FORWARD: I tend to be long-winded, so this article has been greatly shortened in the hopes that someone will actually read the damned thing. I’m not publishing this under my own name, so don’t expect academic levels of references and figures. You disagree with something, start a war in the comments.
The 1800s set the tone for mankind’s future, not just politically, but economically and scientifically as well. It was at this point when we began to understand that our actions may have a lasting effect on the global carrying capacity for humanity. The concerns have always wavered back and forth, but at the end of the day the predictions all mean the same thing:
“Doom” is a terrible scientific conclusion, as it is rooted deeply in emotion; however, doom is an excellent political conclusion as fear-mongering has long been a preferred tool for those with special interests, and unfortunately the budding science of climatology has been used time and again to push an agenda.
Today, climate change is as divisive a topic as can be found, pitting allies, neighbors, and even family against each other. This all or nothing approach to a very serious and complex problem is yet another challenge America faces in its attempts to stand united.
A Brief Background of Climate Change
The Greenhouse Gas Effect Theory is currently the science underpinning this latest issue. Dating back to 1896, the Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius calculated that different gases (most noticeably: Water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane) had an effect whereby they would trap the amount of infrared energy in a system, increasing the temperature.
The original observations were considered to be non-important from a Doomsday perspective, as Arrhenius concluded that the effect would take many thousands of years to actually be a factor. As time moved forward, scientists continued to build upon and tweak Arrhenius’ work, isolating carbon dioxide as a contributor, and also discovering worrying trends in past-climate trends (paleoclimatology) where previously stable Ice Ages were discovered to have actually contained many smaller episodes, and in fact were not stable at all, regularly flipping from one state to another.
Alarm began to build in scientific circles, and by the 1960s the rising use of aerosols had caused a rise in smog around the industrialized world, as well as the relatively new phenomenon, Acid Rain. These two very visual concerns led to the beginning of the “Doomsday” crowd, with in 1970 scientists warned of an imminent Ice Age if mankind did not soon change their ways. Legislature passed during this time helped to greatly reduce the Acid Rain caused by industry and other irresponsible use of chemicals.
As one problem was conquered, another took its place in the form of a growing hole in the ozone layer located in the Southern Hemisphere. Fast global action proved strong enough to overcome this challenge, as the international outlaw of CFCs and reduction in HCFC use greatly increased the strength of the Earth’s ozone layer.
As the ozone layer slowly began its healing journey, the politician scientists pivoted to the next target on their hit list: The Greenhouse Effect.
Previous climate issues were fairly cut and dry: sulfur dioxide causes acid rain and HFCs destroy the ozone. But, this time is different, this time the smoking gun was not as easy to identify. The Greenhouse Effect is primarily driven by carbon dioxide, with methane being a close second. The problem seems simple, right? Just decrease global CO2 and methane production! Unfortunately that would prove more difficult than previous concerns. The sources for carbon dioxide and methane are innumerable, and whereas prior problems could be readily substituted, reduction in carbon dioxide or methane production would destroy entire industries in some countries and would cause great harm to the economy of most others.
In 1992 the world met in Kyoto, Japan, and signed the Kyoto Protocol, which put some loose restrictions on the nations that signed the treaty. To be honest, this rather half-assed approach did little to appease anyone, as only the signees would be holding to their word, while rising powerhouses such as China and India would continue chugging right along, like the little coal-fired-engine-that-could. Half-assed measures get half-assed results, and the El nino of 1998 was all the excuse that was needed. The Doom is back, this time assuring us that our planet would become too hot to support our current way of life, and if we did not make changes soon then we would all be featured in a real life Water World – a fate worse than death according to Costner’s acting career.
Climate change has only gotten more divisive since then, with hockey-stick graphs on one side, and receding glaciers on the other. Is the climate heating? Is it cooling? One ice sheet thickens (Antarctica) while the other grows thinner (Arctic). Some heat is missing, while other locations are too hot.
The simple truth is that Climate Change is not the worldwide threat its been sold to be and is nothing more than a giant, monetized distraction.
The Politics of Climate Change
Al Gore has long been at the forefront for combating “carbon dioxide.” Citing his college professor as his inspiration, Al Gore has become borderline obsessed with greenhouse gases, and how to combat them. His pressure on the US government and media has created a push for green energy kicking off a “gold rush” for the green energy sector. Suddenly money is flooding in, and as we all know, where government money flows, corruption follows. What was initially a dripping spigot of free money turned into several industries over night, with things like solar power and cellulosic ethanol promising to completely destroy the “evil” fossil fuels sector.
Well, the stage was set, and the show must go on. We have fossil fuels and capitalism playing the part of the bad guy, Al Gore and his activists the valiant hero, and “green” technology acting as the magical weapon that will slay the evil pollution beast and save us all. Dissenters are mocked and careers ruined. If you doubt the science on climate change you are met with outright scorn and disbelief, so thorough has the marketing been for this particular “doom” cult.
The rest of the modern world has thrown their lot in with Gore and his cronies as there’s never been a government that didn’t want more control over its people, and once again they have that age old excuse “its for your own good.” As the fever pitch of outraged do-gooders has risen, so has the amount of money flowing from the government (the public) into poorly thought out schemes and technologies. People like to feel important, and the relentless campaigns by governments, activists, and bored people worldwide have ushered in a new era of NIMBY policies that ostensibly are for the good of the environment, but really just defer the cost onto a different location (*cough* Chinese made batteries *cough*)
At this point it is borderline impossible to determine whether or not the Earth’s climate is warming due to just how highly politicized this topic has become. Papers that disagree with the media’s version of climate science are prevented from publication, or even never funded to begin with. The research that has been published in support of climate science is continuously being revised, and the models are constantly being updated as they fail time and again to demonstrate any ability to predict the future.
The Real Problem
While the two ends of the climate change spectrum sling mud at each other, very real damage is occurring to our planet’s carrying capacity virtually unnoticed. Oceans, forests, and fresh water tables all have been devastated, and every last one of these have been fully preventable.
The Ocean, once a bountiful supply of food for many populations, now have been depleted to the point where much of the Earth may as well be a desert when it comes to food availability. The fish are simply not there anymore, destroyed by wanton harvest of commercial operations and gross overestimation of supplies by industry experts.
Westernized countries have largely understood the value of their forests and have begun extensive re-planting programs, while the Third World and emerging markets have been plowing under their forests for palm oil production and substandard farmland. A short-sighted approach to a far-reaching problem.
Of course there is no money in these problems, no way for Western governments and their cronies to loot and pillage their way to a “solution”…so they go ignored in favor of hefty subsidies to buddies in the various “green” industries and their “good enough for government” results.
The greatest threat to our “life as we know it” isn’t gas from cow shit, but instead wind from bullshit – and the Western world keeps eating it up as their leaders pile it higher and deeper, drowning us in piles of complete nonsense in an attempt to shame everyone into giving more of their future over to government control.
Thanks great to see someone who has a similar view on the subject.
Spot on, great article.
Too bad the people that should read this probably never would, and if they did, would never agree that the green government fucknuts they worship so dear would ever ignore the real issues the world faces just for power and control.
This is “greatly shortened”? It’s good. Not up to “Climate, Etc.” or WUWT usual-and-customary, but a pretty readable op-ed despite your ecotard fuck-ups. Are you able to link to the original, full-length version thereof?
Any thoughts on Senator Whitehouse (National Socialist – RI) and the “climate consensus” cunts led by Shuck-‘n-Jive Shukla pushing – together with the Algore – for a RICO criminal investigation of those who DARE apply scientific method to this fucking fraud?
Wonderful, ain’t it? The e-mail correspondence dumped to the ‘Net in the first Climategate tranche (17 November 2009) confirmed long-standing suspicions that the “consensus” were cohering a criminal conspiracy – including journal editor extortion, “pal review,” and concerted suppressio veri, suggestio falsi in public statements – and now that their bullshit has begun to compost as “global warming” utterly disappears from the un-“adjusted” atmospheric, oceanic, and land surface temperature observations, they’re ramping up a lawfare attack on anyone and everyone pointing out that the Emperor’s nuts are turning blue in the freezing wind.
See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/04/senator-whitehouse-use-the-rico-law-against-climate-deniers/
I have a major suggestion for the author (TPC). In the future, when you use the phrase”climate change”, it should either be stated as Natural Climate Change or Global Warming Climate Change, or always use the phrase Global Warming (not climate change). There is a world of difference and if you or any readers do not understand the difference, I may have to do a write-up for TBP.
Remember, they shoved Global Warming down our throats for many years – they own it and I won’t take the fish off the hook.
kokoda suggests that “…it should either be stated as Natural Climate Change or Global Warming Climate Change, or always use the phrase Global Warming (not climate change).”
The reason why the fraudsters of “the consensus” pointedly abandoned “global warming” in recent years – in favor of the doublespeak “climate change” – was that despite unremitting acceleration in the Keeling Curve (plotting the increases in undeniably anthropogenic combustion-produced carbon dioxide in well-mixed high-altitude atmospheric samples), the global surface temperature data had CEASED showing any warming what-so-fucking-ever from 1998 forward, and the satellite- and aerosonde-based temperature measurement platforms were reporting either flat-line temperatures or temperature DECLINES with increasing precision and far more thorough “coverage” of the planet.
Take a look at Anthony Watts’ “Surface Stations” project, which began to report preliminary results in Spring 2009, well before the first Climategate release. I originally read about it in Jeffery Kooistra’s “science fact” column in the November edition of *Analog* (despite its date of publication, as is the case with most magazines, that content had been written and the issue printed and in subscribers’ hands months before Climategate hit the ‘Net).
==== excerpt ====
What the Surface Stations Project found is deplorable. The report details, with lots of color photos of actual stations in the network, just how haphazard and inept our attempts to accurately measure the surface temperature record in the U.S. have been. For instance, there are guidelines for how close a measuring station can be to a parking lot or other “artificial heating or radiating/reflecting heat source.” The Surface Stations Project surveyed 70% of the stations in the U.S. This is what they found: “(W)e found that 89 percent of the stations — nearly 9 of every 10 — fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or moreaway from an artificial heating or radiating/reflecting heat source. In other words, 9 of every 10 stations are likely reporting higher or rising temperatures because they are badly sited.” (Pg. 1) The report concludes, “the raw temperature data produced by the USHCN stations are not sufficiently accurate to use in scientific studies or as a basis for public policy decisions.” (Pg. 17)
Obtain the report, read it, dissect it, and refute it if you can, or accept it if you can’t. That’s the honest thing to do. I have long wondered why most of my fellow physicists haven’t been as skeptical of global warming alarmism as I have been. I think one reason, perhaps even more important than their politics affecting their judgment, is that they naturally assume other scientists are as careful in how they obtain data as physicists are. I’ve been a global warming skeptic for some time now, and it didn’t even occur to me that most of the time the thermometers would be “sited next to a lamp.” What’s really ironic is that, if someone claims to see a flying saucer, which hurts no one and costs nothing, debunkers come out in force. But let a former vice-president claim environmental apocalypse is upon us, and suddenly we’re appropriating billions and changing our lifestyles.
Cripes.
— Kooistra, “Lessons From the Lab,” Analog, November 2009
[see http://www.analogsf.com/0911/altview_11.shtml ]
==== end ====
Tucci78….I also have extensive knowledge of the Hoax and I could easily have made 25 comments to this post. Due to short attention spans (on all of us humans) caused by other life consuming needs, I decided to tackle one issue.
You response listed a quote from my earlier comment, but said response did not address the quote.
kokoda remarks on the “global warming/climate change” bogosity: “.I also have extensive knowledge of the Hoax….”
Would that it WERE merely a hoax. Piltdown Man was a hoax – an essentially benign bit of hokum improvised to sucker the anthropological “establishment” in 19th-Century British academia who were so desperate to get themselves an *English* “missing link” that they were perfect set-ups for that confection of un-fossilized bony remnants.
No, the “carbon pollution” anthropogenic global warming (AGW) premise was undeniably a fraud – a criminal machination aimed at violating suckers’ and other victims’ property rights by dint of the knowing utterance of falsehoods – by the day in 1988 when the Tyrant Protection League (ostensibly “the United Nations”) empaneled the IPCC.
What you didn’t do in your earlier comment was to inform the readers here WHY the expression “global warming” was purposefully eliminated from the alarmists’ propaganda in favor of “climate change.” I decided to address that deficit, with explanation about how improved methods of instrumental analysis had combined with increased availability of un-“adjusted” (i.e., un-corrupted) observational data to assfuck “the consensus,” helping also to explain their recemt scrambling desperation to use the RICO statute against their critics.
“The Greenhouse Effect is primarily driven by carbon dioxide, with methane being a close second.” Isn’t the Greenhouse Effect primarily driven by water vapor followed distantly by carbon dioxide and then methane? So the first thing they had to do in promoting climate change is ignore water vapor altogether since there is no way to limit or legislate water vapor.
The “disaster” shown by the climate models is primarily sea level isn’t it? But the sea level rise predicted by the models is on the level of a few inches over 50 to 100 years. So the next thing they had to do was hype the sea level rise even though the predicted change in level was well within the margin of error of normal sea level changes.
The models themselves completely ignore any changes in solar input because we all know that the sun never changes in spite of the well documented 11 and 400 year solar cycles.
I’ve got bad news for Stucky. I’ve been looking into the Flat Earth stuff and there are some very compelling arguments.
It’s funny really. You look back on the theories that dismantled the choke hold that the Church once had on human understanding- the Earth is round, heliocentrism, the age of the planet- and you think of them as liberating. Humans finally free from the depredations of monolithic organizational disinformation. And now what have we got? The exact same thing, different set of clerics, different religion, exact same M.O. Only they know, we must accept their pronouncements because it’s “settled”. We must not ask questions lest we be ridiculed, hounded from our livelihoods and social structures. We must tithe our earning to the new Papacy of Science in the form of tax extortion, give up our freedoms to make the kinds of choices about how we live, where we live, how much water we use, what kind of food is “kosher” and what kind of food is “treif”…
Nothing has changed in human behaviors, nothing. People are free to believe whatever they want and live however they want as long as it is the things they are told to believe and told to do by their betters, the new clergy of politics and science.
Araven speaks of “…changes in solar input….”
Yep. Jeff Glassman did a fairly good presentation on his Web log in 2010, titled: “The Cause of Earth’s Climate Change is the Sun: The fingerprint of the Sun is on Earth’s 160 year temperature record, contradicting IPCC conclusions, fingerprinting, & AGW.”
Solar Global Warming [see http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2010/03/sgw.html ]
The long version isn’t polished yet, and if I ever manage to finish the project it will be published under my own name. Its a lot easier to produce an “OK” 1500 word article rather than a publishable 6-8k document.
I’ve no fucking idea how Admin does it, you would have to pay me to produce as much content as he does.
@Kokoda – You are right, I should have established early on that the current iteration of this political tool is “Anthropogenic Climate Change” and then defined a couple of short forms to give myself wiggle room.
@Araven – Water vapor and Methane are both more powerful Greenhouse Gases than Carbon Dioxide, but from a political perspective Carbon Dioxide is the “demon” they’ve fixated on.
Here’s a science question I can’t get a solid answer on, will listen to any well reasoned explanation.
If gravity exists as a force, how is able to selectively choose which molecules to attract? For example, a lead ball drops towards the force of gravity, but water vapor rises away from it.
Help me out on this one.
Well,
to post a rational comment to this article is close to impossible. But I have one question to this statement:
…and every last one of these have been fully preventable.
If the environmental destruction you mention was preventable, why did it happen?
Best,
Alex
A rational comment from Alexander is impossible. Truest comment ever made by good old Alex.
Hardscrabble,
The Earth has been known to be round since at least the time of the ancient Greeks.
The real debate from that time was whether it was the center of the Universe or not.
At first we thought it was and were satisfied with that view, then along came Newton and his various contributing contemporaries and we decided it wasn’t and we were happy for a time until along came Einstein with Relativity and now we really don’t know again, everything simply being observed and (mathematically) described from the point of observation -or description- as the center of things.
Truth is we don’t and can’t know.
We can only understand that which we can perceive through the limits of our several perceptive capabilities, our senses and brain structure as such, and that means we are limited to four planes of existence that we tend to assume are all the exists, and for no other reason than that we don’t have the ability to perceive anything other than those aspects of existence they limit us to perceiving.
“If the environmental destruction you mention was preventable, why did it happen?”
A) It wasn’t profitable
b) Short event horizon
c) Governments are in the business of skimming money in order to operate, not protecting systems which have no means of transferring capital to them.
d) It’s the path of least resistance.
@HSF – Water vapor is a gas. A gas expands to fill whatever container in which it is placed. In your example, our atmosphere is the container.
In the case of super light atoms, like Helium, their inertness and exceedingly low mass serve to overcome the pull of the Earth’s gravity.
@Alex – Please note the “short form” of the article. Fully fleshing out each point with data and making sure all connections are rock solid would require a minimum of 7,000 words, probably up to 10, and would be absolutely unreadable by most people.
Then, after I went through all that work, I would have to provide a Cliff’s Notes copy of it if I actually expected people to read it.
I’m not going through all that effort when it doesn’t A) Build my portfolio, and B) Build my checkbook.
If you want to nuke a point I made in the article then you should at least bother to offer why you think I’m wrong.
“The Earth has been known to be round since at least the time of the ancient Greeks.”
Here, let me fix that for you.
The Earth has been postulated to be round since at least the time of the ancient Greeks.
Hardscrabble Farmer asks a pretty good question: “If gravity exists as a force, how is able to selectively choose which molecules to attract? For example, a lead ball drops towards the force of gravity, but water vapor rises away from it.”
As I’ve said, I got my undergraduate degree in Biology, with no more of physics than I was required to take, and no Physical Chemistry at all, so I’m going to put this in a pretty dumbed-down form.
Gravity is actually one of the weaker forces acting on matter. At the level of the very small – as you see in water vapor rising in the atmosphere – the other forces acting on those H2O molecules (including heat energy imparted by convection currents, electromagnetic radiation in spectra absorbed by the water molecule, and collisions with the other molecules in the atmosphere) are a helluva lot stronger than is gravity.
Gedankenexperiment a little. What happens to a water molecule in a vacuum? Make that a light-opaque vacuum, so there’s not even the pressure exerted by most irradiance. What’s the strongest force acting upon that molecule under those circumstances?
Yep, gravity does what it does more obviously to that lead ball. The water molecule heads for the earth’s center of mass, it’s trajectory in the chamber also warped by the gravitational influences of the Sun, the component matter of the Milky Way galaxy, the local group of galaxies and dark matter, dark energy, cosmic rays, and Uncle Tom Cobley and all.
But mostly it’s Mother Earth what sucks ‘er down.
Hardscrabble,
Water vapor floats “away” from gravity and lead towards it for the same reason lead sinks in water and wood floats.
The heavier -denser- matter displaces the lighter -less dense- matter as it moves more strongly towards the center of gravitational force (and that is assuming gravity as a force of its own and not just an effect from something entirely different that we cannot observe. But that is another question.)
“Water vapor is a gas. A gas expands to fill whatever container in which it is placed. In your example, our atmosphere is the container.”
Gas is a state, not a molecular alteration. Theoretically gravity ought to exert an equal force on gas as it does on liquids and solids. And if the “atmosphere” is the container, why does gas rise in a column rather than to expand in all directions simultaneously creating a globe shape?
“Al Gore has become borderline obsessed with greenhouse gases, and how to combat them …”
———– from the article
Let me fix that for you;
“Al Gore has become borderline obsessed with greenhouse gases, and how to MAKE SHITLOADS OF $$$$ FROM IT.”
“Water vapor floats “away” from gravity and lead towards it for the same reason lead sinks in water and wood floats.”
That’s not a satisfactory explanation. Water (H2O) exists in three states, solid, liquid and gas. It’s molecular structure does not alter, only it’s state. Comparing water to wood is to use different molecules to explain something you have three states of one molecule to demonstrate. Why does the molecule head towards the force of gravity in two states, but not in the third? If gravity is so powerful that it can keep planets in orbit from hundreds of millions of miles, why wouldn’t it exert an equal or greater pull on mere molecules when they are at ground level?
Tucci has offered that radiation and other molecules are exerting a stronger effect on the molecule than gravity does, yet when H2O is in a different state, those influences no longer have the same effect. In the intermediate state- water- there would necessarily be a mid-point in the effects, yet ice and water behave the same way in relation to gravity.
The money shot: “Oceans, forests, and fresh water tables all have been devastated, and every last one of these have been fully preventable.”
The entire environmentalist movement has been co-opted into the money magic scheme, through Climate Change sophists. 25 years of construction in the western U.S., for me, has illustrated the real harbinger of doom for our mother, Development. Try and sell that ugly truth.
Money Magic requires growth, growth requires Development, a never ending feed back loop. I am doing my part daily to ensure this place is more fucked up for your children and grandchildren.
Thanks PC
“Water vapor is a gas. A gas expands to fill whatever container in which it is placed. In your example, our atmosphere is the container.”
For that matter our atmosphere is a gas (a mix of them). Outside of our atmosphere space exists in a vacuum- so we are told. According to everything I have ever read about vacuums, Nature abhors them, so why is there so much of it and why doesn’t it suck the atmosphere away from the planet? If you answer gravity, you’ve just negated the original claim of why gas rises.
I’m looking for an answer that a dumb old farmer can understand because the more I look into this from the aspect of pure observation (original science) the more the scientific community answers fail to hold up.
@HSF on my phone, so keep that in mind.
The Earth is more than just the land and oceans, it is also the atmosphere. The water vapor is not defying gravity, it rises into the atmosphere until it cools, and then condenses and falls as rain.
The actual molecular structure of water and vapor is different, and water hydrogen bonds with itself, which is what causes surface tension.
It is a lower energy state,and so tends to remain “at rest” more than the relatively acttive gas phase.
A more detailed explanation will have to wait until my lunch break, Im helping production fix a problem today.
““Al Gore has become borderline obsessed with greenhouse gases, and how to MAKE SHITLOADS OF $$$$ FROM IT.””
Let me fix that for you:
“Al Gore is a borderline retard who is obsessed with greenhouse gases, and how to MAKE SHITLOADS OF $$$$ FROM IT.”
There. Fixed. Do I hafta do EVERYTHING around here? Sheesh.
Al Gore invented climate change, shortly after inventing the internet, (and manbearpig)
All constructs that require faith, are inventions of the mind, and this climate change is nothing more than another religion, designed to replace the ones that are currently under attack.
What does society have left to believe in?
They destroyed the family, they destroyed religion, they destroyed entire countries, and now they want to get you to feel guilty about all this “progress”, by making you pay for carbon credits, as if some how, money (your money) can fix the problem.
If they can’t predict the weather more than two days out, how the fuck can they fix “climate change” and more importantly, how will they know when it is fixed?
This climate change meme, is just as valid as Ronald Rayguns “star wars” nuclear defense system that magically destroyed communism. In fact, it is required that we have several unknown national enemies, in order to justify the MIC and the MSM.
remember, if it comes to you on TV, then it is fantasy or propaganda,
it they teach it in school, then it is not worth learning,
and if it does not sit well inside your mind, then it is a lie.
Via con Dios
I literally groaned inside when I saw the title only. I mean, what the fuck is left to say about the topic? We’ve beaten that to death HERE over and over.
But, then I saw the author’s name, ThePessimisticChemist, and so I read it, and I’m glad I did. Nice job there, TPC!
My mind is made-up. Nothing is likely to change my opinion (that AGW is total bullshit). Yes, horror of horrors, I’m a closed-minded, narrow-minded, head-in-the-sand piece of shit. And, I’m proud of it.
It didn’t happen overnight. It took DECADES of reading about it … umpteen thousands of words. I absolutely recall that Time magazine issue posted in the article. The poor Penguin!!! Later, it was the poor Polar Bear! Save the whales!! I was hooked. Mankind is killing Nature with weather! We’re all going to dieeeee.
I even still believed that shit as recently as a decade ago. Why I changed my mind is irrelevant, and would require a very long explanation. It involved a LOT of reading, study, reasoning, and most of all, common sense. So, now my mind is “suddenly” closed. Pffft, so what. Sue me.
It’s just nice to have my sanity back.
TPC said,
“The water vapor is not defying gravity…”
Unless I do not understand the premise of gravity at all, yes it is. Vapor is a physical collection of molecules in a particular state. If the same molecules that are kept Earthbound in one state suddenly behave in opposition to a specific force in another, we must redefine the force. It cannot simultaneously be so powerful that it keeps a Moon in it’s orbit from a quarter of a million miles, but cannot keep molecules in it’s field from a distance of several inches. Again, explain it to me like I am retarded instead of asking me to accept certain scientific theories that contradict one another as if this were 16th century Church dogma.
Who here has ever had a compost pile? The larger the mass,
the hotter it gets. Is this apropos anything?
Part of the reason our industrial manufacturing has been outsourced
to China and all the rest, is because the corporations do not have to
adhere to environmental regulations…and can pollute with abandon.
Just for kicks look for articles on Michelin tire/rubber production in
Nigeria. The drinking water for Nigerians is foul/compromised.
Water, air, soil…all of it poisoned with no oversight/for profit.
The peoples in “developing” nations are grateful for income…
and so they tolerate the pollution and garbage and foul water
created by unaccountable industrialist. Of course, US and Euro.
countries are only partially to blame.
The USA however will continue to do business in countries that
impose zero pollution restrictions. The climate change proponents
(call it what you will) in gov/gov sponsored, are seeking to impose
taxes on developed nations to increase profits in “developing” nations.
That will increase pollution…the real culprit. And the tax money will
keep the rich in furs, champagne, and caviar just so much longer.
Hardscrabble Farmer appreciates “…that radiation and other molecules are exerting a stronger effect on the [water] molecule [in its gaseous state] than gravity does, yet when H2O is in a different state, those influences no longer have the same effect.”
Er, yeah, they do. It’s simply that even in its liquid and solid states there are still stronger forces than gravity operating on water. In its liquid form, for instance, there’s surface tension as well as lots and lots more chemical bonds involving a lot more of those molecules in actions than occur in the much more widely displaced vaporous state. And in the solid state, there are crystalline interactions, too.
You didn’t get that thought experiment about a water molecule in a light-tight vacuum chamber, did you?
As for why water vapor rises in atmosphere in a columnar fashion, consider that all the other molecules in that atmosphere are under the influence of gravity, which is how displacement does the up-pushing that keeps the intact hull of a boat from joining Luca Brasi down there with the fishes.
Thought experiment again. A “tight” volume in microgravity, maybe at the 5th Lagrangian point in the Earth/Moon system. Release water vapor into that vacuum chamber. Detectors all over the internal surface of the structure. Any indication of those molecules going anywhere “in a column,” or just scattering in pretty much the definition of Brownian random movement?
“Gedankenexperiment” ——— Tucci
Fucken hilarious.
The Wop Doc delving into some Deutsch. Love it.
Gravity does not exist. The only force that exists is electricity, and we don’t understand that either:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4J18e30zTyE
Yo! All youz peeple tryin’ to help hardscrabble understand Chemustree.
I think you should cease & desist …. until he fucken’ admits THAT THE EARTH IS ROUND !!!
Otherwise, all is lost.
There is no gravity??? Only electricity?? Bwaahahaha!
Absolute PROOF that gravity exists.
[img]http://1.xiaozhaozhushou.com:8000/winmNupi_DbOq04ulVtbj4ob_PWO8qxRtvbgH_9KrcWIzdIVYUVp3NylWHDzY_rU_FpzHoVPpO-a3LsVVjFKLemIzMHSYsARFGW_heJf6-ifeiMh06mHyDmXJrML8t3J[/img]
Stucky proves pathetically easy to amuse. Why should a “Wop Doc” be any less familiar with German – or Japanese, or Urdu or Tagalog – than he is with English? And why should a man who had to get educated in the “hard sciences” in order to fulfill the entrance requirements for medical school not be familiar with terms commonly used in all the sciences?
==============
“An average sentence, in a German newspaper, is a sublime and impressive curiosity; it occupies a quarter of a column; it contains all the ten parts of speech — not in regular order, but mixed; it is built mainly of compound words constructed by the writer on the spot, and not to be found in any dictionary — six or seven words compacted into one, without joint or seam — that is, without hyphens; it treats of fourteen or fifteen different subjects, each inclosed in a parenthesis of its own, with here and there extra parentheses which reinclose three or four of the minor parentheses, making pens within pens: finally, all the parentheses and reparentheses are massed together between a couple of king-parentheses, one of which is placed in the first line of the majestic sentence and the other in the middle of the last line of it — after which comes the VERB, and you find out for the first time what the man has been talking about; and after the verb — merely by way of ornament, as far as I can make out — the writer shovels in ‘haben sind gewesen gehabt haben geworden sein,’ or words to that effect, and the monument is finished. I suppose that this closing hurrah is in the nature of the flourish to a man’s signature — not necessary, but pretty.”
— Mark Twain, AppendiX D, *A Tramp Abroad* (1880)
“You didn’t get that thought experiment about a water molecule in a light-tight vacuum chamber, did you?”
I’d prefer to see that experiment, I don’t have any vacuums laying around.
Here’s the thing, I have heard plenty of people articulate the theories behind these different positions and beliefs and many of the people spelling it out are both intelligent and respected by me- you for instance- but they are not convincing enough given some of the other positions that that are equally postulated.
Let me give you an example of something I have done on several occasions that defies the theories expounded.
On numerous occasions I have watered animals in sub zero weather- -20 seems to be the best for this particular phenomenon.
I fill an empty three gallon, black rubber bucket with water fresh out of the hydrant, 40 degrees Farenheit. Almost immediately the water begins to freeze and as it does air bubbles become trapped in the ice. Because the bucket is warmer than the atmosphere the freezing begins on the surface exposed to the air and moves inward towards the center of the bucket. When the water freezes completely after an hour or so the ice is extremely clear (the longer it takes ice to freeze the more opaque it becomes) and you can clearly see the air bubbles (gas) trapped in the bucket, all of them radiating outward like an explosion. They leave little trails of much smaller gas bubbles behind them so you can clearly see that the gases, rather than rising straight upwards as one would imagine based on everything explained to me thus far about the nature of gasses and the effects of gravity, radiation, etc, they defy those theories and behave like a replica of the big bang. Gas bubbles actually move towards the denser water at the bottom of the pail at the same rate that they would theoretically rise to the top. If I hadn’t seen it with my own eyes multiple times I wouldn’t believe it because it appears to defy everything I have ever been taught in physics about the nature of gasses and liquids.
So that’s why I am starting over and beginning to question EVERYTHING I have ever been taught by using observation and replication. It’s clear to me that humans today in positions of power behave no differently than the Church did prior to the Renaissance. It is because they say it is and that’s no longer enough for me to accept. If 97% of scientists agree on global warming, then I can no longer trust the Scientific orthodoxy anymore than Martin Luther could trust Rome. Science should be about facts and replicable data sets, not pluralities or majority opinions. If I come across something that is counter intuitive or contradicts a “known” truth, than I want to understand why. I’m not saying it’s all wrong and I’m not saying I have the mental acuity to understand all of these theories, but I want to prove them to myself- you know, old fashioned science.
Climate change?
1) Who fucking cares?
2) I’ve always hated the Maldives.
Hardscrabble,
Gravity exerts the same force on all matter according to it’s density.
Denser matter has greater force exerted on it in relation to its volume than very low density matter since there is more mass involved in the higher density substance.
If you’re trying to look at the atmosphere as an entire system then you also have to figure in everything from Brownian motion to heating variables creating all sorts of mixing of the gaseous composition of the atmosphere.
IN the end, one molecule of water at the same distance from the center of a larger mass has the same amount of gravitational force exerted on it no matter the physical state (, solid, liquid or gas) and exerts the same gravitational force on the larger mass and all other atoms and molecules around it as well.
FWIW, you’re not going to get the equivalent of a PhD. in several sciences on an internet discussion forum to explain every known detail of the atmospheric system of earth.
But, for your amusement (and related) how does a candle burn in zero gravity? You’ll find the answers to some of your questions by pondering that sufficiently.
CZ, that’s kind of my point. Something is not adding up. I’m just trying to prove these theories to myself to the point that I can feel like I’m not promoting falsehoods when I answer my children’s questions.
until he fucken’ admits THAT THE EARTH IS ROUND !!!
It may be round, I’m just not sure it’s a globe. And I definitely don’t trust NASA.
Here is a photo of the Earth from NASA- I’m posting the link, not the pic because the resolution is huge. Look at the size of North America.
Now look at this one-
They cannot both be real. Why is NASA posting fraudulent images of the planet? How is it that so many normally curious people don’t question this falsehood.
Anonymous says-
“Gravity exerts the same force on all matter according to it’s density.”
If that were true than the surface of the oceans would conform to the underlying topography. And yet it does not. If that were true than the effect of the Moon on the tides would be impossible, yet we are told that this is the case. Water at sea level ON PLANET EARTH would have a far greater gravitational pull on it than from an object 1/6 it’s size a quarter of a million miles away.
You can’t have all of these things occur using the same reasoning.
“Stucky proves pathetically easy to amuse.” ——- Tucci
You write that as if it’s a bad trait.
“Children, old people, vagabonds laugh easily and heartily; they have nothing to lose and hope for little. In renunciation lies a delicious taste of simplicity and deep peace.” —— some Zen dude
Hardscrabble Farmer writes: “I fill an empty three gallon, black rubber bucket with water fresh out of the hydrant, 40 degrees Farenheit. Almost immediately the water begins to freeze and as it does air bubbles become trapped in the ice.”
Okay, let’s talk about the chemical and physical composition of well water. Ever heard about places over geological formations like the Marcellus Shale, where it’s really common for people to be able to “light” the methane gas escaping from their tap water? Y’know, in places with names like “Burning Springs” and stuff, where deep dirigible drilling, tight concrete casing, fractional perforation, and hydraulic fracturing (all of these processes bundled up as “fracking”) is managing to get natural gas onto the market?
Water is pumped up out of the well, where it was carrying dissolved gases – all sorts of gases – at greater than surface-ambient pressure gradients. It gets into your bucket on a moderately cold day and – shazam! – under lower pressure out in the big, wide, wonderful atmosphere, the gases dissolved in that water start to come out of solution, expanding into bubbles as well as evaporating. Now, both evaporation and the bubbling expansion process require the well water to pull heat energy out of its surroundings and “invest” it in what the gas is doing, which might reasonably be expected to precipitate freezing in that volume of water. The energy required to keep it liquid is being expended in both processes (we tend not to think about adiabatic expansion – bubbling – as an energy-dependent process, but it is), and the temperature drops. Combine that with the atmosphere pulling even more heat out of the well water and you get solid ice with the last of the water’s escaping gas bubbles “…trapped in the bucket, all of them radiating outward like an explosion” (i.e., instantiating Brownian motion, which at this level is borne of a force more powerful than gravity).
If these phenomena seem at variance with “…everything explained to me thus far about the nature of gases and the effects of gravity, radiation, etc,,” figure that what’s been explained to you – the scientific models of which you speak – simply isn’t yet adequate to the task.
======================
“Science is all about models of the real world, whether natural (basic science) or manmade (applied science, or technology). These models are not discovered in nature, for nature has no numbers, no coordinate systems, no parameters, no equations, no logic, no predictions, neither linearity nor non-linearity, nor many of the other attributes of science. Models are man’s creations, written in the languages of science: natural language, logic, and mathematics. They are built upon the structure of a specified factual domain.”
— Jeff Glassman (2007)
Hardscrabble,
Same satellite, same position, and same time of year?
HSF, I’ve shown friends and family the same pics of earth and nobody, not one, has a proper explanation. Neil Ass Tyson says the earth is an oblate sphere. Let’s see the pics from the hundreds of nasa satellites. Not gonna happen.
I’ve said the exact same thing about questioning everything because even a cursory examination (of flat earth, for example) brings questions that are unnerving if you’ve not thought of them before. We may not be geniuses but we’re not idiots and yet we don’t have these answers. Eric Dubay does a pretty good job laying out some evidence and the dude is relentless. These are the questions that will eventually expose the beast system for what it is. Keep reading/watching.
Hardscrabble,
“If that were true …………”
There are many basic things about gravity and fluid dynamics you fail to understand.
Things that are intuitive for most people.
I sincerely hope you never have a question arise that requires quantum mechanics instead of simple Newtonian mechanics to give an adequate explanation.
“Same satellite, same position, and same time of year?”
If you don’t own a ruler, you can use a piece of paper and lay it up against the screen. The first photo is just under a 1/16 of the diameter of the second one. Unless the mass of the continent expands based on the time of the year it shouldn’t be 30% larger.
One of those photos is fake. Probably both.
“There are many basic things about gravity and fluid dynamics you fail to understand.
Things that are intuitive for most people.
I sincerely hope you never have a question arise that requires quantum mechanics instead of simple Newtonian mechanics to give an adequate explanation.”
Let me repeat myself- the adequate explanation given is not adequate for me. Lucky you are so intuitive to understand these principles without the requisite reasoning and logic. I depend on the last two for my own edification.
As I have asked, explain them to me as if I were a retarded man. EShow me the basics of how fluid dynamics are able to overcome the force of gravity and cite your sources. I am all ears.
Acting like a shit doesn’t make your case for you.