|
|
Post by sandypine on Jan 7, 2023 13:31:57 GMT
The current warming is believed by some to be due to CO2. There is a proven laboratory effect which has yet to be shown to be relevant to the earth's system. The whole point is that when statements are made that AGM is the cause they are easily shown to be on shaky ground as regards cause and effect. The 'proof' from models is at best suspect and the predictions made from such models are time and again shown to be inaccurate as the 'tipping points' are passed with no runaway heat occurring. The 0.134C increase per decade actually measured since the 70s does not tally with any of the dire warnings issued in the IPCC reports. The two pauses are a spoke in the theoretical wheel and to mix metaphors the whole edifice is in danger of coming of the rails. Hence the desperation to take us cult like into the future through what appears to be direct and intentional lies. There is no reason to doubt the laboratory results would not repeat on a global scale. There is no evidence of some other cause for global warming so the reasonable conclusion is that its a danger. I am not aware of any claims that tipping points were as low as 1 degree C. For the moment we are trying to stop global warming because the effects of even a degree of warming are more expensive to deal with than preventing it. I don't like the deniers to have it as easy as they are used to, historically all they have to do is say 'you can't prove it' (Is co2) (Will continue) (Will be bad) I say offer an alternative reason for the warming we are seeing, I say show the effects wont be bad. At the moment we still just get, "Its not grown by the amount you thought" "The weather didn't behave exactly as you predicted" "The ocean adsorbed more heat than you thought" But those preparing for the future cannot wait and see if its as bad as the scientist think, they can't wait to see if theory is proven. There is every reason to doubt the laboratory results would repeat on a global scale as what we are witnessing is that actuality being proven time and again by observation. We know CO2 has relentlessly increased over the last ten years. It is a steady climb. The laboratory experiments repeated globally should show a steady increase over the last ten years of temperature, yet it has not, there has been no warming for over 8 years. So other factors are at work. Other factors that either store the heat or dissipate the heat more effectively despite CO2 concentrations increasing. We have been told that storm systems will become worse, yet it has not happened and extreme weather events will proliferate and they have not As regards 'deniers' saying they cannot prove it etc one of the worst features of the AGW lobby is that those who rely on science to show that what is stated to be happening is at best wrong and at worst as dangerous bunkum are pilloried, personally attacked as unworthy, removed from prestigious posts and denied access to any mainstream funding through vilification in the press. The pressure is on to demand that we must do something now yet the 'we' is always just us in the Western world. We must reach net zero ( a game in itself), we must not travel so much or so far nor should we be so warm in winter nor cool in summer, 'we' are destroying the planet yet have nothing to do with burning the rain forests. Those preparing for the future are no longer believed as prophets they are seen more as insidious manipulators. |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Jan 7, 2023 14:18:30 GMT
All around me I see madness. There is madness on the radio, madness drama, madness in the UK social media, especially regarding rising up against the state in one huge and total strike of all workers (sic) of the United Kingdom. Then I look in my local paper and this week some wicked woman has been sent to prison for stabbing and murdering her lodger, which in turn killed his wife in the same way 20 years ago. There are many similar examples of murders virtually every day in the United Kingdom. Finally I have a sift through the various jobs on offer in my local area and I was rather stunned to notice that except for your retail jobs nearly every other job was in social care, and many were "special needs" and well you guessed it - caring for total nutters that can't look after themselves.
Does anyone really understand the cause of all of this madness? Let me know if you have any theories regarding it. In particular why is it getting worse?
I blame 24 hour news When I was a child, Brady and Hindley were murdering children my age for the pleasure it brought and they were just the start. All sorts of shit went on. I know because mum worked for the police surgeon called to deal with half of it and dad was in school with the bloke who ran the home office forensic science service local office. But with one news broadcast a day in the late evening and much shorter ones at 6pm and barely two minutes at 1pm people who now, like you, spend too much time listening to endless rolling news had no such access and lived happy fulfilled lives blissfully unaware of the going’s on beneath the veneer of respectability That’s what’s changed Baron. The evil was always there, you never heard about it.With the number of historical crimes now coming to light — this would appear to be the case... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2023 15:04:44 GMT
I was discussing CO2 and climate change with a friend who suggested we need to do more to stop CO2 rising.
As a part of this discussion I asked him what percentage of the air was CO2 and he said "20%?". I said it's much less, he said "5%?".
I said "let's put it this way, if the air was in a tube 1 kilometre long and the gases were all separated how much of the tube would be CO2?"
He didn't know so I gave him the answer 40cm, or about 16" out of a kilometre.
He was gobsmacked. We do live in a UK madhouse.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 7, 2023 16:31:59 GMT
There is no reason to doubt the laboratory results would not repeat on a global scale. There is no evidence of some other cause for global warming so the reasonable conclusion is that its a danger. I am not aware of any claims that tipping points were as low as 1 degree C. For the moment we are trying to stop global warming because the effects of even a degree of warming are more expensive to deal with than preventing it. I don't like the deniers to have it as easy as they are used to, historically all they have to do is say 'you can't prove it' (Is co2) (Will continue) (Will be bad) I say offer an alternative reason for the warming we are seeing, I say show the effects wont be bad. At the moment we still just get, "Its not grown by the amount you thought" "The weather didn't behave exactly as you predicted" "The ocean adsorbed more heat than you thought" But those preparing for the future cannot wait and see if its as bad as the scientist think, they can't wait to see if theory is proven. There is every reason to doubt the laboratory results would repeat on a global scale as what we are witnessing is that actuality being proven time and again by observation. We know CO2 has relentlessly increased over the last ten years. It is a steady climb. The laboratory experiments repeated globally should show a steady increase over the last ten years of temperature, yet it has not, there has been no warming for over 8 years. So other factors are at work. Other factors that either store the heat or dissipate the heat more effectively despite CO2 concentrations increasing. We have been told that storm systems will become worse, yet it has not happened and extreme weather events will proliferate and they have not As regards 'deniers' saying they cannot prove it etc one of the worst features of the AGW lobby is that those who rely on science to show that what is stated to be happening is at best wrong and at worst as dangerous bunkum are pilloried, personally attacked as unworthy, removed from prestigious posts and denied access to any mainstream funding through vilification in the press. The pressure is on to demand that we must do something now yet the 'we' is always just us in the Western world. We must reach net zero ( a game in itself), we must not travel so much or so far nor should we be so warm in winter nor cool in summer, 'we' are destroying the planet yet have nothing to do with burning the rain forests. Those preparing for the future are no longer believed as prophets they are seen more as insidious manipulators. Other factors are at work mitigating that warming effect, that does not mean Co2 does not increase temperature. There is no doubt that everything from increased vegetation growth to oceans adsorbing heat to a solar maunder are reducing the rate of heat up, but they are not stopping it. As far as denier scientists are concerned give me the list of these thousands of scientists who tried to call out global warming and were pilloried or lost their jobs. I say they don't exist. I say the idea that any the scientists I know could be silenced on the truth is just bollox. Let alone the thousands that support AGW. Frankly the idea that the press, governments and scientific institutions have all banded together to waste public money on renewable energy while finding ways to increase hurricanes storm surges tornados rainfall desertification droughts glacial melt all just to back up their enormous lie it literally unbelievable. And its not just the Western world. There is pressure on every country from China to India to reduce missions. Stop peddling that nonsense. The ig difference is that we are already rich from our industrialisation and contribution to global warming China and India are not. Of course destroying forests contributes to global warming, do you really think only you know that? But Europe and America cut down their forests eons ago so why should it not be us that replants them? And travel. What percentage of Pakistanis do you think flies each year or even once in their lives? Of course those who fly most need to fly less, how can those who don't fly as all fly less? |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 7, 2023 16:36:23 GMT
I was discussing CO2 and climate change with a friend who suggested we need to do more to stop CO2 rising. As a part of this discussion I asked him what percentage of the air was CO2 and he said "20%?". I said it's much less, he said "5%?". I said "let's put it this way, if the air was in a tube 1 kilometre long and the gases were all separated how much of the tube would be CO2?" He didn't know so I gave him the answer 40cm, or about 16" out of a kilometre. He was gobsmacked. We do live in a UK madhouse. I take it he's not a climate scientist. Did you explain to him that the 0.04% was enough to keep the world a cosy 14c average. And that without that tiny 0.04% the average global temperature would be -50c. Did you explain that this is why even tiny increases in the percentage have enormous effects? I don't suppose so. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2023 16:40:36 GMT
I was discussing CO2 and climate change with a friend who suggested we need to do more to stop CO2 rising. As a part of this discussion I asked him what percentage of the air was CO2 and he said "20%?". I said it's much less, he said "5%?". I said "let's put it this way, if the air was in a tube 1 kilometre long and the gases were all separated how much of the tube would be CO2?" He didn't know so I gave him the answer 40cm, or about 16" out of a kilometre. He was gobsmacked. We do live in a UK madhouse. I take it he's not a climate scientist. Did you explain to him that the 0.04% was enough to keep the world a cosy 14c average. And that without that tiny 0.04% the average global temperature would be -50c. Did you explain that this is why even tiny increases in the percentage have enormous effects? I don't suppose so. No. Because I don't believe what you have posted, it is conjecture. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jan 7, 2023 16:54:19 GMT
It is to obtain some consistency in comparisons. If one has fixed stations that become surrounded by asphalt and concrete and houses and cars and buses then you cannot operate any meaningful comparison as regards temperature increase over the decades. The Urban heat island effect seems to be very localised and does not seem to have any major impact on stations in rural areas reasonably close by but has an obvious daytime and nighttime effect on those in, or very close to, urban areas and the correction factors applied may be inadequate to keep up with the rate of urbanisation. Obviously if they shift the station because it is now in an urban area they have to try and apply factors to correct for changes in elevation, wind speeds, maritime proximity etc etc. The NOAA in the US used some 114 stations to compare with stations that were moved to show that factors applied were relevant. Many urban areas will dissipate their heat to space easily when skies clear so they do not appear to be a significant factor in warming of the planet as such. Warming by CO2 appears to be a Logarithmic relationship in that CO2 increases will force warming but always to a lessening degree. My brother did some work on anaesthetic gases for a company he had worked for and had to go through the principles in the IPCC report and explained it in layman's terms to me most of which shot well over my head with lots of Uh, huhs and yesses. What is very clear is 'the science' like all science, is very far from being settled. The warmists may in the end be right and we are all doomed but currently their catastrophic projections are at best shaky and at worst direct lies Yes that's all fine. The basic effect of CO2 in trapping radiative energy is not linear in that a doubling of CO2 concentration from 1ppm to 2ppm causes the same temperature rise as doubling the concentration from 200ppm to 400ppm. So it's very much a diminishing factor in warming. But the point I was trying to make is that it's OK for the Climate change bodies to try to filter out high urban temperatures in order to make modern temperature readings comparable to historic ones (when there was less urbanisation). However, that misses the fact that urban areas ARE much warmer than rural ones. And as urban areas expand over large areas of the planet they are the source of significant planet warming. And it's warming that is causing the climate change (if any). So a large part of that warming is caused by urban areas. Yet this is being dismissed by bodies like the IPCC because the albedo of urban areas is roughly the same as rural areas. And urban areas are simply storing this heat and radiating it - while rural areas are storing it and causing cooling. Surely the important factors are measurements of CO2 at different altitudes or any other change in the gas makeup of the atmosphere, e.g. methane, and the other one s the albedo of the earth's surface. I think you could measure those pretty accurately and there is nothing man-made to interfere with measurements in the upper atmosphere. Albedo could be done using satellite measurements. From this data you can compute how bad the problem is with confidence. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 7, 2023 17:12:26 GMT
I take it he's not a climate scientist. Did you explain to him that the 0.04% was enough to keep the world a cosy 14c average. And that without that tiny 0.04% the average global temperature would be -50c. Did you explain that this is why even tiny increases in the percentage have enormous effects? I don't suppose so. No. Because I don't believe what you have posted, it is conjecture. No that definitely is not. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2023 17:22:51 GMT
No. Because I don't believe what you have posted, it is conjecture. No that definitely is not. Of course it is. If there was 0% CO2 there would be no plant life on earth. When , in history has that happened? Never, so it is conjecture. |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Jan 7, 2023 19:06:47 GMT
No that definitely is not. Of course it is. If there was 0% CO2 there would be no plant life on earth. When , in history has that happened? Never, so it is conjecture. What I can confidently call conjecture is the creationist fairy tale that Earth appeared fully populated and planted out of nowhere and wasn’t at any time devoid of any material, plants or beings since noted and identified… |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Jan 7, 2023 19:32:43 GMT
Of course it is. If there was 0% CO2 there would be no plant life on earth. When , in history has that happened? Never, so it is conjecture. What I can confidently call conjecture is the creationist fairy tale that Earth appeared fully populated and planted out of nowhere and wasn’t at any time devoid of any material, plants or beings since noted and identified… It doesn't say it was fully populated, certainly by humans, of which there were none. It's proven that Man was created by God blowing up the nose of a dust sculpture and a woman created using a man's rib. Proof of this can be found in the Bible and the Koran. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jan 7, 2023 19:56:22 GMT
There is every reason to doubt the laboratory results would repeat on a global scale as what we are witnessing is that actuality being proven time and again by observation. We know CO2 has relentlessly increased over the last ten years. It is a steady climb. The laboratory experiments repeated globally should show a steady increase over the last ten years of temperature, yet it has not, there has been no warming for over 8 years. So other factors are at work. Other factors that either store the heat or dissipate the heat more effectively despite CO2 concentrations increasing. We have been told that storm systems will become worse, yet it has not happened and extreme weather events will proliferate and they have not As regards 'deniers' saying they cannot prove it etc one of the worst features of the AGW lobby is that those who rely on science to show that what is stated to be happening is at best wrong and at worst as dangerous bunkum are pilloried, personally attacked as unworthy, removed from prestigious posts and denied access to any mainstream funding through vilification in the press. The pressure is on to demand that we must do something now yet the 'we' is always just us in the Western world. We must reach net zero ( a game in itself), we must not travel so much or so far nor should we be so warm in winter nor cool in summer, 'we' are destroying the planet yet have nothing to do with burning the rain forests. Those preparing for the future are no longer believed as prophets they are seen more as insidious manipulators. Other factors are at work mitigating that warming effect, that does not mean Co2 does not increase temperature. There is no doubt that everything from increased vegetation growth to oceans adsorbing heat to a solar maunder are reducing the rate of heat up, but they are not stopping it. As far as denier scientists are concerned give me the list of these thousands of scientists who tried to call out global warming and were pilloried or lost their jobs. I say they don't exist. I say the idea that any the scientists I know could be silenced on the truth is just bollox. Let alone the thousands that support AGW. Frankly the idea that the press, governments and scientific institutions have all banded together to waste public money on renewable energy while finding ways to increase hurricanes storm surges tornados rainfall desertification droughts glacial melt all just to back up their enormous lie it literally unbelievable. And its not just the Western world. There is pressure on every country from China to India to reduce missions. Stop peddling that nonsense. The ig difference is that we are already rich from our industrialisation and contribution to global warming China and India are not. Of course destroying forests contributes to global warming, do you really think only you know that? But Europe and America cut down their forests eons ago so why should it not be us that replants them? And travel. What percentage of Pakistanis do you think flies each year or even once in their lives? Of course those who fly most need to fly less, how can those who don't fly as all fly less? As regards scientists who are pilloried etc then I can give you one for kick off. Judith Curry.Banned by Youtube. We have to consider that there is an advantage in some size shape or form to believe a certain way. The political advantage is easy, it means that all problems can be redirected to another cause. ie we are not working for you individually but for the good of mankind There is also the worldwide ability to effect controls over the populace all in a good cause. These are not unusual happenings the secondment of the organs of state to the causes of authoritarian regimes are well documented and causes that may seem just and right at the time will soon become, did I really believe that. It is not a case of all flying less, it is a case of selecting who will fly less and your scenario of fairness is in your mind morally just but once again just tarring all of some groups with the same brush. Why would you differentiate by Nation as most people have had no control over what their nation has done in the past or committed to in the future. If you wish to save the planet start with the worst polluters as individuals do not dress me and mine in the hodden grey and demand I walk instead of ride. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jan 7, 2023 21:15:04 GMT
What I can confidently call conjecture is the creationist fairy tale that Earth appeared fully populated and planted out of nowhere and wasn’t at any time devoid of any material, plants or beings since noted and identified… It doesn't say it was fully populated, certainly by humans, of which there were none. It's proven that Man was created by God blowing up the nose of a dust sculpture and a woman created using a man's rib. Proof of this can be found in the Bible and the Koran. And we know what has happened to denialists over the years as regards these proven events. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jan 8, 2023 8:12:03 GMT
I was discussing CO2 and climate change with a friend who suggested we need to do more to stop CO2 rising. As a part of this discussion I asked him what percentage of the air was CO2 and he said "20%?". I said it's much less, he said "5%?". I said "let's put it this way, if the air was in a tube 1 kilometre long and the gases were all separated how much of the tube would be CO2?" He didn't know so I gave him the answer 40cm, or about 16" out of a kilometre. He was gobsmacked. We do live in a UK madhouse. I take it he's not a climate scientist. Did you explain to him that the 0.04% was enough to keep the world a cosy 14c average. And that without that tiny 0.04% the average global temperature would be -50c. Did you explain that this is why even tiny increases in the percentage have enormous effects? I don't suppose so. You also aren't a climate scientist. Have you considered that water vapour is 80 times stronger as a greenhouse gas than CO2? And that it's present in air at concentrations up to 50 times higher. Yet no one is blaming water vapour for warming. And it isn't even factored into the climate models. And do you know why? Because it's very complicated to model because water can be in any one of three phases at Earth's temperatures (ice, liquid and vapour) which the scientists can't model. CO2 is simple because it remains as a simple gas. The scientists can only model what they understand. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jan 8, 2023 8:24:50 GMT
That's simply an assertion. There are several interesting things about the ETCW. It seems to be an almost carbon copy of the current warming period with the exception that it occurred without any significant rise in CO2 concentrations. And the scientists haven't got any definitive explanation of why it happened. The other thing is that the ETCW has basically disappeared from IPCC graphs because they've been "Kalman filtered" out because there was no commensurate rise in CO2 (and that's despite the fact that the ETCW was verified by independent readings from many bodies). Who's to say that the current warming isn't also a meaningless blip that will disappear in 30 years time? We don't know. What's clear is that the warming effect of CO2 diminishes as CO2 increases (because of the logarithmic relationship that SP pointed out). But the cooling effect of CO2 (photosynthesis etc) does not diminish in the same way. You answer your own point. Both events involve warming the difference as you state is the cause. ETCW was not caused by increased Co2 current warming is.
Your entire argument is based around the idea that we don't know what's causing the current warming, but we do. Your reason why we don't know is that we can't be 100% sure what caused the last warming. I note you do not dispute either the increase in Co2, nor the effect increased Co2 has on the retention of heat. Again that's just an assertion. From a scientific point of view they're two relatively recent periods of warming (that look remarkably similar on a graph) yet one occurred during a period of rapidly increasing CO2 and one did NOT. And the scientists can't explain the ETCW. In science you look for things that don't fit your theory (in order to test it). So the CO2 warming theory has been proved wrong. It's also been proved wrong by the fact that the warming period stopped (during a period of increasing CO2) - yet the IPCC "massaged" the data to get rid of the "hiatus" by deleting readings that didn't fit their theory, leading to resignations of two scientists. And I don't dispute the increase in CO2 or the fact that CO2 tends to trap heat. But I also know that CO2 plays a very important part in also COOLING the planet (by photosynthesis) and that the scientists don't model this. |
|
