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
    Mr bock why must you always put down and demean anyone that does not agree with you ,

    #1014
    17 Apr 19, 17:02
    So mr Shack,

    When you were in school and one day you took a test with 20 questions and as the teacher came across the first question where you got a wrong answer, did that teacher say; "Sorry, Bill, but since you got one wrong answer, your whole test is invalidated and you get an F."?

    This is the first of a few indications you may not have all your mental gears properly meshed.
    Mr shack,

    I wasn't putting you down, I was illustrating the fallacy of your (non)logic in the post of yours I quoted.

    Why do liberals and the loonie-left always think that if you disagree with them, what they say and their positions on a subject, then it must be a personal attack???

    Comment


    • Some good news for far-future sea level rise

      New model finds processes that could help slow loss at some glaciers.

      ...
      https://arstechnica.com/science/2019...=pocket-newtab

      Comment


      • Global warming: why you should not worry
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwvVephTIHU

        Thomas Sowell: Global Warming Manufactured by Intellectuals?
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rweblFwt-BM

        World In Midst of Carbon Drought (w/ Prof. William Happer, Princeton University)
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-9UlF8hkhs

        Comment


        • Responding to Arguments from Climate Change Skeptics Webinar

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ing5XZ3DKbs
          One climate change scientist takes on a roomful of sceptics.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hCRafyV0zI
          Neil deGrasse Tyson scolds cherry picking climate science

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1MZ8U8C9c8

          Comment


          • The earth is warning and co2 is rising, good news for life bad news for a small percentage of the human race.
            We hunt the hunters

            Comment


            • Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
              The earth is warning and co2 is rising, good news for life bad news for a small percentage of the human race.
              Earth, specifically the hydrosphere, could be cooling back towards another Ice Age/Glaciation; so fortunately our planet's hydrosphere is still warming out of an Ice Age. Overall this is better for all life, humans included, than freezing our nads off and having less land available to grow food on, since many of us could return to being covered in a mile of ice.

              99.9% of life on this planet, the flora, would be better off with slightly more CO2. Since that 99.9% makes it possible for us 0.1% fauna to live, we are better off to see a warming trend rather than a cooling trend. Nature's handling of Climate is either - or. There is no long term plateau of stagnation in an idea range. BTW, there are about a dozen plus climate zones/bands in each of North and South hemispheres, so the "average" covers a wide ranging scale.

              If humans do what we've always done, adapt, than even the "small percentage" need not experience "bad news".

              Comment




              • I see it differently,

                Comment


                • With the rising of the sea level also comes the pollution of salt into the water-table. This is already affecting the rice harvests in SE Asia and Malaysia. The disruption to such a staple food source for millions will have knock-on effects.

                  The fact that the term 'climate refugee' has come into our modern lexicon helps spell out the not too distant future for many.
                  BoRG
                  "... and that was the last time they called me Freakboy Moses"

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                    Part of a post in the Earth's magnetic field thread where we got sidetracked, ...
                    ... needs to be here; ...


                    Climate Fraud Exposed: CO2 doesn’t rise up, trap and retain heat
                    ...
                    We have been lied to: Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an alleged ‘well-mixed gas’ also alleged to reside in sufficient quantities high in the atmosphere to cause global warming (via the so-called greenhouse gas effect). ...

                    The first damaging fact to the theory: CO2 is actually a heavy gas. It is not ‘well mixed’ in the air as per the glib claim. Just check out the NASA image (above) showing widely varying carbon dioxide concentrations. Indeed, schoolchildren are shown just how heavy CO2 is by way of a simple school lab experiment. This heavy gas thus struggles to rise and soon falls back to earth due to its Specific Gravity (SG). Real scientists rely on the SG measure which gives standard air a value of 1.0 where the measured SG of CO2 is 1.5 (considerably heavier). Thus, in the real world the warming theory barely gets off the ground.

                    As shown in Carbon Dioxide Not a Well Mixed Gas and Can’t Cause Global Warming the same principle applies to heat transfer: the Specific Heat (SH) of air is 1.0 and the SH of CO2 is 0.8 (thus CO2 heats and cools faster). Combining these properties allows for thermal mixing. Heavy CO2 warms faster and rises, as in a hot air balloon. It then rapidly cools and falls. Once it falls it loses any claimed climate impact.

                    You see, so much of what we have been told about the greenhouse gas mechanism is false. James Moodey wrote an excellent debunk of CO2 pseudo-science. He tells us:
                    ...
                    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                    I recall learning this back in high school chemistry, but perhaps the Periodic Table of Elements, and atomic weights have changed since @ 50 years ago ...
                    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                    ...
                    There is no doubt what he measured exists, but nowhere in John Tyndall’s paper does he add the element of time. Yes, some gases absorb heat, but for how long? If you ask any climate ‘scientist’ how long CO2 traps heat they are unable to tell you. They certainly can’t claim Tyndall “settled” it. Instead you will find airy-fairy, hand-waving pronouncements like this peach:
                    “As humans emit greenhouse gases like CO2, the air warms and holds more water vapor, which then traps more heat and accelerates warming.”


                    You see, they want to convince you that CO2 is trapping heat (like a greenhouse) but then don’t tell you how much and for how long. In fact, the only scientist to test CO2 absorption/emission in the open atmosphere is Professor Nasif Nahle (Monterrey, Mexico) in his peer-reviewed paper, ‘Determining the Total Emissivity of a Mixture of Gases Containing Overlapping Absorption Bands.’ [1]

                    By performing his experiments in the open atmosphere Professor Nahle found:
                    “Applying the physics laws of atmospheric heat transfer, the Carbon Dioxide behaves as a coolant of the Earth’s surface and the Earth’s atmosphere by its effect of diminishing the total absorptivity and total emissivity of the mixture of atmospheric gases.” [emphasis added]


                    So much for that ‘greenhouse effect’! Unlike academics playing with computers, applied scientists like Nahle and measurement engineers, who must be correct or buildings would catch fire, use four aspects of physics to measure gases: Pressure (Boyles Law), Temperature (Charles Law), Super-compressibility and Specific Gravity. Charles Law and Specific Gravity should be at the center of any analysis of Global Warming.

                    But take a look at any climate ‘science’ publication explaining how they quantify and explain their mechanism of carbon dioxide’s ‘heat trapping’ in the climate and you will only read about radiation effects, nothing at all on those essential laws that chemical science experts rely on. Anyway, a greenhouse works by blocking out cooling convection, not by trapping radiation.
                    ....
                    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                    So CO2 doesn't retain "heat" for long and gets rid of such almost as quickly ...
                    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                    ....
                    And the greenhouse gas theory is all about radiation. But radiation is not the principle method of heat transport in a gaseous environment like earth’s atmosphere. Here. it is convection and conduction that carry heat around the system. No wonder climate computer models fail.

                    So, does carbon dioxide trap and retain heat? No, although it cools more slowly than some other gases, it absorbs some amount of heat and quickly cools the same amount when the heat source is removed. Does it rise up in the atmosphere? No, it does the opposite. It sinks.

                    It is well known that CO2 pools in the lower atmosphere – it is heavy and sinks to the ground where it forms large concentrations (e.g as carboniferous limestone). Geologists know this all too well. They can point us to innumerable examples e.g. those prehistoric limestone deposits on ocean beds which gave the south coast of Britain it’s marvelous white cliffs of Dover (see image).
                    ....
                    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                    So CO2 doesn't hold "heat" for very long and sinks to lower atmosphere ...
                    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                    ...
                    Now back to some Geology:

                    And we know carbon dioxide forms into insoluble carbonates that will eventually be washed into the ocean and settle on the ocean floor. Just as well it does. A high carbonate content in the ocean has been a godsend to life. Dissolved carbonates in seawater provide an efficient chemical buffer to various processes that change the properties of seawater. For instance, the addition of a strong acid such as hydrochloric acid (naturally added to the ocean by volcanism), is strongly buffered by the seawater carbonate system. Marine biologists and oceanographers, unlike most climate ‘scientists’, know that Phytoplankton have always sucked CO2 out of the sky, then dumps to ocean floor. [2]

                    This is the carbon cycle in operation – heavier organic carbon settling down to intermediate and deep waters. Earth’s oceans and rains serve as a go-between to transport the carbon back … and free the CO2 gas which makes its way back up to the surface through volcanoes. [3]

                    It is sensible to see dispersion of CO2 via volcanic eruptions (and the very tiny human emissions of CO2) as fertilization of the land fauna and flora. The inconvenient truth for global warming alarmists is that NASA finds that the rise in atmospheric CO2 over the last 35 years “represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.” [4]

                    If NASA is correct, then we need more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not less. Check the graph below and follow the blue line to see that life on earth has thrived on CO2 concentrations at 3,000 ppm, far higher than today’s levels of about 400 ppm (circled):
                    ....
                    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                    In your reply to my post above, you dodged this math related issue. Are you disputing that an optimal minimum for 99+% of life on this planet, the flora/planets should be at least 300ppm ???
                    Also, if we look at the current CO2 level of 400ppm, that can also be expressed as 400/1,000,000; which reduces to 1/2,500. So one un-answered question is how can that one part CO2 transfer the heat it retains(briefly) to the other 2,499 molecules of the atmosphere?

                    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                    ...
                    And if you think like a geologist and not like a climate ‘scientists’ and look back in the history of time you see the atmosphere had very large amounts of carbon dioxide in it. Today we have got less than 0.4%. So where did that carbon dioxide go to? It went into limestone, chalk, shells and life. All land-based lifeforms have been sequestering carbon for ONLY two and a half billion years. And all that CO2 that is supposed to turn the oceans more acidic? Pure nonsense because even NOAA scientists admit in private that they can’t name any place affected by ocean acidification. And more than 99% of earth’s FREE CO2 is already in the ocean waters.

                    If only those self-absorbed climate ‘scientists’ would speak to chemical scientists. All that Calcium Carbonate comes from the precipitation reaction of Calcium Hydroxide in the ocean with CO2 using the reaction Ca(OH)2 + CO2 -> CaCO3 + H20. For example, shellfish need CO2 from the ocean to make their shells and control the conditions for PH, Temperature and Ion Concentration and they bind the crystals that form in a protein matrix for strength. Shellfish are utterly unaffected by the piddling change in the ocean from being a base of 8.3 to being a base of PH 8.29 that might happen due to manmade CO2

                    Our planet has been degassing carbon dioxide since it first formed four and a half billion years ago and now we are at a dangerously low level. The dumbest thing nations can do is permit scrubbing CO2 from the air (carbon sequestration).
                    ...
                    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                    So, ... no ocean acidification and possibly dangerously low levels of CO2 ...
                    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                    ...
                    Indeed, even with some slight cooling observed, the affect of carbon dioxide on the temperature of our atmosphere is not even measurable as the content is so tiny. Note that during our most dramatic industrial growth from 1950 to 1980, our atmosphere cooled. In fact putting co2 into the air is saving the planet. If the industrial age did not occur for another 100 million years, what would the co2 ppm in air be then? The danger is without humans taking steps to put more carbon dioxide into the air then life as we know it could end.
                    ....
                    https://principia-scientific.org/cli...p-retain-heat/
                    So, I read this, and then went to the links you provided... These are all opinion pieces with no proofs provided... basically climate change deniers blog sites...
                    Your Principia Scientific site? WordPress, and no solid proofs or links to such provided... but there are links to the Joanne Nova site, which has links back to the Principia Scientific site, as well as links to the quadrant.org.au site... but all of it is opinions.

                    They don't even provide copies of the alleged e-mails proving their argument, just excerpts. They're not riding very high on the credibility scale with this stuff I have to say.
                    BoRG
                    "... and that was the last time they called me Freakboy Moses"

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Arthwys View Post
                      With the rising of the sea level also comes the pollution of salt into the water-table. This is already affecting the rice harvests in SE Asia and Malaysia. The disruption to such a staple food source for millions will have knock-on effects.

                      The fact that the term 'climate refugee' has come into our modern lexicon helps spell out the not too distant future for many.
                      The term "climate refugee" may seem new, the concept is ages old. 15,000 years ago where you, Mr. shack, and I live was covered in a mile thick glacier of the Ice Age. Then "global warming" happened, the NATURAL version, and within a few thousand years things had changed significantly and there was nothing anthropogenic about it.

                      Science begins with precision, in measures, data, and terms; and when many fail to be specific if they are speaking of Natural or Human-caused(anthropogenic) they start off invaliding their positions and opinions. We so-called skeptics and deniers don't deny NATURAL Climate change, there's evidence of that going back 4 1/2 billion years. What we are skeptical about and will deny until firm evidence is presented is the hypothesis that what is currently occurring is almost entire the result of human activity of the past couple centuries. And specifically that the main cause is current CO2 levels which at 0.04%, or 1/2500 of atmospheric content have yet to be proven in the lab to actually transfer the temporary heat retention(which is quickly lost) to the other 2,499 parts. So far, that appears to be both hubris and unscientific.

                      'Reconstruction' begins of stone age lands lost to North Sea
                      Scientists to create 3D map of submerged Mesolithic landscape of Doggerland
                      ...
                      Lost at the bottom of the North Sea almost eight millennia ago, a vast land area between England and southern Scandinavia which was home to thousands of stone age settlers is about to be rediscovered.

                      Marine experts, scientists and archaeologists have spent the past 15 years meticulously mapping thousands of kilometres under water in the hope of unearthing lost prehistoric tribes.

                      On Wednesday a crew of British and Belgian scientists set off on their voyage across the North Sea to reconstruct the ancient Mesolithic landscape hidden beneath the waves for 7,500 years. The area was submerged when thousands of cubic miles of sub-Arctic ice started to melt and sea levels began to rise.

                      The ancient country, known as Doggerland, which could once have had great plains with rich soils, formed an important land bridge between Britain and northern Europe. It was long believed to have been hit by catastrophic flooding.

                      Using seabed mapping data the team plans to produce a 3D chart revealing the rivers, lakes, hills and coastlines of the country. Specialist survey ships will take core sediment samples from selected areas to extract millions of fragments of DNA from the buried plants and animals.

                      Prof Vincent Gaffney, from the University of Bradford’s school of archaeological and forensic sciences, said: “If this is successful it will be the first time anybody will have produced such evidence for settlements in the deep waters of the North Sea. This will be a real first. That would be new knowledge of what is really a lost continent.”
                      ...
                      https://www.theguardian.com/science/...=pocket-newtab

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by bill shack View Post

                        I see it differently,
                        Repeating the same statements twice in one post doen't make them more valid. And like many, your sources remain rather subjective and repeat the mantras of the new religion of ACC/AGW.

                        Meanwhile there remains no proof that current level of CO2 as 0.04%, or 1/2500 retains enough heat, briefly, to raise tempurature of the remaining 99.96% or 2,499 other parts of the atmosphere.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

                          Repeating the same statements twice in one post doen't make them more valid. And like many, your sources remain rather subjective and repeat the mantras of the new religion of ACC/AGW.

                          Meanwhile there remains no proof that current level of CO2 as 0.04%, or 1/2500 retains enough heat, briefly, to raise tempurature of the remaining 99.96% or 2,499 other parts of the atmosphere.
                          ACC/AGW?

                          Please clarify.
                          BoRG
                          "... and that was the last time they called me Freakboy Moses"

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Arthwys View Post

                            ACC/AGW?

                            Please clarify.
                            ACC = Anthropogenic Climate Change
                            AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming

                            Frequently used shorthand/acronyms

                            Comment


                            • [QUOTE=G David Bock;n5116861]

                              The term "climate refugee" may seem new, the concept is ages old. 15,000 years ago where you, Mr. shack, and I live was covered in a mile thick glacier of the Ice Age. Then "global warming" happened, the NATURAL version, and within a few thousand years things had changed significantly and there was nothing anthropogenic about it.

                              Science begins with precision, in measures, data, and terms; and when many fail to be specific if they are speaking of Natural or Human-caused(anthropogenic) they start off invaliding their positions and opinions. We so-called skeptics and deniers don't deny NATURAL Climate change, there's evidence of that going back 4 1/2 billion years. What we are skeptical about and will deny until firm evidence is presented is the hypothesis that what is currently occurring is almost entire the result of human activity of the past couple centuries. And specifically that the main cause is current CO2 levels which at 0.04%, or 1/2500 of atmospheric content have yet to be proven in the lab to actually transfer the temporary heat retention(which is quickly lost) to the other 2,499 parts. So far, that appears to be both hubris and unscientific.

                              Actually in certain cases the changes happened in a much shorter time frame with much more cataclysmic results. I'm thinking scablands of Washington as an example.

                              My issue isn't whether the current climate change is anthropogenic in nature or not. We know that climate change is occurring, the cause (or combination of causes in my own opinion) is only relevant in working to find a solution. The challenge is that there are few, if any governments on the planet that actually seem interested in addressing it in any meaningful way... because that's future people's problem and we all want to get elected again, so we'll just push it on down the line.

                              At least that's the impression I get from everything I see and read.
                              BoRG
                              "... and that was the last time they called me Freakboy Moses"

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

                                ACC = Anthropogenic Climate Change
                                AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming

                                Frequently used shorthand/acronyms
                                Thank you!
                                BoRG
                                "... and that was the last time they called me Freakboy Moses"

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X