Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Global Warming
Options
Comments
-
El Nino and La Nina refer to changes in the surface temperature of the Pacific (or more accurately, changes in the distribution of heat at the ocean’s surface). These changes, in such a large body of water, obviously have a major impact on the planet’s climate.Is this a measurement problem? If we are told that El Nina results in a cold year what does that mean exactly?0 -
just a few questions on Global warming/cooling/Climate Change whatever you want to call it
was there a medieval warming, what caused it?
was there cooling in the earlier half of the twentieth century?
does the earth wobble on its axis?
was the Sahara once a temperate Forest region?
Was there a point in recent (geological) times when the Antartic was not frozen over?
have the coalfields in china been burning for centuries?
isnt Carbon Dioxide the Stuff we breathe out, the stuff plants need to live?
wasnt Carbon Monoxide theone everyone was worried about 20 years ago?
Havent Sea levels risen dramaticaly previously, Seperate to the end of Ice ages?
did we ause all those other things inthe past?
what is the total manmade output of carbon into theatmosphere annually?
how does this differ from 100 years ago?0 -
Japanese SCIENTISTS call global warming a joke.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/25/jstor_climate_report_translation/
Key passages translated at the bottom of the link.0 -
JonnyMaguire wrote: »Japanese SCIENTISTS call global warming a joke.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/25/jstor_climate_report_translation/
Key passages translated at the bottom of the link.
Sea levels rising twice as fast as previously predicted!
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/sea-levels-rising-twice-as-fast-as-predicted-1642087.html0 -
That link was already posted here and dismissed here.JonnyMaguire wrote: »Japanese SCIENTISTS call global warming a joke.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/25/jstor_climate_report_translation/0 -
Advertisement
-
Sea levels rising twice as fast as previously predicted!
http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...d-1642087.html
See, I think that article is typical of alarmism ( for one thing it should be is predicted to rise, not rising).
Opposing some of the alarmist readings , paticularly by Journalists in the English Indo, would be an interesting debate, but the total deniers tend to dominate these threads.0 -
Mahatma coat wrote: »just a few questions on Global warming/cooling/Climate Change whatever you want to call it
I'd like to know if you believe you know the answers to these questions, or are you asking from the perspective of someone who genuinely doesn't know?
If its the former, then these are loaded or rhetorical questions which don't merit answering.
If its the latter, then I'd ask why your questions are uniformly suggesting a position against anthropogenic global warming - it suggests you've adopted a position despite not knowing some of the key facts.0 -
hoser expat wrote: »Sea levels rising twice as fast as previously predicted!
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/sea-levels-rising-twice-as-fast-as-predicted-1642087.html
This piece of "journalism" sums up the whole global warming industry.
The PREDICTION is that sea levels will rise twice as much as the previous PREDICTION stated.
Note that reality and scientific measurements of reailty have nothing to do with the prediction.0 -
If its the latter, then I'd ask why your questions are uniformly suggesting a position against anthropogenic global warming - it suggests you've adopted a position despite not knowing some of the key facts.
If its the latter, it suggests that he does not jump on bandwagons without knowing the facts of the matter, nothing more than that.
What do you believe everything you hear, just because someone says so? That is what your post suggests.0 -
hoser expat wrote: »Sea levels rising twice as fast as previously predicted!
Either you cannot read very effectively, or else you are trying to mislead people with this statement.0 -
Advertisement
-
I guess we'll have to differ on that.JonnyMaguire wrote: »If its the latter, it suggests that he does not jump on bandwagons without knowing the facts of the matter, nothing more than that.
If someone was asking questions to determine which position they were to take, I would expect that the questions would be more balanced - that questions pertaining to both sides would be asked.
All of the questions we're talking about clearly suggest one position...there is no balance there.
There are many possible reasons for that. However, I suspect that the reason for it is that MC rejects the theory of global warming.What do you believe everything you hear, just because someone says so? That is what your post suggests.
I'm not sure how you arrive at that conclusion. My post suggests that either MC hs a position and is asking a set of loaded questions, or that MC genuinely does not know the answers to those questions but is somehow only asking questions to do with one of the two positions....something which I would consider to be unusual.0 -
those questions are the basis of the information which I have formed my opinions on, I asked them because I would like some clarifcation on them, especially the Antarcti and Sahara Questions, I'm fairly sure of the answers but I have been known to mis-remember things.
and I'd also like someclarification about the efect oftheearths wobble on Global climate0 -
Well, how about you share this information and your opinions and then we'll address the individual points?Mahatma coat wrote: »those questions are the basis of the information which I have formed my opinions on...0 -
thebigshot wrote: »So now we have an about turn by the big boys.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7376301.stm
We clearly know that the earth is not warming, it has not warmed since 1998.
We know that people are not the cause of earth temperature changes. The big boys predict the changes and then blame the people in order to restrict freedoms and rip them off.
Back in the 1970's it was global cooling, then global warming and now global cooling. What a joke.
Global Warming Scandal0 -
You realise that just about everything in that link has been dealt with already in this thread?0 -
See, I think that article is typical of alarmism ( for one thing it should be is predicted to rise, not rising).
Opposing some of the alarmist readings , paticularly by Journalists in the English Indo, would be an interesting debate, but the total deniers tend to dominate these threads.
I was just quoting the headline, which you quite rightly point out is alarmist and incorrect. The body of the article does not match the headline correctly. There, I apoligized (but stand by the body of the article).
So, you've inadvertently brought me to one of my major beefs about this whole debate. The media, pro- or anti-AGW, are incredibly alarmist. What we need to do is go to the roots of the issue and listen to the actual scientists who do the research. Everytime djpbarry puts up one if his incredibly thoughtful and scientifically accurate posts, he gets the same anti-AGW crap thrown back at him again. This is the main reason I tend to stay out of these 'debates', and quite frankly I'm not sure why djpbarry continues to respond (I also have no idea where derry gets the time to respond). This is not a debate where science rules supreme, this is degrading into a debate on who can dig up the most alarmist and potentially incorrect article to 'prove' their point.
Let me tell a little story about how the media can twist the story away from what the scientist said during the interview.
I was involved as an on-camera scientist and consultant on the making of a documentary film about the impacts of climate change in the Canadian Arctic. This is my specialty, I have a PhD in it, and have been on over 35 scientific research trips to the Arctic. The documentary film came out and I was interviewed on TV, radio, and by many newspapers. The next day, the headline on the front page of a very respected newspaper was 'Arctic Town Sinking into Permafrost'. I never said that, it is not in the documentary, and it was patently untrue.
So, my bottom line is go straight to the source, read the journal articles, check your sources, form an educated opinion, not just an opinion.0 -
So...to answer those questions of MC.
Given that the questions were posed without an obvious intent - an argument that they're supposed to be supporting - I have merely answered the questions, rather than trying to guess what additional information may be relevant.
It depends what you mean by a "warming", I guess. If you're referring - as I suspect you are - to the Medieval Warm Period, then yes, it absolutely occurred. It is not certain, however, whether or not it was a global phenomenon...typically the graphs we see for the temperature rise during that period are for the Northern Hemisphere only.Mahatma coat wrote: »was there a medieval warming, what caused it?
As far as I'm aware, there is no consensus on the causes of the MWP.
I think you're referring to the cooling in the mid-20th century. If so, then yes, There was.was there cooling in the earlier half of the twentieth century?
Yes, it does.does the earth wobble on its axis?
Yes, it was.was the Sahara once a temperate Forest region?
Not that I'm aware of, but "recent (geological)" is a bit of a ballpark. I know that there are some claims regarding various old maps (e.g. the Piri Reis map), but I don't believe that such claims withstand any serious scrutiny.Was there a point in recent (geological) times when the Antartic was not frozen over?
Also - are you sure you mean the Antarctic and not the Arctic?
Apparently so...as have other coalfields, as far as I'm aware.have the coalfields in china been burning for centuries?
That's the stuff.isnt Carbon Dioxide the Stuff we breathe out, the stuff plants need to live?
In terms of what, exactly?wasnt Carbon Monoxide theone everyone was worried about 20 years ago?
People were concerned about a number of things 20 years ago - particulate emissions, carbon monoxide, CFCs...any number of other pollutants.
Have they? The way you phrase this suggests you know of instances where this has occurred. Could you provide an example?Havent Sea levels risen dramaticaly previously, Seperate to the end of Ice ages?
I don't understand the question. What are "all those other things"???did we ause all those other things inthe past?
I suspect the question you're asking is whether or not anyone is claiming that previous climatic change was caused by man. If so, then the answer is no, no-one is making that claim.
Currently somewhere in the region of 27 megatons per year, I believe.what is the total manmade output of carbon into theatmosphere annually?
I'm not certain but I think its of the order of 10 times higher today than in 1900.how does this differ from 100 years ago?0 -
I'm not certain but I think its of the order of 10 times higher today than in 1900.Mahatma coat wrote:Currently somewhere in the region of 27 megatons per year, I believe.
[quote[how does this differ from 100 years ago?
I think from one of the threads I did it was humans directly produced burning oil coal gas fossil fuels and deforestation some 7.5 billion tons per annum at todays rate .
The total accumulating in the atmoshere every year is some 10 times this figure which comes from nature or somewhere else or is not man made so thats something ~75 billion tons in total every year.
Looks like maybe Nature sucks,maybe all the trees on the sly are breathing out CO2 at night faster than they make O2 in the day so the real solution is we kill off the trees in the planet and reduce CO2 accumulation by 90%:D
Makes sense really that the trees are figuring whats in for them to convert CO2 to Oxygen and so the trees are all on strike until we humans come up with a deal that suit thier needs
Derry0 -
I think from one of the threads I did it was humans directly produced burning oil coal gas fossil fuels and deforestation some 7.5 billion tons per annum at todays rate .
The total accumulating in the atmoshere every year is some 10 times this figure which comes from nature or somewhere else or is not man made so thats something ~75 billion tons in total every year.
Looks like maybe Nature sucks,maybe all the trees on the sly are breathing out CO2 at night faster than they make O2 in the day so the real solution is we kill off the trees in the planet and reduce CO2 accumulation by 90%:D
Makes sense really that the trees are figuring whats in for them to convert CO2 to Oxygen and so the trees are all on strike until we humans come up with a deal that suit thier needs
Derry
Funny, most carbon cycling scientists are busy looking for the missing carbon sink, yet you're suggesting there is a huge natural source out there that has gone undetected? At least that's what I think you're trying to say in this rather poorly written post.0 -
hoser expat wrote: »
<snip>
So, you've inadvertently brought me to one of my major beefs about this whole debate. The media, pro- or anti-AGW, are incredibly alarmist. What we need to do is go to the roots of the issue and listen to the actual scientists who do the research. Everytime djpbarry puts up one if his incredibly thoughtful and scientifically accurate posts, he gets the same anti-AGW crap thrown back at him again. This is the main reason I tend to stay out of these 'debates', and quite frankly I'm not sure why djpbarry continues to respond (I also have no idea where derry gets the time to respond).
Simple A three day week for the last few months from the economy going stupid and my laptop get worked on the bus or the train commuting or if the assembly line goes quite from break down I can sneak off .
I personaly was quite happy as a spectator sport when AGW or cooling was a quaint academic obsure science thrashed out in science journals.But once this neo fachist IPCC UN unsciencetific mandated machine got entangled in this subject and made it alarmist AGW crap and the more I looked into this subject or Al gores crap the more I saw it was junk science .
So as a non scientist checking into how a well heeled neo fashist group Like IPCC can hijack science to suit its own end I have been forced to get tangled up in this fray to show that best I can see most all science can and is corrupted to suit certian agendas.
Proof is the thousands of scientists employed to prove smoking was good for you and we know for decades they killed millions with thier junk science
So when the likes of these whores of science with fake science degrees and PHD,s who sell thier souls to the highest bidder scientists from Carnigie , Rockerfellers Instutiute Harvard from the USA or Eton and Cambridge in the UK are routed out of true science then maybe we can go back to talking about real sciencehoser expat wrote:
This is not a debate where science rules supreme, this is degrading into a debate on who can dig up the most alarmist and potentially incorrect article to 'prove' their point.
If the media hijacked with large amounts of cash supporting the elite who actualy own the media decide to make the boogie man out of a harmless gas like CO2 and worse can get major support from deeply embedded fake scientists that tow the party line then the joe soaps can easily be confused with conflicting articals.
This is straight out of Nazi regimes Goballs propaganda message keep telling a lie long enough and it becomes a true fact .
So now we see keep saying with junk science and media hype CO2 is the boggie man and then it becomes scientific fact that CO2 is the boggie man:eek:hoser expat wrote:Let me tell a little story about how the media can twist the story away from what the scientist said during the interview.
I was involved as an on-camera scientist and consultant on the making of a documentary film about the impacts of climate change in the Canadian Arctic. This is my specialty, I have a PhD in it, and have been on over 35 scientific research trips to the Arctic. The documentary film came out and I was interviewed on TV, radio, and by many newspapers. The next day, the headline on the front page of a very respected newspaper was 'Arctic Town Sinking into Permafrost'. I never said that, it is not in the documentary, and it was patently untrue.
So, my bottom line is go straight to the source, read the journal articles, check your sources, form an educated opinion, not just an opinion.
You prove my point exactly
The joe soap scientists out in the feild write up the reports sometimes unbiased and sometimes biased.However over those guys is a huge political machine that own and controls the science outputs who edit science to suit the agenda they wish to put out
As long as Science keeps to dig thier heads in the sand and say its only accidental this out of context report and that out of context report they will always be suckers for the three card trick
All magicians say scientist are the most easyto fool
In a nut shell you can go to the Artic prove matmatically the ice sheets are twice as big and twice as thick as last year and when your report is doctored to suit the IPCC machine it will come out the ice sheet has dissapeared overnight
So until science cleans up it own house and quits letting science to be a whipping tool for the elite toi abuse then really for me to talk to me about real science as a reliable science is like saying witch doctors snake oil is good for you
I do feel sorry for the real scientists out there doing often real work often paid nothing or badly like the guys who prove the regime here in ROI is lying when they say the water in Galway is safe and they prove the regime scientists are liars of the first order .
I do feel sorry for many good scientists who do try to do good true science but the so many of them cant or wont see the true story that science much like Hitlers regime has been hijacked to suit the elite who have a serious anti democratic and anti human growth policy and will distort all and any science they can or need too to get thier junk science through to become policys that suit the agenda
It remains to be seen which type of scientist you are
Derry0 -
Advertisement
-
Absolute nonsense.I think from one of the threads I did it was humans directly produced burning oil coal gas fossil fuels and deforestation some 7.5 billion tons per annum at todays rate .
The total accumulating in the atmoshere every year is some 10 times this figure which comes from nature or somewhere else or is not man made so thats something ~75 billion tons in total every year.
Which "scientists" are these?Proof is the thousands of scientists employed to prove smoking was good for you and we know for decades they killed millions with thier junk science
Again, I have to ask for examples. Specifically, who are you talking about?So when the likes of these whores of science with fake science degrees and PHD,s who sell thier souls to the highest bidder...
Evidence? Examples?The joe soap scientists out in the feild write up the reports sometimes unbiased and sometimes biased.However over those guys is a huge political machine that own and controls the science outputs who edit science to suit the agenda they wish to put out
Evidence?In a nut shell you can go to the Artic prove matmatically the ice sheets are twice as big and twice as thick as last year and when your report is doctored to suit the IPCC machine it will come out the ice sheet has dissapeared overnight0 -
But derry, you've shown absolutely no sign that you understand the science, so I'm afraid I cannot take you seriously.
And for f*ck's sake, at least spell Arctic correctly.
And please answer my question about this supposed massive carbon source you've indicated exisits somewhere.0 -
Oh yeah Derry, there is one anti-AGW scientist that I have a lot of respect for, that is Richard Lindzen of MIT. You may way to look up his work if you want to have an intelligent debate. And no, he doesn't blog, he writes in journals. Although he did lose a lot of credit when he started bashing Wallace Broecker and then was found to be consulting / lobbying for the oil and gas industry (so you could say that some anti-AGW scientists are paid to hijack science).0
-
I am not a scientist, I am an engineer. I do not have the time or the resources to find and read the huge number of scientific papers that have been written about GW, but I do spend a lot of time doing risk analyses and I wonder if this is the time to summarise one, since global warming or cooling would have some effect upon human life. So:
1. Global warming is either occurring or it isn't. Is there absolute proof that it is?
2. If there is no absolute proof but there is evidence that it might be occurring, then the options are to do nothing or to do something. Identify the risks of each option and their probability.
3. If nothing is done but GW occurs will it be significant enough to be harmful to human civilisation? Evidence so far seems to suggest that it might have a detrimental effect in unpredictable weather patterns, rising sea levels, etc. So conservatively one could assign a risk of 65% that it would be detrimental and 35% that it wouldn't be. Those figures are entirely arbitrary as they can only be at this stage, but as an engineer I would prefer them to be the other way round. I am only concerned that something is changing and what effect it might have, not whether it is warming or cooling.
4. If the risk level in 3. is unacceptable then what can be done. That leads to the question of what is causing it since it cannot be combated unless the cause is known. So is it something human activity is causing or is it entirely natural. If it is natural then the risk analysis becomes irrelevant since we can do nothing other than examine how human civilisation might cope with it. That needs major planning over many years rather than risk analyses. If it is human activity that might be causing it, then again we can assign an arbitrary score to "might be" and to Can't be". In the latter we are returned to the reality that we are unable to do anything other than attempt to cope with it. So from the risk analysis point of view "might be " must score higher than "can't be".
5. The analysis seems to suggest then that we should concentrate on the "might be" since that carries the higher "do nothing" risk. That in turn leads to the next option which is can we change the way we live to have any effect or are we unable to change sufficiently, and to decide that we need to be sure what it is we are doing wrongly at the moment. Since we cannot yet be entirely sure but we do know that we are increasingly polluting our planet, which pollutants can we set out to deal with immediately? We are emitting a great deal of CO2 and methane (a much more serious greenhouse gas), so we could be cautious and say that CO2 has a 60/40 chance of being a part of the cause, and Methane (say) 55/45 (there's less of it). We could go through the same exercise for a vast number of pollutants and I am not even going to attempt that. I am simply looking at a relatively primitive risk assessment. If we then consider just the gases for the purposes of this exercise then what can we do?
6. Reduce CO2 emissions: Begin by limiting the combustion of fossil fuels in favour of nuclear and carbon neutral fuels. Unfortunately agreements tend not to do that while increased costs of the former do. Reduced availability would have the same effect but we will not reach that point soon enough if our risk analysis has any meaning. The longer we leave it the higher the risk number becomes.
7. Reduce Methane emissions: Landfilling of wastes is a contributor and waste volumes worldwide are increasing as underdeveloped countries develop. So we need to concentrate upon waste minimisation and processing rather than burying. Polluters must pay more to dissuade them and such things as bin charges are about all that will grab Joe Public's attention. I know there are many other sources of Methane, but that is not the point I am attempting (poorly) to make.
That is simply that for me as a non-scientist the risk to humanity of GW being a fact is inevitably greater than if it isn't so what each of us chooses to believe is irrelevant. In that case what we must do is to deal with those things that might be causing it where we can, and pollution of the planet is the obvious one to at least start with. There are few ways of dealing with that other than the steps currently being taken, and if that means carbon taxes etc to discourage the use of pollutants then so be it. There is little use protesting about "rip offs" when no-one will take any notice of any other mechanism.
I personally lean slightly towards the sceptics camp, but my risk analysis leads me to wish to avoid finding out I am wrong the hard way!;)0 -
I am not a scientist, I am an engineer. I do not have the time or the resources to find and read the huge number of scientific papers that have been written about GW, but I do spend a lot of time doing risk analyses and I wonder if this is the time to summarise one, since global warming or cooling would have some effect upon human life. So:
1. Global warming is either occurring or it isn't. Is there absolute proof that it is?
2. If there is no absolute proof but there is evidence that it might be occurring, then the options are to do nothing or to do something. Identify the risks of each option and their probability.
3. If nothing is done but GW occurs will it be significant enough to be harmful to human civilisation? Evidence so far seems to suggest that it might have a detrimental effect in unpredictable weather patterns, rising sea levels, etc. So conservatively one could assign a risk of 65% that it would be detrimental and 35% that it wouldn't be. Those figures are entirely arbitrary as they can only be at this stage, but as an engineer I would prefer them to be the other way round. I am only concerned that something is changing and what effect it might have, not whether it is warming or cooling.
4. If the risk level in 3. is unacceptable then what can be done. That leads to the question of what is causing it since it cannot be combated unless the cause is known. So is it something human activity is causing or is it entirely natural. If it is natural then the risk analysis becomes irrelevant since we can do nothing other than examine how human civilisation might cope with it. That needs major planning over many years rather than risk analyses. If it is human activity that might be causing it, then again we can assign an arbitrary score to "might be" and to Can't be". In the latter we are returned to the reality that we are unable to do anything other than attempt to cope with it. So from the risk analysis point of view "might be " must score higher than "can't be".
5. The analysis seems to suggest then that we should concentrate on the "might be" since that carries the higher "do nothing" risk. That in turn leads to the next option which is can we change the way we live to have any effect or are we unable to change sufficiently, and to decide that we need to be sure what it is we are doing wrongly at the moment. Since we cannot yet be entirely sure but we do know that we are increasingly polluting our planet, which pollutants can we set out to deal with immediately? We are emitting a great deal of CO2 and methane (a much more serious greenhouse gas), so we could be cautious and say that CO2 has a 60/40 chance of being a part of the cause, and Methane (say) 55/45 (there's less of it). We could go through the same exercise for a vast number of pollutants and I am not even going to attempt that. I am simply looking at a relatively primitive risk assessment. If we then consider just the gases for the purposes of this exercise then what can we do?
6. Reduce CO2 emissions: Begin by limiting the combustion of fossil fuels in favour of nuclear and carbon neutral fuels. Unfortunately agreements tend not to do that while increased costs of the former do. Reduced availability would have the same effect but we will not reach that point soon enough if our risk analysis has any meaning. The longer we leave it the higher the risk number becomes.
7. Reduce Methane emissions: Landfilling of wastes is a contributor and waste volumes worldwide are increasing as underdeveloped countries develop. So we need to concentrate upon waste minimisation and processing rather than burying. Polluters must pay more to dissuade them and such things as bin charges are about all that will grab Joe Public's attention. I know there are many other sources of Methane, but that is not the point I am attempting (poorly) to make.
That is simply that for me as a non-scientist the risk to humanity of GW being a fact is inevitably greater than if it isn't so what each of us chooses to believe is irrelevant. In that case what we must do is to deal with those things that might be causing it where we can, and pollution of the planet is the obvious one to at least start with. There are few ways of dealing with that other than the steps currently being taken, and if that means carbon taxes etc to discourage the use of pollutants then so be it. There is little use protesting about "rip offs" when no-one will take any notice of any other mechanism.
I personally lean slightly towards the sceptics camp, but my risk analysis leads me to wish to avoid finding out I am wrong the hard way!;)
Well for engineers there is bit of simple logic to use
if you go back to responses i did before this you can see that mankind has best an abilty to turn ....(1 / 350,000,000 th ) of the atmosphere into CO2 gas every day .The earth every day somehow for other reasons accounts for some 9 times more than this so the total is ten times greater means that the earths atmoshere gains (1 / 35,000,000) extra CO2 per day.Or we can say we seem in this time to exceeed the earth daily recyle rate by some (1 / 35,000,000) every day
Roughly in scale terms we can say the risk analysis is that a fly breathing air and creating CO2 accumulation inside a sealed jumbo jet over a few decades will rapidly destroy the ability atmoshere in the jumbo jet to support any life forms that breath air (where as in fact it will take hundreds of thousands of years for the fly to change the atmoshere in the sealed jumbo jet)
Now you can test the abilty of CO2 to create extra heat from sunlight falling on it and you find its such a bad infra red accumulator and emmiter of heat that it beyond a joke how science can even believe that there is any risk from this gas
So forget the engineering analysis and ask why in gods name can a junk science like CO2 is going to cook our goose ever keep going and what science can possibly be so corrupt eneough to keep this false science going against even the most simple maths a K12 student can use to destroy this crap science
Then you see that the real reason this false science exists is for the global government types who simply want to control us plebs and charge and tax us for for emmiting CO2 when we breath or use cars whatever .Then later when you default to pay your CO2 tax cause your retired and cash strapped or unemployed whatever they put a bullet in your head for polluting the world with your breathing air which once was a free product
But its so easy to fool these deep in the theory of spliting hairs climate scientists at 1/350,000,000 of a hair brained story as they readily line up to take the $ raining down on them to study and exagerate how true is junk science AGW and CO2 global warming
And nobody pays me anything to tell you how it really is as I prefer to stick to real science and those who now show clearly CO2 AGW is a junk science made to suit the Neo Fachist political entity IPCC and thier political masters
Derry0 -
hoser expat wrote: »
<snip>
And please answer my question about this supposed massive carbon source you've indicated exisits somewhere.
as above
but to explain it yet again
we can take all the atmosphere and calculate it total weight and what percent of the weight is CO2 at any period of time we wish
From that we can see that in ~1950 it was some ~300PPM and by ~2009 it is some ~380PPM
So we can calulate every day the CO2 accumulates at some 1/35,000,000 per day
spooky big fraction eeeekkkk
Now we can work out how many tons of oil gas coal wood we burn every year
Then we can figure the daily rate and convert that to CO2 and we find that as a percent of the atmosphere in weight its some 1/350,000,000 of the earths atmoshere daily
So unless you you can tell me where the differernce from 1/35,000,000 versus mans emmissions minor emmisions 1/350,000,000 comes from we have to assume it comes the trees at night time who breath out CO2 at night and so the real culpit for cooking our goose with CO2 and AGW is trees and we need to chop them all down as quick as possible to save humanity from this awful quick death less than 6 years at last count from junk science IPCC
Then we can easily calculate the amount of extra heat this CO2 will supply and math today suggest it at very best 1.62 watts per square meter from the average of some ~750 watts and other science suggests it a whole lot less than this made up junky figure supplied by junk science IPCC
and then your favoite subject the ARTIC which grew by 30% more than normal so much for AGW
http://www.prisonplanet.com/arctic-ice-grows-30-per-cent-in-a-year.html
printed version no vidio link reproduced belowPrison Planet wrote:
Predictions of “ice free” summer for first time in history completely debunked
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Alarmist scientists who predicted that the North Pole could be “ice free” this summer as a result of global warming have been embarrassed after it was revealed that Arctic ice has actually grown by around 30 per cent in the year since August 2007.
Back in June, numerous prominent voices in the scientific community expressed fears of a mass melting of the polar ice caps, including David Barber, of the University of Manitoba, who told National Geographic Magazine, “We’re actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time [in history].”
“This summer’s forecast—and unusual early melting events all around the Arctic—serve as a dire warning of how quickly the polar regions are being affected by climate change,” adds the article.
In February, Dr. Olav Orheim, head of the Norwegian International Polar Year Secretariat, told Xinhua, “If Norway’s average temperature this year equals that in 2007, the ice cap in the Arctic will all melt away, which is highly possible judging from current conditions.”
As per usual, the reality has failed to match the hype of the climate doomsayers.
According to collated data from the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center and the University of Illinois, Arctic ice extent was 30 per cent greater on August 11, 2008 than it was on the August 12, 2007. This is a conservative estimate based on the map projection.
The video below highlights the differences between those two dates,” reports The Register. “As you can see, ice has grown in nearly every direction since last summer - with a large increase in the area north of Siberia. Also note that the area around the Northwest Passage (west of Greenland) has seen a significant increase in ice. Some of the islands in the Canadian Archipelago are surrounded by more ice than they were during the summer of 1980.”
But what of the Antarctic down south? Figures tell us that ice coverage in the year since August 2007 has grown by nearly one million square kilometers.
As The Register article notes, “The Arctic did not experience the meltdowns forecast by NSIDC and the Norwegian Polar Year Secretariat. It didn’t even come close. Additionally, some current graphs and press releases from NSIDC seem less than conservative. There appears to be a consistent pattern of overstatement related to Arctic ice loss.”
A general cooling trend across the planet is now clearly apparent as sunspot activity, the main driver of climate change, dwindles to almost nothing.
As we reported last week, A top observatory that has been measuring sun cycles for over 200 years predicts that global temperatures will drop by two degrees over the next two decades as solar activity grinds to a halt and the planet drastically cools down, potentially heralding the onset of a new ice age.
While the mass media, Al Gore and politicized bodies like the IPCC scaremonger about the perils of global warming and demand the poor and middle class pay CO2 taxes, both hard scientific data and circumstantial evidence points to a clear cooling trend.
How man-made global warming advocates will spin this one remains to be seen - maybe they will just continue to adopt their current tactic by claiming that any geological or weather event whatsoever, be it hurricanes, earthquakes, droughts or floods, temperature increase or decrease, and even a 30 per cent growth of the polar ice cap - is a result of that evil life-giving gas that we exhale - CO2.
seeems that you been making more ice this year than you expected
Derry0 -
Roughly in scale terms we can say the risk analysis is that a fly breathing air and creating CO2 accumulation inside a sealed jumbo jet over a few decades will rapidly destroy the ability atmoshere in the jumbo jet to support any life forms that breath air (where as in fact it will take hundreds of thousands of years for the fly to change the atmoshere in the sealed jumbo jet)
Given that the science behind AGW doesn't say that anthropogenic CO2 emissions will "destroy the ability" of the earth "to support any life forms that breathe air", this comparison - as has been pointed out to you before - is completely bogus.
From your own figures (in the subsequent post) you acknowledge that the concentrations of CO2 have gone up by 80 PPM, in a total of 380 PPM in 59 years.
You accept, though, that it is an accumulator and emitter of heat, albeit a poor one.Now you can test the abilty of CO2 to create extra heat from sunlight falling on it and you find its such a bad infra red accumulator and emmiter of heat that it beyond a joke how science can even believe that there is any risk from this gas
So let me get thiis straight.
You accept that it is a poor greenhouse gas.
You accept that concentrations have increased.
Do you accept the inescapable conclusion of these two facts combined - that higher conecentrations must lead to more trapped heat?
Again, Derry as has been pointed out to you before - there is no science claiming that CO2 is going to "cook our goose". It is, just like your "won't support life" jumbo-jet atmosphere, a significant misrepresentation of the claims you reject.So forget the engineering analysis and ask why in gods name can a junk science like CO2 is going to cook our goose ever keep going
One has to wonder, though...you complain bitterly that the whole science behind AGW is exaggerating on a massive scale any possible issue. Yet, in virtually every "refutation" of this science that you offer, you seem incapable of making your argument without hyperbole. How is it that you can damn something for employing the very same tactics that you use to damn it?
You're on the wrong forum with that line, mate.Then you see that the real reason this false science exists is for the global government types who simply want to control us plebs and charge and tax us for for emmiting CO2 when we breath or use cars whatever.
Incidentally, are you aware that the science predates any acceptance of it by these governmental types you refer to, as well as any possible application of said science?
I wouldn't argue that the issue has been and will be leveraged to political ends, but this isn't a comment on the validity of the science itself.But its so easy to fool these deep in the theory of spliting hairs climate scientists at 1/350,000,000 of a <snip>
Splitting hairs like noticing you've just added a factor of 10 to your numbers there?0 -
Given that the science behind AGW doesn't say that anthropogenic CO2 emissions will "destroy the ability" of the earth "to support any life forms that breathe air", this comparison - as has been pointed out to you before - is completely bogus.
From your own figures (in the subsequent post) you acknowledge that the concentrations of CO2 have gone up by 80 PPM, in a total of 380 PPM in 59 years.
You accept, though, that it is an accumulator and emitter of heat, albeit a poor one.
So let me get thiis straight.
You accept that it is a poor greenhouse gas.
You accept that concentrations have increased.
Do you accept the inescapable conclusion of these two facts combined - that higher conecentrations must lead to more trapped heat?
No in a nut shell using the word must indicates a agenda on your part
It possible to entertain the very small possibilty or concept of might or might not or maybe but there too little evidence that AGW is a must event
lets go with the maths and 20,000 years of this rate of carbonizing the entire 21 % atmoshere ( we havent got that much carbon in fuels to do that anyway ) (this based on todays rates a mixture of nature which does that at 90% or 1/35,000,000 of the atmophere per day and mankinds some 10% of this at 1/350,000,000 of the atmophere per day )
Now we look so that according to the abilty of CO2 abilty to create heat as a emmision with what seems from the maths based on the famous CO2 ballon experment the temperature would increase by maybe a maximum of 21% of 4C degrees celcuis
(Thats based on the fact that the CO2 ballon was 100% CO2 it temperature rise was whopping 4 C Degrees EEEKKKK)
So we can see thats ball park some maxuim ~1C degree rise in global temperture when the entire oxyegen in the atmoshere is CO2 ( if we neglet the other factors like increased cloud cover or other global heating like water vapour which looks to ~75% of all globaal warming .So really it should be only 25% of ~1 degree C but we will let that slip for now and go with 1C)
So we can see that if the CO2 levels were for example let say 1% , and 10%, and 15% , and 20% through to 21% of the atmoshere we could map a graph
At 1% we could say the possible temperature rise might be at best 1C rise for 21% makes 1C/21 or about 0.05C rise in temperture
We can do the same for all the other numbers so ~5% co2 level would be a whopping 0.25C rise EEEEKKK
so as it will take roughly 1000 years to carbonize 1% of the atmoshere we might heat the planet a whoping 0.05 degrees in thousand years
Further to this splitting hairs if we raise the level of the CO from 1950 0.030% to todays whopping big 0.038% working this in we risk at most to raise the temperature from ~0.005C to ~0.006C eeekkk our goose is cooked in mayby ~5000 years
Now some measures are so so so so so so small that in any methods or instruments you wont find the incredibly minute tiny temperature rise due to background noise like increased cloud cover whatever and it wont pose any threat to the planet in any way shape or form
Anyway if you go back over other responses I did before you will find that the CO2 heating effect is logerathmatic
CO2 AGW effect is most when the the level go from 0PPM to 50PPM after that it decreases it strenth and reaches it maxuim at about 100PPM.It becomes so flat line at 280PPM that even if we double trippple quadruple the CO2 levels which would take hundreds of years the most possible temperature rises are so small as to easily lost in the complexity of the whole power equasion hitting the planet
So if a non scientist using K12 maths can figure the story CO2 and AGW is a scam then why would anybody adhere to this new religion AGW and climate change
Then you only got to look history and you find that science like in NAZI germany they invented suedo science like racial superioity and science accepted that junk science
Then in the 1970 era we had the global cooling suedo science and all the universities and science swallowed that tripe
And now we know rich and powerful media owning forces have invented this AGW suedo science to tax us for breating air and they know full well there is no risk from CO2 levels increasing or decreasing thye just want to enslave humanity with CO2 taxxes and flatulance
SO SCIENCE AND THIS AGW CRAP IS NOW ON TRIAL AND IN THE DOCK FOR AIDING AND ABIETING THE SUPER RICH TO ENSLAVE HUMANITY JUST LIKE NAZI GERMANY TRIED TO DO
Derry0 -
No in a nut shell using the word must indicates a agenda on your part
No, Derry. It indicates an understanding of science and logical consequence on my part.
You have, in the past, argued that the heat increase due to increasing CO2 levels would be minimal...and yet here you are refusing point blank - to the point of suggesting I have an agenda - to accept a position that your own posting history suggests you understand and accept - that more CO2 means more heat.
I didn't ask you to accept any quantity of heat increase...I asked you only to accept the correct and logical conclusion combination of two facts which you had presented yourself....a conclusion that you have (as already mentioned) accepted in the past in order to argue that it is the scale of the increase that is key.
It is, of course, the scale which is key. I'd never suggest otherwise.
My agenda, if you wish to call it that, was to see whether or not you would maintain a self-consistent position....that you would accept a point you have previously accepted. You have clearly refused to do so.
I didn't ask you to accept that AGW is a "must event". I asked you whether or not you accepted that an increase of an insulator would lead to an increase of the insulation effect.It possible to entertain the very small possibilty or concept of might or might not or maybe but there too little evidence that AGW is a must event
No, derry. Lets first accept that an increase of insulation leads to an increase of insulation effect - that higher CO2 concentrations lead to more heat trapped by CO2. Only then does it make sense to do the math on what would occur as a result.lets go with the maths
The non-scientist would be well advised in such a situation to look at how the scientific approach has produced such differing figures, and then show where the flaw in their math is. Your math will not produce models which match observations as closely as those of the scientists you deride. This, simply put, is the acid test for any scientific theory...matching prediction to observation.So if a non scientist using K12 maths can figure the story CO2 and AGW is a scam then why would anybody adhere to this new religion AGW and climate change
If your simple math doesn't produce a closer match - which it doesn't - then it is not a better model.
By arguing that one aspect is completely wrong, you require that (at least) second aspect is equally wrong, to offset the inaccuracy. Identify that, and you might have a case. Show both that CO2 isn't the culprit and that something else can be identified which is incorrect in the models which would give the same (or better) accuracy and then you have something.
Until then, I would be inclined to say that the most logical conclusion is that if massively complex scientific models produce different results to classroom maths, it is most probably the scientific models which are more likely to be the more accurate if they are producing an accurate modelSO SCIENCE AND THIS AGW CRAP IS NOW ON TRIAL AND IN THE DOCK FOR AIDING AND ABIETING THE SUPER RICH TO ENSLAVE HUMANITY JUST LIKE NAZI GERMANY TRIED TO DO
Science, as anyone scientifically literate would know, is always in the dock. Just about the greatest achievement in science is knocking an established, accepted model from its perch...showing it to be wrong.
This is something that you have not done. I would wager that its something you cannot do.
You cannot show where the flaw in the scientific models is. You argue that the math doesn't add up, but ignore the reality that it does produce predictions which have matched observation remarkably. The "correct" math that you propose in its place would leave us with a model which would be far, far less accurate in its predictions, which by any scientific evaluation is not an improvement.
I understand you want to rail against the "religionification" and the politicisation of the issue, but I couldn't care less about those issues because they have - much like your arguments - nothing to do with the science at hand.0 -
Advertisement
-
A deeply unsettling and factual video about global warming and shocking and real effects already visible on the Irish landscape:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Czg6JOvgJOU&feature=channel_page0
Advertisement