The future climate - the planet is giving us a glimpse

[BartenderElite]

Just did a quick check - average gov't spending on climate change is roughly $50 billion annually.

 

[Bigdog]

No - I do. It's nowhere near "trillions and trillions." That is a wild exaggeration.

Globally, over a 20+ year period?

That 'green' money could have been spent on saving habitat from human expansion, protecting endangered species, stopping the rape of the Congo, etc..

 

[BartenderElite]

Globally, over a 20+ year period?

That 'green' money could have been spent on saving habitat from human expansion, protecting endangered species, stopping the rape of the Congo, etc..

You said "taxpayer" money. You were referring to global taxpayers?

Okey dokey.

 

[Bigdog]

You said "taxpayer" money. You were referring to global taxpayers?

Okey dokey.

That luxury Tesla AOC bought, is subsidized by the American taxpayer. As are many 'green' industries.

And yes, I know you think the world ends at the U.S. border, like all white libs, ... but there are taxpayers in other countries, too.

And their CO2 emissions do not stop at their borders as many white libs believe it does.

What would make you think we are not talking about global expenditures?

 

[BartenderElite]

That luxury Tesla AOC bought, is subsidized by the American taxpayer. As are many 'green' industries.

And yes, I know you think the world ends at the U.S. border, like all white libs, ... but there are taxpayers in other countries, too.

We spend around $50 billion a year. This is paltry compared to the overall budget. "Trillions and trillions" is wild hyperbole.

The end.

 

[Bigdog]

We spend around $50 billion a year. This is paltry compared to the overall budget. "Trillions and trillions" is wild hyperbole.

The end.

Obama's Solyndra fiasco should have been the end of the story in the U.S..

It's called Global Warming, NOT U.S. warming.

They have international meetings about that shit hoax. You think Europe doesn't[ spend anything on GW?

 

[Into the Night]

First law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems.

It applies to ALL systems, both open and closed.

The Earth and it's atmosphere is not a closed system.

Yes it is. Since you chose this particular system, you cannot consider any energy source or sink from outside your chosen system. You cannot compare two different systems as if they were the same system.
In other words, if the chosen system is Earth and it's atmosphere (which is actually just part of Earth), the NO gas or vapor can warm it.
If, on the other hand, you choose the Sun-Earth-space system, NO gas or vapor can warm it nor act as a 'one way' blanket, as you suggest.

You simply do not understand the physics involved.

LIF. This is YOUR problem.

CO2 acts like a thermal blanket.

WRONG. CO2 actually conducts heat better than any other common gas. Assuming there WAS such a 'thermal blanket' around Earth, Earth would be COLDER, not warmer, since less heat could arrive from the Sun.

It doesn't create new energy. It prevents some of incoming solar radiation from being re-radiated back out into space from the earth.

No. You cannot reduce entropy. There is no such thing as a magick 'one way' blanket.

The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the less solar radiation is able to reflect back into space,

No. You cannot reduce entropy. Infrared light radiated by CO2 radiates into space. You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas...ever. NO GAS OR VAPOR that is colder than the surface can heat the surface!

e.g. see Venus

I see Venus from time to time if I get up to look at it. What about it?

 

[Into the Night]

Does the first law of thermodynamics apply to open systems?

Yes, the First Law of Thermodynamics applies to both open and closed systems. The first law is basically the law of conservation, modified for thermodynamics.

Yet you describe a system that is creating energy out of nothing. Paradox. Which is it, dude???

In case of a closed system, only energy transfer takes place. Thus we consider, the law of conservation of energy.

Correct. In any closed system, no energy sources or sinks may be considered from outside that system.

In case of an open system, both energy and mass transfer takes place. Thus both law of conservation of energy and mass is considered.

No. An open system is simply the Universe itself. You still cannot create energy out of nothing.

The Earth is essentially a closed system with respect to matter. but is an open system with respect to energy.

It is a closed system to both, if that is indeed your chosen system.

 

[Into the Night]

Yep. That is what I said about the earth and radiation.

You cannot consider any energy source or sink from outside any given closed system.
You cannot create energy out of nothing.
You cannot reduce entropy. You cannot heat the surface using a colder gas. YOU CAN'T DO IT!

 

[Into the Night]

The fact that it was 122 F in death valley in 1933 or that it snowed in Tampa in 1972 are examples of localized weather, not global climatic trends.

Climate has no trend. Climate has no temperature. Otherwise, correct.

 

[BartenderElite]

Obama's Solyndra fiasco should have been the end of the story in the U.S..

It's called Global Warming, NOT U.S. warming.

They have international meetings about that shit hoax. You think Europe doesn't[ spend anything on GW?

We should lead.

It's funny when people bring up Solyndra. That's business. There are failures and successes. If we stopped pursuing things after the 1st failure - flight, medicine, the internet - we'd still be in the dark ages.

 

[Into the Night]

Not true, there was a period between 1910 to 1940 when there was clearly a global trend. 1934 was declared the hottest year on record until 1990 overtook it. I can see why alarmists want to play that down as CO2 was only 300ppm back then.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
It is not possible to measure the global CO2 concentration of CO2.

 

[Into the Night]

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...-is-giving-us-a-glimpse&p=5208920#post5208920

Yes, you must have. The energy exchange between solar radiation and the Earth's thermal radiation is an open system.

It is a closed system.

No new energy is created, as Into the Night claimed by invoking the First Law.

I never claimed energy is being created. YOU are.

CO2 just basically traps more of the thermal radiation the Earth is re-radiating to space.

You cannot reduce entropy. You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat. You cannot trap heat. You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

 

[Into the Night]

The First Law of Thermodynamics applies to both open and closed systems. The first law is basically the law of conservation, modified for thermodynamics.

Yet you are arguing that energy is being created out of nothing. It takes additional energy to raise the temperature, dude. Where is that energy coming from?

 

[Cypress]

It applies to ALL systems, both open and closed.

Yes it is. Since you chose this particular system, you cannot consider any energy source or sink from outside your chosen system. You cannot compare two different systems as if they were the same system.
In other words, if the chosen system is Earth and it's atmosphere (which is actually just part of Earth), the NO gas or vapor can warm it.
If, on the other hand, you choose the Sun-Earth-space system, NO gas or vapor can warm it nor act as a 'one way' blanket, as you suggest.

LIF. This is YOUR problem.

WRONG. CO2 actually conducts heat better than any other common gas. Assuming there WAS such a 'thermal blanket' around Earth, Earth would be COLDER, not warmer, since less heat could arrive from the Sun.

No. You cannot reduce entropy. There is no such thing as a magick 'one way' blanket.

No. You cannot reduce entropy. Infrared light radiated by CO2 radiates into space. You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas...ever. NO GAS OR VAPOR that is colder than the surface can heat the surface!

I see Venus from time to time if I get up to look at it. What about it?

There is no body of reputable, peer reviewed science which supports your claim that CO2 should be cooling the planet.

And that is precisely why you never, ever, under any circumstances provide links to reputable and peer reviewed scientific sources to support your assertions.

 

[Into the Night]

While we lead the world into bankruptcy China will be growing and prospering and adding more C02 than we remove.

So?

 

[Into the Night]

Can't really know less. "Climate" science is a relatively new branch of science

There is no branch of science for climate.

Our knowledge of the planet's atmospheric climate

There is no such thing as a global climate.

and how it works only really got started in the 1940's - 50's.

The Church of Global Warming is older than that.

Prior to that, we knew next to nothing about it.

What's to know? Climate is a subjective description of weather. No value is associated with it. A marine climate is always a marine climate. A desert climate is always a desert climate. The Church of Global Warming is using 'climate' for 'temperature' (to try to cover up what they are). Climate has no temperature.

The existence of the Jet Stream wasn't discovered until 1920, and at that point we only knew the barest fragmentary details about it.

Try 1735, when the concept of the Hadley cell was first theorized.

The Van Allen belt and investigation into how solar radiation effects climate started in 1958.

There is no global climate.

Our long-term recorded data on climate is sketchy at best.

There is no data. Climate has no value associated with it. There is not such thing as a global climate.

Yet, believers in Gorebal Warming think somehow the science is "settled" and debate is over.

This is the act of a religion, particularly a fundamentalist style religion.

They think that the "climate" scientists

This is what they call their priests.

that believe in Gorebal Warming are absolutely right even as none of their predictions pan out.

Fundamentalist religions are always this way.

Hell, I could get better guesses from a psychic!

Well put.

 

[Bigdog]

We should lead.

It's funny when people bring up Solyndra. That's business. There are failures and successes. If we stopped pursuing things after the 1st failure - flight, medicine, the internet - we'd still be in the dark ages.

Solyndra was subsidized by Obama, and Obama lost our taxpayer money.

"The Climate Policy Initiative (CPI), an international thinktank that publishes annual analyses, says that total climate-related financing was $510 billion to $530 billion in 2017, the latest figures available, up from $360 billion in 2012. The UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), put it at $681 billion in 2016"

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02712-3

About half of that is direct gov't spending and the other half is private cronies.

And what have they achieved temperature wise from all those trillions? ... nada zip zero zilch.

 

[Into the Night]

There is no body of reputable, peer reviewed science which supports your claim that CO2 should be cooling the planet.

And that is precisely why you never, ever, under any circumstances provide links to reputable and peer reviewed scientific sources to support your assertions.

Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science. CO2 is simply part of Earth, and cools along with the rest of Earth, at a rate equal to Earth being heated by the Sun.

 

[Bigdog]

We should lead.

It's funny when people bring up Solyndra. That's business. There are failures and successes. If we stopped pursuing things after the 1st failure - flight, medicine, the internet - we'd still be in the dark ages.

No, China should lead. But they are building a new coal plant every week.

"Emissions must peak before 2025 for 'liveable future', UN ...https://www.france24.com › environment › 20220404-...
Apr 4, 2022 — Capping global warming at 1.5C without overshooting the mark by a wide margin will require investing about $2.3 trillion a year in the ..."

Death cults ... they are always moving the dates.