|
Post by millring on Apr 3, 2024 14:08:00 GMT -5
We don't have a stratified atmosphere?
|
|
|
Sheesh.
Apr 3, 2024 14:42:10 GMT -5
Post by millring on Apr 3, 2024 14:42:10 GMT -5
Over other Millenia, CO2 was high and the planet was a tropical rain forest; even at the poles. Do you have any idea what the CO2 levels where at that point and how it compared to today?
|
|
Tamarack
Administrator
Ancient Citizen
Posts: 9,376
|
Post by Tamarack on Apr 3, 2024 16:20:29 GMT -5
Within the long-standing geologic subspecialty of paleoecology, there are abundant data that allow calculation of CO2 levels in past millenia and over millions of years. These data come from hundreds of years of geologists observing outcrops and nearly 200 years of drilling many thousands of boreholes in many places on earth, including water wells, oil wells, exploratory borings for coal and minerals, etc. Mostly sediments and sedimentary rocks. Of sedimentary rocks, there is a wide range of provenance, including clastics and carbonates. Carbonates can be precipitates, evaporites, or biological origin. If I hadn't recycled my sedimentology text when I retired, I could tell you the difference between a biolutite and a biomicrite.
|
|
|
Sheesh.
Apr 3, 2024 16:28:21 GMT -5
Post by Marshall on Apr 3, 2024 16:28:21 GMT -5
I have an idea.
Actually it was some program, or NOVA, or Youtube thing I watched about early earth. Hundreds of millions of years ago. There was a period where the planet was covered in ice. Reflected sunlight and was a much colder place. Then I think there was a period of heavy volcanic activity that spewed gasses, including CO2 into the atmosphere and that eventually warmed the planet. My memory of the program is about as good as my memory of what I ate yesterday; that is not very complete. But for the period when the planet was very warm, and there are tropical fern fossils discovered at the north pole, the Co2 levels in the atmosphere were much higher than today. They determine that through rock samples and such from those geologic periods.
|
|
|
Sheesh.
Apr 3, 2024 16:30:24 GMT -5
Post by Marshall on Apr 3, 2024 16:30:24 GMT -5
If I hadn't recycled my sedimentology text when I retired, I could tell you the difference between a biolutite and a biomicrite. Oh damn ! Don't get me excited like that for nothing.
|
|
|
Sheesh.
Apr 3, 2024 16:31:45 GMT -5
Post by millring on Apr 3, 2024 16:31:45 GMT -5
Yes, and do you have any idea what the CO2 levels were at that point and how it compared to today?
|
|
|
Sheesh.
Apr 3, 2024 16:32:53 GMT -5
Post by Marshall on Apr 3, 2024 16:32:53 GMT -5
We don't have a stratified atmosphere? How else would we get the Stratocaster?
|
|
|
Sheesh.
Apr 3, 2024 16:37:27 GMT -5
Post by Marshall on Apr 3, 2024 16:37:27 GMT -5
Yes, and do you have any idea what the CO2 levels where at that point and how it compared to today? Hhhhmmm. No. They did talk about parts per million or percentage and such. But I don't recall. I imagine you're fishing for how much bigger the amounts were then than today to cause that climatic shift. So then we could say how much rolling coal we'd have to do to melt the poles and kill the polar bears.
|
|
|
Sheesh.
Apr 3, 2024 19:14:00 GMT -5
Post by aquaduct on Apr 3, 2024 19:14:00 GMT -5
Ah yes, the "warm comfy blanket" theory. Already heard it ad nauseum. Except it kind of violates the First and Second laws of Thermodynamics and a few more. By the way, if you put a warm comfy blanket on a rock, the rock wouldn't get any warmer. That's because warm comfy blankets help things that are producing heat (like your body) retain that heat. But rocks and the earth don't produce heat. If anything the warm comfy blanket would make the world colder by keeping the sun's thermal energy away from the planet. Hmmm... go figure. And then there's the famous Arrhenius "experiment" that fills one bottle with CO2 and the other with air. And behold, the CO2 bottle gets warmer. Therefore, we're all going to die if we don't drive EVs. Of course, if the CO2 bottle was filled with the proper atmospheric proportion of CO2 (again, that's 0.04%. For the mathematically challenged, that's virtually nothing) one probably wouldn't amount to squat. Then you've got the IPCC wankers "proving" that the planet is warming. How? Statistical models. Now anybody who has actually studied statistics knows the problem of too many degrees of freedom in your statistics. Basically, too many degrees of freedom generate too many confounded interactions. In essence, with almost infinite degrees of freedom in the planetary climate, any number you come up with is guaranteed to be wrong by an unquantifiable amount. That's why, in my business, you have to do empirical tests to get certification. In simpler terms, strap the vehicle or engine to a dynamometer and run a simulated drive cycle saving exhaust gases in bags and then measuring specific amounts of regulated pollutants (have I mentioned yet that EPA never refers to CO2 as a pollutant? That's because it isn't a pollutant) in order to be permitted to sell that vehicle or engine. Suggesting they should accept your modelled numbers would get you laughed out of the room. And then there's the absolutely horrifying implications of forcing the extinction of arguably the greatest invention of all time- the internal combustion engine. If you think I'm tedious for questioning specious politically tainted "science", the carnage of banning internal combustion engines is absolutely unforgivably criminal. And as it sits now, that's only 11 years away.
|
|
|
Sheesh.
Apr 3, 2024 19:35:03 GMT -5
Post by epaul on Apr 3, 2024 19:35:03 GMT -5
We don't have a stratified atmosphere? Not in the context of the discussion, if you were following it. The gasses in our atmosphere are not stratified by weight. They are not stratified period. Stratified as arranged in distinct layers (the definition of stratified, curiously enough). The gasses that make up our atmosphere are mixed, as in not stratified. This is a matter of empirical observation. But, seat of the pants, elementary school reckoning would lead to a similar conclusion as they are all gasses of nearly identical weight. Not every bit of goose down, every mote of dust, will weigh the same, but in a wind. they will mix. And, by analogy, the heat of the sun is a constant wind. But, any current argument with the Greenhouse Theory is not based on science or observation of any honest nature, so an explanation of the science involved is a waste of time. Done wasting.
|
|
Tamarack
Administrator
Ancient Citizen
Posts: 9,376
|
Sheesh.
Apr 3, 2024 20:04:08 GMT -5
Post by Tamarack on Apr 3, 2024 20:04:08 GMT -5
From personal observations, I don't know. I can state further it's not my job. Within the realm of science there are a myriad of specialties and subspecialties, expertise in any field falls within a narrow range. My expertise is limited to hydrogeology and environmental remediation; I have provided expert witness testimony in courts of law. I understand the meaning of "expert"
On the subject of climate change, I trust the opinions of my scientific colleagues in paleoecology, glaciology, atmospheric physics, etc. (and recognize that scientific findings are always subject to debate and revisions). I further trust the work of scientific writers in The Media, who work damn hard to understand the work of scientific experts and present it in a few paragraphs.
|
|
|
Sheesh.
Apr 3, 2024 20:11:27 GMT -5
Post by epaul on Apr 3, 2024 20:11:27 GMT -5
Do understand there are "online physicists" armed with decades old faux arguments developed and strewn wide by conservative, oil-funded think tanks; think tanks that are still working overtime weaving half-truths and total nonsense into cheat sheets to be employed by their minions, arguments a junior high physics instructor with only two classes under his belt would be embarrassed to make.
Most certainly you would not ever hear a real physicist confusing something's percentage of the whole with the effect that thing can exert upon the whole. A germ, an hydrogen atom, an easily excited gas molecule bouncing wildly off other tiny molecules, such tiny things the lot of them.
And talk about the thermodynamics of a blanket over a rock to debunk the Greenhouse Theory? It is dumb analogy, but if pursued, pursue it correctly and recognize that the rock itself is not the source of the rock's heat, the sun is. And if the sun heats the rock, a blanket over that rock come evening will help hold/store the heat it gained from the sun's radiation.
Outside of Facebook, the science behind the Greenhouse Theory is not in dispute. The arguments against global warming are not with the science, but with the conclusions drawn. There are fair arguments over the degree of, the effects of, the result of... bottom line, arguments over actions to be taken or not taken and the resulting cost of these actions taken or not taken
(and an argument coming up strong on the inside rail: it's too late/beyond our ability to do anything, so carry on wayward son and hope for something other than the very worst.)
|
|
|
Sheesh.
Apr 3, 2024 20:29:19 GMT -5
Post by aquaduct on Apr 3, 2024 20:29:19 GMT -5
Do understand there are "online physicists" armed with decades old faux arguments developed and strewn wide by conservative, oil-funded think tanks, think tanks working overtime weaving half-truths and total nonsense, arguments a junior high physics instructor with only two classes under his belt would be embarrassed to make. Most certainly you would not ever hear a real physicist confusing somethings percentage of the whole with the effect that thing can exert upon the whole. A germ, an hydrogen atom, an easily excited gas molecule bouncing wildly off other tiny molecules, such tiny things the lot of them. And talk about the thermodynamics of a blanket over a rock to debunk the Greenhouse Theory? It is dumb analogy, but if pursued, pursue it correctly and recognize that the rock is not the source of the rock's heat, the sun is. And if the sun heats the rock, a blanket over that rock come evening will help hold/store the heat it gained from the sun's radiation. Outside of Facebook, the science behind the Greenhouse Theory is not in dispute. The arguments against global warming are not with the science, but with the conclusions drawn. There are fair arguments over the degree of, the effects of, the result of... bottom line, arguments over actions to be taken or not taken and the resulting cost of actions is taken or not taken (and an argument coming up strong on the inside rail, it's too late/beyond our ability to do anything, so carry on and hope for something other than the worst. Hmmmm..... "oil funded think tanks"? Is that an anything like the NRDC and the state of Massachusetts suing to change the meaning of the Clean Air Act to include CO2, a non-pollutant, as a regulatable "pollutant" rather than just going about it the old-fashioned way- getting 218 votes in the House and 60 votes in the Senate? Are you absolutely sure you want to discuss who's lying? Particularly given the craven nature of those cowards? Over 40 years no less? And maybe the destruction of America's manufacturing infrastructure at the hands of these creeps who insist on back dooring crap that won't stand up in the light of day? Are you dead sure before you endorse that crime?
|
|
|
Post by coachdoc on Apr 3, 2024 21:00:05 GMT -5
It’s pretty weird reading musicians arguing science.
|
|
|
Sheesh.
Apr 3, 2024 21:10:40 GMT -5
Post by epaul on Apr 3, 2024 21:10:40 GMT -5
Hmmmm..... "oil funded think tanks"? Is that an anything like the NRDC and the state of Massachusetts suing to change the meaning of the Clean Air Act to include CO2, a non-pollutant, as a regulatable "pollutant" rather than just going about it the old-fashioned way- getting 218 votes in the House and 60 votes in the Senate? Are you absolutely sure you want to discuss who's lying? Particularly given the craven nature of those cowards? Over 40 years no less? And maybe the destruction of America's manufacturing infrastructure at the hands of these creeps who insist on back dooring crap that won't stand up in the light of day? Are you dead sure before you endorse that crime? Well, not when you put it that way.
|
|
|
Post by coachdoc on Apr 3, 2024 21:21:28 GMT -5
My wife’s Prius has 280,000 miles on it and we are committed to getting it to 300K. By turning it over we would be negating all the $ we save in gas. The best automotive economy is keeping your car.
|
|
|
Sheesh.
Apr 3, 2024 21:23:33 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by coachdoc on Apr 3, 2024 21:23:33 GMT -5
Same goes for our Subaru Outback which is creeping up on 200K.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Apr 3, 2024 21:37:26 GMT -5
My wife’s Prius has 280,000 miles on it and we are committed to getting it to 300K. By turning it over we would be negating all the $ we save in gas. The best automotive economy is keeping your car. Absolutely. Wife and I figured that out 14 years ago. What matters is assets. Even more so when the income gets thin. My F150 is at 121,000 miles and counting. Enthusiast magazines seem to think the Coyote engine is good for half a million miles. Going to keep it until I'm buried in it.
|
|
|
Sheesh.
Apr 3, 2024 22:01:13 GMT -5
Post by epaul on Apr 3, 2024 22:01:13 GMT -5
Arguments against certain polices, actions, laws regarding climate change are one thing.
Maintaining that the science that explains how human activity vis a vis fossil fuels is contributing significantly to the warming planet we are amazingly observing within our own lifetime is fraudulent is another thing entirely.
I can understand wanting to cut perceived to be idiot policies off at the pass by discrediting the science that is prompting them, but regardless of how dumb policy may or may not be, the science is good.
Granted the science isn't up to providing a "count on it" twenty year forecast and specific projections are fraught. But, at a cost unknowable and very concerning, the planet is warming and human activity is the wild card in the game.
I will never call fossil fuels bad or evil. (I'm from North Dakota) Fossil fuels have been and still are a blessing. Without them, human life over the last 200 years or so would have been exponentially grimmer and colder (and two thirds of those now alive wouldn't be). Not saying the plants and animals of the planet wouldn't have been better off, but human life? Without coal, then oil? Not a romanticized pastoral storybook world, but a hard, hard, and very hungry one.
And I don't expect we will ever have a world free of fossil fuel of one type or another for a long, long, long time. (hey, again, I'm from North Dakota. Certain things I just can't envision.)
But, I do believe we can mitigate the release of greenhouse gasses, whether industrial, home, or highway, and that we and our planet will benefit greatly by our doing so. Maybe the CO2 train can't be stopped, but it can be slowed. And, with unknown of as yet wild card tech to one day come into play, maybe halted or even reversed.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Apr 3, 2024 22:11:31 GMT -5
My 2012 KIA Sorento, as of today, has 214,326 miles (just took off the snow tires). 214,326 miles, no rust, goes 5,000 miles between oil changes, runs like top, exterior paint is clean and sharp, interior fabric and fittings clean and solid. It is one hell of remarkable car.
|
|