PistonHeads.com Forum

Climate Change - The Scientific Debate

Climate Change - The Scientific Debate

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

grumbledoak

19,791 posts

130 months

Friday 26th July 2013
quotequote all
If you really are here to learn, read this thread from the start. I think most posters are sick of 'new posters' dragging it back over old ground to bury anything genuinely new and interesting. Of which there hasn't been anything since the planet decided to prove the IPCC wrong by continuing to act more benignly than even the 'least bad' IPCC models predicted.

Where I learned my scientific method a discrepancy between prediction and reality meant your hypothesis was wrong.

Edited by grumbledoak on Friday 26th July 08:20

funkyrobot

9,936 posts

125 months

Friday 26th July 2013
quotequote all
hidetheelephants said:
At least on some level, the 'we must legislate for green' is deeply flawed; striving to improve efficiency is something capitalism is well equipped to do without any interference from politics, doing 'x' more efficiently than the other guy is a basic part of being a successful business. Introducing half-baked ideas like the carbon-trading market(even ignoring the endemic fraud) just caused businesses to game the rules; I doubt any reduction in emissions resulted.
Yes, there is nothing worse than forcing an agenda that hasn't been properly thought through and is just about making money.

One of my biggest gripes about 'becoming green' is that everything associated with it has a cost. Yes, there will be a cost for infrastructure change and development of new technology etc. However, things like the carbon trading market (that you have mentioned) do not do anything at all to help towards a greener lifestyle.

It's all about money and is being peddled by greedy people. Just look at wind turbine construction. I would hazard a guess that if the companies building them weren't being subsidised, there would be no money in it at all.

The fact that money and greed currently drive the push towards a greener lifestyle also makes a mockery of the science involved. There are people who are fixing data and figures and are skewing information to fit their own agenda. As with most things, when money becomes the driving force behind something, it can ruin it.

As someone who is not a scientist, but has an interest in science, I find the climate change stuff both infuriating and saddening. There is a really good opportunity to better ourselves with greener technology here, but it's being destroyed by greedy idiots. There is nothing worse than an ill-thought idea being shoved down your throat by someone trying to cash in on it. frown

Globs

13,131 posts

128 months

Friday 26th July 2013
quotequote all
TransverseTight said:
I've really come into this from being a tech geek.
If you understand numbers you may want to do some calculations and research yourself.
I suggest the following:

1) Find a 400,000 year long Vostok Ice Core temperature+CO2 graph. Study it carefully. Ask yourself why in the presence of high CO2 temperature suddenly drops, and why in low CO2 the temperature suddenly rises. Then think about the impossibility of that graph if CO2 were to drive temperature.

2) Do the Beers Lambert law calculation. CO2 is about 395ppm (up from 280ppm) and interacts with IR (infrared) about 5% as much as water vapour at 40,000 ppm. So the CO2 increase changes the absorption length by (40000 + 280 * 0.05) / (40000 + 395 * 0.05), or makes a difference of about 115 * 0.05 / (40000 + 280 * 0.05) = 5.75 / 40014 = 0.0001436997051 or 0.014%.

3) Looking again at the absorption graphs of IR in water, think about the IR hitting 71% of the planet: water. IR is stopped by water, only the top 1mm will absorb the heat, which will promptly evaporate forming a layer of water vapour above the water. This is in a way far more of an 'IR mirror' than any CO2 in the troposphere or higher - so by AGW this should actually cause cooling because the bigger IR reflector has just been formed on the surface. The moral of this is that the oceans only get heated by visible light, not by IR so AGW can't heat up water.

4) Look for the tropospheric hotspot predicted by AGW. It isn't there, because AGW is wrong, the mechanism is wrong.

5) CO2 doesn't reflect IR downwards at the earth, the molecule re-radiates IR in a 360 degree spherical pattern, which means that CO2 is actually a better heat conductor than air, not an insulator.

There are other scientific reasons why AGW must be false, but lastly think about the fact that we've had about 10% rise in CO2 while global mean temperatures (a meaningless statistical measurement BTW) stopped about 15-18 years ago.
That alone falsifies the CO2 = heat theory, and there is no scientific explanation for it except for the obvious: the AGW theory is wrong and CO2 is irrelevant.


odyssey2200

18,650 posts

106 months

Friday 26th July 2013
quotequote all
TheExcession said:
Even so, we're hopefully not having to go run the same circles we've done here time and time again.

A relative newby pops up (once again) on a topic that has been running here for years and a whole heap of respected and regular posters on this topic receive a warning to behave or lose their posting privileges.

A little further clarification from the mods point of view would be appreciated here. Have you had any complaints received? What's the story and why the need for this warning?

Thanks.
Mods.
I think the above deserves an answer. (not holding breath)

Time and again a newby arrives, often with no "garage" in their profile, seemingly with the intent of startingthe whole attrition loop over again and to get some regular posters banned or sin binned.
Thereby closing down debate.
This seems to happen in some other "controversial" threads, too in the NP&E section..

funkyrobot

9,936 posts

125 months

Friday 26th July 2013
quotequote all
Globs said:
TransverseTight said:
I've really come into this from being a tech geek.
If you understand numbers you may want to do some calculations and research yourself.
I suggest the following:

1) Find a 400,000 year long Vostok Ice Core temperature+CO2 graph. Study it carefully. Ask yourself why in the presence of high CO2 temperature suddenly drops, and why in low CO2 the temperature suddenly rises. Then think about the impossibility of that graph if CO2 were to drive temperature.

2) Do the Beers Lambert law calculation. CO2 is about 395ppm (up from 280ppm) and interacts with IR (infrared) about 5% as much as water vapour at 40,000 ppm. So the CO2 increase changes the absorption length by (40000 + 280 * 0.05) / (40000 + 395 * 0.05), or makes a difference of about 115 * 0.05 / (40000 + 280 * 0.05) = 5.75 / 40014 = 0.0001436997051 or 0.014%.

3) Looking again at the absorption graphs of IR in water, think about the IR hitting 71% of the planet: water. IR is stopped by water, only the top 1mm will absorb the heat, which will promptly evaporate forming a layer of water vapour above the water. This is in a way far more of an 'IR mirror' than any CO2 in the troposphere or higher - so by AGW this should actually cause cooling because the bigger IR reflector has just been formed on the surface. The moral of this is that the oceans only get heated by visible light, not by IR so AGW can't heat up water.

4) Look for the tropospheric hotspot predicted by AGW. It isn't there, because AGW is wrong, the mechanism is wrong.

5) CO2 doesn't reflect IR downwards at the earth, the molecule re-radiates IR in a 360 degree spherical pattern, which means that CO2 is actually a better heat conductor than air, not an insulator.

There are other scientific reasons why AGW must be false, but lastly think about the fact that we've had about 10% rise in CO2 while global mean temperatures (a meaningless statistical measurement BTW) stopped about 15-18 years ago.
That alone falsifies the CO2 = heat theory, and there is no scientific explanation for it except for the obvious: the AGW theory is wrong and CO2 is irrelevant.

I'm going to read this thread fully as this topic is something that interests me.

However, I already feel like I've learned a lot just by reading your post above. smile

perdu

4,302 posts

96 months

Friday 26th July 2013
quotequote all
I know that Globs sometimes comes over as a somewhat crude bruiser type and we've seen him upset more than a few "novices" before but this type of thread shows why I have had quite some respect for his approach in the past.

Fifty years ago most of my best teachers were of this stripe.

get your thinking head on!

and use it, boy!


Sorry if this fulsome praise offends Globs, or his detractors but his and most other regular's inputs are what helps me keep sane in a maddeningly dumbed down universe. wink

mondeoman

7,990 posts

163 months

Friday 26th July 2013
quotequote all
TransverseTight said:
... We know we add 30 billion tonnes a year to the air.
I love the way this number gets dropped into the conversation, as though its such a big number that we must be scared by it - I mean 30 BILLION, thats loads! It MUSt be doing something as its such a big amount.

But the whole of earths atmosphere is something like 5.5 QUADRILLION tons. I think that trumps 30 billion by quite a bit.

PRTVR

2,065 posts

118 months

Friday 26th July 2013
quotequote all
mondeoman said:
TransverseTight said:
... We know we add 30 billion tonnes a year to the air.
I love the way this number gets dropped into the conversation, as though its such a big number that we must be scared by it - I mean 30 BILLION, thats loads! It MUSt be doing something as its such a big amount.

But the whole of earths atmosphere is something like 5.5 QUADRILLION tons. I think that trumps 30 billion by quite a bit.
I was thinking the same, instead of saying a small addition to a trace gas,
As always Its the way they tell em. biglaugh

Globs

13,131 posts

128 months

Friday 26th July 2013
quotequote all
biggrin

TransverseTight

627 posts

42 months

Friday 26th July 2013
quotequote all
mondeoman said:
I love the way this number gets dropped into the conversation, as though its such a big number that we must be scared by it - I mean 30 BILLION, thats loads! It MUSt be doing something as its such a big amount.

But the whole of earths atmosphere is something like 5.5 QUADRILLION tons. I think that trumps 30 billion by quite a bit.
If you read what I posted earlier its actually 3,000 billion. So adding 30 billion is 1% mor CO2. Thats not insignificant. Add 1 percent more salt to your cake and youll taste it (yes some cake has salt). But to balance this dont forget that not 1% of the total atosphere, just an increase in the CO2 part which only makes up a small amount on its own.

WinstonWolf

62,459 posts

136 months

Friday 26th July 2013
quotequote all
TransverseTight said:
mondeoman said:
I love the way this number gets dropped into the conversation, as though its such a big number that we must be scared by it - I mean 30 BILLION, thats loads! It MUSt be doing something as its such a big amount.

But the whole of earths atmosphere is something like 5.5 QUADRILLION tons. I think that trumps 30 billion by quite a bit.
If you read what I posted earlier its actually 3,000 billion. So adding 30 billion is 1% mor CO2. Thats not insignificant. Add 1 percent more salt to your cake and youll taste it (yes some cake has salt). But to balance this dont forget that not 1% of the total atosphere, just an increase in the CO2 part which only makes up a small amount on its own.
But...

Where is the predicted warming?

TransverseTight

627 posts

42 months

Friday 26th July 2013
quotequote all
odyssey2200 said:
Mods.
I think the above deserves an answer. (not holding breath)

Time and again a newby arrives, often with no "garage" in their profile, seemingly with the intent of startingthe whole attrition loop over again and to get some regular posters banned or sin binned.
Thereby closing down debate.
This seems to happen in some other "controversial" threads, too in the NP&E section..
If you think that was my intention... its this far wide --------->.

I only joined PH forums this year to post on some questions in the run up to Le Mans. Been reading on and off for years.
I had never spotted the GW topic before and asked something I think isnt that bonkers. Yes I got jumped on a bit, but expected that as its a car site not WWF or Greenpeace. I'd hope no one gets banned as a result. Hopefullly when you see more posts from me you'll realise Im not taking the P...

One thing I would ask is to not make things personal. Im just as guilty, by calling people an automated robot, but hope that was seen in jest. However I seem to have taken all sorts of labels just for having a different, questioning opinion.

mondeoman

7,990 posts

163 months

Friday 26th July 2013
quotequote all
TransverseTight said:
mondeoman said:
I love the way this number gets dropped into the conversation, as though its such a big number that we must be scared by it - I mean 30 BILLION, thats loads! It MUST be doing something as its such a big amount.

But the whole of earths atmosphere is something like 5.5 QUADRILLION tons. I think that trumps 30 billion by quite a bit.
If you read what I posted earlier its actually 3,000 billion. So adding 30 billion is 1% mor CO2. Thats not insignificant. Add 1 percent more salt to your cake and youll taste it (yes some cake has salt). But to balance this dont forget that not 1% of the total atosphere, just an increase in the CO2 part which only makes up a small amount on its own.
1% of what? You need to be specific. 1% of the original salt weight or 1% as a percentage of the cake weight? 1% of the original salt weight in a cake and you wouldn't notice it, at all. Guaranteed. Much like the impact additional CO2 has in terms of atmospheric warming.

IainT

9,762 posts

135 months

Friday 26th July 2013
quotequote all
TransverseTight said:
However I seem to have taken all sorts of labels just for having a different, questioning opinion.
Have you seen what good, honest scientists are called for questioning CAGW?

The very deliberate parallel drawn to Holocaust Deniers is the odious tip of the iceberg.

One of the problems with the science is that it's beyond most of us to really tease the claims apart and spot the bluff and bluster in many papers. What is easy to spot is the utter failure of the models to get it right. These failed models are what drives policy and that's wrong on many many levels. The CAGW politics thread is here.

I think it's really important though to note the 'C' in CAGW (C for catastrophic). Even if the models had it right,, even if the predicted rise was vaguely possible most of the risk assessments show a temp rise to be generally beneficial. that doesn't make the news...

TheHeretic

73,668 posts

152 months

Friday 26th July 2013
quotequote all
Well, IMHO and I am no climatologist, or any ''ologist', but science operates via prediction. If the predictions are not laying out in reality, then there is something wrong with the hypothesis, and policy should not be determined by faulty hypothesis. U til the models can be shown to be accurate, without any fiddling above and beyond what we see in 'nature', then it should continue to be studied, bit not relied upon for what are severe economic, and human costs.

Globs

13,131 posts

128 months

Friday 26th July 2013
quotequote all
IainT said:
TransverseTight said:
However I seem to have taken all sorts of labels just for having a different, questioning opinion.
Have you seen what good, honest scientists are called for questioning CAGW?
Try creating a new account on SkepticalScience.com, find a thread about AGW and tell them that it's not true. Worse, give them some scientific reasons like the lack of tropospheric hotspot or lack of warming.

You not only get insulted repeatedly with real, proper swearing and vitriol but the mods actually join in and actually taunt you for complaining about the lack of debate (more replies you get are 100% insult).

The pro-warming bunch are an extremely disturbed group of people and those on SS are not just warped but actually sprained.
PH on the other hand is extremely fair and allows the alternate views without insult or hinderance, as long as you keep it polite and keep the trolling down below the 'blindingly obvious' level.

PRTVR

2,065 posts

118 months

Friday 26th July 2013
quotequote all
TransverseTight said:
If you read what I posted earlier its actually 3,000 billion. So adding 30 billion is 1% mor CO2. Thats not insignificant. Add 1 percent more salt to your cake and youll taste it (yes some cake has salt). But to balance this dont forget that not 1% of the total atosphere, just an increase in the CO2 part which only makes up a small amount on its own.
You have probably seen the graphs with the sharp rise in Co2 showing as a line going from the left of the chart at the bottom (X) and ending up on the right at the top (Y),but what they don't show you is one that shows the change in relation to the overall atmosphere,and why do you think they don't?Well a nearly straight line at the very bottom of the chart really doesn't have the scare factor does it,

Next what about natural increases in CO2 from the likes of volcanoes and out gassing from the oceans, also mans contribution with things like deforestation, less plant life taking up CO2,

Also have a look at the properties of CO2 it really does not deserve the bad press, an inert glass that has very little going for it except one thing ,plant food.

TheExcession

Original Poster:

10,347 posts

147 months

Friday 26th July 2013
quotequote all
odyssey2200 said:
Mods.
I think the above deserves an answer. (not holding breath)
You'll need to hit the report button as pretty much all the PH Mods do not follow the climate threads.

My guess is the only reason BigAll posted was because someone clicked the report button.

There is nobody on the PH Mod team that follows these threads to the degree required, so the moment there is a complaint they can only act off the last few posts.



TheExcession

Original Poster:

10,347 posts

147 months

Friday 26th July 2013
quotequote all
TransverseTight said:
and asked something I think isnt that bonkers.
Please just go and watch this lecture.
Thanks.

mybrainhurts

81,585 posts

152 months

Friday 26th July 2013
quotequote all
TheExcession said:
TransverseTight said:
and asked something I think isnt that bonkers.
Please just go and watch this lecture.
Thanks.
That appears to have shut him up...hehe

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED