yet another.

Old Jul 27th 2011, 5:40 am
  #31  
bil
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Joined: Feb 2008
Location: Vejer de la Fra., Cadiz
Posts: 7,653
bil has a reputation beyond reputebil has a reputation beyond reputebil has a reputation beyond reputebil has a reputation beyond reputebil has a reputation beyond reputebil has a reputation beyond reputebil has a reputation beyond reputebil has a reputation beyond reputebil has a reputation beyond reputebil has a reputation beyond reputebil has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: yet another.

Originally Posted by Dick Dasterdly
I would say it is quite a long list of apparently well educated and learned scientists and professors, which in any event is incomplete as stated.

Having previously read one or two of them I would say that they have done enough serious studies and brought up sufficient evidence to cast serious doubt on bils feasible but somewhat simplistic mainstream theory.
God, I love you man. You follow the usual path every time. Ridicule the idea and shoot the messenger.

Fair enough. what's wrong with these points Hmmm?

1 Is CO2 a greenhouse gas?
2 Is there more CO2 now than 200 years ago?
3 Are there more sunspots now or less than 100 years ago?
4 Is a sun with no sunspots cooler than a spotty sun or hotter.

Usual stuff, answers please if you don't want to appear foolish. You see, the answers to those 4 questions are simple verifiable facts.

You say that there is evidence to cast doubt on it.

Or did you mean there are people who will say and do anything rather than apply a little critical reasoning.

The world seems divded between dumbasses who say the world is heating up and we are all going to die, and idiots who say nothing is happening and the science is flawed.

The science is very simple. The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more heat it traps. That should mean we heat up, but the sun is cooling and losing spots, so the input from the sun has dropped. Interestingly, up to now, the deniers have been saying the the sun is the main input for the earth, but now that this input has dropped and explains away why the world hasn't warmed, look forward to some frantic backpedaling.

Or, please don't tell me you are one of those ****wits who trys to claim that man made CO2 is different to naturally produced CO2?

Surely not?

Last edited by bil; Jul 27th 2011 at 5:43 am.
bil is offline  
Old Jul 27th 2011, 5:52 am
  #32  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
fionamw's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2008
Location: near Colmenar, Prov de Malaga
Posts: 5,174
fionamw has a reputation beyond reputefionamw has a reputation beyond reputefionamw has a reputation beyond reputefionamw has a reputation beyond reputefionamw has a reputation beyond reputefionamw has a reputation beyond reputefionamw has a reputation beyond reputefionamw has a reputation beyond reputefionamw has a reputation beyond reputefionamw has a reputation beyond reputefionamw has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: yet another.

Anyway, back to sodium chloride.
Pasta? I don't salt it but do use herby soft cheese (the Philly type but waaay cheaper from Lidl) in the stirring phase.
As others (think it was Lynnxa) I can't abide people who bung salt on willy nilly without so much as a taste first. Ditto ketchup, mayo, etc etc.
Lastly, and surprising no-one's mentioned it in a thread supposedly started ref salt & its inclusion or importance/health threat... has no-one but me formed the view that pretty much all processed Spanish meat, from salchicha to salchichon to albondigas to ..... is humungously over-salted????
fionamw is offline  
Old Jul 27th 2011, 6:46 am
  #33  
VFR
BE Forum Addict
 
Joined: Jun 2009
Location: Valencia area
Posts: 1,161
VFR has a reputation beyond reputeVFR has a reputation beyond reputeVFR has a reputation beyond reputeVFR has a reputation beyond reputeVFR has a reputation beyond reputeVFR has a reputation beyond reputeVFR has a reputation beyond reputeVFR has a reputation beyond reputeVFR has a reputation beyond reputeVFR has a reputation beyond reputeVFR has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: yet another.

A little reading about the effects (or not ?) of the Sun's activity on our climate.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/sola...al-warming.htm
VFR is offline  
Old Jul 27th 2011, 6:52 am
  #34  
BE Forum Addict
 
Joined: Apr 2010
Location: London (mainly)/Oliva
Posts: 2,137
johnnyone has a reputation beyond reputejohnnyone has a reputation beyond reputejohnnyone has a reputation beyond reputejohnnyone has a reputation beyond reputejohnnyone has a reputation beyond reputejohnnyone has a reputation beyond reputejohnnyone has a reputation beyond reputejohnnyone has a reputation beyond reputejohnnyone has a reputation beyond reputejohnnyone has a reputation beyond reputejohnnyone has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: yet another.

Originally Posted by fionamw
Anyway, back to sodium chloride.
Pasta? I don't salt it but do use herby soft cheese (the Philly type but waaay cheaper from Lidl) in the stirring phase.
As others (think it was Lynnxa) I can't abide people who bung salt on willy nilly without so much as a taste first. Ditto ketchup, mayo, etc etc.
Lastly, and surprising no-one's mentioned it in a thread supposedly started ref salt & its inclusion or importance/health threat... has no-one but me formed the view that pretty much all processed Spanish meat, from salchicha to salchichon to albondigas to ..... is humungously over-salted????
If you watch the chefs on the tv they all use salt. Its because it makes food taste better.
I am trying to cut down on my intake of salt and now taste my food before adding salt but its not as good even though my wife adds salt to cooking.
How you can cook without adding salt is beyond me.
I also gave up butter but that lasted about a week, there is just no substitute for unsalted butter.
What I don't understand is how people say they do not use salt when cooking but happily buy processed foods that are full of salt. The amount of salt in some of the foods in the chilled/frozen cabinets is unbelievable. That's what I avoid eating.
As for pasta, ok as a starter but not as a main. I shall not even start on about pizza, I'd rather have cheese on toast.

You may tell from this that I have an old fashioned view of food.
johnnyone is offline  
Old Jul 27th 2011, 6:57 am
  #35  
On the road again.
 
Dick Dasterdly's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2008
Location: On Top of the World
Posts: 17,507
Dick Dasterdly has a reputation beyond reputeDick Dasterdly has a reputation beyond reputeDick Dasterdly has a reputation beyond reputeDick Dasterdly has a reputation beyond reputeDick Dasterdly has a reputation beyond reputeDick Dasterdly has a reputation beyond reputeDick Dasterdly has a reputation beyond reputeDick Dasterdly has a reputation beyond reputeDick Dasterdly has a reputation beyond reputeDick Dasterdly has a reputation beyond reputeDick Dasterdly has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: yet another.

Originally Posted by bil
God, I love you man. You follow the usual path every time. Ridicule the idea and shoot the messenger.

Fair enough. what's wrong with these points Hmmm?

1 Is CO2 a greenhouse gas?
2 Is there more CO2 now than 200 years ago?
3 Are there more sunspots now or less than 100 years ago?
4 Is a sun with no sunspots cooler than a spotty sun or hotter.

Usual stuff, answers please if you don't want to appear foolish. You see, the answers to those 4 questions are simple verifiable facts.

You say that there is evidence to cast doubt on it.

Or did you mean there are people who will say and do anything rather than apply a little critical reasoning.

The world seems divded between dumbasses who say the world is heating up and we are all going to die, and idiots who say nothing is happening and the science is flawed.

The science is very simple. The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more heat it traps. That should mean we heat up, but the sun is cooling and losing spots, so the input from the sun has dropped. Interestingly, up to now, the deniers have been saying the the sun is the main input for the earth, but now that this input has dropped and explains away why the world hasn't warmed, look forward to some frantic backpedaling.

Or, please don't tell me you are one of those ****wits who trys to claim that man made CO2 is different to naturally produced CO2?

Surely not?

I think maybe its you thats shooting the messenger,bil.

Do you also consider those apparently well qualified scientists as "unfit to comment" ?

Your simplistic theory is not difficult to follow and based on a small handful of known facts which I don't dispute.

However I suggest that you calm down long enough to study a few of the theories mentioned in that link which take into consideration quite a number of other variable, historical, known and unknown factors, in addition to those you mention and demonstrate that the future of the planet may not be painted simply in black or white as you would have us believe.

Bearing in mind their qualifications and from what I have read so far I would be somewhat hesitant to refer to all of those guys as ****wits.
Dick Dasterdly is offline  
Old Jul 27th 2011, 6:57 am
  #36  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,368
agoreira has a reputation beyond reputeagoreira has a reputation beyond reputeagoreira has a reputation beyond reputeagoreira has a reputation beyond reputeagoreira has a reputation beyond reputeagoreira has a reputation beyond reputeagoreira has a reputation beyond reputeagoreira has a reputation beyond reputeagoreira has a reputation beyond reputeagoreira has a reputation beyond reputeagoreira has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: yet another.

Originally Posted by Domino
When in the Far East I used to be told to take a salt tablet daily, similar conditions apply in the summer 2 months in Spain but no similar recommendations that I have heard
Do you take any extra salt in that time ?
Ditto, during time in the Middle East we were issued with, and told to take, salt tablets. Salt is a necessary nutient, people talk here as if it is a no no. The Romans thought it so important, they paid the the wages in. Sal-salary
agoreira is offline  
Old Jul 27th 2011, 7:04 am
  #37  
On the road again.
 
Dick Dasterdly's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2008
Location: On Top of the World
Posts: 17,507
Dick Dasterdly has a reputation beyond reputeDick Dasterdly has a reputation beyond reputeDick Dasterdly has a reputation beyond reputeDick Dasterdly has a reputation beyond reputeDick Dasterdly has a reputation beyond reputeDick Dasterdly has a reputation beyond reputeDick Dasterdly has a reputation beyond reputeDick Dasterdly has a reputation beyond reputeDick Dasterdly has a reputation beyond reputeDick Dasterdly has a reputation beyond reputeDick Dasterdly has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: yet another.

Originally Posted by agoreira
Ditto, during time in the Middle East we were issued with, and told to take, salt tablets. Salt is a necessary nutient, people talk here as if it is a no no. The Romans thought it so important, they paid the the wages in. Sal-salary

http://www.wholeseasalt.com/learn/salt_necessity.html
Dick Dasterdly is offline  
Old Jul 27th 2011, 7:52 am
  #38  
bil
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Joined: Feb 2008
Location: Vejer de la Fra., Cadiz
Posts: 7,653
bil has a reputation beyond reputebil has a reputation beyond reputebil has a reputation beyond reputebil has a reputation beyond reputebil has a reputation beyond reputebil has a reputation beyond reputebil has a reputation beyond reputebil has a reputation beyond reputebil has a reputation beyond reputebil has a reputation beyond reputebil has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: yet another.

Originally Posted by agoreira
Ditto, during time in the Middle East we were issued with, and told to take, salt tablets. Salt is a necessary nutient, people talk here as if it is a no no. The Romans thought it so important, they paid the the wages in. Sal-salary
Salt tablets, in a reasonably normal environment eating modern, processed food are unnecessary, There's more than we need in the food.

Excessive salt isn't a good idea.
bil is offline  
Old Jul 27th 2011, 7:58 am
  #39  
bil
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Joined: Feb 2008
Location: Vejer de la Fra., Cadiz
Posts: 7,653
bil has a reputation beyond reputebil has a reputation beyond reputebil has a reputation beyond reputebil has a reputation beyond reputebil has a reputation beyond reputebil has a reputation beyond reputebil has a reputation beyond reputebil has a reputation beyond reputebil has a reputation beyond reputebil has a reputation beyond reputebil has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: yet another.

Originally Posted by Dick Dasterdly
I think maybe its you thats shooting the messenger,bil.

Do you also consider those apparently well qualified scientists as "unfit to comment" ?

Your simplistic theory is not difficult to follow and based on a small handful of known facts which I don't dispute.

However I suggest that you calm down long enough to study a few of the theories mentioned in that link which take into consideration quite a number of other variable, historical, known and unknown factors, in addition to those you mention and demonstrate that the future of the planet may not be painted simply in black or white as you would have us believe.

Bearing in mind their qualifications and from what I have read so far I would be somewhat hesitant to refer to all of those guys as ****wits.
Jeeze mate, don't you read what I write?

I said that the ****wits are those that try and claim that man made CO2 is different to the 'natural' stuff.

Where in the ref you posted does it say otherwise?

Also, I tried to put forward a simple explanation, which is backed up by the first paragraph.

"However, between the 1960s and the present day the same solar measurements have shown that the energy from the sun is now decreasing. At the same time temperature measurements of the air and sea have shown that the Earth has continued to become warmer and warmer. This proves that it cannot be the sun; something else must be causing the Earth's temperature to rise. "

They say the earth is getting warmer, the sceptics say it isn't, either way, it doesn't affect what I said.

Please feel free to explain to us all the importance of radiative forcing in all this since you posted it.
bil is offline  
Old Jul 27th 2011, 10:33 am
  #40  
On the road again.
 
Dick Dasterdly's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2008
Location: On Top of the World
Posts: 17,507
Dick Dasterdly has a reputation beyond reputeDick Dasterdly has a reputation beyond reputeDick Dasterdly has a reputation beyond reputeDick Dasterdly has a reputation beyond reputeDick Dasterdly has a reputation beyond reputeDick Dasterdly has a reputation beyond reputeDick Dasterdly has a reputation beyond reputeDick Dasterdly has a reputation beyond reputeDick Dasterdly has a reputation beyond reputeDick Dasterdly has a reputation beyond reputeDick Dasterdly has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: yet another.

Originally Posted by bil
Jeeze mate, don't you read what I write?

I said that the ****wits are those that try and claim that man made CO2 is different to the 'natural' stuff.

Where in the ref you posted does it say otherwise?

Also, I tried to put forward a simple explanation, which is backed up by the first paragraph.

"However, between the 1960s and the present day the same solar measurements have shown that the energy from the sun is now decreasing. At the same time temperature measurements of the air and sea have shown that the Earth has continued to become warmer and warmer. This proves that it cannot be the sun; something else must be causing the Earth's temperature to rise. "

They say the earth is getting warmer, the sceptics say it isn't, either way, it doesn't affect what I said.

Please feel free to explain to us all the importance of radiative forcing in all this since you posted it.
CO2 is CO2 in my book regardless of origin and I've never said otherwise.
I don't recall directly mentioning radiative forcing though no doubt it will be covered in one of those links.
Your theory merely covers a brief moment in time, little more than the blink of an eye and considering the much more dramatic changes that have occured during the planets vast history it may well be a very minor event within the grand scheme of things. Who knows.
There are conflicting theories regarding the Sun CO2 relationship, also with regard to the effects of an increase in the CO2 level itself, where according to the scientific theory in a few of those links there is a law of rapidly diminishing returns beyond a certain point of increased CO2 output, meaning that once it increases beyond a certain level the corresponding increase in earths temperature will be almost negligible.
Some interesting theories in those links well worth a read, many of them indicating that we are probably making a mountain out of a molehill.
Myself I continue to have a very open mind to all future possibilities provided of course they are the result of adequate scientific research rather than old moore's almanac.
Dick Dasterdly is offline  
Old Jul 27th 2011, 9:55 pm
  #41  
bil
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Joined: Feb 2008
Location: Vejer de la Fra., Cadiz
Posts: 7,653
bil has a reputation beyond reputebil has a reputation beyond reputebil has a reputation beyond reputebil has a reputation beyond reputebil has a reputation beyond reputebil has a reputation beyond reputebil has a reputation beyond reputebil has a reputation beyond reputebil has a reputation beyond reputebil has a reputation beyond reputebil has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: yet another.

Originally Posted by Dick Dasterdly
CO2 is CO2 in my book regardless of origin and I've never said otherwise.
I don't recall directly mentioning radiative forcing though no doubt it will be covered in one of those links.
Your theory merely covers a brief moment in time, little more than the blink of an eye and considering the much more dramatic changes that have occured during the planets vast history it may well be a very minor event within the grand scheme of things. Who knows.
There are conflicting theories regarding the Sun CO2 relationship, also with regard to the effects of an increase in the CO2 level itself, where according to the scientific theory in a few of those links there is a law of rapidly diminishing returns beyond a certain point of increased CO2 output, meaning that once it increases beyond a certain level the corresponding increase in earths temperature will be almost negligible.
Some interesting theories in those links well worth a read, many of them indicating that we are probably making a mountain out of a molehill.
Myself I continue to have a very open mind to all future possibilities provided of course they are the result of adequate scientific research rather than old moore's almanac.
OK, one at a time.

1. "Your theory merely covers a brief moment in time, little more than the blink of an eye and considering the much more dramatic changes that have occured during the planets vast history it may well be a very minor event within the grand scheme of things. Who knows."

My theory? It's not a theory, it's just a simple way of looking at a problem that is very complex. I tried to reduce it to its simplest levels, so that the current idiocy of denying the basic science would stand out. Of course I'm looking at what is happening here and now. That's when the current set of circumstances are happening. Why would I discuss the fall of Rome taking dinosaur diets into consideration?

2. "There are conflicting theories regarding the Sun CO2 relationship,"

I have never heard any such thing. Feel free to post a reference.

3. "with regard to the effects of an increase in the CO2 level itself, where according to the scientific theory in a few of those links there is a law of rapidly diminishing returns beyond a certain point of increased CO2 output, meaning that once it increases beyond a certain level the corresponding increase in earths temperature will be almost negligible."

Kudos here for being one of a tiny number of people who seems to know this. One correction tho. It isn't simply diminishing returns per se, it's a lot more complex and interesting.

A greenhouse gas is a heterozygous molecule, ie made up of different atoms. So, O2, N2 are not, but H2O, NO2. SO2 CO2 CH4 and others all are. The energy that the earth radiates is captured by the molecular bond between the dissimilar atoms. So, in a molecule like ethane (C2H6), energy is captured by the C-H bonds, but not the C-C bonds.

IR radiation comes in different wavelengths, just like visible light, it is as tho there is red IR, blue IR, Green IR and so on.

CO2 captures the red IR, water the blue IR, and methane the green IR. (this is a simple analogy, but it is still correct, OK?

The short wave radiation from the sun hits the earth and is absorbed, and the earth then radiates IR. There is only so much blue, green, red etc IR.

There is so much water in the atmosphere that all the blue IR is absorbed, so adding more water makes no difference. Not all of the red IR is absorbed, so adding CO2 will make things worse, but once all the red is captured, adding CO2 will not affect the temperature of the world, but it will affect the acidity of the oceans. At the moment, very little green IR is absorbed, so releasing methane into the atmosphere will cause a big increase in the green absorbed.

Methane also captures a LOT of energy.

So yes, once all the red is absorbed, CO2 doesn't feature, but it isn't an excuse just to pump the stuff out ad hoc.

4. "Some interesting theories in those links well worth a read, many of them indicating that we are probably making a mountain out of a molehill."

No-one knows for certain how bad global warming could be. At best, we bumble along and no great problem occurs. The sun will stay cool to match the greenhouse gases we emit, something will happen to cancel the risk of acidifying the oceans, and everything will be ok. At its worst, the reckless release of greenhouse gasses could wipe out almost all life on earth, and that means everything much more complex than microscopic organisms, and a big chunk of them to boot. It has happened before.

Odds are, it will be somewhere between those extremes. Personally, I think we should look seriously at the problem and consider what we will do to address theproblem should the sunspot cycle, which I think is 11 years kicks into its hot phase in a decade or so.
bil is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Your Privacy Choices -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.