|
U-Know! Forum » Record breaking heat |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
PMM 3155 posts |
Edited Aug 07, 2010, 01:42
Aug 07, 2010, 01:39
|
||
Perhaps you can answer that third question.
|
|||
geoffrey_prime 758 posts |
Aug 07, 2010, 02:00
|
||
Sorry, I am not playing your "kiddy games"..
|
|||
|
geoffrey_prime 758 posts |
Aug 07, 2010, 02:02
|
||
"Jshell" is the person you are leaning on here..
|
|||
|
PMM 3155 posts |
Aug 07, 2010, 02:09
|
||
lol I'll take that as a "no I can't" then.
|
|||
|
geoffrey_prime 758 posts |
Aug 07, 2010, 02:19
|
||
LOL (sic). you've asked your question of Jshell...let it be answered... Don't get me involved!
|
|||
|
jshell 333 posts |
Aug 07, 2010, 12:53
|
||
|
PMM wrote: Merrick tends to break the issue down into simple logical pieces, from what I've seen, rather than posting links. So you start with "Is CO2 a greenhouse gas". It is, by the way. That is solid science. Repeatable ad nauseum. Then he asks, "Is human activity adding CO2 to the atmosphere" You may choose to deny this, but "Yes" does seem to be the most likely answer, given that we're digging carbon from the ground, burning it in a process that creates CO2, and then releasing that CO2 into the atmosphere. If you don't think we are increasing the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere, perhaps you can explain what happens to it. Your Nobel prize awaits. So, if the answer to the first two questions is yes, the third has to be, "If CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and we increase the proportion of it in our atmosphere, will that increase the greenhouse effect of our atmopshere?" What's the rational, logical answer to that question? The rational, logical answer is that the planet is warming as expected, been warmer before: MWP - although the IPCC have tried to cover it over, there are too many pointers, Greenland used to be 'green'!! And, notice no-one metions Antarctica??? Of course, as the ice cap is thickening all of the time. Of course there's all sorts of reasons for that given.... That's the point - check icecap.us for info, just as an example, If it were all 'proven and absolute' these sites and climatologists wouldn't argue so vehemently. Look, it may be that CO2 causes 'this' warming, we just cannot definitively prove it. No one has, albeit yet. However, the financial decisions that are being taken on a non-proven belief are too great.
|
|||
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Edited Aug 07, 2010, 13:57
Aug 07, 2010, 13:45
|
||
|
jshell wrote: Look, it may be that CO2 causes 'this' warming, we just cannot definitively prove it. No one has, albeit yet. Actually, that's just wrong. That CO2 is a "greenhouse gas" has been known for almost 150 years. Tyndal published On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connexion of Radiation, Absorption, and Conduction in 1861 (accessible here, though it's behind an academic paywall). In this paper, Tyndal presents laboratory results demonstrating that the higher the concentration of CO2 in a sample of air, the higher it's absorption rate of longwave radiation (specifically, heat). These results have been repeated and refined dozens of times since then, most notably by Herzberg (1953), Burch (1970) and a whole bunch of others. There is no longer any debate about the heat absorption properties of CO2. None whatsoever. So having identified this property in a laboratory, the next issue to confront is whether or not it has been identified in the atmosphere as a larger system. And once again, the answer is an unequivocal 'Yes'. We have been using satellites to measure the radiation of heat into space since 1970. In 2004 Griggs & Harries published an analysis of all of the data between 1970 and 1997 and identified "a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4) absorb energy" (source). A further analysis was carried out by Chen in 2007, including data collected by the newly launched AURA satellite which confirmed these results. i.e.: "Both papers found the observed differences in CO2 bands matched the expected changes based on rising CO2 levels. Thus we have empirical evidence that increased CO2 is preventing longwave radiation from escaping out to space." (same source) It's clearly uncontroversial to suggest that human activity is resulting in increased atmospheric CO2 (as well as methane and other "greenhouse gases"). So we do, despite the objections of skeptics and deniers, have empirical evidence that human acitivity is likely to be causing a rise in global temperature. I say "likely" because I concede that it is technically possible that there could be a feedback mechanism in operation that is neutralising the effects of human emissions while simultaneously some other process is causing rises in global temperatures. That explanation, however, departs from the realm of healthy scepticism and enters that of genuine denial. So when you suggest that: jshell wrote: However, the financial decisions that are being taken on a non-proven belief are too great. I'd have to say that this "non-proven belief" you're talking about is about as "well-proven a fact" as you are likely to get about something as large and complex as the global atmosphere. If you demand of climate observation a level of proof of the same order as can be achieved in a laboratory, then you are unlikely to ever receive it. But taking into account those CO2 laboratory results, the satellite data regarding the drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength of "greenhouse gases" plus the potential consequences of inaction, it is recklessly irresponsible to recommend inaction until you get the kind of proof you demand; one that may be beyond the ability of modern climate science to produce. On top of that, the "financial decisions" you are complaining about are damn near non-existent. There are precious few limitations to emissions that have been implemented. And those that have been are the ones that permit profit-making off their back (you really think car companies are upset when people buy hybrids? You think the industrial conglomerates growing biofuels aren't making money hand over fist?) The "action" we are taking to deal with Climate Change is either an illusion or a scheme to spin a profit in some other way (or, part of a tiny proportion of PR projects). And the evidence (if not the absolute proof) demands far more than that.
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Aug 07, 2010, 13:47
|
||
|
geoffrey_prime wrote: love the patronising approach..worthy of Merrick himself! geoffrey_prime wrote: You should try out for a childrens TV presenter... you'd be good. geoffrey_prime wrote: LOL (sic). you've asked your question of Jshell...let it be answered... Don't get me involved! I understand that trolls are an inevitable part of online forums. But it's insulting to the intelligence (not your intelligence or my intelligence, but the entire concept of intelligence) when they are as transparent and puerile as you, Geoffrey. You demand that Paul "not get you involved" despite deciding to involve yourself less than an hour earlier. You're absolutely right, PMM did ask a question of jshell. He never mentioned you. So it was entirely your decision to step into the discussion (with a banal insult no less). You clearly get some kind of vicarious thrill by insulting strangers who are earnestly trying to discuss issues that are important to them. Rather than involve yourself in the discussion, you prefer to stand on the sidelines and call people names. Indeed, you specifically demand to be excluded from the discussion while doing so. That's not the behaviour of a decent person, quite frankly, and I find it quite embarrassing to witness. But feel free to continue; it's your life after all.
|
|||
|
geoffrey_prime 758 posts |
Aug 09, 2010, 01:11
|
||
Painful....lighten up..
|
|||
|
geoffrey_prime 758 posts |
Aug 09, 2010, 01:15
|
||
Let these people answer for themselves if they have an issue...they dont need the "wise old uncle" to wade in. Fine to make comment...but I am not sure you have the mandate to speak for others in the way you are..
|
| Pages: 5 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
