The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The Carbon-Civilization Combustion Complex > Comments

The Carbon-Civilization Combustion Complex : Comments

By Evaggelos Vallianatos, published 16/4/2015

A recent book, The Collapse of Western Civilization: A View From the Future by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway shines light on this perplexing question.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All
We've known it for nearly 2 centuries that CO2 traps heat. Al Gore really didn't invent this! Fourier discovered it in the 1820's. The devices we use to measure the wavelength refracting properties of different gases are even named after Fourier.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier#Discovery_of_the_greenhouse_effect

To actually *see* it trapping heat try this video about 90 seconds in. It's a great visual aid. Dummies like me love a good visual aid. This is a modern version of the test Fourier ran.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6Un69RMNSw

So how much heat is being trapped? This is where the Radiative Forcing Equation comes in. Measure how much CO2 was in the atmosphere before the industrial revolution, measure it now, and you've got the difference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing
The difference is about 4 Hiroshima bombs per second, or over 2.2 billion Hiroshima's since 1998. Remember, it's not *concentrated* or I wouldn't want to be standing within 100km's of ground zero! It's extra energy spread across the planet.

Now to the difference between pesky weather like today and climate. Imagine children splashing around at bath time, with lots of noise and waves. In this metaphor, the waves are the weather and short term climate cycles like El Nino and La Nina. These 'waves' are natural, things that have always happened even before we started burning exponentially more coal every decade after the industrial revolution. The ocean cycles of El Nino and La Nina still run. The 'waves' in the 'bathtub' are still there. But climate change is the tap being left on! Gradually those 'waves' get higher. El Nino's turn into super-El Nino's like 1998.

There are over 100 very popular, very well produced myths about climate change that are funded by King Coal and Big Oil. Just make sure you're not being taken for a ride by some of the very same scientists that used to tell us smoking didn't cause lung cancer.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Posted by Max Green, Wednesday, 22 April 2015 8:06:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well written Max, but don't get depressed...they're just being human.
As Dresden James wrote: "When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic."
And to quote Mark Twain: "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."
Posted by ybgirp, Wednesday, 22 April 2015 3:49:20 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Max, we seem to be at cross-purposes. I am not questioning that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but simply that in practice, it does not have the effect predicted by the IPCC, and that it cannot be shown that global warming is caused by human activity.

Representing that global warming is human caused, with no scientific study to verify it, is fraudulent.There is no scientific study to show any measurable human effect on climate.

Robert Carter gives an excellent summary:
“the key question concerns the magnitude of warming caused by the rather small 7 billion tonnes of industrial carbon dioxide that enter the atmosphere each year, compared with the natural flows from land and sea of over 200 billion tonnes.
Despite well over twenty years of study by thousands of scientists, and the expenditure of more than $100 billion in research money, an accurate quantitative answer to this question remains unknown
Importantly, no global warming has now occurred since 1997, despite an increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide of 8%, which in turn represents 34% of all the extra human-related carbon dioxide contributed since the industrial revolution
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/report-gives-the-truth-about-climate-at-last/story-fni0cwl5-1226720428390
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 22 April 2015 4:36:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Watch out folks!

Run for the hills.

It's the attack of the bottom of the garden fairies you have to worry about, not global warming, or the coming ice age. They want the contents of your wallet & bank account, & will lie cheat & connive in any way to get it.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 22 April 2015 5:18:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Max, we seem to be at cross-purposes. I am not questioning that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but simply that in practice, it does not have the effect predicted by the IPCC, and that it cannot be shown that global warming is caused by human activity."

Leo, you do realise that you just contradicted yourself.

Either it *is* a greenhouse gas that we can accurately measure with a Fourier device and get solid, reliable measurements on, or it isn't.

Either it *does* refract x amount of heat energy back for y amount of CO2, as counted by the Radiative Forcing Equation, or it does not.

You cannot say "Yes I believe in physics and mathematics, except when it comes to CO2". It's this simple: either the stuff written down about CO2's radiative forcing equation is *true* or it is *false*. If it is *true* then the atmosphere really is taking on an extra 4 Hiroshima bombs per second. We're recording where all that extra heat is going and how it shows up. (Super El Nino's, earlier springs and later autumns, hotter summers, hotter nights, glaciers retreating, poles retreating, etc).

If it is *false* then this is the greatest conspiracy ever launched on the world: as great as if there really were aliens at Area 51, or the Moon Landing being faked! Make no mistake! We are talking about the most comprehensive and perfectly executed conspiracy in the entire history of the human race! Because any hotshot in a decent physics lab could disprove it. I don't believe in conspiracies that worldwide and that perfect. Something would leak, especially when we are talking about peer-reviewed science. Climategate, you say? Climategate schlimategate: only tinfoil hat wearing retards would ignore what any fool can search in the wikipedia footnotes!

It comes down to this.
The physics + mathematics = 4 Hiroshima bombs per second. Agree or disagree?
Posted by Max Green, Wednesday, 22 April 2015 7:41:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Max, I have no reason to disagree, even though I have not checked the calculation, but your simplistic proposition demonstrably has no practical, real world application.
How accurate is it? Joanne Nova considers the question:” Ponder that CO2 levels were rising relentlessly from 2003-2011**, yet there is no sign of warming in the oceans or the atmosphere during this 8 year period. Some will scoff that 8 years is too short to be meaningful. These are the same people that make Apps measured in seconds. There are a lot of seconds in 8 years, and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, so where did all those extra bombs go? If the energy was hidden in the noise, that tells you all you need to know about how accurate the measurements are. Perhaps it’s 4±4 bombs? Perhaps it’s 4±10? If the measurements are accurate, and some other factor was causing the energy to head out to space, why did none of the climate models predict this flatness? Could it be they don’t understand the climate and the forces more powerful than CO2 remain a mystery to them? It could”

You have strayed a long way from the fraudulent assertion that global warming is human caused, which you seem to forget is the topic of discussion.
There is no science to show that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate. Do you agree or disagree? If the latter, then refer us to the science upon which you rely.
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 22 April 2015 10:35:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy