Total nonsense in climate debate

[Red + 252]

11 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

You do realize, of course, that that cave man is right.  

The earth has an interior core of molten magma.  That material is unaffected by what happens on the crust surface, and that core is continuously giving up heat, a tiny sliver at a time, to the cold crust. The core comprises the vast majority of the earth's mass. So: is the earth cooling?  Yup, it is.  [Not enough too make any difference to the crust creatures, but hey, we are splitting hairs here, so might as well go all-out!)

Put an ice cube in a glass of water and then put the glass of water into the refrigerator.  Over time the ice cube will melt while still in the refrigerator.

Repeat the same experiment, except this time put the glass into a freezer.  The ice cube will expand.

The earth's core certainly loses heat to the planet's surface.  But the planet's surface also receives heat from the sun.  If the planet had the same atmosphere as it presently does, but a core of cold, solid rock, the planet would still be warming today.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

No chance on that, Red.   You have these comets of masses of frozen ice chunks being bathed in solar heating and they don't warm up, either. Is the moon surface warming?  Is Mars warming?  With a cold core, the water in the deep oceans would likely be solid, notwithstanding the pressures. Convection of surface heat down into the core is the more probable outcome. 

Anyway, I am going to bow out of this discussion. 

[Red + 252]

5 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

No chance on that, Red.   You have these comets of masses of frozen ice chunks being bathed in solar heating and they don't warm up, either. Is the moon surface warming?  Is Mars warming?  With a cold core, the water in the deep oceans would likely be solid, notwithstanding the pressures. Convection of surface heat down into the core is the more probable outcome. 

Anyway, I am going to bow out of this discussion. 

They do not have atmospheres to trap heat.

[Oil_Engineer + 86]

On 5/29/2019 at 1:56 AM, David Jones said:

I'm sorry, is this the same Michael Crichton who is in fact a screenwriter? I would hope that you are not quoting the 15 year old work of some screenwriter as if it's scientifically relevant to the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Again, my post above in relation to the state and standards of denialists stands.

He was also a medical doctor.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

23 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

You have these comets of masses of frozen ice chunks being bathed in solar heating and they don't warm up, either. Is the moon surface warming?  Is Mars warming?  With a cold core, the water in the deep oceans would likely be solid, notwithstanding the pressures. Convection of surface heat down into the core is the more probable outcome. 

Anyway, I am going to bow out of this discussion. 

The comet tail / outgassing is where that solar energy is going. Essentially, evaporative cooling

Edited June 1, 2019 by Enthalpic

[specinho + 467]

On 5/30/2019 at 11:46 AM, Red said:

Nobody in science refers to an Arctic ice cap, because its a mass of moving sea ice.  The fact was you made reference to what happens to sea levels if it melts, and the answer is "nothing."

If you are going to make points about climate science, make sure they are sensible.

We congratulated someone for his decades of effort that found expertism in differentiating "melt" and "thaw" scientifically not long ago.......... and published papers with his colleagues successfully...... with pride.

We would like to thank you for your more than 50 years of expertist in acknowldeging the commonly understood Arctic ice cap is probably called polar ice scientifically. Or do you mind to tell us what "the people in science" whom you socialize with call those ice??

Besides that.......... there is a story.................

Once upon a time......... a man who lives in the polar zone told his wife he was on a night shift. And he said:"See you in half a year!"............ The wife was flabbergasted......... 

So........ imagine a place covered with ice most of the time or more than 6 months a year........ and be called a cap (something that is put on)....... it is appropriate on laymen term. Or no??

Regarding if melting of ice will cause the rise of sea level......... imagine the water bodies and oceans on earth are linked. One part it is liquid; polar zones solid. The melting of ice from the polar zone causes the liquid to merge with the other. Using your example - imagine again a cup of water with ice cubes on top........... the volume of water increases when the ice cubes melted. How much is the increment of volume would depend on how much ice is there and how much has melted. Or no??

 

On 5/31/2019 at 5:32 AM, Jan van Eck said:

My dear Red, the only belief I have is that I am an idiot and a total fool.  You graciously pointed that out.  If you find the declaration not supported by science, then so be it.  I shall put myself down as a lemming, going over the cliff edge with everybody else, does that satisfy you?  

 What a magic trick.......... but on a vacinnated and immuned..........

 

On 5/31/2019 at 5:56 AM, Red said:

People happily believe what they choose,  but then there is "reality."

Unlike your claim, what I pointed out was that you described weather events rather than the physics of what happens with energy transfer mechanisms.  We can and will have exceptionally cold (extreme) weather events throughout periods of global warming, because the energy driving such events is increasing.  These events are inconsequential to the gross  transfer of energy to and from the planet.

[NickW + 2,714]

On 5/27/2019 at 4:05 PM, canadas canadas said:

Climate change belief or non-belief appears to be based on age demographics.  To many older people it is not a big concern but to many younger people it is a big concern.  Why?  Most likely to do with time and timing.  Since climate change is expected to become a big problem in the future, it will most likely impact those who are still alive at that time.  Most of the important current decision makers may not still be around by then.  Thus, they don't believe in climate change because it won't happen to them.

The majority of those older people have children and grandchildren. I may not be around but i do worry what we are passing onto my son and his children should he have them. 

[NickW + 2,714]

On 5/29/2019 at 1:22 PM, Douglas Buckland said:

Much of what is being presented as science by the environmental community is 'mumbo jumbo'. I say that BECAUSE I know the difference.

I am holding my breath to see how far sea level rises when the Arctic ice cap melts....

 

The Arctic 'ice cap'  is ocean - when that ice melts it will make sod all difference to sea levels. 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

@NickW Correct you are! I was just seeing if anyone was paying attention and understood buoyancy.

[MaxNix + 12]

On the other hand, the US Navy seems to think that Artic warming is real:

https://www.navy.mil/docs/USN_arctic_roadmap.pdf

1.  

 

 

 

[NickW + 2,714]

On ‎5‎/‎31‎/‎2019 at 5:26 AM, Jan van Eck said:

No chance on that, Red.   You have these comets of masses of frozen ice chunks being bathed in solar heating and they don't warm up, either. Is the moon surface warming?  Is Mars warming?  With a cold core, the water in the deep oceans would likely be solid, notwithstanding the pressures. Convection of surface heat down into the core is the more probable outcome. 

Anyway, I am going to bow out of this discussion. 

I know its  a fiction film but watch this - it may give you a perspective on comet outgassing as sunlight hits it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Impact_(film

 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

24 minutes ago, NickW said:

I know its  a fiction film but watch this - it may give you a perspective on comet outgassing as sunlight hits it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Impact_(film

 

Not really.  The trailers seem to suggest an impact comet encountering the atmosphere and having friction heating. 

Let's remember that comets run around in space for unknown millions of years and are still there.  The amount being out-gassed would be quite small, likely negligible.

On another topic, those gigantic waves hitting New York and Virginia Beach would actually occur, if a part of the volcanic mountain that forms the island of La Palma, in the Canary Islands, ever lets loose.  Here is a fact check, more or less.  I think the wave would be higher than 60 feet with an impact speed of 550 mph at NY, but choose your own numbers.  It will be massive.  Incidentally you can prevent this by removing the internal water that had filled the inside of the volcano by simply drilling a bore hole into the side and letting the water escape.  A cheap solution.  (I would also harvest the rock and remove it, but hey, I tend to be cautious when it comes to mega-disasters).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zb4T8a1K5tw

This is a very real threat.  The USA is ignoring it, the idea being that it is low probability.  Maybe so, but it sure is high impact!

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

3 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

 

Let's remember that comets run around in space for unknown millions of years and are still there.  The amount being out-gassed would be quite small, likely negligible.

 

Nah, they don't last that long.  The ice burns off and they become asteroids, or crash into stuff.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet#Fate_of_comets

 

[NickW + 2,714]

3 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Not really.  The trailers seem to suggest an impact comet encountering the atmosphere and having friction heating. 

Let's remember that comets run around in space for unknown millions of years and are still there.  The amount being out-gassed would be quite small, likely negligible.

On another topic, those gigantic waves hitting New York and Virginia Beach would actually occur, if a part of the volcanic mountain that forms the island of La Palma, in the Canary Islands, ever lets loose.  Here is a fact check, more or less.  I think the wave would be higher than 60 feet with an impact speed of 550 mph at NY, but choose your own numbers.  It will be massive.  Incidentally you can prevent this by removing the internal water that had filled the inside of the volcano by simply drilling a bore hole into the side and letting the water escape.  A cheap solution.  (I would also harvest the rock and remove it, but hey, I tend to be cautious when it comes to mega-disasters).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zb4T8a1K5tw

This is a very real threat.  The USA is ignoring it, the idea being that it is low probability.  Maybe so, but it sure is high impact!

As per Enthalpics point. Also most the time they are far away from the sun so don't have the exposure to solar energy to cause heating.

When they are 'bathed in solar heat' as you describe they form nice big tails and start outgassing

Edited June 6, 2019 by NickW

[Christopher Hood + 3]

Our planet is supporting more humans than at any other time in human history.  It requires zero belief in climate change to understand common logic of resource preservation. The sun can now power our homes and cars and place homeowners in an improved economic position. As a side effect the planet benefits from sun-generated power. We all should be interested in conservation especially those who call themselves conservatives. 

[NickW + 2,714]

4 minutes ago, Christopher Hood said:

Our planet is supporting more humans than at any other time in human history.  It requires zero belief in climate change to understand common logic of resource preservation. The sun can now power our homes and cars and place homeowners in an improved economic position. As a side effect the planet benefits from sun-generated power. We all should be interested in conservation especially those who call themselves conservatives. 

Common Sense Alert - Common sense Alert!

Welcome by the way. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

1 minute ago, Christopher Hood said:

Our planet is supporting more humans than at any other time in human history.  It requires zero belief in climate change to understand common logic of resource preservation. The sun can now power our homes and cars and place homeowners in an improved economic position. As a side effect the planet benefits from sun-generated power. We all should be interested in conservation especially those who call themselves conservatives. 

Here's the problem, Chris:  to develop and build new machinery to capture that "sun-generated power," capital has to be spent.  That capital has a cost.  And it may not even be possible insofar as an inter-tie with existing systems and structures are concerned.  You see the raging debates on subsidies for wind and solar systems, and the complexities of grid connections.  

Due to the issue of the inter-tie, I personally favor and promote nuclear power. Nuke plants will be a direct substitute for coal plants in the generation of electricity, much more so than any other potential source. To do that, society has to overcome its fears. Anyway, welcome to the Forum and its lively discussions!

[Red + 252]

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

You see the raging debates on subsidies for wind and solar systems, and the complexities of grid connections.  

You might see that in North America, but not in those economies - as in Europe - that led the charge in renewables and have resolved them to the point that renewables are the cheapest form of new energy generation.

As for nuclear, there is no economic case that seems to stack up for private sector development of such plants.  The evidence for that in the USA is palpable.

Edited June 6, 2019 by Red
wtf