Where has Global Warming Gone ?

Some interesting video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jgi7WgB05Jo

Imagine one of these over Moscow .

Adrian, I'd worry more about one of those so called nukes launched at some major town or city over here, than one of those being launched from some other distant country towards Russia.
Number of nukes ready for rapid deployment from Australia towards other countries of the world = 0.
Number of nukes armed & on standby, aimed & ready for deployment within a few moments notice from Russia to any other country around the world = 1400+ with at least another 5000+ in storage or on short call/notice. Now do you see why the world is held to ransom by one country possessing such weapons alone?
These are enough nuclear weapons of mass destruction to blow up the world & everything in it 200 times over (not to mention the rest of the worlds arsenals of nukes in China, Britain, France, India, Israel's & North Korea's etc, etc.)
This is why if we value our planet & all living things in it, such weapons of mas destruction should be fully destroyed by all nations who have them in their possession & never be used by anyone ever again. Not even for deterrent purposes, for the possibilities of launching one under extreme stress/duress, where clear thinking & logic is no longer possible, makes the launching of such weapons possible.
BTW, did I mention that some of todays nukes are well over 20 to 30 times more powerful, than the nukes dropped in Hiroshima & Nagasaki Japan during WW11 (where 80,000 & 100,000 civilians were instantly wiped out?)  Now try to imagine what a nuke of 20/30 times that of the Hiroshima bomb would do over a heavily populated city? It frightens me to even imagine such destruction/devastation.

Kon  

These nukes were developed to protect us from maniacs like Putin but all he has to do is say; "If you lot try to stop me from killing every man woman and child in the Ukraine" I will launch my nukes at you....Well wooped de do! What is the point of having them if we are not going to use them for the very purpose for which they were developed..

Oh yeah that's right we will impose sanctions on russia and we will send truck loads of weapons and bombs and shoulder launched missile to help the Ukraine....Like that will be helpful?? When Russia takes control of the Ukraine they will get all of the equipment that was meant for the Ukraine. The Ruskies will think all their birthdays have come at once.

What did those massive tests do to the earths axis. Was it ever reported? Did seismologists notice any wobble in the earths axis at the time?

This is a fun animation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iPH-br_eJQ

Also this is interesting
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGFkw0hzW1c

How it all began.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGTEDH0SIdA

Who has the Biggest?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs1CIrwg5zU

xmas tree wrote:What did those massive tests do to the earths axis. Was it ever reported? Did seismologists notice any wobble in the earths axis at the time?

Just mozzie bites  on the earth. Nil effect on the axis of spin.

If an asteroid of 100km diam struck the  Earth:

The Earth would not be disturbed by the impact and loses negligible mass.
The impact would  not make a noticeable change in the tilt of Earth's axis (< 5 hundreths of a degree).
Depending on the direction and location of impact, the collision may cause a change in the length of the day of up to 1.47 seconds.
The impact does not shift the Earth's orbit noticeably.

If an asteroid  of solid dense rock 1000km in diameter hit the Earth:  (Way  bigger than any atom bomb)

The Earth will not be  strongly disturbed by the impact and loses negligible mass.
The impact would  not make a noticeable change in the tilt of Earth's axis (< 5 hundreths of a degree).
Depending on the direction and location of impact, the collision may cause a change in the length of the day of up to 24 minutes.
The impact will not shift the Earth's orbit noticeably.

So you see; an atomic bomb explosion  (even a 200MT bomb) is just a tiny spark on the face of the Earth coz the Earth is heap bulk times larger in
comparison.

Check this out and bung in a few of your own figures.
https://impact.ese.ic.ac.uk/ImpactEarth/ImpactEffects/

Adrian, not sure you have understood a single word I've said on this matter concerning the use of nukes, so no point in me going any further on this subject.
Sounds like you might have reached a point, of where you're obviously tired of living, but spare a thought for the rest of us still wanting to live on earth.

Kon

Make no mistake Kon, I do well and truly understand the ramifications of nuclear warfare.
Still like ta see a couple of nukes go off but....Get some great pics with the P900 Especially sunrises and sunsets.

"BTW, did I mention that some of todays nukes are well over 20 to 30 times more powerful, than the nukes dropped in Hiroshima & Nagasaki Japan during WW11 (where 80,000 & 100,000 civilians were instantly wiped out?)  Now try to imagine what a nuke of 20/30 times that of the Hiroshima bomb would do over a heavily populated city? It frightens me to even imagine such destruction/devastation."

And the cities are many times bigger than 1945 cities. Melbourne 500,000+ in 1945 now 2022 it's 6,000,000+ that is 12 fold increase, know wonder we are in the SH!T now.

and Sydney has almost as many, so between those two cities in Aussie, there is almost 1/2 of the Aussie population.

butch wrote:Ocean water is alkaline. It is not possible to acidify an alkaline. It is also not possible to measure the pH of the oceans, which varies from place to place.

The oceans absorb about 25% of the emitted C02 and as they absorb more C02  the pH  decreases. The biggest decease on ocean pH is in the arctic and antarctic regions  because colder water can dissolve more C02.
The adverse effects on marine  animals that utilize calcium carbonate are already being  reflected in some of these marine animals getting small and their shells  getting thinner.
"The pH of seawater has remained steady for millions of years, and marine life has evolved based on the ocean’s delicate chemical balance. However, the oceans are estimated to have absorbed about 30 per cent of the emitted carbon dioxide  from human activities since pre-industrial times.
The carbon dioxide is contained in the upper 10 per cent of oceans (less than 1000 metres depth) because of slow ocean mixing processes.
A decline of 0.1 from pre-industrial times has already been recorded in the pH of the ocean’s surface, taking it to 8.1.  This corresponds to a 26 per cent increase in acidity. Reef development is thought to cease at pH 7.8.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change expects this decline to continue, with average reductions of between 0.06 and 0.32 units over the 21st century.
The effects of global warming and ocean acidification may magnify each other, but may not occur uniformly from place to place and over time.
https://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/our-work/threats-to-the-reef/climate-change/ocean-acidification

you are boring as batsh!t planetcare

davsgold wrote:you are boring as batsh!t planetcare

thanks for your opinion!  Now lets see  you rebut what I have posted!  Now run off to your  anti vax and  climate climate change denier sites!!!

planetcare wrote:

davsgold wrote:you are boring as batsh!t planetcare

thanks for your opinion!  Now lets see  you rebut what I have posted!  Now run off to your  anti vax and  climate climate change denier sites!!!

You're off topic PC.
The topic is not about anti vax. Name calling (DENIER), you've lost the debate.

Get some rest.

Speaking of atomic bombs and air pollution!!

Why has the radon levels in my work room suddenly increased over the past week or so??

Normally it is aprox 2.4 pCi/L long term (several years) and 2.64 short term ( 7 days). But last couple of days it has jumped to 3.86 pCi/L short term, (0ne day) 4.0 and I start to worry. and then this morning it was at zero. Now it is back to 1.16 pCi/L ....Sumfink iz going on.

butch wrote:

The evidence against  all of the above is  overwhelming. Atmospheric CO2 is rising due  primarily to the burning of fossil fuels and the data from argo floats and buoys and ship sampling of the oceans water shows that the pH is increasing.
The oceans contain about 50 times more CO2 than the atmosphere and 19 times more than the land biospheres.
As described in Chapter 2, the world’s oceans contain an estimated 39,000 Gt-C (143,000Gt-CO2), 50 times more than the atmospheric inventory, and are estimated to have taken up almost 38% (500Gt-CO2) of the 1300Gt of anthropogenic CO2 emissions over the past two centuries
https://www.sciencedirect.com/sdfe/pdf/download/eid/3-s2.0-B9781856176361000122/first-page-pdf
Ocean acidification is no longer a sombre forecast for the Great Barrier Reef but a present-day reality, a new study reveals.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/10/201028101846.htm#:~:text=A%20new%20study%20has%20shown,dioxide%20increases%20in%20the%20atmosphere.
Journal Reference:
Katharina E. Fabricius, Craig Neill, Erik Van Ooijen, Joy N. Smith, Bronte Tilbrook. Progressive seawater acidification on the Great Barrier Reef continental shelf. Scientific Reports, 2020; 10 (1) DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-75293-1
https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/file/Hawaii+Carbon+Dioxide+Time-Series
https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/OA+Observations+and+Data

Yeah but!!
Those readings Are shallow depth and surface readings . The oceans are on average about 10,000 feet deep..That's a lot of water to try and change the ph of aye? Those testers must use very very long strips of litmus paper .

I've posted this earlier PC please read it this time.

NASA and NOAA are intentionally misleading. They are political organizations whose announcements must first be vetted by a senior political representative of the administration to ensure they fit the agenda.

adrian ss wrote:Yeah but!!
Those readings Are shallow depth and surface readings . The oceans are on average about 10,000 feet deep..That's a lot of water to try and change the ph of aye? Those testers must use very very long strips of litmus paper .        

Most of the CO2 is in the  first 100 meter of depth! But argo  floats can can sample down to  2000 Meters!

butch wrote:I've posted this earlier PC please read it this time.

NASA and NOAA are intentionally misleading. They are political organizations whose announcements must first be vetted by a senior political representative of the administration to ensure they fit the agenda.

But everything in  your previous post SC is  factually and scientifically wrong!
Perhaps you might like to tell us where the authors of this paper got it wrong!
Katharina E. Fabricius, Craig Neill, Erik Van Ooijen, Joy N. Smith, Bronte Tilbrook. Progressive seawater acidification on the Great Barrier Reef continental shelf. Scientific Reports, 2020; 10 (1) DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-75293-1
Then you can tell us why the marine scientist in this video has  also got it wrong and provide the evidence!