The Science.

[Baron von Lotsov]

I'm talking about people who incessantly go on about global warming but never quantify the effect they refer to. What is meant by pinning someone down in an argument is to ask them explicitly and exactly what they mean, and not be happy with vague and wishy-washy claims. Professional liars are trained in it, and part of that is to never commit to something that you will later regret, like a prediction based on shaky theory is likely to go wrong, but a vague statement is used in order to employ plausible deniability.



In fact, would you believe it, there is a page on wiki to explain it fully.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_deniability">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_deniability



As I can't be bothered to here.

[Nick]

Because we burn organic matter it means there is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than before. This will get trapped by the earth's gravity. The energy of a carbon dioxide molecule follows the Boltzmann distribution and is rarely likely to exceed the escape velocity. For the same reason it is why all our oxygen and not vanished into space. So due to the greenhouse effect there will be a net increase in radiation energy, and this will exist in the form of heat. It's all basic physics that you should have learnt at school.







Still though, it is an increase. Consider the statement we have heard a million times before "Global warming is an indisputable fact - we must do something"



Some people will say, nah you have not got any proof, and the reply would be, "you're a flat-earther".

Of course the sleight of hand here is the claim that it is an indisputable fact is true, but it would still be true if the effect was 0.0000001 degrees in a million years. So we must always say, global warming is an indisputable fact but your predictions lack error bars. They could tell us it will increase by ten degrees per decade +/-10 degrees.



Always make sure you pin the bitches down properly. They are pros at this game of deceit.







Yes and that's what plants eat. They get it with an oxygen molecule, spit that out and munch the carbon.

' Always make sure you pin the bitches down properly. They are pros at this game of deceit. ' you're a vile person and I won't be responding any more to your posts. I have raised a concern with the admin.

[Borchester]

Yes and that's what plants eat.

Unless they are mushrooms

[Baron von Lotsov]

And I quote...

"The actual greenhouse mechanism though is established science. You would be a total nutter to deny it"....... Yes we know the greenhouse principle. How is this proof of anthropogenic global warming?

Because we burn organic matter it means there is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than before. This will get trapped by the earth's gravity. The energy of a carbon dioxide molecule follows the Boltzmann distribution and is rarely likely to exceed the escape velocity. For the same reason it is why all our oxygen and not vanished into space. So due to the greenhouse effect there will be a net increase in radiation energy, and this will exist in the form of heat. It's all basic physics that you should have learnt at school.

We also know that increasing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is likely to increase it.....CO2 makes up 5% of the greenhouse gases, we produce 0.5% of that. Find another story.

Still though, it is an increase. Consider the statement we have heard a million times before "Global warming is an indisputable fact - we must do something"



Some people will say, nah you have not got any proof, and the reply would be, "you're a flat-earther".

Of course the sleight of hand here is the claim that it is an indisputable fact is true, but it would still be true if the effect was 0.0000001 degrees in a million years. So we must always say, global warming is an indisputable fact but your predictions lack error bars. They could tell us it will increase by ten degrees per decade +/-10 degrees.



Always make sure you pin the bitches down properly. They are pros at this game of deceit.

You now talk about Carbon!! One is an element and one is a compound, stick to banging the rocks together Baron, your head bone isn't up to this level of thinking.

Yes and that's what plants eat. They get it with an oxygen molecule, spit that out and munch the carbon.

[Nick]

The actual greenhouse mechanism though is established science. You would be a total nutter to deny it. We also know that increasing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is likely to increase it. That is unless all excess carbon is eaten by something or other. So just going on those two facts alone anyone would say it will shift the temperature upwards on average. I think we can say this is pretty settled. What is not settled by a long stretch is the 'by how much' question. It is easy peasy to say it will increase but virtually impossible/very difficult to say by how much unless we accept huge errors in the answer.



We need everything quantified, and if a News report does not use quantitative reports then bin it. Use it to line you cat litter tray.

And I quote...

"The actual greenhouse mechanism though is established science. You would be a total nutter to deny it"....... Yes we know the greenhouse principle. How is this proof of anthropogenic global warming?



We also know that increasing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is likely to increase it.....CO2 makes up 5% of the greenhouse gases, we produce 0.5% of that. Find another story.



You now talk about Carbon!! One is an element and one is a compound, stick to banging the rocks together Baron, your head bone isn't up to this level of thinking.

[Barry]

I think we can say this is pretty settled.

Do you, Baron?

https://www.thegwpf.com/content/uploads/2019/05/failed-climate-predictions.jpg">

[Baron von Lotsov]

The actual greenhouse mechanism though is established science. You would be a total nutter to deny it. We also know that increasing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is likely to increase it. That is unless all excess carbon is eaten by something or other. So just going on those two facts alone anyone would say it will shift the temperature upwards on average. I think we can say this is pretty settled. What is not settled by a long stretch is the 'by how much' question. It is easy peasy to say it will increase but virtually impossible/very difficult to say by how much unless we accept huge errors in the answer.



We need everything quantified, and if a News report does not use quantitative reports then bin it. Use it to line you cat litter tray.

[patman post]

I've decided we are being hoodwinked upon a grand scale. It's all about taking money out of our pockets.

There was evidence that the earth was warming, but it has stopped. There is definitely evidence that CO2 levels are rising, but they are still only 0.04% of the atmosphere.

There is evidence of an increase in the numbers of polar bears, is this related?

There is a massive amount of evidence of lying and tampering with data, manipulation and massaging of figures.

Light reading:

Ocean acidification does NOT impair the behaviour of coral reef fish.

https://www.thegwpf.com/peter-ridd-scientific-misconduct-at-james-cook-university-confirms-my-worst-fears/">//https://www.thegwpf.com/peter-ridd-scientific-misconduct-at-james-cook-university-confirms-my-worst-fears/

(James Cook University falsified the original studies)



Glacier National Park to replace signs saying glaciers will be gone by 2020:   ::

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jan/8/glacier-national-park-to-replace-signs-saying-glac">//https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jan/8/glacier-national-park-to-replace-signs-saying-glac

Because it was a lie.



Remember the Cambridge emails scandal?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy">//https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy



David Attenborough lies about Polar Bears

https://www.thegwpf.org/david-attenborough-accused-of-misleading-public-about-polar-bears-again/">//https://www.thegwpf.org/david-attenborough-accused-of-misleading-public-about-polar-bears-again/



Lies about walruses

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/15/our-planet-film-crew-is-still-lying-about-walrus-cliff-deaths-heres-how-we-know/">//https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/15/our-planet-film-crew-is-still-lying-about-walrus-cliff-deaths-heres-how-we-know/



What I do believe is that there are many factors affecting the weather and climate on the earth. Mankind does have an effect.

However the Sun has the greatest effect as it is not a constant source of power, it varies with an 11 year cycle. There have also been some deeper lows in output. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum">Maunder minimum

There are also volcanic events which cause climate change.

https://scied.ucar.edu/shortcontent/how-volcanoes-influence-climate">//https://scied.ucar.edu/shortcontent/how-volcanoes-influence-climate



97% of scientists believe the earth is warming.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/">//https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Even though it has stopped:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/02/06/the-planet-is-no-longer-warming/">//https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/02/06/the-planet-is-no-longer-warming/



Well done if you could be bothered reading all that!

I have to agree that Global Warming and Environmental Issues have become excuses for money making scams and tax raising schemes by governments and official bodies. This has damaged the understanding of concerns held by genuinely worried scientists and climatologists.

I don't claim to know the truth, but I am interested in science and technology and regularly read (though not fully understand) New Scientist and, occasionally, Nature and Scientific American. From the articles I see by acknowledged scientists and reports by experienced science writers, I believe it is likely that the explosion in human population and its activities across the planet has affected the climate.

I must also admit that I place more credibility in the evidence formed from many years of observation and brought forward by David Attenborough, than by a committee set up by Nigel Lawson to promulgate his own ideas.

But in the end, getting the balance of actions right and cleaning up our environment and ceasing to destroy the habitat of other plants and creatures, seems like a good idea...

[Nick]

The trouble is Nick, that your proof isn't science, and when you actually see some, you scream your head off and say it's for 6-year-olds. I would have thought that 6year-olds would be at the level of stained glass windows and pictures of Romans drinking wine.



Anyhow the so-called science of global warming is scientific in one way but not another. A hypothesis has been put forward that we can not test. Since we can't test it we can't use the scientific method, so strictly speaking it is not science. However, in another way it is, because it uses science. It's like doing half the scientific method and then simply having to wait and see what happens, so it will only stand a chance of being scientific after the event. We can measure the warming and then check our model's consistency, and if it is good it is then denoted as a scientific theory. It's like Peter Higgs and his hypothesis regarding a boson. It was a theory for 50 years, but it only became a scientific fact once it had been tested enough to be pretty certain.



So there you go. Just so you don't burst any more blood vessels, people can explain the rationale behind the theory, but it is impossible at this stage to give scientific proof. We just don't have a spare earth to test it on and nor have we had the time to test it. We see some random temperature plots and I accept from this alone it is pretty unconvincing. As you say, we could just be going through a warm period. The way the BBC offer proof is rather abysmal. They count the hottest days and so forth. I agree it makes the theory more probable, but it is not to scientific standards. The model is a more convincing argument in my opinion. It's not obviously wrong, and is probably barking up the right tree.

Learn to read, no one said it was 6 year olds science.

[Baron von Lotsov]

The trouble is Nick, that your proof isn't science, and when you actually see some, you scream your head off and say it's for 6-year-olds. I would have thought that 6year-olds would be at the level of stained glass windows and pictures of Romans drinking wine.



Anyhow the so-called science of global warming is scientific in one way but not another. A hypothesis has been put forward that we can not test. Since we can't test it we can't use the scientific method, so strictly speaking it is not science. However, in another way it is, because it uses science. It's like doing half the scientific method and then simply having to wait and see what happens, so it will only stand a chance of being scientific after the event. We can measure the warming and then check our model's consistency, and if it is good it is then denoted as a scientific theory. It's like Peter Higgs and his hypothesis regarding a boson. It was a theory for 50 years, but it only became a scientific fact once it had been tested enough to be pretty certain.



So there you go. Just so you don't burst any more blood vessels, people can explain the rationale behind the theory, but it is impossible at this stage to give scientific proof. We just don't have a spare earth to test it on and nor have we had the time to test it. We see some random temperature plots and I accept from this alone it is pretty unconvincing. As you say, we could just be going through a warm period. The way the BBC offer proof is rather abysmal. They count the hottest days and so forth. I agree it makes the theory more probable, but it is not to scientific standards. The model is a more convincing argument in my opinion. It's not obviously wrong, and is probably barking up the right tree.

[Nick]

I'll think on that a bit and get back to you once I've grilled my youngest - whose just pissed off to work - about the atmospheric cycle.

The evidence is all a round us John. Stained glasses windows in cathedrals depicting Grapes,  streets in London like Vine Street. They all show evidence that Britain has been much warmer in the past, to the point that Grapes where a common product. Pack ice was none existent but the Polar Bears survived ok. Attenborough has been shown to be lying, with his Polar Bear hunting Beluga Whales video... Those Bears were healthy with full stomach's, it is one of their natural behaviours and it has been going on for ever but he leads you to believe it's a strange occurrence due to Global Warming.



This is the new religion. The vast majority have wised up to the God myth and moved on, the powers that be have lost control of them so they have invented a new control mechanism which is anthropogenic global warming.



Someone show me the science that CO2 is driving clime change, not predictive models but data that shows it, cause I can show the data that proves CO2 is a product of temperature not a driver.

[Baron von Lotsov]

This is interesting



https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2012-11-atmospheric-co2-space-junk.amp">https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/n ... e-junk.amp">https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2012-11-atmospheric-co2-space-junk.amp



Now, it seems that while CO2 acts as an efficient heat trap at the lower atmosphere, in the upper atmosphere where less air pressure allows molecules to separate, it actually works as a coolant, dispersing heat. So there is concern the troposphere above which our satellites orbit is shrinking, and hard vacuum starts lower than it used to.



Which is apparently destabilising to satellites. First I've heard of that, mind. And I've helped out a few up, admittedly 30 years ago...

from the article:

The same properties of CO2 that cause it to trap heat in the troposphere (<15 km) make it an efficient cooler at higher altitudes. The difference is that at high altitudes, the density of CO2 is too thin to recapture the infrared radiation (heat) that it emits. "In the upper atmosphere," explains Emmert, "thermal energy is transferred via collisions from other atmospheric constituents to CO2, which then emits the energy as heat that escapes to outer space."

So no one thought of that before eh?



That just proves my point about why you build prototypes and don't just theorise everything.



It's the joker that catches you out.



Apparently deriving a physical law from a data set is an NP* complex problem. Some British mathematician has proved it.



* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NP_%28complexity%29">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NP_(complexity)

[Borchester]

Speaking of sciene, this might be of interest to any home DIYers on the forum



 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Qt95KUOX_8&feature=emb_logo">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Qt95KU ... e=emb_logo">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Qt95KUOX_8&feature=emb_logo

[Baron von Lotsov]

I know of several carried out by a Dr Ann Eddington and a Professor Nelmes of the Unversity of Wales dept of Zoology, but that was back in 1971 .... I only know because one was a neighbour and the other sparked my interest in Cardiff's Scientific Society ...

I reckon at least the plants will adapt. They are very clever and over successive generations they will optimise for their new climate.



Meanwhile back at the IPCC desk they are expecting each department to hand in their functions on how this or that source or sink is going to change with some set of variables. If it has anything to do with biology it becomes insanely complicated to predict, whereas the simple radiation model is like A level textbook easy. Intuitively I feel that a warmer climate on balance could do more good than harm for life. All life needs energy, so it might stimulate its abundance. They say it would bring about more chaotic weather was well. I really don't know if they can prove it does. We would have to adapt as well. Perhaps if everyone moved a little closer to the poles then we should be just as happy. Use the middle of Africa for power production from solar energy.

[johnofgwent]

hmm, so are there actually studies on this?

I know of several carried out by a Dr Ann Eddington and a Professor Nelmes of the Unversity of Wales dept of Zoology, but that was back in 1971 .... I only know because one was a neighbour and the other sparked my interest in Cardiff's Scientific Society ...