|
|
Post by Toreador on Jan 19, 2023 8:34:13 GMT
Is it OK to check that the master knows what he's talking about? If I read all that, will it tell me such changes have occurred throughout the history of this planet, will it tell me that the Sahara was once a fertile region and that in 15,000 years hence that region will again become fertile, not due to CO2 but due to changes in Earths axis? Will it tell me about deep underwater oceanic currents, again not cause by CO2 but have a profound effect on climate? And how much will your advice tell me that they can't pinpoint ice melt being caused by human activity when much of it is caused by warm water seemingly sinking rather than rising to the surface? So many queestions not being answered because they don't know but don't let that stop some becoming very rich on the back of the bullshine and many becoming poorer.. Watch Barons video. Its really good. This wouldn't be so bad if you didn't boast of your intelligence and acumen. The earths tilt etc (The milankovitch cycles) are well documented and not causing the current warming. But the enormous thing you keep missing is the time scale of the change. Gradual change over 10-15,000 years is manageable, we are looking at change over 100 years. Neither humans nor nature can adapt that fast. The Atlantic escalator is considered one of the things that hid global warming during the nineties (that time when the deniers first appeared saying the scientists had got it wrong) Unfortunately the warmer water it pulled down from the surface all those years ago is now arriving in the arctic circle and accelerating ice melt. Seems the global warming didn't just disappear after all and the conservation of energy laws prevailed over the wishful thinking ones. You caught the wrong bus, the one you should be on is the one with population reduction on the side if you think humans are almost entirely the cause of global warming. The more people you have the more demands on raw materials, on energy requirements both domestic and for industry, the more demands there are for forestry clearing, for timber and for the land on which to build more industry and housing, the greater demands for water that rainfall finds difficult to replenish aquifiers, a whole host of things that change the world in many ways including, in your opinion, global warming. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jan 19, 2023 10:46:09 GMT
The new kid on the block in the discussion is the atmospheric methane increase during the lockdown period. Some scientists now suspect this methane increase was due to warming caused by a reduction in emissions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jan 19, 2023 11:05:46 GMT
Why don't you actually watch the videos I link to? It would help with the education on here. Once you have watched it you would understand why what you said is actually part of the problem. Sorry Baron I wasn't saying its not part of the problem. I don't normally watch the proffered You tube videos, partly because my wife is watching tv and partly because so many are junk. Anyway, I have watched your video this morning, its very good, it agrees with me on the shorter life of methane but you on its potency. But your main point of interest (which I now appreciate) is where it came from, one of those unexpected feedback loops that accelerate global warming. Only this one as a result of us cleaning up the atmosphere, seems sometimes we just can't win. The release of methane from permafrost is well documented and one of those tipping points the deniers came are just scaremongering but here it comes. Thanks for this Baron, very interesting. I never post junk. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jan 19, 2023 14:05:48 GMT
Is it OK to check that the master knows what he's talking about? If I read all that, will it tell me such changes have occurred throughout the history of this planet, will it tell me that the Sahara was once a fertile region and that in 15,000 years hence that region will again become fertile, not due to CO2 but due to changes in Earths axis? Will it tell me about deep underwater oceanic currents, again not cause by CO2 but have a profound effect on climate? And how much will your advice tell me that they can't pinpoint ice melt being caused by human activity when much of it is caused by warm water seemingly sinking rather than rising to the surface? So many queestions not being answered because they don't know but don't let that stop some becoming very rich on the back of the bullshine and many becoming poorer.. Watch Barons video. Its really good. This wouldn't be so bad if you didn't boast of your intelligence and acumen. The earths tilt etc (The milankovitch cycles) are well documented and not causing the current warming. But the enormous thing you keep missing is the time scale of the change. Gradual change over 10-15,000 years is manageable, we are looking at change over 100 years. Neither humans nor nature can adapt that fast. You're just looking for anything on the internet that agrees with your (very limited) understanding of what's going on. That's not science. You seem unwilling to read anything that questions your own ideas - and that's not science. BvL's video is also not science - or at least very one sided science. "Global dimming" has been known about for decades - we already know that cleaning up the atmosphere causes more of Sun's energy to reach the Earth. Another factor in global dimming is cloud formation, which reflect the Sun's energy. And the more the Earth warms the more water the atmosphere holds and the more clouds form. This is what's called buffering. And that's why the Earth's system is so complex - and why it tends to be stable. If one factor goes out of kilter it almost always causes another factor to balance it. The other thing that the video doesn't mention is that methane disappears from the atmosphere very quickly because it's very light. You can easily calculate the density of the various gases by adding up the atomic weight of their molecules. Hydrogen is 1, Carbon is 12, Nitrogen is 14, Oxygen is 16. So the molecular weight of CH4 is 16, N2 is 28, O2 is 32, CO2 is 44 and NO2 is 46. So you can see that CO2 and NO2 stay in the atmosphere for a long time, while CH4 rapidly disappears into space. You mention the milankovitch cycle, but there was a time when scientists claimed that the Milankovitch cycles were an example of CO2 induced warming - before they worked out that the warming was caused by the Sun's tilt and the rise in CO2 was the result of cO2 coming out of solution in the oceans. That's the danger of not understanding the difference between cause and effect. As for "But the enormous thing you keep missing is the time scale of the change". You need to look in the mirror. It's YOU who is missing the time scale of the change. Attempting to diagnose "climate change" over a few decades is very dangerous - as previous predictions of new ice ages have shown. And, as I pointed out before, the very similar warming period between 1920-1940 has now disappeared from the graph - it's not even a blip. What's the betting that the recent period of warming will also disappear. It's like looking at the graph of the valuation of Sterling relative to the euro and trying to see when the vote to leave the EU happened. All the remainers claimed that the vote to leave caused a crash in Sterling. Try and find it on the graph now. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jan 19, 2023 14:27:25 GMT
Zanygame said: "The word heatsinks is a perfectly good description. You WERE referring to them as a considered cause of AGW, now you are just lying. I suggested you use the same calculation for forests. Please do. Still no figures to back up your claims, still petty insults instead. Still ignoring you".
You mean urban heat islands (UHI) - not heatsinks. Urban areas don't disperse heat, they store it. But never mind, I'm used to your getting words wrong.
UHI's (and the various changes we've made to the planet to support our massive increase in population - from 1 billion in 1850 to 7 billion now) certainly do cause warming - and they also cause temperature readings to be higher than they would have been in 1850. That's incontrovertible - it's just the figure of how much they distort the readings that's in doubt. Some of the climate change bodies do try to mitigate the recorded temperature by "adjusting" the data - some don't.
But what I was trying to roughly calculate is the cooling effect of photosynthesis - which I've done. It seems to dwarf the heating effect of CO2, but you keep on ignoring the obvious and trying to deflect by raising irrelevant points.
You profess knowledge of this subject, zanygame, but you're unwilling to address any of the obvious problems that are brought up by various people on the forum. In particular you challenged SP to come up with some scientists who don't agree with the AGW theory but when he did you just did your usual evasions. And you still claim 95% of scientists believe the CO2 warming theory but you have yet to post anything that supports your claim apart from a piece of garbage by a Guardian hack - which has been entirely discredited. As, indeed, have you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jan 19, 2023 14:33:24 GMT
At 0:51 we see it is a paper published in Nature.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 19, 2023 18:46:32 GMT
Watch Barons video. Its really good. This wouldn't be so bad if you didn't boast of your intelligence and acumen. The earths tilt etc (The milankovitch cycles) are well documented and not causing the current warming. But the enormous thing you keep missing is the time scale of the change. Gradual change over 10-15,000 years is manageable, we are looking at change over 100 years. Neither humans nor nature can adapt that fast. The Atlantic escalator is considered one of the things that hid global warming during the nineties (that time when the deniers first appeared saying the scientists had got it wrong) Unfortunately the warmer water it pulled down from the surface all those years ago is now arriving in the arctic circle and accelerating ice melt. Seems the global warming didn't just disappear after all and the conservation of energy laws prevailed over the wishful thinking ones. You caught the wrong bus, the one you should be on is the one with population reduction on the side if you think humans are almost entirely the cause of global warming. The more people you have the more demands on raw materials, on energy requirements both domestic and for industry, the more demands there are for forestry clearing, for timber and for the land on which to build more industry and housing, the greater demands for water that rainfall finds difficult to replenish aquifiers, a whole host of things that change the world in many ways including, in your opinion, global warming. Are you volunteering? |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 19, 2023 18:50:10 GMT
At 0:51 we see it is a paper published in Nature. Can't be arsed to answer Steppenwolf again. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Jan 19, 2023 22:44:50 GMT
You caught the wrong bus, the one you should be on is the one with population reduction on the side if you think humans are almost entirely the cause of global warming. The more people you have the more demands on raw materials, on energy requirements both domestic and for industry, the more demands there are for forestry clearing, for timber and for the land on which to build more industry and housing, the greater demands for water that rainfall finds difficult to replenish aquifiers, a whole host of things that change the world in many ways including, in your opinion, global warming. Are you volunteering? Maybe in 30 or so years time.  |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jan 20, 2023 8:03:53 GMT
At 0:51 we see it is a paper published in Nature. The paper in Nature is simply a suggestion as to why methane increased during lockdown, but it says that no detailed studies have yet been done. The slap-head who did the video added all the hyperbole - like "waking a sleeping giant" and "feedback loops" etc. Basically the only fact that he's got is that warming leads to release of methane and methane can cause warming - but no one knows how much. Very much like CO2. Water vapour can also cause warming - and it's a more powerful greenhouse gas than methane and exists permanently in the atmosphere at vastly higher concentrations. But, as I said, the Earth is an incredibly complex system and protects itself from things that try to destabilise it - otherwise it would have either burnt up or frozen up may millennia ago. And the scientists do NOT yet understand the Earth's system, as the non-functioning climate models demonstrate. The basic problem is that we don't have enough data. The Earth's system cannot be be replicated so ALL the data that we've got has to come from records of the Earth itself. The trouble is that we have only about 150 years of data and a lot of it is pretty sparse and not necessarily very accurate. That's not sufficient to know what's going on. As one scientist said "we need at least about another 200 years of data - then we might have a better understanding". Until then all the scientists are guessing. And, as the links SP posted explained, there are alternative explanations for the warming that we've seen - that do not involve CO2 or methane. They involve the Sun - which is also not fully understood. The real danger is if we eliminate the Earth's stabilisers. If we build over the whole planet to house and feed the still growing population then the Earth will flip to a new state - maybe cooler, maybe hotter. Who knows. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 20, 2023 8:16:31 GMT
The earth has been uninhabitable on several occasions in its life. It doesn't care if humans, animals or even vegetation survive.
The Earth is not alive, it does not protect itself from change.
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jan 20, 2023 8:43:40 GMT
The earth has been uninhabitable on several occasions in its life. It doesn't care if humans, animals or even vegetation survive. The Earth is not alive, it does not protect itself from change. Whether the Earth is alive or not is a philosophical question, but many people think it is a living organism. It doesn't have a conscious will but maybe humans don't either. Certainly people like James Lovelock - who is vastly more intelligent than you or I - would argue strongly that it is alive. But whether it is alive or not it does react in very clever ways that tend to keep it in a stable state - which it can't do if we continue to remove its stabilisers. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jan 20, 2023 10:34:12 GMT
Almost All Scientific Fraud in Psychology Backs Up Leftist Dogmas :
Why Has "Disruptive" Science Declined Since the 1950s, But Less Dramatically In the 2000s?
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jan 20, 2023 14:30:32 GMT
At 0:51 we see it is a paper published in Nature. The paper in Nature is simply a suggestion as to why methane increased during lockdown, but it says that no detailed studies have yet been done. The slap-head who did the video added all the hyperbole - like "waking a sleeping giant" and "feedback loops" etc. Basically the only fact that he's got is that warming leads to release of methane and methane can cause warming - but no one knows how much. Very much like CO2. Water vapour can also cause warming - and it's a more powerful greenhouse gas than methane and exists permanently in the atmosphere at vastly higher concentrations. But, as I said, the Earth is an incredibly complex system and protects itself from things that try to destabilise it - otherwise it would have either burnt up or frozen up may millennia ago. And the scientists do NOT yet understand the Earth's system, as the non-functioning climate models demonstrate. The basic problem is that we don't have enough data. The Earth's system cannot be be replicated so ALL the data that we've got has to come from records of the Earth itself. The trouble is that we have only about 150 years of data and a lot of it is pretty sparse and not necessarily very accurate. That's not sufficient to know what's going on. As one scientist said "we need at least about another 200 years of data - then we might have a better understanding". Until then all the scientists are guessing. And, as the links SP posted explained, there are alternative explanations for the warming that we've seen - that do not involve CO2 or methane. They involve the Sun - which is also not fully understood. The real danger is if we eliminate the Earth's stabilisers. If we build over the whole planet to house and feed the still growing population then the Earth will flip to a new state - maybe cooler, maybe hotter. Who knows. Well what I got from hearing that was that the scientists did not know this would happen prior to it happening, and as methane is a very important greenhouse gas and if their model was thorough, then they would have already factored it in and be expecting to see it. It demonstrates the effect was not in any scientific literature prior to lockdown.
Yes of course it is a feedback mechanism, but it is part of the negative feedback loop since the reverse would also be true, that as CO2 warming increases due to more CO2 then the methane is destroyed faster and so one offsets the other. In nature you get a lot of feedback mechanisms. There is one for the amount of body fat as well, but that can ratchet up so a new mean is established and as you go on diet so the body tries to fatten you up more. We could see the same ratchet effect here, where as you try and cut the CO2 the feedback system wont let you.
|
|
|
|
Post by bancroft on Jan 20, 2023 20:02:08 GMT
The earth has been uninhabitable on several occasions in its life. It doesn't care if humans, animals or even vegetation survive. The Earth is not alive, it does not protect itself from change. Yet the Earth's weather patterns do change....... |
|
