|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 29, 2023 7:31:01 GMT
1.That depends entirely on what you mean by don't work. If you mean give opposite or widely inaccurate results to that the hypothesis supposes then you are right. If you just mean it can't give exact results then you are wrong. 2. I would like to point out that of course scientists include water vapour in their modelling, the reason they focus on Co2 is its magnifying effect on the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere. Without AGW concentrations of water vapour would return to pre industrial levels. 3. Further I would argue that "We can't predict accurately" has never been a scientific argument for "We should do nothing" 1. I can't make any sense of this gobble-de-gook. The predictions of the climate models have been shown to wrong for decades - and always in the direction of exaggerating warming. 2. You do have a habit of just making stuff up zany. This is just rubbish. As I've said the "climate change models" are based heavily on the weather models with the exception that they include a coefficient that determines how much the temperature rises for increases in CO2. That's all. There is no such calculation for water because they can't model a substance that exists in 3 phases in the atmosphere. They can't even model a simple substance like CO2 which is always a gas - that's why they use the hypothesis. As for "Without AGW concentrations of water vapour would return to pre industrial levels" don't be ridiculous. Water vapour various hugely and is widely ignored. You just make stuff up zany. 3. That's the old nonsense "We must do something". This is the kind of stuff that has led to the sale of vast numbers of diesel cars that have led to illegal levels of pollutants in our cities. 1. Sorry you are unable to understand. But not surprised. 2. No I don't, do you deny that increased atmospheric Co2 multiplies the amount of water vapour the atmosphere can hold? Your garbage about not being able model water because its capable of being solid, liquid or gas, is just garbage you've made up to sound knowledgeable. 3, Whereas petrol vehicles would be just fine. NO. that's you corrupting the evidence. Diesels are better for the environment than petrol but due to the particulates they produce they are not good in crowded areas. A balance is needed. That was always the case only people like you choose to confuse folk. Both Petrol and diesel cars need to meet Euro 5 and 6 to meet ULEZ rules in cities. But your example neatly points out the base of your whole argument. If you can't get it perfect then you have any number of excuses to do nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jul 29, 2023 7:45:31 GMT
I'm not an expert on climatology but I do understand scientific method and I can recognise "pseudo-science" - which has become a big industry now - when I see it. The climate models are very basic - as the modelling experts have admitted - and they can't model the behaviour of CO2 in the earth's system because it's simply too complicated. They also can't model the behaviour of water vapour, which is about 80 times more powerful than CO2 as a greenhouse gas and exists in vastly greater concentrations than CO2. The modelling of water vapour is completely out of the question at the moment because it exists in 3 phases in the atmosphere (water, ice and gas) so they've just left it out of the models from the point of view of warming/cooling. (Like CO2 it also has cooling effects such as when it forms clouds). In the case of CO2 what they've done is make an assumption (a hypothesis) that CO2 causes only warming and they've created a coefficient that defines the amount of warming it causes by ppm of CO2. This is a device that scientists use when they don't understand something and it's perfectly acceptable. The trouble is that the models built on this hypothesis don't work. So the hypothesis is therefore probably wrong. It's quite simple - that's the way science works. . 2. For me personaly I know from my own experience ( without scientific evidence ), that someting is wrong, and that the conditions today are VERY different from when I was in my teens and early 20s back in the 1970s and 1980s. Where I live here in the North of England, the frosts always arrived late October / early November, and the frosts were common and frequent - today they are now very rare. The town where I was brought up used to often get cut off by snow, and drifts at the sides of the moorland roads were 5,6 and 8 feet deep - this does not happen any more. In Winter all households where I live kept candles in case of powercuts, the blizzards used to bring down the powerlines over the moors, and today we tell children about what it was like, because they have never experienced it. I know that very soon, perhaps in another 20 years, we probably wont see snow any more I think that most people are sensible enough NOT to believe a climate change denier on a discussion board, and that they would heed what scientists are telling us, but none the less, I do think its dangerous to be spreading the lie that climate change is not happening. If enough people deny or ignore reality, the greater the chances are of nothing been done about it 1. The trouble is, Sid, that you're believing the internet myth that 99% (or whatever lie it is today) of scientists believe the theory of CO2 warming. This is simply not true. There are plenty of scientists that do not believe this theory and can explain the facts by looking at data other than CO2. And the major body that promotes the CO2 theory - the IPCC - is NOT a scientific body. It's an intergovernmental body that seeks to present a consistent view of climate for governments. And the theory that they've chosen to present is that CO2 is causing the warming. If you were to consult a wide range of scientists on the subject you would - as always - get a wide range of views of what's happening. Scientists are like economists in that if you ask 2 economists their opinion you get 3 or more answers - it's the same with scientists. They're in a permanent state of disagreement about what's going on. This is particularly true of climate change because so little is understood of the subject. 2. On your personal experiences I agree with most of what you say. Except that your prediction about no more snow has already been made several times over many decades by the Met Office. I think they last made it in 2009, shortly before the whole country was blanketed in snow. In fact the snow was even covering the beaches in Torquay which nobody could ever remember happening before. And I remember, during one of the periods of flooding, that Prince Charles visited the Somerset village of Muchelney which had been turned into an island that could only be reached by boat. He used it as a good photo-opportunity to spout his nonsensical climate change theories. The problem is that "Muchelney" is old English for "Big island" - it's been flooding for centuries. But the climate IS changing - and no one has ever denied that. The argument is about what's causing the changes. And the CO2 theory doesn't work. Yours and my personal experiences are irrelevant because climate change happens over centuries - what we're seeing is changes in the weather. For example there has been an almost identical "blip" about 100 years ago - the Early Twentieth Century Warming ETCW - which occurred with no increase in CO2. If you go back a bit further there's the Medieval Warming Period MWP when there was also a certain degree of warming (warmer than today). But it wasn't climate change. And in the '70s the eminent scientists were predicting a mini-ice age - but it didn't happen. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jul 29, 2023 8:00:31 GMT
And you're plainly out of your depth. I should stick to posting random irrelevant links. This is a complicated subject. I'm not the halfwit trying to sell oil as green energy. I'm not sure if there's any point in replying to you because your posts are invariably ill-informed - and you don't seem to understand the rules of the forum or what the role of "moderator" is. It doesn't involve being abusive for a start. However, the fact is that oil most certainly is green. The production of oil is entirely green as the energy comes from the Sun and plants produce the precursors to oil by using CO2 that is in the air. All this is far cleaner than anything we can ever do - far cleaner and more efficient than solar panels for example. And the process of retrieving the Sun's energy from the oil - and returning the CO2 used back to the atmosphere - is also green if done by a modern petrol engine, which emits only CO2 and water. Which are both perfectly harmless chemicals that essential to all life on the planet. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jul 29, 2023 8:14:46 GMT
1. I can't make any sense of this gobble-de-gook. The predictions of the climate models have been shown to wrong for decades - and always in the direction of exaggerating warming. 2. You do have a habit of just making stuff up zany. This is just rubbish. As I've said the "climate change models" are based heavily on the weather models with the exception that they include a coefficient that determines how much the temperature rises for increases in CO2. That's all. There is no such calculation for water because they can't model a substance that exists in 3 phases in the atmosphere. They can't even model a simple substance like CO2 which is always a gas - that's why they use the hypothesis. As for "Without AGW concentrations of water vapour would return to pre industrial levels" don't be ridiculous. Water vapour various hugely and is widely ignored. You just make stuff up zany. 3. That's the old nonsense "We must do something". This is the kind of stuff that has led to the sale of vast numbers of diesel cars that have led to illegal levels of pollutants in our cities. 1. Sorry you are unable to understand. But not surprised. 2. No I don't, do you deny that increased atmospheric Co2 multiplies the amount of water vapour the atmosphere can hold? Your garbage about not being able model water because its capable of being solid, liquid or gas, is just garbage you've made up to sound knowledgeable. 3, Whereas petrol vehicles would be just fine. NO. that's you corrupting the evidence. Diesels are better for the environment than petrol but due to the particulates they produce they are not good in crowded areas. A balance is needed. That was always the case only people like you choose to confuse folk. Both Petrol and diesel cars need to meet Euro 5 and 6 to meet ULEZ rules in cities. But your example neatly points out the base of your whole argument. If you can't get it perfect then you have any number of excuses to do nothing. 1. Try writing it in English. 2. Yes I deny that CO2 multiplies the amount of water the atmosphere can hold. It's not true. Warming allows air to hold more water but there's no evidence that CO2 causes warming in the Earth's system as I've said before. And the "garbage" about the models and their representation of water comes from listening to - and reading - what genuine scientists have said about the models and their problems. You just make stuff up. 3. Bollocks as usual. Diesels are highly dangerous for many reasons but the main one is that they burn so hot that they oxidise nitrogen to form NOx. I can smell the NO2 coming from diesel exhausts - as you would be able to too if you'd spent years in labs messing about with chemicals as I have. It's very distinctive. And the biggest emitter of dangerous particulates now is probably BEVs - diesels and petrol cars now have particulate filters, but BEVs are so heavy that they shred their tyres very rapidly and produce rubber particulates which are nasty. As for "doing nothing" that's exactly what we should be doing NOTHING. As Peter Cook once said we should "immediately do nothing". That reminds me I was going to do a post on Tony Blair's recent statement to that effect. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2023 9:53:36 GMT
100% of scientists agree that Climate Change is happeningHowever, not all scientists agree that it is caused by humans There are a TINY minority who disagree on the causeTo put Climate Change into perspective, carbon dioxide levels are higher now in our atmosphere than at any time over the last 800,000 years, so what is happening is not cyclic or natural. The world has slowly been getting warmer, and this has happened since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution and industrialization of the plannet. The rise in temperature is gathering speed. There is absolutely no evidence what so ever that Climate Change is either normal, natural, or is part of a cycle.
|
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Jul 29, 2023 10:51:28 GMT
Apparently forest fires are raging across Europe...  This was Rhodes 3 days ago - and the comment from the photographer is: "According to the media the whole of Rhodes is on fire...madness the shit they tell us."
According to Greece's senior climate crisis official the fires were started across the country by criminal negligence and intent. For me this spells out eco-terrorism, which is being peddled by the media as fear porn whilst the left-wing fascists are pushing for more state control over the little man. Sure, environmentalists are burning down forests. In other news the EDL are beating up neo-Nazis. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Jul 29, 2023 10:55:30 GMT
I'm not the halfwit trying to sell oil as green energy. I'm not sure if there's any point in replying to you because your posts are invariably ill-informed - and you don't seem to understand the rules of the forum or what the role of "moderator" is. It doesn't involve being abusive for a start. However, the fact is that oil most certainly is green. The production of oil is entirely green as the energy comes from the Sun and plants produce the precursors to oil by using CO2 that is in the air. All this is far cleaner than anything we can ever do - far cleaner and more efficient than solar panels for example. And the process of retrieving the Sun's energy from the oil - and returning the CO2 used back to the atmosphere - is also green if done by a modern petrol engine, which emits only CO2 and water. Which are both perfectly harmless chemicals that essential to all life on the planet. It's not the production of fossil fuels that are the issue. You are intentionally misinformed. It's their burning. Talk about ill-informed. The only way oil is green is if you leave it in the ground as locked carbon. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 29, 2023 13:12:57 GMT
1. Sorry you are unable to understand. But not surprised. 2. No I don't, do you deny that increased atmospheric Co2 multiplies the amount of water vapour the atmosphere can hold? Your garbage about not being able model water because its capable of being solid, liquid or gas, is just garbage you've made up to sound knowledgeable. 3, Whereas petrol vehicles would be just fine. NO. that's you corrupting the evidence. Diesels are better for the environment than petrol but due to the particulates they produce they are not good in crowded areas. A balance is needed. That was always the case only people like you choose to confuse folk. Both Petrol and diesel cars need to meet Euro 5 and 6 to meet ULEZ rules in cities. But your example neatly points out the base of your whole argument. If you can't get it perfect then you have any number of excuses to do nothing. 1. Try writing it in English. 2. Yes I deny that CO2 multiplies the amount of water the atmosphere can hold. It's not true. Warming allows air to hold more water but there's no evidence that CO2 causes warming in the Earth's system as I've said before. And the "garbage" about the models and their representation of water comes from listening to - and reading - what genuine scientists have said about the models and their problems. You just make stuff up. 3. Bollocks as usual. Diesels are highly dangerous for many reasons but the main one is that they burn so hot that they oxidise nitrogen to form NOx. I can smell the NO2 coming from diesel exhausts - as you would be able to too if you'd spent years in labs messing about with chemicals as I have. It's very distinctive. And the biggest emitter of dangerous particulates now is probably BEVs - diesels and petrol cars now have particulate filters, but BEVs are so heavy that they shred their tyres very rapidly and produce rubber particulates which are nasty. 1, I did. Just couldn't get ones that fit through your narrow vision. 2, Here we part company. If you don't even know enough to understand that Co2 absorbs infrared radiation preventing it from returning to space then you can safely be stored in the nut tray. 3, Yes that's what I said. Diesel vehicles with particulate filters would meet ULEZ conditions and would not be banned in cities. Perhaps you should read what you write out loud before clicking 'post'. Thank Christ its not down to you. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jul 29, 2023 13:37:31 GMT
100% of scientists agree that Climate Change is happeningHowever, not all scientists agree that it is caused by humansView AttachmentThere are a TINY minority who disagree on the causeTo put Climate Change into perspective, carbon dioxide levels are higher now in our atmosphere than at any time over the last 800,000 years, so what is happening is not cyclic or natural. The world has slowly been getting warmer, and this has happened since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution and industrialization of the plannet. The rise in temperature is gathering speed. There is absolutely no evidence what so ever that Climate Change is either normal, natural, or is part of a cycle. Let's just clarify the issue because so many of you fail to understand what the question is. The claim by the climate change lobby (like the IPCC) is that the primary driver of climate change is man-made CO2. THAT's what we're talking about. No one is arguing about whether man has some influence on climate change - it's obvious that a virtually 8 times increase in human population since 1850 (from 1 billion to nearly 8 billion) will have had a significant effect on climate. But the question is whether it's virtually ALL down to CO2. Read that again and understand what the debate is about. Zany has been arguing about this for years I think and still doesn't understand what the debate is about. When you've understood what the question is, look again at the pointless statistics you posted: - 100% of scientists agree that climate change is happening. Of course. No one has ever denied this. - Not all scientists agree that it is caused by humans. Obviously, because it's not. Some is caused by humans and some by natural effects. - There are a tiny minority who disagree on the cause. Nonsense. Almost all of them disagree on the cause. The "attribution" has NEVER been done - and all the scientists admit this. And then look at the nonsense statistics that you posted. Are you aware of how these figures were arrived at? The authors (who were NOT scientists) did google searches on a large number of peer reviewed papers and skimmed through them to decide whether they supported "man-made climate change" or not - whatever that means. Unfortunately the fact is that most of these peer-reviewed papers were not even about the causes of climate change - they were about the consequences of climate change. This is a fairly fundamental misunderstanding. So they are completely irrelevant to the current debate. FYI there are NO peer-reviewed papers on the causes of climate change - for the simple reason that no one CAN peer-review this stuff without access to all the computers and computer staff that were involved in writing them. I could tell you more but I'm afraid that your knowledge level ahs already been exceeded. Most scientists say they don't know |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Jul 29, 2023 13:48:44 GMT
All honest scientists say I don't know but they follow it with ''but the evidence leads me to conclude...''
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jul 29, 2023 13:56:59 GMT
I'm not sure if there's any point in replying to you because your posts are invariably ill-informed - and you don't seem to understand the rules of the forum or what the role of "moderator" is. It doesn't involve being abusive for a start. However, the fact is that oil most certainly is green. The production of oil is entirely green as the energy comes from the Sun and plants produce the precursors to oil by using CO2 that is in the air. All this is far cleaner than anything we can ever do - far cleaner and more efficient than solar panels for example. And the process of retrieving the Sun's energy from the oil - and returning the CO2 used back to the atmosphere - is also green if done by a modern petrol engine, which emits only CO2 and water. Which are both perfectly harmless chemicals that essential to all life on the planet. It's not the production of fossil fuels that are the issue you retard it's their burning. Talk about ill-informed. The only way oil is green is if you leave it in the ground as locked carbon. I've tried to keep it polite but I'm not going to be called a "retard" by the likes of you. There are some very clever people on this forum "Montegriffo" but sadly you're not one of them. And as a "moderator" you're a total disgrace. I have never reported people but I will report your post because you're abusing your position. FYI the burning of oil - as I've already pointed out to you - is entirely clean provided that you don't use diesels (as the ecomentalists recommended). CO2 and water are both entirely natural constituents of the atmosphere - in fact they're essential to all life, except some microbes like you maybe. If you're trying to say, in your usual inarticulate fashion, that we're returning the CO2 back to the atmosphere in a shortened timescale to when it was removed, of course. That's the consequence of the increased population. Malthus pointed out many years ago that there is a limit to how many people the Earth can support. But who cares. The CO2 will cause greater growth of plants so it will attempt to balance the shortfall. You don't understand how the Earth's buffering works - or much else. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jul 29, 2023 14:02:22 GMT
All honest scientists say I don't know but they follow it with ''but the evidence leads me to conclude...'' And how many scientists do you know "Montegriffo"? And exactly what does the evidence lead them to conclude? Presumably it leads them to conclude that they don't know - as scientists are usually logical. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Jul 29, 2023 14:16:41 GMT
It's not the production of fossil fuels that are the issue you retard it's their burning. Talk about ill-informed. The only way oil is green is if you leave it in the ground as locked carbon. I've tried to keep it polite but I'm not going to be called a "retard" by the likes of you. There are some very clever people on this forum "Montegriffo" but sadly you're not one of them. And as a "moderator" you're a total disgrace. I have never reported people but I will report your post because you're abusing your position. FYI the burning of oil - as I've already pointed out to you - is entirely clean provided that you don't use diesels (as the ecomentalists recommended). CO2 and water are both entirely natural constituents of the atmosphere - in fact they're essential to all life, except some microbes like you maybe. If you're trying to say, in your usual inarticulate fashion, that we're returning the CO2 back to the atmosphere in a shortened timescale to when it was removed, of course. That's the consequence of the increased population. Malthus pointed out many years ago that there is a limit to how many people the Earth can support. But who cares. The CO2 will cause greater growth of plants so it will attempt to balance the shortfall. You don't understand how the Earth's buffering works - or much else. If you are going to repeatedly call me ill informed you can expect a response in kind. Your argument that oil is green is retarded. You on the other hand are just intentionally misinformed. I shall edit my response accordingly. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jul 29, 2023 14:39:46 GMT
As I said you're a disgrace as a moderator and should be removed. I've reported your post because any reasonable forum should expect higher standards of their moderators. Especially on a part of their forum that has additional rules that ban ad hominem attacks.
My argument is very simple and accurate. The production of oil is entirely clean and the extraction of energy from oil is also entirely green in that it releases only water and CO2 when burnt in a modern petrol engine. It does NOT create pollution.
Those are FACTS.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2023 14:42:38 GMT
According to Greece's senior climate crisis official the fires were started across the country by criminal negligence and intent. For me this spells out eco-terrorism, which is being peddled by the media as fear porn whilst the left-wing fascists are pushing for more state control over the little man. Sure, environmentalists are burning down forests. In other news the EDL are beating up neo-Nazis. My response to Pacifco was relating to what has been going on in Greece. I'm unsure why you feel the need to dismiss it and try and undermine other people's arguments, whilst adding nothing of value.
|
|
