Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Valiant62

Extinction Rebellion versus brexit

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Edited by toyahw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/11/2019 at 14:24, philpvfc said:

 

 

24 minutes ago, toyahw said:

 

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

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

Edited by Paul6754

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

 

Edited by toyahw

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Edited by toyahw

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt it will ever work economically personally. Just stick up some more windmills @lowtech

Edited by toyahw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question I I would ask is...... is it worth saving..... or more specifically is the population worth saving?...... I sometimes wonder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 01/12/2019 at 20:03, toyahw said:

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?

There have been reports of some major progress in the technology to enable Nuclear Fusion, it is the holy grail for energy production and yep it's a real challenge but two hydrogen atoms combining to produce helium and energy is as clean as its gets.

Not being argumentative but I'd rather see money invested in improving/generating new energy producing technology than it be spent on funding idiotic policies such as the Green New Deal from AOC.

We can agree to disagree..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28/11/2019 at 01:58, Andyregs said:

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.

Yet another irrational, incorrect comment clouded by your poiitical views and hatred of Trump..

You can easily find out some of the people who advised Trump on Climate Change and also go on Youtube and see them giving lectures on Climate Change at prestigious conferences. These people are distinguished, respected scientists not Mickey Mouse or Al Gore whom you follow for information on this subject. 

Since you appear so bombastic and knowlegable on this subject write a few paragraphs in your own words on why you consider man made CO2 is the control knob for the Earth's Climate. If you can't/don't then shut the F U.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 03/12/2019 at 22:41, Paul6754 said:

Yet another irrational, incorrect comment clouded by your poiitical views and hatred of Trump..

You can easily find out some of the people who advised Trump on Climate Change and also go on Youtube and see them giving lectures on Climate Change at prestigious conferences. These people are distinguished, respected scientists not Mickey Mouse or Al Gore whom you follow for information on this subject. 

Since you appear so bombastic and knowlegable on this subject write a few paragraphs in your own words on why you consider man made CO2 is the control knob for the Earth's Climate. If you can't/don't then shut the F U.

There we go on YouTube again. Surely all these distinguished scientists should have a whole body of peer reviewed articles that you could be citing. But every time it’s YouTube whether with this or climate change. 
why would I write about co2 being the control knob. That’s something you keep going on about. 
How about you look at scientists and not YouTube conspiracies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy