"Climate-Gate" could be back.. New release of emails.

SeaFields · 23-11-2011 10:41AM

The referring to people as "deniers" is a horrendous term to use with all the historical connections that expression has. This choice of label has very much been done to gain this effect.

Capt'n Midnight · 23-11-2011 10:41AM

Deleted User wrote: »

What about unrecorded history!

you mean like lake sediments, tree rings, ice cores , isotope ratios ?

We know snowball earth was about 716.5 Million years ago.

hooradiation · 23-11-2011 11:12AM

Deleted User wrote: »

The media needs some of the other side to remind people that it mightnt be true.

Given the media's fucking terrible track record when it comes to reporting on science the idea that it's presenting "the other side" is laughable.
Doubly so, seeing as there isn't a legitimate other side.

karma_ · 23-11-2011 12:10PM

I read recently where something like 97% of all experts and scientists agree that we are affecting the climate in negative way.

The reason we have so many doubters is because of vested interest groups have commissioned, basically bullshít reports and have sewn doubt into peoples minds via the media.

It's quite a crazy situation.

Kasabian · 23-11-2011 12:37PM

I love threads about weather/climate where most of the contributors probably haven't been outside the house in ages. :pac:

44leto · 23-11-2011 12:42PM

karma_ wrote: »

I read recently where something like 97% of all experts and scientists agree that we are affecting the climate in negative way.

The reason we have so many doubters is because of vested interest groups have commissioned, basically bullshít reports and have sewn doubt into peoples minds via the media.

It's quite a crazy situation.

If only that was true, most of scientific public fund are all going to the climate change industry. It employs a lot of scientists and sell a lot of green shyte. Ireland has committed 21 billion into our stupid green power windmill wnak. The main funding for research is going into green and climate change. Now I could be cynical and say they have become the real vested interest. If you want to become a scientific pariah just deny climate change and watch your career plummet.

Here is just the US budget for global warming research it is the same proportion worldwide, it has become a scientific gravy train.

PS I am not denying global warming.
http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=how%20much%20was%20spent%20on%20climate%20change&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CDIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fclimatequotes.com%2F2011%2F01%2F08%2Fhow-can-climate-scientists-spend-so-much-money%2F&ei=MNrMTqzlGcTk4QTLo8Vl&usg=AFQjCNGW61plZK5d5C3pHOgPCu7FHYSDXA

23-11-2011 12:42PM

hooradiation wrote: »

Given the media's fucking terrible track record when it comes to reporting on science the idea that it's presenting "the other side" is laughable.
Doubly so, seeing as there isn't a legitimate other side.

I think the emails of the top scientists pushing one side of the argument are a pretty good source.. Especially when they don't always point in the same direction as the information they publicly release.

karma_ · 23-11-2011 01:11PM

44leto wrote: »

If only that was true, most of scientific public fund are all going to the climate change industry. It employs a lot of scientists and sell a lot of green shyte. Ireland has committed 21 billion into our stupid green power windmill wnak. The main funding for research is going into green and climate change. Now I could be cynical and say they have become the real vested interest. If you want to become a scientific pariah just deny climate change and watch your career plummet.

Here is just the US budget for global warming research it is the same proportion worldwide, it has become a scientific gravy train.

PS I am not denying global warming.
http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=how%20much%20was%20spent%20on%20climate%20change&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CDIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fclimatequotes.com%2F2011%2F01%2F08%2Fhow-can-climate-scientists-spend-so-much-money%2F&ei=MNrMTqzlGcTk4QTLo8Vl&usg=AFQjCNGW61plZK5d5C3pHOgPCu7FHYSDXA

I understand, and that's a fair point, however the opposite is also true, and this is too massive an issue to not play it as safely as possible.

Here's the report I was referring to: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract

My name is URL · 23-11-2011 01:31PM

Irrefutable evidence

44leto · 23-11-2011 01:46PM

karma_ wrote: »

I understand, and that's a fair point, however the opposite is also true, and this is too massive an issue to not play it as safely as possible.

Here's the report I was referring to: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract

Once that Nobel prize winning report "the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" was put to the main media it has proven to be false in many places. One if I remember was the Glaciers from the Himalayas will be gone in 25 years, that turned out to be more 300 years, plus sea level rise data also proved to be false. Other areas aswell, but I can't remember. So they shot themselves in the foot with that report to spite the massive funding they receive.

A lot more funding then the deniers.

I am going to ask you to do a thought experiment which will show what is at stake in their position. Just suppose by some unforeseen event the Earth start to cool and we realised all those trillions wasted on green stuff, what then would happen to the reputation of science.

Climategate I believe was a disgrace, they are not in the a job to justify an opinion or a position a faith if you like. They are there to crunch and analyse data even if it conflicts with their thesis.

Again I stipulate, I am not denying global warming.

hooradiation · 23-11-2011 02:03PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I think the emails of the top scientists pushing one side of the argument are a pretty good source.. Especially when they don't always point in the same direction as the information they publicly release.

What are you babbling about.

23-11-2011 08:12PM

Deleted User wrote: »

What about unrecorded history!

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

you mean like lake sediments, tree rings, ice cores , isotope ratios ?

We know snowball earth was about 716.5 Million years ago.

I was referring to individual extreme weather events which generally do not appear in geological records as they are in nature fleeting, rather than long lasting.

Capt'n Midnight · 23-11-2011 08:19PM

44leto wrote: »

If only that was true, most of scientific public fund are all going to the climate change industry. It employs a lot of scientists and sell a lot of green shyte. Ireland has committed 21 billion into our stupid green power windmill wnak. The main funding for research is going into green and climate change. Now I could be cynical and say they have become the real vested interest. If you want to become a scientific pariah just deny climate change and watch your career plummet.

Here is just the US budget for global warming research it is the same proportion worldwide, it has become a scientific gravy

http://xkcd.com/980/

mining support in the USA is about $51 Bn
Oil and gas subsidies $41 Bn
Ethanol subsidies $5 Bn

Please explain why you think the cost of fuel won't go up ?

44leto · 23-11-2011 08:26PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

http://xkcd.com/980/

mining support in the USA is about $51 Bn
Oil and gas subsidies $41 Bn
Ethanol subsidies $5 Bn

Please explain why you think the cost of fuel won't go up ?

Are they government subsidies so the USA can achieve some form of energy independence. I was answering a post about the fossil fuel industry supporting climate change denial science. Maybe it does but it is no way near the amount that is going into the climate change lobby.

PS what is that website,,am I missing something.

Edit and off course a barrel of oil will rise and rise in price, but please explain how green tech will replace oil.

Capt'n Midnight · 23-11-2011 08:31PM

44leto wrote: »

please explain how green tech will replace oil.

Methanol can also be used in fuel cells.

44leto · 23-11-2011 08:38PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Methanol can also be used in fuel cells.

And you assume there are enough materials on earth to replace all the cars tractors ships with the elements that go into fuel cells and electric motors as in magnets.

Lithium salts are not that common and rare Earth's are called Rare Earth's for a reason. Incidentally China hold 97% of the world supply of Rare Earths. So unless they can come up with another type of battery and a another way to make efficient magnets, The switch to electric based cars are a non runner.

Right now we need a tech leap in that area and it better come fast.

super_furry · 23-11-2011 08:42PM

You know what I wish? I wish that the hotel that Nixon sent those goons into all those years ago had been called the Waterhole Hotel rather than the Watergate.

Climate-hole, Racism-hole, Spy-hole, Terry-hole, all would be much better than just gate.

pajunior · 23-11-2011 08:56PM

super_furry wrote: »

You know what I wish? I wish that the hotel that Nixon sent those goons into all those years ago had been called the Waterhole Hotel rather than the Watergate.

Climate-hole, Racism-hole, Spy-hole, Terry-hole, all would be much better than just gate.

Waterhole doesn't quite have the same ring to it though.

galwayrush · 23-11-2011 09:03PM

When years and years of ice build up at the Polars reaches a certain point, the sheer weight of the ice mountains bearing down start to produce massive heat, thus melting the ice caps, thus the cycle continues.
Anyways, bacterial farting causes more damage than industry regarding so called Global Warming.

RichieC · 23-11-2011 09:23PM

galwayrush wrote: »

Anyways, bacterial farting causes more damage than industry regarding so called Global Warming.

No it doesn't, the earth has natural Carbon sinks, the sea, the land trees ect. The carbon coughed out by human industry is not being dealt with by the earth at a fast enough rate thus it is getting into the atmosphere and trapping heat.

What we are seeing now is the once perennial ice sheets around the artic are starting to melt right through in summers. we are seeing temperature records being broken nearly year on yea now, that's highs and lows.

I'm not a scientist but I took the time out to read about climate change and came away convinced, most moppets I talk to simply take an ideologically driven "bad ass" right winger opinion with zero information that is short sighted and imo criminal.

The same people who said Lead paint was safe, Asbestos is grand and cigarettes don't cause cancer are the same sh*t merchants out shilling for big business now.

Do some fking reading and stop repeating the same shot down talking points ad nauseum..

RichieC · 23-11-2011 09:37PM

FAO ads by google:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrKfz8NjEzU

44leto · 23-11-2011 09:44PM

RichieC wrote: »

No it doesn't, the earth has natural Carbon sinks, the sea, the land trees ect. The carbon coughed out by human industry is not being dealt with by the earth at a fast enough rate thus it is getting into the atmosphere and trapping heat.

What we are seeing now is the once perennial ice sheets around the artic are starting to melt right through in summers. we are seeing temperature records being broken nearly year on yea now, that's highs and lows.

I'm not a scientist but I took the time out to read about climate change and came away convinced, most moppets I talk to simply take an ideologically driven "bad ass" right winger opinion with zero information that is short sighted and imo criminal.

The same people who said Lead paint was safe, Asbestos is grand and cigarettes don't cause cancer are the same sh*t merchants out shilling for big business now.

Do some fking reading and stop repeating the same shot down talking points ad nauseum..

Humans release 29 gigatonnes nature releases 750 gigatonnes also carbon only absorbs a certain amount of black body radiation then no more. But water vapour absorbs a lot more. The same with methane. Plus the parts of the Earth which are now lush with agriculture that use to be desert also absorbs heat. So carbon is not the whole story.

RichieC · 23-11-2011 09:50PM

Manmade CO2 emissions are much smaller than natural emissions. Consumption of vegetation by animals & microbes accounts for about 220 gigatonnes of CO2 per year. Respiration by vegetation emits around 220 gigatonnes. The ocean releases about 332 gigatonnes. In contrast, when you combine the effect of fossil fuel burning and changes in land use, human CO2 emissions are only around 29 gigatonnes per year. However, natural CO2 emissions (from the ocean and vegetation) are balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation). Land plants absorb about 450 gigatonnes of CO2 per year and the ocean absorbs about 338 gigatonnes. This keeps atmospheric CO2 levels in rough balance. Human CO2 emissions upsets the natural balance.

About 40% of human CO2 emissions are being absorbed, mostly by vegetation and the oceans. The rest remains in the atmosphere. As a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20.000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions-intermediate.htm

Capt'n Midnight · 23-11-2011 09:52PM

44leto wrote: »

And you assume there are enough materials on earth to replace all the cars tractors ships with the elements that go into fuel cells and electric motors as in magnets.

Lithium salts are not that common and rare Earth's are called Rare Earth's for a reason. Incidentally China hold 97% of the world supply of Rare Earths. So unless they can come up with another type of battery and a another way to make efficient magnets, The switch to electric based cars are a non runner.

Right now we need a tech leap in that area and it better come fast.

Methanol is a direct replacement for petrol.

Microbial Fuel Cells don't need rare earths.

Permanent magnets are only a little more efficient than using powered windings. To give you an idea of how little the difference is a few cent will buy four diodes/bridge rectifier that would allow all mains powered domestic appliances with motors to use permanent magnets.

23-11-2011 09:55PM

44leto wrote: »

Humans release 29 gigatonnes nature releases 750 gigatonnes also carbon only absorbs a certain amount of black body radiation then no more. But water vapour absorbs a lot more. The same with methane. Plus the parts of the Earth which are now lush with agriculture that use to be desert also absorbs heat. So carbon is not the whole story.

Let's simplify this shall we?

1. Is the use of fossil fuels since the industrial revolution releasing large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere?

Yes. Anyone denying this is in the realm of flat earthers and creationists, i.e. completley deluded.

2. Does increasing CO2 concentration in a planet's atmosphere lead to increased temperature?

Yes. Any undergraduate science student in any laboratory in the world can show this on a small scale. On a larger scale we can observe the efects of CO2 concentration on heat retention in an atmosphere by looking at bodies within the solar system with high CO2 atmospheres.

3. Is the earth's temperature increasing?

Yes. A wonderful device called a thermometer has been invented that allows us to measure temperature. Measure it in enough locations over a long enough period of time and you get an accurate figure for average global temperature.

The inevitable conclusion from these 3 fairly simple pieces of information is that anthropogenic climate change is real and is happening right now. People may disagree over the extent of it, the exact effects on various weather patterns, the potential impact on agriculture etc. etc. but to deny that it is occuring at all flies in the face of reason.

Thrill · 23-11-2011 10:04PM

44leto wrote: »

rare Earth's are called Rare Earth's for a reason.

44leto wrote: »

Incidentally China hold 97% of the world supply of Rare Earths. So unless they can come up with another type of battery and a another way to make efficient magnets, The switch to electric based cars are a non runner.

Rare earth elements are not rare. As a matter of fact there's plenty of the stuff around. It's just that it's rare to find them all in large quantities in the same place, like coal or oil. Because they are so spread out it's not economically viable to mine.

The U.S. have large deposits as well but because it's expensive to mine and is tough on the environment, it's cheaper just buy the stuff from China who can use cheap labour to extract it and they don't have the strict regulations to follow regarding the environment that the U.S. does.

China has over 37% of the known rare earth deposits, the U.S. has over 13% but that could change if this discovery pans out....

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/aug/2/rush-for-rare-earth-may-create-nebraska-boomtown/?page=all

44leto · 23-11-2011 10:06PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Let's simplify this shall we?

1. Is the use of fossil fuels since the industrial revolution releasing large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere?

Yes. Anyone denying this is in the realm of flat earthers and creationists, i.e. completley deluded.

2. Does increasing CO2 concentration in a planet's atmosphere lead to increased temperature?

Yes. Any undergraduate science student in any laboratory in the world can show this on a small scale. On a larger scale we can observe the efects of CO2 concentration on heat retention in an atmosphere by looking at bodies within the solar system with high CO2 atmospheres.

3. Is the earth's temperature increasing?

Yes. A wonderful device called a thermometer has been invented that allows us to measure temperature. Measure it in enough locations over a long enough period of time and you get an accurate figure for average global temperature.

The inevitable conclusion from these 3 fairly simple pieces of information is that anthropogenic climate change is real and is happening right now. People may disagree over the extent of it, the exact effects on various weather patterns, the potential impact on agriculture etc. etc. but to deny that it is occuring at all flies in the face of reason.

OK I am thick so lets go quantum physics

CO2 only obsorps 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µm), respectively. The percentage absorption very generously estimated at about 8% of the whole IR spectrum, which means that 92% of the "heat" passes right through without being absorbed by CO2.

There is so little CO2 in the atmosphere that it makes that absorption totally negligible. But wit water vapour and there is much more of that in our atmosphere (nearly 1%) and that absorbs a lot more of the IR spectrum but Green heads never talk about that.

PS keep your hat on if you read up the thread I am not denying the carbon influence in global warming, I am not denying global warming I am just saying Carbon is not the whole story.

44leto · 23-11-2011 10:09PM

Thrill wrote: »

Rare earth elements are not rare. As a matter of fact there's plenty of the stuff around. It's just that it's rare to find them all in large quantities in the same place, like coal or oil. Because they are so spread out it's not economically viable to mine.

The U.S. have large deposits as well but because it's expensive to mine and is tough on the environment, it's cheaper just buy the stuff from China who can use cheap labour to extract it and they don't have the strict regulations to follow regarding the environment that the U.S. does.

China has over 37% of the known rare earth deposits, the U.S. has over 13% but that could change if this discovery pans out....

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/aug/2/rush-for-rare-earth-may-create-nebraska-boomtown/?page=all

China is not exporting them any more its all in wiki read the global politics bit at the end.

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=rare%20earths&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CEIQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FRare_earth&ei=1WDNTu7SGIjAhAeJkJ39DQ&usg=AFQjCNF8hxdt01Fm80UZv4uo7h4oXUHEaw

44leto · 23-11-2011 10:30PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Methanol is a direct replacement for petrol.

Microbial Fuel Cells don't need rare earths.

Permanent magnets are only a little more efficient than using powered windings. To give you an idea of how little the difference is a few cent will buy four diodes/bridge rectifier that would allow all mains powered domestic appliances with motors to use permanent magnets.

I believe there is an actual future in that, also they are breathing Ecoli that make bio diesel (although probably not great for our atmosphere).

As for coiled magnets, right now because of internal resistance you would neath even more efficient batteries. So maybe microbial batteries is the tech leap that would replace fossil fuels. But right now we still eat oil, we really do, imagine trying to harvest the great american and Canadian plains (the bread basket of the world) without it. Imagine general farming without it.

Plus you would also require a siht lot more power stations to power these vehicles, windmills wont cut it. Nuclear perhaps but because of what happened in Japan, forget it. So it will be oil for a while yet.

Cpt_Blackbeard · 23-11-2011 10:38PM

44leto wrote: »

OK I am thick so lets go quantum physics

CO2 only obsorps 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µm), respectively. The percentage absorption very generously estimated at about 8% of the whole IR spectrum, which means that 92% of the "heat" passes right through without being absorbed by CO2.

There is so little CO2 in the atmosphere that it makes that absorption totally negligible. But wit water vapour and there is much more of that in our atmosphere (nearly 1%) and that absorbs a lot more of the IR spectrum but Green heads never talk about that.

PS keep your hat on if you read up the thread I am not denying the carbon influence in global warming, I am not denying global warming I am just saying Carbon is not the whole story.

Carbon Dioxide is not the whole story but, it is the largest part.

We know that CH4 and H2O are both greenhouse gases whose greenhouse effects are more potent than that of CO2 but, neither remain in the atmosphere anywhere near as long as CO2. It is the length of CO2's lifetime in the atmosphere which causes the problems and earns the negative publicity.

It is much easier for the media to focus a campaign on the one bad guy, rather than explaining loads of complicated chemical processes to the masses. Its the same reason why the 2degree increase in temperature is oft labeled the point we can reach without fúcking everything up when, in reality, a 2degree increase is a tipping point where runaway climate chance becomes more likely than unlikely. Just because we don't reach the magic 2degree increase doesn't mean that shít isn't going to go down.

"Climate-Gate" could be back.. New release of emails.

Comments