[Petrochemicals (OP)]

The recent severe hurricane Laura which struck Louisiana and Texas was reported to be the second most-rapidly strengthening storm in recorded history, moving from Category 1 to Category 5 in just 1 day.
- The cause was water in the Gulf of Mexico which was just 1 or 2 degrees warmer than average (that is degrees Fahrenheit).

For those who say that 1 or 2 degrees change (degrees Celsius) will have no impact on them - well, their air-conditioning no longer works since the storm blew the roof off their house and knocked down the power lines...

Funnily enough laura was the strongest storm to hit louisianna, the other  being in the 1800s during the mini ice age. Cooling is a major part of hurricaine formation.

[Bored chemist]

Funnily enough laura was the strongest storm to hil louisianna, the other  being in the 1800s during the mini ice age. Cooling is a major part of hurricaine formation.

Really?
There was me thinking it was this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1893_Cheniere_Caminada_hurricane
Which happened in 1893 and that put it about 30 years (or more(definitions vary) after the little ice age.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

But those are only facts, and you have announced that you are not interested in them.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

Ok so it warmed up after february, but the summer was poor, all following the patterns of sudden atmospheric volatility and instability brought about by contracting gasses. SNOWY WINTER TO FOLLOW

Usa

https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-usa-grains-braun/column-crop-watch-yield-potential-hangs-on-despite-widespread-rain-needs-idUKKCN2570RO

Europe north

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-53921121

Europe central had a better time of it.

https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/science-update/reduced-yield-outlook-summer-crops-due-dry-conditions

But all in all  not a good year (just like Donald Trump {topical reference to his spat with the tyre company august 2020}.)

Yes its getting colder, now anywhoo

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/uk-weather-beaches-empty-brits-22600270

[Bored chemist]

Ok so it warmed up after february, but the summer was poor, all following the patterns of sudden atmospheric volatility and instability brought about by contracting gasses. SNOWY WINTER TO FOLLOW

Usa

https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-usa-grains-braun/column-crop-watch-yield-potential-hangs-on-despite-widespread-rain-needs-idUKKCN2570RO

Europe north

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-53921121

Europe central had a better time of it.

https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/science-update/reduced-yield-outlook-summer-crops-due-dry-conditions

But all in all  not a good year (just like Donald Trump {topical reference to his spat with the tyre company august 2020}.)

Yes its getting colder, now anywhoo

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/uk-weather-beaches-empty-brits-22600270

Congratulations! you have discovered weather.

[Janus]

"If by mans activity during the hours of daylight (point of the earth facing the sun) applies force to the surface of the earth, whilst by the hours of darkness he is static, would this activity have an effect (however small)  to permanently alter the distance of the earth from the sun"

No.
The laws of momentum conservation make this impossible.
Essentially, nothing on earth can change the earth's orbit, because it would have nothing to push against.

The detonation of a Tsar Bomb at the Mariana's trench, at the bottom of the pacific ocean would surely move the planet out of its current position...
Needless to say, gigantic tsunamis would kill most of humans on the process witch given the facts is not entirely a bad thing...

Nope.  In order to have an effect on the Earth's orbit, you have to eject something from the Earth at greater than escape velocity. (~11 km/s)   A Tsar bomb at the bottom of the ocean would have its energy dissipated by the Ocean with none of it reaching escape velocity.   
And even if all of the energy was somehow converted to orbital energy, the change would be insignificant. 50 megatons is roughly 200 petajoules, but the Earth's total orbital energy is roughly 2.67 x 10^17 petajoules.
The energy of one Tsar bomb is about enough to increase the Earth's orbit by about 12 micrometers. Again, that's assuming 100% conversion of Bomb energy to orbital energy.

[Kryptid]

Yes its getting colder, now anywhoo

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/uk-weather-beaches-empty-brits-22600270

Should I assume you have something better than local weather data to back up that assertion? Such as global temperature averages over the decades?

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

Yes its getting colder, now anywhoo

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/uk-weather-beaches-empty-brits-22600270

Should I assume you have something better than local weather data to back up that assertion? Such as global temperature averages over the decades?

Me standing outside, saying to my neighbour "bloody 'ell Sid, it aint 'arf nippy!"  to which he replied "too right, propper brass monkeys tonight pete "

[Bored chemist]

Yes its getting colder, now anywhoo

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/uk-weather-beaches-empty-brits-22600270

Should I assume you have something better than local weather data to back up that assertion? Such as global temperature averages over the decades?

Me standing outside, saying to my neighbour "bloody 'ell Sid, it aint 'arf nippy!"  to which he replied "too right, propper brass monkeys tonight pete "

So, that'sa "No" then.

[Kryptid]

Me standing outside, saying to my neighbour "bloody 'ell Sid, it aint 'arf nippy!"  to which he replied "too right, propper brass monkeys tonight pete "

That didn't answer my question.

[Bored chemist]

Me standing outside, saying to my neighbour "bloody 'ell Sid, it aint 'arf nippy!"  to which he replied "too right, propper brass monkeys tonight pete "

That didn't answer my question.

He doesn't answer questions. He ignores any sensible people and brags about  putting them on his ignore list.

I wonder what he will do when he grows up.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

Me standing outside, saying to my neighbour "bloody 'ell Sid, it aint 'arf nippy!"  to which he replied "too right, propper brass monkeys tonight pete "

That didn't answer my question.

Your question is incompatable with the theory of change within a decade! It is an inconvenient truth.

Would you rather 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/thermometers-climate-change/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2020/06/03/trump-protests-fascism/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/08/10/liberals-are-terrible-at-arguing-with-conservatives-heres-how-they-can-get-better/

I dont know why the washington post crops up so much, it must be because i clicked on it prior ?

[Kryptid]

Your question is incompatable with the theory of change within a decade! It is an inconvenient truth.

You're aware that climate change data goes back well over a decade, aren't you? If the global temperature averages are higher now than they were 100 years ago, then there obviously had to be at least one decade in which temperature changed. We have more than enough evidence to demonstrate the reality that the planet heated up significantly during the 20th century.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/thermometers-climate-change/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2020/06/03/trump-protests-fascism/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/08/10/liberals-are-terrible-at-arguing-with-conservatives-heres-how-they-can-get-better/

Of those three links, only the first one appears relevant (and it supports the idea of global warming). I can't even look at the third one (it says I have to subscribe to do that), but the title looks like it's about politics, not science.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

Would you rather 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/thermometers-climate-change/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2020/06/03/trump-protests-fascism/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/08/10/liberals-are-terrible-at-arguing-with-conservatives-heres-how-they-can-get-better/

Of those three links, only the first one appears relevant (and it supports the idea of global warming). I can't even look at the third one (it says I have to subscribe to do that), but the title looks like it's about politics, not science.

Yes, you would rather.

[Kryptid]

Yes, you would rather.

Can you please complete that sentence fragment so that I know what you are talking about?

[puppypower]

Like i said before, even if we assume the heating of the earth is due to manmade affects, manmade global warming is still a very unique event in the history of the earth. There is no evidence that this has ever happened before. This means we only have a single data point; singular event, and therefore we cannot know if we are drawing the correct line through this single data point. We are observing heating, but beyond that things, are up in the air

Guessing the slope of a line, though a single one data point, can be driven by things other than science; opinions or politics. If you could get a big paying job, doing the science you love, with the best tools in the industry, would you be willing to play company politics, so you can keep the gravy train moving and have time to move up the ladder? Or would you walk out to flip burgers so you can maintain your integrity? That is the choice, with the slope not having to be too far off, to have the desired political affects.

As another example of this, does anyone remember cold fusion? One research team appeared to have induced fusion using chemical means. This was a single data point; unique event. Others tried to repeat the experiments, to get second and third data event points, but there was no successful duplication. Science did not just makeup a slope with the one data point. This was  because nobody was willing to invest all the money and direction needed to justify that slope. Politics did not benefit by just an ever changing illusion of cold fusion; virtual second data point implied by the slope de jour. 

Another problem is besides man made global warming being a single data event, the solutions being offered to appease this potential problem, will cause more harm than the slow boat problem itself. If we got rid of fossil fuels to appease the virtual second data point; slope, the ripple affect will create a world depression with mass starvation. More people will be injured than the global warming will do in that short period of time.

The Corona pandemic was just a test balloon in terms of social consequences of disrupting the supply chain. Lack of electricity and gasoline, without alternative in place, would cripple the supply chain. These planning is not being done by scientists, but by liberal artists and lawyers to create a virtue single data point solution. They will try to get science on board to create a nice slope around the magic virtual point.

[Kryptid]

This means we only have a single data point; singular event, and therefore we cannot know if we are drawing the correct line through this single data point. We are observing heating, but beyond that things, are up in the air

Global warming is not a singular event. It is an ongoing process with many data points collected over decades of research by many different groups of people.

[Bored chemist]

One research team appeared to have induced fusion using chemical means.

If only one research team had found a rise in global temperatures, or if the temperature had only been measured at one specific time. you would have a valid argument.

But there's a large amount of data and it broadly agrees. (You wouldn't expect perfect agreement because there are other factors involved).

The Corona pandemic was just a test balloon in terms of social consequences of disrupting the supply chain.

No, it was (and is) a viral pandemic.

These planning is not being done by scientists, but by liberal artists and lawyers to create a virtue single data point solution.

It's hardly relevant to the topic, but illustrative of your grasp of facts that your statement there is more or less the opposite of what happened.
The scientists (post 2009) came up with a pandemic preparedness plan.
The artists like Boris decided to defund it because "pandemics don't happen".

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
« Reply #156 on: 02/09/2020 16:57:56 »
You are ignoring this user. Show me the post.

Once again Chemist, your usual factual abrupt self, an improvement on times gone by, I like it, keep up the good work.

[Bored chemist]

Once again Chemist, your usual factual abrupt self,

I don't have a monopoly you know; you are also allowed to use facts.
You should try it.

an improvement on times gone by,

Not really a change from times gone by.
I was always pretty good at using facts.

Give it a go.
Try answering this using facts.

Again chemist, another good post by you, alot better than your earlier posts which seemed to wish to get round an inconvenient truth,

There's no actual evidence to support that view of yours,  is there?

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

You are ignoring this user. Show me the post.

Very much so, exactly what i wanted to hear.