Climate Change - The Scientific Debate
Discussion
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.
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.
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.
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.
As always Its the way they tell em.
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 the whole of earths atmosphere is something like 5.5 QUADRILLION tons. I think that trumps 30 billion by quite a bit.
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 the whole of earths atmosphere is something like 5.5 QUADRILLION tons. I think that trumps 30 billion by quite a bit.
Where is the predicted warming?
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 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..
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.
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 the whole of earths atmosphere is something like 5.5 QUADRILLION tons. I think that trumps 30 billion by quite a bit.
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...
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.
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?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.
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.
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.I think the above deserves an answer. (not holding breath)
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.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff