Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Global Warming...Fact or Fiction?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • gunnut
    replied
    What's wrong with climate change?

    Why do we have to keep the climate static?

    Leave a comment:


  • Wooglin
    replied
    What you need to know & are not told about hurricanes
    Editor of the Fabius Maximus website Science & Nature 14 September 2017

    Summary: Millions of words were expended reporting about Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, but too little about the science connecting them to climate change. Here are the details, contrasted with the propaganda barrage of those seeking to exploit these disasters for political gain. Letís listen to these scientists so we can better prepare for what is coming. Failure to do so risks eventual disaster.

    https://fabiusmaximus.com/2017/09/14...of-hurricanes/

    Leave a comment:


  • bestellen
    replied
    Maybe, like all religions, global warming only applies to those people who believe in it. You just gotta have faith.

    Leave a comment:


  • Monash
    replied
    'Lefty intellectual anti-human pussies' Otherwise defined as anyone who dares to disagree with you?
    Last edited by Monash; 27 Jul 17,, 08:24.

    Leave a comment:


  • dalem
    replied
    Originally posted by dalem View Post
    First, the model. The Greenhouse Effect.

    At the most basic, light (photons) comes into the atmosphere from the Sun at visible wavelengths. Visible wavelength photons carry energy, that energy hits the ground and some is absorbed. The ground next radiates away the extra photons at longer-than-visible wavelengths which cannot penetrate the atmosphere - they are re-absorbed and some radiate downward to be re-absorbed, re-radiated, and re-absorbed, etc.

    A simpler-yet-accurate-for-most-purposes model is the one we're all used to by now - light rays go through the clouds downward, but bounce back up and then down off of the atmosphere, acting as a net heat trap. Thus heat is retained, and it's one of the main reasons we have the nice planet we do right now. Without any heat trap we'd get mighty cold each night, for instance. Like Khan said to Kirk - it is very cold in space.

    Back in the 70s when we were learning how the planet Venus really worked we confirmed that its atmosphere was almost entirely CO2 and the surface temp was many hundreds of degrees with crushing pressure to boot. The best theory as to why that happened to Venus is that it's a leetle closer to the Sun than Earth and absorbed a leetle more heat and had what was called a "runaway greenhouse", whereby the normal heat trap heated things at the surface up enough that additional CO2 was "baked" out of the rocks on the surface and entered the atmospheric column and increased the Greenhouse Effect even more, cycling ever upward with no corrective mechanism until Bango - you have Oven World that's rough enough to melt even Russian-built planet probes.

    Lefty intellectual anti-human pussies being who lefty intellectual anti-human pussies are, and having been recently-thwarted about their latest doomsturbation scenarios of overpopulation and a new Ice Age, they immediately latched onto a new scenario: human industry produces CO2, CO2 makes Venus, therefore we have to watch out about CO2 or we'll become Venus.

    So during the 80s and 90s some folks measured and tested and said "CO2 is bad" but they never really could define why or by how much.

    One thing AGW has never adequately dealt with is the fact that the heat source of our solar system is the Sun, and there are good matches to temperature and sunspot cycles. Also, the last run of higher temps we had in the late 90s corresponded to a VERY active Sun. Since then it's been cooling and so have average temps, although I think that leveled off last year. Bottom line, of your theory can't adequately incorporate the Sun, it's a stupid theory.

    So then we had the late 90s and the Mann and Hansen show. The faked data, the faked UN "studies", the fraudulent "Hockey Stick", etc., the failed predictions, the switch of terminology to "climate change" because the globe clearly was not getting warmer, but who can argue that climate does not change? As AGW came under more scrutiny as opposed to just being accepted as the next religion replacement it was shown decisively that none of the places that SHOULD HAVE shown warming (Troposphere, oceans) were, in fact, showing anything close to it. Then the Anglia data-dump came along a few years ago which shows conclusively that high-placed people in the AGW club were massaging data to prop up their case. And, when original data was demanded so independent analyses could be run, they said the original data had been destroyed in an effort to save space.

    People have been convicted of murder on less evidence of skulduggery.

    So now we have a planet that's not warmed, a community that's been labeled extreme by even some of its former acolytes, and me, who's been right all along about the whole thing. :)

    Hope all that helps. You can do searches within this thread on some of the terms I've used, too - that should help.

    -dale
    Gorrammit, I love being right about this, all the time, every time.

    -dale

    Leave a comment:


  • dalem
    replied
    Originally posted by zraver View Post
    Thought you were posting an update on the Mann Libel case, guess not. Waiting with baited breath for a Canadian Court to declare Mann is a liar and there is no data to support global warming.
    Haven't been really been paying attention, having been proven right about this topic for the last 10 years or so.

    Not even Stalin was as right as me! ;)

    How's everyone doing?

    -dale

    Leave a comment:


  • zraver
    replied
    Originally posted by dalem View Post
    Miss me yet? :)

    -dale
    Thought you were posting an update on the Mann Libel case, guess not. Waiting with baited breath for a Canadian Court to declare Mann is a liar and there is no data to support global warming.

    Leave a comment:


  • dalem
    replied
    Miss me yet? :)

    -dale

    Leave a comment:


  • Monash
    replied
    It's only my guess of course but if you could go zero carbon for utilities, local ground transport, rail and sea transport the world could probably live with conventional long distance ground and air transport. At least for several decades until something better comes along. I could be wrong, it needs expert input/statistics.
    Last edited by Monash; 17 May 17,, 13:12.

    Leave a comment:


  • zraver
    replied
    Originally posted by Monash View Post
    Bio fuels are carbon neutral in that the amount of carbon absorbed equals the amount released when it burns, sort of. That said you also have to take into account the amount of energy required to convert the plant matter into fuel. You can produce fuel from corn or even wood chips etc but it takes energy to break down the lignin and other components.

    The best, most efficient bio fuel is algae, you can bio engineer it make it produce more fuel and there's not much conversion cost. Still either way bio fuel is still only carbon neutral, it won't reduce levels produced by other sources (unless you don't burn it and just pump it underground!) There's a whole 'carbon ledger' element to these arguments. Part science part accounting.

    Anyway, the real problem with bio fuels is the fine particulates. Latest research has confirmed a link to lung disease and now heart disease. Apparently your own immune cells soak up the crap , carry it to any plaques in the arteries and dump them there. Thereby making everything much worse. Electric cars or fuel cells would prob be better long term.
    Don't see EV's being able to really do heavy commercial or on demand work.

    Leave a comment:


  • Monash
    replied
    Bio fuels are carbon neutral in that the amount of carbon absorbed equals the amount released when it burns, sort of. That said you also have to take into account the amount of energy required to convert the plant matter into fuel. You can produce fuel from corn or even wood chips etc but it takes energy to break down the lignin and other components.

    The best, most efficient bio fuel is algae, you can gene engineer it make it produce more fuel and there's not much conversion cost. Still either way bio fuel is still only carbon neutral, it won't reduce the level of CO2 produced by other sources (unless you don't burn it and just pump it underground!) There's a whole 'carbon ledger' element to these arguments. Part science part accounting.

    Anyway, the real problem with bio fuels is the fine particulates. Latest research has confirmed a link to lung disease and now heart disease. Apparently after you inhale these (nano scale) particles your own immune cells soak up the crap, carry it to any plaques in your arteries and dump them there. Thereby making everything much worse. Electric cars or fuel cells would prob be better long term.
    Last edited by Monash; 17 May 17,, 13:12.

    Leave a comment:


  • zraver
    replied
    Originally posted by Monash View Post
    Sorry should have specified that the comment related specifically to land plants. As I recall each genus or species ability to recover CO2 depends in part on the specific type of carbon pathway they have evolved to use. CAM , C3 or C4 are the main ones I think. (I think C4 is more efficient at fixing CO2 than C3 for instance.)

    So some plants are more efficient at turning carbon into sugers and plant mass than others. Anyway my comment was meant to point out that yes, plants get a boost from increases CO2 but it is not linear. There's an upper limit to how much CO2 they can absorb depending on type.

    Lastly, yes plant growth does trap CO2 which is why new growth forests are effective carbon traps. However mature forests trap much less because they're hit the balance point between new plant growth and the death of old plant material. And part of that old trapped CO2 always gets released during the decay cycle, not all but part.
    But as technology advances we may well be ale to move from dino-oil to new made oil and stop adding CO2 to the atmosphere without cutting our use of hydrocarbons. Biofules are carbon nuetral after all. So a greening earth eats more carbon, we cut more down to turn to oil to keep much of the new greening in new growth forrest stage.

    Leave a comment:


  • Monash
    replied
    Originally posted by gunnut View Post
    We must remember, the earth's climate has stayed static for billions of years until 1750, when the industrial revolution began.
    GN, I assume your being facetious. On that assumption the question is simply to what extent any current change in climate is advantageous or disadvantageous in terms of it's impact on our civilization. The sudden onset of a period of global warming might well have negative impacts. By the same token the sudden onset of a period of global cooling would be would not necessarily be a bundle of laughs either.

    This is largely because human population is concentrated (naturally enough) around those parts of the planet that are most fertile/ favourable to us now - under current climatic conditions. Change the conditions and you may well change those locations. (Followed by a lot of house moving.) The pueblo culture being a case in point. So IMO and the bleatings of certain environmental groups aside (who would find something else to complain about if not this) the issue should be and is being dealt with, if not quickly enough for my liking - by a combo of tech and economics.
    Last edited by Monash; 17 May 17,, 13:10.

    Leave a comment:


  • Monash
    replied
    Originally posted by Wooglin View Post

    I think of greenhouse growers who keep co2 levels at an optimum of about 1500ppm. How does that reconcile with what you're explaining?
    The second part of my comment applies. Greenhouse growers are in effect 'planting' new growth forests. Their tomatoes or grapes or whatever grow rapidly, storing carbon in the process and they then harvest the crop. In effect they remove the stored carbon and start again. If they left a crop in place till it matured, died and rotted the whole carbon fixing process would plateau.
    Last edited by Monash; 17 May 17,, 07:56.

    Leave a comment:


  • gunnut
    replied
    We must remember, the earth's climate has stayed static for billions of years until 1750, when the industrial revolution began.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X