Climate Change - The Scientific Debate
Discussion
PW said:
Globs_edited_by_PW said:
Just another fervent and true CO2 believer I'm afraid.
These people fail on several levels:
f
kers.
stupid theory
idiot greens
fking retards.
You really think that's going to convince anyone who is a "believer" that they're wrong? Or convince anyone who is undecided that they should side with you? What does it achieve?These people fail on several levels:
f
kers.stupid theory
idiot greens
f
king retards.It was fine before you edited it though.
Perhaps you should try reading it and learn something?
PW said:
Apache said:
the 'political' drive behind fighting MMGW/CC/extreme weather or whatever it is now has spawned some godawful misguided and frankly dangerous ideas...
Not what I was getting at. It seems in some cases the entire philosophy of the "green" adgenda is being dismissed because climate change is a load of rubbish.There doesn't seem to be anything fundamentally wrong with that agenda though; to live in a better environment. It isn't a misguided aspiration in itself.
Same thing with religion - I would strongly agree that no one should be basing govt. policy or investment on the ideas of creationism over evolution, but the overall philosophy of being kind to your neighbour and living a good life shouldn't be dismissed along with it.
The issue I have is when the green agenda is handled stupidly (i.e. blanket shut down of all the old style power stations (coal, nuclear etc) without planning a replacement properly). I simply cannot stand the fact that proper alternatives are rushed in without proper thought, planning or even research.
I detest the way in which a greener life is used as a money-making tax leverage. It would be nice if the people trying to force this down our throats weren't just doing it for the money (because let's be honest, money is a big lure).
I'm quite concerned that the science behind climate change/global warming etc isn't being researched properly. There are too many people with their own agendas (be it money or hatred of fossil fuels) trying to b
h slap others who think differently. There should be competition, but not underhand competition.Also, I find it annoying that so called 'climate scientists' think they know how to predict what the world's climate is going to do. We can't accurately predict the weather for the next week, so let's be honest and say we aren't terribly sure that the world is going to heat up/cool down etc.
I simply cannot accept anything to do with climate change/global warming science because, quite frankly, it is all tainted. It's something that could be very useful to us, but it's being ruined by petty, greedy people who think they know better. They are falling over themselves to get one over each other.
It's childish stupidity in its greatest, most dangerous form.
TransverseTight said:
The last point first – I'm questioning my thinking in a site where I can see the established regulars are the status quo and are anti AGW hypothesis
It's good you are thinking and I hope the people here will treat you with some respect, though having seen a few come and go over the years I don't rate your chances.There is a reason why the 'established members' here are anti AGW, and that's because many of us have read the scientific papers, we've seen through the political bulls
t driving these beliefs (there's a reason why the political thread on climate change is running bigger than the science one now).Just be aware that you are up against people that have been following this for the last 10-15 years. Many of us are well read on the subject and the reason we don't subscribe to the 'consensus of the science of CO2 being settled' is because we don't subscribe to the idea that the science is settled. The CO2/Carbon mantra is just frankly wrong.
It (CO2) is not causing warming... in fact recently there has been no warming, and further I posted to a video link earlier in this thread that to me currently proves unrefuted anaysis of why CO2 levels only follow changes in temp.
Now if you'd like to get into some discussions about Fourier analysis with some of the mathematicians here then knock you socks off, it'll be a good read.
Until then I call troll. (A troll being someone who refuses to face some facts and just wants to make noise on an internet forum).
Essentially go a way until you have some science we can debate.
Big Al. said:
Guys suggest you clam down a little and drop the offensive name calling, fail to do that and your posting privileges to this thread will be removed.
As you were.......
Al, I hope that wasn't me that caused your post.As you were.......
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.
funkyrobot said:
PW said:
Apache said:
the 'political' drive behind fighting MMGW/CC/extreme weather or whatever it is now has spawned some godawful misguided and frankly dangerous ideas...
Not what I was getting at. It seems in some cases the entire philosophy of the "green" adgenda is being dismissed because climate change is a load of rubbish.There doesn't seem to be anything fundamentally wrong with that agenda though; to live in a better environment. It isn't a misguided aspiration in itself.
Same thing with religion - I would strongly agree that no one should be basing govt. policy or investment on the ideas of creationism over evolution, but the overall philosophy of being kind to your neighbour and living a good life shouldn't be dismissed along with it.
The issue I have is when the green agenda is handled stupidly (i.e. blanket shut down of all the old style power stations (coal, nuclear etc) without planning a replacement properly). I simply cannot stand the fact that proper alternatives are rushed in without proper thought, planning or even research.
I detest the way in which a greener life is used as a money-making tax leverage. It would be nice if the people trying to force this down our throats weren't just doing it for the money (because let's be honest, money is a big lure).
I'm quite concerned that the science behind climate change/global warming etc isn't being researched properly. There are too many people with their own agendas (be it money or hatred of fossil fuels) trying to b
h slap others who think differently. There should be competition, but not underhand competition.Also, I find it annoying that so called 'climate scientists' think they know how to predict what the world's climate is going to do. We can't accurately predict the weather for the next week, so let's be honest and say we aren't terribly sure that the world is going to heat up/cool down etc.
I simply cannot accept anything to do with climate change/global warming science because, quite frankly, it is all tainted. It's something that could be very useful to us, but it's being ruined by petty, greedy people who think they know better. They are falling over themselves to get one over each other.
It's childish stupidity in its greatest, most dangerous form.
TheHeretic said:
Phew... For a moment there I thought you were moving this entire thread to the 'YouTube' thread...
As a COMPLETE parody of everything that is AGW this song completely sums it up with out ever actually mentioning AGW once. All the flaws of life, relationships and AGW laid bare for all to hear... cycled round and around and around and around and then sold to the masses. The anger, frustration, the passion, the circle turning. All in a manner that even Elgar might have been proud of.
TheExcession said:
That is rather brilliant. Seriously talanted.mebe said:
That is rather brilliant. Seriously talented.
Yep.. and when he mentions the third dimension, I always think of Turbobloke... that guy's really deep.The whole concept of a dark side and developing a brooding potential. That song just fits the crap we've been fed for years. The scales he plays fit the minute changes we've been fed in global temps, and the utter b
ks we are told of as being fact. Big tune, small fiddles and HUGE ups and downs that we've seen over the years here.I love it, it only requires a slight change in perspective to realise it's not too far from the truth.
Glad you liked it, I can't get over thinking that Daddy never came to my ball games could be a pun on Al Gore!
You're right though it is rather good... even the beginning is all about changing the lights a bit. It's really deep eh?
TheExcession said:
TheHeretic said:
Phew... For a moment there I thought you were moving this entire thread to the 'YouTube' thread...
As a COMPLETE parody of everything that is AGW this song completely sums it up with out ever actually mentioning AGW once. All the flaws of life, relationships and AGW laid bare for all to hear... cycled round and around and around and around and then sold to the masses. The anger, frustration, the passion, the circle turning. All in a manner that even Elgar might have been proud of.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQjqxayxwt4&fe...
SkepticSteve said:
IainT
I'd just like to thank you for pulling that to pieces.
The original posting of TransverseTight at 22:55 last night reads like some propaganda poster.
It very cleverly ASSERTED the points he wanted to make (others to read) as fact, while engaging any unsure "fence-sitter" readers into a pact of sympathy to his side of the debate.
Having myself had media training many years ago, it stood out as ticking all the boxes of a good interview.
A Very clever posting and one that students of psychology might like to dissect?
I think TransverseTight wrote earlier that he worked for an Energy Company, but not which sector.
Renewables?
Well maybe I should work in marketing then , but I’m actually a freelance IT contractor who’s been trying to make sense of it all so I know where to invest my pension. I currently own NO shares in any company so have no interests to declare. The company I'm contracting for (Electric and gas) has all types, mostly profits from fossils but more and more from renewables. A very good intranet so I’m getting all sorts of useful info of what’s coming up. Its in the public domain but not as detailed. My job actually involves working on large data sets looking for patterns and anomalies... so I know its going to be difficult to run models. What they do is several intellectual levels above me though. (Maybe).I'd just like to thank you for pulling that to pieces.
The original posting of TransverseTight at 22:55 last night reads like some propaganda poster.
It very cleverly ASSERTED the points he wanted to make (others to read) as fact, while engaging any unsure "fence-sitter" readers into a pact of sympathy to his side of the debate.
Having myself had media training many years ago, it stood out as ticking all the boxes of a good interview.
A Very clever posting and one that students of psychology might like to dissect?
I think TransverseTight wrote earlier that he worked for an Energy Company, but not which sector.
Renewables?
I have boinc running on my computer at home with one of climateprediction.net models running as a screen saver. It cant be that far off as its run 1850 to 1950 (in about 2 years) and the weather is still looking "normal" . Ie its not one of the models that sea temperature hits 100 degrees by 1920 and the world catches fire. Thought it a bit more useful than SETI@Home.
The questions I posted earlier are genuine. I thought they were quite logical. If they're flawed I still haven't seen a response that convinces me you can’t ask this. Well I have but I’m not convinced they have to be separate questions, one known fact leads to another and when you put them all together, the light bulb comes on. I am going to be looking at more data on what different theories to the climate sensitivity is to CO2. but isn’t that the trillion dollar question that even people with several PHDs and 40 years experience in climate science can’t answer? All I'll end up with is a range of values by doing secondary research (mine). Of which I need to take an average and ranges. And that’s what the IPCC do. With a bit of politics thrown in.
I'm still "studying" in the hope of one day starting a company related to energy in one way or another. It's not like we are going to stop using it! Maybe an electric car conversion company (too risky?) an eco home renoovating company (gov policy is too flaky and changeable to risk a business in this area - green deal is a failure). Maybe a "clean" generating company, required a lot of capital. It's funny when someone mention scatter gun earlier. I fell like that - searhcing avenues and getting no where.
Thank you for the positive comments on putting together a good argument ;-)
PW said:
You really think that's going to convince anyone who is a "believer" that they're wrong? Or convince anyone who is undecided that they should side with you? What does it achieve?
I'd be embarrased to be associated with that attitude, whether you're right or not.
Same goes for the side of the "believers" who say anyone who denies it should be locked up, and whatever BS they come out with.
fk all of you, quite frankly.
Even if CO2 is a red herring, the idea of polluting the environment less, investing in new technologies, more efficient power sources, and generally creating a better standard of living for people around the world seems the sort of thing anyone with an interest in science and technology would be behind.
Exactly – I’m not here to change anyone’s mind. I’m here to learn, where’s the evidence, what do people think, what are attitudes to alternative tech (especially cars). I wouldn’t say I know everything about everything, but of the people I know first hand, I know more about energy policy and where it comes from and where it could come from than anyone else I know. I’m sure there’ s a few people on here though that could teach me a thing or two. Which is why I’m asking! I'd be embarrased to be associated with that attitude, whether you're right or not.
Same goes for the side of the "believers" who say anyone who denies it should be locked up, and whatever BS they come out with.
f
k all of you, quite frankly.Even if CO2 is a red herring, the idea of polluting the environment less, investing in new technologies, more efficient power sources, and generally creating a better standard of living for people around the world seems the sort of thing anyone with an interest in science and technology would be behind.
For example I have realised it’s been a while since I looked at any detailed reports of the sensitivity of climate to CO2. Maybe things have changed – I’d assumed not. But I might be wrong. There’s a lot of noise currently about Temperature leading CO2 (which was always the case historically as the climate was driven by solar cycles). But this is ignoring a key fact, We know we add 30 billion tonnes a year to the air. That isn’t coming from off gassing oceans or volcanoes. I want to find out if this 10 month lead, is actually a 2 month lag, or a result of last years weather affecting this years plant growth and ability to absorb CO2. Just pure correlations between numbers doesn’t tell me anything. I’m sure I can correlate the number of people logged into pistonheads each month with the number of breeding pairs of magpies.
Modelling isn’t 100% accurate, but as I’ve seen running on BOINC – it can be quite good. The whole purpose of climateprediction.net is to use computer power of everybody’s graphics processers (Which as fast at doing floating point arithmetic) to find out which models accurately get the climate right if you run them with historically known data. If they can get that right from a set of starting conditions, leave them to run to the future and see what happens. To say models haven’t predicted as previously unseen event means the models need to be refined. Not that the whole thing is s
te. When you look at how much computer power is being thrown at this problem is quite a lot. But it is correct to say it’s not the cpu cycles that matter, it is getting the software right. Er, rather than me going on about it… http://www.climateprediction.net/about/TheExcession said:
t's good you are thinking and I hope the people here will treat you with some respect, though having seen a few come and go over the years I don't rate your chances.
There is a reason why the 'established members' here are anti AGW, and that's because many of us have read the scientific papers, we've seen through the political bullst driving these beliefs (there's a reason why the political thread on climate change is running bigger than the science one now).
Just be aware that you are up against people that have been following this for the last 10-15 years. Many of us are well read on the subject and the reason we don't subscribe to the 'consensus of the science of CO2 being settled' is because we don't subscribe to the idea that the science is settled. The CO2/Carbon mantra is just frankly wrong.
It (CO2) is not causing warming... in fact recently there has been no warming, and further I posted to a video link earlier in this thread that to me currently proves unrefuted anaysis of why CO2 levels only follow changes in temp.
Now if you'd like to get into some discussions about Fourier analysis with some of the mathematicians here then knock you socks off, it'll be a good read.
Until then I call troll. (A troll being someone who refuses to face some facts and just wants to make noise on an internet forum).
Essentially go a way until you have some science we can debate.
Thanks. I'll have a look in on the politics section too - hadn't spotted that. There is a reason why the 'established members' here are anti AGW, and that's because many of us have read the scientific papers, we've seen through the political bulls
t driving these beliefs (there's a reason why the political thread on climate change is running bigger than the science one now).Just be aware that you are up against people that have been following this for the last 10-15 years. Many of us are well read on the subject and the reason we don't subscribe to the 'consensus of the science of CO2 being settled' is because we don't subscribe to the idea that the science is settled. The CO2/Carbon mantra is just frankly wrong.
It (CO2) is not causing warming... in fact recently there has been no warming, and further I posted to a video link earlier in this thread that to me currently proves unrefuted anaysis of why CO2 levels only follow changes in temp.
Now if you'd like to get into some discussions about Fourier analysis with some of the mathematicians here then knock you socks off, it'll be a good read.
Until then I call troll. (A troll being someone who refuses to face some facts and just wants to make noise on an internet forum).
Essentially go a way until you have some science we can debate.
Had a look at the video - presume you mean the one about temp leading CO2. But to me that's just numbers - I want causes. So this is my reading for the forseeable future at the mo. I.e. the backlash and back back lash.
Hmmm, my hypothesis for why the status quo is anti GW. Could be to do with the sites main theme. If it was a site discusing wild camping... LOL.
The only person likely to change their mind is me :-)
I definetely agree with politics has tainted it. And that tax policy is, er, as someone who pays a lot of tax, I better stop there, before I catch fire. If it was a really really bad problem it shouldn't be taxes. You'll just ban stuff. No more 5 liter V8s, all cars must do 100mpg to be legal etc. Maximum emisions 100g/km. You can have big and load carrying, or lightweight carbon sports cars. I.e. a warlike mentality. You must keep your blackout blinds closed etc. Not - if you open your curtains we'll charge you 10p a minute.
I also agree it isn't settled. Never will be. Even if the consensus switches to it's not happening, people will still be checking if it is.
I've really come into this from being a tech geek. The one thing I did buy shares in was Ballard Fuel cells back in 1999. Didn't realise it was the tech boom, not the start of a transformation of drive power. Bougt at $108/share in 1999, gave to charity in 2006 as the charges for keeping foreign company shares in my fund were higher than they were worth. About $3/share IIRC.
Making sure I understand the politics and science is important driver of where to invest in future, especially when it comes to me wanting to get out of IT and into "energy".
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.
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
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.
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.
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.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.
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..
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.
However, I already feel like I've learned a lot just by reading your post above.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff