Global warming deniers drown in utter BS! ?

a reply to: kloejen

I still deny the severity of man's effect regarding climate change. I do know that we need to curb/eliminate pollution, including carbon, but I really doubt it has that much of an effect on the Earth's climate. Politicians swear taxing carbon will help, but I swear politician's all lay along a spectrum of biased idiots to corrupt psychopaths, thus negating the validity of any suggestion that they may provide. The truth is, technology over the next 50 years is going to almost eliminate every bit of carbon we produce, we are screwed by adding taxes to innovators.

As for your list, severe weather has always happened and the climate is definitely changing, but due to a multitude of variables. Paying an extra tax while producing the same amount of carbon is not going to help anything but those that will feel better and feel like they are doing their parts. Stop being lazy and start producing ways to curb your own carbon, find ways to innovate and make those innovations available to us all, but if all you can provide me with is a tax, then your opinion on the subject is just as hollow and worthless as any of those politicians and paid shills littering these political battlefields.

a reply to: kloejen

Must have missed that, can you post the link? Thx in advance.

I haven't authored that many threads; feel free to do a search. I'm a little busy working out force equations using different materials for a new force-based actuator design.

I like your comment

It's true. I had perhaps 20 people telling me "but the earth is a sphere, not a disk" when it was obvious I was using 2D projection. That's when I stopped posting serious math on here.

Did i say that "the world is gonna die", because of this?

Did I say you did?

And please try to understand there is a BIG difference between sea ice and land ice!

You're talking to a research engineer. I hold a BSEE from UAH, with honors, and am a Masters candidate. The difference you speak of involves the fact that water density decreases as it transforms into a solid form, making the resulting ice buoyant. This transformation also releases a good amount of energy, which must be replaced if the ice is to turn back to liquid.

I'm still waiting for you to present your mathematical analysis.

TheRedneck

a reply to: ventian

I could'nt agree more. The socalled "solution" to pay a carbon tax is beyond stupidity. Throwing money at this problem is not going to make it go away.

Sad thing is that this proposed solution, surely will make many people doubt if climate change are real or not.

This is probably the ultimate test of faith?

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: kloejen

Must have missed that, can you post the link? Thx in advance.

I haven't authored that many threads; feel free to do a search. I'm a little busy working out force equations using different materials for a new force-based actuator design.

Well it would help alot if you posted that link. As you know as a mod, the search here is horrendously irritating.

I like your comment

It's true. I had perhaps 20 people telling me "but the earth is a sphere, not a disk" when it was obvious I was using 2D projection. That's when I stopped posting serious math on here.

Yes. When posting real mathematical facts most ppl stall, because they dont understand it. Love your approach

Did i say that "the world is gonna die", because of this?

Did I say you did?

You hinted at my post as being anfanatical alarmist, its ok. Point taken. But no, you didnt.

And please try to understand there is a BIG difference between sea ice and land ice!

You're talking to a research engineer. I hold a BSEE from UAH, with honors, and am a Masters candidate. The difference you speak of involves the fact that water density decreases as it transforms into a solid form, making the resulting ice buoyant. This transformation also releases a good amount of energy, which must be replaced if the ice is to turn back to liquid.

I'm still waiting for you to present your mathematical analysis.

BSEE, as in "Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering" ? Nice But there is still a long way to climate scientist ehh?

hehe im no climate scientist either, but i got an bachelor in computer programming. Running mathematical simulations and analysis of the current situation always ends in a dark stage. There is no way out, unless somehow a super giant cloud of pure oxygen hits the earth, which is kinda unlikely.
Id be happy to present my conclusions in a mathematical language. Althou i already know the outcome of such postings, as you mentioned.
Its really not rocket science to figure out. Lets imagine we sit in a big gym hall. I smoke some nasty cigars. How long will it take for you to notice the smoke ?
More to post...

And just what IS the correct temperature for the earth? perhaps it needs to warm more...

a reply to: kloejen

Lets stick to climate change then

The only constant in climate has been change!

a reply to: glend

This is an idea that has roots in pre-Socratic thought: that the only constant in anything is change.

Fine point, well made.

a reply to: glend

The only constant in climate has been change!

Yes. Due primarily to changes in radiative forcing and solar insolation, changes in global average temperatures cause changes in climates.

Thing is, insolation hasn't changed much in the past couple of hundred years, not enough to account for what we're seeing. Thing is, solar insolation is, by all indications, decreasing, so the planet should be cooling. Thing is, that leaves forcing to account for the changes. Thing is, primary change in forcing has been caused by increased CO2 levels (With an assist from positive feedback factors, like increased water vapor content. And, at this point to a far lesser degree, methane release. But that's changing.).

So, the fact that climates change means that it's ok for us guys to muck about with it?


Re: Carbon trading scammage. It should be noted that the practice seems to have assisted in reducing SO2 emissions quite effectively while not driving up consumer costs for electricity. Are people upset that someone may have made a profit?

a reply to: Phage

Not many on ATS believes scientists anymore Phage...pity because it is happening right now and it is getting worse.
Such a massive shame the new president will ignore the science and let the USA drop out of the Paris agreement...
I think it was little too late before Trump but now we have no chance.
Reading this thread again is so depressing I mean people denying sea levels have risen....tell that to the people of the Maldives....

a reply to: testingtesting

Reading this thread again is so depressing I mean people denying sea levels have risen....tell that to the people of the Maldives....

I've been living on the waterside for most of my life, continuously for the past 20 years. In the past 2-3 years I have lost a bit of property and a strip of grass. This is not due to normal coastal erosion (caused by waves and currents), I live in a very well protected bay. This is due to higher sea levels. Low tides are higher, as are high tides. I pay attention to such things because I am a boater. The bay is inundating my seawall as it never has. While it poses no direct threat to my livelihood (unlike a very large number of people), it is a dramatic and clearly observable effect.

a reply to: Phage

I just don't understand why some do not look at the data or just look how the weather is getting worse. I think people do not like change and if we had any chance of sorting it we all would have to change our habits.
Anyhow good to see the voice of reason and sense in this thread.

a reply to: testingtesting

It seems to be a deeply ingrained feature of human instinct to resist change until it is absolutely necessary. We've be quite successful with that evolutionary tactic. Thing is, change on a multi-decade level can be hard to relate to. Thing is, on that timescale people have a hard time getting beyond, "What's it going to cost me and what's in it for me?" The 21st century has not done much to assuage that point of view.

Thing is, few realize that allowing technology to "fix" what we've screwed up already will give us more than the actual "fix" will provide.

One day, garbage dumps will be resource mines. Or not.

a reply to: Phage

But Phage, why does this argument loop keep occurring?

Even if you believe the planet is warming, this whole discussion is still irrelevant. It does not matter if it is man made or natural it cannot be undone without the entire planet participating on a very long timeline and even that may not make any change. That does not mean we throw the baby out with the bath water. We should still do what we can to take care of the environment, but you cannot just penalize the few countries that would bother to participate.

The earth is not in danger but the rising population is. There will be a balance along with adaptation to any situation we encounter.

a reply to: Fullblast
The argument keeps occurring (pretty much exclusively in the US, as far as I can tell) because there is a strong reluctance on the part of the fossil fuel industry to change. The fossil fuel industry is wealthy. It carries much political and economic weight. It has a lot of money to burn in order to maintain its domination of the energy market. Bad press for fossil fuels means people might look to other things which, while in the short term may be pricey, have long term benefits. The fossil fuel industry wants to keep selling lots of fossil fuels because there is plenty of good money to be made.


It is a falsity that claim that unless everyone, everywhere does "something", there is nothing to be gained. While it is true that a great deal of damage has been done (and as far as current tech goes, nothing can be done to reverse that damage), the notion that we (the US, the largest emitter of fossil carbon) should ignore the problem because no one else is doing anything (a falsehood), or because it's too late...that just reiterates what I said above; "What's it going to cost me and what's in it for me." The answer is; a) It won't cost you much, b) Unless you are actively looking for and/or working on improvements there's nothing in it for you. But for your children and theirs it could well be a different story. The world is getting warmer and will continue to do so because of the CO2 which we have, and will continue to produce. It is not feasible from an economic (=humanitarian) point of view to cease the emissions of fossil carbon. However, reducing the rate of production of those emissions would provide more time. More time to develop mitigation technology. More time to develop alternate energy technology.

The earth is not in danger but the rising population is. There will be a balance along with adaptation to any situation we encounter.

Right. The Earth is not in danger. It's been through a lot worse. It was torn apart by another planet, the result of which is our Moon. Yes. Human civilization is in danger but it seems to be quite resilient. Who knows what it (we) can endure? Human misery. Well, yeah. Always been there. Right? Might as well give up on working on that one, much less worrying about making it worse. Right?

I thought the glory of mankind was that it determined its own fate?

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: Phage

Anyhow good to see the voice of reason and sense in this thread.

Can only agree wholeheartedly. Thanks for your input testingtesting & Phage.
I value your opinion Phage, coz u know what you are talking about.
Ready observable facts, only ppl playing devils advocate will challenge that, and fail miserably.

I agree that the proposed solutions will most likely makes things worse, but unless we try, we as mankind will surely fail.
Pretty awkward that our greatest moment might be our biggest demise :/

a reply to: Phage

I understand the argument for finding alternatives. Absolutely! Any and everything we can do to make positive change is welcome. However, when you look at the way some people live in this world, no water, no food, and yet they keep making the decision to bring children to that world you get the glimpse of the difference in the way we, as 1st world countries, view things differently. I would not want to subject my children to certain suffering and would opt not to do so, but that thinking is because I was raised completely different.

I disagree that it would not take a global effort and a great deal of time.

I probably should not even be commenting on this. I just hate to see circular arguments that makes us as a human race seem menacing. One side says humanity sucks and is lazy and we have killed the earth. We did not do that on purpose, we are where we are technologically because of the industrial revolution, the point many identify as the start of man man climate impact. At what point should we have ditched our cars for bikes, or come up with another source of power? I mean it isn't like we didn't try, but nuclear power wasn't deemed good enough either. It is not for the fossil fuel companies to come up with something else. It is for us as people to come up with a better way that makes sense.

So yes you are right, we do not want to suffer for those in the future, but we also do not have the answer, we have generic complaining, and demands to do more. I am amused that some that consider themselves environmentalist drive cars powered by batteries that are by no means good for the environment they want to protect.

But hey, ATS is my favorite sight. I am a 98% read only guy. For some reason this topic, or the tone of it, just got my goat enough to get me to weigh in.

And for what is worth, i have enjoyed reading your post for years. I disagree with many, but I usually appreciate the thought and effort put into them.

I think it is probably best I go back to read only mode for a while, I am not eloquent enough to effectively get my point across or change anyone's way of looking at issues.

All the best too you.

a reply to: kloejen

hehe im no climate scientist either, but i got an bachelor in computer programming.

Oh? Nice!

In that case, allow me to soften my tone somewhat. Typically when someone promoting Global Warming says "show me the math," it is code for "I wouldn't understand it if you did."

No, I'm no climatologist, but I am well-versed in physics. Most of what I work on is pushing the limits of technology, and one cannot push those limits far without thoroughly understanding the science behind them. But one need not be a climatologist to understand what is happening surrounding Global Warming. I have watched tales of future gloom and doom spread far and wide since AL Gore invented "An Inconvenient Truth." Thus far, none of these have come to pass. New York City is not growing rice down 5th Avenue, mega-hurricanes have not turned Florida into a trash pile, and no one has burst into flames walking down the road.

Yes, those are facetious statements, but this whole argument started off as a facetious advertising campaign.

Now, if you ask me if I believe we are, by burning fossil fuels, increasing the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, I will have to answer yes, probably, but to a minor extent. If you ask if I believe this has the potential to increase global temperatures, I would have to answer possibly, but to a very minor degree. But the important question, seeing as we're all still here, is what is the prognosis?

Carbon dioxide is a very minor greenhouse gas, absorbing one narrow spectrum of the infrared scale (that corresponds to the planetary black-body spectrum). Considering the dynamics of black-body radiation and the current temperatures as they compare to that absorption spectrum, carbon dioxide probably has an overall stabilizing effect on temperatures. As temperatures increase, the mean frequency of earth's radiation increases, moving it away from the carbon dioxide absorption spectrum. A smaller percentage of radiation is thus reflected, helping to cool the planet. Conversely, if the planet cools, carbon dioxide absorbs and re-emits a greater percentage of black-body radiation, warming the planet more.

This effect should be extremely minor, but it is a negative feedback.

Now consider studies that show carbon dioxide absorption is not a linear function of concentration. Adding more carbon dioxide decreases its individual effectiveness reflecting heat. More carbon dioxide still results in an increase in reflection overall, but doubling the concentration does not double the effect.

There are several other problems with the theory: sensors out of calibration due to neglect, sensors in areas where the urban heat island effect has encroached on their positions, the signal-to-noise ratio between normal fluctuations of a chaotic system and the actual mean, some indications of increasing temperatures on other planets in our solar system... ad infinitum. The computer models are improving, but to date still contain errors. Most of the hype has come from misinterpretation of models under test, assuming that since they are computer models, they must by definition be accurate. You and I know that is not true; models are only as good as their algorithms and data.

I'm not worried about Global Warming because the models thus far are still in the development stage, science indicates that carbon dioxide levels in the range we are experiencing are not catastrophic, examination of the troposphere indicates that some minor warming would be a boon to mankind, not a detriment, and should things take a turn for the worst, we already have technology that can scrub carbon dioxide from the air... it's just not practical because there's so little to scrub.

I'll look for that thread, but I'm on a tablet at the moment... you think it's hard to search on a PC!

TheRedneck

a reply to: kloejen

I haven't 'seriously' expressed any of my views, your platform doesn't deserve it.

Maybe you encourage off topic chat because your approach is weak.

a reply to: Phage

Phage, I simply don't buy that the planet is experiencing climate outside normal variations nor do I buy that locations in the middle of oceans are experiencing higher temperatures than normal when there is no historic baseline to make that judgement. They have been caught with their pants down too many times to take anything they say seriously.

originally posted by: kloejen
It seems that the Global climate change-theory finally has sunk in to the global masses mind.

Denying facts are now a fact of the past i can only hope.

I wonder, is there still anyone around denying global climate change?

In the end, congratz on dividing the ppl thinking it was the sun, the magnetism, or even aliens... The level of global stupidity just killed our planet.
But hey, i hope your check balance is good. Money ... all that matters.

Now the majority can invest in storm-barrage.

Many people mistake their opinions for facts. Climate change is a natural function which humans arrogantly think they have caused. At best humans are responsible for local environmental change only.

Environmental change would be the conditions that are being experienced in China where the air is not breathable due to government shortsightedness and the lack of concern. These conditions existed in Detroit and Los Angeles years ago before the 1970 EPA Act. China is not so concerned about people only becoming a world power regardless of the number of dead people.

China and India are the worlds biggest polluters well ahead of the US. Our Industrial base dwarfs both and we are doing it cleaner! If the UN is so concerned over the environment why are they not investing in the clean up in these countries? The UN is only interested in the collecting monies from the US for re-distribution to their despots around the world.

The US EPA served the country well until it was weaponized in the 1980's & 90's by people like Al Gore. It responded well with it's mega funds to clean up many waste sites and fine the industrial polluters. Then the EPA became a political tool where it started going after the average citizen. Farmers were the hardest hit and had to defend against "cow farts" and the restrictions against building water holes.

These are the "Inconvenient Truths". Not opinions but facts.