Jump to content
Snow?
Local
Radar
Cold?
IGNORED

Man Made Climate Change - Evidence Based Discussion


Paul

Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon

https://forum.netweather.tv/topic/80838-sceptical-about-climate-change-reasons-and-opinion/page-7#entry3044510

 

"Knocker if you are going to take me up on my challenge you are going to do much better than Greg Laden. McIntyre is probably one of the most reputable statistical experts..."

 

Yes. he's the author of several statistics textbooks, many books on climatology and meteorology,  and has countless peer reviewed statistics articles in his CV.............not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary
  • Weather Preferences: Cold, Snow, Windstorms and Thunderstorms
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary

I think a few might be getting this thread mixed up with Man Made Climate Change Exists - reasons and opinion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Napton on the Hill Warwickshire 500ft
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and heatwave
  • Location: Napton on the Hill Warwickshire 500ft

It is not up to those of us who believe the science regarding AGW is overwhelming to prove to the world that it exists. 

 

I would have thought it was as its Tax payers money ??

 

 

In the last five years, between 2009 and 2014, the president has spent $120 billion on the environmental agenda, mostly global warming, climate

 

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/obama-blew-120-billion-on-global-warming/

Edited by stewfox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Huddersfield, 145m ASL
  • Weather Preferences: Lots of snow, lots of hot sun
  • Location: Huddersfield, 145m ASL

I would have thought it was as its Tax payers money ??

 

 

In the last five years, between 2009 and 2014, the president has spent $120 billion on the environmental agenda, mostly global warming, climate

 

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/obama-blew-120-billion-on-global-warming/

 

Whereas of course no money is spent by governments on the 'carbon' agenda....................

 

http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pr/2013/pr1393.htm

 

And of course this from the BBC:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-29310475

 

Even the most dyed in the wool old capitalists are beginning to accept fossil fuels are a mugs game.

Edited by Pennine Ten Foot Drifts
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Shepton Mallet 140m ASL
  • Weather Preferences: Cold, snow and summer heatwaves.
  • Location: Shepton Mallet 140m ASL

Whereas of course no money is spent by governments on the 'carbon' agenda....................

 

http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pr/2013/pr1393.htm

 

And of course this from the BBC:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-29310475

 

Even the most dyed in the wool old capitalists are beginning to accept fossil fuels are a mugs game.

 

Seriously? I don't see an effective alternative as of yet?

 

Everything in our lives evolves around fossil fuels does it not?

 

Tyres, cars, plastics, travel, electricity, clothes, farm fertilizers and pesticides, absolutely everything, how is that replaced we have no alternatives for everything just a handful of renewable energy sources which still require fossil fuels to get them up and running then maintained? I know lets build a electric car... how many barrels of oil go into just the production of that car and then the tyres and upkeep and oh wait I'll charge it off some PowerStation juice made from coal. :rofl:

 

Damn I'd hate to have an oil reserve I mean who will want it in a few years its worthless  :rofl:   I suppose there is always rapeseed oil, good luck finding 100 million barrels of that a year to keep up with supply..

Edited by mullender83
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great list mullender! Might just have missed off fertilisers though. Slightly stronger wording of 'farm chemicals' in our dependence upon.

Oh and Thorium is the way out. But doesn't provide weapons grade waste, so no super power will want it!

Edited by Geoffwood
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have a look at the first graph here,

http://rammb.cira.colostate.edu/training/tutorials/goes_39um/ir_bands.asp

The region from 8.0um to 13um is the Earth's surface as seen in the same infra red region that the Earth emits long wave radiation. It is the atmospheric window. The region near the 300K BB curve is the surface, nothing else in the field is that warm.

Where we can 'see' through the atmosphere 'no significant' physical process exists to absorb or emit radiation in that portion of the band.

A spectral analysis reveals this 'band pass' to be around 0.35 of the total energy within the 300K integration of the Planck continuum.

Meanwhile, at NASA we have

http://m.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page6.php

The second diagram here shows massive vertical fluxes described as 'two large opposing energy fluxes'. The one from the surface is 117% of 340Wm-2 or 390Wm-2 just above a black body emission from 288K. The second from the atmosphere down is 340Wm-2 or 1.82 times the average solar energy incident upon the surface!!!!!!!! But no device exists to exploit it. Twice the power of the Sun! From an atmosphere with a big hole in its ability to absorb or emit and existing at a low temperature!

The first diagram from NASA shows that the two MASSIVE FLUXES cancel to a piddling amount (17%) AND 70% of the piddling amount is NOT absorbed by the atmosphere. The 397Wm-2 does not heat the cooler atmosphere as it is not in the atmosphere's energy budget!!!!!!!

However the undetectable downwelling, mythical, unavailable for work or power 340m-2 heats the warmer surface to 33K above what it should be. From an atmosphere with a 35% window in its Planck continuum necessary to produce anything like black body radiation, and from a relatively cool and rarified gas !!!

The surface only provides as the warmer object 8% of the atmosphere's energy by radiation. Yet 340Wm-2 is supposed to heat the surface to balance the books!

The answer is geometrical and not species dependent. It's a mockery when the potential temperature of the upper atmosphere, ie a parcel brought down to 1000mb reveals that there is NO RADIATIVE ENHANCEMENT IN THE LOWER TROPOSPHERE.

The tropospheric thermal gradient is one of equal total energy as derived from the mechanical lapse. A consequence of gravitational containment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Shepton Mallet 140m ASL
  • Weather Preferences: Cold, snow and summer heatwaves.
  • Location: Shepton Mallet 140m ASL

Great list mullender! Might just have missed off fertilisers though. Slightly stronger wording of 'farm chemicals' in our dependence upon.

Oh and Thorium is the way out. But doesn't provide weapons grade waste, so no super power will want it!

 

I am not versed enough on science of these  things like yourself Geoff but I'm guessing that is a nuclear fuel.  I don't know enough about it but nuclear doesn't sit easy with me personally.  :bomb:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Camborne
  • Location: Camborne

I am not versed enough on science of these  things like yourself Geoff but I'm guessing that is a nuclear fuel.  I don't know enough about it but nuclear doesn't sit easy with me personally.  :bomb:

 

Mullender I shouldn't worry about Thorium. The idea has been around for decades and never came to fruition and never will now. The result can actually be used for nuclear warheads.

 

As for the science behind the alternate theory to the greenhouse effect. It has been proposed by a couple of physicists that I'm aware of, Connolly and Rancourt, and totally discounted by all other physicists. But that isn't the point I'm making. It shouldn't be in this thread, it's not evidence, just a theory, and should be in the skeptical thread.

Edited by knocker
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: York
  • Weather Preferences: Long warm summer evenings. Cold frosty sunny winter days.
  • Location: York

Mullender I shouldn't worry about Thorium. The idea has been around for decades and never came to fruition and never will now. The result can actually be used for nuclear warheads.

 

As for the science behind the alternate theory to the greenhouse effect. It has been proposed by a couple of physicists that I'm aware of, Connolly and Rancourt, and totally discounted by all other physicists. But that isn't the point I'm making. It shouldn't be in this thread, it's not evidence, just a theory, and should be in the skeptical thread.

 

An awful lot of what  is posted in here is model based conjecture, passed as hard evidence, when in fact it is only a theory extented into a computer model. So sauce for the goose etc etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Camborne
  • Location: Camborne

An awful lot of what  is posted in here is model based conjecture, passed as hard evidence, when in fact it is only a theory extented into a computer model. So sauce for the goose etc etc

 

You are right, and I'm guilty as well, that some posts should have been in the other man made thread but the post to which I referred should have been in neither but in the skeptic thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.

You are right, and I'm guilty as well, that some posts should have been in the other man made thread but the post to which I referred should have been in neither but in the skeptic thread.

But what else is there? It may consist of equations written on paper, or equations input into a computer, but it's still a mathematical/numerical model...What many 'sceptics' seem to forget is that their prognostications are also models. Strange models, yes, but models nonetheless?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.

Mrs Trellis as has been shown in my previous submission in the sceptical thread  you are here just to disrupt or whatever. If Knocker would like to put his point across against myself without histrionics and include only valid scientific evidence without input from WHO, Greenpeace et al bring it on. If you are man enough.  

You could always read - and understand - the latest IPCC report?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Raunds, Northants
  • Weather Preferences: Warm if possible but a little snow is nice.
  • Location: Raunds, Northants

You could always read - and understand - the latest IPCC report?

Well, just in case my  previous post was deleted let me assure you mr/mrs Trellis that we sceptics are well aware of the b/super duper reports that emanate from said political organization. What we need is actual empirical evidence aside from the playstation  scenarios of virtually all recent so called evidence. Your challenge is, if you wish to accept it, identify any predictions from the IPCC that have come true---this tape will self destruct in 5 seconds.

Ok   who is old enough to relate to that stuff,lol. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Camborne
  • Location: Camborne

Assessment of the first consensus prediction on climate change

 

In 1990, climate scientists from around the world wrote the First Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It contained a prediction of the global mean temperature trend over the 1990–2030 period that, halfway through that period, seems accurate. This is all the more remarkable in hindsight, considering that a number of important external forcings were not included. So how did this success arise? In the end, the greenhouse-gas-induced warming is largely overwhelming the other forcings, which are only of secondary importance on the 20-year timescale.

 

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n4/full/nclimate1763.html

 

A synopsis

 

http://theconversation.com/20-years-on-climate-change-projections-have-come-true-11245

 

PS.

 

I get very tired of skeptics throwing out personal challenges.You might for a change, devote some of your energies in challenging the scientific evidence with specific scientific arguments instead of the snide rhetoric. (complete misuse of the word)

Edited by knocker
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon

Well, just in case my  previous post was deleted let me assure you mr/mrs Trellis that we sceptics are well aware of the b/onions reports that emanate from said political organization. What we need is actual empirical evidence aside from the playstation  scenarios of virtually all recent so called evidence. Your challenge is, if you wish to accept it, identify any predictions from the IPCC that have come true---this tape will self destruct in 5 seconds.

Ok   who is old enough to relate to that stuff,lol. 

 

Have you read the IPCC reports? Or the SPM's of said?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon

Seriously? I don't see an effective alternative as of yet?

 

Everything in our lives evolves around fossil fuels does it not?

 

Tyres, cars, plastics, travel, electricity, clothes, farm fertilizers and pesticides, absolutely everything, how is that replaced we have no alternatives for everything just a handful of renewable energy sources which still require fossil fuels to get them up and running then maintained? I know lets build a electric car... how many barrels of oil go into just the production of that car and then the tyres and upkeep and oh wait I'll charge it off some PowerStation juice made from coal. :rofl:

 

...

 

Is it sensible to be so dependent upon one finite resource?

 

I read posts like yours and I almost think "He's right, we really must not to even think about there being alternative to finite resources". But, sorry, people chose to think about such things.

 

Edited by Devonian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Raunds, Northants
  • Weather Preferences: Warm if possible but a little snow is nice.
  • Location: Raunds, Northants

Have you read the IPCC reports? Or the SPM's of said?

Yup  Dev  and  much more besides. It is all fairy tales and the summaries are dangerous and misleading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Lower Brynamman, nr Ammanford, 160-170m a.s.l.
  • Location: Lower Brynamman, nr Ammanford, 160-170m a.s.l.

Your evidence? OK, that's a circular argument.

 

Probably off-topic, but please stop insulting people, calling them trolls, weird, etc., just because they don't happen to share your opinion. You'll not win any debates that way. That goes for people on both sides of the argument!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Derbyshire Peak District South Pennines Middleton & Smerrill Tops 305m (1001ft) asl.
  • Location: Derbyshire Peak District South Pennines Middleton & Smerrill Tops 305m (1001ft) asl.

Yup  Dev  and  much more besides. It is all fairy tales and the summaries are dangerous and misleading.

Even the evidence based on observations alone? With the stance of the IPCC being a "fairytale" i take it you have not followed or read it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon

Yup  Dev  and  much more besides. It is all fairy tales and the summaries are dangerous and misleading.

All? C'mon, don't so over bake your case we can't see it for smoke...

Edited by Devonian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: York
  • Weather Preferences: Long warm summer evenings. Cold frosty sunny winter days.
  • Location: York

The World We Avoided by Protecting the Ozone Layer

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldWithoutOzone/page1.php

The problem I have is at no point does this include or account for the large natural variation in ozone production as a result of the solar cycles from the late 70's we saw two very active cycles which would have seen significantly less ozone produced and funnily enough since we have entered low cycle we a seeing a recovery but hey must be due mans own efforts!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • UK Storm and Severe Convective Forecast

    UK Severe Convective & Storm Forecast - Issued 2024-03-29 07:13:16 Valid: 29/03/2024 0600 - 30/03/2024 0600 THUNDERSTORM WATCH - FRI 29 MARCH 2024 Click here for the full forecast

    Nick F
    Nick F
    Latest weather updates from Netweather

    Difficult travel conditions as the Easter break begins

    Low Nelson is throwing wind and rain at the UK before it impacts mainland Spain at Easter. Wild condtions in the English Channel, and more rain and lightning here on Thursday. Read the full update here

    Netweather forecasts
    Netweather forecasts
    Latest weather updates from Netweather

    UK Storm and Severe Convective Forecast

    UK Severe Convective & Storm Forecast - Issued 2024-03-28 09:16:06 Valid: 28/03/2024 0800 - 29/03/2024 0600 SEVERE THUNDERSTORM WATCH - THURS 28 MARCH 2024 Click here for the full forecast

    Nick F
    Nick F
    Latest weather updates from Netweather
×
×
  • Create New...