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

Advert


Advert


Extinction Rebellion versus brexit


Valiant62

Recommended Posts

The earths climate has changed over the centuries, but from my limited understanding, such climate change still requires a ‘push’ for want of a better word. The earth doesn’t just decide to warm up, something has to happen to do that. Right now that ‘push’ is coming from humans. One thing that was true though was that poorer countries are unfairly blamed for co2 outputs. China and India are unfairly blamed for having large outputs, but that’s only because they have more people. The biggest per person culprits by a massive margin are the most wealthy countries.

The earths climate has changed massively over the millenia due to natural factors. We are currently still in an ice age for example. Countries such as India and China are just doing what we did but on a bigger scale because of their larger populations. I'm not saying any blame just that this is a an existential problem that needs dealing with. And not one that can be shrugged off as the moaning of tree huggers and grant hungry scientists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Advert

There is no valid correlation whatsoever between increasing carbon dioxide level and temperature increase

 

 

Factually incorrect. The geological data shows a 100% correlation over a geological time scale of hundreds of millions of years between atmospheric CO2 levels and mean temperature. And the reason is also obvious, CO2 re-relflects infra red back to the surface of the earth.

 

Increased levels of atmospheric CO2 = increased average temperature is fact not opinion.

 

Toyah, These aren't facts this is a dubious theory based on often fabricated data. The work I'm aware of shows there is an approx 800 year lag between Carbon Dioxide levels found in ice in the arctic or antarctic and the variation in the earths' temperature and even this correlation is at best dubious. I doubt there is such a thing as a 100% correlation in science, an R squared value of 1 is highly unlikely from experimental data, there's always some variation, please show me otherwise.

 

Recent data shows since the 1940's atmospheric carbon dioxide levels increased due to man's increased industrial activity but from 1940-80 the earth's temperature decreased, since 1980 to today the earth's temp has risen very slightly by about 0.5oC not the substantial rise predicted, most of this data is from USA/Europe. If you bother to look back you will find there was talk of a new ice age in the 1960-70's.

 

Records from further back show during medieval times there was a warm spell followed by a "mini-ice age" from 1500-1800.

 

As a scientist you should question the above theory that you claim is a "100% corellation".. The predictions made based on this theory haven't come true, ice caps haven't melted, there is still an ozone layer, earth's temperature hasn't risen dramatically apart from in one well quoted graph that has been shown to be fabricated and the polar bear population has increased not decreased etc.

 

How could a small, tri-atomic molecule of low molecular weight, present in minute concentrations in the earth's atmosphere possibly be responsible for any substantial increase in the earth's temperature. The simple answer is "It isn't", there is no global warming just natural climate change hence I'm extremely skeptical of this theory and the concept of global warming and increasingly so are many climate scientists of which I'm not one. Man isn't even the main culprit for the Carbon Dioxide in the air, the sea and animals are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The earths climate has changed massively over the millenia due to natural factors. We are currently still in an ice age for example. Countries such as India and China are just doing what we did but on a bigger scale because of their larger populations. I'm not saying any blame just that this is a an existential problem that needs dealing with. And not one that can be shrugged off as the moaning of tree huggers and grant hungry scientists.

 

Yes but those factors give it the push and we know about them. The push now is human behaviour.

We give out about 6 times per person more than India and the USA 15 times. China is similar to us I think? We do need to do something about it, but it’s a bit much to expect them to solve the problem while we pump out far more co2 than them and maintain our wealth based on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Toyah, These aren't facts this is a dubious theory based on often fabricated data. The work I'm aware of shows there is an approx 800 year lag between Carbon Dioxide levels found in ice in the arctic or antarctic and the variation in the earths' temperature and even this correlation is at best dubious. I doubt there is such a thing as a 100% correlation in science, an R squared value of 1 is highly unlikely from experimental data, there's always some variation, please show me otherwise.

 

Recent data shows since the 1940's atmospheric carbon dioxide levels increased due to man's increased industrial activity but from 1940-80 the earth's temperature decreased, since 1980 to today the earth's temp has risen very slightly by about 0.5oC not the substantial rise predicted, most of this data is from USA/Europe. If you bother to look back you will find there was talk of a new ice age in the 1960-70's.

 

Records from further back show during medieval times there was a warm spell followed by a "mini-ice age" from 1500-1800.

 

As a scientist you should question the above theory that you claim is a "100% corellation".. The predictions made based on this theory haven't come true, ice caps haven't melted, there is still an ozone layer, earth's temperature hasn't risen dramatically apart from in one well quoted graph that has been shown to be fabricated and the polar bear population has increased not decreased etc.

 

How could a small, tri-atomic molecule of low molecular weight, present in minute concentrations in the earth's atmosphere possibly be responsible for any substantial increase in the earth's temperature. The simple answer is "It isn't", there is no global warming just natural climate change hence I'm extremely skeptical of this theory and the concept of global warming and increasingly so are many climate scientists of which I'm not one. Man isn't even the main culprit for the Carbon Dioxide in the air, the sea and animals are.

 

So scientists have collectively made it all up? Why?

No scientist denies there is a carbon cycle. But humans have disrupted it. And you’re saying the ice caps haven’t melted? We can literally see them melting massively year by year.

And are the animals you claim to be the main culprit for co2 cows?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I have said is simply fact. So I will not further debate that. The question is how much will the undoubted man made changes to the atmosphere, as opposed to natural changes that occur over a massively longer time scale, change the climate? That I would agree is up in the air.

 

But doesn't look good however you look at it. Who fancies taking the chance? Not me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The correlation with co2 levels is firstly logical. Secondly historical levels of co2 can be measured from trapped bits of atmosphere trapped in rocks. This can be related to global temperature through amongst other things plant growth rates, from fossils. And I'm talking here about tens of millions of years.

 

 

Not it was hot this summer but bloody cold in winter. That is natural fluctuation and irrelevant.

 

 

I feel very strongly about this as I guess comes across. Not because I am some kind of eco-warrior but a fan of fact based rational decision making.

 

Of which there is far too little, if any, made in these days of hyperbole hysteria and social media. Where any man and his dog says this and that and it suddenly becomes truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So scientists have collectively made it all up? Why?

No scientist denies there is a carbon cycle. But humans have disrupted it. And you’re saying the ice caps haven’t melted? We can literally see them melting massively year by year.

And are the animals you claim to be the main culprit for co2 cows?

 

I haven't said scientists have collectively made it all up, but scientists are human and some want to make a name for themselves even sometimes to the detriment of their scientific integrity, whatever field they're in.

 

Humans haven't disrupted the carbon cycle it's still on going as it always has. Photosynthesis sees carbon Dioxide from the air taken in by plants which give out oxygen which animals/humans breathe to live. This Carbon Dioxide is the source of carbon which plants use to make organic molecules, eg proteins, DNA etc. Animals/humans eat plants, humans eat animals, animals eat other animals to provide molecules/food/nutrition which result in life.

 

Hence why life on earth is not sustainable when carbon dioxide levels drop to below ca 150-170 parts per million, there is simply insufficient carbon dioxide for the plants to make protein etc and to live.

 

All animals/humans breathe out carbon Dioxide, the other major source of carbon Dioxide is the sea, carbon dioxide from the air dissolves in sea water, this is why sea water is slightly alkaline and slippery to the touch. The oceans are so vast that even a small increase in temperature causes much carbon dioxide to be released as well as water vapor.

 

Animals/humans and the sea are responsible for a larger proportion of carbon dioxide in the air than is man burning fossil fuels, the sea is probably responsible for more than animals.

 

To put this into perspective, the current level of carbon dioxide in the air is around 350 parts per million. So out of every million molecules that comprise the air we breathe, there are approx 790,000 nitrogen molecules, approx 200,000 oxygen molecules, 1,000 argon molecules, 350 carbon dioxide molecules, and smaller numbers of carbon monoxide and oxides of sulphur and nitrogen as well as water vapor.

 

The fact there is so little carbon dioxide in the air and that man burning fossil fuels is not the cause of most of it should make any scientist question the theory that "Man burning fossil fuels is responsible for global warming".

 

The ice caps may have melted in some regions but in others the ice land mass has increased. The pictures of ice sheets falling into the sea make good tv for the left run and leaning tv stations and left of center politicians like Al Gore who hasn't got a scientific gene in his body yet has been awarded the Nobel Prize for Global Warming/Climate Change which even he has now started to back track on. It really is that stupid and makes Brexit look sensible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I have said is simply fact. So I will not further debate that.

 

What you've said isn't fact and it's no surprise you won't debate it further because it is total fiction. The link below to a representative video debunks the man made CO2 and global warming correlation and shows it's fiction. there are many articles and videos on the web showing the manipulation of temperature data from NASA and NOAA to support the global warming narrative.

 

The correlation with co2 levels is firstly logical. Secondly historical levels of co2 can be measured from trapped bits of atmosphere trapped in rocks. This can be related to global temperature through amongst other things plant growth rates, from fossils. And I'm talking here about tens of millions of years.

 

As I've posted previously this data shows the rise in temperature drives the rise in CO2 levels and the rise in the CO2 levels lags about 800 years behind the rise in temperature, this and the explanation for it can be seen in the video.

 

I feel very strongly about this as I guess comes across. Not because I am some kind of eco-warrior but a fan of fact based rational decision making.

 

I'm assuming you're gonna change your view now because it is not fact.

 

Of which there is far too little, if any, made in these days of hyperbole hysteria and social media. Where any man and his dog says this and that and it suddenly becomes truth.

 

And that is precisely what's happened with the theory of man made global warming, firstly the CO2 theory doesn't hold water and secondly there is no global warming just natural climate change. Climate Science/Global Warming has become a political monster, more to do with winning votes, power, making/obtaining money and worse.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you've said isn't fact and it's no surprise you won't debate it further because it is total fiction. The link below to a representative video debunks the man made CO2 and global warming correlation and shows it's fiction. there are many articles and videos on the web showing the manipulation of temperature data from NASA and NOAA to support the global warming narrative.

 

 

 

As I've posted previously this data shows the rise in temperature drives the rise in CO2 levels and the rise in the CO2 levels lags about 800 years behind the rise in temperature, this and the explanation for it can be seen in the video.

 

 

 

I'm assuming you're gonna change your view now because it is not fact.

 

 

 

And that is precisely what's happened with the theory of man made global warming, firstly the CO2 theory doesn't hold water and secondly there is no global warming just natural climate change. Climate Science/Global Warming has become a political monster, more to do with winning votes, power, making/obtaining money and worse.

 

 

Isn’t that documentary highly criticised as being pretty much propaganda, even by a scientist who was used in the film?

I’ll agree that activists will often go to the worst case scenario but the evidence is just too large to deny. You talk about humans co2 output is small compared to natural outputs, but those outputs are also taking it in, in a balance. And some of the ‘natural’ output from Animals is still man made.

And it’s a big leap to think that 97% of the scientific commmunity are all trying to make names for themselves. All peer reviewing studies falsely for some fame long side 97% of their peers. Surely going against such a majority is more like to ‘make a name for yourself’ and make you standout. Pretty much why conspiracy theories exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's actually quite impressive mental gymnastics to disparage and attempt to nullify one dataset, that of literally hundreds of thousands of chartered institute accredited, professionally and academically qualified, peer reviewed researchers and scientists, all having passed serious review boards to earn their Phd and all having had their papers meticulously peer reviewed, criticised and held against the highest scientific method standard, and then on the other hand take the word of a tinfoil hat wearing youtube conspiracy theorist nutter as gospel.

 

One could say that's actually ******* mental. So one will.

 

Think I might just side with Toyah, the doctorate holding university Professor of computational Chemistry with his thousands of paper citations, tbh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn’t that documentary highly criticised as being pretty much propaganda, even by a scientist who was used in the film?

I’ll agree that activists will often go to the worst case scenario but the evidence is just too large to deny. You talk about humans co2 output is small compared to natural outputs, but those outputs are also taking it in, in a balance. And some of the ‘natural’ output from Animals is still man made.

And it’s a big leap to think that 97% of the scientific commmunity are all trying to make names for themselves. All peer reviewing studies falsely for some fame long side 97% of their peers. Surely going against such a majority is more like to ‘make a name for yourself’ and make you standout. Pretty much why conspiracy theories exist.

 

Andy, There are many documentaries and peer reviewed papers in the literature that question this notion of man made climate change, even the the initially used phrase of Global Warming has been dialed back to Climate Change.

 

In many articles you will see the graph Gore uses to show a correlation between CO2 and the earth's temperature (Toyah refersd to it) but as any laymen can see from the graph the temperature goes up and centuries later the CO2 levels sometimes go up, that cannot be evidence for CO2 levels causing temp increase, if it was the CO2 level should go up and the Temperature should follow.

 

I first became a global warming skeptic when I heard about the so called "Hockey stick graph" (See the video below), it literally is junk science and a disgrace to the scientific community and the world at large.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuqjX4UeBYs

 

Again, I've never mentioned anything about 97% of the scientific community trying to do anything, there are articles of climate scientists distancing themselves from this nonsense.

 

Ask yourself the simple question, how can a small molecular weight gas present in minute quantities have such a proposed massive effect on the temperature of the earth when it isn't the most abundant green house gas in the atmosphere and man burning fossil fuels isn't the largest contributor of that gas to the atmosphere, especially when there are much more obvious culprits around like the sun, wind and stuff in space.

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...