*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5638
  • Videmus Omnia
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #240 on: February 10, 2015, 02:18:20 AM »
This is not necessarily true, and is once again explained pretty succinctly by wikipedia (and sourced):

Quote from: Wikipedia
Methane has an atmospheric lifetime of 12 ± 3 years. The 2007 IPCC report lists the GWP as 72 over a time scale of 20 years, 25 over 100 years and 7.6 over 500 years. A 2014 analysis, however, states that although methane’s initial impact is about 100 times greater than that of CO2, because of the shorter atmospheric lifetime, after six or seven decades, the impact of the two gases is about equal, and from then on methane’s relative role continues to decline. The decrease in GWP at longer times is because methane is degraded to water and CO2 through chemical reactions in the atmosphere.

Emphasis mine.

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #241 on: February 10, 2015, 02:33:08 AM »
Poor effort Rushy, the rebuttal is literally the next sentence.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5638
  • Videmus Omnia
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #242 on: February 10, 2015, 02:43:30 AM »
Poor effort Rushy, the rebuttal is literally the next sentence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

If you disagree, feel free to point out where I talked about a timeline. I said methane is a worse greenhouse gas, and it is, it just so happens that we've been doing a better job of controlling it's output than CO2. Not a great job, overall, but a better one than the early industrial age.

All you had to do was say "yes, methane is worse, but fortunately its effects are more temporary than CO2" then I could have agreed with you. I highly doubt that was your line of thinking at the time, anyway. In fact, I highly doubt that you've said anything in this conversation that wasn't a result of you googling for things to say.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2015, 02:45:02 AM by Irushwithscvs »

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #243 on: February 10, 2015, 07:42:37 AM »
Poor effort Rushy, the rebuttal is literally the next sentence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

If you disagree, feel free to point out where I talked about a timeline. I said methane is a worse greenhouse gas, and it is, it just so happens that we've been doing a better job of controlling it's output than CO2. Not a great job, overall, but a better one than the early industrial age.

All you had to do was say "yes, methane is worse, but fortunately its effects are more temporary than CO2" then I could have agreed with you. I highly doubt that was your line of thinking at the time, anyway. In fact, I highly doubt that you've said anything in this conversation that wasn't a result of you googling for things to say.

You'd have a point if climate science wasn't based on looking at trends over long periods of time. Most terrible forecasts for global warming typically quote a few degrees increase over 100 years, for example. So it's kind of pointless to point out that methane is more immediately insulating.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5638
  • Videmus Omnia
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #244 on: February 10, 2015, 03:33:32 PM »
Okay.

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #245 on: February 10, 2015, 11:47:48 PM »

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #246 on: February 11, 2015, 11:16:04 PM »
I think it would be prudent for us to take a step back and note that this revelation of what has been denoted as "data change" is relatively recent, and has not yet had enough time to be properly addressed by the parties involved, or rather normal people doing normal research. After looking at the two different data sets for the adjusted data, it's obvious that there is a discrepancy.  Also one can note the addition of data sets that were not previously included.

Anyways, i'd like to see how this plays out over the next couple of months, considering conspiracy theorists are usually not on the forefront of experts' concerns. Also, considering how the first two graphs are placed to be deceptively misleading, it would not be a surprise to see these claims fall flat on their faces, just as those who jumped at "Climategate" did.

*

Offline Tausami

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 890
  • Magistrum Fallaciae
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #247 on: February 18, 2015, 05:24:53 PM »
I did read the article but it did not give me answers.  At least until I went through a link or two.

Anyway, Paul Homewood's argument is compelling but I'm going to stick to my original thought process:
Adding a lot of CO2 and carbon into the air faster than the world can handle can't be good.

There's only so much you can do with a thought process of making things up, Dave. Either the evidence shows it is good or that it is bad. If people really cared about the environment, they'd be worried about the methane (cow) farms polluting the air, not the carbon dioxide polluters.
Also, I'm tired of seeing the ignorant accuse the scientific community of number fixing. Scrutiny and criticism are some of the most important components of the scientific method.

Yeah, I agree. An actual scientific conspiracy looks more like the manufactured science behind hydrofracking, which is to say that exactly zero people are convinced by it and there is a multitude of evidence disagreeing with the conspiracy. FET aside, the scientific community is just not very good at coming together for any reason, let alone to manufacture a lie. It's just unfeasible.

Also, I always trust poorly designed wordpress blogs with pretentious titles. They're my second most trustworthy source, behind youtube videos with titles in all caps.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2015, 05:27:57 PM by Tausami »
That's how far the horizon is, not how far you can see.

Read the FAQ: http://wiki.tfes.org/index.php?title=FAQ

Saddam Hussein

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #248 on: April 22, 2015, 11:48:39 PM »


Well, I guess that's global warming disproved.  Better pack it in, scientists.

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #249 on: March 15, 2016, 08:51:02 AM »
An interesting article.  I hadn't considered aerosol particles to help cool the climate nor their reduction to help warm it.

http://norwaytoday.info/news/cleaner-air-europe-makes-arctic-warmer/

Thork

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #250 on: March 17, 2016, 12:11:20 AM »
Well Edward Snowden has had his say on Global Warming.
http://thelastgreatstand.com/2016/03/15/shocking-new-snowden-confession-climate-change-is-a-hoax-by-the-cia/

Quote from: Edward Snowdon
“Global Warming was invented to both scare people, and divert their attention from other human-made dangers like nuclear weapons. The CIA gave millions of dollars to any scientist who would confirm the theory, so many unscrupulous scientists did what they were told in order to get the money. Now, there is so much fake data to confirm that Global Warming “exists”, that they actually convinced everyone that it was real.”

Ball is back in the court of the Chicken-Licken Environmental Taxation Upholders Society (which from hence will be known as CLETUS)

« Last Edit: March 17, 2016, 12:14:40 AM by Dr David Thork »

Saddam Hussein

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #251 on: March 17, 2016, 12:55:09 AM »
The source of that article is one of those satirical* fake-news websites:

http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/edward-snowden-global-warming-is-an-invention-of-the-cia/

In other words, it's not true.  I'm not surprised that crank websites have been eagerly spreading it around, though.

*I call it "satirical," but I don't think that website is genuinely trying to entertain people.  I recommend reading this article on the subject.

*

Offline Jura-Glenlivet

  • *
  • Posts: 868
  • Life is meaningless & everything dies.
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #252 on: March 17, 2016, 11:31:38 AM »
The source of that article is one of those satirical* fake-news websites:

http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/edward-snowden-global-warming-is-an-invention-of-the-cia/

In other words, it's not true.  I'm not surprised that crank websites have been eagerly spreading it around, though.

*I call it "satirical," but I don't think that website is genuinely trying to entertain people.  I recommend reading this article on the subject.

Well I am truly shocked! Here was a man whose judgement on all things I trusted implicitly, surely he didn’t just grab this, without checking, because it confirmed what he thought he already knew?
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/man-with-bullshit-detector-seems-to-believe-a-lot-of-bullshit-20151208104550
« Last Edit: July 13, 2016, 07:53:22 AM by Jura-Glenlivet »
Just to be clear, you are all terrific, but everything you say is exactly what a moron would say.

No one infers a god from the simple, from the known, from what is understood, but from the complex, the unknown, and the incomprehensible. Our ignorance is God; what we know is science. Robert Green Ingersoll