• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

The effects of warming: Kilodeaths

Here is a scan of a document on climate change circulated among Exxon's employees in 1982: 1982 Exxon Primer on CO2 Greenhouse Effect.pdf

Figure 3, Page 7, PDF page 14 of 46 is the graph that AOC showed off in that recent hearing. It's very close to what actually happened since its "publication".

angelo, what do you think was going on here?
 
I have posted this comprehensive list of scientists that don't agree with the so called consensus before. But to show that not everyone is aboard the bandwagon of political rather than the scientific method I'll post it again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...th_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming

How many of those people are even working in a relevant field? I see a lot of economists, zoologists, chemists etc.

Would you have your car fixed by a plumber? He's a craftsman after all, they're all the same like all scientists are the same, innit?

How many alarmists contributing essays and reports to IPCC, or to some government agency are actually scientists?

All of them?
 
I decided to fact-check a bit of AOC's speech in Copenhagen, where she stated that New York City's three major airports are vulnerable to sea-level rise. Those are JFK, LaGuardia, and Newark Airports, and I found that all three are *very* close to sea level. She didn't mention it in Copenhagen, but LaGuardia is in her district, NY-14.

I found some elevation data in OpenFlights: Airport and airline data - in airport.dat column 9 (I) - elevations all in feet, and of the highest spots in the terrain.

  • Boston - Logan - BOS - 20
  • NYC - LaGuardia - LGA - 21
  • NYC - JFK - 13
  • NYC - Newark - EWR - 18
  • Philadelphia - PHL - 36
  • Baltimore-Washington - BWI - 146
  • Washington National - DCA - 15
  • Washington DC - Dulles - IAD - 312
  • Miami - MIA - 8
  • Tampa - TPA - 26
  • New Orleans - MSY - 4
  • Houston - IAH - 97
  • San Diego - SAN - 17
  • Los Angeles - LAX - 125
  • SF Bay - San Jose - 62
  • SF Bay - San Francisco - SFO - 13
  • SF Bay - Oakland - OAK - 9
  • Portland OR - PDX - 31
  • CA - Vancouver - YVR - 14
  • UK - London - Heathrow - LHR - 83
  • DK - Copenhagen - CPH - 17
  • AU - Sydney - SYD - 21
  • NZ - Auckland - AKL - 23
Not just the NYC Big Three, but several other airports are vulnerable to near-term sea-level rise.
 
Climate Change: Florida Will See Disastrous King Tides, Wastewater from Septic Tanks
The phenomenon in question is called "king tides," which occur regularly throughout the autumn months. These are higher-than-usual tides that last about three hours. Manholes become geysers and street flooding becomes deadly. They have nothing to do necessarily with rain—they can occur in bright sunshine—and they are exacerbated by rising sea levels.
After long silence, FL GOP leaders talk ‘sea level rise’ | Miami Herald
For the first time in a decade, a Florida Senate committee scheduled a meeting Monday to discuss the impact of climate change on the peninsula state.

What did senators learn?

“We lost a decade,’’ said Sen. Tom Lee, the Thonotosassa Republican who chairs the Committee on Infrastructure and Security.

Civilization could crumble by 2050 if we don't stop climate change now, new paper says - "Warming climate could bring "outright chaos" unless urgent steps are taken, according to the paper's authors."
What might an accurate worst-case picture of the planet's climate-addled future actually look like, then? The authors provide one particularly grim scenario that begins with world governments "politely ignoring" the advice of scientists and the will of the public to decarbonize the economy (finding alternative energy sources), resulting in a global temperature increase 5.4 F (3 C) by the year 2050. At this point, the world's ice sheets vanish; brutal droughts kill many of the trees in the Amazon rainforest (removing one of the world's largest carbon offsets); and the planet plunges into a feedback loop of ever-hotter, ever-deadlier conditions.

"Thirty-five percent of the global land area, and 55 percent of the global population, are subject to more than 20 days a year of lethal heat conditions, beyond the threshold of human survivability," the authors hypothesized.

Meanwhile, droughts, floods and wildfires regularly ravage the land. Nearly one-third of the world's land surface turns to desert. Entire ecosystems collapse, beginning with the planet's coral reefs, the rainforest and the Arctic ice sheets. The world's tropics are hit hardest by these new climate extremes, destroying the region's agriculture and turning more than 1 billion people into refugees.

This mass movement of refugees — coupled with shrinking coastlines and severe drops in food and water availability — begin to stress the fabric of the world's largest nations, including the United States. Armed conflicts over resources, perhaps culminating in nuclear war, are likely.

The result, according to the new paper, is "outright chaos" and perhaps "the end of human global civilization as we know it."
 
Then as a local Aussie politician would say: "please explain how emissions [CO2] have risen by over 20-30% yet global temperatures have remained fairly stable in the last 20-30 years!

A couple of months ago I climbed a mile into the sky.

Please explain how I could still breathe? Please explain why I didn't freeze despite not putting on any more clothing?

Again quoting Mrs Hansen. please explain how not 0.4, or even 0.04 but a mere 0.004% CO2 in the atmosphere would make one iota of difference to Earth's climate?

You still haven't addressed the fact that without the greenhouse effect the Earth would be basically uninhabitable. The greenhouse effect adds something like 30 degrees F above what Earth's blackbody temperature would be. Lower the temperature by that amount and Earth would be a snowball, the only life being around the deep sea geothermal vents.
 
Again quoting Mrs Hansen. please explain how not 0.4, or even 0.04 but a mere 0.004% CO2 in the atmosphere would make one iota of difference to Earth's climate?

You still haven't addressed the fact that without the greenhouse effect the Earth would be basically uninhabitable. The greenhouse effect adds something like 30 degrees F above what Earth's blackbody temperature would be. Lower the temperature by that amount and Earth would be a snowball, the only life being around the deep sea geothermal vents.

That he thinks the fish and chip bitch from Ipswich is worth quoting tells you everything you need to know about his relationship with reality.

Shit, he can't even spell her name (it's Hanson, not Hansen) but he clearly moves in circles where she is considered a sane, reasonable and valuable contributor to Australian politics, which is a position so far removed from reality that I seriously doubt one could even get to reality from there.
 
Then as a local Aussie politician would say: "please explain how emissions [CO2] have risen by over 20-30% yet global temperatures have remained fairly stable in the last 20-30 years!

A couple of months ago I climbed a mile into the sky.

Please explain how I could still breathe? Please explain why I didn't freeze despite not putting on any more clothing?

Again quoting Mrs Hansen. please explain how not 0.4, or even 0.04 but a mere 0.004% CO2 in the atmosphere would make one iota of difference to Earth's climate?

"Please explain how there are still monkeys if humans evolved from MONKEYS", "please explain how helium balloons rise when gravity is supposed to be universal", and now this. Ignorance at its best.

Please explain why it wouldn't make a difference, when the fact that CO2 absorbs infrared is extremely well attested in the field and in the lab - so much so that the standard way of measuring the CO2 content of an atmosphere is to send a laser through it and see how much gets absorbed.
 
Again quoting Mrs Hansen. please explain how not 0.4, or even 0.04 but a mere 0.004% CO2 in the atmosphere would make one iota of difference to Earth's climate?

"Please explain how there are still monkeys if humans evolved from MONKEYS", "please explain how helium balloons rise when gravity is supposed to be universal", and now this. Ignorance at its best.

Please explain why it wouldn't make a difference, when the fact that CO2 absorbs infrared is extremely well attested in the field and in the lab - so much so that the standard way of measuring the CO2 content of an atmosphere is to send a laser through it and see how much gets absorbed.

Just like homeopathic medicine, a single molecule in an ocean will cure whatever ails mankind. Only in this case that 0.04% along with over 90% of other elements in the atmosphere does manage to keep the planet warm enough for it's myriads of life forms.

https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html
 
Again quoting Mrs Hansen. please explain how not 0.4, or even 0.04 but a mere 0.004% CO2 in the atmosphere would make one iota of difference to Earth's climate?

"Please explain how there are still monkeys if humans evolved from MONKEYS", "please explain how helium balloons rise when gravity is supposed to be universal", and now this. Ignorance at its best.

Please explain why it wouldn't make a difference, when the fact that CO2 absorbs infrared is extremely well attested in the field and in the lab - so much so that the standard way of measuring the CO2 content of an atmosphere is to send a laser through it and see how much gets absorbed.

Just like homeopathic medicine, a single molecule in an ocean will cure whatever ails mankind. Only in this case that 0.04% along with over 90% of other elements in the atmosphere does manage to keep the planet warm enough for it's myriads of life forms.

https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html

I asked a question. Optical sensors are used to measure CO2 content of an atmosphere, available for a 100 bucks and with a precision/sensitivity of 20-50 ppm. They operate on the principle that CO2 absorbs light at certain wavelengths more than other gases. If your daughter was working in a greenhouse with CO2 enriched atmosphere, she was operating one of those herself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_sensor

Please explain how, if CO2 absorbs radiation that would pass through an oxygen/nitrogen/helium atmosphere unhindered, is it supposed not to increase heat retention?

Have you heard of the principle of conservation of energy?
 
Another big California wildfire:
Bill McKibben on Twitter: "Here's what the fire looks like in Vallejo California right now. The forces we've unleashed are beyond terrifying" / Twitter
noting
Chris Lumanglas on Twitter: "Carquinez Bridge #Vallejo 🔥 https://t.co/5FcGIzjJqr" / Twitter

then
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "This is what climate change looks like.
The GOP like to mock scientific warnings about climate change as exaggeration. But just look around: it’s already starting.
We have 10 years to cut carbon emissions in half. If we don’t, scenes like this can get much worse. #GreenNewDeal" / Twitter


Lack Of Controlled Burns Contributing To California Wildfires – CBS San Francisco
Controlled burns, fuel load, vegetation management – these are buzz words being thrown around the state capital right now. While the state is making all that a priority, the fact of the matter is it hasn’t for decades and we are dealing with the consequences.

The new normal California faces is a year-round fire season. But if you ask any fire official, these flames are fueled by more than hotter, drier weather. They’re also fueled by unchecked growth.

“After aggressively suppressing fires for the last 100 years we have put our forests in a state of peril,” said Calfire Chief Thom Porter.

Fossil charcoal, its recognition and palaeoatmospheric significance - ScienceDirect - 380 million years of trees (Late Devonian), and fossil-charcoal evidence of wildfires for about as long.

A 350‐million‐year legacy of fire adaptation among conifers - He - 2016 - Journal of Ecology - Wiley Online Library

Long-Term Aridity Changes in the Western United States | Science - during the Medieval Warm Period, about 900 - 1300 CE, the western US had lots of big droughts. So warming will cause droughts there.

Climate change and California drought in the 21st century | PNAS
Recent analyses have thus established the “fingerprint” of anthropogenic climate change in an increasingly diverse array of meteorological and hydrological phenomena around the world, from heat waves to coastal damages during extreme tides and storms, flooding from more intense precipitation events, and severe drought (1). In a new study published in PNAS, Diffenbaugh et al. now add weight to the accumulating evidence that anthropogenic climatic changes are already influencing the frequency, magnitude, and duration of drought in California (2). The authors show that the increasing co-occurrence of dry years with warm years raises the risk of drought despite limited evidence of a trend in precipitation itself, highlighting the critical role of elevated temperatures in altering water availability and increasing overall drought intensity and impact.
So we should expect more and bigger droughts in the western US. That will hurt California's Central Valley very badly - it won't be as agriculturally productive as it now is.
 
Just like homeopathic medicine, a single molecule in an ocean will cure whatever ails mankind. Only in this case that 0.04% along with over 90% of other elements in the atmosphere does manage to keep the planet warm enough for it's myriads of life forms.

https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html

I asked a question. Optical sensors are used to measure CO2 content of an atmosphere, available for a 100 bucks and with a precision/sensitivity of 20-50 ppm. They operate on the principle that CO2 absorbs light at certain wavelengths more than other gases. If your daughter was working in a greenhouse with CO2 enriched atmosphere, she was operating one of those herself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_sensor

Please explain how, if CO2 absorbs radiation that would pass through an oxygen/nitrogen/helium atmosphere unhindered, is it supposed not to increase heat retention?

Have you heard of the principle of conservation of energy?

Every morning I take 10mg of Ceterizine. If I do not, then I start to sneeze and suffer sore red eyes and other unpleasant symptoms.

But according to Angelo's logic, that cannot work, because 10mg is a ten millionth of my body weight. That's just 0.00001% of my body that is Ceterizine at the peak serum concentration, so it's impossible for it to have any effect.

Of course, the problem here is that angelo has no grasp of the numbers involved - to him, 0.004% is just "small", and so is in the same order of magnitude as homeopathic dilutions, which are also "small". But that's nonsense - homeopathic "medicines" are diluted to an extent so great that there's an approximately zero probability that a single molecule of the "active ingredient" will be present. That's some hundred or so orders of magnitude more dilute than my Ceterizine.

People are very bad at handling really big (and really small) numbers. When dealing with molecules, a concentration above about 0.000000000000001% implies that there are quite a lot of those molecules present in a small sample. Homeopathic dilutions are FAR less concentrated than this.
 
Just like homeopathic medicine, a single molecule in an ocean will cure whatever ails mankind. Only in this case that 0.04% along with over 90% of other elements in the atmosphere does manage to keep the planet warm enough for it's myriads of life forms.

https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html

I asked a question. Optical sensors are used to measure CO2 content of an atmosphere, available for a 100 bucks and with a precision/sensitivity of 20-50 ppm. They operate on the principle that CO2 absorbs light at certain wavelengths more than other gases. If your daughter was working in a greenhouse with CO2 enriched atmosphere, she was operating one of those herself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_sensor

Please explain how, if CO2 absorbs radiation that would pass through an oxygen/nitrogen/helium atmosphere unhindered, is it supposed not to increase heat retention?

Have you heard of the principle of conservation of energy?

Every morning I take 10mg of Ceterizine. If I do not, then I start to sneeze and suffer sore red eyes and other unpleasant symptoms.

But according to Angelo's logic, that cannot work, because 10mg is a ten millionth of my body weight. That's just 0.00001% of my body that is Ceterizine at the peak serum concentration, so it's impossible for it to have any effect.

Of course, the problem here is that angelo has no grasp of the numbers involved - to him, 0.004% is just "small", and so is in the same order of magnitude as homeopathic dilutions, which are also "small". But that's nonsense - homeopathic "medicines" are diluted to an extent so great that there's an approximately zero probability that a single molecule of the "active ingredient" will be present. That's some hundred or so orders of magnitude more dilute than my Ceterizine.

People are very bad at handling really big (and really small) numbers. When dealing with molecules, a concentration above about 0.000000000000001% implies that there are quite a lot of those molecules present in a small sample. Homeopathic dilutions are FAR less concentrated than this.

I can top this--I've had a pretty unpleasant reaction to an impurity in 10mg of material.

Why are you bringing up homeopathic stuff, though? They are diluted to the point they have no effect at all.
 
Every morning I take 10mg of Ceterizine. If I do not, then I start to sneeze and suffer sore red eyes and other unpleasant symptoms.

But according to Angelo's logic, that cannot work, because 10mg is a ten millionth of my body weight. That's just 0.00001% of my body that is Ceterizine at the peak serum concentration, so it's impossible for it to have any effect.

Of course, the problem here is that angelo has no grasp of the numbers involved - to him, 0.004% is just "small", and so is in the same order of magnitude as homeopathic dilutions, which are also "small". But that's nonsense - homeopathic "medicines" are diluted to an extent so great that there's an approximately zero probability that a single molecule of the "active ingredient" will be present. That's some hundred or so orders of magnitude more dilute than my Ceterizine.

People are very bad at handling really big (and really small) numbers. When dealing with molecules, a concentration above about 0.000000000000001% implies that there are quite a lot of those molecules present in a small sample. Homeopathic dilutions are FAR less concentrated than this.

I can top this--I've had a pretty unpleasant reaction to an impurity in 10mg of material.

Why are you bringing up homeopathic stuff, though? They are diluted to the point they have no effect at all.

I didn't bring it up. I am responding to angelo's mention of it - in which he totally fails to grasp the difference between his 0.004% and the typical dilution in homeopathy, which is about a hundred orders of magnitude. That's a pretty serious error.
 
Every morning I take 10mg of Ceterizine. If I do not, then I start to sneeze and suffer sore red eyes and other unpleasant symptoms.

But according to Angelo's logic, that cannot work, because 10mg is a ten millionth of my body weight. That's just 0.00001% of my body that is Ceterizine at the peak serum concentration, so it's impossible for it to have any effect.

Of course, the problem here is that angelo has no grasp of the numbers involved - to him, 0.004% is just "small", and so is in the same order of magnitude as homeopathic dilutions, which are also "small". But that's nonsense - homeopathic "medicines" are diluted to an extent so great that there's an approximately zero probability that a single molecule of the "active ingredient" will be present. That's some hundred or so orders of magnitude more dilute than my Ceterizine.

People are very bad at handling really big (and really small) numbers. When dealing with molecules, a concentration above about 0.000000000000001% implies that there are quite a lot of those molecules present in a small sample. Homeopathic dilutions are FAR less concentrated than this.

I can top this--I've had a pretty unpleasant reaction to an impurity in 10mg of material.

Why are you bringing up homeopathic stuff, though? They are diluted to the point they have no effect at all.

I didn't bring it up. I am responding to angelo's mention of it - in which he totally fails to grasp the difference between his 0.004% and the typical dilution in homeopathy, which is about a hundred orders of magnitude. That's a pretty serious error.

"0.004% is basically zero. The dilutions in homeopathy are basically zero. So that's the same thing!" - seems to be the argument here.

As you said, this is an instance of people failing to grasp small numbers.
 
Wow. So the difference between Plank's length the smallest length and one picometer current minimum length used in making computer chips is basically zero? I think when it comes to grasp small numbers one need to take into account relevance to whatever it is that is being measured. ... and the dosage used by bilby, as I mentioned, is demonstrably relevant to bilby as is the minimum distance used in making computer chips whereas Angelo's use of body weight in relation to a the amount effective in medication which acts with respect to really small targets in human bodies is not relevant.

Considerations other than big differences in relative proportion need to be taken in to account when comparing big differences in numbers in any area of interest. Poo poo to you Jokodo.
 
Last edited:
Wow. So the difference between Plank's length the smallest length and one picometer current minimum length used in making computer chips is basically zero? I think when it comes to grasp small numbers one need to take into account relevance to whatever it is that is being measured. ... and the dosage used by bilby, as I mentioned, is demonstrably relevant to bilby.

Poo poo to you Jokodo.

And this is an instance of people failing to read the post they respond to. You see the scare quotes? That's me impersonating angelo.
 
Just like homeopathic medicine, a single molecule in an ocean will cure whatever ails mankind. Only in this case that 0.04% along with over 90% of other elements in the atmosphere does manage to keep the planet warm enough for it's myriads of life forms.

https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html

I asked a question. Optical sensors are used to measure CO2 content of an atmosphere, available for a 100 bucks and with a precision/sensitivity of 20-50 ppm. They operate on the principle that CO2 absorbs light at certain wavelengths more than other gases. If your daughter was working in a greenhouse with CO2 enriched atmosphere, she was operating one of those herself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_sensor

Please explain how, if CO2 absorbs radiation that would pass through an oxygen/nitrogen/helium atmosphere unhindered, is it supposed not to increase heat retention?

Have you heard of the principle of conservation of energy?

Was it not for conservation of energy, life would not be possible anywhere. What the hell has that got to do with Earth's climate? Climate is far more complex than that. Climate used to be called seasons before the rabid leftards jumped on the bandwagon of this new cult!
 
Every morning I take 10mg of Ceterizine. If I do not, then I start to sneeze and suffer sore red eyes and other unpleasant symptoms.

But according to Angelo's logic, that cannot work, because 10mg is a ten millionth of my body weight. That's just 0.00001% of my body that is Ceterizine at the peak serum concentration, so it's impossible for it to have any effect.

Of course, the problem here is that angelo has no grasp of the numbers involved - to him, 0.004% is just "small", and so is in the same order of magnitude as homeopathic dilutions, which are also "small". But that's nonsense - homeopathic "medicines" are diluted to an extent so great that there's an approximately zero probability that a single molecule of the "active ingredient" will be present. That's some hundred or so orders of magnitude more dilute than my Ceterizine.

People are very bad at handling really big (and really small) numbers. When dealing with molecules, a concentration above about 0.000000000000001% implies that there are quite a lot of those molecules present in a small sample. Homeopathic dilutions are FAR less concentrated than this.

I can top this--I've had a pretty unpleasant reaction to an impurity in 10mg of material.

Why are you bringing up homeopathic stuff, though? They are diluted to the point they have no effect at all.

Just like CO2's 0.04% of the Earth's atmosphere has no effect?
 
Back
Top Bottom