Cape Blue

alternatively have a read here
http://globalwarmingwatch.blogspot.c...od-time-2.html
or here
http://adamant.typepad.com/seitz/200...ologist-o.html

There just isn't the time for a layperson to spend checking all the data on every website, that's why we have the peer-review process for papers and articles to ensure all the data presented is robust. It is also why we have a UN panel to take account of all data and research from scientists around the world and bring some sort of consensus together - the IPCC.

I am sure that the pro and anti brigades can point to a thousand web sites each that support their claims, my 14 year old niece has a website, if she wrote something on CC should I link to that? This guy is a mining engineer, why would he be more on the ball than the scientists at NASA or the UK Met Office or economists like Nicholas Stern who have spent many years and millions of pounds in collating the research?

Genesis

Probably..but we will be one of the last to go!!! The end is nigh.

TeamEmbo

Just my personal thoughts from what I've seen and read and what history shows as fact not theory about massive changes in the past in temperatures, sea levels and resulting changes in land masses.

All the earth is made up of all the elements we are. It's a living, breathing thing, as we are. I therefore don't believe in global warming - just a naturally occuring, self-regulating event to keep itself balanced.

Cape Blue

Do you think that the thousands of scientists from different countries across the world have somehow missed or ignored the historical changes in temps and sea levels in their assessments and research over the past 20-30 years?

TeamEmbo

Not at all. There are many scientist who disbelieve in global warming too.

I just don't happen to agree that global warming is a new thing or man-made.

And scientist will always come up with theories. That's their job!

It's a subject much akin to religion and no amount of theories or debate will ever resolve that argument either

Cape Blue

Actually there are very few scientists who do not believe in MMCC, the vast majority from many disciplines across many countries all believe that we are effecting our climate.

Of course there has been climate change throughout history, the issue is the speed of climate change that is going to occur and the ability of the, now billions, of humans to adapt to a fast-changing climate.

It's not just theories, CO2 absorbtion of infra-red radiation (the greenhouse effect) is a fact that has been known about for over 100 years.

I don't agree that CC is like religion - religions expect you to believe is some sort of magic ju-ju God based upon the beliefs of your parents and the social structure in the country you grow up in. CC is based around science, data, analysis and facts. CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas, we used to have 280ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere a couple of hundred years ago and now have 380ppm - this 35% increase is likely to hold in more heat than before - none of this revolves around praying or wanting to believe or have faith in something.

Kooky.

I'm sorry I don't have time to check out all these links but if the guy is a mining engineer, do you think he might perhaps not be very objective about climate change?

TeamEmbo

Thank you. You can throw as many figures around as you like and I could do the same in return to counter the argument but it would be a futile exercise.

I could do the same and produce facts regarding there being a God, that Jesus did exist etc etc blah blah blah, but again futile exercise.

I accept you sincerely believe what you do and that's fine. Would you accept that I believe what I do and that that's fine too?

Kooky.

Not sure that was directed at me but yes, I would, so long as you don't tell me my views are crap and I'm a raving loony, etc. (Religion or climate change!)

Charismatic

Discredit the hypothesis, not the author .

Sometimes stupid people come up with great ideas, sometimes clever people have stupid ideas.

TeamEmbo

Sorry! was replying to Cape Blue's post.

But yeah, each to their own me thinks. No-one has to justify their beliefs to another just because they differ, far simpler to just acknowledge the difference, smile and enjoy the day rather than running around banging head on wall trying to prove one truth's better than another.

Cape Blue

The figures I was "throwing around" are just basic facts around CO2 and are indisputable - it does act as an insulator and there is more now than before. I do agree however that there are many figures that relate to positive and negative feedback loops that can be argued and that no one on this forum will be qualified to fully understand them.

This is why the only logical route is to look at the scientists and organizations involved - I find it hard to understand that governments both capitalist and socialist and organizations from Greenpeace to NASA can all agree that MMCC is real, and yet a few laypeople can believe it is some great conspiracy to tax us or that their particular flavor of god has it covered.

I am not sure you could produce proof of a God, if you could which God would that be? the one that the billions of Hindu's believe in or the billions of Buddhists? I would guess that it is the Christian/Jewish/Muslim God.

You keep confusing faith and belief with science and facts - like oil and water they don't mix.

TeamEmbo

I am not confusing anything.

My comment was that it would be as futile a subject to debate as religion.

It is you who has decided to link the two together. I have no idea why as I see no connection.

I never said it was a great conspiracy nor did I say 'my God' has it covered

I can live with being in the minority.

Charismatic

I through the theory of global warming centred around the absorbance of solar radiation at wavelengths that would not normally absorb causing a ΔT?

However this has always got me thinking because the oxygen molecules used to create also absorb solar radiation. However in true blue peter style here is a comparison of major atmospheric radiation absorption I made earlier:


There are three things to consider here:
1. Is the absorbance area greater under the carbon dioxide of oxygen graph?
2. Since shorter wavelengths of electromagnetic (solar) radiation carry more energy is carbon dioxide or oxygen at a lower wavelength?
3. Does the stoichiometric reaction favour a greater volume in the direction of carbon dioxide or oxygen molecules?

IMO the answers for 1 and 2 would suggest gasses would cool under these conditions and in 3 it wouldn’t have any effect either direction. So it would seem far more likely to me that if we apply some basic chemistry knowledge that we should actually be thinking about global cooling rather than warming.

See it annoys me that proponents of the hypothesis often don't appear to understand even the fundamental mechanics of what they are proposing. I like to take an engineering approach to problems where I sit down and consider all aspects of the problem I can imagine. If you can kind of hash out the basic principals you can take an educated stab at the outcome.

Does the above make sense or is there something I’ve overlooked?

kporte

The cooling down and warming up cycle has happened before many times and all before humans were around. Jury is out for me.