|
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by kporte
(Post 8143217)
Bring on the end of the world, I've lost the will to live now........
|
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by Lord_Farquar
(Post 8143224)
It's not happening, remember?
|
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by moneypenny20
(Post 8143368)
2012 I think is the latest date for the end of the world. Why anyone's getting their knickers on a knot about the seas rising 2 inches in 50 years is beyond me. It'll all be over by the end of the Olympics in London.
|
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by GarryP
(Post 8143407)
1.4m by 2100 is the latest estimate, could be more.
|
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by Lord_Farquar
(Post 8143209)
So his resignation has bugger all to do with your theory?
I wish I did have a "theory". What I have is a deep seated desire to see openness, transparency and robustness in the evaluation of evidence for global warming. I repeat my position, which I have stated all along: I am undecided on the AGW question. |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by slapphead_otool
(Post 8143073)
Dunno mate, I’m not bright myself.
I do work with multidimensional predictive analytics. That involves collating disparate data, weighting and normalising it, concatenating data strings, developing dimensional models, developing conceptual data models, etc. To be honest, I wouldn’t work with just a 12 sample population. But like I say, I’m not bright. :lol: |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by slapphead_otool
(Post 8144948)
I don’t have a “theoryâ€. AFAIK I haven’t espoused a “theoryâ€.
I wish I did have a "theory". What I have is a deep seated desire to see openness, transparency and robustness in the evaluation of evidence for global warming. I repeat my position, which I have stated all along: I am undecided on the AGW question. |
Re: Global warming
Cape Blue, we can play this all day. Graph after graph. Chart after chart. Factor after factor. I have been looking at this for quite some time. For every claim there is a counter claim, resulting in equilibrium. In other words, no compelling evidence. No smoking gun.
Your first graph, (presumable resourced from the Wikipedia page on CO2) shows man made carbon emissions. What isn’t mentioned is baseline levels, and natural additions. I have a chart from the US Dept of Energy, dated 2000, showing 6 times greater parts per billion come from natural sources than from man made. Pre industrial baseline 288,000 ppb Natural additions 68,520 ppb Man made additions 11,880 ppb Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants. This DOESN’T include water vapour, which opens up an entirely new can of worms in itself, because CO2 only accounts for 3.62% of global warming, and water vapour in the atmosphere accounts for a staggering 95%. (see S.M. Freidenreich and V. Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,†Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264) And so we go on, probably boring the bum off everyone else on this site. Just as you expect me to trust the “evidence†of the climate doomsayers†I expect you to trust the “evidence†of the sceptics. It is a classic Mexican standoff. The problem is the “blink†is going to cost money, jobs, and lifestyle. I have a solution. See my next post. |
Re: Global warming
The Slapphead Solution (accountability):
The pro AGW lobby set an agreed date, at which point a set event will occur if we follow their plans. Carbon levels will fall to Xppm by 2025 etc. We hold a referendum in every country in the world, about global warming. We make the impacts and consequences fully available to voters, including the fact that science is divided about this. Its not an anonymous referendum. Voters names and preferences are taken and published. A global scientific forum is held at the appointed time, and a decision is made, who was right and who was wrong. If the AGW prediction isn’t proven to be right (and therefore the whole AGW theory was wrong) then the people who voted for it pay massive compensation to those who didn’t. I mean putative taxation rates for the rest of their lives. This is simply the opposite to the current situation, where I am going to be taxed for a theory which I believe is not proven. |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by slapphead_otool
(Post 8145031)
The Slapphead Solution (accountability):
The pro AGW lobby set an agreed date, at which point a set event will occur if we follow their plans. Carbon levels will fall to Xppm by 2025 etc. We hold a referendum in every country in the world, about global warming. We make the impacts and consequences fully available to voters, including the fact that science is divided about this. Its not an anonymous referendum. Voters names and preferences are taken and published. A global scientific forum is held at the appointed time, and a decision is made, who was right and who was wrong. If the AGW prediction isn’t proven to be right (and therefore the whole AGW theory was wrong) then the people who voted for it pay massive compensation to those who didn’t. I mean putative taxation rates for the rest of their lives. This is simply the opposite to the current situation, where I am going to be taxed for a theory which I believe is not proven. |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by Lord_Farquar
(Post 8145056)
A referendum in every country? That is completely impractical. Who will pay for it?
But so too is ending our reliance on fossil fuels. |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by slapphead_otool
(Post 8145062)
Yes, its impractical and hugely expensive.
But so too is ending our reliance on fossil fuels. |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by Lord_Farquar
(Post 8145067)
Yes, but a global referendum will achieve very little in this regard.
The government seem damn keen on taxing everyone over this – a bit too keen in my eyes. But then again, a government is seldom far from its citizens wallets. :frown: Incidentally, the current taxes and restrictions may well be the thin end of the wedge. I can see every lobby group under the sun leaping onto this now it’s a virtual fait acompli. The pushbike lobby will be advocating people only being allowed to use cars on alternate days, the socialist workers revolutionary party (does it till exist?) will be advocating closure of all factories to cut emissions. The anti meat lobby already propose cutting back on animal husbandry to lower emissions. The marihuana lobby will probably advocate legalisation of drugs as they dull the feeling of loss when you can’t watch TV. All it takes is the “Elvis Lives†lobby to claim he is alive but you cant see him due to CO2 clouds and we will have the full complement of crackpots out in force. :D |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by slapphead_otool
(Post 8145008)
Cape Blue, we can play this all day. Graph after graph. Chart after chart. Factor after factor. I have been looking at this for quite some time. For every claim there is a counter claim, resulting in equilibrium. In other words, no compelling evidence. No smoking gun.
Your first graph, (presumable resourced from the Wikipedia page on CO2) shows man made carbon emissions. What isn’t mentioned is baseline levels, and natural additions. I have a chart from the US Dept of Energy, dated 2000, showing 6 times greater parts per billion come from natural sources than from man made. Pre industrial baseline 288,000 ppb Natural additions 68,520 ppb Man made additions 11,880 ppb Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants. This DOESN’T include water vapour, which opens up an entirely new can of worms in itself, because CO2 only accounts for 3.62% of global warming, and water vapour in the atmosphere accounts for a staggering 95%. (see S.M. Freidenreich and V. Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,†Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264) And so we go on, probably boring the bum off everyone else on this site. Just as you expect me to trust the “evidence†of the climate doomsayers†I expect you to trust the “evidence†of the sceptics. It is a classic Mexican standoff. The problem is the “blink†is going to cost money, jobs, and lifestyle. I have a solution. See my next post. (2). Your 90 billion tonnes from oceans and 90B fron decaying plants actually supports the point about MMCC - the oceans and plants are sucking up CO2 and they are releasing it - its all in the current carbon cycle. Those decaying plants are giving out the CO2 that they sucked out of the atmosphere last year and the years before, just as new growth is sucking CO2 out and will eventually decay and give it back. The combustion of fossil fuels is giving out CO2 that has been stored underground for 350,000,000 years and it is new CO2 to the current climate that supports us. (2). We know that we emit shed-loads of CO2 - about 27,000,000,000 tonnes per year from fossil fuel burning. This CO2 isn't from "fresh" carbon - i.e. if we cut down and burn a 30 year-old tree we are emitting CO2 that was only removed from the atmosphere in the past 30 years, no, this carbon was stored underground for the past 350,000,000 years. This burning of fossil fuels is a relatively new process. Your perjorative use of "climate doomsayers" betrays you, some of the people questioning MMCC are doubtless decent scientists with real and valid questions that need to be answered, however the credibility of so many of those who are sceptical about MMCC appears sorely lacking. There are a few nutters on the MMCC side saying the seas will rise 50+m in the next 50 years when in reality it is more likely to be less than 1m, however there appears to be so many more nutters on the sceptic side bringing in communist world governments, excuses to tax, people freezing to death and so on. We appear to have a 1,000 doctors telling us that their peer-reviewed research indicates that smoking causes cancer, we have a dozen saying that the research has errors and a few hundred in the pay of the cigarette industry saying smoke-on - should we continue smoking or take a precautionary approach? It seems logical to me to go with the 1,000 - by the time the sensible dozen are persuaded you are already lying in your hospital bed breathing from a hole in your neck. So how does a layperson decide? (a). CO2 is a greenhouse gas, we emit lots of it from fossil fuels, atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have increased, global temperatures have gone up (thermometer measured). I don't think any of those statements can be denied. (b). Trust the process - its the UN/IPCC and its pretty open, but its also scientists from around the world and the majority support the IPCC. If governments (and their scientists) thought there was a chance of avoiding the unpleasant measures they need to take (taxes etc) then they would jump at it. (c). It is doubtful that scientists have, over the 30-odd years they have been studying CC, forgotten to check if the sun got warmer or relied solely on only 12 trees for the entire theory. These are trained scientists, many thousands of them, if some made errors, the peer-review system has plenty of their colleagues and competitors ready to pounce and the errors are corrected. (d). Look at the motives of the actors involved - Communist One World Government, a reason to tax us, back to living in the middle ages - really? Or a fear of the change of status quo destroying their fossil fuel companies and livelihoods? (e). Are every developed national government, every national science academy, the UN and all the scientists and NGOs (and so on), either a bunch of fools or involved in some nefarious scheme? Am I 100% sure that MMCC is real? How could I be? But the evidence and (a) to (e) above makes me consider that it is highly likely and that the precautionary principle might be a good idea until further data gives us something else to consider. |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by slapphead_otool
(Post 8145093)
It will provide those who don’t agree with these new taxes and restrictions with compensation should the AGW lobby be found to be in error.
The government seem damn keen on taxing everyone over this – a bit too keen in my eyes. But then again, a government is seldom far from its citizens wallets. :frown: Incidentally, the current taxes and restrictions may well be the thin end of the wedge. I can see every lobby group under the sun leaping onto this now it’s a virtual fait acompli. The pushbike lobby will be advocating people only being allowed to use cars on alternate days, the socialist workers revolutionary party (does it till exist?) will be advocating closure of all factories to cut emissions. The anti meat lobby already propose cutting back on animal husbandry to lower emissions. The marihuana lobby will probably advocate legalisation of drugs as they dull the feeling of loss when you can’t watch TV. All it takes is the “Elvis Lives†lobby to claim he is alive but you cant see him due to CO2 clouds and we will have the full complement of crackpots out in force. :D You appear to be heading back to your parents freezing to death with the "close all the factories" conspiracy stuff. No sensible person will want to close all the factories and then starve to death, but what they might want is the factories powered by non-fossil-fuel power and high levels of materials recycling to ensure we conserve resources, with non-fossil fuel transport to get the workers back and forth. I would go with the legalization of marijuana though.;) |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 11:30 am. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.