onevalefan.co.uk Present Past Specials About Forum
Jump to content
onevalefan.co.uk forum

Advert


Advert


Extinction Rebellion versus brexit


Valiant62

Recommended Posts

Not really but the conversations do involve others and different topics. You two are Still on about the same things.

i do mostly agree with what you say on the matter, Paul will just go along with what Trump says if it suits him so you ain’t going to get anywhere with him!

CO2 is not the most damaging human product that is damaging the environment but it does contribute to global warming, proven many times over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Advert

15 hours ago, philpvfc said:

Not really but the conversations do involve others and different topics. You two are Still on about the same things.

i do mostly agree with what you say on the matter, Paul will just go along with what Trump says if it suits him so you ain’t going to get anywhere with him!

CO2 is not the most damaging human product that is damaging the environment but it does contribute to global warming, proven many times over.

See, can’t resist! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 18/11/2019 at 13:24, Andyregs said:

A journal whose impact rating puts it in the top 5% of journals. It’s incredulous you don’t comprehend that it’s a far more reliable source of information on climate change than Sean hannity and Andrew bolt. 
My mind is made up that human actions are causing climate change because the worlds greatest scientific minds agree. What Andrew bolt and other conspiracy theorists don’t change that. The fact you prefer an apologist for child sex abusers for your source of information ahead of nasa is amusing though. 

Any scientific journal that quotes an article which cites Mickey Mouse is not much of a journal, period.

Impact rating, impact from causing people to laugh?

World's greatest scientific minds, who are they? Tell me three Climate Change alarmists who are the world''s greatest scientific minds and please don't cite NASA Climate Change alarmists 'cause even NASA astronauts petitioed to shut down the NASA Climate Department.

My belief that CO2 is not the control knob for the earth's climate is based on a thorough understanding of the basic principles of science/chemistry and the basic properties and structure of greenhouse gas molecules and these views agree with many scientists from Ivy League Universities, Imperial College and institutions around the world. Take a look at the Infra-red spectra of water vapor and CO2 see if you can deduce anything.

You are an apologist for people who have manipulated and abused a young girl and made her the front of the Climate Change Movement. I am no apologist for any sex abuser, disgusting thing to post just shows how desperate you are and what little knowledge of this subject you have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Paul6754 said:

Any scientific journal that quotes an article which cites Mickey Mouse is not much of a journal, period.

Impact rating, impact from causing people to laugh?

World's greatest scientific minds, who are they? Tell me three Climate Change alarmists who are the world''s greatest scientific minds and please don't cite NASA Climate Change alarmists 'cause even NASA astronauts petitioed to shut down the NASA Climate Department.

My belief that CO2 is not the control knob for the earth's climate is based on a thorough understanding of the basic principles of science/chemistry and the basic properties and structure of greenhouse gas molecules and these views agree with many scientists from Ivy League Universities, Imperial College and institutions around the world. Take a look at the Infra-red spectra of water vapor and CO2 see if you can deduce anything.

You are an apologist for people who have manipulated and abused a young girl and made her the front of the Climate Change Movement. I am no apologist for any sex abuser, disgusting thing to post just shows how desperate you are and what little knowledge of this subject you have.

 

With all due respect, you are as mad as a box of frogs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 18/11/2019 at 14:24, philpvfc said:

Not really but the conversations do involve others and different topics. You two are Still on about the same things.

i do mostly agree with what you say on the matter, Paul will just go along with what Trump says if it suits him so you ain’t going to get anywhere with him!

CO2 is not the most damaging human product that is damaging the environment but it does contribute to global warming, proven many times over.

Mistakenly quoted you above.

Phil with all due respect there is no evidence whatsoever  in the scientific literature that CO2 is the sole control switch for the earth's climate and no one knows how much or if at all man made CO2 contributes to climate change or global warming. The earth's climate has always changed and always will change, man doesn't really understand how the climate changes never mind how to control it.

Water vapor/cloud are the two post powerful and prevalent green house gases, because of this it is water vapor/cloud that stop the earth being a frozen ice ball not CO2.

Trump would have taken advice from leading scientists/climate experts in the USA on the subject of climate change and been swayed by their opinion hence why the USA pulled out of the Paris agreement. 

I have the scientific knowledge regarding the structure and function of molecules to make up my own mind about CO2 and climate change, I don't rely on Al Gore, Michael Mann or the nonsense which comes out of Politicians, the UN or the media.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Paul6754 said:

Any scientific journal that quotes an article which cites Mickey Mouse is not much of a journal, period.

Impact rating, impact from causing people to laugh?

World's greatest scientific minds, who are they? Tell me three Climate Change alarmists who are the world''s greatest scientific minds and please don't cite NASA Climate Change alarmists 'cause even NASA astronauts petitioed to shut down the NASA Climate Department.

My belief that CO2 is not the control knob for the earth's climate is based on a thorough understanding of the basic principles of science/chemistry and the basic properties and structure of greenhouse gas molecules and these views agree with many scientists from Ivy League Universities, Imperial College and institutions around the world. Take a look at the Infra-red spectra of water vapor and CO2 see if you can deduce anything.

You are an apologist for people who have manipulated and abused a young girl and made her the front of the Climate Change Movement. I am no apologist for any sex abuser, disgusting thing to post just shows how desperate you are and what little knowledge of this subject you have.

I didn’t say you were an apologist for a sex abuser. I said your source was. 
still no mention on how Greta was abused, and what her ‘issues’ are that make her opinion not count. However, with Andrew bolt as your lead scientific source, I can make a guess.

I listed the scientific organisations who had made statements on climate change. You ignored it though.

theres a list here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change

I never talked about a control knob, that was you. I said humans were impacting climate change. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Paul6754 said:

 

Trump would have taken advice from leading scientists/climate experts in the USA on the subject of climate change and been swayed by their opinion hence why the USA pulled out of the Paris agreement. 

Hang on, you believe Donald trump listened to the evidence, and based in his scientific reasoning, decided that was why he would pull out of the Paris agreement. You discount nasa as a scientific source but are willing to attach the validity of your argument to Donald trumps scientific ability? Oh boy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Paul6754 said:

Mistakenly quoted you above.

Phil with all due respect there is no evidence whatsoever  in the scientific literature that CO2 is the sole control switch for the earth's climate and no one knows how much or if at all man made CO2 contributes to climate change or global warming. The earth's climate has always changed and always will change, man doesn't really understand how the climate changes never mind how to control it.

Water vapor/cloud are the two post powerful and prevalent green house gases, because of this it is water vapor/cloud that stop the earth being a frozen ice ball not CO2.

Trump would have taken advice from leading scientists/climate experts in the USA on the subject of climate change and been swayed by their opinion hence why the USA pulled out of the Paris agreement. 

I have the scientific knowledge regarding the structure and function of molecules to make up my own mind about CO2 and climate change, I don't rely on Al Gore, Michael Mann or the nonsense which comes out of Politicians, the UN or the media.

I said CO2 wasn’t the most damaging aspect to climate change but it is a contributor. Climate change will happen whatever but you can guarantee that humans are accelerating climate change and we need to do what we can to prevent this.

i knew an advisor to the Government when Blair was PM and he kept telling Blair that CO2 is not the harmful aspect of engine fumes and the other partials were and promoting Diesel cars which have lower CO2 emissions was the wrong thing to do. Blair chose to ignore him and came up with the new tax levy which pushed people, especially company car drivers in to Diesel cars.

but none the less CO2 is harmful to the environment in large quantities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Paul6754 said:

 

Show the evidence Tulip, you're supposed to be a chemist.

Not supposed to be. Am. With no iron in the fire research or funding wise. You have a position on this, it's no problem. I have a position on this, it could very well be, so best try to do something about it. 

What you do is spread a little bit knowledge, true, but never put it in context. So I will take this one first. Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas. Correct.

But this controlled by the fact 2/3 of the earth is sea. So human activity thus far does not influence H20 levels in the atmosphere. So  that is background. Human activity does influence CO2 levels. Demonstrably. You can just measure it.

I say again if you are prepared to take the risk, that is your business. I'd rather not. And speaking personally I believe it has already gone too far, and that there is nothing that can be done which will have any meaningful impact on increased CO2 levels.

So we will have to see the consequences. I suspect the truth lies somewhere between deniers and scare mongers. How long is the question? Living 10m below sea level brings to mind. I suspect not in my lifetime, like another ten years if I'm lucky. We can build the dykes higher. But for future generations... I'd worry.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 28/11/2019 at 10:35, toyahw said:

Not supposed to be. Am. With no iron in the fire research or funding wise. You have a position on this, it's no problem. I have a position on this, it could very well be, so best try to do something about it. 

What you do is spread a little bit knowledge, true, but never put it in context. So I will take this one first. Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas. Correct.

H2O Vapor/cloud is the most prevalent and most powerful green house gas and dwarfs that of CO2.

A comparison of the Infra-red spectra of CO2 and H2O shows H20 has far more and far stronger absorption bands than CO2. When running an Infra-red spectrum of an organic compound the sample has to be dry because any water/dampness in the sample/compound masks it's IR spectrum.

CO2 is present in such tiny, tiny amounts in the atmosphere that a doubling of a tiny, tiny amount gives a tiny, tiny amount and so on. The general public are misled by this figure of 400 parts per million, it means for every one million molecules of air,  400 are molecules of CO2 which is a tiny, tiny amount, the concentration of water vapor varies with temperature and is at least 40x that of CO2 and that's not taking into account cloud.   

Add to the above the logarithmic relationship between the concentration of CO2 gas and the absorption of Infra-red radiation which means that a doubling of the concentration of CO2 in the air does not lead to a doubling of it's greenhouse effect, it leads to at best a third increase of the green house gas effect and many scientists consider it is much less.

These are just some of the basic scientific principles which should lead any scientist with an understanding of the structure of molecules to question the dogma that CO2 is the control knob of the earth's climate and that's not taking into account the myriad of other factors like the Milankovich Cycles, the sun etc.

The basic scientific  principle that the physical, chemical and biological properties of a molecule are the direct result of it's structure still applies to the science of Climate Change.

On 28/11/2019 at 10:35, toyahw said:

But this controlled by the fact 2/3 of the earth is sea. So human activity thus far does not influence H20 levels in the atmosphere. So  that is background. Human activity does influence CO2 levels. Demonstrably. You can just measure it.

There are many natural factors which control the amount of water vapor/cloud in the atmosphere and I very much doubt man has any control over them. Man is adding to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and many scientists say it's a good thing, the earth is getting greener, more food is being produced and will need to be produced in the future and since the Industrial Revolution the quality of all aspects of life on earth for the vast majority people has been improved immeasurably due to the availability of energy by burning fossil fuels.

The amount of CO2 produced by man is small compared to what naturally comes out of the land, sea, animals etc and there is massive capacity, perhaps unending capacity, by the sea and land to absorb CO2, the whole eco-systen is in a giant equilibrium. The levels of CO2 during the life of earth have been as high as thousands of ppm.

On 28/11/2019 at 10:35, toyahw said:

I say again if you are prepared to take the risk, that is your business. I'd rather not. And speaking personally I believe it has already gone too far, and that there is nothing that can be done which will have any meaningful impact on increased CO2 levels.

So we will have to see the consequences. I suspect the truth lies somewhere between deniers and scare mongers. How long is the question? Living 10m below sea level brings to mind. I suspect not in my lifetime, like another ten years if I'm lucky. We can build the dykes higher. But for future generations... I'd worry.

 

IMHO the risk of the earth perishing from increased levels of CO2 is infinitessimal and less than the risk of the earth being hit by a massive meteor/asteroid or Jupiter's orbit doing something crazy. Far more immediate risk is if policies like the Green New Deal are implemented leading to social strife. The world will not end in 12 years because of CO2 levels, it's absurd for politicians  to say such a thing.

I'm very in favor improving and developing new technologies, particularly nuclear fusion, to preserve the use of fossil fuels. The climateb has always changed and always will, man has to adapt and will adapt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Paul6754 said:

 

 The world will not end in 12 years because of CO2 levels, it's absurd for politicians  to say such a thing.

I'm very in favor improving and developing new technologies, particularly nuclear fusion

No it won't. Who said that? The problem will really hit the fan after me and you me are long gone.

Nuclear fusion, no chance.  That really is bull science mate. Works in principle but not a chance in hell of it working out in practice for 100 years or so.  And the amount of money thrown at it??? Insane.

Can we agree to differ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nuclear fussion, which is a hydrogen bomb inverted, as of yet only has only produced more energy than you put in on a tiny scale by blasting the stuff with lasers. This is a starting point, but the EU is going with the TOKAMAK. Which is cyclotron thing. A follow up to JET. No one has got more than a few seconds micro-seconds worth of nett energy production out of either.

It's one for the future, but not in my life time. And it has been promising for years. But not delivered. So don't hold your breath.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Reporting Posts and other information

    Rules - This forum is moderated but the admin team don't read everything. Don't assume we'll spot rule breaking and alert us by reporting content. Logged in users can hover over the post and click the orange button. Guests can contact us here. If you don't get on with another user you can "ignore" them. Click this link, type in their username and click save. Please check with the admin team if you wish to sell/auction any items. We're happy to support good causes but check first.

    Use - This forum may not be suitable for all as it may contain words or phrases not considered appropriate for some. You are personally responsible and potentially liable for the contents of your posting and could face legal action should it contain content of a defamatory or other illegal nature. Every message posted leaves a traceable IP number. Please do not reveal any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example: phone number, address or email address). This forum is not in any way affiliated with Port Vale FC. OVF reserve the right to edit, delete, move or close any thread for any reason. If you spot an offensive post please report it to the admin team (instructions are above).

    Adverts - This site occasionally a) has adverts and sponsored features about gambling b) accepts sponsored posts from third parties. If you require help and advice on gambling read these links: Information on protecting young people | Addiction help from gambleaware.co.uk
  • Friends of OVF

×
×
  • Create New...