Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #20 on: March 12, 2014, 09:18:33 PM »
Saddam nailed this a while ago. The climate changes. But that is nothing to do with us. The global temperature changed by 15 degrees in 40 years after the last ice age!

We happen to have the lowest sun activity right now for 100 years!
http://www.wunderground.com/news/solar-cycle-quietest-100-years-20131126
Hence changing climate.

Similar with the hole in the ozone layer. The eco-tax brigade have gone very quiet on this as of late. The earth's magnetic field has decreased by 13% over the south pole in the last 100 years. Its the field that stops ozone being stripped away by the solar wind. Nothing to do with your fridge. But they can't tax you for natural phenomena. Somehow it has to be your fault. Fill you with guilt, open your wallet.

Could you cite the 15 degree temperature change? And cite the decrease of the electromagnetic field. I believe you, I would just like to read the article (please use scientific articles, not news articles). 
Also it is already proven that CFCs have a highly significant effect on stratospheric ozone. It is well known, and they were phased out due to this. It is estimated that a single atom of chlorine in the atmosphere can destroy about 100,000 molecules of ozone. Here's the reactions:

CCl3F + UV light → CCl2F + Cl    
Cl + O3 → ClO + O2
ClO + O → Cl + O2   
Cl + O → ClO + O2   
ClO + O → Cl + O2   

and as you can see the reactions are recursive. It's pretty simple chemistry really.

Thork

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #21 on: March 12, 2014, 11:31:29 PM »
Saddam nailed this a while ago. The climate changes. But that is nothing to do with us. The global temperature changed by 15 degrees in 40 years after the last ice age!

We happen to have the lowest sun activity right now for 100 years!
http://www.wunderground.com/news/solar-cycle-quietest-100-years-20131126
Hence changing climate.

Similar with the hole in the ozone layer. The eco-tax brigade have gone very quiet on this as of late. The earth's magnetic field has decreased by 13% over the south pole in the last 100 years. Its the field that stops ozone being stripped away by the solar wind. Nothing to do with your fridge. But they can't tax you for natural phenomena. Somehow it has to be your fault. Fill you with guilt, open your wallet.

Could you cite the 15 degree temperature change? And cite the decrease of the electromagnetic field. I believe you, I would just like to read the article (please use scientific articles, not news articles). 
Also it is already proven that CFCs have a highly significant effect on stratospheric ozone. It is well known, and they were phased out due to this. It is estimated that a single atom of chlorine in the atmosphere can destroy about 100,000 molecules of ozone. Here's the reactions:

CCl3F + UV light → CCl2F + Cl    
Cl + O3 → ClO + O2
ClO + O → Cl + O2   
Cl + O → ClO + O2   
ClO + O → Cl + O2   

and as you can see the reactions are recursive. It's pretty simple chemistry really.
Apologies. I would have provided sources but I rushed out to go swimming before the pool shut tonight.
Below is one such source that backs my claims.
http://www.breadandbutterscience.com/OzoneHole.pdf

I'll quote my 13% figure for you.
Quote from: http://www.breadandbutterscience.com/OzoneHole.pdf
The strength of the Earth’s magnetic field has been declining. Scientific analysis of ancient pottery has shown that the overall magnetic field strength has declined 50% in the last 4,000 years. This decline in field strength has intensified recently. But the decline is not applied uniformly across the Earth’s surface. The South Pole in Antarctica has experienced a magnetic field decline of 13.0% during the past 100 years.

Every 100,000 years the earth's magnetic field collapses and reforms in reverse. We get a pole reversal where the magnetic north and south pole swap places. This gives oceanic magnetic striping in rocks. We are several thousand years overdue a reversal. Earth's magnetic field is in decline about to have a reversal and so there is less protection for the ozone layer. Its a natural process.

I'll have a dig about for ice-age figures. It been a while since I came across numbers for it, but those stuck in my head. Feel free to google yourself.

Thork

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #22 on: March 12, 2014, 11:47:03 PM »
Ok, some ice age thaw numbers ...

Quote from: http://geology.utah.gov/surveynotes/gladasked/gladice_ages.htm
For example, as Earth was emerging out of the last glacial cycle, the warming trend was interrupted 12,800 years ago when temperatures dropped dramatically in only several decades. A mere 1,300 years later, temperatures locally spiked as much as 20°F (11°C) within just several years. Sudden changes like this occurred at least 24 times during the past 100,000 years.

Quote from: http://www.utopiasprings.com/methane.htm
Then the Ice Ages end very rapidly, in fact in less than 50 years! This Global Warming is so rapid that the graphs of all the availablepaleotemperature indicators show the same rapid warming of up to 10 degrees Centigrade in a very short time.

And an ice-age starts as fast as it disappears.
http://www.sott.net/article/245320-Last-Ice-Age-took-just-SIX-months-to-arrive

Climate changes. Sometimes quick, sometimes slow. Nothing we do makes any difference at all. If a volcano goes off, that contributes way more than anything man does.

Its just a way to tax people. Like the new religion. You get a bunch of people to say this is happening and if you don't believe you are stupid and ignorant. But you are just taking their word for it and handing over lots on environmental taxes. Its a pseudo-religion based tax.

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #23 on: March 13, 2014, 12:28:35 AM »
Yeah, this is all pretty accurate. Drastic changes in climate can happen over ridiculously short periods of time. Ozone, yes, it doesn't particularly like weak electromagnetic field. And, if I can remember correctly, no times in the past has CO2 been the primary cause of any global warming. What I mean by that, is that it was more of a feedback to other warming effects. Usually drastic changes in climate would be caused by procession, the shape of the orbit, ect. ect. (or flat earth stuff if u prefer). Something would heat up the planet, which would cause greenhouse gasses like carbon dioxide that is frozen to be released into the atmosphere, causing further warming.

But this is besides the point. We have the highest levels of CO2 in years, much high than normal. It is also the warmest period in several thousands of years (estimations of MWP vary, but are below current levels in numerous studies). Our current models are surprisingly accurate when it comes to predicting the climate (they have their ways, they back-test their models frequently). The scientists are not corrupt (well, most of them). Atmospheric science isn't something that you go into for the money. You go into it for the love. They're looking for answers, not dollar signs.

Back to the point though, we know that the world is warming. We also know that natural influences are enough to compensate for the current heating. So this leaves anthropogenic influences, and we have a pretty good idea what the primary forcing is for this global warming. We know that humans have a significant effect on the environment. We know that all this carbon is in the atmosphere because of us. And we know that adding all this carbon to the atmosphere is not good.

And on the note that global warming is good for people, it's really not. More than 50% of Americans (and a significant amount of the world population) live within 50 miles of the ocean. Large cities like New Orleans, New York, and Miami are under significant risk to the effects of sea-level rise. I actually live on an island, and we only live about 10 ft. above sea level. Within the last 100 years, the oceans have risen about 7 inches. You can actually see the effects on the island. Every other high tide we have, the sea water comes through the sewers and floods a couple of the streets. The people who designed the system never expected any rise in water, it was not designed for it. Even though the change was only a couple inches, you can see visible effects here. Little changes can make dramatic differences. This is likely one of the most fundamental themes in climate science.

*

Offline Tausami

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 890
  • Magistrum Fallaciae
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #24 on: March 13, 2014, 01:22:03 AM »
It's very real and its a big deal. But its also a naturally occurring phenomenon and we've gone too far to stop it. The best we can do is slow it down a bit by lowering our contribution to it.
Are you saying that there's been too much action to try to mitigate the effects of Anthropogenic Global Warming?

I'm saying that the absolute best case scenario would be to slow it down. And that's probably worthwhile, especially since CO2 emissions also cause ocean acidification and that's a huge problem as well. But we really just have to start preparing for the long term effects of climate change.

I'm not sure if there's anyone serious talking about global cooling, but in case there's anyone confused about it here's the rundown on it. Basically, we're putting more stuff in the atmosphere. That increases the planet's albedo, which means the planet absorbs less energy from the sun. The cools the planet. And that effect is real, but it's not as significant as global warming.
That's how far the horizon is, not how far you can see.

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

Thork

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #25 on: March 15, 2014, 02:11:38 PM »
Back to the point though, we know that the world is warming. We also know that natural influences are enough to compensate for the current heating. So this leaves anthropogenic influences, and we have a pretty good idea what the primary forcing is for this global warming. We know that humans have a significant effect on the environment. We know that all this carbon is in the atmosphere because of us. And we know that adding all this carbon to the atmosphere is not good.
What carbon? Where do you get the idea there is all this carbon in the atmosphere added by man? Its a myth.

Quote from: http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm
Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
 “The oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atpmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT additional load on this balance. The oceans, land and atpmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is incredibly small. A small shift in the balance between oceans and air would cause a CO2 much more severe rise than anything we could produce.”

And that's probably worthwhile, especially since CO2 emissions also cause ocean acidification and that's a huge problem as well.
More political nonsense. Please see the quote above for stats on how much carbon is in the oceans already. Naturally.

The scientists are not corrupt (well, most of them). Atmospheric science isn't something that you go into for the money. You go into it for the love. They're looking for answers, not dollar signs.
Its nothing to do with scientists. They make hypothesises and then governments and political powers pick and choose the ones they like so that the media propagates those that further their agenda. Climate change is all about money. Specifically taxation.

They try to get people like Tausami to believe the oceans are dying and that its all your fault for having a 1.6 litre car. To alleviate this, you can pay a fuel duty on using more fuel. Where does that money go? I mean we are talking about trillions of dollars. What is it spent on? For 50 years now? What has that money gone on? It is manufacturers that have come up with cleaner engines with THEIR profits. Cleaner fuels from the petrochemical industry from THEIR profits. What exactly to governments that tax spend the money on? The answer is weapons, international aid (which is another scam), white elephant infrastructure and anything else that can get taxpayer money into private hands.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2014, 02:13:37 PM by Thork »

Saddam Hussein

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #26 on: March 15, 2014, 02:54:14 PM »
Need I remind you all of the Oregon Petition? ;D  Over thirty thousand scientists challenge the so-called "consensus" on global warming! ;D

Thork

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #27 on: March 15, 2014, 03:04:22 PM »
I don't believe there is a single scientist who says man is directly responsible in any way for climate change. Not one.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5763
  • Videmus Omnia
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #28 on: March 15, 2014, 04:51:27 PM »
I don't believe there is a single scientist who says man is directly responsible in any way for climate change. Not one.

You're either using a very, very specific definition of "scientist" or you haven't turned on a television since the 60's.

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #29 on: March 19, 2014, 08:53:25 PM »
Need I remind you all of the Oregon Petition? ;D  Over thirty thousand scientists challenge the so-called "consensus" on global warming! ;D
Yet only 39 are climatologists. Also, one must consider the fact that the verification process, and the wording of the declaration, are dubious at best(Charles Darwin was on the list). The IPCC would actually likely agree with the statement that they make.

I don't believe there is a single scientist who says man is directly responsible in any way for climate change. Not one.

Define "directly".

Saddam Hussein

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #30 on: March 19, 2014, 09:12:07 PM »
Need I remind you all of the Oregon Petition? ;D  Over thirty thousand scientists challenge the so-called "consensus" on global warming! ;D
Yet only 39 are climatologists. Also, one must consider the fact that the verification process, and the wording of the declaration, are dubious at best(Charles Darwin was on the list). The IPCC would actually likely agree with the statement that they make.

Don't try to muddy the waters. ;D

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #31 on: March 19, 2014, 10:48:52 PM »
Consensus - General agreement
There is most certainly a general agreement on the existence of global warming in the atmospheric sciences.

Thork

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #32 on: March 19, 2014, 10:57:43 PM »
Consensus - General agreement
There is most certainly a general agreement on the existence of global warming in the atmospheric sciences.
Its not warming that is debatable. Its whether or not humans cause it. That's the point of this thread. >:(

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #33 on: March 19, 2014, 11:54:30 PM »
I apologize. Whenever I refer to global warming, I refer to anthropogenic global warming. That's the context of whenever I use that term.

Thork

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #34 on: March 19, 2014, 11:55:50 PM »
I apologize. Whenever I refer to global warming, I refer to anthropogenic global warming. That's the context of whenever I use that term.
Well then I apologise for not being a mind reader. ::)

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #35 on: March 20, 2014, 12:22:09 AM »
I apologize. Whenever I refer to global warming, I refer to anthropogenic global warming. That's the context of whenever I use that term.
Well then I apologise for not being a mind reader. ::)
You aren't?  :o

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #36 on: March 20, 2014, 06:39:34 AM »
Scientists are paid to disagree. It's part of the scientific process.

When the information (models etc...) are not conclusive then you'll have more scientist disagreeing. It's part of the job.

Personally I think it's better to go with the worst case scenario and try to prevent greenhouse gas emissions because we don't understand the consequences of it enough.

If we understood it more fully then we would be in a better position to take more appropriate action. Until then I see the investment in 'green' energy' and a reduction in our CO2 emissions a good thing.

Saddam Hussein

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #37 on: March 20, 2014, 01:39:00 PM »
Scientists are paid to disagree. It's part of the scientific process.

When the information (models etc...) are not conclusive then you'll have more scientist disagreeing. It's part of the job.

Personally I think it's better to go with the worst case scenario and try to prevent greenhouse gas emissions because we don't understand the consequences of it enough.

If we understood it more fully then we would be in a better position to take more appropriate action. Until then I see the investment in 'green' energy' and a reduction in our CO2 emissions a good thing.

Scientists get grant money by sticking to the party line. ;D  There's no profit for a scientist in bucking the consensus. ;D

Follow the money! ;D ;D ;D

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #38 on: March 20, 2014, 02:26:17 PM »
Scientists are paid to disagree. It's part of the scientific process.

When the information (models etc...) are not conclusive then you'll have more scientist disagreeing. It's part of the job.

Personally I think it's better to go with the worst case scenario and try to prevent greenhouse gas emissions because we don't understand the consequences of it enough.

If we understood it more fully then we would be in a better position to take more appropriate action. Until then I see the investment in 'green' energy' and a reduction in our CO2 emissions a good thing.

Scientists get grant money by sticking to the party line. ;D  There's no profit for a scientist in bucking the consensus. ;D

Follow the money! ;D ;D ;D

It's the ultimate goal for a scientists to discover something new or disprove the mainstream. It justifies the reasons why a scientists gets a grant. If we just researched the same thing all the time then the high risk, highly profitable research won't get done.

That means a scientist might have to go out on a limb by taking risk against their reputation. Since scientists rely heavily on their reputation they don't necessarily take that risk. It's a shame, valuable research isn't being done.

If all scientists thought along the same lines, and agreed on everything, than a lot discoveries would still lay in the realm of the imagination.

Getting back on topic:

Until we have more information and conclusive evidence I see promoting CO2 reduction a good thing. It's too risky otherwise.

*

Offline SexWarrior

  • e
  • *
  • Posts: 5689
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #39 on: March 20, 2014, 02:49:59 PM »
Until we have more information and conclusive evidence I see promoting CO2 reduction a good thing. It's too risky otherwise.
An interesting variant of Pascal's wager.
<Parsifal> Jesus Christ
<Parsifal> Do I really have to write 6000-word sentences just to remove all ambiguity from everything I'm saying?

Where live, do the offer adult reading classes?