Global Warming My Arse

You don't like anthropogenic climate change.

Who does?

Pretending that it is not happening is not a viable plan.

 

I think they want to yry and can do a lot of damage in the process

Ironically by brainwashing little chilren wo grow up to believe we are all doomed by man made global warming if the socislists are not allowed to dictate our lives for us

So I dont foresee the necessity for an armed overthrow of rge Constitution if thats what you are getting at

 

You are wrong on this. At the company that I was working at, I attended a meeting. In attendance was the president of the company, and several engineers. We were given the task of fixing any possible Y2K bugs. After a lot of joking around, we constructed a letter to our customers, assuring them our products, all microprocessor based, would not be effected. No one seriously considered the possibility of a Y2K bug.

The Y2K bug was most marketed on right wing and religious radio stations, by those who sell survival supplies. In the summer of 2000, I bought an unused portable generator for a quarter of its retail price.

Or as I liked to say at the time, concerning Y2K. I'm happy to see that my lack of preparation has paid off.

 

I'm just trying to understand what you're going on about. Again, do these tree hugging socialist possess some power I'm not aware of where they can force all these changes upon the entire country to force us to all live how they want? Could you give some specific examples of what (in your mind) you think they will do to force us to live their way?

 

Not the ones on my TV. Or maybe, I just don't have a sense of humor when it comes to jokes that cost society millions, and scare people. However it's true that we have many issues that are important that don't get appropriate attention, and others that are unimportant and get a lot. For example-

Most people are unaware for example of research into the risks associated with Dihydrogen Monoxide, or DHMO. It's a colorless and odorless chemical compound, also referred to by some as Dihydrogen Oxide, Hydrogen Hydroxide, Hydronium Hydroxide, or simply Hydric acid. Its basis is the highly reactive hydroxyl radical, a species shown to mutate DNA, denature proteins, disrupt cell membranes, and chemically alter critical neurotransmitters. The atomic components of DHMO are found in a number of caustic, explosive and poisonous compounds such as Sulfuric Acid, Nitroglycerine and Ethyl Alcohol. Despite those facts, public warnings are weak.

DHMO is a constituent of many known toxic substances, diseases and disease-causing agents, environmental hazards and can be lethal to humans even in small quantities. A study conducted by U.S. researchers Patrick K. McCluskey and Matthew Kulick found that nearly 90 percent of the citizens participating in their study were willing to sign a petition to support an outright ban on the use of Dihydrogen Monoxide in the United States, but the government has failed to act, perhaps because the chemical is critical to so many industrial processes. A research organization continues to focus on this issue, perhaps you should check it out, at: http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

 

Is it something that we're supposed to like? Hard to tell these days... What I can say is that it seems difficult, begs credulity even, that the very limited outputs of Man (~,4% of total global CO2 output) is the culprit then for what we see as the moderation from the last little ice age.

A better question would be, do you always expect that the global climate wouldn't change by itself? An even better question is, what should the "optimal" global average temperature be, and where should the climactic differentiation exhibit itself, and why?

I know, you couldn't possibly answer these questions, but until you can, are you really so certain that your advocacy has anything resembling authority here?

 

And, more to the point, you still haven't defended the interagency report that you are now circulating. To what end? Fear? Help us understand what you think here...

 

I am still confused and maybe have a disagreement. Luminosity is a function of the temperature and the surface area. As the temperature slowly decreases (??) as a star in the main sequence ages, does its radius increase (to increase its surface area) which it would have to do to increase its luminosity?

My other point (question): The impact on the earth would be predominately a function of the flux (roughly luminosity per unit area), not luminosity. Flux is a function predominately of surface temperature, not surface area. As the temperature decreases (or stays close to the same) as the star ages its flux would stay the same or slightly decrease. So why would luminosity have any significant impact on the earth? Any impact on the earth, ala temperature, is a function of insolation determined by Stefan–Boltzmann law which is function of only temperature.

 

poor denialists can't tell the difference between long-term trends and short-term anomolies.

 

Some of them have power

For instance the UN Commission on Climate Change has no authority over Americans but it wields great influence around the world and is leaned on for supoort by local power grabbers

The EPA on the other hand has great authority and is seeking more all the time

And increasingly congress is infested with leftwing tree huggers that have plenty of radical power grabs in mind

 

UN? hahaha...moving the goalposts I see.
The EPA has the authority to institute new laws to force us to live a certain way does it?
Sigh...so basically all these tree hugging socialists who are going to force us all to live their way is just in your mind. Thank you!

 

When I said "believing scientists" I meant they believed in their science efforts, not any preconceived notion. My point was that they believe so strongly in their work that it becomes absolute with no room for any discussion or disagreement -- similar to religion.
Uncertain results that are presented with a margin of error does not make them any more certain. Case in point: the temperature rise over the past few decades has been significantly less that that projected by the earlier models, even with their margin of error.

 

In the future, after you and I are long dead, people will be showing writings, such as yours, with all its cocksureness, and making fun of it, and the people who held such mentalities. It is kind of like those writers who wrote of falling off the edge of the earth, if one sailed too far out to sea. Or those who mocked and condemned Copernicus.

 

An interesting thought exercise for sure. And just as likely, folks will look back at all of the insanity of the chicken little crowd, and wonder how such an under researched, unscientific argument ever got so much traction. It will be like looking back a mere hundred or so years and wondering why all the scientists of the day were so wedded to Eugenics. I suppose you're still a fan of that...

 

The temperature of a main sequence star increases with age. This is caused by the ideal gas law: PV = nRT. As the number of moles of gas decrease by nuclear fusion (4H make one He), the temperature has to increase to keep the pressure constant for equilibrium to exist. This means fusion is accelerated and energy output goes up with age.

 

No, there is not. An assumption (good guess in this case) that temperatures will continue to rise with increased concentrations of CO2 ad infinitum, with literally no science to back that up.

 

Worse, most folks making that claim are ignorant of the actual physics required to make additional concentration values have significantly more impact. As in, the distribution of CO2 into the higher levels of the atmosphere. This would be a requirement to see any additional warming potential. And of course, this isn't actually happening. But folks who advocate for AGW aren't actually interested in the science, only the fear, and power it produces.

 

You are just plain wrong on this. Anyone who had intimate knowledge of the underlying workings of computers, knew there was no Y2K bug, The idea was based on the fact that PC compatable computers have a built in hardware clock, that uses only two digits for the year. In computer code, things are relative, years, or the number to represent years are arbitrary. It is a very poor computer program that crashes over arbitrary numbers.

 

Actually there is a lot science on it. Some of it going back 150 years.

 

Future liberals will be shown the writing only if current liberals are correct

If not the liberal historians will not say a word about it

 

I remember once, I was sitting in the park with some friends, when three red necks approached us. The one started in, telling us that we were what was wrong with America, as his buddies began kicking at our stuff, knocking over drinks and things. One of my friends, Dan, had been into martial arts all his life, and aspired to be a king-fu priest. Dan sat there calmly at first, then suddenly lept to his feet and in a quick smooth motion kicked the loud mothed red neck in the face, sending him to the ground. In that same smooth motion, Dan then turned to one of the other ones and with a few quick hits to the head and chest, he too was on the ground. A couple of girls attacked the other. They ran off crying, claiming they were only joking.

 

The question was uninformed versus preconceived. "Uninformed" means there is something unknown as in ignorant of. Are you claiming that scientists are not ignorant of some things? That they know everything there is to know with absolute certainty? It sounds that way, as stupid as it is.

 

Heh, the conservatives here probably believe Trump is an authority on climate change.

Apparently no: Latest national climate assessment contradicts positions taken by President Donald Trump on global warming. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07483-x

And probably not inspired enough to think of the future -to work towards something long term- like fusion without nuclear waste or carbon emitions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER

Either they can't, don't care, or both. But sure like red herrings; Trump spews them all the time, and he too will be long dead.

 

Accusing skeptics of being bought off is a religious phenomenon -- my point.

 

They made two counterproductive mistakes: They talked, and they didn't get the guy while he was seated.