|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Is "climate change" being used to bring in a global Govenment?
|
sanityman
Shipmate
# 11598
|
Posted
I'll try to keep this brief, but as a follow-up to the list of "AGW-denying" scientists: I wanted to find out how many of them had relevant expertise, how many were still working, whether they have any ties or funding to think-tanks or industries that might give them a conflict of interest (putting it politely), and to what extent they actually did deny the reality of AGW. This is not intended to be character assassination, but an assessment of what their views really are and how credible they are.
The "retired" bit needs explanation: there's a semi-humourous saying that academics in later life become an obstacle to progress in their field, in direct proportion to their original contribution. It seems to be true that once retired, without peer review, conferences and colleagues to keep them on the straight and narrow, many academics get bees in their bonnet. I have a lot of respect for Lovelock (who was a lifelong maverick anyway, to be fair) but he's a bit of an example of this - his view have got more extreme as he gets older.
The snark had to go somewhere, so I constrained it to the "personal assessment" field. The rest should be reasonably objective.
Most quotes from their Wikipedia articles.
- Patrick Michaels:
qualification: Professor of Environmental Sciences from the University of Virginia
retired: yes
conflict of interest: Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think-tank which agitates against AGW
Views on AGW: "does not contest the basic scientific principles behind greenhouse warming and acknowledges that global mean temperature has increased in recent decades." Thinks changes will not be catastrophic.
Personal assessment: CATO shill - Patrick Moore (not the sky at night one, for UK readers!):
qualification: Ph.D. in ecology from the University of British Columbia
retired: no
conflict of interest: used to be with Greenpeace, now estranged. Runs a consultancy company focusing on environmental policy. co-chair of a nuclear industry PR group.
Views on AGW: "acknowledges that the increase of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere is caused by human consumption of fossil fuels, he claims that as of 2006, it cannot be proven as the exclusive reason the Earth has been warming since 1980. He stresses that it is scientific evidence, not consensus opinion, that would prove or disprove this relation."
Personal assessment: maverick ecologist, not a climatologist - Nigel Calder:
qualification: popular science writer
retired: from New Scientist yes. Does one ever retire as a writer?
conflict of interest: no
views on AGW: "within 20 years [from 1980] the much-advertised heating of the earth by the man-made carbon-dioxide ‘greenhouse’ [will fail] to occur; instead, there [will be] renewed concern about cooling and an impending ice age."
Personal assessment: journalist, in over his head and profiting nicely from writing books about it - Piers Corbyn:
qualification: "alternative" meteorologist. Not a doctor, AFAIKS
retired: no
conflict of interest: sells forecasts by his secretive "solar weather technique" he claims gives accurate forecasts months in advance. Not widely accepted, and untestable as he won't say how it works. This ties in with his views on AGW.
views on AGW: thinks it's all down to the sun (see above)
Personal assessment: crank - John Christy:
qualification: Ph.D. in Atmospheric Sciences from the University of Illinois. Lead author for the 2001 IPCC report. Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama
retired: no
conflict of interest: no
views on AGW: "It is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way." he supports the [American Geophysical Union] declaration and is convinced that human activities are one cause of the global warming that has been measured. Critic of scientists who predict huge sea rises and other catastrophes.
Personal assessment: respectable scientist, not an AGW denier - Paul Reiter:
qualification: professor of medical entomology at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, France. Member of the World Health Organization Expert Advisory Committee on Vector Biology and Control.
retired: no
conflict of interest: no
views on AGW: not AGW, but disapproves of the IPCC process, after getting into a disagreement with his contribution to the third IPCC report.
personal assessment: sensibly keeping quiet about AGW as he's not a climate scientist - Roy Spencer:
qualification: principal research scientist for the University of Alabama, principally known for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work.
retired: no
conflict of interest: listed as a member of the Heartland Institute and a contributor to the George C. Marshall Institute. Intelligent design proponent.
views on AGW: goes with Lindzen on the hypothesis that cloud feedback is strongly negative rather than neutral to positive. IPCC acknowledge this is a principal uncertainty in current models, but wouldn't go that far. "Climate change optimist."
Personal assessment: respectable but right-wing, with some oddball views - Nir Shaviv:
qualification: associate professor at the Racah Institute of Physics of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (astrophysics and climate science)
retired: no
conflict of interest: no
views on AGW: cosmic rays and the sun.
personal assessment: eminent astrophysicist goes off-piste - Timothy F. Ball:
qualification: ex-professor of Geography, University of Winnipeg (NB: not climatology as Durkin claimed)
retired: yes
conflict of interest: heads the Natural Resources Stewardship Project and is on the Scientific Advisory Board of Friends of Science (both anti-AGW pressure groups)
views on AGW: internet-style denier
Personal assessment: PR liar.
Conclusion: of this list, Roy Spenser and Nir Shaviv are actual scientists in related fields who substantially disagree with AGW. The rest aren't qualified, are compromised by their interests or don't actually disagree substantially with the consensus.
--------------------
Prophesy to the wind, to the wind only for only the wind will listen - TS Eliot
Posts: 1453 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
aggg
Shipmate
# 13727
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
About half goes into the oceans where firstly it becomes, as on land, the essential food for the marine life food chain, photosynthesis for plankton and so on.
Secondly, Carbon Dioxide is released in tropical warm waters where it enters to feed plant life. Normal atmospheric conditions then also taking this and spreading it around, winds and so on.
Myrrh
Hurrah, much of this is essentially true. But funnily enough, irrelevant. And has nothing to do with the weight of carbon dioxide.
--------------------
Myrrh: please, in future refrain from replying to anything I might write
Posts: 567 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
aggg
Shipmate
# 13727
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
IT DOESN'T HAVE A BLANKET EFFECT. THIS IS THE BIG FIB HERE.
It is heavier than air. What does it take to get this concept through to y'all here? Something heavier than air will alway, all things being equal, come down to earth.
Only if all other things are equal. But they're not equal. Get with it - there are other forces at bay which means that the gases in air do not just separate into fractions.
The blanket effect is just that when the percentage of CO2 in the air goes above a particular percentage, slightly less heat is released back into the atmosphere than would otherwise be. How is a 'blanket' not a reasonable way to explain this phenomena?
quote:
And quite frankly Alan, with a coefficient of less than one how can you say it even has the capacity to be a 'greenhouse gas'? It is a trace gas, unless it is directly taking in IR in its minute range it is unaffected by it and with this coefficient it gives it away practically instantly.
Well y'know. You only need 1 part per billion of a dioxine to cause cancer. Absolute concentrations are largely irrelevant in these things. You can't tell anything in particular just by saying there is less than 1% of it in the atmosphere.
quote:
And it's heavier than air. How does it stay in the atmosphere to be this imaginary blanket?
How??
Myrrh
Well, turn it around, how can it be falling to earth and yet not poisoning anyone?
How??
[bollocks.]
[ 15. December 2009, 21:27: Message edited by: aggg ]
--------------------
Myrrh: please, in future refrain from replying to anything I might write
Posts: 567 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
Would you care to provide a reference for any (or all) of that?
There will be lots on the web about the carbon life cycle. Bear in mind that even the best of them will be looking to their bread and butter and will likely say something about it being a 'greenhouse gas'...
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
aggg
Shipmate
# 13727
|
Posted
quote:
There will be lots on the web about the carbon life cycle. Bear in mind that even the best of them will be looking to their bread and butter and will likely say something about it being a 'greenhouse gas'...
Myrrh
No c'mon, give a reference that says CO2 being heavier than the rest of the air falls to the ground.
--------------------
Myrrh: please, in future refrain from replying to anything I might write
Posts: 567 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aggg:
quote:
And it's heavier than air. How does it stay in the atmosphere to be this imaginary blanket?
How??
Myrrh
Well, turn it around, how can it be falling to earth and yet not poisoning anyone?
How??
[bollocks.]
? Do this simple experiment, read the following then go outside, if you're in a plane or car just look out of the window,
Carbon Dioxide is a trace gas. When you look outside at all the air around you, Carbon dioxide will not be the 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 99%, you're looking at. Not even half a percent, it's practically non existent, which is why, in classical physics, it is called a "trace gas".
It is only 0.035% of the air around you. Don't choke on it...
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aggg:
quote:
There will be lots on the web about the carbon life cycle. Bear in mind that even the best of them will be looking to their bread and butter and will likely say something about it being a 'greenhouse gas'...
Myrrh
No c'mon, give a reference that says CO2 being heavier than the rest of the air falls to the ground.
Do you understand what heavier than air means? Look it up, Carbon Dioxide is 1.5 times, one and a half times, that is, substantially, heavier than air.
I've already posted links to this, but I suggest you try and find it yourself.
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
aggg
Shipmate
# 13727
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
? Do this simple experiment, read the following then go outside, if you're in a plane or car just look out of the window,
Carbon Dioxide is a trace gas. When you look outside at all the air around you, Carbon dioxide will not be the 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 99%, you're looking at. Not even half a percent, it's practically non existent, which is why, in classical physics, it is called a "trace gas".
It is only 0.035% of the air around you. Don't choke on it...
Myrrh
I'm not sure you have your decimal places right, but anyway - it is irrelevant. I R R E L E V A N T.
Absolute percentages are not any kind of indication of anything. You need to come into contact with less than 0.000001% of a dioxine to give you cancer. Small amounts of things do not necessarily mean they are safe or have no effect.
--------------------
Myrrh: please, in future refrain from replying to anything I might write
Posts: 567 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
Carbon Dioxide is the main food, the one essential main food, of ALL life on earth. This is getting to be really silly.
You see Alan? There's people who think it is a poison!
You're all quite insane from this scam. Come back to reality.
For all our sakes.
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
aggg
Shipmate
# 13727
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Carbon Dioxide is the main food, the one essential main food, of ALL life on earth. This is getting to be really silly.
You see Alan? There's people who think it is a poison!
You're all quite insane from this scam. Come back to reality.
For all our sakes.
Myrrh
In higher concentrations is toxic: http://www.inspectapedia.com/hazmat/CO2gashaz.htm
Next irrelevant point?
--------------------
Myrrh: please, in future refrain from replying to anything I might write
Posts: 567 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Carbon Dioxide is a trace gas. [...] Not even half a percent, it's practically non existent [...]
It is only 0.035% of the air around you.
Exactly! That's why CO2 has almost no impact on plant life, and they'd thrive quite nice without it.
Oh wait. The argument doesn't work that way round, does it?
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imaginary Friend
Real to you
# 186
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aggg:
No c'mon, give a reference that says CO2 being heavier than the rest of the air falls to the ground.
To be fair, I was asking for a reference about the uptake of carbon dioxide by the sea, and so on. It seems that this is at least plausible, although I reserve judgment until I see some numbers. That Myrrh can't be bothered to provide a link herself doesn't bode well though.
--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough
Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IntellectByProxy
Larger than you think
# 3185
|
Posted
As I think it's high time we had an intermission I thought I'd tell you a little story.
My dad has a PhD. Not in climate science (disappointlingly for the purposes of exciting narrative, but there you go), but in one tiny, tiny aspect of clinical psychological therapy.
My dad is a renowned expert in his field. His PhD took him six years to complete; just over a year of that was spent on his literature review - one year spent summing up the state of current research into one teeny tiny corner of an esoteric area of a side branch of a small field of clinical science.
Myrhh - please tell me why, in the name of all that is good and right with the world, we should pay any attention whatsoever to the irrational ravings of a person whose opinion flies in the face of overwhelming research; who willfully ignores perfectly legible answers to her questions and refutations of her assertions; and whose entire research on the subject was completed in a week?
As a side note, are you wearing a tinfoil hat right now, just in case? Please tell me you are.
--------------------
www.zambiadiaries.blogspot.com
Posts: 3482 | From: The opposite | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
Look it up yourself. It was a throwaway figure and a distraction to the question I want answered from AGW's.
So tell me, AGW, how does Carbon Dioxide which is one and half times heavier than air stay up in the atomosphere accumulating to form a blanket?
If you can't answer that then quit promoting the junk science that teaches it.
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Look it up yourself. It was a throwaway figure and a distraction to the question I want answered from AGW's.
So tell me, AGW, how does Carbon Dioxide which is one and half times heavier than air stay up in the atomosphere accumulating to form a blanket?
If you can't answer that then quit promoting the junk science that teaches it.
It's already been answered multiple times. But you ignored the answer each time, reverting back to "it's heavier than air so it must sink" over and over.
In these circumstances why would anybody bother answering that (again)?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IntellectByProxy
Larger than you think
# 3185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
So tell me, AGW, how does Carbon Dioxide which is one and half times heavier than air stay up in the atomosphere accumulating to form a blanket?
You have been told. Repeatedly. Ad nauseam.
The same way that nitrogen, argon, oxygen etc all stay up "in the air". Because of convection currents, driven by the rotation of the earth (mainly) causing a heat differential as different areas spin into relative view of the sun.
And as you have been told, repeatedly, ad nauseam, the CO2 does not form a 'blanket' (in the sense that you mean is, that is a floating layer): it increases the CO2 concentration of the air generally, thus increasing the ability of the atmosphere, generally, to trap heat.
Tell me: do you believe kites are all on the ground, all the time, or do you believe rather that they can be held aloft indefinitely by the wind (also known as "convection currents" by those in the know)?
--------------------
www.zambiadiaries.blogspot.com
Posts: 3482 | From: The opposite | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IntellectByProxy
Larger than you think
# 3185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
In these circumstances why would anybody bother answering that (again)?
Because I am an insomniac, there's nothing good on TV, I have finished this week's New Scientist, and MrsByProxy is 'too tired dear'.
In that order.
--------------------
www.zambiadiaries.blogspot.com
Posts: 3482 | From: The opposite | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Carbon Dioxide is a trace gas. [...] Not even half a percent, it's practically non existent [...]
It is only 0.035% of the air around you.
Exactly! That's why CO2 has almost no impact on plant life, and they'd thrive quite nice without it.
Oh wait. The argument doesn't work that way round, does it?
Exactly, that's why higher concentrations of CO2 make for better plant growth, healthier, more robust (requiring less water) and increasing yields. There's a study somewhere showing increased yields for wheat in the US, and greenhouse culture pumps up to 1000 ppm to feed the plants. But, then, aren't we lucky that CO2 isn't "thoroughly mixed" in the atmosphere as AGW claims, but being heavier than air will make its way down to where plant life actually exists, where it is needed?
If it stays up in the atmosphere the plants would die.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
Myrrh
quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
As I think it's high time we had an intermission I thought I'd tell you a little story.
My dad has a PhD. Not in climate science (disappointlingly for the purposes of exciting narrative, but there you go), but in one tiny, tiny aspect of clinical psychological therapy.
My dad is a renowned expert in his field. His PhD took him six years to complete; just over a year of that was spent on his literature review - one year spent summing up the state of current research into one teeny tiny corner of an esoteric area of a side branch of a small field of clinical science.
Myrhh - please tell me why, in the name of all that is good and right with the world, we should pay any attention whatsoever to the irrational ravings of a person whose opinion flies in the face of overwhelming research; who willfully ignores perfectly legible answers to her questions and refutations of her assertions; and whose entire research on the subject was completed in a week?
As a side note, are you wearing a tinfoil hat right now, just in case? Please tell me you are.
Stop being so pathetic. Someone more intelligent than I would have worked out that it was junk science in an hour or two.
AGW breaks the laws of physics.
So you tell me, or ask your dad, how can so many people be made to believe a hypothesis immediately falsified by the laws of thermodynamics and by the physical properties of CO2 in such a, relatively, short time? Since this has got into the teaching system, from primary to university level it has taken, say around a generation.
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
sanityman
Shipmate
# 11598
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
If it stays up in the atmosphere the plants would die.
Someone tell me this is a joke, please.
- Chris.
--------------------
Prophesy to the wind, to the wind only for only the wind will listen - TS Eliot
Posts: 1453 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim
Ubi caritas et amor
# 256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
In these circumstances why would anybody bother answering that (again)?
Because I am an insomniac, there's nothing good on TV, I have finished this week's New Scientist, and MrsByProxy is 'too tired dear'.
In that order.
Those are second order reasons IbP - this is the real reason.
Hydrogen is lighter than any other component of air - so it should be on top, right? I have a horrid vision of an atmosphere that looks like a gaseous layer cake of phyllo pastry,ordered by molecular weight.
Air is a mixture of gases, particulates, water vapour etc. Anything that is too heavy to be kept aloft by convection currents or powered flight will fall eg rain droplets, hail, objects falling from the sky.
[ 16. December 2009, 01:01: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
--------------------
Embrace the serious whack. It's the Catholic thing to do. IngoB
The Messiah, Peace be upon him, said to his Apostles: 'Verily, this world is merely a bridge, so cross over it, and do not make it your abode.' (Bihar al-anwar xiv, 319)
Posts: 7952 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
Well, Myrrh, one of those is starting to look a tiny bit like the person cares. He actually has references! Of course he think he has made a point which would take several volumes to do justice in only 12 pages. Of course, I'd had as many references for a 3 page paper too.....
The rest are not even worth a glance. Got anything better?
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Hiro's Leap
you must have had a word of knowledge; praise be to the Lawd' Lawdy Lawd....
Are you saying I'm right, or that I'm wrong and presumptuous? Your repeated self-description of "Luddite" does seem like a defensive reaction.
My main point is simply this: I'm not sure you can often persuade people by attacking them or by savaging their ideas. Science might work that way, but real life doesn't, as the UK's Question Time with Nick Griffin demonstrated clearly.
quote:
I am after all a young earth creationist; so I wear sackcloth underpants
Which is again using self-depreciation to deflect criticism. I'm not knocking that btw - I do it a lot in real life.
quote:
the youtube clip however I maintain did have some 'big hitters' who should be taken seriously so I'd dispute the crank label some have thrown around here when talking about scholars like professor Richard Lindzen
Absolutely. There are definitely non-crank sceptics around. However, this still leaves you with a major question.
Let's grant there are some climate expert who are sceptics. There are also a much larger group of experts who aren't sceptics. Since you or I are in no position to assess the science for ourselves, why trust the former so much more than the latter?
Hiros Leap
what I am saying is simply that as a non scientist I am concerned that the whole bandwagon of GW/CC has become a massive structure which has imported the ranks of the n'er do wells, earth worshippers, sandal wearers and general malcontents who wish to change legislation and peoples lifestyles on the basis of unproven science.
Yes, we can all use self depreceating humour; it is a British trait have you not noticed? The expert in their field right through to the office cleaner all use it and it is an endearing eccentricity/trait; probably other nationalities use the device too.
What I am sure of though is whilst the scientists on both sides of the argument posture and write papers on this that and the other, we must be careful in society generally not to jump on this over hyped bandwagon - we'll all be required to bow down to the great mother earth soon and limit families to one child and listen to tribal music as Prince Charles' speeches are piped through the ether...I jest) ......................
.............so to return to the question originally posed yes there is a move to a ''new world order''. I don't see it in quite the step by step sequence some do but that is the general trend and global government? Well, who knows.
As a Bible believing Christian the Bible is full of difficult oft controversial chapters but our Lord did speak of 'the end times' as did Paul and the prophets. I believe things on earth won't get neccessarily better as mans efforts to improve out of God's grace and the Spirit's indwelling will ultimatley come to naught and then there are the 'last days'....
Saul
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
aggg
Shipmate
# 13727
|
Posted
I couldn't sleep and was sadly spending time trying to work out what Myrrh might be talking about.
Is it possible that she is referring to the large pools of carbon in the sea, soil, trees etc - and therefore postulating that any increase of carbon in the upper atmosphere would be absorbed by one of these large sinks? This would fit her assertion that the CO2 doesn't 'stay' in the atmosphere but is part of a wider cycle. Of course, it also doesn't take account of any equilibrium between the pools.
If so, she'd have neatly confused everyone by talking about the weight of carbon dioxide.
Clearly she doesn't mean that the CO2 from the whole depth of the atmosphere falls, otherwise we'd all be living in a few meters of the pure gas.
--------------------
Myrrh: please, in future refrain from replying to anything I might write
Posts: 567 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
what I am saying is simply that as a non scientist I am concerned that the whole bandwagon of GW/CC has become a massive structure which has imported the ranks of the n'er do wells, earth worshippers, sandal wearers and general malcontents who wish to change legislation and peoples lifestyles on the basis of unproven science.
An observation or two.
First, you seem to be mixing up two different issues - validity of the science, and use of it. That's how it sounds to me at least.
Second - If you are speaking of the earth worshiping sandal wearing people entering into the field and being shoddy with the science to push through a social agenda, then my experience so far shows this as a baseless concern.
I attend a small state college in the US with a very strong brigade of these types. Lots of happy hippy time, let's save the earth, etc. Many (most?) of them enroll into the biology or environmental science program here.
The kicker though - almost every one of them fails out of said program, or drops out of college entirely. This isn't a rigorous program by any means either - I simply haven't seen any who are able to combine the urges they have with any modicum of analytical thought and willingness to work. I don't see a single one in the past few years with a chance of completing a PhD in their future.
So, I'm just not sure that's much of a problem. The happy hippy lifestyle doesn't mix well with serious physics, math, and other science fields.
The rest of it is certainly uncontrollable. People will jump on any bandwagon. We see it with AGW, we see it with desire to go to war, kill the commies, etc, etc, etc.... I think it's simply a part of human nature that we can't change.
As far as the eschatology part - I don't dabble in that anymore since I've given up Christianity, but I don't see things generally getting better either (I'm just a pessimist/realist like that I guess). I see agw recognition as a way to possibly slow down the decline though. Don't do things for your children,but for your grandchildrens grandchildren kind of stuff.
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
IntellectByProxy
Larger than you think
# 3185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
So tell me, AGW, how does Carbon Dioxide which is one and half times heavier than air stay up in the atomosphere accumulating to form a blanket?
You have been told. Repeatedly. Ad nauseam.
The same way that nitrogen, argon, oxygen etc all stay up "in the air". Because of convection currents, driven by the rotation of the earth (mainly) causing a heat differential as different areas spin into relative view of the sun.
And as you have been told, repeatedly, ad nauseam, the CO2 does not form a 'blanket' (in the sense that you mean is, that is a floating layer): it increases the CO2 concentration of the air generally, thus increasing the ability of the atmosphere, generally, to trap heat.
Tell me: do you believe kites are all on the ground, all the time, or do you believe rather that they can be held aloft indefinitely by the wind (also known as "convection currents" by those in the know)?
Myrhh seems to have accidentally scrolled past this excellent post of mine, so I thought I'd narcissistically quote myself for her benefit.
--------------------
www.zambiadiaries.blogspot.com
Posts: 3482 | From: The opposite | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
sanityman
Shipmate
# 11598
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
RATE OF INCREASING CONCENTRATIONS OF ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE CONTROLLED BY NATURAL TEMPERATURE VARIATIONSFred Goldberg, Dr Tech
This seems to be a "lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere is really short" argument. Myrrh might not have seen my earlier response to Inger, where I quoted This rather good article giving reasons why that's not true. In brief: carbon exchange in the biosphere is not the same as removal of carbon dioxide by either dissolution in the oceans or geological sedimentation.
Also, and I'm afraid I have to share this: quote:
According to his bio on the website for the Green Valley 260 Club (a senior men's club in Arizona), Fred Goldberg received a "doctors degree" in welding technology specializing in thermal cutting in 1975. In 2004, Goldberg "started to get interested in the climate debate and greenhouse effect."
Goldberg is currently listed widely as an Adjunct Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden. However, correspondence with the Royal Institute of Technology indicated that Goldberg is "not currently employed" there.
As I was trying to make clear earlier, all appeals to authority are not the same.
In case anyone was wondering, people measure CO2 concentration in the upper atmosphere - this being science and all, which likes measuring things - and find that it does get up there after all, despite being heavier than air.
- Chris.
--------------------
Prophesy to the wind, to the wind only for only the wind will listen - TS Eliot
Posts: 1453 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
sanityman
I admire your perseverance.
Please forgive me if I've missed the argument earlier in the thread, but I've been pondering over our earlier exchanges re Stefan-Boltzman and wanted to ask a question.
If one scrolls through the link, the essential info worth discussing in this context is that the mean surface temperature of the earth, at 288 degrees K, is some 33 degrees higher than one would expect as a result of the black body radiation calculation, as modified by taking into account the earth's albedo. This is a more than 10% difference and is clearly significant for life on earth.
My question is a modest one, and may show a fair measure of ignorance. I understand the argument that atmospheres ameliorate radiation and there are good explanations about how this happens. But I'm not sure to what extent the fact that the earth has a hot core comes into play, if at all, in explaining that 10% + difference.
What is clear is that as we drill below the surface, the temperature rises compared with the surface - and the deeper we go, the hotter it gets. And of course there are breakthrough places (volcanoes, geysers, etc) where hot material is released to the surface.
On the face of it, I'd reckon that the shielding effect of the solid rock would mean that the hot core would have a minimal effect on mean surface temperature. But I just wondered if anyone had produced a study of this issue.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
the whole bandwagon of GW/CC [...] n'er do wells, earth worshippers, sandal wearers and general malcontents [...] unproven science [...] this over hyped bandwagon - we'll all be required to bow down to the great mother earth soon and limit families to one child and listen to tribal music as Prince Charles' speeches are piped through the ether...I jest
I'm not sure to what extent you do jest Saul. You've repeatedly referred to climate change as a new religion.
Also, you've not really answered my question: why listen to some scientists and not others, when you and I aren't equipped to assess the science ourselves?
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
On the face of it, I'd reckon that the shielding effect of the solid rock would mean that the hot core would have a minimal effect on mean surface temperature. But I just wondered if anyone had produced a study of this issue.
I can't give you a reference but I've certainly heard the issue discussed before. The heat flux from the Earth's core is apparently pretty negligible - miles of solid rock are an effective insulator.
I've never heard any serious skeptic pushing this line, although occasionally someone mentions it in blog comments.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clint Boggis
Shipmate
# 633
|
Posted
Here's a link to the hot Earth core question.
quote:
If the inner heat were really the dominant factor, then surely the day-night cycle would not be what it is, nor would you expect such variation in climates over seasons and latitudes. How can the south pole be covered with thousands of meters of ice with all this heat supposedly bubbling up from the surface?
That pretty much nails that one!
.
Posts: 1505 | From: south coast | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IntellectByProxy
Larger than you think
# 3185
|
Posted
It's not just the miles of solid rock that are an insulator - the huge internal cavity also acts like the void in double glazing to keep the heat in.
Apparently you can get inside through some secret tunnels in antarctica where the crust is thinner.
--------------------
www.zambiadiaries.blogspot.com
Posts: 3482 | From: The opposite | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
the huge internal cavity also acts like the void in double glazing to keep the heat in.
Good point. The radiative forcing from the dinosaur methane belches tends to mitigate this though.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Thanks guys. My question came from some internal reflection, but it was in part provoked by a recent comment (IRL) from a sceptic. Looks like I gave him a reasonable answer (without really knowing what I was talking about) - and I'll remember the ice-caps!
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IntellectByProxy
Larger than you think
# 3185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
the huge internal cavity also acts like the void in double glazing to keep the heat in.
Good point. The radiative forcing from the dinosaur methane belches tends to mitigate this though.
Really? I thought the methanogenic bacteria, in the sealed system aboard the ark with the dinosaurs, would have mitigated any volumatic effects of methane production by converting it at source into lighter-than-air hydroxyl groups which would have dispersed through the bulwarks.
Shows what I know.
--------------------
www.zambiadiaries.blogspot.com
Posts: 3482 | From: The opposite | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IntellectByProxy
Larger than you think
# 3185
|
Posted
On a serious note, didn't Lord Kelvin calculate the age of the earth eroneously in the 1800s by assuming it was a freely-cooling sphere of molten rock?
At the time the beneficial 'greenhouse effect', by which CO2 in the atmosphere keeps us at a comfortable temperature, and the heating of the earth's core by nuclear decay, were unknown.
--------------------
www.zambiadiaries.blogspot.com
Posts: 3482 | From: The opposite | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
the whole bandwagon of GW/CC [...] n'er do wells, earth worshippers, sandal wearers and general malcontents [...] unproven science [...] this over hyped bandwagon - we'll all be required to bow down to the great mother earth soon and limit families to one child and listen to tribal music as Prince Charles' speeches are piped through the ether...I jest
I'm not sure to what extent you do jest Saul. You've repeatedly referred to climate change as a new religion.
Also, you've not really answered my question: why listen to some scientists and not others, when you and I aren't equipped to assess the science ourselves?
Hiro's leap...
I jested about listening to Prince Charles' speech with a background of south american tribal music; I find that funny, or do I have aweird self deprecating...sense of humour.
I have said that i will try and see the other side here. I am not as I've said several times not a scientist. However, yes, climate change, is I am not joking now, concerning me, because within its ranks are the ''believers'', the enlightened ones and we can pay our pennances (like they did in Luther's day) to the ''great god' of carbon dissapearance....but hang on CO2 is naturally occuring has been since creation, so whats all the fuss? Why go wear sackcloth shirts and get ourselves scared sh**less by the media? So yes, I am concerned about this bandwagon and all the sh** in Copenhagen; whats all that about? Save the planet, well it all strikes me as odd and ''new religion'' or ressurected religion ie. mother earth/pantheistic comes to mind...may be wrong and all that but thats what I 'feel', my gut feeling so to speak...I'm off to hug a tree...I take size 10 sandals please....
Saul the deprecating ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alwyn
Shipmate
# 4380
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
... hang on CO2 is naturally occuring has been since creation, so whats all the fuss?
Because too much of a good thing can kill you. Because, although you're right that we have been producing CO2 for millenia, we haven't always had an indutrial civilisation releasing staggering amounts (*) of CO2 into the atmosphere, beyond the capacity of the environment to maintain equilibrium.
But you knew that already, right? So what's your real point? If it's about 'climate science as religion,' what's your response to the argument that some climate scepticism meets the definition of religion (in a bad way) much better?
(*) you can click on the diagram to enlarge it
--------------------
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Posts: 849 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
IntellectByProxy
Larger than you think
# 3185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
CO2 is naturally occuring has been since creation, so whats all the fuss?
Because the earth has a natural cycle by which carbon is sequestered in carbonate rocks, in deep-sea hydrates, and in fossil fuels like oil.
Over many millions of years, the earth's climate varies in a feedback loop: more C02 in the atmosphere means less heat is radiated into space, which means the atmosphere heats up, which means that ice melts, which means that seas warm, which means that hydrates burp methane into the atmosphere, which means that less heat escapes into space...etc...etc...etc.
That is recorded in the geological record and is a matter of fact - the earth has natural cycles on the scale of tens-of-thousands to millions of years.
For the last couple of million or so years the earth has been relatively stable in its atmospheric CO2 concentration, and so temperatures have been similarly stable. That too is recorded in the geological record, and is a matter of fact.
What is different about the particular 'cycle' occuring now is that we have taken 200 million years of sequestered carbon out of the ground and, within 100 years, farted it into the atmosphere through vehicle exhausts and smoke stacks.
In a nutshell, we have taken all the carbon that natural cycles carefully buried and we've released it into the wild. If you look at the release from the point of view of geological timescales, it looks like one almighty, worldwide, scary-as-hell, explosion of carbon into the atmosphere.
Naturally the earth is reeling a bit, temperatures are going up significantly faster than ever recorded before in the geological record, and we are in a bit of a pickle.
The last time we had a warming event on anything like this scale it wiped out around 80% of life on earth (someone with more knowledge might correct me, but I think it was the permian/triassic extinction event but I might be wrong). Current theory is that it was caused when a gradually-warming ocean took the earth over a tipping point caused by the release of methane hydrates. The temperature graph of the time looks like a hockey stick.
--------------------
www.zambiadiaries.blogspot.com
Posts: 3482 | From: The opposite | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
That is recorded in the geological record and is a matter of fact - the earth has natural cycles on the scale of tens-of-thousands to millions of years.
Since Saul is a Young Earth Creationist, presumably he rejects the geological record entirely. This makes dialogue tricky.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
Saul - I wanted to post a reply to your earlier post and will get round to it later.
For the moment one question. You keep going on about the science not being proven. I just want to know you mean by that. How much science has to be lined up with the idea that business as usual will probably have massive negative implications for our grandchildren, before you think it is worth us doing something.
The fact that you are a Yeccie makes me wonder whether any amount of science would ever persuade you. Can you give me an example of any area where you think the science is proven?
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr Clingford
Shipmate
# 7961
|
Posted
Saul
How old do you think the Earth is? I ask because I wonder how your YEC view fits with the science of climate change. How does YEC fit with climate change?
[ 16. December 2009, 12:33: Message edited by: Mr Clingford ]
--------------------
Ne'er cast a clout till May be out.
If only.
Posts: 1660 | From: A Fleeting moment | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
So tell me, AGW, how does Carbon Dioxide which is one and half times heavier than air stay up in the atomosphere accumulating to form a blanket?
You have been told. Repeatedly. Ad nauseam.
The same way that nitrogen, argon, oxygen etc all stay up "in the air". Because of convection currents, driven by the rotation of the earth (mainly) causing a heat differential as different areas spin into relative view of the sun.
And as you have been told, repeatedly, ad nauseam, the CO2 does not form a 'blanket' (in the sense that you mean is, that is a floating layer): it increases the CO2 concentration of the air generally, thus increasing the ability of the atmosphere, generally, to trap heat.
Tell me: do you believe kites are all on the ground, all the time, or do you believe rather that they can be held aloft indefinitely by the wind (also known as "convection currents" by those in the know)?
Myrhh seems to have accidentally scrolled past this excellent post of mine, so I thought I'd narcissistically quote myself for her benefit.
In which case, I'll quote you as well. And, tell you you're wrong. Forget convection, what you're looking for is diffusion. In the absence of any convective influence, in totally still air, a release of CO2 (or, any other gas) would still diffuse through the entire atmosphere reaching uniform concentrations everywhere. Convection simply accelerates the process.
And as anyone who knows the Second Law of Thermodynamics would know, diffusion is effectively irreversible - molecules in a gas don't spontaneously form little bubbles of the same chemical which would float or sink according to the density of the bubble cf the surrounding gas. You can try experiments at home to prove it. The easiest would be with water and food colouring; take a large glass with a lot of water in it and a smaller glass (such as a shot glass) with water and a good dollop of food colouring. Carefully lower the shot glass into the large glass (careful, you don't want to create too much convection), and watch the food colouring slowly diffuse through the large glass. Notice that no matter how long you wait, the relatively large colouring molecules do not concentrate at the bottom of the glass. If you wanted to do the same with CO2 and air you'd need equipment to measure the concentrations of gas at different locations in the glass (and you'll need a bottle rather than open glass, of course) which makes it much more complex an experiment. The physics of the food colouring is the same though.
The only way such bubbles of CO2 could form and sink to the ground would be in the presence of some nucleating particle around which the CO2 could form largely excluding other air molecules. There is one such nucleating particle in the atmosphere - water droplets, but they dissolve CO2 rather than form CO2 bubbles. Which, still removes small amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere. Just not in the mechanism that is implied by what Myrrh has posted.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
Can. Open. Worms. Everywhere.
Yep. There are a substantial proportion of the population who will never be convinced, no matter how strong the science is. Fortunately you only need to convince the majority of people about AGW, not everyone.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And as anyone who knows the Second Law of Thermodynamics would know, diffusion is effectively irreversible
The idea that heavy gases sink if left undisturbed seems to be quite prevalent though, e.g. here.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
ALWYN SAID: quote:
But you knew that already, right? So what's your real point? If it's about 'climate science as religion,' what's your response to the argument that some climate scepticism meets the definition of religion (in a bad way) much better?
Alwyn,
You have a very fair point there and I have to accept it; point taken.
I will try and get round to answering the other comments to my comments in due course, I just have to go and skin annother shibboleth
Saul the unrepentant..... ''YECCIE' ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IntellectByProxy
Larger than you think
# 3185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
In which case, I'll quote you as well. And, tell you you're wrong. Forget convection, what you're looking for is diffusion.
Well, maybe not wrong, but only partially right.
I was leading up to the point about kites flying despite being heavier than air, so, yes, I inadvertently left a big mechanism out of the equation but I don't think it changes the thrust of what I was trying to say.
I do understand Brownian motion and molecular diffusion.
--------------------
www.zambiadiaries.blogspot.com
Posts: 3482 | From: The opposite | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
