Some things I didn't know about the atmosphere and climate

[Drysleeves]

29 minutes ago, MTB98 said:

I’m very far from a Marxist,  sir, and doing my best to stay on the side opposite of Satan. 
You have made many comments but have offered no answers or sources of information of your own. We can all look at the data. What we decide to do with it and apply it to our lives and governance is up for debate. 
Somehow the discussion of mix of co2 in the atmosphere went immediately to climate change.  

If NOAA gives you the temp, humidity, wind speed and chance of precipitation do you discount all that because they are an alphabet agency?

Yes. Weather has become all Marxist politics, evidenced by the mere fact that now we don't only attach names to hurricanes but we tag tropical storms and centers of low pressure to scare people into submission.

If you're very far from Karl Marx, it's not evident given the Marxist bilge spilling out on my screen.

[MTB98]

Just now, Drysleeves said:

Yes. Weather has become all Marxist politics, evidenced by the mere fact that now we don't only attach names to hurricanes but we tag tropical storms and centers of low pressure to scare people into submission.

If you're very far from Karl Marx, it's not evident given the Marxist bilge spilling out on my screen.

Ha that’s funny. I haven’t really stated anything other than a few unanswered questions and a link to an observation station that has been recording CO2 levels since before most of us were born. 
Tropical storms have always been named and then if they become a hurricane they keep the same name but are upgraded to “Hurricane ______”

So to make sure I have your stance correct, you say that there is no measurable increase in CO2 in the atmosphere in the last 100 years? 

I’m not sure you have the concept of Marxism correct.  

[F-301066460puller]

Well this has been fun lol 

[Drysleeves]

1 minute ago, MTB98 said:

Ha that’s funny. I haven’t really stated anything other than a few unanswered questions and a link to an observation station that has been recording CO2 levels since before most of us were born. 
Tropical storms have always been named and then if they become a hurricane they keep the same name but are upgraded to “Hurricane ______”

So to make sure I have your stance correct, you say that there is no measurable increase in CO2 in the atmosphere in the last 100 years? 

I’m not sure you have the concept of Marxism correct.  

Actually it's not funny. There's no humor in Marxism and anyone who spouts the G as evidence of anything reliable is a Marxist by definition. 

[F-301066460puller]

Australian Government meteorologist.... 🤐

[MTB98]

3 minutes ago, F-301066460puller said:

British Government meteorologist.... 🤐

Ok 

[Cdfarabaugh]

Phew, a bit testy in here.  Personally I take a different view than most 

1) if we had not or currently continue burning fossil fuels (in a meaningful way), are people willing to suffer the economic and quality of life consequences of it?  I think you all know the answer to that question.  Our current lifestyle takes a mind boggling amount of energy to work. 

2)  we are incredibly resilient and will make it work regardless.  The world isn't just going to collapse.  The only real devastating event occurring is on the coasts because some people think it's intelligent to build 2 million dollar homes at sea level and on sand bars.....

3) Eventually humans are going to cull our own numbers in a big way LONG before climate change.  Technology, war, politics is eventually going to come together again and rear its ugly head.  People are crazier than ever, and have even crazier ideals.  The technology to kill people improves every.single.day.  WW2 wiped out an entire generation from some countries and was fought with what we consider "antiques" now.  With what the military industrial complexes pump out now, it will look like a skirmish

[MTB98]

7 minutes ago, Drysleeves said:

Actually it's not funny. There's no humor in Marxism and anyone who spouts the G as evidence of anything reliable is a Marxist by definition. 

I wasn’t spouting, merely citing a source of information that you can go look at for yourself.  
Curious of your definition of  Marxism 

[F-301066460puller]

13 minutes ago, Cdfarabaugh said:

Phew, a bit testy in here.  Personally I take a different view than most 

1) if we had not or currently continue burning fossil fuels (in a meaningful way), are people willing to suffer the economic and quality of life consequences of it?  I think you all know the answer to that question.  Our current lifestyle takes a mind boggling amount of energy to work. 

2)  we are incredibly resilient and will make it work regardless.  The world isn't just going to collapse.  The only real devastating event occurring is on the coasts because some people think it's intelligent to build 2 million dollar homes at sea level and on sand bars.....

3) Eventually humans are going to cull our own numbers in a big way LONG before climate change.  Technology, war, politics is eventually going to come together again and rear its ugly head.  People are crazier than ever, and have even crazier ideals.  The technology to kill people improves every.single.day.  WW2 wiped out an entire generation from some countries and was fought with what we consider "antiques" now.  With what the military industrial complexes pump out now, it will look like a skirmish

No that pretty much sums it up lol

[zleinenbach]

31 minutes ago, Cdfarabaugh said:

Phew, a bit testy in here.  Personally I take a different view than most 

1) if we had not or currently continue burning fossil fuels (in a meaningful way), are people willing to suffer the economic and quality of life consequences of it?  I think you all know the answer to that question.  Our current lifestyle takes a mind boggling amount of energy to work. 

2)  we are incredibly resilient and will make it work regardless.  The world isn't just going to collapse.  The only real devastating event occurring is on the coasts because some people think it's intelligent to build 2 million dollar homes at sea level and on sand bars.....

3) Eventually humans are going to cull our own numbers in a big way LONG before climate change.  Technology, war, politics is eventually going to come together again and rear its ugly head.  People are crazier than ever, and have even crazier ideals.  The technology to kill people improves every.single.day.  WW2 wiped out an entire generation from some countries and was fought with what we consider "antiques" now.  With what the military industrial complexes pump out now, it will look like a skirmish

thumbs up, this makes sense to me!

[Drysleeves]

34 minutes ago, MTB98 said:

I wasn’t spouting, merely citing a source of information that you can go look at for yourself.  
Curious of your definition of  Marxism 

Curious? You just keep typing because you're self defining.

[MTB98]

14 minutes ago, Drysleeves said:

Curious? You just keep typing because you're self defining.

I don’t think Marxism means what you think it means. Or at least not in the way you’re using it. 
So is CO2 in the atmosphere increasing, decreasing or staying the same during our lifetime? You haven’t answered that yet.

[searcyfarms]

one things for sure whatever PPM we are at today is within in the unknown range we dont know is bad 

i also seem to think of pre/post dating readings from one spot in Hawaii is not very representative of the entire earth only of that particular elevation/spot/timestamp

i am not sold on the whole NOAA or any other weather dartboard, they rave about all this technology and their stuff but the only accurate unit of measure I consistently believe is my weather rock

regardless where you stand on the side of truth this day and age truth is relavent to the person flappin their lips at any give moment because their truth is their truth and anyone elses truth is not theirs so it doesnt count 

i believe we will all pass from this life and never know anymore about CO2 levels even if we die from too much or too little of it 

but hey thats my truth so dont mess with it you can have your own

[Farmall Doctor]

I’m glad that I am not my kids’ age. But maybe, hopefully, in mine or their lifetime, liberalism will run its course and we can get some common sense back and have good lives and profitability again in North America…. And without the leftist extremism on every darned subject! Ugh!

 

[ray54]

1 hour ago, Farmall Doctor said:

I’m glad that I am not my kids’ age. But maybe, hopefully, in mine or their lifetime, liberalism will run its course and we can get some common sense back and have good lives and profitability again in North America…. And without the leftist extremism on every darned subject! Ugh!

 

 I really hope your right, but have little faith in things getting better. From history the Greaks and Romans were able to have just over 200 years of good times, with their forms of democracies. So we are very close the expiration date.

 

Dare I ask another question. If the governments that are totalitarian and capable of over powering us are not in the least worried about carbon levels, and climate change, how can we let that get to be our main focus? All the freshest air and best weather is hard to enjoy if we have lost freedom.

[Duntongw]

What I don't understand, is why is it that I have to pay more for an electric vehicle which I don't want, but yet you can send a rocket up every week that burns tens of thousands of gallons of fuel right through the atmosphere that is being destroyed, so some one can make money at it, and you can watch your favorite video in your hand any time you want.

Back in the 50's, all of the major cities had a dome over them, and if you lived in Pittsburgh, you had to use your headlights at noon, because it was pitch black. We have more cars today, yes, but stand behind a 50's car and a new one. But yet today we are worse off.

[iowaboy1965]

4 hours ago, Duntongw said:

What I don't understand, is why is it that I have to pay more for an electric vehicle which I don't want, but yet you can send a rocket up every week that burns tens of thousands of gallons of fuel right through the atmosphere that is being destroyed, so some one can make money at it, and you can watch your favorite video in your hand any time you want.

Back in the 50's, all of the major cities had a dome over them, and if you lived in Pittsburgh, you had to use your headlights at noon, because it was pitch black. We have more cars today, yes, but stand behind a 50's car and a new one. But yet today we are worse off.

Or go to Beijing or some such city in the new industrial super power that is ccp. Might still need headlights there at noon from some pics I've seen. All while we ring our hands over our contribution to ending the world with our 15% contribution to the .04 % of carbon in the air. Meanwhile aforementioned place doesn't even have to start thinking about complying to the Paris accord til something crazy like 2050 or 60? 

And as said we really don't even know  or can we prove if that is even going to affect anything in a negative way. 

Should we try to live in our environment as cleanly as reasonably possible.  Sure. But the key word is reasonable. 

Imo this is more about control and money. Follow both.

Good debate so far. 

[hillman]

2 hours ago, iowaboy1965 said:

. Meanwhile aforementioned place doesn't even have to start thinking about complying to the Paris accord til something crazy like 2050 or 60? 

 

 I would speed up their compliance quickly. Stop trading with the Third World,

[iowaboy1965]

1 minute ago, hillman said:

 I would speed up their compliance quickly. Stop trading with the Third World,

If it matters and we are going all die if carbon isn't reigned in, I would agree whole heartedly.  And even if it isn't, there would certainly be other benefits for the people in that region to have clean air to breathe. 

Thing I'm thinking is we had control of the emissions as well as quality and delivery when it was made here. Yes it cost more to do business. But we cleaned up our emissions a lot over the last 100 years. Not so in the current location of the world's industrial production.

So are we serious or not. If we are start where the majority of the pollution is. Not the other way around. Again follow the money/power. Jmo. Fwiw.

[Binderoid]

18 hours ago, Drysleeves said:

I have an answer. It's a contrived issue used to coerce people to surrender their liberty in homage to a false god.

This is an important point; not merely a response from the other end of the spectrum, but a link that eventually leads to the root of the problem. In my nearly six decades, I’ve seen the earth age in roughly quotients of a few million per decade. There’s more truth in horse/ dog years than there is earth years. I think part of this reason is the government spending makes a million sound less impressive, so the earth has to get older faster to keep its status as the biggest number holder. I think 30 years ago the earth was 400 million years old and today it’s up over a billion… these are the scientists that so many citizens put their faith in. 
   If the age of the earth is portrayed in some unfathomable number, it is easier for anti oil people to convince others that we really are running out of oil; it took bazillion years to form and that there is a finite supply. However, the younger the earth turns out to be, it is reasonable to assume that oil, or some other energy, particularly gas, was produced not that long ago and in fact could be being produced right now. 
    Another advantage to over-aging the earth is it makes it easier to become a Godless nation. If we don’t really know how old the earth is, that opens the door to the scientific theories we’ve all heard before, in addition to the modern gender situation, and pushes our Creator aside… the older the earth gets, the more this process accelerates. 
  Man has a tendency towards evil. Why is it so difficult to believe that one faction would want to control another faction, by any means possible?

[Farmall Doctor]

[MTB98]

1 hour ago, iowaboy1965 said:

If it matters and we are going all die if carbon isn't reigned in, I would agree whole heartedly.  And even if it isn't, there would certainly be other benefits for the people in that region to have clean air to breathe. 

Thing I'm thinking is we had control of the emissions as well as quality and delivery when it was made here. Yes it cost more to do business. But we cleaned up our emissions a lot over the last 100 years. Not so in the current location of the world's industrial production.

So are we serious or not. If we are start where the majority of the pollution is. Not the other way around. Again follow the money/power. Jmo. Fwiw.

Now we are getting somewhere. If one wants to say that the numbers are all fabricated and lies and it doesn’t matter then what difference does it make if China and India pollute as much as they possibly can while churning out messy and low skilled production? 
If it does matter then we can hold these countries to account by deciding to limit what type of trade we will do with them. 
I don’t think anyone can honestly say that burning hundreds of billions of gallons of carbon based fuels every year just in the USA won’t put more CO2 into the air. One gallon of combusted gasoline produces 19-20 pounds of CO2. One gallon of combusted diesel produces about 23 pounds of CO2. That is trillions of pounds of CO2. Now, does that make a difference? Probably makes a difference in the PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere. Does that matter?  It seems we don’t really know for sure yet. 
 

As for rockets, the SpaceX Falcon Heavy consumes somewhere around 540 gallons of RP-1 (similar to avaiation fuel) per second. 
 

It will probably be seen as gov conspiracy and fabrications but here is a link to CO2 monitoring locations around the world with historical data. Worth a look even if you doubt the accuracy. 
https://gml.noaa.gov/dv/iadv/

[zleinenbach]

oh, how can 1 gallon of gas produce more poundage of CO2? twentyfold. It doesn’t even logically make sense.

sure wish my cattle had that ability

[MTB98]

10 minutes ago, zleinenbach said:

oh, how can 1 gallon of gas produce more poundage of CO2? twentyfold. It doesn’t even logically make sense.

sure wish my cattle had that ability

It’s basic physics, chemistry and math. Fuel combusts with oxygen and other elements in the air and the exhaust is the combined weight of the fuel and air. Rule of conservation of mass. There’s the same number of carbon atoms and oxygen atoms in the exhaust as the fuel and air before its combusted. They’re just rearranged. And it’s not 20 fold. A gallon of gas is 6ish pounds per gallon.

[Drysleeves]

16 minutes ago, MTB98 said:

It’s basic physics, chemistry and math. Fuel combusts with oxygen and other elements in the air and the exhaust is the combined weight of the fuel and air. Rule of conservation of mass. There’s the same number of carbon atoms and oxygen atoms in the exhaust as the fuel and air before its combusted. They’re just rearranged. And it’s not 20 fold. A gallon of gas is 6ish pounds per gallon.

It's funny how your solutions always circle back to getting away from the liberty of the improperly named "fossil fuels". Oil and nat gas aren't from fossils because we've been fresh out of dinosaur bones and tar pits for decades but the term sure has been successfully woven into a "truth" by endless Marxist repetition. Somehow the stuff just boils up out of the earth if left unharvested to the extent that the oceans which do happen to occupy most of the space on this planet have oil consuming bacteria to deal with the issue.