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 > General Discussion > Snow Snow beautiful snow.

Snow Snow beautiful snow.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. Page 10
  10. 11
  11. 12
  12. 13
  13. 14
  14. 15
  15. 16
  16. All
Dear individual,

You really need to get a grip on yourself. Going by your comment above to Belly you seem to think that climate change and global warming are unrelated. Everyone - even you denialists - know that climate change is a consequence of global warming. I am really left wondering about your background.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Wednesday, 14 August 2019 8:55:57 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
Mr Opinion,
It's you who needs a grip on themselves.
Everyone - even you denialists - know that climate change is a consequence of global warming.
You're confused too. It's the other way round ! Human induced pollution is definitely accelerating it but it is not the cause.
Someone with a bit of sense like a village idiot will tell you that. You really shouldn't rely so much on Govt funded, using our tax dollars, professional guessers !
Posted by individual, Wednesday, 14 August 2019 9:54:13 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
Dear mhaze,

You saying “CO2 makes up a mere 0.04% of the atmosphere.” already flags where you are heading.

How to explain this easily to you is the question.

When you go to a paint shop the attendant will often make the paint up in front of you. Taking a base white he/she will add a pigment turning it into often very dark colours. This pigment will be less than 1% of the volume. If you were to paint a bit of tin in the original white on one half and the dark colour on the other and put it in the sun you will find the dark section heating up far more quickly than the white. This has occurred through the addition of a relatively small amount of pigment. CO2 obviously acts a little differently but the point is that it really doesn't matter the percentage if the effect is significant enough.

NASA says CO2 is responsible for around 20% of the greenhouse effect and water vapour about 50%.

But water vapour is not a driver because with no other inputs its percentage in the atmosphere would remain relatively stable. While there may well be some human activity which directly increases or decreases the percentage there will be very minimal compared to the volumes.

Solar cycles of course drive ice ages and water vapour plays an important role as a feedback mechanism. Warming after ice ages is enhanced by increases in water vapour.

CO2 in modern times is a principal driver directly impacted by human activities with water vapour playing a feedback role.

I do like this analogy from Adam Sobel of Columbia University;

“Saying water vapor is a more important greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide is like saying the amplifier in a sound system is more important than the volume dial for producing the sound. It's true, in a literal sense, but very misleading. CO2 and other long-lived greenhouse gases are the volume dial on the climate, and the water vapor amplifies the warming that they produce.”

Let me know if I can assist your understanding further.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Wednesday, 14 August 2019 10:23:11 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
Dear mhaze,

Now to your attack on Foxy.

What a dishonest mangling and twisting of her works you just engaged in.

Foxy wrote; “97% of climate scientists agree that climate warming trends over the past century”

You then went on a whole rant about “Back in 2009 two researchers (and I use the word loosely) Doran and Zimmerman sent out a questionnaire to 10000+ scientists asking two questions”

You do have some grasp of the difference between climate scientists and all scientists don't you? Apparently not because if you did you would not have even gone there.

This is from an abstract of a relatively recent study;

“The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus.”
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

Now how about you apologise to Foxy for your diatribe.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Wednesday, 14 August 2019 10:32:53 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
Foxy wrote: "My information comes from NASA and NASA tells us that "

Well more precisely it comes from GISS which is a (rogue) department with NASA. The 'S' in NASA stands for space. GISS ignores space data because it doesn't tell the approved story.

Read here what others within NASA think of GISS...
http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/49-nasa-scientists-vs-global-warming-greg-pollowitz/

You want other data. Well I thought I'd already given you some with my explanation of how the bogus 97% came about. But clearly, since your entire being is about subservience to authority (oh NASA said it therefore its true) how about this one among many from Perdue University...

http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2014/Q4/study-farmers-and-scientists-divided-over-climate-change.html

Take away data....only 53% of climatologists agree with the statement "Climate change is occurring, and it is caused mostly by human activities".

Of coarse, science isn't a popularity contest. Einstein is reported to have said it only takes one scientist to disprove all his theories. And we've had plenty of theories over the years that have had massive consensus support but ultimately shown to be utter rubbish.

And you should also note that no surveys show that there is a consensus that AGW, even if it exists, is dangerous or likely to be dangerous.
Posted by mhaze, Wednesday, 14 August 2019 1:34:23 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
SR wrote :"You saying “CO2 makes up a mere 0.04% of the atmosphere.” already flags where you are heading."

Toward the facts? Want to come along?

So we get a bunch of further useless analogies from SR. He had one yesterday comparing AGW to pregnancy but that fell flat and demonstrated the opposite of what he thought. So now we get CO2 (a colourless gas) as paint. The significance is unclear but I assume the paint sales-lady must be pregnant.

And then we get another analogy with CO2 as a volume dial. Its all about the sound system. What SR forgets is that the sound system plays sounds from the record (or whatever) Think of the sun as the record. If its playing heavy metal the volume will be quite different to Brahms's Lullaby. Change the record will change the volume irrespective of the CO2-dial.
All these silly analogies assume that CO2 is the driver in order to prove CO2 is the driver. Science it ain't.

"You do have some grasp of the difference between climate scientists and all scientists don't you?"

Define climate scientist. Are solar scientists climate scientists. The sun does play some part in climate even though the SRs of the world don't get it. But they are excluded from these 97% studies. Meteorologists? Also excluded. Cloud and atmospheric scientists? Excluded.

I think in SR-land a climate scientist is someone who agrees that we're all gunna die 10 years from next Tuesday week </sarc>.

Re the study on published papers that you regurgitate without examination. Many of the original authors of the papers disputed the claims about their own studies. eg Richard Tol, an IPCC lead author, said all 10 of his papers included had been misclassified as being supportive of the so-called consensus.

But its nice to see SR come riding in like Galahad in defence of a damsel in distress. Its good to see chivalry lives. Although perhaps Foxy might have hoped for a more accomplished knoght in shining armour. (Knoght was a typo but it seemed appropriate so I left it in).
Posted by mhaze, Wednesday, 14 August 2019 2:01:32 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. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. Page 10
  10. 11
  11. 12
  12. 13
  13. 14
  14. 15
  15. 16
  16. All

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