Hurricane Otis' Wind Speed Increased by 115 mph in 24 Hours. That's Normal... Right?

[Mushroom]

You are getting schooled, bro.

Maybe you should use this handy dandy chart to gauge your responses. Elevate your game.

View attachment 849006

The problem is, they can never actually make any kind of cohesive argument based upon actual science. So all they can do is attack and throw out slurs.

I would love to see any kind of rational science based claim showing why the conditions of the last interglacial should not be happening.

 

[ding]

 

[ding]

Climate change - Energy Education

energyeducation.ca

Can you thumbnail that in your own words? Or are we supposed to guess what you are trying to say?

 

[Mushroom]

View attachment 849022

And if one actually understands geology and past climates, that image shows exactly why our planet is now "broken", and will remain so for several million more years.

And even though I specifically mentioned 2.5 mya, want to bet not a single one of them knows why that image is so important, or what changed to cause the current cycles?

 

[ding]

And if one actually understands geology and past climates, that image shows exactly why our planet is now "broken", and will remain so for several million more years.

And even though I specifically mentioned 2.5 mya, want to bet not a single one of them knows why that image is so important, or what changed to cause the current cycles?

And you would be 100% correct even though I have explained it to them dozens of times.

Any conversation about our planet's future climate needs to begin with a discussion of what led to our present climate, so that the proper context can be established. I'd say that the planet transitioning from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet 2.5mya would be a great place to start. Then I'd suggest discussing how the different polar configurations affect the planet's climate differently. Specifically the higher temperature threshold for glaciation at the southern pole compared to the northern pole and the effects the different polar configurations have on the spread of extensive glaciation. Because then it makes so much sense why the northern hemisphere dominates the planet's climate. Specifically why climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainty increased 2.5 mya.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Can you thumbnail that in your own words? Or are we supposed to guess what you are trying to say?

You can't read it? Pretty darn short. I'd say all of it. Except they said it just fine. Better than I could. Way better than you knee-jerk denying, climate scientist wannabes ever could here. So why should I bother?

While some of these are anthropogenic and some are natural (see here for a discussion of the difference), carbon dioxide released from pursuing energy services is by far the largest contributor to the planet's current changes in climate.

That bit should be plain enough even for you morons.

 

[Mushroom]

Specifically the higher temperature threshold for glaciation at the southern pole compared to the northern pole and the effects the different polar configurations have on the spread of extensive glaciation. Because then it makes so much sense why the northern hemisphere dominates the planet's climate. Specifically why climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainty increased 2.5 mya.

Well, the answer to the last part is obvious to anybody that knows geology. The rising of what we call "Central America" and cutting off of the equatorial current that had kept our planet warm for billions of years. Which literally changed a global warm water current into two smaller currents that circulated in much smaller areas, neither getting as warm as the previous current had been. That is what I was pointing out in your image, the fact that the bottom one showed North and South America as separate, and the upper one shoed them conjoined.

And this I was able to see first hand. Spending a month in the jungles of Panama, and being fascinated at the huge upthrusts of limestone reefs hundreds of feet above sea level. And when I returned spending months going over geology books and learning about what had caused that in amazingly recent times geologically speaking, and how it changed the planet. And realizing that really was "almost yesterday", geologically speaking. And had happened long after the Miocene Epoch fossil beds I used to dig in when I was much younger.

Once again, something I saw first hand over 3 decades ago. And being fascinated every time we stopped for the night in the area around Gatun finding 2.5 million year old tropical reef fossils everywhere. Quite literally, the fossils of coral and shells littered the landscape like beer cans on a beach after Spring Break. That was really the first time I started to expand my interest in geology out of the Pacific Northwest and see how it affected things on a planetary basis.

 

[Mushroom]

That bit should be plain enough even for you morons.

So you can't actually explain any of it, and obviously don't understand it. And instead of trying to explain things in a scientific manner, all you can do is throw around insults and slurs.

 

[ding]

You can't read it? Pretty darn short. I'd say all of it. Except they said it just fine. Better than I could. Way better than you knee-jerk denying, climate scientist wannabes ever could here. So why should I bother?

That bit should be plain enough even for you morons.

I bother to make my points. I suspect the reason you can't bother to make your points is that you don't understand the science.

 

[Grumblenuts]

So you can't actually explain any of it, and obviously don't understand it. And instead of trying to explain things in a scientific manner, all you can do is throw around insults and slurs.

Cry me another river!

 

[ding]

Well, the answer to the last part is obvious to anybody that knows geology. The rising of what we call "Central America" and cutting off of the equatorial current that had kept our planet warm for billions of years. Which literally changed a global warm water current into two smaller currents that circulated in much smaller areas, neither getting as warm as the previous current had been. That is what I was pointing out in your image, the fact that the bottom one showed North and South America as separate, and the upper one shoed them conjoined.

And this I was able to see first hand. Spending a month in the jungles of Panama, and being fascinated at the huge upthrusts of limestone reefs hundreds of feet above sea level. And when I returned spending months going over geology books and learning about what had caused that in amazingly recent times geologically speaking, and how it changed the planet. And realizing that really was "almost yesterday", geologically speaking. And had happened long after the Miocene Epoch fossil beds I used to dig in when I was much younger.

Once again, something I saw first hand over 3 decades ago. And being fascinated every time we stopped for the night in the area around Gatun finding 2.5 million year old tropical reef fossils everywhere. Quite literally, the fossils of coral and shells littered the landscape like beer cans on a beach after Spring Break. That was really the first time I started to expand my interest in geology out of the Pacific Northwest and see how it affected things on a planetary basis.

I love that you are a geologist and you can see this. Most geology sites I visit for information have bought into AGW without even considering the disconnect between the empirical paleo-climate data and the claims that decreasing CO2 led to the transition of the icehouse planet which by inspection is a totally ridiculous claim.

 

[ding]

Cry me another river!

 

[ding]

Cry me another river!

I truly do wish you could discuss this information intelligently.

 

[ding]

That bit should be plain enough even for you morons.

Except it's not because the geologic record is littered with warming and cooling trends that were not caused by CO2 or orbital forcing. So how is it that you know the recent warming trend isn't just another warming trend that naturally occurs in an interglacial period on its way to its peak interglacial temperature? Especially since the previous interglacial period was 2C warmer than today with 26 ft higher seas than today and 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2 than today.

 

[Mushroom]

I bother to make my points. I suspect the reason you can't bother to make your points is that you don't understand the science.

I also laugh when many scream this is going to make humans extinct. Which once again is in complete contradiction of the geological record.

Homo Sapiens evolved at the start of a warming period, two interglacials ago. That was at roughly 300 kya. The warmer and wetter climate of that era allowed the smarter and more agile and faster Homo Sapiens thrive, as we were actually evolved from older species who were shorter and stocker like a lion more into a species like the cheetah. Long distance endurance hunters that could run down our prey instead of taking them out with brute force like earlier species like H. Neanderthal.

And as I said, that was 300 kya, two interglacials ago. We then lived as a species through the last interglacial which started roughly 130 kya and ended at around 100 kya. So this is our third time in an interglacial period. So once again, why in the hell should anything be different this time?

But we also know that the last 2.5 my has created the greatest diversity of animals in the history of the planet. Most times the actual diversity seems to have been rather small, with one species dominating and another being a much lesser one. Today, we live in an era with a huge degree of diversity which has never appeared in the fossil record before. And more than ever the "generalists" are dominating. Species that have evolved critical traits to allow most of them to survive as a species as a whole through these changes, even as some sub-groups may die off. And recognizing that many species are able to make huge changes as required for new conditions. Like the Polar Bear, which has likely evolved over and over again, as changing climates cause some traits to dominate in one era, then another trait to dominate in another. Adapting as required to survive either extreme cold or warmer periods.

 

[ding]

I also laugh when many scream this is going to make humans extinct. Which once again is in complete contradiction of the geological record.

Homo Sapiens evolved at the start of a warming period, two interglacials ago. That was at roughly 300 kya. The warmer and wetter climate of that era allowed the smarter and more agile and faster Homo Sapiens thrive, as we were actually evolved from older species who were shorter and stocker like a lion more into a species like the cheetah. Long distance endurance hunters that could run down our prey instead of taking them out with brute force like earlier species like H. Neanderthal.

And as I said, that was 300 kya, two interglacials ago. We then lived as a species through the last interglacial which started roughly 130 kya and ended at around 100 kya. So this is our third time in an interglacial period. So once again, why in the hell should anything be different this time?

But we also know that the last 2.5 my has created the greatest diversity of animals in the history of the planet. Most times the actual diversity seems to have been rather small, with one species dominating and another being a much lesser one. Today, we live in an era with a huge degree of diversity which has never appeared in the fossil record before. And more than ever the "generalists" are dominating. Species that have evolved critical traits to allow most of them to survive as a species as a whole through these changes, even as some sub-groups may die off. And recognizing that many species are able to make huge changes as required for new conditions. Like the Polar Bear, which has likely evolved over and over again, as changing climates cause some traits to dominate in one era, then another trait to dominate in another. Adapting as required to survive either extreme cold or warmer periods.

That's an excellent point.

 

[Mushroom]

I love that you are a geologist and you can see this. Most geology sites I visit for information have bought into AGW without even considering the disconnect between the empirical paleo-climate data and the claims that decreasing CO2 led to the transition of the icehouse planet which by inspection is a totally ridiculous claim.

Well, I am not actually a "geologist", but that has been my main fascination since the early 1970s. Even replacing the fascination of my generation at space during the Apollo missions. And really getting kick-started the first time I remember visiting Yellowstone and Craters of the Moon and realizing how recent those events were.

Well, most people really do not understand the actual reasons why our planet is the way it is. Every time I hear somebody saying we are going to push the planet until it is like Venus, I want to scream. Even if we tried, we could never push the planet that hot because it requires an atmospheric pressure that could only be achieved by massive vulcanism and never by humans. Ever. Venus is not hot because of a "greenhouse effect", it is incredibly hot because the climate is like Earth during the Hadean Epoch.. Earth in the Hadean was at around 30 bars, Venus today is at around 92 bars.

Increase our atmospheric pressure to that, and we will be like Venus. Nothing short of that will do it.

However, I do spend most of my "free time" studying geology. It has been my lifetime passion, and still fascinates me. In fact, for almost a decade I have been watching the videos of Nick Zentner, a geology professor at Central Washington University. He has recorded dozens of lectures that he gives for free to the general public explaining the geology of the NW, specifically Washington. And I also love them because many of them are covering areas I had gone over in the past.



And it fascinates me how many of those that attend these college level free lectures on geology are significantly older than I am. And many of the things he covers are still so new and radical, it reminds me of the discoveries being made when I was younger.

 

[ding]

Well, I am not actually a "geologist", but that has been my main fascination since the early 1970s. Even replacing the fascination of my generation at space during the Apollo missions. And really getting kick-started the first time I remember visiting Yellowstone and Craters of the Moon and realizing how recent those events were.

Well, most people really do not understand the actual reasons why our planet is the way it is. Every time I hear somebody saying we are going to push the planet until it is like Venus, I want to scream. Even if we tried, we could never push the planet that hot because it requires an atmospheric pressure that could only be achieved by massive vulcanism and never by humans. Ever. Venus is not hot because of a "greenhouse effect", it is incredibly hot because the climate is like Earth during the Hadean Epoch.. Earth in the Hadean was at around 30 bars, Venus today is at around 92 bars.

Increase our atmospheric pressure to that, and we will be like Venus. Nothing short of that will do it.

However, I do spend most of my "free time" studying geology. It has been my lifetime passion, and still fascinates me. In fact, for almost a decade I have been watching the videos of Nick Zentner, a geology professor at Central Washington University. He has recorded dozens of lectures that he gives for free to the general public explaining the geology of the NW, specifically Washington. And I also love them because many of them are covering areas I had gone over in the past.



And it fascinates me how many of those that attend these college level free lectures on geology are significantly older than I am. And many of the things he covers are still so new and radical, it reminds me of the discoveries being made when I was younger.

Well I think you know more about geology than I do although as an oil and gas engineer I've worked closely with a few of them. I've heard one of Nick's podcasts and it was excellent. I think it was on the oxygen isotope curve.

I got started on this because of a presentation explaining how the Azolla event led to hydrocarbons in the arctic circle. The first three parts of the presentation were about the transition from greenhouse planet to icehouse planet, plate tectonics/marine gateways and the atmosphere. Had nothing to do with climate change. Had to do with oil. But when the AGW debate started I remembered all of this and realized what they were saying didn't make sense. Anyway, I've only ever studied the geology sites. Which from what I can tell they are mostly believers of AGW which has been shocking to me.

 

[Mushroom]

Well I think you know more about geology than I do although as an oil and gas engineer I've worked closely with a few of them.

Interesting sidebar, in the mid-1990s I was working for a GIS company in the Mojave Desert. And one of the projects we got was taking the old hand drawn geological strata maps that had been created for the oil fields around Bakersfield (many dating back to the turn of the century) and digitizing them into AutoCad. I left before the project was completed, but the ultimate goal was to turn them into a 3D representation of the layers under the surface.

And this was in around 1996, when creating such and actually tying them into hard map coordinates was a very new and radical concept that had only recently been available.

And in going over hundreds of these giant hand drawn strata maps of differing depths and scanning them on a massive scanner (these were mostly 3x4 foot blueprints) and then laying the strata lines by hand in a computer took many months. And spending 8 hours a day just doing that gave me an even greater fascination for what lay under our feet. It's funny, but for most of the 1990s into the late 2000s I was actually in IT. But even then, it led me to many projects like that, or actually working at the huge open pit borax mine in the Mojave Desert.

And why I love living where I do now in SW Oregon. I got a huge variety of geology I can easily go to and explore on my time off for relaxation.

I am not any kind of "engineer", most of my career was actually in the military. But that allowed me to see much of the world, and things most others could never have imagined. But also being a computer tech and the son of an early computer programmer, the use of logic has long been a critical requirement. And my mom fostered that, as when my dad took me on vacations it was normally a place of historical interest (which I also love). But my mom, she took me to places where geology and other hard sciences were involved. From inside of hydroelectric dams and coal beds with their power plants in Wyoming, to the first atomic power plant, CotM and Yellowstone.

But to me, none of this is, was, or should ever be "emotional". I view it all about as coldly as possible, because facts and logic should be the foundation of science and not emotion. And the more somebody tries to push emotional aspects, the more I realize they are almost always completely lacking in the actual science and make no logical sense.

Earth's Next Supercontinent Could Wipe Out Mammals in 250 Million Years

Termed “Pangea Ultima,” the predicted future landmass might be extremely hot, plagued by volcanoes and largely inhospitable, per a new modeling study

www.smithsonianmag.com

That is a great example of what I mean. It is based entirely to build fear and terror, and is almost completely lacking in actual science. Mammals actually first evolved over 205 mya, when the continents were still configured in Pangea. And it is trying to form a fear of extinction in 250 my, when who knows what the major life forms will even look like? Who is even to say mammals will even be a major species then, that is a hell of a lot of time in evolutionary terms.

And notice the maps that article uses, it is a complete joke.

In 250 my, the planet will not look like that at all. Many of our current mountain ranges will have eroded by then to a fraction of what they are now. And new Orogeny will have created new mountain ranges that we can not even really speculate on at this time. And they literally just moved the continents around, with all the mountains and flora in the future in the exact same place it is sitting in now.

That is completely and 100% wrong. If one goes back to post #51, I posted a great video by a geologist who explained what the actual climate and foliage on Pangea was like. And why it was the way it was. And the map shown above is completely wrong. The "West Coast" which is where the Americas are will be dry and barren, much of the inland dry and arid due to rain shadow effects. And the Eastern region will be wet and lush. With the entire planet much warmer than it is now with massive tropical storms slamming into the new East Coast, fueled by the huge warm water ocean that will allow them to grow in strength all the way across that ocean.

The more I have learned about geology, the more I am fascinated with how incorrect most people think about it.

Oh, and another fascination arose when I was dating my ex-wife. Because during that time her uncle came up to the US for a lecture tour by the National Geographic. A very famous paleontologist from Argentina that I was lucky enough to spend many hours talking with. It even ticked off my girlfriend, as I was spending less time with her during those weeks and more time with her uncle.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What makes you call renewable energy technology "phony"? And not all of us oppose nuclear power and after Three-Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima, not all opposition to nuclear power comes from greens.

How many died from radiation at Three-Mile Island and Fukushima?