• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Armageddon has arrived

DaveFagan said:
Numbers clue. Acquire the numbers on millions of barrels of OIL, quadrillions of cubic feet of Natural Gas, billions of tons of biomass, billions of tons of coal, billions of tons of water evaporated by Nuclear Cooling Towers, propane, butane, acetylene, etc., camel dung, and calculate how many BTUs of heat energy these burns release into the atmosphere and how much that heat energy should raise the temperature of the weight of our total atmosphere. That's the heat component, separate from the sun. Now, do your history back to the 1800s that documented the Greenhouse Gas phenomenon that prevents normal loss of heat into space in this matter. Just a clue, go ahead and get started. Use exponents because the numbers are large. Have a nice warm winter.
Click to expand...

Errr .... yes I will when and if it ever happens thanks.

I hope that rant made you feel better :thumbs:
 
Last edited:
MrT said:
The satellite models have been adjusted on multiple occasions (I have seen four cited) specifically because they did not work.
Click to expand...

Heads up. Those aren't models those are measurements ..... big difference

And the climate models, assuming you don't ignore margin of error, are all quite accurate.
Click to expand...

Yeah right ! :lol:

STILL Epic Fail: 73 Climate Models vs. Measurements, Running 5-Year Means « Roy Spencer, PhD

And finally, 2014 was the hottest year on record...until 2015 came along.
Click to expand...

The satellites say no
 
MrT said:
Ok, let's break it down to the general principles involved.

We are talking about coastal erosion and coastal erosion is primarily caused by water flowing over and under a given piece of land. Now, do I believe that having more water will lead to a greater amount of erosion? Yes. Do I believe that having water reach higher locations of the beach will lead to a greater amount of erosion? Yes.

Is that really a difficult concept?
Click to expand...

It's wrong that's all.

The energy of a wave is what does the damage. That and the content of the water in terms of if it has any rocks in it to smash against the cliff.

If it's a beach then the waves are piling up sand at that location that's why there is a beach there. If there is a storm that blows in the wrong direction then the beach can wash away.

But the really big thing you have, in your religious fervor, missed is that that there has not been any significant sea level change so far so you cannot have any evidence from coastal errosion now!!! That it is going on is just the same as it has always been going on!!!
 
jmotivator said:
Skeptics actually pay more attention to the TRUE data than they do the statistically tortured data.
Click to expand...

Warmists don't call it true data or actual data - aka facts. Their term is 'Raw Data' which needs to be cooked or, as they put it, 'adjusted' before it's fit for use.
 
Sweden said:
Warmists don't call it true data or actual data - aka facts. Their term is 'Raw Data' which needs to be cooked or, as they put it, 'adjusted' before it's fit for use.
Click to expand...

Yup then they feed the cooked data to their climate models and its gospel in = gospel out ..... ker ching :wink:
 
Tim the plumber said:
Well I can do that but clearly you cannot.

The amount of energy released by burning of the fuels listed, and any other fires on the earth is utterly insignificant compared to the heat budget of the whole planet.

Test this out by having a fire in your back yard. Then try to identify how much warmer your back yard is than your neighbour's after 2 weeks.

Numbers are certainly very important. That's why I understand that there is nothing to worry about in this AGW drivel.
Click to expand...

Small minds think small, if at all. The OIL fire alone of 30 million barrels per day would make an open fire equivalent to a lake about 49 miles by 49 miles and eight feet deep, every day. 30 million barrels @ 42 gallons per barrel, 30 x 10 to the sixth times 42, or 1,260,000,000 gallons. A one acre pond 8 feet deep is about a million gallons. That would make 1,260 one acre ponds 8 feet deep. Each acre is 207 feet by 207 feet. 207feet times 1,260 equals 260,820 feet by 260,820 feet. One linear mile is 5280 feet and divide that into 260,820 to see how many miles this lake of oil would be on each side hypothesizing a square lake. 260,820/5280 equals 49,39 miles on each side. So just picture this roughly 50 miles square lake of OIL burning next to your trailer and you will only be envisioning the daily use of OIL and it happens every day and that is just the OIL and perhaps just 25% of the World energy usage. Move your trailer a few miles away from the heat, mind you.
 
DaveFagan said:
Small minds think small, if at all. The OIL fire alone of 30 million barrels per day would make an open fire equivalent to a lake about 49 miles by 49 miles and eight feet deep, every day. 30 million barrels @ 42 gallons per barrel, 30 x 10 to the sixth times 42, or 1,260,000,000 gallons. A one acre pond 8 feet deep is about a million gallons. That would make 1,260 one acre ponds 8 feet deep. Each acre is 207 feet by 207 feet. 207feet times 1,260 equals 260,820 feet by 260,820 feet. One linear mile is 5280 feet and divide that into 260,820 to see how many miles this lake of oil would be on each side hypothesizing a square lake. 260,820/5280 equals 49,39 miles on each side. So just picture this roughly 50 miles square lake of OIL burning next to your trailer and you will only be envisioning the daily use of OIL and it happens every day and that is just the OIL and perhaps just 25% of the World energy usage. Move your trailer a few miles away from the heat, mind you.
Click to expand...
I think your math is off a bit(just a bit).
To start with 30 million barrels of oil is closer to the annual world consumption, not daily.
So 1,260,000,000 gallons equal 168,437,500 cubic feet.
168,437,500 cubic feet /8 feet deep, leaves an area of 21,054,067 square feet.
The square root of 21,054,067 equals a square 4589 feet on a side, just under 1 square mile.
 
longview said:
I think your math is off a bit(just a bit).
To start with 30 million barrels of oil is closer to the annual world consumption, not daily.
So 1,260,000,000 gallons equal 168,437,500 cubic feet.
168,437,500 cubic feet /8 feet deep, leaves an area of 21,054,067 square feet.
The square root of 21,054,067 equals a square 4589 feet on a side, just under 1 square mile.
Click to expand...

Saudi Arabia alone produces about 11 million barrels/day. Russia about the same, The USA was also doing the same until the recent price crash that stalled fracking. Those three Nations producing 30 million barrels/day means it is being used daily. There has been a million barrel/day surplus because more than the three Nations mentioned produce OIL. I stand by my math.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_consumption
 
Last edited:
DaveFagan said:
Saudi Arabia alone produces about 11 million barrels/day. Russia about the same, The USA was also doing the same until the recent price crash that stalled fracking. Those three Nations producing 30 million barrels/day means it is being used daily. There has been a million barrel/day surplus because more than the three Nations mentioned produce OIL. I stand by my math.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_consumption
Click to expand...
You are correct on the consumption, The number is in 1000 barrel units,
but very wrong on how big the lake of oil would be.
You said,
So just picture this roughly 50 miles square lake of OIL burning next to your trailer,
Click to expand...
when in reality 1,260,000,000 gallons 8 feet deep, would be under one square mile.
 
longview said:
You are correct on the consumption, The number is in 1000 barrel units,
but very wrong on how big the lake of oil would be.
You said,

when in reality 1,260,000,000 gallons 8 feet deep, would be under one square mile.
Click to expand...

You have failed to use the actual daily consumption from the Wiki link. Of course you're wrong.
 
DaveFagan said:
You have failed to use the actual daily consumption from the Wiki link. Of course you're wrong.
Click to expand...
Consumption does not correct your massive error in the physical size of the lake of oil you
described, presumably for dramatic effect.
I admitted my mistake, can you admit yours?
 
jmotivator said:
The surf is caused by the strong el Nino which is not an AGW event.
Click to expand...

Not just an el Nino. The strongest one in history. How do you know that AGW is not increasing their intensity? We have had nearly 3 feet of rain since November in South Florida and it's our "dry" season. We've had el Nino winters before but not like this.
 
iguanaman said:
Not just an el Nino. The strongest one in history. How do you know that AGW is not increasing their intensity. We have had nearly 3 feet of rain since November in South Florida and it's our "dry" season.
Click to expand...

The strongest one in history you say. I didn't think we'd been recording them quite that long :cool:
 
flogger said:
The strongest one in history you say. I didn't think we'd been recording them quite that long :cool:
Click to expand...

Oh so RECORDED history is not long enough? How do you know that el Nino's are not getting stronger due to AGW? All the computer simulations show an increase in extremes is a symptom of warming. .
 
iguanaman said:
Oh so RECORDED history is not long enough? How do you know that el Nino's are not getting stronger due to AGW? All the computer simulations show an increase in extremes is a symptom of warming. .
Click to expand...

When it comes to our climate the computer simulations predict a lot of things virtually all of which are bunk when compared to observed reality
 
MrT said:
It's funny you should ask about cities on the coastline being submerged...

Pacifica, California: Ground beneath houses falls into sea after severe erosion
Click to expand...

Another funny thing to point out about this silly attempt at emotional argumentation is that that sheer dirt cliff face has been eaten away by surf for hundreds, if not thousands of years. Surf erosion is why there is a cliff there in the first place. Now we have a rather regular occurrence of a natural process and THIS time it is Global Warming™. :roll:

The reason those houses are collapsing into the sea is because they were built in a very stupid place...

920x920.jpg

Hmmm... houses built on edge of sheer dirt cliff... what could possibly go wrong?
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
Not just an el Nino. The strongest one in history. How do you know that AGW is not increasing their intensity? We have had nearly 3 feet of rain since November in South Florida and it's our "dry" season. We've had el Nino winters before but not like this.
Click to expand...

A baseless supposition followed by confusing weather for climate. Not a great argument on your part.

As that article stated, this isn't the first time that the dirt cliff has had a collapse. There is nothing new here.

More to the point, there is a sheer dirt cliff face there because it is eroding into the sea and has been for a VERY long time!
 
jmotivator said:
Another funny thing to point out about this silly attempt at emotional argumentation is that that sheer dirt cliff face has been eaten away by surf for hundreds, if not thousands of years. Surf erosion is why there is a cliff there in the first place. Now we have a rather regular occurrence of a natural process and THIS time it is Global Warming™. :roll:

The reason those houses are collapsing in into the sea is because they were built in a very stupid place.
Click to expand...
There is a ridiculous cycle that happens here on the coast, where people who live in low lying and tidal areas,
get subsidized flood insurance. Every few years a storm wipes out the house, which gets rebuilt bigger.
Living outside the flood plane gets higher rates????
 
longview said:
Consumption does not correct your massive error in the physical size of the lake of oil you
described, presumably for dramatic effect.
I admitted my mistake, can you admit yours?
Click to expand...

98 million barrels times 42 gallons per barrel = 4,116,000,000 or 4.116 billion gallons of water
One acre pond 8 feet deep = 2.5 million gallons of water
4.116 * 10 to 9th divided by 2.5 * 10 to the 6th = 1.6464 * 10 to the 3rd or 1,646.4 acres
40 acres long by 40 acres wide would be 1600 acres
an acre is 207 by 207
40 times 207 equals 8,280 feet
8,280 feet long and 8280 feet wide or 1.6 miles wide by 1.6 miles long lake of OIL, 8 feet deeep, that would have to burn off entirely every day. OK, that's just the oil in the energy mix.
 
flogger said:
When it comes to our climate the computer simulations predict a lot of things virtually all of which are bunk when compared to observed reality
Click to expand...

The fact is that there is no sure way of telling how warming will effect systems like el Nino/la Nina so discounting extremes due to AGW as "bunk" is not logical. What we do know is that weather is taking us on a wild ride currently and extreme weather events are on the rise in the last decade.
Extreme weather already on increase due to climate change, study finds | Environment | The Guardian
 
flogger said:
There are mathematical models that work using established empirical values and then there are climate models which don't do either .

Theres a difference :wink:
Click to expand...

"empirical values" oooooh, that sounds really important. 'empirical values" means it must be true!

I love this, we can't have simple values, we have to have.....wait for the drama to build....ta da! empirical values!
 
jmotivator said:
A baseless supposition followed by confusing weather for climate. Not a great argument on your part.

As that article stated, this isn't the first time that the dirt cliff has had a collapse. There is nothing new here.

More to the point, there is a sheer dirt cliff face there because it is eroding into the sea and has been for a VERY long time!
Click to expand...

It is not correct to describe el Nino as simply "weather". It is a powerful weather pattern that has far reaching and predictable results that are outside of normal weather.
 
DaveFagan said:
98 million barrels times 42 gallons per barrel = 4,116,000,000 or 4.116 billion gallons of water
One acre pond 8 feet deep = 2.5 million gallons of water
4.116 * 10 to 9th divided by 2.5 * 10 to the 6th = 1.6464 * 10 to the 3rd or 1,646.4 acres
40 acres long by 40 acres wide would be 1600 acres
an acre is 207 by 207
40 times 207 equals 8,280 feet
8,280 feet long and 8280 feet wide or 1.6 miles wide by 1.6 miles long lake of OIL, 8 feet deeep, that would have to burn off entirely every day. OK, that's just the oil in the energy mix.
Click to expand...
Well here is your comment from post #57,
The OIL fire alone of 30 million barrels per day would make an open fire equivalent to a lake about 49 miles by 49 miles and eight feet deep, every day. 30 million barrels @ 42 gallons per barrel, 30 x 10 to the sixth times 42, or 1,260,000,000 gallons. A one acre pond 8 feet deep is about a million gallons. That would make 1,260 one acre ponds 8 feet deep. Each acre is 207 feet by 207 feet. 207feet times 1,260 equals 260,820 feet by 260,820 feet. One linear mile is 5280 feet and divide that into 260,820 to see how many miles this lake of oil would be on each side hypothesizing a square lake. 260,820/5280 equals 49,39 miles on each side. So just picture this roughly 50 miles square lake of OIL burning next to your trailer and you will only be envisioning the daily use of OIL and it happens every day and that is just the OIL and perhaps just 25% of the World energy usage. Move your trailer a few miles away from the heat, mind you.
Click to expand...
So now you have changed from 30 million barrels to 98 million barrels.
Your new calculations seem spot on for 98 million barrels in a 1600 acre lake@8 feet deep.
Quite a bit less than your earlier calculations for 30 million barrels, which you said was a lake
of roughly 50 miles square.
FYI 1600 acres is about 2.5 Square miles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom