Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Environmentalism and Global Warming Thread

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by bill shack View Post
    T A Garder, I do not know if that is true? I remember after 911 when all the planes were grounded for a couple of days environmental scientists noticed that the sunlight was 10% stronger that before when all the planes were flying. these scientists said that the upper atmosphere with contrails acted as a filter reducing the strength of the sunlight by 10 % , Check it out yourself, http://www.cracked.com/article_20009...ged-world.html
    That's because the light is absorbed as heat in the contrails and retained. The temperatures over the US dropped slightly because of the lack of contrails.

    https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/contrail-effect/

    http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/art...ght-groundings

    https://news.psu.edu/story/361041/20...e-temperatures

    Now there's those in the CO2 causing climate change industry challenging this because it threatens their POV (and funding).

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/climatech...hallenged.html

    Right now, the science on contrails is pretty thin as not a lot has been done on this. But, it is pretty clear they have an effect on temperature. I'd say creating a near permanent haze of cloud from contrails over the Northern Hemisphere is likely to impact the climate more than a tiny increase in the tiny amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

    Comment


    • Very god research, the contrails have a yin yang effect ,these results suggest that contrails can suppress both daytime highs (by reflecting sunlight back to space) and nighttime lows (by trapping radiated heat). well done

      Comment


      • It's my understanding that the temperature of the of the upper troposphere is what we should be concerned with because only the satellite measurements can give us an accurate measure of warming? Next most reliable would be ocean temperatures from the buoy system? Both of which have at times been conveniently ignore by alarmist?

        I have noticed that the last great hope of collectivist is global warming because it justifies regulating almost every aspect of our lives. Left leaning websites I visit have made questioning anthropogenic global warming an automatic ban. Even for collectivists that seems a bit extreme.
        We hunt the hunters

        Comment


        • [QUOTE=bill shack;n5069886]
          Originally posted by G David Bock View Post



          1) ... there has been no laboratory tests done that confirm the claimed extent of CO2 effect upon atmospheric heat levels...

          10,543 viewsFeb 27, 2015, 06:00amSurprise! CO2 Directly Linked To Global Warming

          James ConcaJames ConcaContributori
          EnergyI write about nuclear, energy and the environment

          For the first time since the climate debate began, a team of researchers led by the U.S. DOE Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory directly measured the contribution of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) to heating of the Earth (Nature).
          Sorry Bill, but this is not laboratory replication of a hypothesis as I was suggesting in a prior post. Rather it is a limited geographic and timeline measure adjusted to fit an a priori position, in other words, a biased and "phoney" data presentation.

          The Earth has about 14 sub-climatic zones from equator to pole, times two for North and South halves would be 28 such. What is optimal for one isn't always so for others, so engaging in averaging on a global scale introduces some distortion in the process.

          Normally significant "climate" data requires about 30+ years of measurement, not around eight as in your example/link, and would have to be done among the 14 x2 = 28 climatic zones across the planet, not just two. Such does not yet appear to have been done, so we have yet to get a full or anywhere near accurate data base of measurements. This means the hypothesis of ACC/AGW is far from documented, or established, and far from tested in re-producible format as scientific process and theory would require.

          Bottom line is the human factor is far from proven/established;
          ...We don't know for sure how much is "broken" ...
          ... We don't know for sure what/if might be a fix, if any is possible.

          i.e. at this point intentional geo-engineering could produce more harm than we are currently trying to gauge, let alone deal with.
          Whiskey for my men, and beer for my horses.
          TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
          Bock's First Law of History: The Past shapes the Present, which forms the Future. *

          Comment


          • Solutions within our reach

            We are the cause, we are the solution.

            Knowing that human activities are the main driver of global warming helps us understand how and why our climate is changing, and it clearly defines the problem as one that is within our power to address.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by bill shack View Post
              Solutions within our reach


              We are the cause, we are the solution.

              Knowing that human activities are the main driver of global warming helps us understand how and why our climate is changing, and it clearly defines the problem as one that is within our power to address.
              Note first that the "never been above this line" of your chart is the minimum for optimal Flora/plant life on this planet, about 99+% of planetary biomass. As far as the Flora/plants are concerned, this level is barely enough to maybe start thriving on ...

              Your chart only goes back to about 400,000 years and homo sapiens as a species only goes back between 300,000 to 200,000 and most of that time was as hunter-gathers, wandering nomads; i.e. no civilization, no industry until the very right end extreme of your chart/graph; ... so what caused the rise and fall of CO2 before human activity could have ???

              Your chart/graph doesn't show temperatures along side the CO2 levels so it's next to useless data ...

              You also ignore the context of the full history of Earth's biosphere, as shown again on this chart displaying both temperature and CO2 ranges, going back about 4 billion years. The chart you present only goes back as far as between the 1.64 and 0.01 million years ago boundaries as shown on its extreme right edge;

              Your chart/graph also fails to prove that the main increase of CO2 levels is mostly human caused and/or that such is not benficial to the biosphere as a whole;

              Whiskey for my men, and beer for my horses.
              TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
              Bock's First Law of History: The Past shapes the Present, which forms the Future. *

              Comment


              • As one goes back in time, one sees less and less detail. Certainly carbon dioxide was higher in the past but many things were different in the Ordovician than they are at present. One example is that all land was in the Southern Hemisphere at that time. Ocean and atmospheric circulations were different and mountain ranges were lower with the possible exception of the Taconic Mountains. The Sun was certainly dimmer. Steve O'Connor's post is a very good one. We need to address the deniers every time they open their mouths or put pen to paper. The science is sound and conclusive.

                Comment


                • Every time we see the word deniers we need to point out the alarmists. You need a bit of balance.

                  We hunt the hunters

                  Comment


                  • i do not see it that way, in this web page most people see climate change as fake, but the rest of the world see it as being real .

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by bill shack View Post
                      i do not see it that way, in this web page most people see climate change as fake, but the rest of the world see it as being real .
                      I see climate change as mostly, almost entirely, a natural thing. Yes, the climate changes. CO2 produced by human activity is not driving it, nor is it a major cause. That is the difference. I've repeatedly pointed out that research now shows contrails to be a significant contributor. If that's the case, which science now says it is, the question on the table is What else have climate researchers not taken into account or have gotten wrong?

                      I submit that it is those who say climate change is driven by anthropogenic CO2 and the debate is over, the science is settled, that are the ones that are wrong.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by bill shack View Post
                        i do not see it that way, in this web page most people see climate change as fake, but the rest of the world see it as being real .
                        Again, you fail to distinguish between natural and human cause(anthropogenic). As mentioned here repeatedly, few of us doubt the natural cycle of climate change~variation that has occurred over past 4+ billion years and continues now. Two items we dispute are 1) that human CO2 emissions are having a significant to major driving factor; and 2) that climate can be stabilized to a narrow range like setting the thermostat in your home.

                        By "in this web page" I'm assuming you are referring to this forum/message board ???

                        Again, the only part any of us consider "fake" is the unproven linkage of CO2 as a main driver and human activity exceeding natural factors.

                        You have not proven "the rest of the world", only "some of the world", at best is willing to believe it's mostly human caused.

                        Your chart is barely readable nor documented, so if you have a link toa larger version, that would help. A reminder that most scientists chase funding and when the funding is to prove ACC/AGW, well "Duh". Also science is based on what the data shows, not what are the opinions or consensus of "scientists".

                        Opinion/consensus of "scientists" is how about 500 years ago these "experts" thought the Earth was flat and the Sun revolved around the Earth.
                        Whiskey for my men, and beer for my horses.
                        TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
                        Bock's First Law of History: The Past shapes the Present, which forms the Future. *

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                          I see climate change as mostly, almost entirely, a natural thing. Yes, the climate changes. CO2 produced by human activity is not driving it, nor is it a major cause. That is the difference. I've repeatedly pointed out that research now shows contrails to be a significant contributor. If that's the case, which science now says it is, the question on the table is What else have climate researchers not taken into account or have gotten wrong?

                          I submit that it is those who say climate change is driven by anthropogenic CO2 and the debate is over, the science is settled, that are the ones that are wrong.
                          Contrails are mostly water vapor, and formed via mostly atmospheric water vapor latching on to the particulates in the exhaust from the aircraft. Essentially contrails are artificial clouds and their effect upon atmospheric temperatures are in the same league as naturally formed clouds, so how significant is still to be determined.
                          Whiskey for my men, and beer for my horses.
                          TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
                          Bock's First Law of History: The Past shapes the Present, which forms the Future. *

                          Comment


                          • David , a couple of things
                            1) the united states leads the world in climate changes deniers


                            https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...most-prevalent

                            2) if you wish to see my other chart

                            https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...e_opinion2.png
                            I am happy to show all my sources if you do the same https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global...ng_controversy

                            Comment


                            • You just as well ask people if they believe in UFOs. People generally believe what they are told to believe or in the case of UFOs what they are told not to believe. In either case such surveys are pretty meaningless if your interested in reality.

                              Everyone believed in peak oil and some still do despite the evidence. The progressives have a long standing hatred of the energy sector because it is not under their control and if they control it they basically control the modern world. Not only does power corrupt but the desire for power as well.
                              We hunt the hunters

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by bill shack View Post
                                David , a couple of things
                                1) the united states leads the world in climate changes deniers


                                https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...most-prevalent

                                2) if you wish to see my other chart

                                https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...e_opinion2.png
                                I am happy to show all my sources if you do the same https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global...ng_controversy
                                Science is not based on opinions, consensus, or political correctness. It is either correct or it's wrong. At one time the consensus was the Earth was the center of the universe. At another point the belief was the world was flat. There are plenty of other historical examples. So, what people think in some country is totally irrelevant to the debate. Either anthropogenic climate change (ACC) based on rising CO2 is right, or it's wrong. The science on that-- in my view is still out. There is no clear and final scientific evidence supporting or invalidating that.

                                So, taking an opinion poll on ACC is as worthless as the Catholic Church locking Galileo up for his finding the first moons of Jupiter and claiming the Earth is not the center of the universe.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X