Things are Starting to Heat Up - Part XI 10

[dik]

For earlier threads, see:
thread1618-496010
thread1618-496614
thread1618-497017
thread1618-497239
thread1618-497988
thread1618-498967
thread1618-501135
thread1618-504850
thread1618-506948
thread1618-507973


-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[TugboatEng]

Some completely irrational actions HAVE been taken:

California is attacking its transportation system.

https://calmatters.org/environment/2023/04/california-ban-diesel-trucks/

This has been signed into law. It is beyond being a think tank idea.

Also, my issue with think tank ideas is that they are often a drain on taxpayer funds. Most of these doomsday climate change studies are government sponsored. There no sponsorship for studies that may provide balanced or contrary findings.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

You're chicken little. You don't know, by your own admission, and you're apparently terrified anyway. That's not rational. Not even close./quote]

There is at least SOME rationality to it. We know the earth has been warming. We know that CO2 has a warming effect. Also, CO2 emissions have gone up on a nearly exponential scale. It's rational to worry that this COULD lead to runaway warming over the next century.

Now, I think there is a big difference between "worry" and being "terrified". I'm worried. The global warming alarmists are terrified... or are trying to make us terrified. Personally, I think dik is somewhere between those two descriptions.

There is a quote from Elon Musk that I liked when he was pressed on this subject:

We're running the most dangerous experiment in history right now, which is to see how much carbon dioxide the atmosphere... can handle before there is an environmental catastrophe.

Now, that doesn't mean that we have to commit economic suicide and completely eliminate fossil fuel use. But, we need to make incremental changes to encourage and fund CO2 free energy. Maybe impose taxes on the worst CO2 emitters to fund these policies.

 

[SwinnyGG]

There no sponsorship for studies that may provide balanced or contrary findings.

There's a boatload - start reading the scientific literature instead of the summaries by journalists and your opinions of what the scientific community is saying will dramatically change.

This has been signed into law. It is beyond being a think tank idea.

Ok, so how has this new law (which contains more holes than a block of swiss cheese to let operators out if they meet certain easy-to-meet conditions, by the way) which is likely to get modified based on the fact that technology isn't really ready to meet the demand it creates, 'catastrophically' impacted your daily life?

Bet it hasn't, at all. You're just complaining about it because, for the millionth time, your political choices require you to think climate change is a lie. Same old story.

 

[dik]

I'm not terrified of it... just looking at the events of the last few years, I can see things getting a lot worse and no one seems to be doing anything (I'm pretty sure they are getting worse and that this is not just an anomaly). Climate change is a direct result of the carbon footprint... and this continues to go up. My concern, and it's not an irrational one, is that it will progress to something a lot worse, with all sorts of geopolitical fallout.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[TugboatEng]

There's a boatload - start reading the scientific literature instead of the summaries by journalists and your opinions of what the scientific community is saying will dramatically change.

I found this one interesting. It's published in a peer reviewed journal but has really irked a lot of climate scientists.

https://environmentalsystemsresearch.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40068-020-00169-2

In his study he makes an assumption that ocean surface heat stays on the surface and that atmosphere heat doesn't move up and down much. Using this much smaller thermal mass, the heating can be attributed directly to energy use. That's not so good for nuclear and solar.

 

[SwinnyGG]

In his study he makes an assumption that ocean surface heat stays on the surface and that atmosphere heat doesn't move up and down much

Problem with that is that this assumption is wildly incorrect.

 

[TugboatEng]

You must be a very fast reader.

 

[SwinnyGG]

The assumed boundary layer limits are listed in the results portion of the summary, just below the abstract.

Wildly incorrect and right up front where I found the values in about 10 seconds of reading.

 

[TugboatEng]

Is there something wrong with the boundary layer limits assumption? I think it's quite reasonable to assume that convexti will keep most of the warming water in the oceans towards the surface.

It gets a little muddy when discussing the atmosphere but inversion layers do exist and they do block upwards air currents.

 

[SwinnyGG]

The assumed max boundary layer depths are 0.2 m for the ocean and 100 m for the atmosphere.

Both of those numbers are wildly unrealistic. Inversion layer behavior is common - that's correct - but inversion layers are hundreds or thousands of meters above the ground.

Similar in the ocean analysis - there are all sorts of temperature gradients and modes of transporting heat from the surface down. But assuming that only the top 20 cm of the ocean receives any heating and that none of of that heat is circulated any further down is nowhere near a reasonable approximation of reality.

 

[TugboatEng]

How are they wildly unrealistic? Sure there are some currents but there isn't a hole lot to drive mixing from the surface to the depths. Heck, even in the surf zone there is hardly any downwards movement of the water despite the waves crashing down above.

 

[dik]

Sunblock...

"Some of it sounds like mad science, maybe the master plan of a Bond villain. One idea resembles a plot from The Simpsons.

Humans have given it a low-key name: geoengineering. But it's nothing less than changing the Earth — the air, the clouds, the oceans — so that we can hold off on global warming's most devastating effects until we cut our carbon pollution.

"Make no mistake: This is a really big deal," Daniel Schrag, director of the Harvard University Center for the Environment, told CBC Radio's The Current, specifically referring to solar geoengineering. "We're talking about engineering the climate intentionally for the whole planet."

Here are some of the big ideas that have been discussed, how they work and what they might mean for the planet."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/climate-change-stopgaps-geoengineering-1.6922153

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[TugboatEng]

That's completely insane. Reducing the amount of solar irradiance impacting the Earth will reduce the amount of photosynthesis removing CO2 from the atmosphere as well.

 

[GregLocock]

Here's a picture of the shadow cast by a moon sized sun-blocker at a moon sized orbit. As you can see it shades approximately bugger all of the earth's surface. L1 is 4 times further away. Stop this silliness.

[URL unfurl="true"]https://res.cloudinary.com/engineering-com/image/upload/v1691023951/tips/RBfhmprcqT8kz22DRVWL8Z-970-80.jpg_lp01gt.webp[/url]

https://www.space.com/32245-total-solar-eclipse-video-dscovr.html

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[TugboatEng]

Remember, SwinnyGG, what you have just witnessed is the result of the "believe the science" mentality.

 

[SwinnyGG]

How are they wildly unrealistic? Sure there are some currents but there isn't a hole lot to drive mixing from the surface to the depths.

As usual, you're completely wrong. ocean currents - that's all of them - continuously mix water of different depths. Billions and billions of gallons a day are transported from the surface to deeper depths, and vice versa.

Stick to tugboats dude. You're completely lost. All attempts to explain even the most basic concepts to you are a complete waste of time. You have no interest in learning anything. It's crystal clear.

Remember, SwinnyGG, what you have just witnessed is the result of the "believe the science" mentality.

What I've just "witnessed"? Would that be Dik posting completely asinine things, and another poster rightfully calling them out as BS?

Dik is clearly not an adherent of 'believe the science' - whatever that even means. He's way beyond the level of alarm the data presents, and way beyond any reasonable level of response.

You are exactly the same. It's baffling that you don't see it at all.

 

[TugboatEng]

Billions and billions of gallons a day are transported from the surface to deeper depths, and vice versa.

Maybe you have a perspective problem because that number is quite small compared to the volume of water contained within the top 0.2m of the oceans.

You're discounting a peer reviewed paper without any numbers to back it up. I'm not saying the author is the authority but he brings up some interesting points that may explain gaps in the climate change models.

Personally, I am biased to support Bian because it supports my belief that we need to reduce consumption of all energy. Bian did not come to that conclusion, he supports a shift to renewable energy which I think is counterproductive to his goal.

 

[SwinnyGG]

Maybe you have a perspective problem because that number is quite small compared to the volume of water contained within the top 0.2m of the oceans.

Again, again, again, wrong. Very wrong. Out of your depth wrong.

'Billions and billions' is a euphemism. Want the actual number? I know what it is, but I'm no longer going to spoon feed things to someone who cares nothing about actual fact.

So from now on, if you actually want to have a discussion, post what you think the number is, and why you think the above approximations of oceanic and atmospheric boundary layer thicknesses are realistic in purely scientific terms.

Burden of proof lies on the claimant. So unless you can provide some sort of explanation of why you think the things you think, beyond 'it seems that way', your opinions mean absolutely nothing. I've done a great deal of explaining in depth, using actual verifiable facts and processes. You've done nothing.

By the way, Springer Open is an open journal. That means something. You should read up on that, too.

 

[dik]

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates momix vidmate apk

-Dik

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[GregLocock]

Via The Australian: Cliff Mass, professor of Atmospheric Sciences at University of Washington, said the public was being “misinformed on a massive scale”: “It‘s terrible. I think it’s a disaster. There’s a stunning amount of exaggeration and hype of extreme weather and heatwaves, and it’s very counter-productive,” he told The Australian in an interview. “I’m not a contrarian. I‘m pretty mainstream in a very large [academic] department, and I think most of these claims are unfounded and problematic”. …

Professor Mass said the climate was “radically warmer” around 1000 years ago during what’s known as the Medieval Warm Period, when agriculture thrived in parts of now ice-covered Greenland. “If you really go back far enough there were swamps near the North Pole, and the other thing to keep in mind is that we‘re coming out of a cold period, a Little Ice Age from roughly 1600 to 1850”.

#

John Christy, a professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, said heatwaves in the first half of the 20th century were at least as intense as those of more recent decades based on consistent, long-term weather stations going back over a century. “I haven‘t seen anything yet this summer that’s an all-time record for these long-term stations, 1936 still holds by far the record for the most number of stations with the hottest-ever temperatures,” he told The Australian, referring to the year of a great heatwave in North America that killed thousands.

Professor Christy said an explosion of the number of weather stations in the US and around the world had made historical comparisons difficult because some stations only went back a few years; meanwhile, creeping urbanization had subjected existing weather stations to additional heat. “In Houston, for example, in the centre it is now between 6 and 9 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the surrounding countryside,” he explained in an interview with The Australian.

Professor Christy, conceding a slight warming trend over the last 45 years, said July could be the warmest month on record based on global temperatures measured by satellites – “just edging out 1998” – but such measures only went back to 1979.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?