Hell nearly froze over....

AggieMike88

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
20,805
Location
Denton, TX
Display Name

Display name:
The original "I don't know it all" of aviation.
It Snowed in the Sahara Desert....

http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/09/africa/sahara-snow-trnd/index.html

180109135024-02-sahara-snow-0107-exlarge-169.jpg
 
With all the frigid weather we've been having, Hell (MI) is definitely frozen over
 
Climate change is absolutely real. You can hold farts, eat vegan, drive electric, and live on solar, but won’t put a dent in slowing down the warming. Until “green” technology can keep up the worlds population, the environment will continue to decline. The people in charge need to do something before a third (unspeakable) option becomes mandatory...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Of course it is. The climate has been changing since the dawn of time. I'm just amazed that there are so many ignorant people in the world who are just now realizing that fact. :rolleyes:
When you explain how 21% oxygen = 21% water in the air, you can call people ignorant.
 
Here we go - haven't had a good Global Climate Change "discussion" here for awhile- has gotten ugly in the past.
I'll be interested to follow along and see if there's still a lot of heads buried in the sands of political self righteousness and conspiracy theories.
IBTL.
 
Here we go - haven't had a good Global Climate Change "discussion" here for awhile- has gotten ugly in the past.
I'll be interested to follow along and see if there's still a lot of heads buried in the sands of political self righteousness and conspiracy theories.
IBTL.
All of that, and people making up their own facts, and staying barely just one side of making a personal attack with their replies, and confusing weather and climate.
 
It's changing (the climate, I mean) - probably a bit faster than usual, and it may be us accelerating it. Or not. And we'll probably deal with it, but might not. It'd be interesting to follow if I was younger. Might advise my grandkids against ocean front property. It could make for some sporting competetion in a few more decades. But it's likely people who look a lot like us will still be muddling about in the next century. And a few more after that, too.

Maybe we'll come up lucky and the next "natural" ice age will kick off . . .
 
It's changing (the climate, I mean) - probably a bit faster than usual, and it may be us accelerating it. Or not. And we'll probably deal with it, but might not. It'd be interesting to follow if I was younger. Might advise my grandkids against ocean front property. It could make for some sporting competetion in a few more decades. But it's likely people who look a lot like us will still be muddling about in the next century. And a few more after that, too.

Maybe we'll come up lucky and the next "natural" ice age will kick off . . .

When I was in high school back in the late 70s, "scientists" were all worked up about the coming Ice Age and global famine caused by massive cooling. Right now was supposed to be much colder, with significant loss of global vegetation, cold-related harvest failure and falling sea levels due to accumulating polar ice caps . . . .

Then Al Gore invented the internet and convinced the world that we are going to melt the ice caps and all drown instead.
 
It's changing (the climate, I mean) - probably a bit faster than usual, and it may be us accelerating it. Or not. And we'll probably deal with it, but might not. It'd be interesting to follow if I was younger. Might advise my grandkids against ocean front property. It could make for some sporting competetion in a few more decades. But it's likely people who look a lot like us will still be muddling about in the next century. And a few more after that, too.

Maybe we'll come up lucky and the next "natural" ice age will kick off . . .
Or maybe we'll keep it from becoming full-fledged.

Most climate scientists are convinced at this point that we are the main accelerant. There are confounding factors however that make "attribution", as it's called, a sticky problem. Internal climate system variability on the multi-century scale being probably the least well understood. We just haven't had the tools to directly measure surface temperature all over the globe for very long, and using proxies carries with it unavoidable uncertainties. Personally I think the best we can say is that our effect is somewhere between 30% and 80% of what's been measured. But there may be recent research that I'm unaware of that pins that down better. With almost everything of note behind paywalls these days and my institution's library wanting relevance to faculty members' own research or teaching interests to order journal articles, I've all but given up on trying to follow the literature.
 
At this point who cares?

The rest of the world has moved on. Either:

a) Turns our we are wrong - climate change DO exist, the rest of the world end up boycotting us, and we become as relevant to the world stage as Malawi. We wouldn’t be able to afford burning more fossil fuels, which solves the climate problem.

-or-

b) We’re right - climate change does not exist - but meanwhile other governments spent trillions creating a cheap and abundant energy infrastructure that we cannot compete with, so we become as relevant to the world stage as Malawi. But hey - we feel good about being right. I’m sure our grandkids will thank us.

Either way - the planet will be fine.
 
Last edited:
Nowhere in the world have I seen such anti-science, anti-fact, "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge" attitudes as I have in the US. It's such a world leader in so many areas, I'm astounded how closed minded so many of the, usually more right wing and less educated, people are. (I lean right myself, so this isn't a political dig, just a fact).
 
300 million in wx related damage in this nation this year. The cost of anthropogenic climate change. Better get used to it.
It's a good deal, then. Implementing Paris would have cost us $2.5 trillion GDP. So let's just pay the 300 million a year and get on with our lives. We can use the rest of the money to eliminate malaria, cure AIDS, feed every hungry child in the world, and travel to mars.
 
Last edited:
Nowhere in the world have I seen such anti-science, anti-fact, "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge" attitudes as I have in the US. It's such a world leader in so many areas, I'm astounded how closed minded so many of the, usually more right wing and less educated, people are. (I lean right myself, so this isn't a political dig, just a fact).
Maybe we just have the ability to do a cost/benefit analysis. Whether you believe that AGW is a big problem or not, making people like Elon Musk and Al Gore richer is not a good solution.
 
Maybe we just have the ability to do a cost/benefit analysis. Whether you believe that AGW is a big problem or not, making people like Elon Musk and Al Gore richer is not a good solution.

Yeah, ageing conservative men in the US are probably the only people in the world who are smart enough to see through the lies. Sure.

If people want to claim it's not worth doing anything about, then fine, but the ones who claim that it's all a conspiracy? I don't even know where to start. I put them in the same camp as Chemtrail and Flat Earth believers, and anti-vaxxers.
 
Yeah, ageing conservative men in the US are probably the only people in the world who are smart enough to see through the lies. Sure.

If people want to claim it's not worth doing anything about, then fine, but the ones who claim that it's all a conspiracy? I don't even know where to start. I put them in the same camp as Chemtrail and Flat Earth believers, and anti-vaxxers.
I have proof the earth is round. If it were flat, cats would have knocked everything off the edge by now.
 
When I was in high school back in the late 70s, "scientists" were all worked up about the coming Ice Age and global famine caused by massive cooling. Right now was supposed to be much colder, with significant loss of global vegetation, cold-related harvest failure and falling sea levels due to accumulating polar ice caps . . . .

Then Al Gore invented the internet and convinced the world that we are going to melt the ice caps and all drown instead.

Same in the early 70s.

"Green house gasses are going to block UV rays and the earth will freeze up solid..!!!"

"Cows are farting and going to freeze the earth.!!! Everyone run away..!!!"

"Dave's not here, man..."
 
Hell, along with the rest of southeast Michigan, has had a reprieve. Temperatures near sixty today, and I'd bet there is water flowing over the dam site before dusk. The local lakes are beginning to look questionable about being safe to go on.

The January thaw is welcome. I'm getting older and can no longer take the bitter cold.
 
This should go in "let's make Friday Joke Day but is appropriate here.


THERMODYNAMICS OF HELL



An actual question given on a University of Washington Chemistry midterm.



Is Hell exothermic, (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)?

Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle’s Law (gas cools when it expands and heats up when it is compressed) or some variant.

One student, however, wrote the following:


“First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate that souls are moving into Hell, and the rate they are leaving.

I think we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave Therefore no souls are leaving.

As for how many souls are entering Hell, some religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you WILL go to Hell. Since there are more than one of these religions, and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially.

Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell, because Boyle’s Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionally as souls are added.

This gives two possibilities:

1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.

2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.

So, which is it? If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my freshman year “…that it will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you”; and take into account the fact that I still have not succeeded in having sexual relations with her, then #2 cannot be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is endothermic and will not freeze.”

The student received the only “A” given
 
It's a good deal, then. Implementing Paris would have cost us $2.5 trillion GDP. So let's just pay the 300 million a year and get on with our lives. We can use the rest of the money to eliminate malaria, cure AIDS, feed every hungry child in the world, and travel to mars.
That's 0.3 trillion just this year in this country, Sparky. Way more world wide, and its going to continue. What we'd have to do for the Paris accord is going to seem like chicken feed by the time we're done dealing with all the natural disasters.
 
At this point who cares?

The rest of the world has moved on. Either:

a) Turns our we are wrong - climate change DO exist, the rest of the world end up boycotting us, and we become as relevant to the world stage as Malawi. We wouldn’t be able to afford burning more fossil fuels, which solves the climate problem.

-or-

b) We’re right - climate change does not exist - but meanwhile other governments spent trillions creating a cheap and abundant energy infrastructure that we cannot compete with, so we become as relevant to the world stage as Malawi. But hey - we feel good about being right. I’m sure our grandkids will thank us.

Either way - the planet will be fine.

c) The climate alarmists are right, the temperature rises 100 degrees, all the ice melts and floods all the land and the planet become uninhabitable. Mankind dies out. Eventually the balance is restored as the next epoch appears and the next species of critter becomes dominant.

That is a very natural outcome. It has happened multiple times already through natural causes. I would say we're more likely to have something like this (example, asteroid strike) happen than for global climate change to exterminate our species.
 
That's 0.3 trillion just this year in this country, Sparky. Way more world wide, and its going to continue. What we'd have to do for the Paris accord is going to seem like chicken feed by the time we're done dealing with all the natural disasters.
The low estimate for complying with Kyoto was an "insignificant" 1% of US GDP. That's a mere $180 Billion per year. And Kyoto was cheap compared to Paris.
 
That's 0.3 trillion just this year in this country, Sparky. Way more world wide, and its going to continue. What we'd have to do for the Paris accord is going to seem like chicken feed by the time we're done dealing with all the natural disasters.

No, that is 0.3 Billion, or 0.0003 Trillion. We can pay 300 milion a year for a thousand years to hit 3 Trillion.

Some people just shouldn't do math in their heads . . . .
 
Nowhere in the world have I seen such anti-science, anti-fact, "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge" attitudes as I have in the US. It's such a world leader in so many areas, I'm astounded how closed minded so many of the, usually more right wing and less educated, people are. (I lean right myself, so this isn't a political dig, just a fact).
You need to get around more - I've found willful ignorance to be universal. Topics vary, but nothing remarkable about U.S., as opposed to Europe or Asia, or anywhere else when it comes to being unswayed by facts.
 
At this point who cares?

The rest of the world has moved on. Either:

a) Turns our we are wrong - climate change DO exist, the rest of the world end up boycotting us, and we become as relevant to the world stage as Malawi. We wouldn’t be able to afford burning more fossil fuels, which solves the climate problem.

-or-

b) We’re right - climate change does not exist - but meanwhile other governments spent trillions creating a cheap and abundant energy infrastructure that we cannot compete with, so we become as relevant to the world stage as Malawi. But hey - we feel good about being right. I’m sure our grandkids will thank us.

Either way - the planet will be fine.
The rest of the world can't agree on boycotting a meglomanical despot on the verge of nuclear weapon development and delivery. . .I'm mortal lock certain the rest of the world will do what serves their short term interest, just like always.

So far there hasn't been a tech advance that hasn't been emulated/copied/pirated/etc. Solar cells, wind power, fracking, battery tech, none of it stays secret very long. . .regardless of who "discovers" it, eveyone ends up with it. . .
 
I've found willful ignorance to be universal. Topics vary, but nothing remarkable about U.S., as opposed to Europe or Asia, or anywhere else when it comes to being unswayed by facts.

I've been around plenty, but you make a good point. I've not found it to quite such a high level, or done with such pride, as in the US; but part of that is the fact that the media loves to cover the US side of things more than elsewhere.
 
Diffrent impressions, then. . .I found the level of national arrogance in some asian countries to rise to, and above, the U.S. level. Western europeans, especially on the left, can match any nation in intolerance of non-conforming ideas. Anything like our first amendment is beyond their cultural reach right now.
 
Back
Top