Engineers

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Engineers

Page 1 of 4

Engineers12-06-2021 07:57
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	I am back Airtasking so I am meeting lots of people.One mechanical engineer I quizzed about his attitude to climate change was inspiring as he looked at me with a very level stare and said the following. There are real scientist looking in to climate change by CO2 but will not release their findings till they have conclusive proof and it is too complicated to prove. For some reason I found this compelling he was in his late 70s so has been around the block a few times. duncan61
12-06-2021 19:53
Into the Night★★★★★ (21612)	That mechanical engineer has the same problem you do. You have to define what ''climate change' actually IS. Any scientist that is ignoring the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, giving CO2 a magick quality to create energy out of nothing, is denying science.
12-06-2021 21:29
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14430)	duncan61 wrote:I am back Airtasking so I am meeting lots of people. So in that meantime have you encountered anyone who has provided you with some kind of rational basis for believing that the earth can somehow spontaneously increase in temperature without additional energy ... or do you still just believe this because Pete Rogers told you to believe it? I'm just wondering if anything has changed on that front, that's all. If you have learned something new I'd love to hear/read it.
12-06-2021 23:38
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	duncan61 wrote: I am back Airtasking so I am meeting lots of people.One mechanical engineer I quizzed about his attitude to climate change was inspiring as he looked at me with a very level stare and said the following. There are real scientist looking in to climate change by CO2 but will not release their findings till they have conclusive proof and it is too complicated to prove. For some reason I found this compelling he was in his late 70s so has been around the block a few times. Was his name, Bill Nye? He was a mechanical engineer, turned climate scientist. Even had a children's TV show.
13-06-2021 05:25
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	I must of written it badly.Bill Nye is banging on about how true the affects of CO2 are and this chap stated it is to complicated to know.In my world that is the complete opposite.Pete Rodgers never claimed there was manmade warming just felt compelled to explain ATE.I have read about the 33.C which is simply put.If there was no atmosphere the Earth would be at -18 but it is around +15 there is the 33.C ATE.I am not claiming to know or agree to this and do not care.All I am seeking is the truth.The truth right now is with our very primitive measuring ability a small increase in averages was detected from 1980 -1995 and it was atributed to CO2.Since then the temperature has remained stable and has slightly decreased.This is going by our limited ability to detect anything.The worlds a better place and its all good yet organisations for some reason are still telling people there is a problem?? go figure Edited on 13-06-2021 05:26

13-06-2021 06:12
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14430)	duncan61 wrote:Pete Rodgers never claimed there was manmade warming Pete Rogers claimed there was warming, i.e. spontaneous increase in temperature (33C) without any additional energy and you were quick to state that you totally understand and that you completely agree. Has anything changed or do you still reject science because you were told to? I'm only asking out of curiosity. No one is saying that you are somehow required to accept science. duncan61 wrote: ... just felt compelled to explain ATE. ... just felt compelled to preach gibber-babble dogma and to totally reject science. duncan61 wrote: I have read about the 33.C which is simply put.If there was no atmosphere the Earth would be at -18 but it is around +15 there is the 33.C All of this is pure crap that you are regurgitating because you were told to do so. You never asked to see the valid dataset showing these temperatures because you know none exists. You never asked what the margins of error are because you don't even know why they are absolutely necessary and why their absence gets whatever dogma is being preached to be summarily dismissed. All you know is that you were ordered to regurgitate gibberish that you did not understand and you OBEYED. If that's what floats your boat then great. duncan61 wrote:.I am not claiming to know or agree to this ... but you did. Are you now recanting your story? duncan61 wrote:.All I am seeking is the truth. I'm not really buying this but if you are genuinely looking for the truth then there is no ATE. It is not possible. Temperature cannot increase without additional energy. No substance, e.g. CO2, can cause any body of matter to spontaneously increase in temperature. No force, e.g. gravity, can cause any body of matter to spontaneously increase in temperature. Only additional energy can cause an increase in temperature. Now you know. Let me know if you have any questions. duncan61 wrote: The truth right now is with our very primitive measuring ability a small increase in averages was detected from 1980 -1995 FALSE. Our very primitive measuring ability is incapable of measuring the earth's average global temperature to any useful accuracy. Ergo, we are not capable of discerning, to any useful degree, any changes in the average global temperature that we cannot even measure in the first place. Let me know if you have any questions. Please notice that you never include "margin of error." Let that be your wakeup call. Let that be your alert that you are only babbling. "Margin of error" is absolutely required. Anyone omitting such is dismissed immediately. There is no ATE. It's not possible. You are allowing Pete Rogers to lead you astray.
13-06-2021 06:41
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	Before I respond I would like to share that after following the Cryptocurrency debate for 9 pages I have worked out your fighting style.You continually assign false positions to other posters which I believe this is the Strawman technique. .By my independant reading of Petes post I learned about the Atmospheres effect on planetary temperature.If he has claimed a sudden 33.C warming can you share when this happened and how we all survived it.My current understanding is the Atmosphere has a mass and takes time to heat and cool and varies in density .Regarding the temperature I have learned and stated over 100 Times on this forum that it is not possible to calculate the planets average temperature however as explained to me on another site it is anomalies that are claimed to be detected e.g. There is a station that has been in the same place for a long time and the claim is the temperature went up in that location over a time period.The holes in that argument are the device used has been updated many times,buildings with airconditioning have been contsructed near by one classic is in USA where it was in a shady forest and is now in a carpark in the sun.Even with all this false data homogenising occurs and then smoothed and fudged so its all crap.This is why Anglia results are always less than Goddards using the same information.It is only USA and UK doing this the rest of the world can go hang.There is no one measuring the temperature in the great sandy desert and Satellites cant do shit.Like Harvey has just posted it was hot and sunny then the temp dropped and it started raining.When did the Satellite take the light reading.Before after in the middle who knows Edited on 13-06-2021 06:44
13-06-2021 07:08
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14430)	duncan61 wrote:Before I respond I would like to share that after following the Cryptocurrency debate for 9 pages I have worked out your fighting style.You continually assign false positions to other posters which I believe this is the Strawman technique. Apparently you didn't understand what you read. Would you care to give an example? duncan61 wrote: By my independant reading of Petes post I learned about the Atmospheres effect on planetary temperature Your obedient regurgitation repeated all of Pete's egregious errors without any independent thought coming from you. You are adopting his absurd claim that gravity causes 33C of greenhouse effect instead of CO2 being the cause. You are adopting his physics errors lock, stock and barrel. duncan61 wrote: If he has claimed a sudden 33.C warming can you share when this happened and how we all survived it. Why are you asking me to explain it? Don't you see how stupid that is? It's Pete's WACKY religious dogma. Ask him. ... but you WON'T because you fear him for some reason. You fear him to the point that you will regurgitate whatever WACKY schytt he orders you to repeat. I don't pretend to know why you do it; I can only observe that you do it. duncan61 wrote: My current understanding is the Atmosphere has a mass and takes time to heat and cool and varies in density This is a completely true and completely irrelevant statement. You and Pete Rogers claim an increase in temperature without additional energy. You both totally reject physics. No one ever claimed that you are somehow obligated to accept physics so I don't know why you feel you need to pretend that you do. duncan61 wrote:Regarding the temperature I have learned and stated over 100 Times on this forum that it is not possible to calculate the planets average temperature How do you pretend to know that the earth's temperature has changed if you never knew the temperature in the first place? duncan61 wrote: ... however as explained to me on another site it is anomalies that are claimed to be detected Did you ever ask what defines an "anomaly" and how that relates to the entire earth's average temperature? No, you didn't ask. You simply regurgitated it ... by your own admission. It's what you did with Pete Rogers gibber-babble, i.e. you simply regurgitated it. Of course when someone like me tells you the correct answer, you disregard it completely because you can't let any accurate information get in the way of your obedience to Pete Rogers. So Duncan, why should any rational adult regurgitate Pete Rogers' crap?
13-06-2021 07:55
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	Pete Rodgers posted one thing "Global warming is not anthropogenic" and made 137 posts. .I know where he lives in England and its very pleasant in Surrey.I have not been to England since 2006.I have no Idea if Pete has been to Australia or intends to come here soon so I fail to understand why I fear him.In your last post you have made 3 Strawman arguments 1.You and Pete Rogers claim an increase in temperature without additional energy. You both totally reject physics. No one ever claimed that you are somehow obligated to accept physics so I don't know why you feel you need to pretend that you do. You are assigning me a position I do not agree with.I have never claimed an increase in temperature that is your strawman of the ATE 2.How do you pretend to know that the earth's temperature has changed if you never knew the temperature in the first place? As I explained the limited useful weather stations in UK and USA claim an increase regardless of the variability.Thats how they make the pretty world map that becomes more red than blue over time.You have the ability to make that map.I would like to see that computer model for Feb 2021 and see if there are any blue bits now. 3.Did you ever ask what defines an "anomaly" and how that relates to the entire earth's average temperature? No, you didn't ask. You simply regurgitated it ... by your own admission. It's what you did with Pete Rogers gibber-babble, i.e. you simply regurgitated it. Of course when someone like me tells you the correct answer, you disregard it completely because you can't let any accurate information get in the way of your obedience to Pete Rogers. So Duncan, why should any rational adult regurgitate Pete Rogers' crap? You are just attacking.I have detailed my position.I under stood the one article Pete posted about the way gravity affects the atmospheres density.Ergo the body mass.I had never considered this before and was pleased to research it further.This all started when the hippie chick in Fremantle nearly 2 years ago stated CO2 is like a blanket in the sky and its warming the planet and you guessed it we are all going to die.I know that CO2 concentrations are higher at the surface than at altitude so there is no magick blanket.
13-06-2021 19:43
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	As far as I can tell, we really have never had the tools, instruments, to make measurements that actually represent the atmosphere. The best we have ever been able to do, is grab a few readings, that represent a very tiny area, for a very brief moment in time. It's a very huge planet, and very dynamic. A lot of things in constant motion, that effect any readings we might grab. It's very obvious if you are looking at a high precision instrument, you see the digits on the right constantly changing. When we are measuring things in the atmosphere, we are usually on looking at specific elements, and try to exclude external influences, as much as possible, introducing a bias. The conditions will never be the same, from one moment, to the next.
13-06-2021 22:54
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14430)	duncan61 wrote:You are assigning me a position I do not agree with.I have never claimed an increase in temperature that is your strawman of the ATE Do you, or do you NOT, understand Pete Rogers' argument and agree with it? duncan61 wrote:As I explained the limited useful weather stations in UK and USA claim an increase regardless of the variability. You still have not explained why this meaningless gibberish enables you to somehow know how the earth's unknown temperature has changed. You keep claiming to have provided explanations that are, at best, confusing statements or are, at worst, flat-out contradictions. Do you understand and agree with Pete Rogers' argument about ATE? If you disagree, please explain with what part. duncan61 wrote: You are just attacking. You are just EVADING. You are just being dishonest. My question is a completely valid question: Why should any rational adult regurgitate Pete Rogers' crap? What is your answer? duncan61 wrote: I have detailed my position. You have spoken in contradictions and in violations of physics. You claim to agree with Pete Rogers about the atmosphere being thermally enhanced by 33C due to the physics violations specified by Pete Rogers ... but then you become totally EVASIVE when asked why you believe in those specific physics violations. You then struggle to change the subject to the existence of gravity. You reject the laws of thermodynamics without explaining why you reject the laws of thermodynamics ... and then you claim to have explained your position when you haven't. As it stands, your position is that you believe in a gravity-induced Greenhouse Effect which is a total violation of the laws of thermodynamics and you aren't honest enough to explain why you believe it or to admit that you simply regurgitate WACKY religious dogma as ordered. duncan61 wrote: I under stood the one article Pete posted about the way gravity affects the atmospheres density. Yes, you made it quite clear that you do not grasp the difference between different tenses in the English language, specifically between the present progressive and the present perfect (which is a preterite tense). Unfortunately, when your rather embarrassing error is explained to you, you struggle to change the topic to the existence of gravity. duncan61 wrote:This all started when the hippie chick in Fremantle nearly 2 years ago stated CO2 is like a blanket in the sky and its warming the planet and you guessed it we are all going to die. Right. In her sect of your Greenhouse Effect-based religion, you consider her dogma "sacrilege" because she attributes 33C of Greenhouse Effect to CO2 whereas you and your particular congregation "recognize" gravity as being the responsible cause for the 33C of [img]Greenhouse Effect[/img]. Two years ago in Freemantle you realized to which church you needed to belong. duncan61 wrote:I know that CO2 concentrations are higher at the surface than at altitude so there is no magick blanket. Thermodynamics, not CO2 distribution, tells you that there is no "blanket". No substance can cause any body of matter to spontaneously increase in temperature without additional energy. No force can cause any body of matter to spontaneously increase in temperature without additional energy. Only additional energy can cause an increase in temperature. Temperature cannot increase without additional energy. Your version of Greenhouse Effect is not possible, not even when you call it Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement. There is no difference between 33C and 33C, and it doesn't matter which violation of physics you are claiming as the cause of that 33C. Ergo, this is a case of you dishonestly denying your own position, not of me somehow assigning you a bogus position. Have a great day. [center] [/center]
14-06-2021 05:55
Into the Night★★★★★ (21612)	duncan61 wrote: I must of written it badly.Bill Nye is banging on about how true the affects of CO2 are and this chap stated it is to complicated to know.In my world that is the complete opposite.Pete Rodgers never claimed there was manmade warming just felt compelled to explain ATE.I have read about the 33.C which is simply put.If there was no atmosphere the Earth would be at -18 but it is around +15 there is the 33.C ATE.I am not claiming to know or agree to this and do not care.All I am seeking is the truth Fair enough. You have discarded all of it. duncan61 wrote: The truth right now is with our very primitive measuring ability a small increase in averages was detected from 1980 -1995 and it was atributed to CO2.Since then the temperature has remained stable and has slightly decreased.This is going by our limited ability to detect anything. We have NO ability to measure the temperature of the Earth. It is not possible. CO2 has absolutely NO ability to create energy. CO2 has absolutely NO ability to decrease entropy. CO2 has absolutely NO ability to trap heat. CO2 has absolutely NO ability to trap light. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You cannot trap heat. You cannot trap light. You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat. duncan61 wrote: The worlds a better place With fascism spreading everywhere? With socialism spreading everywhere? With the increase suffering and misery everywhere? duncan61 wrote: and its all good yet organisations for some reason are still telling people there is a problem?? It is NOT 'all good'. People are suffering because of religions like this. duncan61 wrote: go figure There is nothing to figure. Random numbers are not data. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
14-06-2021 06:07
Into the Night★★★★★ (21612)	duncan61 wrote: Before I respond I would like to share that after following the Cryptocurrency debate for 9 pages I have worked out your fighting style.You continually assign false positions to other posters which I believe this is the Strawman technique. .By my independant reading of Petes post I learned about the Atmospheres effect on planetary temperature.If he has claimed a sudden 33.C warming can you share when this happened and how we all survived it. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. The 33 deg C is a made up number. Random numbers are not data. duncan61 wrote: My current understanding is the Atmosphere has a mass and takes time to heat and cool and varies in density This is so far correct. duncan61 wrote: .Regarding the temperature I have learned and stated over 100 Times on this forum that it is not possible to calculate the planets average temperature however as explained to me on another site it is anomalies that are claimed to be detected e.g. Nope. This is known as a base rate fallacy. You cannot measure a change without measuring the absolute temperature in the first place. duncan61 wrote: There is a station that has been in the same place for a long time and the claim is the temperature went up in that location over a time period. One station is not the Earth. duncan61 wrote: The holes in that argument are the device used has been updated many times,buildings with airconditioning have been contsructed near by one classic is in USA where it was in a shady forest and is now in a carpark in the sun.Even with all this false data homogenising occurs and then smoothed and fudged so its all crap. It's all crap anyway. One station is not the Earth. duncan61 wrote: This is why Anglia results are always less than Goddards using the same information.It is only USA and UK doing this the rest of the world can go hang.There is no one measuring the temperature in the great sandy desert and Satellites cant do shit. You are correctly pointing out the two biasing factors in the so-called 'data'. Location grouping, and time. Both must be eliminated from the method of collecting the data. duncan61 wrote: Like Harvey has just posted it was hot and sunny then the temp dropped and it started raining.When did the Satellite take the light reading. It didn't. duncan61 wrote: Before after in the middle who knows Obviously, it didn't. An irrelevant question. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
14-06-2021 06:09
Into the Night★★★★★ (21612)	IBdaMann wrote: duncan61 wrote:Before I respond I would like to share that after following the Cryptocurrency debate for 9 pages I have worked out your fighting style.You continually assign false positions to other posters which I believe this is the Strawman technique. Apparently you didn't understand what you read. Inversion fallacy. You are assigning false positions to him then attacking them. Strawman fallacy. You are not reading his posts. He has already discarded ATE, yet you are attacking him for it. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
14-06-2021 06:10
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14430)	HarveyH55 wrote:As far as I can tell, we really have never had the tools, instruments, to make measurements that actually represent the atmosphere. Actually, we have, if you are talking about the atmosphere. The weather is comprised of all the measurable parameters of the atmosphere and we have weather models that do a reasonably good job at predicting weather. However, as you mentioned, we can be accurate for only a very small percentage at any given moment. What we don't have is any sort of model of the global Climate because there is no such thing. It is not possible to build a falsifiable model of that which does not exist. Similarly, if you are talking about geographic climates, i.e. plural, then certainly there are many climates on the planet, but a climate is a subjective characterization of an approximated (but not formally defined) geographic area. As such, it is not possible to build any sort of model of something that isn't defined that nonetheless yields useful results. HarveyH55 wrote:The best we have ever been able to do, is grab a few readings, that represent a very tiny area, for a very brief moment in time. It's a very huge planet, and very dynamic. Yup. This about says it all.

15-06-2021 05:54
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	duncan61 wrote: I am back Airtasking so I am meeting lots of people.One mechanical engineer I quizzed about his attitude to climate change was inspiring as he looked at me with a very level stare and said the following. There are real scientist looking in to climate change by CO2 but will not release their findings till they have conclusive proof and it is too complicated to prove. For some reason I found this compelling he was in his late 70s so has been around the block a few times. The real issue might be hydrocarbons. Combusting fossil fuels generates hydrocarbons as well as CO2. Hydrocarbons create the hole in the ozone layer above both the north and south poles. This is because of NOx and SOx. Nitrous and sulfur dioxides. We need CO2 but not the other 2.
16-06-2021 00:04
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	James___ wrote: duncan61 wrote: I am back Airtasking so I am meeting lots of people.One mechanical engineer I quizzed about his attitude to climate change was inspiring as he looked at me with a very level stare and said the following. There are real scientist looking in to climate change by CO2 but will not release their findings till they have conclusive proof and it is too complicated to prove. For some reason I found this compelling he was in his late 70s so has been around the block a few times. The real issue might be hydrocarbons. Combusting fossil fuels generates hydrocarbons as well as CO2. Hydrocarbons create the hole in the ozone layer above both the north and south poles. This is because of NOx and SOx. Nitrous and sulfur dioxides. We need CO2 but not the other 2. Nitrous Oxide is very much needed, it's the 'happy' gas the dentist gives you. Not sure why you, or anyone else thinks ozone holes have to be a bad thing.
16-06-2021 00:28
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	N2O makes your car go as well.I fitted it to a V12 jaguar and obtained very good results.
16-06-2021 06:10
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14430)	HarveyH55 wrote:Nitrous Oxide is very much needed, it's the 'happy' gas the dentist gives you. Not sure why you, or anyone else thinks ozone holes have to be a bad thing. I'm not sure why James__ insists that ozone is formed, and is destroyed, in some manner other than per the sun's EM (and/or lack thereof).
17-06-2021 03:18
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	duncan61 wrote: N2O makes your car go as well.I fitted it to a V12 jaguar and obtained very good results. NOx is not NxO. N2O is also known as laughing gas which some dentists might use for anesthesia. It's what it's primary usage was for quite some time. With NOx and SOx, nitrous oxide and sulfur oxide. They have 2 oxygen elements and 1 element of either sulfur or nitrogen. When either sulfur or nitrogen has 2 oxygen elements, with O2 it is an oxidizer responsible for many chemical reactions. And this in turn decreases the amount of ozone in the stratosphere. This could be because those 2 oxides are highly reactive. If so then they could be displacing O3 which in the lower 1/2 of the stratosphere is more stable. Hopefully you find this helpful. p.s., it is odd though. With less ozone over either pole during the winter, that pole is warmer. And yet polar stratospheric clouds are primarily formed from NOx and SOx which destroy/displace ozone. This is what you might consider as a hint or a clue. p.s.s., and we're back to hydrocarbons and not CO2 might be the real issue. Edited on 17-06-2021 04:11
17-06-2021 07:01
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14430)	James___ wrote:p.s.s., and we're back to hydrocarbons and not CO2 might be the real issue. Wait, wait, wait ... I thought the real issue was tectonic plates and the Van Allen belt. How does "the real issue" keep changing every week?
17-06-2021 07:22
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: Wait, wait, wait ... I thought the real issue was tectonic plates and the Van Allen belt. How does "the real issue" keep changing every week? It doesn't. You're following "cryptocurrency". Crypts are for the dead. With tectonic plates, they rise and fall depending on glaciation. Beyond what you know. With how the Van Allen radiation belts influence our atmosphere, that goes beyond how glaciers impact our environment.
26-06-2021 03:00
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	I met another young engineer yesterday and he made 3 statements I could get my head around 1.Its a social science.People believe what they want to believe 2.There is information gathering and then there is information sharing.Its not the same thing 3.Even if AGW/CC is real we will adapt like humans always have I found this refreshing and it sums up the whole debate rather neatly
26-06-2021 05:13
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	duncan61 wrote: I met another young engineer yesterday and he made 3 statements I could get my head around 1.Its a social science.People believe what they want to believe 2.There is information gathering and then there is information sharing.Its not the same thing 3.Even if AGW/CC is real we will adapt like humans always have I found this refreshing and it sums up the whole debate rather neatly Humans managed to survive and strive, with only rocks an sticks for tools. Many will continue to survive, with what's available. We have a lot more tools at our disposal. I don't understand the climate fools desire to keep things the same. We are our most creative during crisis. We want to survive, we find a quick/simple solution. We learn from how others solved problems, and build on it. Keeping things the same, only stagnates creativity, dumbs down the gene pool. We don't control the planet, just along for the ride.
26-06-2021 11:06
Into the Night★★★★★ (21612)	duncan61 wrote: I met another young engineer yesterday and he made 3 statements I could get my head around 1.Its a social science.People believe what they want to believe 2.There is information gathering and then there is information sharing.Its not the same thing 3.Even if AGW/CC is real we will adapt like humans always have I found this refreshing and it sums up the whole debate rather neatly How do you adapt to something you can't even define?? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
27-06-2021 07:12
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	duncan61 wrote: I met another young engineer yesterday and he made 3 statements I could get my head around 1.Its a social science.People believe what they want to believe 2.There is information gathering and then there is information sharing.Its not the same thing 3.Even if AGW/CC is real we will adapt like humans always have I found this refreshing and it sums up the whole debate rather neatly With the Pacific Northwest in the US, how do 5 to 10 million people all buy air conditioning that they never needed before? When I lived there, 30º C. was a hot day. And now they're saying it will be 40º C. this weekend and into early next week, or more. And they have no air conditioning because.... See the dilemma? Just not how an economy works. As you say, where you live nothing has changed. The wind still blows north from Antarctica and Harvey says we have rain in Florida. With Florida, tropical storms start near Lake Victoria near the Great Rift Valley and follow the coriolis effect across the Atlantic Ocean. Kind of why it rains in Florida. I just thought you guys would know this by now.
27-06-2021 07:22
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14430)	duncan61 wrote:3.Even if AGW/CC is real we will adapt like humans always have Duncan, I have a little psychology for you. This statement above broadcasts your absolute NEED for Global Warming to be real. Despite all the science you have been provided, you still believe in Greenhouse Effect because not doing so would somehow bring your world crashing down. If you were required to write that sentence above starting with the words "Since neither ATE, GHE, Global Warming nor Climate Change are real ... [complete the sentence here] " what would your sentence read?
27-06-2021 19:16
Into the Night★★★★★ (21612)	James___ wrote: duncan61 wrote: I met another young engineer yesterday and he made 3 statements I could get my head around 1.Its a social science.People believe what they want to believe 2.There is information gathering and then there is information sharing.Its not the same thing 3.Even if AGW/CC is real we will adapt like humans always have I found this refreshing and it sums up the whole debate rather neatly With the Pacific Northwest in the US, how do 5 to 10 million people all buy air conditioning that they never needed before? They still don't. The number of hot days here just doesn't warrant it most of the time. A/C is cheaper now, so more people are buying it though. It's pretty standard in cars now. James___ wrote: When I lived there, 30º C. was a hot day. And now they're saying it will be 40º C. this weekend and into early next week, or more. It happens here from time to time. This one is caused by a strong high over Utah, and mountain wave compression. James___ wrote: And they have no air conditioning because.... We do...just not in most homes. James___ wrote: See the dilemma? Just not how an economy works. As you say, where you live nothing has changed. The wind still blows north from Antarctica and Harvey says we have rain in Florida. So? Rain occurs everywhere. Winds blow everywhere. James___ wrote: With Florida, tropical storms start near Lake Victoria near the Great Rift Valley and follow the coriolis effect across the Atlantic Ocean. Kind of why it rains in Florida. I just thought you guys would know this by now. Guess you can't explain the jet stream then! It goes the other way! The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
28-06-2021 04:51
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14430)	Into the Night wrote:Guess you can't explain the jet stream then! It goes the other way! It's caused by the Van Allen belt's conversion of water to formaldehyde in a Climate process powered by the magnetosphere ... and ozone depletion ... and if what James is working on pans out then the Norwegian Jet Stream will allow for the compression of the atmosphere ... but now we're getting into quantum physics ... and geology. How do you not know this? This is simple stuff. . Attached image:
28-06-2021 17:04
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:Guess you can't explain the jet stream then! It goes the other way! It's caused by the Van Allen belt's conversion of water to formaldehyde in a Climate process powered by the magnetosphere ... and ozone depletion ... and if what James is working on pans out then the Norwegian Jet Stream will allow for the compression of the atmosphere ... but now we're getting into quantum physics ... and geology. How do you not know this? This is simple stuff. . You attached a pretty looking graphic, so it MUST be true!

28-06-2021 22:02
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Into the Night wrote: Guess you can't explain the jet stream then! It goes the other way! With the jet stream, they occur in an area where the exposure to the Van Allen radiation belts change. Both tropical jet streams occur where there is a transition from the combined effects of both the inner and out belts to only the outer belt. The land exposed to both effects is considered as tropical. The land between the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn going in opposing directions towards the Arctic and Antarctic Circles is temperate. And where there is no exposure to a radiation belt, it is a polar region. With jet streams, the reason they move in the same direction as the Earth rotates is because of the coriolis effect. For the most part jet streams occupy the space between the troposphere and the stratosphere. With the "Norwegian" jet stream, this occurs when it ends in the eastern Mediterranean Sea/Middle East region. Basically it tries to become the tropical jet stream in the northern hemisphere. This conceivably shows the influence of the Gulf Stream flowing north and warm waters in the Pacific near Kamchatka flowing south. With the heat wave in the Pacific Northwest, warm waters in the northern Pacific Ocean could be altering the jet stream. And ITN, I am glad that you have taken an interest in GeoSciences. It'd be nice if more people showed your interest in the planet that they live on.
28-06-2021 22:16
Into the Night★★★★★ (21612)	Please describe the mechanism of how a radiation belt that isn't even in Earth's atmosphere affects the jetstream.
28-06-2021 22:44
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Into the Night wrote: Please describe the mechanism of how a radiation belt that isn't even in Earth's atmosphere affects the jet stream. It's known as Coulomb's Law. This law allows https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/estatics/Lesson-3/Coulomb-s-Law for polar elements, molecules and compounds to possibly be attracted to a source of electrostatic energy. An example of Coulomb's Law is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhWQ-r1LYXY and with me, I would think that the pvc pipe is positively charged. It's "state" has changed while that of the water hasn't. When she rubs the pipe against her hair, it could be attracting more electrons because of the pipes velocity or motion/movement. And when the pipe slows, it is positively charged. This would agree with thermodynamics and that a body in motion has more kinetic energy. This simply means that as the pvc pipe is rubbing against her hair, it is absorbing a charge because its motion/velocity and its mass are not in balance. By absorbing more electrons it's adapting to its higher energy state. And with water, if it is purified using reverse osmosis, no effect would be observed. It is the negative potential of water caused by impurities in it that allows it to conduct a charge. This seems to be the case in this instance. And I hope this clarifies things for you. p.s., for what I posted, I am mindful that the electrons in your phone are negative and that positrons are positive. Yet when electrons flow from your battery to the ground in your phone, your phone has a negative ground, right? With static electricity, it is possible as with the water bending that the magnetic field generated by the static charge is flowing through the water. And because impure water conducts electricity, it is attracted towards the source of the field created by the static electricity and the matter it is associated with. Edited on 28-06-2021 22:58
29-06-2021 05:39
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14430)	gfm7175 wrote: You attached a pretty looking graphic, so it MUST be true! As did you ... and yours is really neat and animated ... so you MUST be an authority. If I can't beat ya', I'ma gonna join ya'. I think I have another nifty graphic around here somehwere that shows the government having confirmed Global Cooling: . Attached image: Edited on 29-06-2021 05:40
29-06-2021 05:47
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote: You attached a pretty looking graphic, so it MUST be true! As did you ... and yours is really neat and animated ... so you MUST be an authority. If I can't beat ya', I'ma gonna join ya'. I think I have another nifty graphic around here somehwere that shows the government having confirmed Global Cooling: . And yet you can't explain the leap between September and October that will happen. If I were a "real" American, I might think that you don't like me. p.s., your graph does represent ozone depletion. We're not talking about that but it is what concerns me. #therealthreat. Edited on 29-06-2021 05:50
29-06-2021 06:18
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14430)	James___ wrote:It's known as Coulomb's Law. This law allows ... No scientific law "allows" for anything. Science predicts nature. Science doesn't provide nature with options from which to choose. James___ wrote: ... a body in motion has more kinetic energy. Are you telling me that a body in motion has more motion than a body at rest? What do you take me for, a fool? James___ wrote: It is the negative potential of water caused by impurities in it that allows it to conduct a charge. There is no negative potential in nature. James___ wrote: your phone has a negative ground, right? ... exactly the same as negative zero. James___ wrote: With static electricity, it is possible as with the water bending that the magnetic field generated by the static charge is flowing through the water. And because impure water conducts electricity, it is attracted towards the source of the field created by the static electricity and the matter it is associated with. This is poetry. If anything were ever a simultaneous candidate for the Walt Whitman Award, the Pulitzer Prize and the Nobel Prize in physics all rolled into one, this would be it! Well done.
29-06-2021 06:55
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote: ... a body in motion has more kinetic energy. Are you telling me that a body in motion has more motion than a body at rest? What do you take me for, a fool? f = ma. ke = 1/2 mv^2. Basic functions of science. This is why some material in motion generates a static charge. To be technical, a vs. a^2 is the difference. with 1/2 mv^2, consider 1/2ma^2. It is the same thing. Velocity "v" is dt/a. Just a basic relationship. Edited on 29-06-2021 06:57
29-06-2021 07:05
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	I'll simplify it for you. dt/a is distance x time divided by acceleration. How much time does it take you to run a specific distance? Do you run faster as each measure of distance passes? And we're back to dt/a. a is actually dt as well. So distancetime divided by distancetime equals what? a is acceleration given in Newton's terms. Closer to the center of a mass, gravity accelerates. But in our terms, how to translate?
29-06-2021 07:21
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	f = ma while a = d/t. This allows for f = m*d/t With energy, ke = 1/2mv^2. And v = d/t. Just some basic relationships to consider. f = force a = acceleration d = distance t = time v = velocity m = mass ie., mass is not weight. Weight is determined by gravity. Edited on 29-06-2021 07:24
29-06-2021 07:44
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	So, if you put a gravity wheel device in the direct path of the Norwegian Jet Stream, it will spin perpetually? The acceleration of the gravity wheel, is dependent on how much of the ozone layer is depleted. The bigger the ozone hole, the faster it goes?

Page 1 of 4

Join the debate Engineers: