Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I was commenting on the statement that matter is not energy. Technically everything is energy.e=mc^2
We don't have nuclear reactions going on in our atmosphere ... this is pretty much strictly Classical Physics ...
Actually, Ding, I've always kinda taken Einstein's equation to imply something else: That since matter and energy are INTERCHAGABLE, that both are then states of something else.
But of course, what I originally meant here was that CO2 was imparting energy (ie a force) into the climate system which was supposedly effecting a change (the work) in deflecting/moving the climate from its original (natural) condition.
Sorry, but Covid has not magically removed all the CO2 which is already there and already changing our climate.Due to the lockdowns of 2020 and so much less human activity and travel, the world's CO2 level has dropped by 7% globally with the USA putting out 12% less with over 3 billion tons less CO2 going into the air and this trend will continue for some time.
If what all the global warming alarmists say is true about MMCC, then this should eventually show up in the data somehow and we should see some signs of less warming, more snow or something, for 2020 has been, in effect, given the world what the climate alarmists have been saying for years we needed to do to fix things!
If none of this results in any deviation in the data, it will be a pretty good indicator that our climate is not being significant impacted by man through his output of CO2.
Carbon dioxide emissions dropped by 7% in pandemic-stricken 2020, new study shows
It's the biggest drop ever, according to new preliminary figures.www.cbsnews.com
Let me state this as simply and succinctly as I can.Due to the lockdowns of 2020 and so much less human activity and travel, the world's CO2 level has dropped by 7% globally with the USA putting out 12% less with over 3 billion tons less CO2 going into the air and this trend will continue for some time.
If what all the global warming alarmists say is true about MMCC, then this should eventually show up in the data somehow and we should see some signs of less warming, more snow or something, for 2020 has been, in effect, given the world what the climate alarmists have been saying for years we needed to do to fix things!
If none of this results in any deviation in the data, it will be a pretty good indicator that our climate is not being significant impacted by man through his output of CO2.
Carbon dioxide emissions dropped by 7% in pandemic-stricken 2020, new study shows
It's the biggest drop ever, according to new preliminary figures.
The Earths deviation of 12 deg C in our Quasi-ice world state is to large to allow ANY positive statement. The current math indicates only 1/1000 of a degree can be wholly attributed to man as the feedback's dwarf what man can affect.
Mans impact can not be discerned from noise in the climatic system. Full Stop.. Anyone who claims they can make a positive claim about CAGW is a liar as the math and the margin of error tells us no one can.
As a Phd I can make this statement with certainty.
But while the oceans only increased by 3 degrees, the arctic seems to have been made 30 degrees warmer than usual. And that seems bad. It is pushing storms down to lower latitudes.
Those who think there has been a drop in the total of CO2 are misinterpreting.
CO2 is still increasing during the pandemic, just at a slower rate.
e=mc^2I'm saying that CO2 is not energy. I think my words there are very clear. CO2 is matter, not energy, and anyone saying that CO2 is energy is totally wrong, so clueless that they shouldn't be bothering the grownups.
I liked your reply, but not your sig line.
{...
Socialism intentionally denies examination because it is irrational. There is no formal defined dogma of socialism. Instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something good, noble and just: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach. Socialism seeks equality through uniformity and communal ownership Socialism has an extraordinary ability to incite and inflame its adherents and inspire social movements. Socialists dismiss their defeats and ignore their incongruities. They desire big government and use big government to implement their morally relativistic social policies. Socialism is a religion. The religious nature of socialism explains their hostility towards traditional religions which is that of one rival religion over another. Their dogma is based on materialism, primitive instincts, atheism and the deification of man. They see no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural Marxism and normalization of deviance. They worship science but are the first to reject it when it suits their purposes. They can be identified by an external locus of control. Their religious doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and equality via uniformity and communal ownership. They practice critical theory which is the Cultural Marxist theory to criticize what they do not believe to arrive at what they do believe without ever having to examine what they believe. They confuse critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity. Something they never do.
...}
That is totally wrong.
Socialism seeks equality of opportunity, not outcome, and there have never been any unsuccessful examples of socialism, because it is simply more efficient and satisfying for everyone.
The "extreme locus of control" you mentioned was the centralized state capitalism of Stalinism, and has nothing at all to do with socialism, which by its nature, has to be decentralized.
Marx was part of the wealthy elite who simply felt guilty in the early 1800's, which is well before people started trying to figure out practical means of avoiding economic feudalism, once cottage industries had been wiped out by the industrial revolution and the mass production of factories.
You're not discussing anything here, asshole, no one can be so brain-damaged as you pretend to be in the many lunatic accusations you've already made so you're either trolling the thread or the stupidest dumbfuck since rain was wet to think
that my analogy
of CO2 being the energy added into the climate system to increase solar trapping meant that CO2 was the same as EM radiation, etc.
Worse, without fail, it never fails that when one of you clueless fucks start your crap about how uneducated or clueless OTHER people are rather than proving them wrong or at least showing you know more, you always do so while saying the dumbest shit possible yourself!
So I'll give you a choice to either get off the thread, STFU, or prove you are right about something germane to this topic or prove I'm wrong.
But while the oceans only increased by 3 degrees, the arctic seems to have been made 30 degrees warmer than usual. And that seems bad. It is pushing storms down to lower latitudes.
Yes, a ten-fold difference would be bad ... but as of now, it's only a two-fold difference ... which is reducing the average power in our atmosphere ... thus less likely to create more powerful cold core storms ... and less likely to form droughts everyplace ... it's still unclear how this effects tropical storms, might be a wash ...
No matter ... our current climate allows for all this ... "change" isn't required to see these slight differences ... whatever weather you expect this time next year is pretty much exactly the same as the weather you can expect 100 years from now ... a degree or two warmer is all the difference our great-great-great-grandchild will see ...
www.cbsnews.com
Those who think there has been a drop in the total of CO2 are misinterpreting.
CO2 is still increasing during the pandemic, just at a slower rate.
That's the claim made in the OP ... will temperatures also increase at a slower rate? ...
e=mc^2I'm saying that CO2 is not energy. I think my words there are very clear. CO2 is matter, not energy, and anyone saying that CO2 is energy is totally wrong, so clueless that they shouldn't be bothering the grownups.
I liked your reply, but not your sig line.
{...
Socialism intentionally denies examination because it is irrational. There is no formal defined dogma of socialism. Instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something good, noble and just: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach. Socialism seeks equality through uniformity and communal ownership Socialism has an extraordinary ability to incite and inflame its adherents and inspire social movements. Socialists dismiss their defeats and ignore their incongruities. They desire big government and use big government to implement their morally relativistic social policies. Socialism is a religion. The religious nature of socialism explains their hostility towards traditional religions which is that of one rival religion over another. Their dogma is based on materialism, primitive instincts, atheism and the deification of man. They see no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural Marxism and normalization of deviance. They worship science but are the first to reject it when it suits their purposes. They can be identified by an external locus of control. Their religious doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and equality via uniformity and communal ownership. They practice critical theory which is the Cultural Marxist theory to criticize what they do not believe to arrive at what they do believe without ever having to examine what they believe. They confuse critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity. Something they never do.
...}
That is totally wrong.
Socialism seeks equality of opportunity, not outcome, and there have never been any unsuccessful examples of socialism, because it is simply more efficient and satisfying for everyone.
The "extreme locus of control" you mentioned was the centralized state capitalism of Stalinism, and has nothing at all to do with socialism, which by its nature, has to be decentralized.
Marx was part of the wealthy elite who simply felt guilty in the early 1800's, which is well before people started trying to figure out practical means of avoiding economic feudalism, once cottage industries had been wiped out by the industrial revolution and the mass production of factories.
But while the oceans only increased by 3 degrees, the arctic seems to have been made 30 degrees warmer than usual. And that seems bad. It is pushing storms down to lower latitudes.
Yes, a ten-fold difference would be bad ... but as of now, it's only a two-fold difference ... which is reducing the average power in our atmosphere ... thus less likely to create more powerful cold core storms ... and less likely to form droughts everyplace ... it's still unclear how this effects tropical storms, might be a wash ...
No matter ... our current climate allows for all this ... "change" isn't required to see these slight differences ... whatever weather you expect this time next year is pretty much exactly the same as the weather you can expect 100 years from now ... a degree or two warmer is all the difference our great-great-great-grandchild will see ...
{...
It's been happening for several years now, especially in the autumn, but it never ceases to unsettle meteorologists like myself: Temperatures in the Arctic are astonishingly warmer than they should be.
According to the University of Maine's Climate Reanlayzer, this weekend the Arctic Circle was an average 12 degrees Fahrenheit above normal. This is not just one location, but the average of all 7.7 million square miles. That is a huge area, nearly double the size of the entire United States, being on average 12 degrees above normal.
...}
Temperatures in the Arctic are astonishingly warmer than they should be
The entire Arctic Circle was an average of 12 degrees Fahrenheit above normal this weekend.
The 2 fold increase is compared to the rest of the global warming, and is more of 10 year average.
The extremes this year and last are more like 12 degrees, and sometimes as much as 30 degrees.
Interesting... so you have read the book?e=mc^2I'm saying that CO2 is not energy. I think my words there are very clear. CO2 is matter, not energy, and anyone saying that CO2 is energy is totally wrong, so clueless that they shouldn't be bothering the grownups.
I liked your reply, but not your sig line.
{...
Socialism intentionally denies examination because it is irrational. There is no formal defined dogma of socialism. Instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something good, noble and just: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach. Socialism seeks equality through uniformity and communal ownership Socialism has an extraordinary ability to incite and inflame its adherents and inspire social movements. Socialists dismiss their defeats and ignore their incongruities. They desire big government and use big government to implement their morally relativistic social policies. Socialism is a religion. The religious nature of socialism explains their hostility towards traditional religions which is that of one rival religion over another. Their dogma is based on materialism, primitive instincts, atheism and the deification of man. They see no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural Marxism and normalization of deviance. They worship science but are the first to reject it when it suits their purposes. They can be identified by an external locus of control. Their religious doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and equality via uniformity and communal ownership. They practice critical theory which is the Cultural Marxist theory to criticize what they do not believe to arrive at what they do believe without ever having to examine what they believe. They confuse critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity. Something they never do.
...}
That is totally wrong.
Socialism seeks equality of opportunity, not outcome, and there have never been any unsuccessful examples of socialism, because it is simply more efficient and satisfying for everyone.
The "extreme locus of control" you mentioned was the centralized state capitalism of Stalinism, and has nothing at all to do with socialism, which by its nature, has to be decentralized.
Marx was part of the wealthy elite who simply felt guilty in the early 1800's, which is well before people started trying to figure out practical means of avoiding economic feudalism, once cottage industries had been wiped out by the industrial revolution and the mass production of factories.
Russians know nothing at all about socialism because they have constantly been living under Stalinist propaganda for a century.
Just look at any primitive tribe. If a hunter has a success with a large game animal, do they let most of it rot due to lack of preservation techniques, or do they just share it with the rest of the tribe?
My point is that humans have naturally been communal forever, millions of years,
Russians know nothing at all about socialism because they have constantly been living under Stalinist propaganda for a century.
Just look at any primitive tribe. If a hunter has a success with a large game animal, do they let most of it rot due to lack of preservation techniques, or do they just share it with the rest of the tribe?
My point is that humans have naturally been communal forever, millions of years,
Even as an analogy, that fails completely.
Not sure about the states of something else thing. Everything started off as particles and anti-particles.I was commenting on the statement that matter is not energy. Technically everything is energy.e=mc^2
We don't have nuclear reactions going on in our atmosphere ... this is pretty much strictly Classical Physics ...
Actually, Ding, I've always kinda taken Einstein's equation to imply something else: That since matter and energy are INTERCHAGABLE, that both are then states of something else.
But of course, what I originally meant here was that CO2 was imparting energy (ie a force) into the climate system which was supposedly effecting a change (the work) in deflecting/moving the climate from its original (natural) condition.
My simplistic view of GHG is that they act much like a choke does in fluid flow. GHG's choke back the transfer of heat to outer space.
The question or problem isn't radiative forcing of CO2, it is the feedback they add to it in their models. There surely is a GHG effect. The feedbacks they add to it are the questionable parts.My simplistic view of GHG is that they act much like a choke does in fluid flow. GHG's choke back the transfer of heat to outer space.
I don't know about that but I wonder why someone doesn't set up a simple experiment with two identical boxes and light sources, one filled with CO2 free air and the other filled with 90% CO2 and after a fixed time measure the temperature of both surfaces to see if there is any difference?
Surely, if CO2 is this terrible menace we are told it is, then why can't we eliminate all the complexities and variables and just let the CO2 speak for itself with no uncertain ambiguity that anyone can see and relate to without all the complex graphs, charts and haughty mumbo-jumbo?
I don't know about that but I wonder why someone doesn't set up a simple experiment with two identical boxes and light sources, one filled with CO2 free air and the other filled with 90% CO2 and after a fixed time measure the temperature of both surfaces to see if there is any difference?
Surely, if CO2 is this terrible menace we are told it is, then why can't we eliminate all the complexities and variables and just let the CO2 speak for itself with no uncertain ambiguity that anyone can see and relate to without all the complex graphs, charts and haughty mumbo-jumbo?
But while the oceans only increased by 3 degrees, the arctic seems to have been made 30 degrees warmer than usual. And that seems bad. It is pushing storms down to lower latitudes.
Yes, a ten-fold difference would be bad ... but as of now, it's only a two-fold difference ... which is reducing the average power in our atmosphere ... thus less likely to create more powerful cold core storms ... and less likely to form droughts everyplace ... it's still unclear how this effects tropical storms, might be a wash ...
No matter ... our current climate allows for all this ... "change" isn't required to see these slight differences ... whatever weather you expect this time next year is pretty much exactly the same as the weather you can expect 100 years from now ... a degree or two warmer is all the difference our great-great-great-grandchild will see ...
{...
It's been happening for several years now, especially in the autumn, but it never ceases to unsettle meteorologists like myself: Temperatures in the Arctic are astonishingly warmer than they should be.
According to the University of Maine's Climate Reanlayzer, this weekend the Arctic Circle was an average 12 degrees Fahrenheit above normal. This is not just one location, but the average of all 7.7 million square miles. That is a huge area, nearly double the size of the entire United States, being on average 12 degrees above normal.
...}
Temperatures in the Arctic are astonishingly warmer than they should be
The entire Arctic Circle was an average of 12 degrees Fahrenheit above normal this weekend.
The 2 fold increase is compared to the rest of the global warming, and is more of 10 year average.
The extremes this year and last are more like 12 degrees, and sometimes as much as 30 degrees.
