Global Warming
- Thread starter Wayland
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
Really people, all the anger is fairly pointless. Either the world is changing, or it isn't. None of us know.
Before anyone screams that they do, it had better be because they, personally, have made all the measurements and done the maths, otherwise, its just faith in someone elses work and the interpretation of the raw data. You don't KNOW that the climate is chaniging, you have chosen to adhere to proofs you have not verified for yourself.
As soon as you acknowledge this to be true, can you not acknowledge that getting all high and mighty just because someone chooses to believe a different set of data (that they have not checked) is pretty silly.
Even if people accept in Global Warming, a set of measurements proves an effect, not a cause. All the interpretation of raw data that guesses that the cause is man made are just that - guess work. I believe a climate system is so complex that direct causal analysis is impossible.
So it boils down to faith, with all the mouth frothing bile that acts of faith engender.
However lets set aside the fact that most of the adherants accept the measurements as being beyond question (even though they have never checked them), and then accept an interpretation of those measurements into a cause that has not and cannot be proved, lets get to the "so what"?
Where is the globally accepted plan to address the problem. If this stuff is so clear, how come that no major nation has accepted these truths or acted upon them in any way that is truly meaningful? Do we really believe that the whole of mankind has a death wish? Or do we believe the scientific community are the worst communicators in history? Because, if this is truly such a cataclysmic event, it must be one or the other!
Red
Before anyone screams that they do, it had better be because they, personally, have made all the measurements and done the maths, otherwise, its just faith in someone elses work and the interpretation of the raw data. You don't KNOW that the climate is chaniging, you have chosen to adhere to proofs you have not verified for yourself.
As soon as you acknowledge this to be true, can you not acknowledge that getting all high and mighty just because someone chooses to believe a different set of data (that they have not checked) is pretty silly.
Even if people accept in Global Warming, a set of measurements proves an effect, not a cause. All the interpretation of raw data that guesses that the cause is man made are just that - guess work. I believe a climate system is so complex that direct causal analysis is impossible.
So it boils down to faith, with all the mouth frothing bile that acts of faith engender.
However lets set aside the fact that most of the adherants accept the measurements as being beyond question (even though they have never checked them), and then accept an interpretation of those measurements into a cause that has not and cannot be proved, lets get to the "so what"?
Where is the globally accepted plan to address the problem. If this stuff is so clear, how come that no major nation has accepted these truths or acted upon them in any way that is truly meaningful? Do we really believe that the whole of mankind has a death wish? Or do we believe the scientific community are the worst communicators in history? Because, if this is truly such a cataclysmic event, it must be one or the other!
Red
I have hi-jacked the following from another forum (US forums can throw so much into a debate) Apologies in advance for the use of bad language.
http://www.survivalistboards.com/showthread.php?t=140150&highlight=Gulf+stream
http://www.survivalistboards.com/showthread.php?t=140150&highlight=Gulf+stream
British Reds last post on page 6 of this thread made the most sense to me, i agree. Just what are we supposed to do,eg live like third world countries oursleves,or let them catch up with us and burn more fossil fuel? and just who do you believe when there are two scientific views on this?, ive said it in previous posts sort of jokingly, but when the Government(especially in this country) start saying this is going to cost x amount,and this is what we are all going to have to do, i imediately smell a (lets make some more cash from the masses) rat.
Um, no, quite a few of us know but we have a dickens of a job getting people to open their minds wide enough to accept the evidence.
What complete poppycock. Do you wonder anyone gets angry in the face of such childish denial of the obvious? Did you even look at the population graph that I linked to? Have you not yourself, in this very thread, used statistics about the human population?
There's no maths to do. It's as plain as the nose on my face. I've been told I have a rather large nose.
1. It isn't true.
2. I'm not sure that anybody is getting high and mighty.
3. None of this is silly, unless you think it's silly to think about the long-term survival of life on this planet.
Well my explanation for that is that it's a democracy, and on the evidence of this poll so far only about 25% of people are persuaded that there's anything to worry about.
I think probably both are true.
What if I said I could destroy a city with five grammes of hydrogen? Would you think I'm crazy? You see, I actually know how to do that.
Have you got a greenhouse? I know you're not as dumb as you're trying to make out.
Ive built a few greenhouses, but never owned one. Ive worked in horticulture but only in maintenance and ground clearance type posts.
You are right. I am far from dumb.
I studied Physics to GCE, but dropped Biology and Chemistry, as I couldnt do all three. I sort of specialise in mechanical things.
Im not interested in getting involved in an argument.
That said, I really do not understand the global warming argument. The comments I have made on here are not a wind up. They are what I believe. I really do not understand why many people believe that global warming exists.
I am open minded and more than a little aware that I am ignorant in this area and am completely prepared to listen to anything you have to say that will explain what you believe and why.
Should my current beliefs prove to be faulty, I will change them to whatever makes more sense to me.
You may have to explain slowly though....
So I can keep up.
I happened to be discussing this with mother tonight, who said she watched a prog on TV, where they heated up a container of CO2 and another of air, with the same amount of heat and proved that the CO2 heated up quicker and held more heat.
Is that right?
Is that right?
woodspirits
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
i think this forums got its own micro climate, and its getting hotter! 'spose being one of the 'uninformed and unwashed' has its benefits, somewhere?
woodspirits
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
Sorry Ged, you don't know, you believe. You see a consensus of minds that you believe have established a truth and you are resistant to people debating or refuting this truth that you have accepted as a matter of faith. You have no idea whether the numbers shown in that graph are accurate. You didn't count the data or assemble the graph, you are merely repeating what you have been told.
A couple of centuries back, the same arguments were applied by the church to shout down evolution as an alternate theory. Received and accepted wisdom was creationism. To challenge this was to hear the calls of "burn the heretic". I hear a lot of similar hysteria when anyone challenges science (the new religion).
At the end of the day, unless someone on this thread is actually a climatologist, it amounts to a bunch of people who are repeating or asserting what they have heard and not what they, personally, have established to be true. To repeat one theory, that you didn't personally study or observe or know to be true is fine. To deny someone the opportunity to do exactly the same with an alternate theory, or to get hot and bothered about it, is plain silly.
Red
A couple of centuries back, the same arguments were applied by the church to shout down evolution as an alternate theory. Received and accepted wisdom was creationism. To challenge this was to hear the calls of "burn the heretic". I hear a lot of similar hysteria when anyone challenges science (the new religion).
At the end of the day, unless someone on this thread is actually a climatologist, it amounts to a bunch of people who are repeating or asserting what they have heard and not what they, personally, have established to be true. To repeat one theory, that you didn't personally study or observe or know to be true is fine. To deny someone the opportunity to do exactly the same with an alternate theory, or to get hot and bothered about it, is plain silly.
Red
woodspirits
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
It exists. Without it, the average temperature on the Earth would be some 30 degrees Celsius lower than it is. You can read about it here, at your own pace.
I asked if you had a greenhouse because you asked why carbon dioxide made things hotter when it doesn't generate any heat. Well, glass doesn't generate any heat either, does it? But when the sun shines, it gets a lot warmer inside a greenhouse than it is outside, doesn't it? That's because the glass causes a greenhouse effect. Gases in the atmosphere do exactly the same thing, and they have been doing all the time they have been there. The thing is now, we're changing the composition of the atmosphere so its greenhouse effect is changing too. It couldn't really be simpler.
No idea. Sorry.
It's such a woolly description of what they did and what they measured that I couldn't really explain it. But a gas has a specific heat, in other words it takes energy to make it hotter. Anything does. We tend to compare things with water. Agriculturally speaking it takes one kilojoule to heat one kilogramme of water through one degree Celsius. For a gas things are a bit different, because a gas will expand when you heat it, if you let it. So for example you can measure the specific heat of a gas at constant volume (the pressure increases as you heat the gas), or at constant pressure (the volume increases), and the two measurements give different answers. See for example the tables here. But none of this has much to do with the greenhouse effect.Sorry again, I have to be in the milking parlour early in the morning so I don't have more time for the forum tonight.
Ged, dont know if this is true of not,but im sure i heard it on a programme about climate change,dont volcano's naturaly cause global warming/and or cooling? or both,eg they release alot(way more than man) of gases? which would cause global warming? and a hell of alot of ash(way more than man) which means they would cause global cooling? point being from my point of view its a natural occurance?
Thank you Ged.
Had a look at the wikipiedia link. lol. I was lost before I got to the end of the title.
I need it dumbed down some more.
I have stood in greenhouses. I know its hotter in them, although I have No Idea why. I can see how the heat can come in through the glass, but can see no reason why it doesnt go straight back out the same way. My guess is that it gets hot because hot air rises and it cant do that if its in a green house, so it gets sort of condensed instead.
How you apply that to some see though gasses that can move around is to me a mystery.
I do understand that water vapour is sort of white, as in clouds and this can reflect light and heat - I think.
I understand that if you heat anything it gets bigger. The coefficient of expansion for cast iron is 0.000019 x the change in temp per degree x the length in inches. I learned that for piston ring gaps and used to use it for the slots in railway lines for the fish plates too.
Thank you for taking the time to start on this. Milking parlours? lol spent a year mucking out calf pens when there wasnt any other work, and used to help in the dairies. My mum worked for the milk marketing board - before those pigging quotas.
If you have time to enlighten me further, I would apreciate it.
Had a look at the wikipiedia link. lol. I was lost before I got to the end of the title.
I need it dumbed down some more.
I have stood in greenhouses. I know its hotter in them, although I have No Idea why. I can see how the heat can come in through the glass, but can see no reason why it doesnt go straight back out the same way. My guess is that it gets hot because hot air rises and it cant do that if its in a green house, so it gets sort of condensed instead.
How you apply that to some see though gasses that can move around is to me a mystery.
I do understand that water vapour is sort of white, as in clouds and this can reflect light and heat - I think.
I understand that if you heat anything it gets bigger. The coefficient of expansion for cast iron is 0.000019 x the change in temp per degree x the length in inches. I learned that for piston ring gaps and used to use it for the slots in railway lines for the fish plates too.
Thank you for taking the time to start on this. Milking parlours? lol spent a year mucking out calf pens when there wasnt any other work, and used to help in the dairies. My mum worked for the milk marketing board - before those pigging quotas.
If you have time to enlighten me further, I would apreciate it.
Global climate change is, of course, a very serious subject.
Everyone agrees with that.
Debate is essential and vital to understanding -
It is the mark of civilisation and intelligence.
Sometimes that debate gets lively and intense.
Alas, this is often the case with contentious topics.
Though what is important is that discourse takes place.
Which is the strongpoint of this thread.
Apologies if my word/s offend.
That was never my intent.
Everyone agrees with that.
Debate is essential and vital to understanding -
It is the mark of civilisation and intelligence.
Sometimes that debate gets lively and intense.
Alas, this is often the case with contentious topics.
Though what is important is that discourse takes place.
Which is the strongpoint of this thread.
Apologies if my word/s offend.
That was never my intent.
