Things are Starting to Heat Up - Part XIII 27

[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
thread1618-510266
thread1618-512015


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

-Dik

 

[dik]

No it's just a caution... if the consequences weren't so great... and no one seems to be addressing it in any meaningful way, including our government. Turdeau has a moneypit of a pipeline that he's still pushing taxpayers' money into. Sad

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

-Dik

 

[JoshPlumSE]

No it's just a caution... if the consequences weren't so great... and no one seems to be addressing it in any meaningful way, including our government.

My point is that we need to be MORE cautious about the drastic actions we take. As history has proven that our attempts to "correct" anticipated problems are more likely to cause worse problems than the problems that previously existed.

Examples:
1) Every attempt at rent control causes a reduced housing supply and higher housing costs in the long run.
2) Every attempt to manage wild life populations and the environment at Yellowstone or other nature preserves.
3) Venezuela's attempts to create a more equitable economic system.
4) Cuba's attempts to create a more equitable....
5) The Bolshevik's attempts to....
6) The Mao-ists attempts to....
7) The Nazis attempts to....
8) US government attempts to encourage more poor people owning homes, which led to the financial crisis of 2008.
9) US government (fed, state, and local) shutting down schools for two years when it quickly became clear that young people were at almost zero risk of severe sickness from Covid. This caused much, much, much greater overall harm to school age children and families than no government action would have. You can see and obvious difference in outcomes of private schools that opened earlier compared to public schools.
10) Every attempt that California government makes to reduce the cost of healthcare makes the cost go up.
11) Every attempt that California makes to prevent predatory oil companies from profiteering off of consumers makes the cost of oil go up and makes things much worse for CA consumers when compared to neighboring states.
12) All the current attempts at an equitable justice system (getting rid of cash bail, etc). These are all resulting in a justice system that is failing at every level. Crime is up. Especially in the communities that are supposed to be helped by these policies.
13) The DEI attempts at the university have resulted in FALSE equity. These schools standards have gone way down. Academia is failing because of it. Their most well known "scholars" are being exposed as absolute frauds.
14) Attempts to prohibit alcohol resulted in a huge rise in organized crime. Same thing with bans on various drugs. Keep in mind that the legal drugs (alcohol and tobacco) probably cause more deaths than all the others combined. But, there is almost no violence and crime associated with distribution of alcohol and tobacco.
15) Every attempt to "solve" the homeless problem seems to make it worse and worse. What is really needed is to get rid of all these attempts and just enforce our other laws. Like laws against defecating in the street, breaking into cars, shooting up illicit drugs. et cetera. You enforce these laws and homelessness goes way, way, way down.
16) Any government attempt at price controls in any industry usually results in shortages, long lines or such and is bad for the consumer.

You see what I'm getting at?

 

[JoshPlumSE]

So where does government intervention work? Let's look at examples:

1) Ozone hole and the banning of CFCs. The key here is that this was a very well understood chemical reaction that could be proven. It wasn't a general amorphous theory. It could be easily demonstrated / proven in a lab.

2) Labor laws: I'm thinking specifically about child labor laws in particular. We, as a society, decided that children should be in school, not in coal mines or factories. The society as a whole was behind these laws. There was a clear and narrow definition of what we wanted to do.

3) Things that ONLY government can do: Military, border security (hah?!), infrastructure and such. You might be tempted to include environmental laws in here as well. I would, but only if they are narrow, well understood and focused. Banning DDT world wide (for example) probably kills more people than it helps.... because of how mosquitos in tropical and poor countries spread malaria.


Caveat: This e-mail contains properties known to the state of California to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm.

 

[BridgeSmith]

if the consequences weren't so great... and no one seems to be addressing it in any meaningful way,

Perhaps the consequences are not as dire or inevitable as the fearmongering marxists would like us to think they are. People see Al Gore building a mansion on a shore he claims will be underwater in a few years, and they dismiss his warnings for what they are - fearmongering to increase his own wealth.

 

[BridgeSmith]

So where does government intervention work? Let's look at examples:

1) Ozone hole and the banning of CFCs. The key here is that this was a very well understood chemical reaction that could be proven. It wasn't a general amorphous theory. It could be easily demonstrated / proven in a lab.

Except the Ozone hole was already decreasing in size before there was any meaningful reduction in CFCs going into the atmosphere. If what I've read is correct, Ozone levels in the atmosphere are self-regulating - when the radiation blocked by Ozone gets through, it reacts with the Oxygen in the atmosphere to create Ozone. The Ozone hole continues to expand and contract cyclically, as it has probably done for millennia, long before we had satellites to know that it was there.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

Well, human activity produces a good amount of ozone as well.

I've always wondered if the climate alarmists took into account the ozone hole issue in their "computer models". Because it seems to me that could be a pretty significant driver of temperatures in the area affected by the ozone hole (which is where the ice cores were being taken).

 

[BridgeSmith]

Because it seems to me that could be a pretty significant driver of temperatures in the area affected by the ozone hole (which is where the ice cores were being taken).

Yeah, I suppose it could affect the antarctic ice cores...

 

[dik]

The poles are warming faster than other areas of the earth. It used to be that with the drastic temperature differences between the poles and the equator that the polar jet streams used to be pretty stable. This is no longer the case.

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

-Dik

 

[GregLocock]

The Antarctic is getting colder. So I'll give you 5/10 for that, still a pass, but only just.
NASA

Cheers

Greg Locock


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

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

 

[dik]

I guess the ice loss is due to it cooling?

"The Antarctic ice sheet's mass has changed over the last decades. Research based on satellite data indicates that between 2002 and 2023, Antarctica shed an average of 150 billion metric tons of ice per year, adding to global sea level rise.

These images, created from GRACE and GRACE-FO data, show changes in Antarctic ice mass since 2002. Orange and red shades indicate areas that lost ice mass, while light blue shades indicate areas that gained ice mass. White indicates areas where there has been very little or no change in ice mass since 2002."

https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/265/video-antarctic-ice-mass-loss-2002-2023/

"Temperature on the Antarctic Peninsula
The Antarctic Peninsula, the part of Antarctica furthest from the South Pole, has been warming rapidly, five times faster than the global average. Since 1950, the Antarctic Peninsula has warmed almost 3°C (5.4°F). That's more warming than anywhere else in the Southern Hemisphere. Overall warmer temperatures along the peninsula are increasing ice melt and have caused several ice shelves to break apart."

https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/climate-change-impacts/warming-antarctica

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

-Dik

 

[GregLocock]

Congratulations. you've changed the subject. You were writing about temperature, not ice loss in your previous note, and have erected a straw man, and shot it down. This is the Straw man fallacy, a common internet technique.

Cheers

Greg Locock


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

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

 

[dik]

Absolutely not... you stated that the temperatures were getting colder at Antarctica... I suggested that if this were the case, then it's interesting that there has been a huge ice loss accompanying the colder temperatures. The second article stipulates that the temperatures have increased by a factor of four to five. Read the article again, or maybe adjust your glasses.

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

-Dik

 

[TugboatEng]

dik, UCAR is a political lobbying organization. They're not a high quality resource.

https://www.ucar.edu/what-we-do/advocacy

 

[dik]

Red herring to distract?

Sorry tug, the other reference is NASA and seems to confirm UCAR... I think the references and the information are OK.

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

-Dik

 

[TugboatEng]

NASA reports loss of ice and cooling.

UCAR is claiming warming.

UCAR did not make a correlation between warming and ice loss.

The average temperature is -18°C. Temperature isn't causing the melt.

UCAR states that they exist to funnel money from government (the people's money) to their members. They're like the socialists' poster child of bad capitalists.

Be mindful of your sources' interests.

 

[dik]

Must be the area around it is causing it to melt... "Antarctica shed an average of 150 billion metric tons of ice per year", is the result.

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

-Dik

 

[TugboatEng]

Are you saying that the melting is geologic and coming from below?

 

[BridgeSmith]

"Antarctica shed an average of 150 billion metric tons of ice per year"

While that seems like alot, on a global scale it's a negligible amount, thus the reason we haven't heard of any massive change in sea levels as a result. My rough estimate of the sea level rise due to the 3087 Gigatons NASA estimates have been lost over the last 21 years (147 Gigatons/year, from your link) amounts to an average increase in water surface elevation (over the 70% of the earth's water-covered surface) of less than 5/16".

According to Wikipedia, the Antarctic ice sheet weighs 24,380,000 Gigatonnes (26,874,000 Gigatons). So the total estimated percentage loss of over the last 21 years is 0.011%. That's about 9" change in an ice sheet that has an average thickness of over 6200 ft.

Of course, that is all predicated on the accuracy of the estimates of the ice sheet thickness. The top of the ice sheet can be measured by satellite, but how do we really know whether the bottom of the ice sheet is the same as it was 21 years ago? Would we know if there have been density changes in the ice down 4000 or 5000 feet deep into this ice sheet?

 

[TugboatEng]

These ice sheets can disappear rapidly. The Cordilleran (northwestern America) ice sheet was estimated to be 1200km (4500ft) thick. It melted in 4000 years. That's more than 1 foot per year.

This type of information leads me to believe that the Grand Canyon did not take millions of years to form but actually formed recently over a few thousand years. The steep walls should be proof of this.

The Great Lakes were also formed during a similarly short geological timeframe by the even thicker Laurentide ice sheet which was 10,500 feet thick. Greenland is all that remains and has an average thickness of 5000 feet.

The Cordilleran and Laurentide melts occured during human history (the melt started 15-20k years ago. Humans thrived during this time.

 

[GregLocock]

There are volcanoes under the ice shelf.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/12/scientists-discover-91-volcanos-antarctica

Cheers

Greg Locock


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

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