Weird weather?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
...All this crap about ulterior motives is total nonsense as if modeling based on MMCC was incorrect that would be demonstrated and the oil industry would be the first to make you aware. Earlier in this thread you can see even they accept MMCC as the likely reality.
You can see this thread is deteriorating into belief against science. I would again ask the outliers to please read the multiple reports of the intergovernmental panel on climate change and the source documents. If you can find error in those reports it would be worthy of discussion.

I hold news media outlets (actual news, not the news as entertainment outlets which can't be trusted at all) partially to blame for the denialist mindset having legs.

Traditional news provides both sides of an issue, even if 1000 scientists are in agreement, the news outlets will find one scientist with an opposing view for their thoughts in the name of balanced reporting.

I would like to see something like a percentage representation in news reports, where the bulk of the report would go to the consensus view, and maybe one sentence to the lone outlier...with maybe an additional note on who their funding source is.
 
Last edited:
Excellent point Murray. Even better to expose conflicts of interest in social media. . Every year for Harvard and Boston University had to fill out a form declaring all potential conflicts of interest and swearing to follow a specific set of rules of professional behavior (no gifts, or emollients etc.). At the bottom of every paper published is a list of any and all funding germane. We saw in the past what this means concerning lung cancer and big tobacco. Sometimes it doesn’t matter. The facts are the facts. Good example is H.pylori. One guy out in left field flips the whole understanding of gastric ulcers. Now he’s back in left field concerning Covid. But his science is faulty so not getting traction. But with MMCC the origin of the pseudoscience is most apparent. Especially as concerns the current administration.
 
Last edited:
Anybody who thinks that humans have a particle of influence on climate should go and visit the Petrified Forest. There you will see trees that are (you guessed it) petrified. They are 10 times more dense than granite and they are sticking out of the sides of cliffs, revealed as the desert terrain erodes away. There was a volcano eruption that knocked them down and covered them with ash 217 MILLION years ago. It was a subtropical forest. There are fossils of strange fat alligator-things that lived in the swamp. The real surprise to me was that the entire continent was in the Southern Hemisphere! North America wasn't even north. Numerous mass extinctions, numerous ice ages and warming cycles are in earth's history and geologically, we are still coming out of the last ice age. Greenland was named that not to be ironic, there were prosperous settlements there and they raised their own food there.

Humans have only been on the earth for a blink in time and at the rate we're going, that blink will be as long as we're here. You can fuss and complain and apply as many carbon taxes as you wish and it will not make a particle of difference. Our planet will shrug us off like curing a disease and will continue spinning away despite our best efforts to stop it.

Why do we expect the Arctic to stay frozen and glaciers, which have been melting for thousands of years, should suddenly stop melting?

"Climate Emergency" is a ruse, dedicated to separating us from our wealth and impoverishing countries that rely on fossil fuel. "Carbon tax" is a very clever idea dreamed up by a politician, or George Soros, perhaps, to attach near religious fervour to the looting of your wallet.

Now does it make sense to foul our nests? Not really, we can make life better here, but change the climate? 70+ percent of all forest fires are set by humans; any luck stopping people from throwing garbage out of their car windows? Dumping garbage in the woods? Desmogging their cars so they go faster? Good luck with all that.
 
Sure, things are warmer than the last Ice Age.

Think of it like a ball rolling down the street.

Problem is we've given it a bit of a kick, speeding it up, and nobody knows how much further the ball is going to roll.
 
Anybody who thinks that humans have a particle of influence on climate should go and visit the Petrified Forest. There you will see trees that are (you guessed it) petrified. They are 10 times more dense than granite and they are sticking out of the sides of cliffs, revealed as the desert terrain erodes away. There was a volcano eruption that knocked them down and covered them with ash 217 MILLION years ago. It was a subtropical forest. There are fossils of strange fat alligator-things that lived in the swamp. The real surprise to me was that the entire continent was in the Southern Hemisphere! North America wasn't even north. Numerous mass extinctions, numerous ice ages and warming cycles are in earth's history and geologically, we are still coming out of the last ice age. Greenland was named that not to be ironic, there were prosperous settlements there and they raised their own food there.

Humans have only been on the earth for a blink in time and at the rate we're going, that blink will be as long as we're here. You can fuss and complain and apply as many carbon taxes as you wish and it will not make a particle of difference. Our planet will shrug us off like curing a disease and will continue spinning away despite our best efforts to stop it.

Why do we expect the Arctic to stay frozen and glaciers, which have been melting for thousands of years, should suddenly stop melting?

"Climate Emergency" is a ruse, dedicated to separating us from our wealth and impoverishing countries that rely on fossil fuel. "Carbon tax" is a very clever idea dreamed up by a politician, or George Soros, perhaps, to attach near religious fervour to the looting of your wallet.

Now does it make sense to foul our nests? Not really, we can make life better here, but change the climate? 70+ percent of all forest fires are set by humans; any luck stopping people from throwing garbage out of their car windows? Dumping garbage in the woods? Desmogging their cars so they go faster? Good luck with all that.
I disagree, it was 17 million years ago. :socool:
 
Sorry Steve, 217-225million years ago.
 

The good / bad news of Thorium is that we've given the Chinese all our technology and research data / notes of the US experience with Thorium and they are putting major resources into building a commercial thorium reactor which we will probably buy, if they want to sell us our own technology... Ironic, isn't it.
 
Anyone mention subsides and the environmental cost of mining lithium for batteries and silicone for panels? Transportation and production? Efficiencies achieved at each level of mining, production, recovery and recycling? Just to mention the disposal or recycling costs for these materials? Life cycle costs? Generally fans are eerily silent on these things.

From everything I've researched it just doesn't pencil, at any reasonable cost at a national, let alone international level. In some heavily subsidized individual situations it may make finical sense if you discount the fact that tax subsides take from others to provide that subsidy to you. Government produces nothing and assigns benefits and costs at the literal barrel of a gun.
 
The consensus is for MMCC. Post #20 is correct in intent but not specific.

“it will live or die depending on whether the rest of the scientific community agrees or not “.

All theories are held to be true until analysis or experiment demonstrates fault. The usual standard is utilizing the null hypothesis with a Pearson R or equivalent of 5% for biologic sciences. Physics and engineering often want a higher probability standard. . In other words this is more likely to be true than not with a probability of 95% is commonly used Agreement has doesn’t come into play. Once you have a single example where your null hypothesis is not borne out you either have to modify the theory or throw it out and have a paradigm change. People have this concept that science gives you black and white - yes or no. That’s not true. Science gives you probabilities. Accuracy of the probabilities are under constant stress testing. Either by direct experiment or by utilizing the theory to predict future events. So far all stress testing of MMCC theory has borne out. The overwhelming evidence is that it’s correct.there is no evidence it is incorrect. All this crap about ulterior motives is total nonsense as if modeling based on MMCC was incorrect that would be demonstrated and the oil industry would be the first to make you aware. Earlier in this thread you can see even they accept MMCC as the likely reality.
You can see this thread is deteriorating into belief against science. I would again ask the outliers to please read the multiple reports of the intergovernmental panel on climate change and the source documents. If you can find error in those reports it would be worthy of discussion.
In case anyone is wondering, this is what science looks like.
 
Times WILL change for energy, but there's just too many folks that want it instant and whatever the cost, but want someone else to pay for it.


Right now, for the most part, alternate forms of energy to replace fossil fuel are not cost effective, at least for the most of us. And a lot of it is subsidized by the government... but who pays for that?


Solar is coming into play. It's not close to cost effective in a lot of places in the US, certainly not my state of Florida, without huge subsidies, which I could argue against. Windmills, for the most part, are not cost effective.



Slowly the alternative energy sources will be developed and get to the scale where is will take over. I don't see that in most of our lifetimes.... at least for the next 30 to 50 years. The rich and famous, will put solar on (in the high tax bracket) paid for by our tax dollars, but the vast majority of the rest of us will continue to live within our means, and we may slowly convert over at it becomes appropriate, like the solar on out boats.



However, the vast majority of cars, trucks, boats, planes will run on fossil fuel for years (and the engines are more efficient that ever), and factories, and homes will continue to use the same.


As for the global warming... if mother nature wants to warm it up, there's nothing we can do.... just don't make her mad.
 
...Right now, for the most part, alternate forms of energy to replace fossil fuel are not cost effective, at least for the most of us. And a lot of it is subsidized by the government...

The fossil fuel industry is subsidized...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/walvan...ve-and-protected-by-lobbying/?sh=5d780ab9417e

...and guess what? The fossil fuel industry then fights against subsidies for alternative energy:

https://www.theatlantic.com/science...dustry-fighting-climate-policy-states/606640/

Some bad craziness...

I'm not on FB or live in an area where the fossil fuel industry has done local campaigns to sway public opinion against government support of alternative energy projects. Has anybody here seen them and recognized them for what they are, or did the campaigns work to form your opinion?
 
Last edited:
Murray it may surprise you that we can agree the future will shift away from fossil fuels. It will be down the road past our lifetimes. In 2008 with a BC rebate we bought a new hybrid car which worked as described and with the rebate was about $3K less than the gas only model. In year 3 we started noticing the battery did not last as long and the car ran mostly on gas. Actually there was a class action suit as these batteries were dying at 50-60% of life expectancy. We went back to gas only.

Subsidies can be found everywhere, that appears to be the magic for development. Our generation and the one behind us needs to let this evolve over time. 2035, 2045, maybe by 2070.

Yet for all it’s promise, clean energy still has a long way to go before fully usurping coal and gas. Wind and solar still only accounted for about 7% of electricity generation worldwide last year, according to BNEF. And most wind and solar projects still depend on subsides. In the U.S., in fact, the solar industry is pushing to extend federal tax credits that are scheduled to decline over the next few years.

And then there’s the issue of round-the-clock power. Solar doesn’t work at night. Wind farms go idle when breezes slack. So until battery systems are cheap enough for generators to stockpile electricity for hours at a time, renewables can’t constantly provide power like coal and gas.
 
"Alternate energy does not run on sunlight or wind, it works on subsidies."

It may not fit with how you "feel" about fossil fuels but it is a fact. You cannot get people to buy electric cars without a subsidy, or build wind turbines or solar panels without subsidizing the cost. Has anyone seen what the depreciation is on an electric car (except possibly Tesla, which I have not owned)?

The wind subsidies in Germany are beginning to expire (20 years now) and the turbines are being abandoned.

Yes fossil fuel has subsidies but that is because it is recognised how important transportation is to the working of a nation. The USSR collapsed because they had a terrible transportation system, why you saw all those photos of empty stores in Moscow.
 
I like Green energy, but it needs to reach the economy of scale where it's cost effective. While there is very little I like about the California government, one of their initiatives requires solar on new home construction roofs (or so I've read). While the initial homeowners may get financially sodomized by the cost, economy of scale and competition of installation may make it cost effective for those building 5 years later.

To understand economy of scale and refinement of manufacturing, one only has to look at the LED light bulb. It's been around for decades, and just wasn't cost effective for most power grid consumers. Refinements in manufacturing made it much less expensive and then economy of scale and the payback period on consumer investment, made it a "no brainer".

Ted
 
Well, for what it's worth; Out here in southern CA we just had another summer with water temps well below normal at around 62-65 for most of the summer. Had a few weeks off & on that jumped up to 70'ish (the lower summer norm), but then right back down to low 60's or less. Also spent most of this summer cloaked in overcast & fog on the coastline. Cold windy mornings, etc. Very strange.
 
I've noticed a difference in hurricane patterns.... they used to seem to all come out from the middle of the Atlantic, hitting the southern US from the east. Now a lot of them seem to be coming up the gulf.... strange indeed.
 
I've noticed a difference in hurricane patterns.... they used to seem to all come out from the middle of the Atlantic, hitting the southern US from the east. Now a lot of them seem to be coming up the gulf.... strange indeed.


I don't believe this to be true....posts #10 and #22 show where many form in the Gulf of Mexico.


In November 3 formed just off Nicaragua....2 of the most powerful if I remember correctly.Something like the first 5 or 6 this year formed in the Gulf or just off the East US coast.



Yes they may start as tropical waves formed to the east but where the organization develops has a pretty strong determination where they wind up and how strong they are.
 
Not much seems to be happening at first, but it gets truly weird at about 35 seconds. You can see how changes in layering structures of the atmosphere could alter when/where the sun rises in the high arctic:

 
Last edited:
Electric cars are not pollution free. They merely relocate the polluting power plants further a way from cities and towns.
 
Back
Top Bottom