Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects: DENIAL

Message boards : Politics : Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects: DENIAL
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 . . . 36 · Next

AuthorMessage
Darth Beaver Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 20 Aug 99
Posts: 6728
Credit: 21,443,075
RAC: 3
Australia
Message 1360093 - Posted: 23 Apr 2013, 0:56:38 UTC - in response to Message 1360091.  

anyway guys by by for a day or two bionic is finished so time to get a bad headace and be stressed out
ID: 1360093 · Report as offensive
Profile RottenMutt
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 Mar 01
Posts: 1011
Credit: 230,314,058
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1360227 - Posted: 23 Apr 2013, 6:22:05 UTC - in response to Message 1359517.  

so what is the physics behind global warming????

Copying my answer from the "positive" "solutions" thread:



1:
Our sun radiates light/heat energy at approximately 5000 K (5273 deg C).

2:
At that temperature wavelength (Sun), CO2 (carbon dioxide) is 'transparent' and so a large proportion of that energy reaches the earth's surface to heat the ground/water.

3:
The earth's surface of ground/water radiates heat energy at about 287 K (14 deg C).

4:
At that temperature wavelength (Earth), CO2 (carbon dioxide) is 'opaque' and so a proportion of that energy is absorbed to heat our atmosphere.

5:
Simplistically: To maintain a steady temperature on Earth, heat energy received from the sun must equal the heat energy re-radiated back out to space.

6:
We RELY on a certain level of CO2 to capture a proportion of re-radiated Earth surface heat to keep us comfortably warm. Otherwise, we would suffer something like the cold of Mars.

7:
Varying the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere is one mechanism to directly change the proportion of re-radiated heat that is lost to space and so controls the temperature maintained.

...
Martin


Martin is the only one to state the physics, the rest of you alarmist are just stating the effect the government would like you to believe.
But in a nut shell the hotter the heat source the more heat proportionally the CO2 will absorb.
But CO2 is a trace element in our atmosphere, plant grab the carbon element thru photosynthesis to make sugar. I look at burning fossil fuels as recycling the carbon atom from being trapped in the earth, in other words, if all carbon was trapped in the middle of the earth we would cease to exist!

ID: 1360227 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20084
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1360401 - Posted: 23 Apr 2013, 22:19:51 UTC - in response to Message 1359945.  

Does appear from the graph ... Co2 seems destined to rise again to some degree perhaps to a 1000 or a little bit more or it may just steady out to around 500ppm.

How do you come by that 'conclusion'?

And how do you think our planet and ourselves will be affected?


All on our only planet,
Martin

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1360401 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20084
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1360411 - Posted: 23 Apr 2013, 22:31:39 UTC - in response to Message 1360227.  

... But in a nut shell the hotter the heat source the more heat proportionally the CO2 will absorb.

Indeed so. It is a finely tuned balance.

But CO2 is a trace element in our atmosphere, plant grab the carbon element thru photosynthesis ... I look at burning fossil fuels as recycling the carbon atom from being trapped in the earth, in other words, if all carbon was trapped in the middle of the earth we would cease to exist!

That effect may possibly set a lower limit on CO2 concentration to maintain healthy plant life. What is very interesting is that we appear to have reached a plateau of stability for a few million years that allowed human life to flourish.

We are now releasing thousands of years of trapped carbon as CO2 in just a mere very few years. That is one vast industrial deluge that is set to smash the last few millions of years of balanced CO2 concentration.

We can ever more accurately measure the accelerating change in our atmosphere, climate, and weather. Even the simplistic predictions of just a little more of all of those already seen examples is "not to the continued advantage of humanity".


All on our only one planet,
Martin


See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1360411 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30593
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1360705 - Posted: 24 Apr 2013, 16:27:09 UTC

How are humans going to become extinct?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22002530
Global warming didn't make the list ...

ID: 1360705 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30593
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1360788 - Posted: 24 Apr 2013, 18:46:53 UTC - in response to Message 1360708.  

Mankind is polluting the worlds atmosphere, that is completely undeniable, but whether there is global warming or whether that is contributing to it is not clear.

Quite. No one denies pollution is bad. Or that it shouldn't be reduced.

Few will deny that there is a 100 year trend of warming either.

But if that trend is significant, is another matter. As we go back more than a few hundred years we run out of instrumented data. Then the climate scientists have to use averages. Averages smooth out year to year changes. As such we don't know how variable the short term is. When we look in the past and see they are giving figures of multi-thousand year averages, a 100 year trend is nothing.

Then there is the issue if we are responsible. Crystal ball is murky. But that hardly matters.

If we are, then we must accept that as the global population continues to grow exponentially, we will reach a point where we crash. No different than any population of animals running out of a food supply or some other resource. If we wish to prevent such, then we must prevent our population from growing exponentially. Are we ready to accept that?

If you could snap your fingers and every light incandescent light bulb was replaced by the most efficient LED bulb, if doesn't solve the problem. Eventually there will be enough more people that all those LED bulbs will use more power than the incandescent bulbs did. Global warming will begin again.

This the the issue with linear reductions is they don't work long term in the face of exponential growth. They may buy a couple years time but that is the best they can do. The debate needs to be over the root cause or it is all just more hot air.

Look at it this way. If this was a rocket ship traveling to a new planet it would be vitally important to keep the population in check. There would have to be an authority to have a baby. Resources would obviously be finite. Everyone would agree on this. Earth is just a big space ship.

The only conclusion that can be drawn when warmists refuse to engage on population control is they are either fools or don't actually believe in warming.

The debate is on ZPG and always has been. The question is are there already too many humans on spaceship earth.


ID: 1360788 · Report as offensive
Profile Bob DeWoody
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 May 10
Posts: 3387
Credit: 4,182,900
RAC: 10
United States
Message 1360945 - Posted: 25 Apr 2013, 6:23:32 UTC

All the hot air generated here in this thread may be contributing to global warming, not to mention the electricity generated to run all these computers.
Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.
ID: 1360945 · Report as offensive
Darth Beaver Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 20 Aug 99
Posts: 6728
Credit: 21,443,075
RAC: 3
Australia
Message 1361215 - Posted: 26 Apr 2013, 0:03:49 UTC

Good point
Sort of makes the west's objections to China 1 child policy silly as we may all have that policy in a couple of deckades
ID: 1361215 · Report as offensive
Profile RottenMutt
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 Mar 01
Posts: 1011
Credit: 230,314,058
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1361250 - Posted: 26 Apr 2013, 2:50:06 UTC - in response to Message 1361215.  

don't worry, the bird flu will thing the human ranks!!!
ID: 1361250 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30593
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1363338 - Posted: 1 May 2013, 21:15:53 UTC

A few words of wisdom about "models"
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2013/05/01/author-of-the-physics-of-wall-street-ponders-strings-black-swans-and-a-final-theory-of-finance/
But there’s another issue that comes up in this question, concerning rigor. I think rigor is extremely important. But I don’t think that the difference between economics and nuclear physics comes down to rigor, at least not in the way I think you have in mind. If you read an economics textbook, you will see lots of mathematics, with axioms and theorems and fully rigorous proofs. You would never find that in a nuclear physics textbook. If anything economics is more rigorous than nuclear physics. But rigor isn’t what you need if you want to come up with useful solutions to the problems we care about. In fact, I think that some economists have been blinded by the rigor of their work: if the mathematics is right, the theories must be true. But the relationship between mathematical theories and the world is more complicated than that.

Horgan: Why are you so critical of Nassim “Black Swan” Taleb’s view of financial modeling?

Weatherall: I sometimes wonder if, at the end of the day, Taleb and I disagree about anything (other than how to express ourselves). He is absolutely right about the importance of black swans—events that are completely unforeseeable, and which change everything when they occur—and of so-called “fat-tailed” probability distributions, which help us account for the likelihood of extreme events. But I think the considerations he raises, many of which I also discuss in The Physics of Wall Street, should make us cautious and modest in our attempts to understand complex systems such as financial markets. I do not think they show that we should give up on mathematical modeling altogether. No model is perfect, but surely thinking about how black swans can affect us will help us make our modeling better—not because we can ever account for every unforeseen possibility, but because the recognition that there are unforeseen possibilities can guide us in how to build extra caution into our practices.

It isn't that the math is wrong, it isn't that the theory is wrong. It is the inputs aren't what you assume them to be.

That variable A in your math isn't A, but 1000*P - 0.001*Q + 0.0001*R^2 + 0.00003*S^T and most of the time A is near 1000 P because Q, R, S and T are near zero. But then the monkey wrench comes along and BAM. You need a new model. This is why all models are implicitly distrusted. Doesn't matter if it was Newton's theory of gravity or climate change.

As far as CO2 goes, we know what goes into the model. CO2 per person per year times lifespan raised to the power of population. This is the biggest factor by far. As it is exponential, we must concentrate on reducing the exponent as our first priority in lowering CO2. The secondary factors to reduce are lifespan and amount of CO2 per person. As this is exponential, unless the lifespan or CO2 per person is precisely zero eventually CO2 becomes infinite!

Are we willing to reduce population growth? If not, we are doomed. Are we willing to reduce lifespan? Doesn't seem likely given all the money funneled into medicine. Are we willing to reduce CO2 per person or level of industrialization? Doubtful.

Should we conserve where we can? Of course, but it doesn't solve the problem long term.

ID: 1363338 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30593
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1363349 - Posted: 1 May 2013, 22:12:11 UTC - in response to Message 1363340.  

Are we willing to reduce population growth? If not, we are doomed.

So the world should adopt China's approach? We all know that some people are breeding like flies, surely education is the answer?

Can the fate of the world rest on education and self restraint?

Consider how many smoke and how many are obese before answering.

ID: 1363349 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20084
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1363359 - Posted: 1 May 2013, 22:37:36 UTC - in response to Message 1363349.  
Last modified: 1 May 2013, 22:38:41 UTC

Are we willing to reduce population growth? If not, we are doomed.

So the world should adopt China's approach? We all know that some people are breeding like flies, surely education is the answer?

Can the fate of the world rest on education and self restraint?

Consider how many smoke and how many are obese before answering.

All by the fanatical unrestrained power of Marketing overwhelming the feeble pretence of school education...


Interestingly, the NHS here in the UK are running "good food" courses for those who have fallen victim to junk food Marketing and subsequent ill health due to bad diet and diabetes and... A common stingingly ringing feedback comment is:

WHY THE HELL WERE WE NEVER TAUGHT THIS IN SCHOOL ALL THOSE YEARS AGO!


Good diet is an awful lot more healthy and cheaper than repeated hospital visits.

All for the sake of some healthy education?

Also include healthy education for our planet? Tibet and Kerala had/have that right for a long time now...


All on our only planet,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1363359 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30593
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1363429 - Posted: 2 May 2013, 4:42:42 UTC - in response to Message 1363359.  

All by the fanatical unrestrained power of Marketing overwhelming the feeble pretence of school education...

Oh the power you assign Madison Avenue. Perhaps you should look at something called a bell curve.

ID: 1363429 · Report as offensive
Terror Australis
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 14 Feb 04
Posts: 1817
Credit: 262,693,308
RAC: 44
Australia
Message 1363431 - Posted: 2 May 2013, 4:52:10 UTC

What the title of this thread ignores is the difference between "denial" and "scepticism".

"Denial" is when a person refuses to accept a HARD fact, such as the death of a loved one.

"Scepticism" is when a person looks at the data and the sometimes extreme claims being made based on that data and says "Hmmm, I think you may be stretching the point somewhat here, show me more proof".

It cannot be refuted that the "warmist" faction has made some pretty outrageous and wildly inaccurate claims over the past few years, such as the one that half the world's population would be dead by the end of 2012, that sea levels would rise by 300 metres etc. etc. Many of which have already proved wrong. The global population continues to grow, any sea level rise detected is measured in millimetres and temperature rises (if any) are measured in fractions of a degree.

I also wonder about the demonisation of CO2. When I was studying high school science in in the early 60's we were taught that the concentration of this gas in the atmosphere was 300ppm. If it is now 350ppm, to me, that is not an earth shattering increase, 50 ppm is well within the tolerance of measuring techniques now compared to what it was then, or the figure being rounded off for the text books.

There are many other point I could argue. The problems that occur when people with no knowledge of computer modelling using "Off the shelf" modelling programs (which has already been pointed out). I remember in the early 90's when the term GIGO was redefined by a computer professional (with tongue planted firmly in cheek) as "Garbage In, Gospel Out".

I also have doubts about the bona fides of some of the "warmist" spokespeople, after all, when your income and the fact that pushing a certain barrow gets you a lot of personal publicity, it's in their own interest to push that barrow. The more extreme the claims you make, the more you get on television.

When I see Tim Flannery on TV, I'm reminded more of Jimmy Swaggert than Jonas Salk or Mother Teresa.

T.A.

ID: 1363431 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1363740 - Posted: 2 May 2013, 22:47:43 UTC
Last modified: 2 May 2013, 22:58:34 UTC

ID: 1363740 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1363744 - Posted: 2 May 2013, 22:59:58 UTC

Fakegate: The Obnoxious Fabrication of Global Warming
Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...
ID: 1363744 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1363763 - Posted: 3 May 2013, 2:07:02 UTC

THE GLOBAL WARMING HOAX

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...
ID: 1363763 · Report as offensive
Darth Beaver Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 20 Aug 99
Posts: 6728
Credit: 21,443,075
RAC: 3
Australia
Message 1363881 - Posted: 3 May 2013, 11:19:49 UTC - in response to Message 1363877.  

I take it that's a quote from one of the silly links I have not and wont bother wasting time on . So not surprised
ID: 1363881 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24870
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 1363934 - Posted: 3 May 2013, 13:14:10 UTC - in response to Message 1363877.  

They are a bunch of herbalists that advocate alternative medicine, which is not proven by using scientific methods.


Oh I don't know, take cannabis - it's a proven fact that it alleviates MS sufferers & before the jokers pop in, no MS isn't Microsoft in this instance).

& before the naysayers pop in, isn't morphine a derivate of opium which is produced from the poppy plant?
ID: 1363934 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1364036 - Posted: 3 May 2013, 17:00:01 UTC

TEN MYTHS of Global Warming



MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.

FACT: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8Cover the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects").

There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.


MYTH 2: The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature increase for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.

FACT: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the "average global temperature" has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare.

The "hockey stick", a poster boy of both the UN's IPCC and Canada's Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that.



MYTH 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.

FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.



MYTH 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.

FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3 % of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as "greenhouse agents" than water vapour and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the effect by their sheer volume and – in the end – are thought to be responsible for 60% of the "Greenhouse effect".
Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention this important fact.


MYTH 5: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming.

FACT: Computer models can be made to "verify" anything by changing some of the 5 million input parameters or any of a multitude of negative and positive feedbacks in the program used.. They do not "prove" anything. Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover.


MYTH 6: The UN proved that man–made CO2 causes global warming.
FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft. Here they are:
1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”

To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.



MYTH 7: CO2 is a pollutant.

FACT: This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government has included CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious substances listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as their means to politically control it.


MYTH 8: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.

FACT: There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that supports such claims on a global scale. Regional variations may occur. Growing insurance and infrastructure repair costs, particularly in coastal areas, are sometimes claimed to be the result of increasing frequency and severity of storms, whereas in reality they are a function of increasing population density, escalating development value, and ever more media reporting.



MYTH 9: Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of global warming.

FACT: Glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. It’s normal. Besides, glacier's health is dependent as much on precipitation as on temperature.


MYTH 10: The earth’s poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up and melting and the sea level rising.

FACT: The earth is variable. The western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer, due to unrelated cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean, but the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder. The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling. Ice thicknesses are increasing both on Greenland and in Antarctica.

Sea level monitoring in the Pacific (Tuvalu) and Indian Oceans (Maldives) has shown no sign of any sea level rise.

Source---Friends of Science.
Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...
ID: 1364036 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 . . . 36 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects: DENIAL


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.