Global Warming Propaganda

[gleeber]

I'm promoting nothing. Expressing an opinion on a thread in a forum is all. Same as I would in the pub or with colleagues.

Well it's your opinion that attracted me. Just like a few others opinions on this matter. I was interested and had been following the debate at a distance and was aware of the wider implications if global warming was man made or not.
If it's man made then your stance whether it's in here or in the pub is criminal and Lord Haw Haw got hanged for less but if your right then the rest of the world is being hoodwinked.
Hang him I say.

[joxville]

It's unfair to of scientists et al to bring Bangladesh into the argument since it's a low lying country, with most parts only about 60 feet above sea level. I've no idea what an increase of 1 inch in sea level would mean to the country overall.

[Stavro]

Not misquoting at all, you said that water (vapour) was a greenhouse gas, I merely took your point further to say that whatever is driving climate change is making the effect worse since water in the gaseous phase is in a thermo-dynamic equilibrium with the liquid phase. I didn't expect you to understand that.

You didn't expect me to understand something that you did not say?

Do you accept that H2O is a greenhouse gas yet? This is really elementary stuff, but I feel that you need to get back to basics before we can make progress in deprogramming you.

[Through]

You mean to say that CO2 doesn't absorb and emit infra red radiation? This has been known since 19th century. In fact I think it was Arrhenius who calculated what the temperature of the Earth would be without the presence of greenhouse gases, about -32C if I remember rightly. What will be the effect of putting more into the atmosphere? It isn't really rocket science.

Carbon dioxide comprises approximately 0.52% of our atmosphere. A very small amount.

Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does indeed absorb and re-emit a small amount of infra red radiation.

Infra red radiation is a very tiny part of the electromagnetic spectrum.

In any mathematics, small X small X small = very, very small.

Carbon dioxide does have a tendency to warm the planet. However, the effect is very small and is overwhelmed by other factors. Not only that, but every addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere makes a decreasing contribution to warming.

Spitting in the ocean causes sea level rise in a similar way that additions to a minor component of the atmosphere causes warming.

Advancement of scientific knowledge works in the following way. An interesting phenomenon is noticed. Important factors are identified and the thought process generates potential theories concerning how the phenomenon works. Once a suitable candidate theory is identified, evidence needs to be collected to test the theory. Three possible outcomes arise:

a) the evidence agrees with expectations and the theory is accepted (even "proven" theories can be disproved at a later date when a greater understanding is achieved)

b) the evidence seems to be close to expectations, but does not quite prove the theory

c) the evidence is widely different from the expected outcomes.

In some cases, theories are completely abandoned, because no modification of the theory is found that gives a better result.

In other cases, theories are modified and retested and sometimes this results in the development of a better theory.

Even accepted theories are update and improved from time to time.

So, how is the evidence collected?

If experiments can be devised and run in a laboratory, then generally all of the relevant factors can be adequately controlled and the evidence can be collected in the most controlled fashion.

However, some phenomena occur on a scale that is just too large to fit into a laboratory.

Sadly, we can not yet construct a hard copy of the planet and its atmosphere to run the necessary experiments in the most controlled way possible and neither can we control any of the factors affecting our climate. It's a good job we can't do that, can you imagine if the Met Office contacted everyone in the UK to say that they were excluding rain from our weather system for a year long study?

This means that we have to collect evidence from the real system, over which we have no control.

This evidence can be used in different ways. For example, we can carry out comparisons of one factor against another or we can apply statistics to the input data and investigate the output. Alternatively, we can construct models and run simulations.

The problem with such simulations or models is that sometimes there is just too much data to process.

This is the kind of thing that our Met Office tries to do. They have built up some expertise in forecasting our weather, but how often do you hear the complaint that they are just not good enough or words to that effect. Now that's just the weather over a small area and it achieves a certain accuracy for later today, a bit less accuracy for tomorrow, less for the rest of the week and so on.

Now consider the climate over the whole planet and you'll start to see the scale of the problem.

More on the General Circulation Models that Hadley Centre and others use later, but for now consider that in the lab. a small amount of warming can be measured by subjecting carbon dioxide to a narrow band of radiation and yet for the most part of the planet's history, carbon dioxide moved in the opposite direction to temperature or temperature changed while carbon dioxide did not, or carbon dioxide changed while temperature did not.

[Rheghead]

You didn't expect me to understand something that you did not say?

Do you accept that H2O is a greenhouse gas yet? This is really elementary stuff, but I feel that you need to get back to basics before we can make progress in deprogramming you.

What do you think is driving the rise in mean global temperatures? I come to the altar of knowledge as an innocent child btw since you seem to be all knowing.

Like Gleeber says to 3of8, go legal, if the IPCC is spinning us all a yarn then you could make zillions out of it. Go on, make a legal case, it is against the law to be fraudulent.

Nuff said...

[Stavro]

What do you think is driving the rise in mean global temperatures? I come to the altar of knowledge as an innocent child btw since you seem to be all knowing.

Like Gleeber says to 3of8, go legal, if the IPCC is spinning us all a yarn then you could make zillions out of it. Go on, make a legal case, it is against the law to be fraudulent.

Nuff said...

No, "nuff" hasn't been said. Do you accept that H2O is a greenhouse gas? Yes or no?

[Rheghead]

Carbon dioxide comprises approximately 0.52% of our atmosphere. A very small amount.

Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does indeed absorb and re-emit a small amount of infra red radiation.

Infra red radiation is a very tiny part of the electromagnetic spectrum.

In any mathematics, small X small X small = very, very small.

Carbon dioxide does have a tendency to warm the planet. However, the effect is very small and is overwhelmed by other factors. Not only that, but every addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere makes a decreasing contribution to warming.

Spitting in the ocean causes sea level rise in a similar way that additions to a minor component of the atmosphere causes warming.

Advancement of scientific knowledge works in the following way. An interesting phenomenon is noticed. Important factors are identified and the thought process generates potential theories concerning how the phenomenon works. Once a suitable candidate theory is identified, evidence needs to be collected to test the theory. Three possible outcomes arise:

a) the evidence agrees with expectations and the theory is accepted (even "proven" theories can be disproved at a later date when a greater understanding is achieved)

b) the evidence seems to be close to expectations, but does not quite prove the theory

c) the evidence is widely different from the expected outcomes.

In some cases, theories are completely abandoned, because no modification of the theory is found that gives a better result.

In other cases, theories are modified and retested and sometimes this results in the development of a better theory.

Even accepted theories are update and improved from time to time.

So, how is the evidence collected?

If experiments can be devised and run in a laboratory, then generally all of the relevant factors can be adequately controlled and the evidence can be collected in the most controlled fashion.

However, some phenomena occur on a scale that is just too large to fit into a laboratory.

Sadly, we can not yet construct a hard copy of the planet and its atmosphere to run the necessary experiments in the most controlled way possible and neither can we control any of the factors affecting our climate. It's a good job we can't do that, can you imagine if the Met Office contacted everyone in the UK to say that they were excluding rain from our weather system for a year long study?

This means that we have to collect evidence from the real system, over which we have no control.

This evidence can be used in different ways. For example, we can carry out comparisons of one factor against another or we can apply statistics to the input data and investigate the output. Alternatively, we can construct models and run simulations.

The problem with such simulations or models is that sometimes there is just too much data to process.

This is the kind of thing that our Met Office tries to do. They have built up some expertise in forecasting our weather, but how often do you hear the complaint that they are just not good enough or words to that effect. Now that's just the weather over a small area and it achieves a certain accuracy for later today, a bit less accuracy for tomorrow, less for the rest of the week and so on.

Now consider the climate over the whole planet and you'll start to see the scale of the problem.

More on the General Circulation Models that Hadley Centre and others use later, but for now consider that in the lab. a small amount of warming can be measured by subjecting carbon dioxide to a narrow band of radiation and yet for the most part of the planet's history, carbon dioxide moved in the opposite direction to temperature or temperature changed while carbon dioxide did not, or carbon dioxide changed while temperature did not.

Again, we have it in a nutshell, go legal. Tell the IPCC. You don't need to convince me, you need to convince the scientists who will peer review your findings. I'll wait for your paper to come out. BTW, 0.52% is laughable.

[Rheghead]

No, "nuff" hasn't been said. Do you accept that H2O is a greenhouse gas? Yes or no?

You haven't brought any evidence to me yet.

[Through]

I wonder if the affected people of Cumbria will appreciate any global warming scepticism right now?

Are you now trying to claim that a specific weather in a specific location is attributable to a theoretical process?

I wonder what you will blame the similar events of 1910 on. Perhaps you are trying to say that it was just as warm in 1910 as it is now.

[gleeber]

Thats another good thread through but it doesnt say that global warming is not a result of man made polution nor does it address the catasrophic scenario if nothing is done about emissions into the atmosphere. Do you deny it?
Are you saying that global warming by means of human polution is not a problem on planet earth and worse could be building up to a major ecological disaster and doesnt need to be addressed by the international community?

[Rheghead]

Carbon dioxide does have a tendency to warm the planet. However, the effect is very small and is overwhelmed by other factors. Not only that, but every addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere makes a decreasing contribution to warming.

Tickle a raging bull with a feather and you will make it stop to scatch.

[Stavro]

Again, we have it in a nutshell, go legal. Tell the IPCC. You don't need to convince me, you need to convince the scientists who will peer review your findings. I'll wait for your paper to come out. BTW, 0.52% is laughable.

Your "contributions" are becomming quite spiteful, in my opinion, and there seems little point in prolonging this discussion, especially due to the fact that you will not even acknowledge that water vapour is a greenhouse gas. This is elementary stuff - but I expect that your teacher, Albert Gore, has not mentioned this fact, is that it?

[Through]

I've watched and read all the sceptical propaganda and it all doesn't stand up to the hard scientific facts. Do yourselves a great justice and read some proper science instead of reading great headlines that love to sell newspapers. Everyone loves a scandal and nothing if it were true would be more scandalous if finding that climate change is a load of tosh. Come on people, think for yourselves instead of accepting rubbish.

Please quote some hard scientific facts. There have been precious few in your posts on this thread so far.

[Rheghead]

Are you now trying to claim that a specific weather in a specific location is attributable to a theoretical process?

I wonder what you will blame the similar events of 1910 on. Perhaps you are trying to say that it was just as warm in 1910 as it is now.

I wasn't making a scientific statement, more socio-political one.

[Stavro]

Do you deny it?
Are you saying that global warming by means of human polution is not a problem on planet earth and worse could be building up to a major ecological disaster and doesnt need to be addressed by the international community?

Can we deny something that does not exist? I don't know. I myself certainly deny the propaganda nonsense, "An Inconvenient Truth." And there certainly is pollution of the Earth caused by us humans. But climate fluctuations are caused primarily by something totally outside of our control - the Sun.

Don't tell the politicians this, or they will tax sunlight.

[Rheghead]

Please quote some hard scientific facts. There have been precious few in your posts on this thread so far.

As I said before, blogosphere is not the place to get hard scientific facts. If you want facts ask a climate scientist, I'm not one and neither are you I'd bet. I'm not into pissing contests, too old for that.

[gleeber]

Please quote some hard scientific facts. There have been precious few in your posts on this thread so far.

Well it was this link posted by Rheghead that swung my attention towards science.

http://www.miljostatus.no/en/Topics/...ide/Acid-rain/

[Rheghead]

Can we deny something that does not exist? I don't know. I myself certainly deny the propaganda nonsense, "An Inconvenient Truth." And there certainly is pollution of the Earth caused by us humans. But climate fluctuations are caused primarily by something totally outside of our control - the Sun.

Don't tell the politicians this, or they will tax sunlight.

Tell me what hope have we got to get universal acceptance of hard facts when there are folks out there that still believe in flat Earths and Geo centric theories of the Universe, etc etc. It seems these knuckle-dragging cogniscenti still feel the need to shout their diatribe to all and sundry.

[Stavro]

Tell me what hope have we got to get universal acceptance of hard facts when there are folks out there that still believe in flat Earths and Geo centric theories of the Universe, etc etc. It seems these knuckle-dragging cogniscenti still feel the need to shout their diatribe to all and sundry.

Tut tut. So, the answer to my question regarding H2O was ... what exactly?!

[Rheghead]

Tut tut. So, the answer to my question regarding H2O was ... what exactly?!

You tell me, it was me that asked the question.