|Climate change by how we use the sun?08-05-2021 06:32|
|Climate change by how we use the sun|
The best science always comes from scientists asking the right questions
The earth's temperature is basically based on
1/ gravitational stress from the moon creating heat within
2/ the sun's rays heating the earth
3/ the dissipation of heat off the earth to cool it.
Every one blames carbon dioxide with no factual evidence other than the 1.6 % of the atmosphere is carbon dioxide, up 0.7% in 60 years max. I know because I have done this, Fly in a glider over a supermarket car park and enjoy the lift near the middle of the day, Summer time about 40 degrees latitude on the planet as an example. Now go to Google earth and look at the roading and dark roofs that cover the planet today. That was not there 60 years ago. That contributes to a lot of heat all over the planet that is added up every day. The vehicles that run around on those roads only produce a minute amount of that heat as from the sun. Then fly a glider over grass land and the lift dies out unless you make use of wind from off a steep hill.
Taking this theory is about measuring the artificial heating by the volume of Roofs and roads compared to grass and trees on the planet, and comparing that to the environment over 60 years, to get a true answer?
Then consider to measure other factors that a plain of what has most effect to lower global warming can be implemented in a financially effective way. Politics will be politics and will do nothing as it has no foundation. Practical science that does not have management to manage the problem into nothing, removes marketing science to obtain true science once again.
I understand carbon dioxide is heavy in the atmosphere and does not exist in the upper atmospheres at all. I understand carbolic acid is made in small quantities from the carbon dioxide. So do plants collect carbolic acid with Ammonia from the roots to grow plants? And using wood for housing helps to lower carbon dioxide levels. If you cannot see the wood (carbon) any more is because its in the atmosphere again. And the sea adsorbs some carbon dioxide too. The question is what is making the balance in a practical science way that is measured, then a plan can be put in place to make a measured difference.
How much hotter is the sun today after 60 years?
Is their ways to have many orbiting satellites to cool the planet by a measurable amount. They are questions that need measuring and not to be clouded in politics so the public cannot see anything?
Omg Lex was this you flying your, uh, paramotor over Safeway at Dougherty and Bollinger on 3/27???
|I think your 1.6% CO2 estimate is a little high... I've been seeing at 0.04%, for many years, a trace gas. Of course, the politics, will focus on the estimate, that better illustrates the narrative. There is really no actual data, which could possibly support global warming. The interpretation, is purely subjective, which isn't a scientific. Lacking hundreds of years of controlled, logged, measurements, climate science tries to make use of anything, and everything, that 'might' be useful. There is a huge margin of error, using 'frankendata., analogs and proxies, where verified data is lacking. The amount of 'warming' is well within that margin of error, so the argument is within boundaries of science. An argument for global cooling, could equally be applied, to the same data, still fall within the margin of error, and be considered valid. The 'proven' science, is that it follows the approved methodology. The conclusions, are total bullshit, of course, to sell the product, which is a value to the customers, those that pay the research bills, generously. They keep selling a bad product, as long as it's popular, and profitable. |
Only about 20% of the planet surface, is land, and we don't populate much of that. it's a very large planet, and we really don't have that great an influence, on a global scale. We make a mess in some localized areas, but it has no effect on a global scale at all. My main concern, is the aggressive push to reduce/remove CO2. CO2, is a very valuable resource, to life on this planet, and shouldn't be played with. More CO2, would be a great asset, with our population growing, and our need to produce food. Plants, are where all food starts, we eat the plants, or animals that feed on plants. CO2 isn't evenly distributed throughout the atmosphere, like a blanket, in a Bill Nye demonstration. Plants die, when they can't get over 180 ppm, regularly. Optimal growth, happens in the 700-900 ppm range. Doesn't seem to be a maximum, for plants, but there is for most every other life form. We need to keep increasing CO2, if we want to feed the growing populations. We can tolerate a warmer climate, but we can't go too many weeks, without sufficient food. I live in Florida, and survived decades of extreme weather, every year. Challenging, but not that hard.
LexDean wrote:The best science always comes from scientists asking the right questions
How would you know? Is that what you were told to say? You don't even know what science is. What is your reason for opening with a line about science when you are going to discuss nothing but your religious beliefs hereafter?
Science requires all entities and relationships to be formally and unambiguously defined, i.e. mathematically. You have left "Climate" completely undefined exactly as one would leave a religious deity undefined.
So understand this: The best science always comes from a falsifiable model that predicts nature. Science is not people asking questions otherwise housewives would dominate the world of science.
LexDean wrote:The earth's temperature is basically based on
#1 is something you were told to say by whoever does your thinking for you.
#3 is the incidental result (dependent variable) of #2
... so only #2, combined with earth's Emissivity per the Stefan-Boltzmann law determines earth's temperature.
Earth's temperature, in turn, determines Earth's radiance, not the other way around.
LexDean wrote: Every one blames carbon dioxide
... except for Pete Rogers who blames gravity. However you are totally correct, i.e. whatever one's claim for Greenhouse Effect, it's a sign that he is a scientifically illiterate loon who hates thermodynamics for ruining an otherwise perfectly good religion that is based on wholesome HATRED and intolerance.
LexDean wrote: ... with no factual evidence other than the 1.6 % of the atmosphere is carbon dioxide,...
You like to just make up really absurd schiyitt, don't you. I recommend that you keep increasing this number incrementally every post, just to see how high you can get it.
After all, the atmosphere's uniform 2.3% CO2 content is "what we know."
LexDean wrote: I know because I have done this, Fly in a glider over a supermarket car park and enjoy the lift near the middle of the day, Summer time about 40 degrees latitude on the planet as an example.
You've hit the nail on the head. This is precisely the method used to accurately measure the atmosphere's CO2 content and to verify its totally uniform distribution.
LexDean wrote:Now go to Google earth and look at the roading and dark roofs that cover the planet today. That was not there 60 years ago.
Sorry, but the earth's temperature increase is due to heat from microprocessors. All those computers, tablets and cell phones weren't here sixty years ago.
Sorry, but the earth's temperature increase is due to heat infused into the atmosphere by modern skyscrapers like Burj Khalifa, Shanghai Tower, Abraj Al-Bait Clock Tower, Ping An Finance Center, Lotte World Tower, One World Trade Center, Guangzhou CTF Finance Centre, Tianjin CTF Finance Centre, China Zun,
Taipei 101, Shanghai World Financial Center, International Commerce Centre,
Central Park Tower, Lakhta Center, Landmark 81, Changsha IFS Tower T1,
Petronas Towers, Zifeng Tower, Suzhou IFS, The Exchange 106, Willis Tower,
KK100, Guangzhou International Finance Center, Wuhan Center, 111 West 57th Street, One Vanderbilt, Dongguan International Trade Center 1, 432 Park Avenue, Marina 101, Trump International Hotel and Tower, Jin Mao Tower, Princess Tower, Al Hamra Tower, Two International Finance Centre, Haeundae LCT The Sharp Landmark Tower, Nanning China Resources Tower, Guiyang International Financial Center T1, China Resources Headquarters, 23 Marina
CITIC Plaza, Shum Yip Upperhills Tower 1, 30 Hudson Yards, Capital Market Authority Headquarters, Shun Hing Square, Eton Place Dalian Tower 1, Logan Century Center 1, Burj Mohammed bin Rashid, Elite Residence, Riverview Plaza, Shenzhen Center, Central Plaza, Federation Tower (East Tower), Dalian International Trade Center, Address Boulevard, Haitian Center Tower 2, Golden Eagle Tiandi Tower A, Bank of China Tower, Bank of America Tower, St. Regis Chicago, Almas Tower, Hanking Center, Greenland Group Suzhou Center, Gevora Hotel, JW Marriott Marquis Dubai Tower 1, JW Marriott Marquis Dubai Tower 2, Emirates Office Tower, Raffles City Chongqing T3N, Raffles City Chongqing T4N, OKO Tower – South Tower, The Marina Torch, Forum 66 Tower 1, The Pinnacle, Xi An Glory International Financial Center, etc...
Nature was not intended to have heat directly injected that high into the troposphere where it will be re-radiated back to earth over a much wider surface area. The entirety of earth's catastrophic temperature increase is due entirely to these proliferating ultra-skyscrapers that just weren't there sixty years ago.
Sorry, but the earth's temperature increase is due exclusively to homeowners associations. All those housing communities, subdivisions and urban sprawl have created a behemoth cancer of rules and regulations that just weren't here sixty years ago.
Sorry, but earth's temperature increase is due to Christianity because it just wasn't here sixty years ago.
LexDean wrote: Taking this theory is about measuring the artificial heating by the volume of Roofs and roads compared to grass and trees on the planet, and comparing that to the environment over 60 years, to get a true answer?
Correct ... and then you have to divide by GDP. This is the value you will use to "weight" your proxy measures.
LexDean wrote: I understand carbon dioxide is heavy in the atmosphere and does not exist in the upper atmospheres at all.
Only because Exxon was handed a court order to clean up their CO2 spill in the upper stratosphere. Exxon got a lot of bad press for that one.
LexDean wrote: How much hotter is the sun today after 60 years?
We aren't sure because that depends on how much CO2 was re-radiated back to the sun. By the way, you are talking about the temperature at the sun's surface, right?
HarveyH55 wrote: climate science tries to make use of anything, and everything, that 'might' be useful.
It's important to note that Climate Science, Climatology and Scientology are all WACKY cult religions.
HarveyH55 wrote: There is a huge margin of error, using 'frankendata., analogs and proxies, where verified data is lacking.
It is important to note that the incredibly huge margin of error precludes any useful applications.
HarveyH55 wrote: The amount of 'warming' is well within that margin of error, so the argument is within boundaries of science.
No such argument is science, nor are any scientific.
If an argument is not based upon a valid dataset with a useful margin of error then the argument is wildly speculative and the technical term is "crazy talk" making it of no value.
HarveyH55 wrote: An argument for global cooling, could equally be applied, to the same data, still fall within the margin of error, and be considered valid.
Not quite. Yes, the global cooling argument could also be made using the exact same logic and the exact same "data" ... and it would be just as invalid.
Damn the old white male Trumper Christians!!!
Causing global warming since the "burning bush"... no wait, since Sodom and Gomorrah... no wait, it didn't exist before sixty years ago... no, YES IT DID... but it didn't... Damn Christians...
Edited on 09-05-2021 03:33
|Spongy Iris wrote: yes if you do a proper search the average carbon dioxide level across the globe is currently 1.6% just before covit-19 hit. Smoke from vehicles and fires in cities is much higher but not in other places. Carbon Dioxide is very recyclable and people forget that.|
HarveyH55 wrote: "Climate" yes is a word that is not definitive (politics), so Climate Science is two contradictory words that do not go together, but world average temperatures over the globe is definable in degrees Centigrade. And Carbon Dioxide levels, suns energy, effects on gravitational stress as on Jupiter's moon IO and science is about defining truth with measurements within the margin of error. Without sound reasoning with accurate information its only just politics that does nothing. Most of that information does not exist when the cost to obtain it is cheaper than the wasted politics. Example: - the suns heat and how its changed over the last 60 years.
Mount Erebus on the South Pole, the most violent volcano on earth 13 tons of other gasses a year. Yes the heat lifts the gasses to blow a ozone hole every winter and new Zealand is very effected with sun burn for many every spring. It's why few have rubber roofing in the country. But any one that has worked with Fluorocarbons as a cleaning agent knows it's like gas made with lead. Covit-19 has brought out Oxygen enrichment machines that separate Oxygen from Nitrogen with centrfical force. Ozone is O3 and that's lighter than Nitrogen, then Oxygen, then CO2, Fluorocarbons and that is why I believe soil does not contain Nitrogen gas, as plants only adsorb Ammonia. The hardest to separate is oxygen from nitrogen because of size and weight. It's about science to prove these things because politics does not invent Oxygen enrichment machines or have any understanding of this.
So many comments are baseless with no foundation IBdaMann wrote: Sorry, but earth's temperature increase is due to Christianity because it just wasn't here sixty years ago. My answer to brainless comments: go kill each other off so you live in the population of the sixties, start with yourself first. Or use science to maintain the population.
gfm7175 wrote:IBdaMann wrote:
Regarding when Christianity actually started, I don't know the exact date so it might possibly have been around sixty years ago, depending on how you define "is." The burning bushes are direct references to California wild fires and those have only been occurring recently. Sodom and Gomorrah is a direct reference to San Francisco's recent urban problems. The water-into-wine thing is Christianity's explanation for the recent California droughts (Jesus saved trillions of barrels of the best wine for last). Jesus appearing to walk on water because California water reservoirs were so low is the result of the recent California droughts. I'm not seeing anything that was around over sixty years ago.
By the way, you'll notice that the Bible doesn't specify which brand of wine Jesus miraculously created out of water. This was an oversight on the part of the committee assembling the books of the Bible. They were certain that no one would ask. Boy did they not forsee the current wine market.
Anyway, I researched the book that "didn't make the cut" that specified the brand of wine with which Jesus surprised wedding guests. The brand is Queirolo. It's Peruvian. Hmmm. Interesting.
Personally, it really looks like the conclusion was reached, long before they stumbled across an effect means to sell it. Energy production is important to most everyone. Those that produce, have a lot of power, control, money. Fossil fuels are cheap and plentiful, just pull it out of the ground. It's never really been about global temperature, or greenhouse gasses, it was about seizing control over energy production. All attempts to replace fossil fuels have hailed. Nothing has been found, that can compete on it's own. Destroying the industry, is the only way to sell an inferior product. I don't remember how many acres of land is required, to replace one coal-burning power plant, with solar panels/windmills, but it was quite a bit. Solar, only produces when the sun is shining. Windmills, when the wind is blowing sufficiently. Neither, are an option for all populated areas, and there isn't a cheap, simple way to store surplus, to fill in for less productive periods. Demand is going to rise, as petroleum is phase out, in favor of electric vehicles. Batteries are also not so recyclable, yet either. The lead-acid batteries we use in our gas vehicles, are only used briefly, to start, and last about 5 years. Those batteries are easily recycled, but the chemistry isn't suitable for heavy use. Personal transportation, is going to get expensive. Mass transit, won't be cheap either, but better than walking, or riding a bicycle, horse and buggy. The change from fossil fuels, will be costly, and not hope of keeping up with demands. Energy will be rationed, subsidized, heavily controlled. People wanting to use energy will be heavily dependent on the government, to provide what they need.
|Is the sun toxic?||29||21-06-2022 23:22|
|Blocking out the Sun, to reduce global warming...||4||27-04-2021 21:24|
|Nws about the Sun by Svensmark||48||03-04-2019 05:49|
|It looks like sun spots decrease did cause the most recent little ice age||3||26-02-2019 00:34|
|If Sun will die, Earth will die, all life will die, then why are people so afraid of death by climate cha||1||25-02-2019 05:21|