Remember me
▼ Content

Climate Change consequences-climate catastrophe


Climate Change consequences-climate catastrophe30-05-2019 23:18
hower77
☆☆☆☆☆
(1)
Climate change is a debatable topic with controversy existing between supporters and non-supporters.  Some individuals believe that the climate change happening currently is of little or no concern as evidenced from past climate change cycles previously recorded in earth's history.  Others believe climate change to be of great concern, stating that it is directly linked to the increase and overuse of fossil fuels causing pollution to the earth's atmosphere, resulting in an unnatural rate in the climate change cycle.  The most significant elements of climate change are long-term occurrence in regional and global averages of temperature, humidity and rainfall patterns occurring in time blocks of seasons, years, and decades.  While earth's climate has fluctuated in the past, never before has atmospheric carbon dioxide levels been as high as they are today.  The effects of climate change we see happening today have consequences for weather, food sources, oceans, and health.  Warmer air carries more moisture resulting in extreme storms, rainfall, floods, and heavy snowfall.  Growing crops becomes more difficult since the areas where plants once could grow are shifting due to flooding or water supplies becoming scarcer or drying up.  Ice sheets in Greenland, Antarctica, and glaciers are melting, causing sea levels to rise, resulting in coastal flooding, more extreme tidal surges and the contamination of fresh water with salt water.  Smog containing ozone particles in urban areas is increasing rapidly with higher temperatures and exposure to these higher levels can cause asthma, heart disease, and lung cancer.  The World Health Organization (WHO) has assessed climate change "as the greatest threat to public health and the defining issues of the 21st century."  The impacts of climate change are being demonstrated in the natural world and society.  The question that remains is what will be the outcome?  If careless use of fossil fuels continues and measures aren't taken to slow the rate of climate change, earth, and its inhabitants could be facing a climate catastrophe.
31-05-2019 00:06
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
hower77 wrote:
Climate change is a debatable topic with controversy existing between supporters and non-supporters.  Some individuals believe that the climate change happening currently is of little or no concern as evidenced from past climate change cycles previously recorded in earth's history.

What is 'climate change'? This phrase has no meaning.
hower77 wrote:
Others believe climate change to be of great concern, stating that it is directly linked to the increase and overuse of fossil fuels causing pollution to the earth's atmosphere, resulting in an unnatural rate in the climate change cycle.

Meaningless phrases have no 'cycle'.
hower77 wrote:
The most significant elements of climate change are long-term occurrence in regional and global averages of temperature,

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. We don't have enough instrumentation.
hower77 wrote:
humidity

There is no such thing as a global humidity.
hower77 wrote:
and rainfall patterns

There is no such thing as a global rainfall pattern.
hower77 wrote:
occurring in time blocks of seasons, years, and decades.

Sufficiently vague to complete remove any meaning of 'change'.
hower77 wrote:
While earth's climate has fluctuated in the past,

There is no such thing as a global climate. There is no such thing as a global weather.
hower77 wrote:
never before has atmospheric carbon dioxide levels been as high as they are today.

It is not possible to measure the global CO2 concentration. We don't have anywhere near sufficient instrumentation to do that. CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere.

Further, you need not worry about CO2. It has absolutely no capability to warm the Earth. No gas or vapor does.
hower77 wrote:
The effects of climate change we see happening today have consequences for weather,

There is no effect by meaningless buzzwords upon the weather.
hower77 wrote:
food sources,

There is no effect by meaningless buzzwords upon food sources.
hower77 wrote:
oceans,

There is no effect by meaningless buzzwords upon any ocean or sea.
hower77 wrote:
and health.

There is no effect by meaningless buzzwords upon health.
hower77 wrote:
Warmer air carries more moisture

WRONG. Warmer air CAN carry more moisture. It does not necessarily have more moisture in it.
hower77 wrote:
resulting in extreme storms,

WRONG. Storms require COLD air.
hower77 wrote:
rainfall,

Rainfall requires COLD air.
hower77 wrote:
floods,

Floods resulting from rainfall requires COLD air.
hower77 wrote:
and heavy snowfall.

Snowfall requires COLD air.
hower77 wrote:
Growing crops becomes more difficult since the areas where plants once could grow are shifting

Is that why plants grow everywhere on Earth, even Antarctica?
hower77 wrote:
due to flooding or water supplies becoming scarcer or drying up.

Paradox. Which is it, dude?
hower77 wrote:
Ice sheets in Greenland, Antarctica, and glaciers are melting,

It is late May. Ice in Greenland and northern hemisphere glaciers normally melt somewhat in May. Antarctica is currently freezing. It's almost mid-winter there.
hower77 wrote:
causing sea levels to rise,

It is not possible to measure the sea level of Earth. Local sites have seen no rise in sea level.
hower77 wrote:
resulting in coastal flooding,

Coastal flooding has been around as long as there have been storms and river deltas.
hower77 wrote:
more extreme tidal surges

Sea level is not tide. The Moon still has the same mass and is still in pretty much the same orbit. The Sun has very similar mass and is still the same distance from Earth. These cause tides, not 'climate change', whatever THAT actually means.
hower77 wrote:
and the contamination of fresh water with salt water.

Did you know that every river 'contaminates' salt water with fresh water? Did you know that all ice is fresh water? Did you know that when it rains at sea it is 'contaminating' salt water with fresh water?

Have you any idea where all that fresh water came from in the first place???

hower77 wrote:
Smog containing ozone particles in urban areas is increasing rapidly with higher temperatures

Smog is actually quite a bit lower than it used to be, thanks to a very simple bit of plumbing installed in cars today, called the EGR system. Smog is not caused by higher daytime temperatures.
hower77 wrote:
and exposure to these higher levels can cause asthma,

Smog is at lower levels.
hower77 wrote:
heart disease,

Smog does not cause heart disease.
hower77 wrote:
and lung cancer.

Smog does not cause lung cancer.
hower77 wrote:
The World Health Organization (WHO) has assessed climate change "as the greatest threat to public health and the defining issues of the 21st century."

Typical quote from the twits at the UN. They haven't defined 'climate change' either. Can you?
hower77 wrote:
The impacts of climate change are being demonstrated in the natural world and society.

What about the unnatural world and society? Don't they get to play your game?
hower77 wrote:
The question that remains is what will be the outcome?

Nothing.
hower77 wrote:
If careless use of fossil fuels continues

Fossils aren't used for fuel. Fossils don't burn. We use renewable fuels like oil, natural gas, hydroelectric, etc.
hower77 wrote:
and measures aren't taken to slow the rate of climate change,

You haven't defined 'climate change'. How can you slow what is not defined?
hower77 wrote:
earth, and its inhabitants could be facing a climate catastrophe.

Ooh, ooh, ANOTHER buzzword!
What is 'climate catastrophe'?


The Parrot Killer
31-05-2019 02:00
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)
Into the Night wrote:
hower77 wrote:
Climate change is a debatable topic with controversy existing between supporters and non-supporters.  Some individuals believe that the climate change happening currently is of little or no concern as evidenced from past climate change cycles previously recorded in earth's history.

What is 'climate change'? This phrase has no meaning.
hower77 wrote:
Others believe climate change to be of great concern, stating that it is directly linked to the increase and overuse of fossil fuels causing pollution to the earth's atmosphere, resulting in an unnatural rate in the climate change cycle.

Meaningless phrases have no 'cycle'.
hower77 wrote:
The most significant elements of climate change are long-term occurrence in regional and global averages of temperature,

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. We don't have enough instrumentation.
hower77 wrote:
humidity

There is no such thing as a global humidity.
hower77 wrote:
and rainfall patterns

There is no such thing as a global rainfall pattern.
hower77 wrote:
occurring in time blocks of seasons, years, and decades.

Sufficiently vague to complete remove any meaning of 'change'.
hower77 wrote:
While earth's climate has fluctuated in the past,

There is no such thing as a global climate. There is no such thing as a global weather.
hower77 wrote:
never before has atmospheric carbon dioxide levels been as high as they are today.

It is not possible to measure the global CO2 concentration. We don't have anywhere near sufficient instrumentation to do that. CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere.

Further, you need not worry about CO2. It has absolutely no capability to warm the Earth. No gas or vapor does.
hower77 wrote:
The effects of climate change we see happening today have consequences for weather,

There is no effect by meaningless buzzwords upon the weather.
hower77 wrote:
food sources,

There is no effect by meaningless buzzwords upon food sources.
hower77 wrote:
oceans,

There is no effect by meaningless buzzwords upon any ocean or sea.
hower77 wrote:
and health.

There is no effect by meaningless buzzwords upon health.
hower77 wrote:
Warmer air carries more moisture

WRONG. Warmer air CAN carry more moisture. It does not necessarily have more moisture in it.
hower77 wrote:
resulting in extreme storms,

WRONG. Storms require COLD air.
hower77 wrote:
rainfall,

Rainfall requires COLD air.
hower77 wrote:
floods,

Floods resulting from rainfall requires COLD air.
hower77 wrote:
and heavy snowfall.

Snowfall requires COLD air.
hower77 wrote:
Growing crops becomes more difficult since the areas where plants once could grow are shifting

Is that why plants grow everywhere on Earth, even Antarctica?
hower77 wrote:
due to flooding or water supplies becoming scarcer or drying up.

Paradox. Which is it, dude?
hower77 wrote:
Ice sheets in Greenland, Antarctica, and glaciers are melting,

It is late May. Ice in Greenland and northern hemisphere glaciers normally melt somewhat in May. Antarctica is currently freezing. It's almost mid-winter there.
hower77 wrote:
causing sea levels to rise,

It is not possible to measure the sea level of Earth. Local sites have seen no rise in sea level.
hower77 wrote:
resulting in coastal flooding,

Coastal flooding has been around as long as there have been storms and river deltas.
hower77 wrote:
more extreme tidal surges

Sea level is not tide. The Moon still has the same mass and is still in pretty much the same orbit. The Sun has very similar mass and is still the same distance from Earth. These cause tides, not 'climate change', whatever THAT actually means.
hower77 wrote:
and the contamination of fresh water with salt water.

Did you know that every river 'contaminates' salt water with fresh water? Did you know that all ice is fresh water? Did you know that when it rains at sea it is 'contaminating' salt water with fresh water?

Have you any idea where all that fresh water came from in the first place???

hower77 wrote:
Smog containing ozone particles in urban areas is increasing rapidly with higher temperatures

Smog is actually quite a bit lower than it used to be, thanks to a very simple bit of plumbing installed in cars today, called the EGR system. Smog is not caused by higher daytime temperatures.
hower77 wrote:
and exposure to these higher levels can cause asthma,

Smog is at lower levels.
hower77 wrote:
heart disease,

Smog does not cause heart disease.
hower77 wrote:
and lung cancer.

Smog does not cause lung cancer.
hower77 wrote:
The World Health Organization (WHO) has assessed climate change "as the greatest threat to public health and the defining issues of the 21st century."

Typical quote from the twits at the UN. They haven't defined 'climate change' either. Can you?
hower77 wrote:
The impacts of climate change are being demonstrated in the natural world and society.

What about the unnatural world and society? Don't they get to play your game?
hower77 wrote:
The question that remains is what will be the outcome?

Nothing.
hower77 wrote:
If careless use of fossil fuels continues

Fossils aren't used for fuel. Fossils don't burn. We use renewable fuels like oil, natural gas, hydroelectric, etc.
hower77 wrote:
and measures aren't taken to slow the rate of climate change,

You haven't defined 'climate change'. How can you slow what is not defined?
hower77 wrote:
earth, and its inhabitants could be facing a climate catastrophe.

Ooh, ooh, ANOTHER buzzword!
What is 'climate catastrophe'?

This post came about as close as any to being the commensurate Climate Change rebuttal. All that are missing are the corrections to the standard violations of physics, i.e. thermodynamics and Stefan-Boltzmann ... because hower77 didn't actually go there.

Great post.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
31-05-2019 03:35
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(815)
The first CO2 monitoring station didn't go online until 1958. I've no idea when other stations came online, or how long before any standardizations of measurements were ever reached. Seldom get to see the readings of multiple stations displayed side-by-side. There is no method of extracting CO2 data from anything, before actual measurements, since it's a very small concentration, 0.04% of the atmosphere, which for some reason is considered catastrophically high. To me, it seems like a rediculously low number to get excited over, as does a one or two degree difference in temperature, spread over a 100 year period. Our thermometers don't commonly read to that level of precision today, let alone 100 years ago. Even a lab grade thermometer, is acceptable, with only a resolution in the 1/10 of a degree scale, and a 10% tolerance. Higher precision isn't typically needed for most work, specialty equipment is very expensive. Isn't just as possible, that there hasn't been any actually changes in nature, just changes in the way we measure, and interpret the results?

Climate Change is almost completely based on computer simulations, basically, a video game. Raw data doesn't normally conveniently fit on a graph or computer screen, needs to be 'adjusted' some. For any location on earth, the 24 hour High/low readings will show 10-20 degrees difference, just between night and day temperatures. Doesn't make for a nice, easy to read graph. Weather conditions also make some huge changes as well, and that's just one location, it's a huge planet. There is a huge margin of error in all these calculations, the small differences, that a few people find so alarming (Al Gore), is well within that margin.

I live in Florida, and no signs of rising sea levels, as predicted 20 years ago. Other than the regular tide cycles, the only rising sea levels, come during hurricanes and tropical storms, which return to normal soon after they pass. There are plenty of century old homes and businesses along the coast, still in fine condition, occasional storm damage, but are holding up well, and not under water. If the seas had risen even one foot (12 inches), the bottom floor of a lot of beach front buildings would be unuseable, many would have been condemned by now. We do see significant beach erosion each year, and constantly replace the sand for the tourists. During active storm seasons, it's a crisis, since it hard to keep up.

Climate Change is really about any actual abnormality, just how people perceive the environment, and methods of measuring it. There is always going to be a debate, and someone trying to change our perception. Not enough people are ever going to agree on anything to make a significant change though. Just something to believe in, and fight over, but life goes on.
31-05-2019 04:49
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
HarveyH55 wrote:
The first CO2 monitoring station didn't go online until 1958. I've no idea when other stations came online, or how long before any standardizations of measurements were ever reached. Seldom get to see the readings of multiple stations displayed side-by-side.

Such stations are all on the ground. CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere. There's a couple dozen of them now.
HarveyH55 wrote:
There is no method of extracting CO2 data from anything, before actual measurements, since it's a very small concentration, 0.04% of the atmosphere, which for some reason is considered catastrophically high.

Worrying about CO2 is completely pointless. The gas has absolutely now capability to warm the Earth. It is simply being used as a scapegoat for Marxists to attack capitalism, industry, and corporations.
HarveyH55 wrote:
To me, it seems like a rediculously low number to get excited over, as does a one or two degree difference in temperature, spread over a 100 year period.

Since it's not possible to measure either number, the only debate there is pointing out that there is no data to a bunch of fundamentalist believers in the Church of Global Warming.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Our thermometers don't commonly read to that level of precision today, let alone 100 years ago. Even a lab grade thermometer, is acceptable, with only a resolution in the 1/10 of a degree scale, and a 10% tolerance.

Weather stations use lab grade thermometers. Instrument tolerance is margin of error. They are two completely different numbers.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Higher precision isn't typically needed for most work, specialty equipment is very expensive. Isn't just as possible, that there hasn't been any actually changes in nature, just changes in the way we measure, and interpret the results?

Margin of error has to do with how much variance you get from one thermometer to the next simply because they are not measuring the same thing. Temperature gradients as steep as 20 deg F per mile have been observed. Two thermometers placed a mere mile apart will show 20 deg F difference in temperature. Worse, thermometers are not uniformly placed. They are concentrated in cities, which is a very small part of the Earth's surface, and biases the data to measuring one city more heavily than anywhere else, yet treating it as if the thermometers were uniformly spaced. We simply do not have enough thermometers to measure the temperature of the Earth.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Climate Change is almost completely based on computer simulations, basically, a video game.

No, 'climate change' is a meaningless word. 'Change' only has a meaning if a precise start and stop time are given, and a precise quantifiable value is considered between those two times. Justification of those two times is necessary. Why not any other two points in time?

The phrase 'climate change' does not specify a start and stop time, does not specify a time interval, and does not specify a quantifiable value. There is no such thing as a global climate.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Raw data doesn't normally conveniently fit on a graph or computer screen, needs to be 'adjusted' some.
Wrong. [url=https://www.wunderground.com/history/daily/us/nv/north-las-vegas/KVGT/date/2019-5-30This website[/url] is showing raw data using graphs: This data is measured using a lab grade thermometer (electronic design), a rain gauge (electronic design), and a windspeed and direction indicator (electomechanical design). Each of these are quantifiable scalar values and are easily graphed. This station is located at North Las Vegas airport (KVGT), in Las Vegas, NV. These graphs show the previous 24 hour period of conditions at that station.
[quote]HarveyH55 wrote:
For any location on earth, the 24 hour High/low readings will show 10-20 degrees difference, just between night and day temperatures.

This station recorded a low of 64 deg F and a high of 87 deg F in the previous 24 hour period, a difference of 23 deg F.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Doesn't make for a nice, easy to read graph.

I find these graphs to be nice and easy to read.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Weather conditions also make some huge changes as well, and that's just one location, it's a huge planet.

Temperature is part of weather.
HarveyH55 wrote:
There is a huge margin of error in all these calculations, the small differences, that a few people find so alarming (Al Gore), is well within that margin.

Al Gore is denying statistical mathematics just like the rest of the Church of Global Warming does. He is, however, the Chosen One, politically put to death by Hanging Chad, but comes to life from time to time to say something stupid.
HarveyH55 wrote:
I live in Florida, and no signs of rising sea levels, as predicted 20 years ago. Other than the regular tide cycles, the only rising sea levels, come during hurricanes and tropical storms, which return to normal soon after they pass. There are plenty of century old homes and businesses along the coast, still in fine condition, occasional storm damage, but are holding up well, and not under water. If the seas had risen even one foot (12 inches), the bottom floor of a lot of beach front buildings would be unuseable, many would have been condemned by now.

Quite right. Florida is so flat it has been said that the highest point in Florida is a basketball player that used to live there until he moved away.
HarveyH55 wrote:
We do see significant beach erosion each year, and constantly replace the sand for the tourists.

Gotta have that sand for the tourist! Sand is money (who would have thought!).

HarveyH55 wrote:
During active storm seasons, it's a crisis, since it hard to keep up.

Yeah, storms have funny effects on the tourism as well. Some come to watch the storm. Others avoid the area during storms.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Climate Change is really about any actual abnormality,

You have to have a quantifiable 'normal' before you can have an 'abnormality'. 'Climate change' is a meaningless phrase. There is no quantifiable anything in it.
HarveyH55 wrote:
just how people perceive the environment,

Hardly quantifiable.
HarveyH55 wrote:
and methods of measuring it.

You can't measure a vague perception.
HarveyH55 wrote:
There is always going to be a debate, and someone trying to change our perception.

Such 'perception' is vague and utterly impossible to describe as a 'change'.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Not enough people are ever going to agree on anything to make a significant change though.

There is nothing to change. You can't 'change' what is not defined.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Just something to believe in, and fight over, but life goes on.

The Church of Global Warming is a fundamentalist religion. The fight will never be over so long as people believe in this religion.


The Parrot Killer
31-05-2019 21:24
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Weather conditions also make some huge changes as well, and that's just one location, it's a huge planet.

Temperature is part of weather.


By listening to warmizombies, one could easily get the mistaken impression that Temperature is the only component of weather. None of the other components, save the occasional mention of precipitation, get discussed.

Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Climate Change is really about any actual abnormality,

You have to have a quantifiable 'normal' before you can have an 'abnormality'. 'Climate change' is a meaningless phrase. There is no quantifiable anything in it.

HarveyH55 is close. Climate Change is really about anything subjectively bad that warmizombies can construe as a punishment from Global Warming for mankind's carbon sins.

Am I wrong?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
31-05-2019 21:48
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Weather conditions also make some huge changes as well, and that's just one location, it's a huge planet.

Temperature is part of weather.


By listening to warmizombies, one could easily get the mistaken impression that Temperature is the only component of weather. None of the other components, save the occasional mention of precipitation, get discussed.

Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Climate Change is really about any actual abnormality,

You have to have a quantifiable 'normal' before you can have an 'abnormality'. 'Climate change' is a meaningless phrase. There is no quantifiable anything in it.

HarveyH55 is close. Climate Change is really about anything subjectively bad that warmizombies can construe as a punishment from Global Warming for mankind's carbon sins.

Am I wrong?

If you use the definition from The MANUAL, you are right, but only by that definition. So far, it's the best definition of this phrase we have, but it certainly is not a quantifiable one.


The Parrot Killer
31-05-2019 22:09
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)
Into the Night wrote:If you use the definition from The MANUAL, you are right, but only by that definition. So far, it's the best definition of this phrase we have, but it certainly is not a quantifiable one.


When you're right, you're right ... it's not quantifiable. But it could be, I suppose. All we need is a unit of measure, e.g. "punishals" (symbol [pC] for Climate Punishment) and we could rate weather events as such ...

California drought = 3.4 punishals / day
Coral Bleaching = 4 decipunishals / coral
Iowa Flooding = 17 punishals

... and we could make charts with upward arrows showing how the rate of punishals is increasing, illustrating run-away Climate punishment that is verifiably beyond the "tipping point" (the "Tipping Point Constant," symbol [tp]).

Of course we would need to develop Climate models to accurately develop our chart of punishment values.

It's entirely doable.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
01-06-2019 01:36
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:If you use the definition from The MANUAL, you are right, but only by that definition. So far, it's the best definition of this phrase we have, but it certainly is not a quantifiable one.


When you're right, you're right ... it's not quantifiable. But it could be, I suppose. All we need is a unit of measure, e.g. "punishals" (symbol [pC] for Climate Punishment) and we could rate weather events as such ...

California drought = 3.4 punishals / day
Coral Bleaching = 4 decipunishals / coral
Iowa Flooding = 17 punishals

... and we could make charts with upward arrows showing how the rate of punishals is increasing, illustrating run-away Climate punishment that is verifiably beyond the "tipping point" (the "Tipping Point Constant," symbol [tp]).

Of course we would need to develop Climate models to accurately develop our chart of punishment values.

It's entirely doable.


Hmmm. An interesting idea.
The unit of punishals would have to be defined in quantifiable terms, however.

That's the trouble with the Church of Global Warming. They reject any quantifiable unit except temperature (either in deg F, or deg C), and that only as part of a base rate fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 01-06-2019 01:38
01-06-2019 05:21
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1231)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:If you use the definition from The MANUAL, you are right, but only by that definition. So far, it's the best definition of this phrase we have, but it certainly is not a quantifiable one.


When you're right, you're right ... it's not quantifiable. But it could be, I suppose. All we need is a unit of measure, e.g. "punishals" (symbol [pC] for Climate Punishment) and we could rate weather events as such ...

California drought = 3.4 punishals / day
Coral Bleaching = 4 decipunishals / coral
Iowa Flooding = 17 punishals

... and we could make charts with upward arrows showing how the rate of punishals is increasing, illustrating run-away Climate punishment that is verifiably beyond the "tipping point" (the "Tipping Point Constant," symbol [tp]).

Of course we would need to develop Climate models to accurately develop our chart of punishment values.

It's entirely doable.


17 punishals for Iowa flooding?? I live here and have seen worse many times, speaking of the state as a whole. Sure there is "record" flooding locally. I think you've overquantified. Is that a word? It is now!



This statement of yours helps you meet your obligation to bash Trump and stick your tongue up Obama's netherpipe in one efficient sentence. Well done.

~IBdaMann~
Edited on 01-06-2019 05:44
01-06-2019 06:58
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)
GasGuzzler wrote:17 punishals for Iowa flooding?? I live here and have seen worse many times, speaking of the state as a whole. Sure there is "record" flooding locally. I think you've overquantified. Is that a word? It is now!

I just held a democratic vote and the local scientific consensus holds that you are to be considered the climate scientist for Iowa flooding. You are hereby chartered to draft up a peer reviewed study (Into the Night and I will "peer review" it of course) to determine the correct quantity of punishals for the Iowa flooding.

Please make sure to factor in all appropriate forcings and feedbacks, and please include the obligatory analysis of greenhouse gas "heat trapping" that occurred in the lower stratosphere as opposed to the short wave infrared that was reflected back to the surface.

After that, we'll rubber stamp it, ... ummm, I mean we'll scrutinize it thoroughly and that punishall quantity will be established. If only we can get some sort of GasGuzzler constant that we can build into every extreme weather event, then we'll have gold!


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
01-06-2019 07:24
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1231)
IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]GasGuzzler wrote:17 punishals for Iowa flooding?? I live here and have seen worse many times, speaking of the state as a whole. Sure there is "record" flooding locally. I think you've overquantified. Is that a word? It is now!

I just held a democratic vote

I suspect you are lying
and the local scientific consensus holds that you are to be considered the climate scientist for Iowa flooding.

But, I can't ignore the scientific consensus. and I always wanted to be a scientist!(Maybe now I'm the one lying?
)
You are hereby chartered to draft up a peer reviewed study (Into the Night and I will "peer review" it of course)

Oh shit, you two over a couple of beers peer reviewing my scientific flood study? We're looking at a substantial increase in punishals.
to determine the correct quantity of punishals for the Iowa flooding.

Is there a Punishal Assignment Protocol Handbook I may first look at in case I need to skew/tilt/cook my data a bit?

Please make sure to factor in all appropriate forcings and feedbacks, and please include the obligatory analysis of greenhouse gas "heat trapping" that occurred in the lower stratosphere as opposed to the short wave infrared that was reflected back to the surface.

Not really understanding the forcings and feedbacks thing. Is it like when man made global warming made it flood and then twenty eight thousand people drove in their cars to go see it? Most of them didn't even THINK about carpooling! ....completely unaware that by burning all those fossils it will likely happen again next week...or in 15 to 75 years? Is that a forcing?

After that, we'll rubber stamp it, ... ummm, I mean we'll scrutinize it thoroughly and that punishall quantity will be established.

Now I'm wondering, since Iowa is such a huge offender, I'm wondering if maybe we can buy "punishal credits" from another state" Something similar to cap and trade.
If only we can get some sort of GasGuzzler constant that we can build into every extreme weather event, then we'll have gold!

Trust me when I say I am constantly guzzling gas, rain or shine!


This statement of yours helps you meet your obligation to bash Trump and stick your tongue up Obama's netherpipe in one efficient sentence. Well done.

~IBdaMann~
Edited on 01-06-2019 07:57
01-06-2019 16:46
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)
GasGuzzler wrote:Oh shit, you two over a couple of beers peer reviewing my scientific flood study? We're looking at a substantial increase in punishals.

It is absolutely critical that we find the punishal "saturation point" Because carbon sins follow a logarithmic curve.

GasGuzzler wrote:Is there a Punishal Assignment Protocol Handbook I may first look at in case I need to skew/tilt/cook my data a bit?

Yes. You'll have to convert Svant Arhenius' quantification of humanity's carbon sins in his treatise on Carbonic Acid into punishals to remain externally consistent.

GasGuzzler wrote:Not really understanding the forcings and feedbacks thing.


From the MANUAL

Forcing: noun
According to the Global Warming mythology, a forcing is a miracle performed by Climate in discharging Her duties as the central planner and administrator of all weather systems, ecosystems and local climates across the globe, of all interactions thereof and in caring for the wellbeing of all life on earth. This falls under Climate Science.


Feedback: noun
A feedback is a specific type of forcing employed by Climate that overcomes the physical limitations of the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics by creating additional usable energy. Feedbacks come in various subcategories, e.g. thermal, climate, hydrostatic, radiative, etc.. This falls under Settled Science.

GasGuzzler wrote: Now I'm wondering, since Iowa is such a huge offender, I'm wondering if maybe we can buy "punishal credits" from another state" Something similar to cap and trade.

Absolutely. We can draft up a Cap & Trade amendment with punishals directly addressed. Great point. AOC will be first to endorse it.

GasGuzzler wrote:Trust me when I say I am constantly guzzling gas, rain or shine!

Excellent! Link punishals directly to hydrocarbons! Then we'll use it as a basis for fresh new taxes. You will be totally earning your government research grant.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
01-06-2019 17:06
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1231)
IBdaMann wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:Oh shit, you two over a couple of beers peer reviewing my scientific flood study? We're looking at a substantial increase in punishals.

It is absolutely critical that we find the punishal "saturation point" Because carbon sins follow a logarithmic curve.

GasGuzzler wrote:Is there a Punishal Assignment Protocol Handbook I may first look at in case I need to skew/tilt/cook my data a bit?

Yes. You'll have to convert Svant Arhenius' quantification of humanity's carbon sins in his treatise on Carbonic Acid into punishals to remain externally consistent.

GasGuzzler wrote:Not really understanding the forcings and feedbacks thing.


From the MANUAL

Forcing: noun
According to the Global Warming mythology, a forcing is a miracle performed by Climate in discharging Her duties as the central planner and administrator of all weather systems, ecosystems and local climates across the globe, of all interactions thereof and in caring for the wellbeing of all life on earth. This falls under Climate Science.


Feedback: noun
A feedback is a specific type of forcing employed by Climate that overcomes the physical limitations of the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics by creating additional usable energy. Feedbacks come in various subcategories, e.g. thermal, climate, hydrostatic, radiative, etc.. This falls under Settled Science.

GasGuzzler wrote: Now I'm wondering, since Iowa is such a huge offender, I'm wondering if maybe we can buy "punishal credits" from another state" Something similar to cap and trade.

Absolutely. We can draft up a Cap & Trade amendment with punishals directly addressed. Great point. AOC will be first to endorse it.

GasGuzzler wrote:Trust me when I say I am constantly guzzling gas, rain or shine!

Excellent! Link punishals directly to hydrocarbons! Then we'll use it as a basis for fresh new taxes. You will be totally earning your government research grant.


Excellent. Can't wait to get started. I'll just need 80% down of the grant money to get rolling on this...you know, administrative fees. It's a lot of paperwork involved is assembling my team of top aquatic metering scientists.


This statement of yours helps you meet your obligation to bash Trump and stick your tongue up Obama's netherpipe in one efficient sentence. Well done.

~IBdaMann~




Join the debate Climate Change consequences-climate catastrophe:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
UN climate chief warns current path leads to 'catastrophe'729-04-2019 17:57
UN climate chief warns of 'catastrophe' if planet continues on current path026-04-2019 15:34
Consequences of climate change are arguably worsening3618-03-2019 23:35
We have 12 years to limit climate change catastrophe, warns UN304-03-2019 01:04
James Hansen's Lecture: Global Climate Change: Can the Next Generation Avert a Catastrophe?3214-12-2017 20:25
▲ 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 © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact