engineer one
Established Member
well taken, and i am sure that my analgesic is finally working too. :? :roll: :twisted:
paul :wink:
paul :wink:
the great global warming swindle
- Thread starter engineer one
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
A
Anonymous
Guest
Well strangely enough it does - leading to the "Coreolis effect".engineer one":8kikbr27 said:
cheers
Jacob
(trying to kick off a discussion about how water runs down plug holes :lol: )
engineer one":jan3nwe6 said:
On the whole the atmosphere is circulating round in sync. with the spinning earth. If it were not so then at the Equator, where the diameter of the Earth is roughly 24,000 miles, the average wind speed would be around 1,000 mph.
engineer one
Established Member
i accept that it is working in synch, the question is if you accept the duvet theory, the suerly the shape of the envelope is deformed, and must have some impact :?
paul :wink:
paul :wink:
innesm
Established Member
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 62
- Reaction score
- 0
engineer one":2o5o50z4 said:
Nothin personal - as we all know global warming is really like a dog with hypertension trapped in a hot car. CO2 is us dangling a cat outside the window and riling up that dog. Do we stop dangling the cat, cover it in a sheet and keep dangling, or somehow administer quick-acting bloodpressure medication to the dog?? If we're not careful that dog will die.
But then we'll still have the cat... Depends if you're a dog person or a cat person.
engineer one":2z21gk19 said:
I don't understand what you're getting at, the atmosphere is a gaseous envelope that, due the the reduction of gravity with height, just gets less and less dense, but never actually ends. However because it is fluid it will tend to find its own level: so if you choose some level of atmospheric pressure as your cut off point (for instance 1/1000th of 1 atmosphere) then that 'surface' will be deformed no more than the surface of a pond reflects the shape of the bottom of the pond.
By the way
Wikipaedia for what it's worth.
engineer one
Established Member
ok that makes real sense, i was just trying to understand the concept of the duvet envelope.
paul :wink:
paul :wink:
The Telegraph is beginning to look a bit more critically at the causes of global warming:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... een118.xml
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... een218.xml
Gill
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... een118.xml
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... een218.xml
Gill
A
Anonymous
Guest
More of the same here, nothing new and can be ignored.Gill":3kvo15sl said:
Durkin is on the defensive as he and his programme are being severely criticised. Well it was rubbish as just about everyone now agrees.
Lindzen, Carter, Easterbrook are well known but remain representative of a tiny minority opinion. They get quoted disproportionately often as there aren't that many "scientists" to call on for comment against the majority view.
cheers
Jacob
ModEdit: Newbie_Neil
Newbie_Neil
Established Member
OK, this is a final warning. Any more political posting and this thread will be locked down.
Cheers
Neil
Cheers
Neil
MrJay
Established Member
I'm beginning to wonder where Durkin gets off; plainly he just doesn't get it and it's not like he's witty or anything. Walk away slowly.
I haven't heard anyone saying "Boohoohoo you used the wrong graph." Anyone doing so can be rightly told to shut up (including Durkin). Here's the graph from the data used in the programme. It charts various attempts to reconstruct the climate over the past 1000 years using the evidence available. Somewhere near the end is a black line which represents actual recorded temperature change since we've been using instruments to systematically record temperature change. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to note that Durkin just can't read graphs.
"A critic" suggests that data in another graph has been corrected and shouldn't have been used. Durkin disagrees, but again Durkin barks up the wrong tree. In question is the theory that cloud cover and the lack of it is the cause of climatic warming and cooling. The theory was suggested when data was produced that suggested a recent reduction in cloud cover. It is that data that was corrected, there has been no recorded reduction in cloud cover, only an anomaly produced by a change of methodology for measuring cloud cover. Not only is the cloud cover theory untested, it lacks a reason for existing in the first place. Further, there has been no overall increase in solar radiation since 1978 when we started measuring solar radiation. Yet we seem to be getting hotter regardless. Trying to understand the link between modelled solar activity and climate in the past is useful in helping us piece together how climate works, but is not otherwise relevant to man made climate change which is a thing of the present, or at least ever since we really got into burning fossil fuels in a big way.
Apparently "No one any longer seriously disputes the link between solar activity and temperature in earth's climate history." Which is perfectly correct. In fact, no one has doubted the sun as the driving force for climate since 1824 when the role of green house gases was first suggested. That the Sun drives our climate is central to the case for global warming. Where Durkin goes wrong is that he doesn't realise he hasn't got an argument.
And then there's the thing about temperature leading CO2 in the ice core samples. Oddly enough, it's been known all along what the data says, and those in know are quite content that it supports the role of CO2 as a green house gas and it's warming influence. Jake says it as well as anyone. And for all that the point really needs to be made that the case for man made climate change due to CO2 emissions is not based the data from ice core samples. The jewel in the crown and the meat and bones of the argument are in thermal dynamics and the effect that the green house gases have on infrared radiation; which I don't remember Durkin addressing once.
So we're left with an odd blip where temperature variously fell or did not increase from 1940s to the 1970s. That is all that is left of Durkin's compelling case to demonstrate that the case for man made climate change is wrong wrong wrong; there is a blip in a graph; and a graph about the weather at that.
There are an awful lot of agenda pushers jumping on the climate change bandwagon hoping to use it as a soap box. Durkin is one of them. I'll be a happy boy if climate change is shown to be a lot of fuss over nothing, but only slightly happier than if we don't have to listen to Durkin's nonsense for while.
I haven't heard anyone saying "Boohoohoo you used the wrong graph." Anyone doing so can be rightly told to shut up (including Durkin). Here's the graph from the data used in the programme. It charts various attempts to reconstruct the climate over the past 1000 years using the evidence available. Somewhere near the end is a black line which represents actual recorded temperature change since we've been using instruments to systematically record temperature change. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to note that Durkin just can't read graphs.
"A critic" suggests that data in another graph has been corrected and shouldn't have been used. Durkin disagrees, but again Durkin barks up the wrong tree. In question is the theory that cloud cover and the lack of it is the cause of climatic warming and cooling. The theory was suggested when data was produced that suggested a recent reduction in cloud cover. It is that data that was corrected, there has been no recorded reduction in cloud cover, only an anomaly produced by a change of methodology for measuring cloud cover. Not only is the cloud cover theory untested, it lacks a reason for existing in the first place. Further, there has been no overall increase in solar radiation since 1978 when we started measuring solar radiation. Yet we seem to be getting hotter regardless. Trying to understand the link between modelled solar activity and climate in the past is useful in helping us piece together how climate works, but is not otherwise relevant to man made climate change which is a thing of the present, or at least ever since we really got into burning fossil fuels in a big way.
Apparently "No one any longer seriously disputes the link between solar activity and temperature in earth's climate history." Which is perfectly correct. In fact, no one has doubted the sun as the driving force for climate since 1824 when the role of green house gases was first suggested. That the Sun drives our climate is central to the case for global warming. Where Durkin goes wrong is that he doesn't realise he hasn't got an argument.
And then there's the thing about temperature leading CO2 in the ice core samples. Oddly enough, it's been known all along what the data says, and those in know are quite content that it supports the role of CO2 as a green house gas and it's warming influence. Jake says it as well as anyone. And for all that the point really needs to be made that the case for man made climate change due to CO2 emissions is not based the data from ice core samples. The jewel in the crown and the meat and bones of the argument are in thermal dynamics and the effect that the green house gases have on infrared radiation; which I don't remember Durkin addressing once.
So we're left with an odd blip where temperature variously fell or did not increase from 1940s to the 1970s. That is all that is left of Durkin's compelling case to demonstrate that the case for man made climate change is wrong wrong wrong; there is a blip in a graph; and a graph about the weather at that.
There are an awful lot of agenda pushers jumping on the climate change bandwagon hoping to use it as a soap box. Durkin is one of them. I'll be a happy boy if climate change is shown to be a lot of fuss over nothing, but only slightly happier than if we don't have to listen to Durkin's nonsense for while.
On a lighter note, I can state with some certainty that the CH4 produced by cows comes out of their mouths. Ruminants belch rather a lot. Funnily enough, having spent quite along time alongside cows backsides, I don't recall ever hearing one fart, Perhaps they were all silent ones....
It seems to me that many people are hung up on the word 'proof'. In the real world (as distinct from the virtual) proof of anything is in very short supply. Even if CO2 keeps going up AND all the ice does melt, a causal link is not actually proven. At which point, any possible preventative action will be a tad tardy....
Meantime, there are 3 possibilities. 1/ nothing serious is happening so nothing needs doing, 2/ things are getting warmer too quick for comfort but we're not sure of the cause or the cure, or3/ditto, and we're pretty sure it's man's use of fossil fuels that's the main cause. Now ask yourself, if you were a politician (NOT a scientist), are you brave enough to choose option 1, with the understanding that you may be wrong?
I suspect that for the time being the politicos are 'raising the decision profile' so it 'gets on the voter's radar' along with a few windmills and wave farms. By the time these (and other current plans) are up and running we'll have a better idea if it's possibility 1,2 or3. If we are faced with drastic limits in fossil fuel use, then by that time the nuclear option (currently the only possible source of non fossil energy) will look a lot more acceptable to voters with no light, heat and only a pony and trap.
Funny how far we've come is a short time, and how we take it for granted. Pre industrial revolution, the country could support about 10 million people; fossil fuel supported the growth to 60 odd million and the change in lifestyle expectations.
It seems to me that many people are hung up on the word 'proof'. In the real world (as distinct from the virtual) proof of anything is in very short supply. Even if CO2 keeps going up AND all the ice does melt, a causal link is not actually proven. At which point, any possible preventative action will be a tad tardy....
Meantime, there are 3 possibilities. 1/ nothing serious is happening so nothing needs doing, 2/ things are getting warmer too quick for comfort but we're not sure of the cause or the cure, or3/ditto, and we're pretty sure it's man's use of fossil fuels that's the main cause. Now ask yourself, if you were a politician (NOT a scientist), are you brave enough to choose option 1, with the understanding that you may be wrong?
I suspect that for the time being the politicos are 'raising the decision profile' so it 'gets on the voter's radar' along with a few windmills and wave farms. By the time these (and other current plans) are up and running we'll have a better idea if it's possibility 1,2 or3. If we are faced with drastic limits in fossil fuel use, then by that time the nuclear option (currently the only possible source of non fossil energy) will look a lot more acceptable to voters with no light, heat and only a pony and trap.
Funny how far we've come is a short time, and how we take it for granted. Pre industrial revolution, the country could support about 10 million people; fossil fuel supported the growth to 60 odd million and the change in lifestyle expectations.
sawdust maker
Established Member
Hi All
I would like to add my little bit to the thread. I have to admit that I have not read all the posts and will apologise now if these points have been made and I have missed them. I believe that Global warming is happening but do not go along with the view that it is all down to human activity or we can stop it by burning less fossil fuel. The evidence I would like to present in support of my views is historical events in the main. First Greenland, for 500 years up until the 14th century, the climate was mild enough to support its population by agriculture. During this time there was considerably less ice, and have seen no reports that the rest of the World was under water. The second bit is archaeological evidence from South America. We have all seen books and programs etc about the Maya civilisation that created the cities and temples, now hidden deep in tropical forests. But did you know that when this civilisation flourished the land they lived in was not a wet tropical one but dry savannah and the cities were built with vast tanks to hold water during the dry periods, which are estimated to have lasted up to a year. The civilisation died out when the climate became even drier. The climate changed again and hid the cities in tropical rain forests. I believe these two, admittedly small; events prove that the world climate is capable of great changes. It is one of these changes we are going through now. This Global Warming thing is more about Europe not wanting to be dependent on Russia for carbon-based energy.
I would like to add my little bit to the thread. I have to admit that I have not read all the posts and will apologise now if these points have been made and I have missed them. I believe that Global warming is happening but do not go along with the view that it is all down to human activity or we can stop it by burning less fossil fuel. The evidence I would like to present in support of my views is historical events in the main. First Greenland, for 500 years up until the 14th century, the climate was mild enough to support its population by agriculture. During this time there was considerably less ice, and have seen no reports that the rest of the World was under water. The second bit is archaeological evidence from South America. We have all seen books and programs etc about the Maya civilisation that created the cities and temples, now hidden deep in tropical forests. But did you know that when this civilisation flourished the land they lived in was not a wet tropical one but dry savannah and the cities were built with vast tanks to hold water during the dry periods, which are estimated to have lasted up to a year. The civilisation died out when the climate became even drier. The climate changed again and hid the cities in tropical rain forests. I believe these two, admittedly small; events prove that the world climate is capable of great changes. It is one of these changes we are going through now. This Global Warming thing is more about Europe not wanting to be dependent on Russia for carbon-based energy.
MrJay
Established Member
Other thoughts include: the amount of CO2 plants can process is limited by all the other things plants need to function and, in the great scheme of things, trees are quite short and only absorb CO2 from underneath them, oh and we're not exactly inundated with spare land to grow trees on. That and at the end of the day, chances are they're only going to end up being burnt or rotting somewhere; releasing all that lovely CO2 back to where it came from.
I wouldn't argue if timber prices dropped though.
I wouldn't argue if timber prices dropped though.
Similar threads
- Locked
