Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 29, 2015 9:18:03 GMT -5
You have to realize that the difference between the dark blue and the bright red is 4 ppm (between 381 and 385 ppm). The discrepancy is amplified so that the CO2 eddies can clearly be seen. Having said that, what is the only process on Earth that routinely creates CO2 in uneven distributions? They give the answer in the article: human activity in major urban centers. You can see it "puffing out", mainly from the NE of North America. I don't mind the stark visualization, but the simulation does suffer from a serious flaw in that NASA is using the Mercator projection, which vastly distorts the relative area of different latitudes. One would ordinary expect that the area of each pixel in the image would represent the same amount of area on Earth, but the projection distorts area such that far south and far north pixels actually represent areas hundreds of times greater than pixels at the equator. Hence the bright red band we see at the top of the image is in reality a bright red dot. It would be neat to see the simulation rerun using an equal-area projection such as a Werner projection. As an aside, the article links to this one about CCS in Saskatchewan that's worth the read.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,898
|
Post by happyhoix on Oct 29, 2015 11:27:16 GMT -5
the fossil fuel industry dumped more than $36 million (so far!) into the 2016 elections, with a staggering 93 percent of it going to Republicans
Yeah, wow. A whopping 1.8% of the $2,005 million pulled in by candidates during 2012. And it goes without saying that every dollar donated by every firm comes with the quid pro quo that government suppress green tech. Let's compare that to the $72 billion the US government has spent on climate change funding in the past four years. Hence in conclusion: some unknown % of $36 million: Sweet mother of a snow leopard, they're killing green tech! Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead! 100% of $72,000 million: Meh. Barely a drop in the bucket. It's not going to influence anybody. I guess they just missed 7.2 trillion pennies in the past four years then. So we spent 18 billion a year on funding research on climate change. Compare that to 845 Billion we spent on the military in 2011. (Yes I know this article is from 2013 but I like the pretty graphics). www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/07/everything-chuck-hagel-needs-to-know-about-the-defense-budget-in-charts/Could we cut another 20 billion a year from the defense budget to encourage Green technology and maybe reduce our on dependence on oil, which is constantly getting us into very expensive Middle Eastern wars? I think we could. And tell me this, if the money the oil companies are throwing into the election isn't going to influence any of the candidates, why are they sending 95% of it exclusively to GOP candidates? If it has no purpose, why not give it equally to ALL candidates - or why give any at all, why not keep it and fatten the bonuses of the upper level employees?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 0:26:13 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2015 12:39:05 GMT -5
Yeah, well then, that makes it a totally lame storm then. Those people in it's path in Mexico are just stupid, non-physics majors for evacuating. Whiners. At the time posted, the total energy level of the storm was not large. At this posting it's already known that the dissipation rate was quick enough that anyone can see that the energy level was low. Sandy by comparison was a much more powerful storm due to it's size even though peak winds were lower. As an aside, education level does not make people stupid. An intelligent person can learn anything if the opportunity to learn is presented or possible in their area.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 0:26:13 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2015 13:01:25 GMT -5
that this is the worst Pacific hurricane in recorded history to make landfall in the Americas is not conjecture. it is fact. the accepted method of measuring hurricanes is barometric pressure, and this one was a record low. argue against facts all you like. they will remain facts. It depends on what the definition of "worst " is. Would a storm with gale force winds or higher 300 miles out from the storm eye be worse at land fall than a storm with gale force winds or higher only 30 miles out from the eye hitting at the same spot? Of course the smaller storm with the higher central winds would have the "record" barometric pressure because it was wound up tighter due to higher ocean temperatures. Just some additional facts.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 0:26:13 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2015 13:13:13 GMT -5
Great call 23! It's like you know your stuff or something. who is crying wolf? seriously- is this yet ANOTHER imagined outrage, or is there something to it? Happy, in reply #22. Peak wind speed, nor barometric pressure is the measure of the total energy/power of a hurricane. (my original point in reply #8, see the second link.)
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 29, 2015 14:17:12 GMT -5
Yeah, wow. A whopping 1.8% of the $2,005 million pulled in by candidates during 2012. And it goes without saying that every dollar donated by every firm comes with the quid pro quo that government suppress green tech. Let's compare that to the $72 billion the US government has spent on climate change funding in the past four years. Hence in conclusion: some unknown % of $36 million: Sweet mother of a snow leopard, they're killing green tech! Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead! 100% of $72,000 million: Meh. Barely a drop in the bucket. It's not going to influence anybody. I guess they just missed 7.2 trillion pennies in the past four years then. So we spent 18 billion a year on funding research on climate change. Compare that to 845 Billion we spent on the military in 2011. (Yes I know this article is from 2013 but I like the pretty graphics). www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/07/everything-chuck-hagel-needs-to-know-about-the-defense-budget-in-charts/Could we cut another 20 billion a year from the defense budget to encourage Green technology and maybe reduce our on dependence on oil, which is constantly getting us into very expensive Middle Eastern wars? I think we could. And tell me this, if the money the oil companies are throwing into the election isn't going to influence any of the candidates, why are they sending 95% of it exclusively to GOP candidates? If it has no purpose, why not give it equally to ALL candidates - or why give any at all, why not keep it and fatten the bonuses of the upper level employees? Companies give money to the candidates they feel will best represent their interests. Interests for an oil company could mean lower taxes, more pipelines (Keystone XL comes to mind), lessening restrictions on fracking and offshore drilling, preference for government supply contracts, and a dozen other things besides. Whatever small amount is putatively earmarked for suppressing green tech out of a piddling $36 million doesn't amount to a fart in a windstorm. As for the military budget, yes I agree Uncle Sam could afford to spend far less on the military. You're going broke at light speed as it is. That's hardly the point. The point is that tens of billions are indeed being invested in green research, the funding is going up every year, the big bad oil companies aren't suppressing it, and Republican lawmakers have indeed allowed many trillions of pennies to fund research they don't believe in. If you read the NatGeo article I posted above, you'll note that green initiatives like clean coal have enemies on the other (left) side of the political aisle. It seems to me a certain US president recently decided that coal ought to be wiped off the map in spite of such initiatives. Considering the promising results of the article and the practicality of converting existing coal infrastructure, one wonders if you're vexed by this far more real example of political ideology suppressing green tech?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 29, 2015 15:30:58 GMT -5
who is crying wolf? seriously- is this yet ANOTHER imagined outrage, or is there something to it? Happy, in reply #22. Peak wind speed, nor barometric pressure is the measure of the total energy/power of a hurricane. (my original point in reply #8, see the second link.) you're moving the goalposts. i never claimed that this was the most destructive hurricane. obviously, it wasn't. i don't know how many of these metrics were around in 1899, but BP was. edit: if you are arguing that i misused the word "worst", in my defense, i couldn't think of a better word at the time. i still can't. best, maybe?
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Oct 29, 2015 15:37:56 GMT -5
Yes. Typhoons, hurricanes and cyclones are all exactly the same thing.
In the Atlantic and northern Pacific, the storms are called "hurricanes," after the Caribbean god of evil, named Hurrican. In the northwestern Pacific, the same powerful storms are called "typhoons." In the southeastern Indian Ocean and southwestern Pacific, they are called "severe tropical cyclones."
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,499
|
Post by Tennesseer on Oct 29, 2015 16:53:41 GMT -5
In what hemisphere are the majority of the industrialized nations? How many countries are in the northern hemisphere versus the southern hemisphere? You might want to figure that out. And where did you learn the forest burning in Brazil was completely destroying the world?
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Oct 30, 2015 9:50:31 GMT -5
You have to realize that the difference between the dark blue and the bright red is 4 ppm (between 381 and 385 ppm). The discrepancy is amplified so that the CO2 eddies can clearly be seen. Having said that, what is the only process on Earth that routinely creates CO2 in uneven distributions? They give the answer in the article: human activity in major urban centers. You can see it "puffing out", mainly from the NE of North America. I don't mind the stark visualization, but the simulation does suffer from a serious flaw in that NASA is using the Mercator projection, which vastly distorts the relative area of different latitudes. One would ordinary expect that the area of each pixel in the image would represent the same amount of area on Earth, but the projection distorts area such that far south and far north pixels actually represent areas hundreds of times greater than pixels at the equator. Hence the bright red band we see at the top of the image is in reality a bright red dot. It would be neat to see the simulation rerun using an equal-area projection such as a Werner projection. As an aside, the article links to this one about CCS in Saskatchewan that's worth the read. I know that, I am just using that to show their video to look like carbon dioxide is just exploding and is going to destroy the earth tomorrow.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 30, 2015 10:17:15 GMT -5
You have to realize that the difference between the dark blue and the bright red is 4 ppm (between 381 and 385 ppm). The discrepancy is amplified so that the CO2 eddies can clearly be seen. Having said that, what is the only process on Earth that routinely creates CO2 in uneven distributions? They give the answer in the article: human activity in major urban centers. You can see it "puffing out", mainly from the NE of North America. I don't mind the stark visualization, but the simulation does suffer from a serious flaw in that NASA is using the Mercator projection, which vastly distorts the relative area of different latitudes. One would ordinary expect that the area of each pixel in the image would represent the same amount of area on Earth, but the projection distorts area such that far south and far north pixels actually represent areas hundreds of times greater than pixels at the equator. Hence the bright red band we see at the top of the image is in reality a bright red dot. It would be neat to see the simulation rerun using an equal-area projection such as a Werner projection. As an aside, the article links to this one about CCS in Saskatchewan that's worth the read. I know that, I am just using that to show their video to look like carbon dioxide is just exploding and is going to destroy the earth tomorrow. They want to scare people. There's no doubt about that. The trillion dollar question is whether they're trying to scare people for the right reasons.
|
|
Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger
Senior Associate
Viva La Revolucion!
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 12,758
|
Post by Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger on Oct 30, 2015 14:43:25 GMT -5
As an aside, the article links to this one about CCS in Saskatchewan that's worth the read. Ah yes, waste management. The premier growth industry of the next 30 years... So all this global warming/climate change talk does have a silver lining after all.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Nov 1, 2015 9:30:38 GMT -5
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Nov 1, 2015 12:01:12 GMT -5
Well, of course it's not melting in the Antarctic! It would behoove you to research why that is.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Nov 1, 2015 12:32:28 GMT -5
*hint* It has to do with warmer ocean surface temperatures.
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Nov 1, 2015 13:50:40 GMT -5
Jack o lanterns gonna kill us all!
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 1, 2015 21:26:07 GMT -5
Jack o lanterns gonna kill us all!
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Nov 1, 2015 21:53:34 GMT -5
Jack o lanterns gonna kill us all! Yes, Shooby. Pumpkins are the harbinger of the Apocalypse and doom. The Book of Revelation didn't mention a fifth orange horse, but I'm sure it's an oversight.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,499
|
Post by Tennesseer on Nov 2, 2015 9:21:34 GMT -5
Plus, we had a hard frost here Saturday morning. That conclusively proves that the Earth in my backyard is not warming. In Maine? In November? OMG!
|
|
jambo101
Junior Member
Joined: Nov 1, 2015 5:42:51 GMT -5
Posts: 115
|
Post by jambo101 on Nov 3, 2015 7:47:59 GMT -5
Global warming explained by the scientists who study the climate.= NOAA And findings from NASA
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Nov 4, 2015 22:03:05 GMT -5
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Nov 4, 2015 22:09:26 GMT -5
Regardless of the numbers, charts, graphs or assorted hockey sticks.....the Arctic is still melting. I can prove it with two words. Northwest Passage.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Nov 4, 2015 22:13:04 GMT -5
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Nov 5, 2015 12:55:10 GMT -5
In the same marine vein, lets not forget coral bleaching and die-offs.
Climate change impacts have been identified as one of the greatest global threats to coral reef ecosystems. As temperature rise, mass bleaching, and infectious disease outbreaks are likely to become more frequent. Additionally, carbon dioxide (CO2) absorbed into the ocean from the atmosphere has already begun to reduce calcification rates in reef-building and reef-associated organisms by altering sea water chemistry through decreases in pH (ocean acidification). In the long term, failure to address carbon emissions and the resultant impacts of rising temperatures and ocean acidification could make many other coral ecosystem management efforts futile. Climate change and ocean acidification have been identified by many groups as the most important threat to coral reefs on a global basis. In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) noted that the evidence is now "unequivocal" that the earth's atmosphere and oceans are warming. They concluded that these changes are primarily due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases (i.e.those derived from human activities), especially the accelerating increase in emissions of CO2.
coralreef.noaa.gov/threats/climate/
Meanwhile the Republicans mock and deny, deny and mock. Hey it's snowing outside! Where's your global warming now, you stupid environmentalists?"
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Nov 5, 2015 12:58:38 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 0:26:13 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2015 13:51:28 GMT -5
Happy, in reply #22. Peak wind speed, nor barometric pressure is the measure of the total energy/power of a hurricane. (my original point in reply #8, see the second link.) you're moving the goalposts. i never claimed that this was the most destructive hurricane. obviously, it wasn't. i don't know how many of these metrics were around in 1899, but BP was. edit: if you are arguing that i misused the word "worst", in my defense, i couldn't think of a better word at the time. i still can't. best, maybe? I set my goal posts in reply #8 I'm not trying to be offensive. It's just that the total energy (destructive power) of a cyclone is not measured only by top wind speed or BP. I will agree that they are good single indicators of a more/less powerful storm. A cat-5 storm of any diameter is still serious business. The size (area) of the gale force and higher wind field gives a more accurate measure of a storms energy. The heat transfer of a large storm diameter contributes to it's farther reach into landmasses, and it's ability to destroy structure and move water.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 0:26:13 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2015 14:11:55 GMT -5
A cut/paste from your link...At the University of California Santa Barbara Aquarium, captive sea stars started showing signs of the syndrome at the same time as their wild counterparts who live on the rocks several hundred feet from the tanks. The captive sea stars are kept in tanks of filtered seawater. In one tank they were fed mussels harvested from the rocks outside. In another tank the sea stars were fed frozen squid. The animals that ate frozen squid stayed healthy, while the sea stars that ate the wild-harvested mussels contracted the syndrome. Blanchette cautions that these observations are purely anecdotal and the sample size is very small, but she believes this hypothesis merits further study. That’s where scientists at Cornell come in. They are narrowing the list of pathogen suspects using DNA sequencing from samples of sick stars and hope to publish their findings in a scientific journal. Once the exact pathogen is identified and more is known about how the disease is spread, scientists will be better able to understand whether west coast starfish will be able to recover.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 0:26:13 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2015 14:34:25 GMT -5
Global warming explained by the scientists who study the climate.= NOAA And findings from NASAA cut paste of numbers from NOAA. from the link in reply #116 ...According to NOAA data, the amount of total CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere is approximately three one-hundredths of 1 percent, or .0003 percent of the total atmosphere. And the man-made contribution to that total amount of CO2 is only .0004 of that number — bear with me; yes, they will be talking about only four one-hundredths of that three one-hundredths of a percent in Paris. Never has so much been spent on so little. And the Democrats are just getting started. What are we willing to sacrifice in terms of economy and the human quality of life to make a tiny fraction of a small number slightly smaller? Given what we know so far, it is fair to ask if it is possible to make an impact, or if it is even measurable.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,898
|
Post by happyhoix on Nov 5, 2015 16:03:54 GMT -5
Global warming explained by the scientists who study the climate.= NOAA And findings from NASAA cut paste of numbers from NOAA. from the link in reply #116 ...According to NOAA data, the amount of total CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere is approximately three one-hundredths of 1 percent, or .0003 percent of the total atmosphere. And the man-made contribution to that total amount of CO2 is only .0004 of that number — bear with me; yes, they will be talking about only four one-hundredths of that three one-hundredths of a percent in Paris. Never has so much been spent on so little. And the Democrats are just getting started. What are we willing to sacrifice in terms of economy and the human quality of life to make a tiny fraction of a small number slightly smaller? Given what we know so far, it is fair to ask if it is possible to make an impact, or if it is even measurable. So small amounts of things can't have an impact? Good to know. Next time someone ingests 30 mg of strychnine we'll just tell him it's only 0.00004 % of the total make up of his body, so stop whining about it, it can't possibly have an impact.
|
|
Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger
Senior Associate
Viva La Revolucion!
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 12,758
|
Post by Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger on Nov 5, 2015 20:39:25 GMT -5
Never has so much been spent on so little. And the Democrats are just getting started. What are we willing to sacrifice in terms of economy and the human quality of life to make a tiny fraction of a small number slightly smaller? It's not going to get that far my friend. A handful of savvy Republicans are set to capitalize on all this nonsense and turn it into mega $$$$ - yes rubbing Nobama's and others noses in it is going to be a nice bonus. It's going to be funny to see what spin comes after the CO2 waste issue is solved, that's for sure. Given what we know so far, it is fair to ask if it is possible to make an impact, or if it is even measurable. Without a doubt a fair question. It would be nice if they could at least get the math and analogies close though, eh?
|
|