|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 30, 2021 16:47:09 GMT
Sinkholes and cracks are nothing new. Over time they break stuff. I used to live in Pittsburgh. A number of houses there had gigantic jacks under one or two corners to keep them level - it was blamed (probably reasonably) on all the mining that had happened in the area causing the ground to shift. Apply enough total force to just about anything - even a very slow amount over a long time - and it will deform or break. ALL infrastructure needs either periodic maintenance or periodic replacement (or both, of course). periodic inspections would seem to be the first step. |
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jun 5, 2021 22:50:26 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jun 6, 2021 15:36:35 GMT
Interesting levels of precision in that report. 13% chance of 46 quakes..... Someone like me forecasting would have hedged those figures and said " more than 10% chance of over 40 quakes." |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 15, 2021 2:10:25 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jun 15, 2021 3:56:20 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jun 16, 2021 20:18:41 GMT
Yet another 'erudite' post from Willis but using Average Atmospheric Temperature' as the metric for Average Atmospheric Heat Content' Averaging an intensive variable is a nonsense; The incorrect units for 'heat content' are being used as it should include the latent heat on the water molecules. It is heat that is being 'trapped' not temperature. To know the temperature caused by that heat it is necessary to know the water content of the atmosphere; Then the enthalpy (specific heat) can be calculated and the metric for heat in a gas is kilo Joules per kilogram. It is unsurprising that if you use the incorrect units you will not see what you expect to see, But what do I know I am only a system engineer that has spent years testing systems and novel ideas. #1. What is required to be proven?#2. what are the correct metrics for finding that? #3. How can we set up an experiment that allows those metrics to be measured? #4. Create a script for the experiment etc etc - not difficult - but PhD physicists seem unable to do it failing at the first or second #.  |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jun 16, 2021 20:30:29 GMT
Yet another 'erudite' post from Willis but using Average Atmospheric Temperature' as the metric for Average Atmospheric Heat Content' his i Averaging an intensive variable is a nonsense; The incorrect units for 'heat content' are being used as it should include the latent heat on the water molecules. It is heat that is being 'trapped' not temperature. To know the temperature caused by that heat it is necessary to know the water content of the atmosphere; Then the enthalpy (specific heat) can be calculated and the metric for heat in a gas is kilo Joules per kilogram. It is unsurprising that if you use the incorrect units you will not see what you expect to see, But what do I know I am only a system engineer that has spent years testing systems and novel ideas. #1. What is required to be proven? #2. what are the correct metrics for finding that? #3. How can we set up an experiment that allows those metrics to be measured? #4. Create a script for the experiment etc etc - not difficult - but PhD physicists seem unable to do it failing at the first or second #. that it follows that all the treemometer graphs and other geologic period graphs are probably pretty but useless; if they make no attempt to assess the energy content of the atmosphere that is what the greenhouse effect is about - trapping heat. |
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Jun 17, 2021 2:25:24 GMT
The satellite atmospheric data is probably fine. It does not adjust for energy content but one thing is clear to me if energy content was the metric none of us would know what was being changed each day. The output would have an element of model in it. There are simply not enough data points to generate a calculable single output.
Ultimately if I look at the global or hemispherical temperatures on a day and the pole are cold the world average will be low this works well in the respective hemispheres also.
What is also obvious is the season changes are where overs and unders are common.
We now have 45 years of satellite data the global temperature rise is close to 0.1C/decade and settling there. Existential risk and Global warming is bizarre in the context of a world with, to name a few. Earthquakes, Carrington events, Meteorites etc. etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jun 17, 2021 4:09:09 GMT
Some people just seem to need something to worry about. And other people know how to pad their pockets and egos with these worriers.
|
|
