Climate Change

[ralis]

1 hour ago, Jonesboy said:

 

So, reviewing the science is now a bad thing?

 

Such a horrible person he must be!!!

 

He should just believe what he is told to believe like everyone else!!

 

I see you believing propaganda without any critical analysis which you refuse to state here. Furthermore, Trump is selecting his own dilettantes who are already biased against the initial causes of AGW.

 

Nonlinear dynamic complex systems are sensitive to small initial conditions in which the systematic changes are greater than the initial conditions. E.g, chaos theory by Edward Lorenz or read Steven Strogatz.

[Jonesboy]

2 minutes ago, voidisyinyang said:

 

yeah you already posted his vid.

Since he's a physicist does he talk about this?

physics today article to the page on

 

"collisional broadening" due to quantum frequency absorbent coefficient increasing from increased CO2. https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf

Or is your Corporate Junk science goon just taking smack about global warming? haha.

So when you gonna post some peer-reviewed science so we can comment on it?

I'll post some for you.  So Raymond Pierrehumbert - he was at University of Chicago and now he's at Oxford. He's a physics professor but he specializes in global warming.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299353462_How_to_decarbonize_Look_to_Sweden

 

Notice he is not "debating" whether human-induced global warming is real or not.

On the contrary to "debating" whether anthropogenic global warming is real - he is arguing instead that global warming is now ABRUPT

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277978548_Feedback_temperature_dependence_determines_the_risk_of_high_warming_FEEDBACK_TEMPERATURE_DEPENDENCE

 

 

Sorry but historical data show no warning at all. So no need for at that drastic change.

 

Abrubt is what climate Change people are saying is what is happening right? The sea is rising, species are dying the weather is more extreme and the planet is getting hotter.

 

None of those things are happening.

[voidisyinyang]

2 minutes ago, Jonesboy said:

 

Sorry but historical data show no warning at all. So no need for at that drastic change.

 

Abrubt is what climate Change people are saying is what is happening right? The sea is rising, species are dying the weather is more extreme and the planet is getting hotter.

 

None of those things are happening.

I completely honor your opinion. Everyone has a right to their own opinion. Like the "flat earth meme."

[Jonesboy]

3 minutes ago, ralis said:

 

I see you believing propaganda without any critical analysis which you refuse to state here. Furthermore, Trump is selecting his own dilettantes who are already biased against the initial causes of AGW.

 

Nonlinear dynamic complex systems are sensitive to small initial conditions in which the systematic changes are greater than the initial conditions. E.g, chaos theory by Edward Lorenz or read Steven Strogatz.

 

There is nothing that has been published for one to believe or not believe. Just you saying before anything has been done that it is all lies.

 

Gotta love the objectivity 🙄

Edited February 24, 2019 by Jonesboy

[ralis]

3 minutes ago, Jonesboy said:

 

Sorry but historical data show no warning at all. So no need for at that drastic change.

 

Abrubt is what climate Change people are saying is what is happening right? The sea is rising, species are dying the weather is more extreme and the planet is getting hotter.

 

None of those things are happening.

 

Sea levels are rising in Florida as well as other coastal areas around the planet. Ocean levels are not flat but are asymmetric due to water pressure and affect shorelines differently.

 

https://sealevelrise.org/states/florida/

[ralis]

9 minutes ago, Jonesboy said:

 

There is nothing that has been published for one to believe or not believe. Just you saying before anything has been done that it is all lies.

 

Gotta love the objectivity 🙄

 

I am a liar? To be quite honest, I seriously doubt you have the university coursework to even comment critically on this important subject. Perhaps math and science are not your forte? If not, just admit it.

 

Why not post documentation from your Nobel Prize dude or some other dilettante for review here? 

Edited February 24, 2019 by ralis

[voidisyinyang]

17 minutes ago, windwalker said:

 

I guess not, but good try.

Which  Royal Navy submarine had an accident under the ice.

Oh I like trick questions when you don't really want to know the answer.

So you can't google? Must be rough using the interwebs!!

I'll help you out.

https://sci-hub.tw/downloads/2019-02-25/fc/wadhams2009.pdf#view=FitH

So here's Wadham's pdf report.

I can transcribe the details for you.

OK that is his published report on the first circumnavigation of the Americas via the Hudson-70.

But he does not mention the accident. OH wait he calls it an "incident."

"port-side generator exploded"

So that ship was not nuclear but it did go to the arctic.

 

 

Quote

 

Near death on a nuclear sub didn't stop my work on Arctic ice

The Arctic has given ocean physicist Peter Wadhams moments of heart-stopping danger and magnificent beauty. Now he is watching it disappear forever

 

I'm still not sure what you are "not" looking for? Wadhams has been to the arctic studying the ice - 50 times.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/aug/21/farewell-to-ice-peter-wadhams-review-climate-change

Quote

a world authority on sea ice has taken Peter Wadhams to the polar zones more than 50 times, travelling on foot and by plane, ship, snowmobile and several nuclear-powered submarines of the Royal Navy.

 

Edited February 24, 2019 by voidisyinyang

[voidisyinyang]

5 hours ago, ralis said:

 

And, all the tax cuts to the extremely wealthy are going right into the markets!

Yes and Raygun made "contributions" to Universities - as corporate 100% tax deductions - so then the corporate junk science just started cranking out. I exposed 300 corporations doing "research" at University of Minnesota.

[voidisyinyang]

27 minutes ago, Jonesboy said:

 

There is nothing that has been published for one to believe or not believe. Just you saying before anything has been done that it is all lies.

 

Gotta love the objectivity 🙄

Actually the application of chaos science to global warming is well known. I read about it in 2006 - but when "The Economist" (Rothschilds) magazine reviewed the book I read - by Professor Robert Nadeau - then the magazine review could not even MENTION chaos math. Hilarious.

 

Quote

 

The Environmental Endgame: Mainstream Economics, Ecological ...

 

https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0813538122

Robert L. Nadeau, ‎Robert Nadeau - 2006 - ‎Business & Economics

Mainstream Economics, Ecological Disaster, and Human Survival Robert L. Nadeau, Robert Nadeau ... 40, 41,128 chaos theory, 17, 50 “Chicago School” of economics, 157 China: effect of climate changes in, 24, 29; global warming and, 14; ...

 

and I have corresponded with math professor Steve Strogatz - he admits that science now is inherently "authoritarian" because of these supercomputer chaos models being based on iterations that are inherently unpredictable.

And even still - as I mentioned - ecology is too complex. This is Nadeau's point as well.

How well can we predict climate change? The forecast for our future may lie at the intersection of chaos theory and a new breed of supercomputing, Tim Palmer explains in his public lecture from Perimeter Institute on May 4, 2016.

 

 

[Bindi]

The Australian Government doesn't seem to be too confused about the issue - the Parliament of Australia site has this page titled Sea levels are rising.

 

 

Edited February 25, 2019 by Bindi

[ralis]

30 minutes ago, voidisyinyang said:

Yes and Raygun made "contributions" to Universities - as corporate 100% tax deductions - so then the corporate junk science just started cranking out. I exposed 300 corporations doing "research" at University of Minnesota.

 

Big Ten schools being AAU top tier research institutes are recipients of billions in research money in which there are approximately 50 member schools in the world. It is no surprise that corporations want to get a large slice of that money pie. 

 

[windwalker]

2 hours ago, voidisyinyang said:

Oh I like trick questions when you don't really want to know the answer.

So you can't google? Must be rough using the interwebs!!

I'll help you out.

https://sci-hub.tw/downloads/2019-02-25/fc/wadhams2009.pdf#view=FitH

So here's Wadham's pdf report.

I can transcribe the details for you.

OK that is his published report on the first circumnavigation of the Americas via the Hudson-70.

But he does not mention the accident. OH wait he calls it an "incident."

"port-side generator exploded"

So that ship was not nuclear but it did go to the arctic.

 

 

 

So lets see.. It wasn't a nuclear sub 

reported royal navy sub accidents  1970s

 

"10 Jan 1970:Undergoing the first reactor refueling at a British yard, the Royal Navy attack submarine HMS Dreadnought encounters problems while docked at Rosyth, Scotland. The serious problems delay the completion of its scheduled refit for at least ten months."

 

nope not under the ice.....mmmm what could it be, where did it happen 

 

"Near death on a nuclear sub didn't stop my work on Arctic ice"

 

Late 1950s to late 1980s

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_submarines_of_the_Royal_Navy#Late_1950s_to_late_1980s

 

 

 

It ,wasn't a nuclear sub ,  it didn't happen...did it?

I had asked because such accidents after such a time are usually published and well known.

Now it turns out it was a ship with a "generator" problem   

 

"So that ship was not nuclear but it did go to the arctic."

 

many ships go to and have went to the arctic,  why would one say it was a "nuclear sub" when it wasn't?

Edited February 25, 2019 by windwalker

[voidisyinyang]

1 hour ago, windwalker said:

 

 

So lets see.. It wasn't a nuclear sub 

reported royal navy sub accidents  1970s

 

"10 Jan 1970:Undergoing the first reactor refueling at a British yard, the Royal Navy attack submarine HMS Dreadnought encounters problems while docked at Rosyth, Scotland. The serious problems delay the completion of its scheduled refit for at least ten months."

 

nope not under the ice.....mmmm what could it be, where did it happen 

 

"Near death on a nuclear sub didn't stop my work on Arctic ice"

 

Late 1950s to late 1980s

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_submarines_of_the_Royal_Navy#Late_1950s_to_late_1980s

 

 

 

It ,wasn't a nuclear sub ,  it didn't happen...did it?

I had asked because such accidents after such a time are usually published and well known.

Now it turns out it was a ship with a "generator" problem   

 

"So that ship was not nuclear but it did go to the arctic."

 

many ships go to and have went to the arctic,  why would one say it was a "nuclear sub" when it wasn't?

 

Oh my reply to you was kind of complicated (i.e. confusing).

His published article reported an "incident" on a ship - but that was not the same "incident" on the nuclear sub  as the article was titled.

Clearly you're not really interested in his arctic ice research are you.

You really want to know about his nuclear sub accident in the arctic don't you?

Again maybe you can't find more details? I'll look for you.

 

OK I'll explain what I did - so maybe in the future you can figure out how to look stuff up on your own.

I copy and pasted the title of the article - into the search engine.

The results showed that the nuclear sub HMS Tireless had an accident.

So then I searched Peter Wadhams and HMS Tireless.

'Unacceptable' errors led to deaths in fire aboard sub on Arctic patrol

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/jun/13/military.arctic
 

Quote

 

At the time of the accident HMS Tireless had been taking part in an Anglo-American operation beneath the Arctic ice. After the fire the submarine was forced to surface through an area of thin ice. The injured sailor was airlifted by the Alaska National Guard to an airforce base in Anchorage.

 

ok now we switch to Peter Wadhams

 

Peter Wadhams on submarine HMS Tireless - damtp - University of ...

 

www.damtp.cam.ac.uk › ... › Polar Ocean Physics Group › Research within the Group

Prof Peter Wadhams on submarine HMS Tireless March 2007. Professor Peter Haynes, Head of Department, writes: Professor Peter Wadhams' research ...

Berks at NERC snub Peter Wadhams, again - Telegraph

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/.../Berks-at-NERC-snub-Peter-Wadhams-again.html

Sep 4, 2007 - And he was back aboard HMS Tireless in March, using sonar equipment to check on the current state of the ice, when the accident happened.

'Arctic to be ice-free in summer in 20 years' - Rediff.com India News

 

https://www.rediff.com/news/report/arctic-to-be-ice-free-in...say.../20091015.htm

Oct 15, 2009 - ... the measurements of ice thickness recorded by HMS Tireless, a Royal ... appearance of the planet," timesonline.com quoted Peter Wadhams, ...

 

So same nuclear sub - an accident under the arctic - around the same time - most likely then that was the same incident.

 

 

 

Quote

 

Wadhams is most famous among scientists as the man whose researches aboard a British sub in 1996 revealed that Arctic ice had thinned by 40 per cent since the 1970s.

 

And he was back aboard HMS Tireless in March, using sonar equipment to check on the current state of the ice, when the accident happened. Happily, the eggshell-thin ice saved the stricken sub by making it easier for it to smash its way to the surface.

 

 

and now back to his research results:

 

 

 

Quote

 

 

Arctic Ice Cover, Ice Thickness and Tipping Points - NCBI - NIH

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3357827/

 

by P Wadhams - ‎2012 - ‎Cited by 72 - ‎Related articles

Jan 19, 2012 - Peter Wadhams ^{corresponding author} ... The figure also shows the March 2007 track of HMS Tireless, which carried out a multibeam sonar ...

North Pole ice-free by summer 2020 - The Australian

 

https://www.theaustralian.com.au › news › world

Oct 15, 2009 - ... were consistent, revealing that the findings by HMS Tireless in 2007 were ... Peter Wadhams, Professor of Ocean Physics at Cambridge, said ...

 

 

So I hope that helps you figure out which nuclear sub it was.

 

Edited February 25, 2019 by voidisyinyang

[windwalker]

2 minutes ago, voidisyinyang said:

 

Oh my reply to you was kind of complicated (i.e. confusing).

His published article reported an "incident" on a ship - but that was not the same "incident" on the nuclear sub  as the article was titled.

Clearly you're not really interested in his arctic ice research are you.

You really want to know about his nuclear sub accident in the arctic don't you?

Again maybe you can't find more details? I'll look for you.

 

 

Should one be interested in "his" work ?

Apparently there never was a nuclear sub accident that he was involved in 

but some like to use it for headlines 

 

 

 

[voidisyinyang]

2 minutes ago, windwalker said:

 

Should one be interested in "his" work ?

Apparently there never was a nuclear sub accident that he was involved in 

but some like to use it for headlines 

 

 

 

OK I just posted several links above - that detail which nuclear sub it was and details about the accident.

So are you saying you think it was all staged or something?

 

Quote

 

Prof Peter Wadhams on submarine HMS Tireless
March 2007

Professor Peter Haynes, Head of Department, writes:
Professor Peter Wadhams' research involves travelling under the Arctic ice in submarines to measure ice thickness. In March 2007 he was under the ice on the submarine HMS Tireless when an explosion killed two members of the crew.

 

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/pop/research/tireless.html

That's from University of Cambridge.

If you think they're lying - maybe send them an email to ask for more evidence.

But I'm sure we can find more evidence.

 

Edited February 25, 2019 by voidisyinyang

[windwalker]

2 minutes ago, voidisyinyang said:

OK I just posted several links above - that detail which nuclear sub it was and details about the accident.

So are you saying you think it was all staged or something?

 

 

post from the links 

 

what sub was it

when did it happen

what happened

 

pretty simple....should be easy....

 

[voidisyinyang]

Just now, windwalker said:

 

 

post from the links 

 

what sub was it

when did it happen

what happened

 

pretty simple....should be easy....

 

So you can write - but can you read?
I already posted the name of the sub and when it happened and where.

I'll REPEAT this information but from a different source to corroborate it.

https://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=28464

You must be using a cell phone or something.

Quote

The Royal Navy submarine HMS Tireless,  what sub was it participating in the Joint U.S. Navy/Royal Navy Ice Exercise 2007 (ICEX-2007) in the Arctic Ocean, experienced an explosion of a self contained oxygen generation candle that killed two crew members and injured one. what happened

The explosion occurred at approximately 12:20 a.m. (EDT) March 21.  when did it happen

The injured member of the crew has been transported by an Alaska Air National Guard C-130 to Anchorage for treatment.

"I am deeply saddened at the loss of the crewmembers from the Tireless," said Vice Adm. Jay Donnelly, Commander, Submarine Force. "Submariners are brothers at sea and we all feel the loss as if it were our own. We stand by to continue to assist in any way we can."

ICEX-2007 and Royal Navy officials have confirmed that the Tireless is safe and operational and that a full assessment is being conducted.

Tireless is commanded by Cdr. Iain Breckenridge of the Royal Navy. It is home ported in Plymouth, Devon, and has been operating with the USS Alexandria (SSN 757), in joint testing on submarine operability and tactical development in Arctic waters.

The U.S. Navy and Royal Navy Arctic cooperation represents an excellent example of the shared vision and resources the two navies enjoy. Since 1986, every Arctic tactical exercise has involved both U.S. Navy and Royal Navy submarines.

The U.S. submarine force conducts exercises in waters around the globe, including the Arctic, in order to guarantee assured access to any ocean in the world. The
submarine force continues to use the Arctic Ocean as an alternate route for shifting submarines between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. U.S. submarines must continue to train in the Arctic environment to refine and validate procedures and required equipment in support of operational safety.

For more information on Navy submarines, weapons systems and Sailors, visit the Submarine Force Web site www.sublant.navy.mil, or the Royal Navy Submarine Web site www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.2442.

For more news from around the fleet, visit www.navy.mil.

Let me know if that is not clear enough for you yet.

And I hope you can start to understand how to look stuff up on the interwebs for yourself.

"Willful ignorance" is not a very strategic choice -

 

[windwalker]

7 minutes ago, voidisyinyang said:

Let me know if that is not clear enough for you yet.

 

 

"According to the Royal Navy, the accident did not affect the submarine's nuclear reactor, the vessel sustaining only superficial damage - and it surfaced safely within an hour. Statement from the Commanding Officer of HMS Tireless and photographs from ICEX-2007 (Ice Exercise 2007) from the Royal Navy website.
The Trafalgar-class submarine HMS Tireless left the ICEX 2007 exercise in the Arctic early to return to Devonport after the explosion."

 

No its not really clear

 he almost died how?

 

 

[voidisyinyang]

8 minutes ago, windwalker said:

 

 

post from the links 

 

8 hours ago, windwalker said:

 

Link ?

So in 8 hours you were not able to find that information yourself?

How many links did I provide for you that I "posted" from already?

https://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=28464

One.

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/pop/research/tireless.html

Two.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthcomment/3305457/Berks-at-NERC-snub-Peter-Wadhams-again.html

three.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/jun/13/military.arctic

four.

Oh let's post the image from that link. People like images.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3357827/

five.

So the red line is the track the nuclear sub went through the arctic.

 

[voidisyinyang]

4 minutes ago, windwalker said:

 

 

"According to the Royal Navy, the accident did not affect the submarine's nuclear reactor, the vessel sustaining only superficial damage - and it surfaced safely within an hour. Statement from the Commanding Officer of HMS Tireless and photographs from ICEX-2007 (Ice Exercise 2007) from the Royal Navy website.
The Trafalgar-class submarine HMS Tireless left the ICEX 2007 exercise in the Arctic early to return to Devonport after the explosion."

 

No its not really clear

 he almost died how?

 

 

OK 2 people died. So how do you think a third person was injured and two people died?

Let's cut to Peter Wadhams giving his first hand testimony of this - I think I already posted it.

I can actually transcribe his words as a quote. Clearly you can just watch the interview yourself if you really wanted to know - instead of playing idiotic games of "willful ignorance on the interwebs!"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/6476959.stm

link six

Quote

Failed air-purification equipment is thought to have caused the explosion.

 

Edited February 25, 2019 by voidisyinyang

[windwalker]

"Near death on a nuclear sub didn't stop my work on Arctic ice"

he almost died is that true?

 

keep it going,,,this is fun....how did he almost die

[windwalker]

5 minutes ago, voidisyinyang said:

OK 2 people died. So how do you think a third person was injured and two people died?

Let's cut to Peter Wadhams giving his first hand testimony of this - I think I already posted it.

I can actually transcribe his words as a quote. Clearly you can just watch the interview yourself if you really wanted to know - instead of playing idiotic games of "willful ignorance on the interwebs!"

 

 

people die all the time in military training,   having worked on some that did

as medic in military its not unusual.  

 

if he has problems going down in a sub, maybe he should stay out of them...

if he wasn't directly involved in the accident he didn't almost die... 

Edited February 25, 2019 by windwalker

[voidisyinyang]

2 minutes ago, windwalker said:

"Near death on a nuclear sub didn't stop my work on Arctic ice"

he almost died is that true?

 

keep it going,,,this is fun....how did he almost die

Quote

Well it was nasty and I came closest to death on that voyage. That was in 2007 and it was the submarine Tireless. As a submarine needs to renew its oxygen and normally you have an electrolyzer which can right oxygen. The problem in the Arctic is the electrolyzer tends to freeze up. So as a backup they always take big slabs of material which they call candles, a slab of potassium chlorate if the electrolyte freezes up. So they were using them and it blew up and it killed a couple of sailors and started a fire and the whole submarine filled up with smoke. And they couldn't get at the compartment that the sailors were in because when they fell down they fell against the door. So then they had to flood that compartment. So we came pretty close to doom there. We had to use breathing masks for a couple hours and we were under the ice. So we had to try to find a way up through the ice. So that was the closest  I think I've come to death in the Arctic and it was doing something that was supposedly the safest and most comfortable thing you can do.

 

[voidisyinyang]

8 minutes ago, windwalker said:

 

people die all the time in military training,  I know because I worked on some that did as a medic.

They died , any doing the training could have just depends.

 

if he has problems going down in a sub, maybe he should stay out of them...

if he wasn't directly involved in the accident he didn't almost die... 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/jun/13/military.arctic

 

Quote

 

'Unacceptable' errors led to deaths in fire aboard sub on Arctic patrol

· Armed forces Minister apologises to families of two sailors
· Parents condemn 'scant regard for safety'

 

 

 

Quote

 

 

Suicide kills more U.S. troops than ISIL in Middle East - USA Today

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/.../suicide...more-us...than.../95961038/

 

Dec 29, 2016 - U.S. casualties have been relatively low since the U.S.-led war effort began with a ... Study: Soldiers at highest risk for suicide tries in first year.

 

yeah well that's interesting.

But I think Peter Wadhams can speak for himself.

Quote

Well it was nasty and I came closest to death on that voyage. That was in 2007 and it was the submarine Tireless. As a submarine needs to renew its oxygen and normally you have an electrolyzer which can right oxygen. The problem in the Arctic is the electrolyzer tends to freeze up. So as a backup they always take big slabs of material which they call candles, a slab of potassium chlorate if the electrolyte freezes up. So they were using them and it blew up and it killed a couple of sailors and started a fire and the whole submarine filled up with smoke. And they couldn't get at the compartment that the sailors were in because when they fell down they fell against the door. So then they had to flood that compartment. So we came pretty close to doom there. We had to use breathing masks for a couple hours and we were under the ice. So we had to try to find a way up through the ice. So that was the closest  I think I've come to death in the Arctic and it was doing something that was supposedly the safest and most comfortable thing you can do.

 

Edited February 25, 2019 by voidisyinyang

[windwalker]

24 minutes ago, voidisyinyang said:

So we came pretty close to doom there.

 

Quote

"According to the Royal Navy, the accident did not affect the submarine's nuclear reactor, the vessel sustaining only superficial damage - and it surfaced safely within an hour.

 

This sub has had a lot of accidents 

 

"The vessel experienced a number of serious accidents during its operational life."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Tireless_(S88)

 

"On 13 May 2003, while on exercise in the Arctic and travelling at a depth of 60 metres, Tireless collided with an iceberg. There was no prior warning of the impending collision from passive sonar or other onboard sensors.

 

The submarine's bow was forced down nine degrees and the vessel subsequently broke free of the iceberg at a depth of 78 metres. Some damage was sustained to the upper section of the boat.

 

Before the incident, the Royal Navy had not conducted under-ice operations since 1996.[8][9]"

 

 

looks like they don't do to well under the ice...