Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

The Climate Change debate

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

The Climate Change debate

Old 8th Jun 2011, 06:24
  #8001 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 56
Posts: 25
Chuks,

You'd better bone up your study of science and understand the principle of " Null Hypothesis ".

The hypothesis of human released CO2 causing catastrophic global warming leading to horrible consequences for the world was floated by the AGW climate science proponents.

So it's upto the proponents of the hypothesis to show the proof of what they claim. Not the other way round.
rvv500 is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2011, 06:38
  #8002 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Betwixt and between
Posts: 666
no one denies the GH effect
Errm
The science of greenhouse gases is pretty straightforward, about as mysterious as, as, well, a greenhouse!
Well that's an interesting perspective, because the so called greenhouse effect doesn't strike me as particularly straightforward and is absolutely nothing like a greenhouse!
Sciolistes is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2011, 07:01
  #8003 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 1,560
Studied much science, then?

A greenhouse allows energy at one wavelength to enter but traps energy at a different wavelength. It is a bit complicated to explain but it's down to the 'quantum effect,' something you could either look up or else you could sit around a classroom for a while listening to a fellow with a PhD explain it to you, your choice.

Anyway, the sun shines and the greenhouse somehow ends up with more energy inside it than outside it (temperature being simply a measure of one sort of energy), so that it has some mechanism, what we call 'the greenhouse effect,' that can trap energy. If it couldn't do that then the air temperature would be the same inside the greenhouse as outside it, meaning that 'energy in' would equal 'energy out,' right?

Something similar is at work in the atmosphere in the case of what we call 'greenhouse gases,' using various gases such as carbon dioxide and methane instead of panes of glass, when that is just basic science, nothing in dispute at all. The Earth depends on this effect to maintain a habitable temperature but what may seem to be a trivial difference in that temperature can have surprisingly large effects, when this is a large part of the argument.

Do you even notice a difference of one or two degrees Celsius? I don't, but that is not to say that a global difference of one or two degrees is not a rather massive amount of energy! It is very easy to make an argument trivialising some point of basic science in this way, arguing in a way that 'makes sense' to a layman, as if to say, 'Two degrees extra! Pish, tosh!'

Where is it written that scientists have some obligation to provide absolute proof of an hypothesis? Do you lot have some matching obligation to prove your hypothesis that they are shameless, corrupt fakers of data? Err, no, I didn't think so! You work your side of the street and I will work mine, thanks very much!
chuks is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2011, 07:15
  #8004 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: EGNX country
Age: 63
Posts: 215
Studied much science, then?
Actually, yes.

The name, greenhouse effect is unfortunate, for a real greenhouse does not behave as the atmosphere does. The primary mechanism keeping the air warm in a real greenhouse is the suppression of convection (the exchange of air between the inside and outside). Thus, a real greenhouse does act like a blanket to prevent bubbles of warm air from being carried away from the surface. As we have seen, this is not how the atmosphere keeps the Earth's surface warm. Indeed, the atmosphere facilitates rather than suppresses convection.

One sometimes hears the comparison between the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere (not in real greenhouses) and the interior of a parked car which has been left in the summer Sun with its windows rolled up. This comparison is as phony as is the comparison to real greenhouses. Again, keeping the windows closed merely suppresses convection.

Whether the topic is a real greenhouse or a car, one still hears the old saw that each stays warm because visible radiation (light) can pass through the windows, and infrared radiation cannot. Actually, it has been known for the better part of a century that this has very little bearing on the issue.

'quantum effect,' something you could either look up or else you could sit around a classroom for a while listening to a fellow with a PhD explain it to you, your choice.
Seem to remember doing that at 'O' level physics. If that's now PhD level then we are a lost cause.
handsfree is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2011, 07:20
  #8005 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 77
Posts: 3,511
Show me the same level of proof for what some of you are claiming is some cabal of unethical, greedy, corrupt, undemocratic, etcetera scientists,
Try reading the Climategate E-Mails that's all the proof you need.

There are several sources of the material such as Climategate Document Database : Alleged CRU Email

Before you bleat about them being exonerated by enquiries look at the terms of reference and the Chairmen of the committees............... hint one of them is the chairman of a company that builds wind turbines.


Originally Posted by Jane-DoH
Is it possible to create a politics of global-warming hamsterwheel thread?
Yes just click on new thread and create it, whether it will remain or get zapped by the MODS will depend how well you justify it's separate existence in the first post.
green granite is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2011, 07:28
  #8006 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: The No Trangression Zone
Posts: 2,049
this is the definition of the ATMOSPHERIC GHE

the absorbed IR energy balance to the emitted black body radiation defined in terms of total flux 'J' can indeed be computed by determining the radiation passing through a volume element 'A' in the interval dt in order to determine the heat energy passing to the earth

the difference in 'T' [as computed in the simplified assumption]... both with and without additional IR absorption from green house gases is defined as the greenhouse effect...but it says nothing [ and can say nothing]about how the heat is ultimately transacted...I think this is the last bit of smoke and mirrors left.

posted by me here a while ago


Pugilistic Animus is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2011, 07:40
  #8007 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 56
Posts: 25
Spot on, PA and if one really wants to understand about the energy balance, basic climate equations and their flaws, it is beautifully illustrated by Willis Eschenbach in the below post

The Cold Equations | Watts Up With That?
rvv500 is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2011, 07:49
  #8008 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 56
Posts: 25
And this is another excellent article about Science by Exclusion, as practiced by the Climate Scientists and IPCC

Alarmist climate science and the principle of exclusion | Watts Up With That?
rvv500 is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2011, 09:17
  #8009 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 1,560
Not me!

I am just doing a liberal arts degree, a plain old BA with its focus planned to be on writing and photography, one of those late life career change things we all have such a good laugh about.

My professor was the one with the PhD, when I naively assumed that showed that he was rather serious about what he was presenting to me in class. (It could be that his degree simply shows him to be a 'button man' for the AGW Mafia; I really could not say.) What do I know, really, as a BA candidate? I was just doing a bit of science there to broaden my general knowledge, the 'liberal' part of studying 'the liberal arts,' the same way what we now call science was once 'natural philosophy.'

Anyway, when you get down to it, is this not a matter of 'more energy enters a system than leaves the system, this being shown by a rise in temperature?' I think that is the essence of what we very loosely call 'the greenhouse effect' whether by 'system' we mean a greenhouse, a parked car or Planet Earth. A pane of glass is not the same as a quantity of a certain gas, of course not, but the effect can be thought of a similar, hence the name. Or are some of you trying to say that rising levels of carbon dioxide and methane will have no effect? Err, what about Venus, then? Why is it so hot?
chuks is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2011, 09:41
  #8010 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Planet Tharg
Posts: 2,471
...what about Venus, then? Why is it so hot?

Nice boobies...?






Sorry...
Solid Rust Twotter is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2011, 09:55
  #8011 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Edinburgh and 3C
Age: 67
Posts: 195
SRT: Uffizi gallery, Florence. Splendid place for boobie enthusiasts. Gazillions of female art students cycling on cobbled roads. Sigh.
MagnusP is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2011, 10:56
  #8012 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 1,560
What was that limerick that ended with '...and peed on the paintings in torrents?' Something to do with the Uffizi and Florence, anyway....

Did you know that the Uffizi was built as an office building, hence the name? I tell you, this 'liberal arts' stuff, it is amazing what they teach you....
chuks is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2011, 11:01
  #8013 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 77
Posts: 3,511
what about Venus, then? Why is it so hot?
chuks
It's a lot nearer to the sun among other reasons such as no vegetation etc., not comparable with the earth at all.

If you continue that argument then why isn't Mars hot also? It's atmosphere is composed mostly of carbon dioxide (95.32%)
green granite is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2011, 12:19
  #8014 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 1998
Location: Formerly of Nam
Posts: 1,595
Err, what about Venus, then? Why is it so hot?
1. Closer to the Sun - 67 million miles v 93 million for Earth.

2. Surface temp 460*C and 93 atmospheres pressure.

3. 97% CO2 and 3% N. The thick unbroken SO2 clouds 60km
high causes this high surface temp via the greenhouse effect.

Several billion years ago the Venusian atmosphere was more
like Earth's than it is now, and there likely was some largish
quantities of surface liquid water, but the runaway greenhouse
effect was caused by the evaporation of that original water,
caused by Venus's orbital perilion which generated a critical
level of greenhouse gases in its atmosphere. Therefore no O2
formed, and no seas or plants to absorb the excess CO2.

Venus has no carbon cycle to lock carbon back into rocks and
surface features, nor does it have any organic life to absorb it.

Mars's 95.2% CO2 is what keeps its equatorial afternoon temp
at around 0* to +5*C in Summer. If its CO2 was to decrease
to Earth levels it would be -55*C to -60*C.

The atmosphere on Mars consists of 95% carbon dioxide, 3% N,
1.6% argon and contains traces of O2 and water.
Slasher is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2011, 15:25
  #8015 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Why oh why would I wanna be anywhere else?
Posts: 1,306
Sorry Slasher. Maybe I'm misreading your post, or maybe it's in code but I can't find the mention of tits anywhere in it.
sisemen is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2011, 18:57
  #8016 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 51
Posts: 794
Sorry Slasher. Maybe I'm misreading your post, or maybe it's in code but I can't find the mention of tits anywhere in it.
That scared me too.......
hellsbrink is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2011, 19:26
  #8017 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: England
Posts: 98
BP 2011 energy review out now

Statistical Review of World Energy 2011 | BP

Oil

In 2010, increases in India, Brazil, Russia, Uganda, Columbia, and Ghana outpaced declines in Mexico and Norway. The 2009 figure was revised higher by 44 billion bbls, due to large upward revisions in Venezuela of 39 billion bbls and smaller increases in Russia, the US, and Libya. At the end of 2010 the global R/P ratio was 46.2

Nat Gas

The 2010 global R/P ratio was 58.6 a decline from 62.7 in 2009. R/P ratios declined for each region, driven by rising production. The Middle East had the highest regional R/P ratio.

Thats 46 years for oil, 58 for gas. Less if Chindia have their ever-expanding way. Of course someone will mention shale oil / gas - but do your homework, that is expensive to develop, perhaps too expensive.

Yup, Climate change / global warming "Carbon trading" will be a nice source of (replacement) tax income for the powers that be as tax on energy dwindles, due to dwindling "sales" of said resources, whether the "science" of climate change / global warming is valid or not.

Us old gits will be OK, our children will be up against it, our grand-children are toast.

Lid
flying lid is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2011, 23:41
  #8018 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: New York & California
Posts: 414
green granite

Yes just click on new thread and create it, whether it will remain or get zapped by the MODS will depend how well you justify it's separate existence in the first post.
I'm not sure it will survive. Plus I think the global warming debate and the politics behind it are integral to each other. After all the whole alarmism about global warming is due to political and corporate agendas.


flying lid

Yup, Climate change / global warming "Carbon trading" will be a nice source of (replacement) tax income for the powers that be as tax on energy dwindles, due to dwindling "sales" of said resources, whether the "science" of climate change / global warming is valid or not.
Which is a problem as the whole carbon-trading, and carbon-taxing scheme is based on lies. With a global carbon tax, there will be a global carbon taxer (i.e Global Governance -- something the head of the UN actually admitted wishing to impose).
Jane-DoH is offline  
Old 9th Jun 2011, 00:05
  #8019 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Betwixt and between
Posts: 666
The 2010 global R/P ratio was 58.6 a decline from 62.7 in 2009. R/P ratios declined for each region, driven by rising production. The Middle East had the highest regional R/P ratio.

Thats 46 years for oil, 58 for gas. Less if Chindia have their ever-expanding way. Of course someone will mention shale oil / gas - but do your homework, that is expensive to develop, perhaps too expensive.
A few years ago I researched the history of reserves. It was a apparent that for the the last 50 years estimated reserves held station at around 50 years. That doesn't mean that we won't run short, but it is my opinions that the context of such statements needs to be understood.
Sciolistes is offline  
Old 9th Jun 2011, 02:50
  #8020 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 1998
Location: Formerly of Nam
Posts: 1,595
Sorry Slasher. Maybe I'm misreading your post, or maybe
it's in code but I can't find the mention of tits anywhere in it
Oh sorry Sise, how unSlasheristic of me!

Err, what about Venus, then? Why is it so hot?
Venus tended to abhor wearing bras (and slutting her robes
down around her waist) which made her the hottest goddess
in the Roman Empire -

Slasher is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.