climate change

Lbeard · 24-06-2013 6:24pm

djpbarry wrote: »

No, remarkably accurate as in it predicts experimental observations extremely well.

This equation Co)

makes assumptions about carbon dioxide. In 1897 a lot of science was not available to Svante.

It most certainly does. Absorbing energy can cause atoms in a molecule to move periodically relative to each other (vibrate).

And how would this have any effect on particle momentum? - which is temperature.

Lbeard · 24-06-2013 6:36pm

fits wrote: »

There is a direct link between human population and the industrial revolution, and greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

If humans have been putting more CO2 in the atmosphere, what difference does it make?

You need a precise answer. Eye swiveling and hand waving is not enough. We have sinned against mudda naycha, she will punish us!!

Are you questioning the fact that the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere is higher than it was pre the industrial revolution, or are you dismissing the greenhouse effect completely?

Okay....I'm on the edge of losing my temper. Because of the weird and fluffy way the "theory" has wafted around the imaginations of the public, etc, people have become a little confused, and believe things like CO2 being a "Greenhouse gas" - as distinct from other gases.

All gases in the atmosphere are green house gases. ALL OF THEM.

In the minds or many, the whole greenhouse principle is all tangled up. There is no glass. Or the glass is in fact gravity. It does work a lot like a greenhouse. But the terms allows for lots of silly trips of the imagination.

I really don't want to hear another mangled version of the "greenhouse effect".

fits · 24-06-2013 6:42pm

Lbeard wrote: »

Eye swiveling and hand waving is not enough. We have sinned against mudda naycha, she will punish us!!

Okay....I'm on the edge of losing my temper. Because of the weird and fluffy way the "theory"

There is no weird and fluffy language in this thread except from you. Frankly there is no room for this sort of language in scientific discussion.

I really don't want to hear another mangled version of the "greenhouse effect".

OK since you are so clever, why don't you do the research and read the papers and tell us exactly what is wrong with years and years of research?

Lbeard · 24-06-2013 7:05pm

fits wrote: »

There is no weird and fluffy language in this thread except from you. Frankly there is no room for this sort of language in scientific discussion.

I think you have some fluffy ideas.

It's okay to forgive a naive in thinking that Greenhouse gases are distinct from other gases. It's another thing for someone who should know better - which in the event they deserve a kick in the ass.

OK since you are so clever, why don't you do the research and read the papers and tell us exactly what is wrong with years and years of research?

This is a question I know the answer to.

But what would be the point in trying to explain it to you? It would be like time travelling back to the 50s and telling the innocent country folk or Ireland that there is no God or holy Mary, and the priest is sexually abusing children.

But for other people. Those who would know enough that they should know better, I've given enough hints.

riffmongous · 24-06-2013 7:09pm

ScumLord wrote: »

It's not the first time in human history we've deforested large parts of the world. Europe probably had a lot of forrest at one stage and we removed most of it over a fairly short period of time. Not as quick as today but is there any way we can find evidence of how that affected the world? I'm sure the same happened throughout the civilised world of the time.

Maybe removing that forrest mass wasn't as much of a strain because there was so much other forest throughout the world?

Aside on forestry* I was at a seminar here in vienna on historical hydrology in central europe a few weeks ago and they showed a graph of what they reconstructed the % forest cover to be for the last 1200 years and interestingly the lowest amount was just before the Black Death hit, where it was less than 10% cover, compared to the ~40% it has been at for the last few hundred years due to a mixture of poor austrian industrialisation and conservation.

fits · 24-06-2013 7:15pm

riffmongous wrote: »

Aside on forestry* I was at a seminar on historical hydrology a few weeks ago and they showed a graph of what they reconstructed the % forest cover to be for the last 1200 years and interestingly the lowest amount was just before the Black Death hit, where it was less than 10% cover, compared to the ~40% it has been at for the last few hundred years due to a mixture of poor austrian industrialisation and conservation.

Are you speaking about forest cover in Europe, or globally?

fits · 24-06-2013 7:17pm

Lbeard wrote: »

I think you have some fluffy ideas.

I am not a physicist but I don't think accepting the views of the vast majority of scientific experts in the area counts as 'fluffy'.

This is a question I know the answer to.

Why don't you try us?

But what would be the point in trying to explain it to you? It would be like time travelling back to the 50s and telling the innocent country folk or Ireland that there is no God or holy Mary, and the priest is sexually abusing children.

This language is not necessary.

Enough with the hinting. Why don't you tell us?

riffmongous · 24-06-2013 7:18pm

fits wrote: »

Are you speaking about forest cover in Europe, or globally?

Oops, sorry I meant to say it was just for the Austrian region.

fits · 24-06-2013 7:20pm

riffmongous wrote: »

Oops, sorry I meant to say it was just for Austria

Its quite an important distinction

riffmongous · 24-06-2013 7:30pm

fits wrote: »

Its quite an important distinction

Yeah I just left it out of the beginning and referenced that it was just Austria at the end of the post, edited the original post now

But it was quite interesting for me as an Irish person to see for how long forest conservation has been a principle here in Austria.

The effects of deforestation on climate seems pretty interesting when you think of it conceptually, as plants usually remove CO2 from the air and when areas are deforested with burning techniques (like in south asia at the moment) you are releasing CO2 but also when you remove large areas of forest you are changing the albedo and this can lead to more feedback effects, more convection at the tropics in the amazon region, more high altitude clouds which can then also have an important effect on the energy balance, really interesting imo

fits · 24-06-2013 7:36pm

riffmongous wrote: »

But it was quite interesting for me as an Irish person to see for how long forest conservation has been a principle here in Austria.

OT but, I think forest management and conservation in different parts of Europe are really interesting also, and we could certainly learn a lot in Ireland from our European neighbours.

Capt'n Midnight · 24-06-2013 8:39pm

Lbeard wrote: »

If humans have been putting more CO2 in the atmosphere, what difference does it make?

You need a precise answer. Eye swiveling and hand waving is not enough. We have sinned against mudda naycha, she will punish us!!

To be very blunt IMHO most of the hand waving has come from your direction. And you haven't provided anything like the precision you are demanding.

At this point you are sounding like an creationist demanding to be shown yet another missing link.

Science doesn't prove things. It's the other way around. Theories are proposed and evidence can weed out the weak ones.

We have changed the composition of the atmosphere. We've been able to measure the effects on such things as the ozone hole.

Also remember that we are in an era of accelerating greenhouse production which means if there is an effect it will get worse.

And where are you dragging in mother nature from ??
Positive feedback can be really nasty. Checkout snowball earth.

Okay....I'm on the edge of losing my temper. Because of the weird and fluffy way the "theory" has wafted around the imaginations of the public, etc, people have become a little confused, and believe things like CO2 being a "Greenhouse gas" - as distinct from other gases.

All gases in the atmosphere are green house gases. ALL OF THEM.

In the minds or many, the whole greenhouse principle is all tangled up. There is no glass. Or the glass is in fact gravity. It does work a lot like a greenhouse. But the terms allows for lots of silly trips of the imagination.

I really don't want to hear another mangled version of the "greenhouse effect".

Strawman much ?

One of the key aspects of science is communication. It's a truism that if you can't explain something to a seven year old then you don't really understand it yourself. And don't get me started on technobabble.

Capt'n Midnight · 24-06-2013 8:48pm

fits wrote: »

OT but, I think forest management and conservation in different parts of Europe are really interesting also, and we could certainly learn a lot in Ireland from our European neighbours.

We could also learn from the deforestation by ancient civilisations.

Mayan's. The Roman provinces of North Africa. Large parts of Asia.

Lbeard · 24-06-2013 9:05pm

fits wrote: »

I am not a physicist but I don't think accepting the views of the vast majority of scientific experts in the area counts as 'fluffy'.

Enough with the hinting. Why don't you tell us?

It's as simple as this, it's a misunderstanding of the physics. And there is a lot of fluffiness. There are people who know the physics who've just accepted claims without thinking about them. Svante Arrhenius made some incorrect assumptions based on not knowing the underlying mechanisms. People who've used his work to make claims seem oblivious to where he was wrong. And that's how we get to where we are now.

Capt'n Midnight · 24-06-2013 9:23pm

Lbeard wrote: »

It's as simple as this, it's a misunderstanding of the physics. And there is a lot of fluffiness. There are people who know the physics who've just accepted claims without thinking about them. Svante Arrhenius made some incorrect assumptions based on not knowing the underlying mechanisms. People who've used his work to make claims seem oblivious to where he was wrong. And that's how we get to where we are now.

Fluffy ?

You are arguing about climate change based on work done in the 19th century as if there was no peer review on it since. In which case would you care to explain the 1970s worries about global cooling or otherwise at least accept that science means that theories get reviewed in light of the existing evidence.

fits · 24-06-2013 9:28pm

Lbeard wrote: »

It's as simple as this

And yet you cant explain where this misunderstanding is coming from can you?

I think we've met before haven't we...

fits · 24-06-2013 9:35pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

We could also learn from the deforestation by ancient civilisations.

Mayan's. The Roman provinces of North Africa. Large parts of Asia.

Ireland was deforested by our ancestors also.

Capt'n Midnight · 24-06-2013 9:44pm

fits wrote: »

Ireland was deforested by our ancestors also.

Oh yeah our landscape is artificial. How long is since there were trees on the Ceide fields ?

But the big one was when the trees were removed for the Royal Navy etc, about three centuries ago. Not so long ago we still had the lowest % of forest cover in Europe, probably still do.

Clouds do provide some negative feedback. And being downwind of an ocean means if the weather over it gets warmer we'll have more clouds reflecting sunlight here.

fits · 24-06-2013 9:47pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Not so long ago we still had the lowest % of forest cover in Europe, probably still do.

Its around 12% now, which is not an insignificant amount imo. Percentage forest cover of EU-27 area is 38%

Lbeard · 24-06-2013 10:17pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Fluffy ?

You are arguing about climate change based on work done in the 19th century as if there was no peer review on it since.

No, no, no, no, no. It's Arrenhius' work is cited by those claiming man made CO2 is causing global warming. They even use his "forcings" equation.

I'm saying Arhenius' work was wrong. There's nothing controversial in this statement. What should be controversial is anyone relying on his work.

Anyway, that's enough. In this instance, I know what I'm taking about, and you don't. You're going on religious faith, and I'm not.

riffmongous · 24-06-2013 10:59pm

fits wrote: »

Its around 12% now, which is not an insignificant amount imo. Percentage forest cover of EU-27 area is 38%

The situation in Ireland is at least getting better, but I wonder what percentage of that is native broadleaf species? And how much is those awful planted conifer woods

djpbarry · 25-06-2013 11:34am

Lbeard wrote: »

And how would this have any effect on particle momentum? - which is temperature.

Particle momentum is temperature? What?

Lbeard wrote: »

All gases in the atmosphere are green house gases. ALL OF THEM.

They most certainly are not.

You know, you might want to at least get the fundamentals right yourself before you go chastising others for their lack of understanding.

Lbeard wrote: »

I'm saying Arhenius' work was wrong.

But you're not going to specify why it's wrong? Or even what you mean by "wrong"?

Capt'n Midnight · 25-06-2013 11:37am

djpbarry wrote: »

You know, you might want to at least get the fundamentals right yourself before you go chastising others for their lack of understanding.

+1

Lbeard · 25-06-2013 2:10pm

djpbarry wrote: »

Particle momentum is temperature? What?
They most certainly are not.

If you do not know the relationship between particle momentum and temperature you do not know your arse from your elbow.

Temperature is a measure of particle momentum. And that is it. If you do not know this, you really know nothing.

You know, you might want to at least get the fundamentals right yourself before you go chastising others for their lack of understanding.

Honestly, you're giving me a headache.

But you're not going to specify why it's wrong? Or even what you mean by "wrong"?

What's the point in explaining it to you? You don't even understand the most basic physics. As someone once said, the essence of good science communication is being able to explain any concept to a 7 year-old child.....But what if the child is not really all that bright?

djpbarry · 25-06-2013 3:01pm

Lbeard wrote: »

Temperature is a measure of particle momentum.

I think you mean kinetic energy.

Lbeard wrote: »

What's the point in explaining it to you?

It might actually give your argument some substance.

Lbeard · 25-06-2013 3:47pm

djpbarry wrote: »

I think you mean kinetic energy.

[latex] Momentum= Mass*Velocity= mv[/latex]

And

[latex] KineticEnergy=\frac{1}{2}mv^{2} [/latex]

And

$06143f42ed0a761f114bd8b04dccbf67.png$

Where T is the temperature, and Kb the Boltzmann constant. In other words, temperature is kinetic energy, and kinetic energy is the total momentum.

Temperature is a measure of particle momentum.

Unless you have some fairyland theory, this one is game, set, and match.

It might actually give your argument some substance.

Dj, dj, dj, ......dj

Dj....you're giving me a splitting headache.....Can't you play outside with the other children.

Capt'n Midnight · 25-06-2013 4:01pm

Lbeard wrote: »

If you do not know the relationship between particle momentum and temperature you do not know your arse from your elbow.

Temperature is a measure of particle momentum. And that is it. If you do not know this, you really know nothing.

Honestly, you're giving me a headache.

What's the point in explaining it to you? You don't even understand the most basic physics. As someone once said, the essence of good science communication is being able to explain any concept to a 7 year-old child.....But what if the child is not really all that bright?

MOD

This has gone on long enough. You've used up all the goodwill.

The rule is to attack the post and not the poster.

Read the charter.

fits · 25-06-2013 4:03pm

Lbeard wrote: »

[latex] Momentum= Mass*Velocity= mv[/latex]

And

[latex] KineticEnergy=\frac{1}{2}mv^{2} [/latex]

And

$06143f42ed0a761f114bd8b04dccbf67.png$

Where T is the temperature, and Kb the Boltzmann constant. In other words, temperature is kinetic energy, and kinetic energy is the total momentum.

Temperature is a measure of particle momentum.

Unless you have some fairyland theory, this one is game, set, and match.

Dj, dj, dj, ......dj

Dj....you're giving me a splitting headache.....Can't you play outside with the other children.

I for one am completely sold on casey212 lbeard's argument.

Question everything, except his assertions even if they are completely unexplained. Don't worry, you wouldn't understand them anyway.

djpbarry · 25-06-2013 4:12pm

Lbeard wrote: »

[latex] Momentum= Mass*Velocity= mv[/latex]

And

[latex] KineticEnergy=\frac{1}{2}mv^{2} [/latex]

And

$06143f42ed0a761f114bd8b04dccbf67.png$

Where T is the temperature, and Kb the Boltzmann constant. In other words, temperature is kinetic energy, and kinetic energy is the total momentum.

You seem to have stopped short of showing that [latex]T=mv[/latex].

Lbeard · 25-06-2013 4:24pm

djpbarry wrote: »

You seem to have stopped short of showing that [latex]T=mv[/latex].

Dj, will you stop.

I never said [latex]T=mv[/latex] anywhere. You're trying to save face by claiming I said things I have not. You're misrepresenting me.

It's impossible to have a discussion on this subject. People get too emotional. And it gets silly.

climate change

Comments