Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)
Discussion
Gadgetmac said:
El stovey said:
Jinx said:
Alternatives to group think. First the huge reduction in the number of aircraft above the UK is a fact (anyone who has been watching flightradar24 can show this - if you have a proper account you can even check compared with last year). That aircraft produce clouds is a fact (check with NASA). That we have evidence of clearer skies with fewer aircraft has been shown (see period after 9-11) and this had a measurable effect on global temperatures.
And what "conspiracy" are you talking about? Remind me again what you bring to the thread?
The record amounts of sunshine are caused by high pressure and the position of the North Atlantic jet streams. And what "conspiracy" are you talking about? Remind me again what you bring to the thread?
30 seconds of looking at any synoptic charts show that.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/press-office...
Links to the met office won’t cut it either as they can’t be arsed to do the science...or something.
GGM's previous link had the "could be climate change" but without any explanation of how it could be climate change.
Read the NASA link I provided.
Jinx said:
Gadgetmac said:
El stovey said:
Jinx said:
Alternatives to group think. First the huge reduction in the number of aircraft above the UK is a fact (anyone who has been watching flightradar24 can show this - if you have a proper account you can even check compared with last year). That aircraft produce clouds is a fact (check with NASA). That we have evidence of clearer skies with fewer aircraft has been shown (see period after 9-11) and this had a measurable effect on global temperatures.
And what "conspiracy" are you talking about? Remind me again what you bring to the thread?
The record amounts of sunshine are caused by high pressure and the position of the North Atlantic jet streams. And what "conspiracy" are you talking about? Remind me again what you bring to the thread?
30 seconds of looking at any synoptic charts show that.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/press-office...
Links to the met office won’t cut it either as they can’t be arsed to do the science...or something.
GGM's previous link had the "could be climate change" but without any explanation of how it could be climate change.
Read the NASA link I provided.
I’ll ask for the third time, have you found anyone else or anything else supporting your contrails hypothesis for this spring yet?
ETA: Actually, don't bother answering this post you can't and so won't and are happy to argue the difference between exceptional and record instead.
This is going nowhere.
Edited by Gadgetmac on Wednesday 3rd June 16:28
Despite Trump's best efforts some more good news on the fight against AGW.
New Jersey becomes first US state to add climate change to kindergarten curriculum
As it's their generation that's going to be the most affected they've started teaching climate change from Kindergarten through to graduation in one state. I'm sure this will grow, teaching the kids the facts in school is never a bad idea and that's where the next generation of scientists will be coming from.
https://www.energylivenews.com/2020/06/07/new-jers...
New Jersey becomes first US state to add climate change to kindergarten curriculum
As it's their generation that's going to be the most affected they've started teaching climate change from Kindergarten through to graduation in one state. I'm sure this will grow, teaching the kids the facts in school is never a bad idea and that's where the next generation of scientists will be coming from.
https://www.energylivenews.com/2020/06/07/new-jers...
Gadgetmac said:
Despite Trump's best efforts some more good news on the fight against AGW.
New Jersey becomes first US state to add climate change to kindergarten curriculum
As it's their generation that's going to be the most affected they've started teaching climate change from Kindergarten through to graduation in one state. I'm sure this will grow, teaching the kids the facts in school is never a bad idea and that's where the next generation of scientists will be coming from.
https://www.energylivenews.com/2020/06/07/new-jers...
Politics New Jersey becomes first US state to add climate change to kindergarten curriculum
As it's their generation that's going to be the most affected they've started teaching climate change from Kindergarten through to graduation in one state. I'm sure this will grow, teaching the kids the facts in school is never a bad idea and that's where the next generation of scientists will be coming from.
https://www.energylivenews.com/2020/06/07/new-jers...
dickymint said:
Gadgetmac said:
Despite Trump's best efforts some more good news on the fight against AGW.
New Jersey becomes first US state to add climate change to kindergarten curriculum
As it's their generation that's going to be the most affected they've started teaching climate change from Kindergarten through to graduation in one state. I'm sure this will grow, teaching the kids the facts in school is never a bad idea and that's where the next generation of scientists will be coming from.
https://www.energylivenews.com/2020/06/07/new-jers...
Education New Jersey becomes first US state to add climate change to kindergarten curriculum
As it's their generation that's going to be the most affected they've started teaching climate change from Kindergarten through to graduation in one state. I'm sure this will grow, teaching the kids the facts in school is never a bad idea and that's where the next generation of scientists will be coming from.
https://www.energylivenews.com/2020/06/07/new-jers...
dickymint said:
Gadgetmac said:
Despite Trump's best efforts some more good news on the fight against AGW.
New Jersey becomes first US state to add climate change to kindergarten curriculum
As it's their generation that's going to be the most affected they've started teaching climate change from Kindergarten through to graduation in one state. I'm sure this will grow, teaching the kids the facts in school is never a bad idea and that's where the next generation of scientists will be coming from.
https://www.energylivenews.com/2020/06/07/new-jers...
Politics New Jersey becomes first US state to add climate change to kindergarten curriculum
As it's their generation that's going to be the most affected they've started teaching climate change from Kindergarten through to graduation in one state. I'm sure this will grow, teaching the kids the facts in school is never a bad idea and that's where the next generation of scientists will be coming from.
https://www.energylivenews.com/2020/06/07/new-jers...
robinessex said:
Won't be facts. Just belief. Teach the kids Physics, Maths, Science etc., etc., and then let them work it out for themselevs
Fortunately belief isn't on the curriculum or we would certainly be screwed...and Climate Change is a science just like meteorology...I expect this enlightened approach to teaching our kids about AGW to spread in the years to come and for the benefits of it to be reaped by future generations.
It's abundantly clear you have no idea what science is, to claim that "Climate Change is a science just like meteorology". Meteorology is a branch of science. When you've been through all the basics and fundamentals of Physics, Mathematics, Chemistry, and a few others, then you can use that knowledge to apply it to meteorology, To learn any technological subject, you start at the beginning, learn the basics and fundamentals, then apply it. You can't teach a class of 5yr olds climate change, meteorology, or any other highly technical technological subject until you have gone through all the basics. Which takes you up to A level standards. You can't run before you can walk.
Gadgetmac said:
robinessex said:
Won't be facts. Just belief. Teach the kids Physics, Maths, Science etc., etc., and then let them work it out for themselevs
Fortunately belief isn't on the curriculum or we would certainly be screwed...and Climate Change is a science just like meteorology...I expect this enlightened approach to teaching our kids about AGW to spread in the years to come and for the benefits of it to be reaped by future generations.
No, thought not.
robinessex said:
It's abundantly clear you have no idea what science is, to claim that "Climate Change is a science just like meteorology". Meteorology is a branch of science. When you've been through all the basics and fundamentals of Physics, Mathematics, Chemistry, and a few others, then you can use that knowledge to apply it to meteorology, To learn any technological subject, you start at the beginning, learn the basics and fundamentals, then apply it. You can't teach a class of 5yr olds climate change, meteorology, or any other highly technical technological subject until you have gone through all the basics. Which takes you up to A level standards. You can't run before you can walk.
What's abundantly clear is that you talk out of your hat are almost every opportunity."Climatology or climate science is the scientific study of climate, scientifically defined as weather conditions averaged over a period of time. This modern field of study is regarded as a branch of the atmospheric sciences and a subfield of physical geography, which is one of the Earth sciences."
Climate change is a part of Climate Science.
Gadgetmac said:
What's abundantly clear is that you talk out of your hat are almost every opportunity.
"Climatology or climate science is the scientific study of climate, scientifically defined as weather conditions averaged over a period of time. This modern field of study is regarded as a branch of the atmospheric sciences and a subfield of physical geography, which is one of the Earth sciences."
Climate change is a part of Climate Science.
Gravity is part of physics, but that doesn't make it a science. "Climatology or climate science is the scientific study of climate, scientifically defined as weather conditions averaged over a period of time. This modern field of study is regarded as a branch of the atmospheric sciences and a subfield of physical geography, which is one of the Earth sciences."
Climate change is a part of Climate Science.
If it gets some of them interested in studying science though it may not be a bad thing.
Toltec said:
Gravity is part of physics, but that doesn't make it a science.
If it gets some of them interested in studying science though it may not be a bad thing.
It's a part of the science of climatology but not the whole field obviously.If it gets some of them interested in studying science though it may not be a bad thing.
"Climatologists study both the nature of climates – local, regional or global – and the natural or human-induced factors that cause climates to change. Climatology considers the past and can help predict future climate change."
But we're way off the point now. Students are being taught it as fact now and that can only be a good thing.
Edited by Gadgetmac on Sunday 7th June 22:37
Gadgetmac said:
Toltec said:
Gravity is part of physics, but that doesn't make it a science.
If it gets some of them interested in studying science though it may not be a bad thing.
It's a part of the science of climatology but not the whole field obviously.If it gets some of them interested in studying science though it may not be a bad thing.
"Climatologists study both the nature of climates – local, regional or global – and the natural or human-induced factors that cause climates to change. Climatology considers the past and can help predict future climate change."
But we're way off the point now. Students are being taught it as fact now and that can only be a good thing.
Edited by Gadgetmac on Sunday 7th June 22:37
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
Abstract
The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws
between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 ?C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction
must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.
International Journal of Modern Physics B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) 275–364
Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner
Never say I'm not helpful !!
Why would they include a widely ridiculed synopsis (a simple Google away) from somebody who's never had a paper on climate science published, Gerlich, in the curriculum?
Wouldn't want to fill the poor little mites heads with unscientific gibberish would they
Start here:
COMMENT ON "FALSIFICATION OF THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2GREENHOUSE EFFECTS WITHIN THE FRAME OF PHYSICS"
JOSHUA B. HALPERN, CHRISTOPHER M. COLOSE, CHRIS HO-STUART, JOEL D. SHORE, ARTHUR P. SMITH and JÖRG ZIMMERMANN
Abstract
In this journal, Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner claim to have falsified the existence of an atmospheric greenhouse effect.1 Here, we show that their methods, logic, and conclusions are in error. Their most significant errors include trying to apply the Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to only one side of a heat transfer process rather than the entire process, and systematically ignoring most non-radiative heat flows applicable to the Earth's surface and atmosphere. They claim that radiative heat transfer from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface is forbidden, ignoring the larger transfer in the other direction which makes the complete process allowed. Further, by ignoring heat capacity and non-radiative heat flows, they claim that radiative balance requires that the surface cool by 100 K or more at night, an obvious absurdity induced by an unphysical assumption. This comment concentrates on these two major points, while also taking note of some of Gerlich and Tscheuschner's other errors and misunderstandings.
Wouldn't want to fill the poor little mites heads with unscientific gibberish would they
Start here:
COMMENT ON "FALSIFICATION OF THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2GREENHOUSE EFFECTS WITHIN THE FRAME OF PHYSICS"
JOSHUA B. HALPERN, CHRISTOPHER M. COLOSE, CHRIS HO-STUART, JOEL D. SHORE, ARTHUR P. SMITH and JÖRG ZIMMERMANN
Abstract
In this journal, Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner claim to have falsified the existence of an atmospheric greenhouse effect.1 Here, we show that their methods, logic, and conclusions are in error. Their most significant errors include trying to apply the Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to only one side of a heat transfer process rather than the entire process, and systematically ignoring most non-radiative heat flows applicable to the Earth's surface and atmosphere. They claim that radiative heat transfer from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface is forbidden, ignoring the larger transfer in the other direction which makes the complete process allowed. Further, by ignoring heat capacity and non-radiative heat flows, they claim that radiative balance requires that the surface cool by 100 K or more at night, an obvious absurdity induced by an unphysical assumption. This comment concentrates on these two major points, while also taking note of some of Gerlich and Tscheuschner's other errors and misunderstandings.
Edited by Gadgetmac on Monday 8th June 11:02
El stovey said:
robinessex said:
Oh look, scientists disagreeing about, science. Who'd ever have thought about that when the science is, apparently, settled? So who is it little Johnny and Mary in school going to believe, who is correct?
Not old grandad Rob hopefully.robinessex said:
El stovey said:
robinessex said:
Oh look, scientists disagreeing about, science. Who'd ever have thought about that when the science is, apparently, settled? So who is it little Johnny and Mary in school going to believe, who is correct?
Not old grandad Rob hopefully.El stovey said:
robinessex said:
El stovey said:
robinessex said:
Oh look, scientists disagreeing about, science. Who'd ever have thought about that when the science is, apparently, settled? So who is it little Johnny and Mary in school going to believe, who is correct?
Not old grandad Rob hopefully.Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff