-2020 01:09
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7293)
James___ wrote: In the US, someone is either being served or is the servant.

It's called the service sector. It's a primary driver for all economies.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
25-04-2020 01:34
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(465)
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
25-04-2020 01:54
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7293)
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?

You more or less neailed it on the head. I might quibble minorly over your exact wording but sure, you are on mark.

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

Why does a theoretical length render you unable to believe rationally?

We do not "know" that a theoretical length is true. We presume it is correct/accurate until we have reason to believe otherwise.

You don't know what a "fact" is. I suggest you avoid the term.

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.

... or ... you could take a scientific approach. Instead of trying to find "the truth" like you are a religious monk trying to discover the secrets of the supernatural, you coud instead apply the scientific method and find out what is boolsch-'t.

Anyone who is merely trying to "confirm" predetermined conclusions is a theocratic devotee trying to get high on his religion. The person who is questioning, doubting, testing and rejecting is the one following the scientific method. That's where I am and I welcome you to jump the fence over to my side.

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.

You did, you moron, by exclaiming that you find it "hard to believe" that we can't.

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

Nope, they never said that. What they said was "Mariners at sea, when, through cloudy weather in the day which hides the sun, or through the darkness of night, they lose knowlege of the quarter of the world to which they are sailing, touch a needle with a magnet, which will turn round till, on its motion ceasing, its point will be directed towards the north."

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
25-04-2020 01:59
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7293)
gfm7175 wrote: What "global weather"? Weather is a very localized thing and can vary rather drastically by locality.

Moreso than that it can vary drastically by locality, it does vary drastically by locality.

Note: the word "drastically" as used in the preceding statement is a bit of an understatement.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
25-04-2020 02:18
James___
★★★★★
(2977)
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



I have been in Perth and Freemantle. Do you remember me? I was on an aircraft carrier that was said to have nuclear weapons on it. I heard all about it in Freemantle but not in Perth.
You can check online. My ship ported at sea of the coast of Australia. We used LSTs to get to Freemantle. Needless to say, it was an experience. The link is what I would say suggests that my ship did not have nuclear weapons on it as some Australians (in Freemantle) believed. Never heard a word about it in Perth.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/1984-russian-nuclear-attack-submarine-smashed-us-navy-aircraft-carrier-78111
25-04-2020 02:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13003)
JayCardinal wrote:
It is not that we have 0 influence.

This is a void argument, since the 'influence' you are trying to justify has no relationship to 'harmful influence', which is not yet even defined.
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.

This is a fallacy known as an appeal to complexity. Waving vague variables around that are undefined as a justification for a belief is really just a circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).
JayCardinal wrote:
And this does not necessarily mean that we do not have the means to accomplish this either.

Accomplish what? You have not defined what you are trying to accomplish.
JayCardinal wrote:
It just means that we have not yet been motivated enough to try.

Try what?
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.

It also puts a lot of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Carbon is not the same as carbon dioxide.
JayCardinal wrote:
So to say that our carbon footprint is the determining factor in Global Warming/Global Cooling trends is not based in fact.

Neither carbon nor carbon dioxide can do anything to change the temperature of the Earth.
* You can't destroy energy into nothing.
* You can't create energy from nothing.

The ONLY way to increase the temperature of the Earth is to move the Earth closer to the Sun, or to increase the output of the Sun.
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.

You are believing a vacuum. You have still not defined 'global warming' or 'measurable affect', or 'influence'.
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.

Just like every plant, animal, or even rocks on the planet surface.
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.

Human beings are part of Earth. Are you advocating removing them from Earth? Who do you want to kill first?
JayCardinal wrote:
All of humanity can be fit shoulder to shoulder in the state of North Dakota. And yet, we have conquered the planet.

According to the Church of Global Warming, and to the Church of Green, we have NOT conquered the planet. It is conquering us. You really should get your beliefs lined up so as to avoid paradoxes.
JayCardinal wrote:
And humanity's sphere of influence continues to grow into outer space in the form of radio waves etc.

Light is also a radio wave. Is the Sun humanity?
JayCardinal wrote:
And again, the consequences of this influence unknown to us.

You seem to be trying to equivocate any influence is automatically harmful influence, or that it somehow has something to do with something 'bad'. Yet you won't define what 'bad' is.

Making vague statements like this is not accomplishing anything. At the very least, you need to be specific.


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
25-04-2020 02:42
JayCardinal
☆☆☆☆☆
(10)
I don't need to be specific. I am stimulating conversation. And just to make everyone aware I am not arguing in favor of anything. I simply want to hear from people who are more knowledgeable than I am. Okay so to answer some of these points.

1) I am not arguing that our influence is either harmful, or not. I am simply arguing that it is measurable
2)All the variables may be vague. But in totality, could they all equate to a difference of any significance?
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)
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
5)Carbon dioxide is not the only carbon based molecule that is ejected into the atmosphere during a volcanic euption. I am speaking of course in generalities. Cabon dioxide, carbon monoxide, carbon soot, carbonate minerals within the lava, diamonds etc. All Carbon. All C...
6)Carbon dioxide and other carbon emissions are "said" to have the so-called "Greenhouse Gas Effect" within our atmosphere. How much truth to that is there? who knows. But I know for sure there are more ways to increase the temperature of the earth than moving it closer to the sun. That is 100% bull-ish if Ive ever heard it sir
7)I dont think I should have to define terms to you, the definitions of words and terms are readily available on Google.
8)Someone in an earlier post tried to claim that because humanity only occupies a small space on the surface of the earth that we couldnt POSSIBLY have that great of an influence on our environment. So I dug into a bit. Sorry?
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?
10)I would say we are the dominant species on the planet. Ergo = planet conquered.
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
12)I am not saying consequences are all bad. Things happen consequently as a result of other things. Period. 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.
Edited on 25-04-2020 02:50
25-04-2020 03:20
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2186)
You still fail to appreciate just how massive this planet really is. Humans, for the most part, live on dry land, and on the surface. About 80% of the surface is water. The atmosphere, is part of the planet as well, and large volume as well.

We have had a strong need and desire to control weather. Rain being one of the strongest desires, since drought, greatly reduces available food, for all living things. Hurricanes and tornadoes are deadly, and do a lot of damage every year, and there has been a strong desire to control them. We barely have the power to predict possible tornadoes, and only know for sure, live, and from the ground, by sighting. We can detect and measure the conditions, that are favorable to tornadoes, but doesn't always mean the spawn. No telling when or where they will touch down yet. How can you control something, you can barely detect, before the damage is done? Mankind has a huge ego, the size of a planet. We like to believe, we understand, more than we really know, and control more, than what's really in our power.
25-04-2020 03:25
JayCardinal
☆☆☆☆☆
(10)
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.
25-04-2020 03:41
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1728)
I think this one may have been glossed over. Can we back up and bit a hit this one?

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....


So I've witnessed my wife cussing my ass from over a hundred meters, and I could hear her clearly. She was certainly vibrating the air a bit. However, I don't think she was able to make it rain or raise the temperature by doing so. Only thing she raised was my blood pressure.

Please explain what measurable effect a human can have on their environment that may change the climate.
Edited on 25-04-2020 03:42
25-04-2020 04:03
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2186)
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.


Been intensely studied for hundreds of years, many people lost their lives in the pursuit, or sacrifice (one way, or another). It's a much bigger question than we have the capacity to deal with. Their is always the big-guy-in-the-sky theory, which you can discuss on Sundays, when churches re-open. Mankind is pretty good at building tools, perhaps someday, if we keep working at it, we may get lucky. But do we really want to mess with such powerful forces? It's a lot of energy to control, which can neither be created or destroyed. We have to convert it to change it to something, that isn't worse, than the natural forces we want to control.

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.
25-04-2020 04:15
JayCardinal
☆☆☆☆☆
(10)
I am referring to things like driving around, moving and heating air with the friction of vehicles travelling around, planes and their effect etc. Also, does the expansion of asphalt increase the local temperature at all? Do some buildings, power plants or other types of industrial settings increase local temperature? Can chemical companies dumping waste products into the environment have any effect?
25-04-2020 04:19
JayCardinal
☆☆☆☆☆
(10)
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.
[/quote]

Well what if the balance is very delicate. What if the over production of CO2 can actually be bad for plants? The same way breathing too much oxygen can be poisonous to us.
25-04-2020 04:45
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2186)
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. Indoor growing/greenhouses, augment CO2, and it's been a common practice, commercially. It's extremely simple and cheap way to vastly improve production and quality. All kinds of studies done, many sources. Our current 410 ppm, is really only adequate levels for plant life. 180 ppm is starvation mode, where plants only produce enough to survive, not propagate or reproduce. 150 ppm is certain death, plants can't produce enough to survive. They die, soon as the used up what little they have stored. The IPCC goals of reduction to pre-industrial times, is dangerous, since the populations of people and animals weren't so large, and plants weren't as routinely chopped down. Less CO2 was okay, since most of the vegetation was left alone. There is a much great demand on plants now, and keeps growing fast. We actually need more CO2, not less. The catastrophic prophesies they devine from computer models, don't mean much, even less, if food is in short supply.
25-04-2020 06:07
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7293)
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?



.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
25-04-2020 06:29
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7293)
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.

Harvey, let's look at it critically.

Our lungs breathe in around 21% oxygen and roughly 79% Nitrogen. All the rest combined doesn't even add up to 1%.

But let's change that. Let's say you were "exposed" to air of 10,000 ppm CO2. That's 1% CO2. It's still not a "lot" by any stretch. Either through evolution or through the grace of God, the alveoli in our lungs are exceedingly efficient at extracting the O2 from the air we breathe and pumping it into our blood stream for the heart to circulate. My point is that I would need serious convincing that my lungs and my body would somehow suffer noticeably by having lungfulls of air that are roughly 20.5% oxygen as opposed to being roughly 20% oxygen. I am confident that my lungs would continue pumping just as much oxygen into my blood. And we're talking about 10,000 ppm, i.e. just 1%.

... and CO2 is not poison. You have been breathing it in with every breath for your entire life. I don't think "exposure" is the right word. We are all "exposed" to CO2 constantly, and to much higher levels indoors. It's not a poison. It's not pollution. It's not harmful. Neither is the nitrogen that we breathe.

This might throw you for a loop but oxygen is actually poisonous. If you substantially increase the percentage of oxygen you are breathing then you faint and if nothing changes then you die.

Ergo, I view all discussions of CO2 levels below 10,000 ppm as being nothing but unnecessary generations of panic and fear. I have read the OSHA reports and they have no medical information, just recommendations based on anecdotal evidence, e.g. "We recommend the workers be exposed to 10,000 ppm for no more than one hour." Just baseless recommendations.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
25-04-2020 08:41
JayCardinal
☆☆☆☆☆
(10)
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?



.


You know, I am getting the feeling that you feel you are superior to everyone, and that if I were in front of you I would not only want to kick you in the head, but would do so with vigor, repeatedly.
Edited on 25-04-2020 08:42
Page 1 of 3123>





Join the debate Climate Change And Covid19:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Covid1911811-08-2020 00:02
Covid19's future1310-07-2020 02:08
Covid19 "modeling"3004-04-2020 00:07
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact