|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 8, 2023 8:30:57 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. So you think something is only fact if you have seen it happen yourself. To you the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs is purely conjecture. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jan 8, 2023 8:30:58 GMT
But the heat trapped by CO2 also leaks into space. All energy tends to leak out eventually. Why should UHI heat leak out more quickly? It is not the energy built up it is the energy trapped. The energy reaching the earth is broadly the same, the energy dissipated depends on many things one being, apparently, CO2 levels. UDI contributes to localised heat but not to global heat as there is no extra energy there just a different way to radiate it. Bur both CO2 and urban areas trap heat. And no heat is localised. And urban heat islands are not necessarily small areas - look at the pictures of Earth taken from space or by satellite. The expansion of urban areas is incredible. Also you have to consider that urban areas are very much warmer than rural ones - up to 10C hotter given a similar location. Yet we're asked to believe that this effect is insignificant by the climate change bodies. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 8, 2023 8:50:07 GMT
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 hidden grey and demand I walk instead of ride. So your example is one retired scientist banned by youtube? I was hoping for a large list of at least a few thousand scientists crying out that they have been dismissed by their institute for producing evidence that climate change is fake. (Incidentally, Judith Curry does not deny AGW. ) Your second two sentences talk of corrupt governments, not 1st world scientific institutes and then only speculation. And why is the bar lower for your speculation than you hold it for those presenting evidence of climate change. You can speculate this is happening but without better evidence I will go with the theory that has the most evidence to support it, I.E AGW. Once again I find your argument is that we should not be held responsible for our history, but where that history still effects the present then yes I do think we as a nation have some responsibility. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 8, 2023 8:54:17 GMT
It is not the energy built up it is the energy trapped. The energy reaching the earth is broadly the same, the energy dissipated depends on many things one being, apparently, CO2 levels. UDI contributes to localised heat but not to global heat as there is no extra energy there just a different way to radiate it. Bur both CO2 and urban areas trap heat. And no heat is localised. And urban heat islands are not necessarily small areas - look at the pictures of Earth taken from space or by satellite. The expansion of urban areas is incredible. Also you have to consider that urban areas are very much warmer than rural ones - up to 10C hotter given a similar location. Yet we're asked to believe that this effect is insignificant by the climate change bodies. Do you mean urban areas trap heat in their structures? If so I agree, but would point out that this trapped heat has no measurable effect on earths weather. This is because its trapped away from the atmosphere. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Jan 8, 2023 9:36:13 GMT
Bur both CO2 and urban areas trap heat. And no heat is localised. And urban heat islands are not necessarily small areas - look at the pictures of Earth taken from space or by satellite. The expansion of urban areas is incredible. Also you have to consider that urban areas are very much warmer than rural ones - up to 10C hotter given a similar location. Yet we're asked to believe that this effect is insignificant by the climate change bodies. Do you mean urban areas trap heat in their structures? If so I agree, but would point out that this trapped heat has no measurable effect on earths weather. This is because its trapped away from the atmosphere. So it never escapes into the atmosphere? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2023 9:41:15 GMT
So you think something is only fact if you have seen it happen yourself. No To you the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs is purely conjecture. That is a theory. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 8, 2023 10:45:35 GMT
Do you mean urban areas trap heat in their structures? If so I agree, but would point out that this trapped heat has no measurable effect on earths weather. This is because its trapped away from the atmosphere. So it never escapes into the atmosphere? Yes, I covered this. It does escape, so not permanently trapped, but as a proportion of the heat from the sun in the atmosphere it is insignificant. But you need to make up your mind whether you are talking about the heat trapped in urban structures or the heat escaping from urban structures. Your arguments flip flop so fast as to be unfollowable. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 8, 2023 10:46:10 GMT
So you think something is only fact if you have seen it happen yourself. No To you the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs is purely conjecture. That is a theory. Everything is a theory. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Jan 8, 2023 14:25:13 GMT
So it never escapes into the atmosphere? Yes, I covered this. It does escape, so not permanently trapped, but as a proportion of the heat from the sun in the atmosphere it is insignificant. But you need to make up your mind whether you are talking about the heat trapped in urban structures or the heat escaping from urban structures. Your arguments flip flop so fast as to be unfollowable.I ask questions of those who claim to be experts, perhaps they're too incisive, perhaps they're points you never mentioned. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 8, 2023 15:05:45 GMT
Yes, I covered this. It does escape, so not permanently trapped, but as a proportion of the heat from the sun in the atmosphere it is insignificant. But you need to make up your mind whether you are talking about the heat trapped in urban structures or the heat escaping from urban structures. Your arguments flip flop so fast as to be unfollowable.I ask questions of those who claim to be experts, perhaps they're too incisive, perhaps they're points you never mentioned. A, I've never claimed to be an expert, I just share knowledge where I have it. B, Try following the thread before posting. C, Try not to be a total knobhead. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jan 8, 2023 15:06:12 GMT
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 hidden grey and demand I walk instead of ride. So your example is one retired scientist banned by youtube? I was hoping for a large list of at least a few thousand scientists crying out that they have been dismissed by their institute for producing evidence that climate change is fake. (Incidentally, Judith Curry does not deny AGW. ) Your second two sentences talk of corrupt governments, not 1st world scientific institutes and then only speculation. And why is the bar lower for your speculation than you hold it for those presenting evidence of climate change. You can speculate this is happening but without better evidence I will go with the theory that has the most evidence to support it, I.E AGW. Once again I find your argument is that we should not be held responsible for our history, but where that history still effects the present then yes I do think we as a nation have some responsibility. Why do you keep saying that people are denialists. They are not denying, I am not denying and most people are quite clear in their comments that AGW is an effect, it is just to what level it is an effect. Could perhaps get this right this time Let us see, she is a climatologist, she was well respected and you said they do not exist. All I needed was one to refute that comment. However try Bjorn Lomberg, Kiminori Itoh, Ivar Giaever and Will Happer. Perhaps you can show the most evidence to support that AGW is a direct danger, that evidence, uncontested, is a bit thin on the ground. You are becoming confused between AGW existing and the level of danger it represents to us all. If responsibility for history is the name of the game then that should apply to all across the board with no let offs. What you want is us to be responsible alone and the upshot is you wish me and mine to take second place in training and employment, you wish me and mine to pay reparations for slavery, you wish me and mine to compensate those suffering from theoretical climate change. If taking responsibility for one's history is your expectation what reparations would you expect Islam, by way of the worldwide Ummah, to pay? |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Jan 8, 2023 15:13:21 GMT
I ask questions of those who claim to be experts, perhaps they're too incisive, perhaps they're points you never mentioned. A, I've never claimed to be an expert, I just share knowledge where I have it. B, Try following the thread before posting. C, Try not to be a total knobhead. Just remember I went to high school and you didn't. That was because I passed the 11-plus and at a time when it wasn't as diluted as when you took it. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 8, 2023 15:26:43 GMT
So your example is one retired scientist banned by youtube? I was hoping for a large list of at least a few thousand scientists crying out that they have been dismissed by their institute for producing evidence that climate change is fake. (Incidentally, Judith Curry does not deny AGW. ) Your second two sentences talk of corrupt governments, not 1st world scientific institutes and then only speculation. And why is the bar lower for your speculation than you hold it for those presenting evidence of climate change. You can speculate this is happening but without better evidence I will go with the theory that has the most evidence to support it, I.E AGW. Once again I find your argument is that we should not be held responsible for our history, but where that history still effects the present then yes I do think we as a nation have some responsibility. Why do you keep saying that people are denialists. They are not denying, I am not denying and most people are quite clear in their comments that AGW is an effect, it is just to what level it is an effect. Could perhaps get this right this time That is just moving the goal posts a few feet. A denier moving from 'its not happening' to 'Its not man made' to 'it is manmade but wont be as bad as they say' to 'we don't know how bad it will be so we should do nothing until its happened' All are deniers to me No, I asked for evidence of multiple scientists (in fact the whole climatologist community) being coerced into agreeing with AGW. This against the claim that the 90% plus figure of those who support AGW is false. What do you mean by a direct danger? Like its going to eat us all or the planet will explode?? There is no direct danger of that sort, there is danger to life from stronger storms etc but the real concern is rapid change and its costs both in terms of infrastructure, food supply and damage to nature. My personal argument is that the cost of adapting to the changes will considerably outweigh the cost of changing how we make energy and products. The all or nothing argument which never reflects reality. But is used as an excuse for doing nothing about anything. If you think the NHS is underfunded you should give away all your money and live in a cage. If you want to help battered wives you should also help battered husbands, battered dogs, cats, gerbils. Or help no one. Stupid argument not worth addressing. However if you made your money from county lines drug selling (assuming you are reformed) you might expect to contribute to a drugs rehabilitation program. Do you feel you do not have any responsibility for the things you have done? |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 8, 2023 15:27:50 GMT
A, I've never claimed to be an expert, I just share knowledge where I have it. B, Try following the thread before posting. C, Try not to be a total knobhead. Just remember I went to high school and you didn't. That was because I passed the 11-plus and at a time when it wasn't as diluted as when you took it. Yes I'll try to remember when your education ended, thanks for reminding me. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jan 8, 2023 15:46:26 GMT
Why do you keep saying that people are denialists. They are not denying, I am not denying and most people are quite clear in their comments that AGW is an effect, it is just to what level it is an effect. Could perhaps get this right this time That is just moving the goal posts a few feet. A denier moving from 'its not happening' to 'Its not man made' to 'it is manmade but wont be as bad as they say' to 'we don't know how bad it will be so we should do nothing until its happened' All are deniers to me No, I asked for evidence of multiple scientists (in fact the whole climatologist community) being coerced into agreeing with AGW. This against the claim that the 90% plus figure of those who support AGW is false. What do you mean by a direct danger? Like its going to eat us all or the planet will explode?? There is no direct danger of that sort, there is danger to life from stronger storms etc but the real concern is rapid change and its costs both in terms of infrastructure, food supply and damage to nature. My personal argument is that the cost of adapting to the changes will considerably outweigh the cost of changing how we make energy and products. The all or nothing argument which never reflects reality. But is used as an excuse for doing nothing about anything. If you think the NHS is underfunded you should give away all your money and live in a cage. If you want to help battered wives you should also help battered husbands, battered dogs, cats, gerbils. Or help no one. Stupid argument not worth addressing. However if you made your money from county lines drug selling (assuming you are reformed) you might expect to contribute to a drugs rehabilitation program. Do you feel you do not have any responsibility for the things you have done? So I ask again where is the evidence that AGW represents some form of danger to us and the planet. You say it is there but where is it? I have responsibility for what I have done, why would you think I have a responsibility for what others have done? |
|
