patrick.net

This cold weather isn't a cool pocket of air that was created on earth then sent wandering around.
Winter Cold snaps and bitter chills like these as well as those rare occasions that it Snows in July in North America.
Are due to the Earth burping excess gases, heat and pressure. As it does so, the air near the rip is cooled by the sub zero temps of space. Cold air sinks, as it does it oozes over the upper continents until it is brought up to temp. Each burp sends millions of tons of CO2 and other green house gases out into Space. The Earth is a fine tuned climate control machine.
Those pissheads don't understand the complexities. The atmosphere is not static. The earth is breathing and belching constantly.

Quigley says

Um nobody is debating whether certain gases help prevent Infrared radiation from the earth traveling to space and thus cooling the planet. Of the gases, water vapor is much MUCH better at providing this affect than CO2. A cloudy winters day is always warmer than a clear winters day, even though the CO2 concentrations are the same on both days.

Except there is no reason for concentrations of water vapor to change - outside, of course, the extra heat coming from CO2, which creates more water vapor and amplifies the warming.

DoofusRicky says

Brother bass

I honestly like the way you call everyone "brother" @DoofusRicky

NuttBoxer says

I've often wondered whether it would be possible to extract and burn methane from the atmosphere for a double-win:

1. free energy, maybe even a good profit
2. less greenhouse gasses (methane is far worse than CO2)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane

Heraclitusstudent says

Quigley says

Um nobody is debating whether certain gases help prevent Infrared radiation from the earth traveling to space and thus cooling the planet. Of the gases, water vapor is much MUCH better at providing this affect than CO2. A cloudy winters day is always warmer than a clear winters day, even though the CO2 concentrations are the same on both days.

Except there is no reason for concentrations of water vapor to change - outside, of course, the extra heat coming from CO2, which creates more water vapor and amplifies the warming.

So what would happen if the sun didn't come up tomorrow, would all this trace CO2 keep us warm?

Patrick says

I've often wondered whether it would be possible to extract and burn methane from the atmosphere for a double-win:

I plan on patenting a device that runs a tube from a CO2 tank to the rectum, for the purpose of extracting, and selling the methane we produce on a daily basis. If I start production now, I can be to market in time to take advantage of my new health book coming out "Beans, beans, the musical diet".

Patrick says

DoofusRicky says

Brother bass

I honestly like the way you call everyone "brother" @DoofusRicky

Meh. I'm not your "brother" and I'm not a "gentle reader" as another user likes to start every one of their posts with. I know this is close to crossing the line, but I don't believe I'm necessarily attacking anyone here.

No proof of this, but I feel like this (DoofusRicky) is a past popular user here that's using this format to prevent tripping up their new identity. Not going to make a specific guess. The vibe is too similar to the user I have in mind and I feel like this new "brother" format is actually pretty effective in covering up their identity so as not to be easily identifiable as their past user self. I don't particularly care if I'm right or wrong as I appreciate more voices here, even if it's a new old voice if you catch my drift.

If I crossed the line here feel free to whack it. No ill will intended to anyone I mentioned here though. But, regardless of the content, I do feel like the "brother" line is a bit condescending to the person it's being used on. Just my $0.02.

less greenhouse gasses (methane is far worse than CO2)

Sure about that? Burning methane, (like any hydrocarbon) creates not just CO2 but also water vapor. Is the greenhouse effect of methane less than the sum of the greenhouse of the produced CO2 and H2O?

Heraclitusstudent says

Except there is no reason for concentrations of water vapor to change - outside, of course, the extra heat coming from CO2

Hmm, I’m no meteorologist, but I’m pretty sure that things like:
1)rain
2)snow
3)evaporation
4)sublimation
All change the atmospheric water concentration.
Can you explain the mechanism by which CO2 (alone) changes the water vapor in our air?
Thanks
Bye

NuttBoxer says

Patrick says

I've often wondered whether it would be possible to extract and burn methane from the atmosphere for a double-win:

I plan on patenting a device that runs a tube from a CO2 tank to the rectum, for the purpose of extracting, and selling the methane we produce on a daily basis. If I start production now, I can be to market in time to take advantage of my new health book coming out "Beans, beans, the musical diet".

LOL. I would like to see you on Sharktank.

Here are the facts:
1. Fossil fuels causes unacceptable levels of pollution.
2. Wether you believe in global warming or not, nothing good comes out of fossil fuels.

Check this idiot out.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/16/why-saudi-aramco-is-trying-to-make-vehicle-engines-more-efficient.html Why Saudi Aramco, the world's largest oil company, is trying to make vehicle engines more efficient
Saudi Aramco, the world's biggest energy company, is investing in research to make gas-powered cars more efficient.
The investment comes at a time when nations around the world are considering bans on the sale, production or use of vehicles that run on fossil fuels.
Improving fuel efficiency in these cars will play a bigger role in cutting emissions than adoption of electric vehicles in the near term, Aramco's chief technology officer says.

Strategist says

Check this idiot out.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/16/why-saudi-aramco-is-trying-to-make-vehicle-engines-more-efficient.html Why Saudi Aramco, the world's largest oil company, is trying to make vehicle engines more efficient
Saudi Aramco, the world's biggest energy company, is investing in research to make gas-powered cars more efficient.
The investment comes at a time when nations around the world are considering bans on the sale, production or use of vehicles that run on fossil fuels.
Improving fuel efficiency in these cars will play a bigger role in cutting emissions than adoption of electric vehicles in the near term, Aramco's chief technology officer says.

The chief technology officer of Aramco (Saudis are not known for their brains) is desperately trying to keep future crude demand intact by competing with renewable energy that produces zero pollution, at a fraction of the cost of fossil fuels.
A few weeks or months after Aramco goes public, I will buy the longest available puts on the company. I can hardly wait.

Quigley says

Hmm, I’m no meteorologist, but I’m pretty sure that things like:
1)rain
2)snow
3)evaporation
4)sublimation
All change the atmospheric water concentration.

They do and always did, so no change.

Quigley says

Can you explain the mechanism by which CO2 (alone) changes the water vapor in our air?

Because it increases temperature - which wasn't the case before it was added in the atmosphere.
Warmer means the air can contain more water vapor.

Yeah there is very likely a man-made effect, however CO2 concentrations have been much higher in the past and yet the earth still experienced harsh ice ages. The question remains if this is something to really worry about or just keep an eye on. My bet is on the latter. Compared to the sun activity and its maunder minimums this effect is likely negligible.

mell says

The question remains if this is something to really worry about or just keep an eye on.

IMO, we will not break the world. There is a very strong force (radiation) that will turn things around when it get's very hot. However, it's naive to think that we cannot engineer a huge temperature change on this planet. It's also naive to think that human populations will be fine at that extreme.
Most of our infrastructure would have to be rebuilt. We've already demonstrably changed the CO2 concentration radically. We have the power to blow the human population to smithereens (nuclear weapons), and we have the power to drastically reduce coral life (acidification). We had the power to blow a huge hole in the ozone layer, and then heal it by stopping emissions. This isn't something that should be ignored because it is hard to understand or doesn't seem likely.

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

and we have the power to drastically reduce coral life (acidification). We had the power to blow a huge hole in the ozone layer, and then heal it by stopping emissions. This isn't something that should be ignored because it is hard to understand or doesn't seem likely.

That's the issue here, you're referring to pollution NOT CO2, and using it to promote the hoax of GW. There's a big difference.

I'm referring to chemicals. Pollution is a made up categorization that has some utility. But chemicals don't always easily fit into one category or another. FYI, acidification of the ocean is due to CO2, which dissolves in water as HCO3. CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming. We categorize chemicals as pollution if they cause problems when emitted to the environment. Therefore, the word pollution fits CO2 on two fronts. The argument of whether CO2 is pollution is used for two reasons. First, it is a rhetorical shithole obfuscation scheme, and second, it has legal implications. For example, the clean air act allows the EPA to regulate pollution. The professional denial crowd (scientists paid by and advocating for fossil fuel interests) has used that argument to prevent various regulations.

mell says

Yeah there is very likely a man-made effect, however CO2 concentrations have been much higher in the past and yet the earth still experienced harsh ice ages. The question remains if this is something to really worry about or just keep an eye on. My bet is on the latter. Compared to the sun activity and its maunder minimums this effect is likely negligible.

Harsh Ice Ages AND Ice-Free Poles for millions of years, long before humans but well after advanced life. There are theories, but nobody knows how and why the PETM began, and from start to finish there were 20 million years without permanent polar ice-sheets, temps averaged 8C warmer than today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

TwoScoopsPlissken says

Harsh Ice Ages AND Ice-Free Poles for millions of years, long before humans but well after advanced life. There are theories, but nobody knows how and why the PETM began, and from start to finish there were 20 million years without permanent polar ice-sheets, temps averaged 8C warmer than today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

And how many humans were alive then?

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

Therefore, the word pollution fits CO2

So what is the relationship between co2 increase and warming? Is it linear? Exponential? Can you share the relationship formula?

And who else really thinks co2 is a pollutant and not essential for life on earth?

If you really believe humans are going to devastate the planet with CO2, best get to fucking work on cold fusion or some other source of limitless energy because people are not going to stop making fires. They’re just not.
And you really can’t make them.

Quigley says

If you really believe humans are going to devastate the planet with CO2, best get to fucking work on cold fusion or some other source of limitless energy because people are not going to stop making fires. They’re just not.

Yep--we're trying.

Quigley says

If you really believe humans are going to devastate the planet with CO2, best get to fucking work on cold fusion or some other source of limitless energy because people are not going to stop making fires. They’re just not.
And you really can’t make them.

This.

Not Carbon Trading, which makes Wall Street slaver with the potential for greed and abuse.
Not Recycling Cardboard, which produces more CO2 from all the garbage scows going around collecting it.

4th Gen Nukes and hopefully Fusion is the solution.

I'm not opposed to spending billions annually on new nuclear plants.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

Not Recycling Cardboard, which produces more CO2 from all the garbage scows going around collecting it.

Was recycling cardboard supposed to reduce CO2 emissions? I thought it was to reduce solid waste as our landfills are full.

Strategist says

I would like to see you on Sharktank.

Sharktank California, I'd make a killing!!

TwoScoopsPlissken says

Not Recycling Cardboard, which produces more CO2 from all the garbage scows going around collecting it.

Where do you get this stuff? Are you really referring to boat transport?

What good does recycling cardboard in a fraction of the world going to do for CO2 emissions? Trees are renewable to begin with.

You support nuclear power as the only way to currently handle the replacement of fossil fuel burning power generation that is actually demonstrated to produce in quantities both at scale and all-day-long, yes?

Speaking of garbage scows, anybody remember this story from a while ago, that seemed to 'prove' we were running out of space for landfills?

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/05/23/opinion/a-garbage-scow-as-paul-revere.html

Quigley says

If you really believe humans are going to devastate the planet with CO2, best get to fucking work on cold fusion or some other source of limitless energy because people are not going to stop making fires. They’re just not.

Stop making fire? what do you mean? Like burning wood? Or you think we can't stop burning fossil fuels? Why?

TwoScoopsPlissken says

Harsh Ice Ages AND Ice-Free Poles for millions of years, long before humans but well after advanced life.

Oh Please.
You are not TPB. You know full well that the entire human civilization took place after the ice age in a period of very stable climate.
You probably know that minor variations of climate caused major civilizations collapses in the past.
The end of the bronze age circa 1200BC (drought, sea people).
The end of the Roman empire (variability of third century, climate displaced Huns, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/climate-and-the-fall-of-the-roman-empire-42171285/ , https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/10/30/16568716/six-ways-climate-change-disease-toppled-roman-empire )
The French revolution: https://hubpages.com/education/Effects-of-Climate-on-the-Origins-of-the-French-Revolution
These were minor variations.

On what legs could one stand to claim our civilization is so strong it won't be affected by the more important climate instability that are foreseen, I don't know. I see Europe already thrown in disarray by 1 million Syrian migrants. A joke compared to what could happen.

The argument that "Yeah, it's been warmer before" is silly at best.

Heraclitusstudent says

You are not TPB. You know full well that the entire human civilization took place after the ice age in a period of very stable climate.

The examples you give of climatic changes are all disastrous COOLINGS. The Minoan Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period, and the Medieval Warm Period ending is what caused trouble, not warming.


I also know that the Cenozoic Era hasn't been stable, and that once homo sapiens (not Lucy from 4 mya) walked across the North Sea and/or Channel without getting their feet wet and other humans walked across the Bering Strait when it was above water. Did the erection of monoliths make the oceans rise hundreds of feet?

The climate changes that ruined societies generally happened when they were at their maximum population load relative to their pre-science production. For example, the end of the Medieval Warm period was already at the tail-end of years of rural expansion and then-maximal drainage and deforestation when the NAO got all messed up.

We've been oscillating back and forth between an Ice World and a Temperate One for many millions of years now, multiple times. Why should we have expected it to have stopped? What percentage of Global Warming is or isn't anthropogenic? Given the tendency to ice-ball hood over the past few million, maybe pumping up the temps a few degrees permanently is a good idea.

Even an 8C change in global temperatures isn't going to destroy human civilization at this point. It wouldn't kill off all the humans even if we weren't post-scientific.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

once homo sapiens (not Lucy from 4 mya) walked across the North Sea and/or Channel without getting their feet wet

Sure it didn't bother humans too much back then. But imagine the same thousands of meters thick glaciers over north America and Europe. This is what severe climate change means and I'm not sure you can count on the opposite warming to be beneficial. At the very least it won't be for everyone.
And you can make it as large as you wish because it won't stop until we stop.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

The climate changes that ruined societies generally happened when they were at their maximum population load relative to their pre-science production

And you wouldn't say we are there at 7 billions going toward 9 billions in the next 30 yrs? With most of the increase in the warmest areas?

TwoScoopsPlissken says

Even an 8C change in global temperatures isn't going to destroy human civilization at this point.

We will get 8C eventually if we don't stop burning fossil fuels. And I don't see where this number came from. The episodes I mentioned before were much more mild and still had huge impacts.

A simple property of bell curves is that the probabilities of extreme events increase rapidly if you move even a little in the tail end toward the center.

Heraclitusstudent says

Stop making fire? what do you mean? Like burning wood? Or you think we can't stop burning fossil fuels? Why?

People got matches and want to stay warm.

Heraclitusstudent says

But imagine the same thousands of meters thick glaciers over north America and Europe. This is what severe climate change means and I'm not sure you can count on the opposite warming to be beneficial. At the very least it won't be for everyone.

If I had to choose between thousand meter thick glaciers and a tropical rain forest, I will take the rainforest. Even a desert would be better than the frozen ice.

Heraclitusstudent says

And you can make it as large as you wish because it won't stop until we stop.

What?

Worst-case global warming scenarios not credible: study

Earth's surface will almost certainly not warm up four or five degrees Celsius by 2100, according to a study released Wednesday which, if correct, voids worst-case UN climate change predictions.

"Our study all but rules out very low and very high climate sensitivities," said lead author Peter Cox, a professor at the University of Exeter.

But uncertainty about how hot things will get also stems from the inability of scientists to nail down a very simple question: By how much will Earth's average surface temperature go up if the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is doubled?

Up to now, attempts to narrow down the elusive equilibrium climate sensitivity have focused on the historical temperature record.

Cox and colleagues instead "considered the year-to-year fluctuations in global temperature," said Richard Allan, a climate scientist at the University of Reading.

By analysing the responsiveness of short-term changes in temperature to "nudges and bumps" in the climate system, he explained, they were able to exclude the outcomes that would have resulted in devastating increases of 4 C or more by 2100.

https://www.afp.com/en/news/2265/worst-case-global-warming-scenarios-not-credible-study-doc-wx0de1
Cancel the Alarm, nothing to see here.

Onvacation says

People got matches and want to stay warm.

Burning wood alone wouldn't cause global warming.