Climate Change reality

Slippertalk Orchid Forum

Help Support Slippertalk Orchid Forum:

Berthold

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
1,729
Reaction score
68
Location
EU
I just hate the speculative science coming out of the climate change church.
That is no speculative science, that is speculation and speculation is no science. That is the opposite.
 

Berthold

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
1,729
Reaction score
68
Location
EU
The reason I feel the need to jump on what I consider speculative nonsense is the hundreds of millions of dollars spent each year in a totally futile effort to change the climate and feed the egos of researchers. As you probably are aware, there are countless areas where the funds could be more wisely spent. I don't need to name them. The outrageous waste of money needs to stop.
Yes, that is the main problem for me too.

My second problem is that man-made-climate-change-missioners want to educate the rest of the world.
But I hate educating by any kind of missioners, including communists, Jehovah's Witness, vegans and climate changers.
 

Berthold

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
1,729
Reaction score
68
Location
EU
Overpopulation MUST be the root cause.

Please keep in mind humans by breathing exhaust more CO2 than cars on the world.
That is about 5 liters CO2 per minute multiplied by 7 500 000 000 people, 37 500 000 000 liters per minute CO2 direct human emission.
That is 70 500 000 000 gram, 70 500 000 kg per minute.
 

Stone

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
5,395
Reaction score
94
Location
Victoria Australia
That is no speculative science, that is speculation and speculation is no science. That is the opposite.
Yes true. Ok to speculate in science. In fact it is required sometimes but you cannot draw a conclusion or proof from a hypothesis by speculating.
 

Bjorn

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2010
Messages
1,714
Reaction score
0
Location
S. Norway
Please keep in mind humans by breathing exhaust more CO2 than cars on the world.
That is about 5 liters CO2 per minute multiplied by 7 500 000 000 people, 37 500 000 000 liters per minute CO2 direct human emission.
That is 70 500 000 000 gram, 70 500 000 kg per minute.
Wait a minute!
Berthold, you are a PhD in chemistry from RWTH as far as I understand so you should not have problems in following me here: 5liters CO2 per minute is 7200 l/day. That equals approximately 321moles of CO2. This amount is produced in the cells primarily by combustion of glucose, so each individual of us should combust an amount equivalent to 321/6 moles of glucose (molar weight 180). That is close to 10kg glucose per day!(actually 9645g)
I am stunned and utterly impressed by your appetite :poke:
Guess your assumption of humans breathing out pure CO2 is the problem in this calculation?
 

Berthold

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
1,729
Reaction score
68
Location
EU
Wait a minute!
Berthold, you are a PhD in chemistry from RWTH as far as I understand so you should not have problems in following me here: 5liters CO2 per minute is 7200 l/day. That equals approximately 321moles of CO2. This amount is produced in the cells primarily by combustion of glucose, so each individual of us should combust an amount equivalent to 321/6 moles of glucose (molar weight 180). That is close to 10kg glucose per day!(actually 9645g)
I am stunned and utterly impressed by your appetite :poke:
Guess your assumption of humans breathing out pure CO2 is the problem in this calculation?
Bjorn, yes You are basically right, sorry. But I prefer fat no sugar. The late night is not a good time for calculation. My value based on a high performance sportsman.
But there is still enough CO2 exhaust of the human beings.
 

Stone

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
5,395
Reaction score
94
Location
Victoria Australia
Yes, that is the main problem for me too.

My second problem is that man-made-climate-change-missioners want to educate the rest of the world.
But I hate educating by any kind of missioners, including communists, Jehovah's Witness, vegans and climate changers.
Vegans! Yes you could start another thread just on them. :rollhappy:
 

Stone

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
5,395
Reaction score
94
Location
Victoria Australia
The latest prediction from our climate hero Hansen et al

''The temperature will rise or it will fall or it will stay the same''.

The rest is just babble.
It's a bet each way, an ''out'' to save your arse and creating necessity for further funding. No way to loose! Never mind about earlier predictions, just pretend he didn't say them.
Ingenious!

:rollhappy:

18 January 2018
James Hansen, Makiko Sato, Reto Ruedy, Gavin A. Schmidt, Ken Lo, Avi Persin

Abstract. Global surface temperature in 2017 was the second highest in the period of instrumental measurements in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis. Relative to average temperature for 1880-1920, which we take as an appropriate estimate of “pre-industrial” temperature, 2017 was +1.17°C (~2.1°F) warmer than in the 1880-1920 base period. The high 2017 temperature, unlike the record 2016 temperature, was obtained without any boost from tropical El Niño warming.



Prospects for continued global temperature change are more interesting and important. The record 2016 temperature was abetted by the effects of both a strong El Niño and maximum warming from the solar irradiance cycle (Fig. 4). Because of the ocean thermal inertia and decadal irradiance change, the peak warming and cooling effects of solar maximum and minimum are delayed about two years after irradiance extrema. The amplitude of the solar irradiance variation is smaller than the planetary energy imbalance, which has grown to about +0.75 ± 0.25 W/m2 over the past several decades due to increasing atmospheric greenhouse gases.5,6 However, the solar variability is not negligible in comparison with the energy imbalance that drives global temperature change. Therefore, because of the combination of the strong 2016 El Niño and the phase of the solar cycle, it is plausible, if not likely, that the next 10 years of global temperature change will leave an impression of a ‘global warming hiatus’.

On the other hand, the 2017 global temperature remains stubbornly high, well above the trend line (Fig. 1), despite cooler than average temperature in the tropical Pacific Niño 3.4 region (Fig. 5), which usually provides an indication of the tropical Pacific effect on global temperature. Conceivably this continued temperature excursion above the trend line is not a statistical fluke, but rather is associated with climate forcings and/or feedbacks. The growth rate of greenhouse gas climate forcing has accelerated in the past decade. There is also concern that polar climate feedbacks may accelerate.

Therefore, temperature change during even the next few years is of interest, to determine whether a significant excursion above the trend line is underway.
 

emydura

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2008
Messages
6,823
Reaction score
119
Location
Canberra, Australia
Just in case you think Mike comes up with this stuff himself, think again. He just simply parrots all this crap from his favourite global warming denialist blog site. Mike posted it here only an hour or so after it was posted on wattsupwiththat. That was quick Mike. You must be on their email list.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/01...-10-more-years-of-global-warming-pause-maybe/

Check out the comments. There are like a million Mike's. You will see all the same conspiracy theory lines Mike comes up with. It is basically a cult.

I guess we are going to have to get used to it. Mike is going to continue forwarding on a lot of this anti-science propaganda from these dodgy websites. Mike - you should at least have the balls to say where you get your information from instead of passing it off as your own work.
 

Stone

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
5,395
Reaction score
94
Location
Victoria Australia
Mike - you should at least have the balls to say where you get your information from instead of passing it off as your own work.
David, please stop. These personal attacks not only illuminate who YOU are, they are becoming quite desperate and pathetic. Not to mention slipping off the edge of reality. You are embarrassing yourself.
 

Stone

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
5,395
Reaction score
94
Location
Victoria Australia
A very interesting paper which suggests our current understanding of the greenhouse effect as it is used to explain increasing heat trapped by increasing co2 concentration may be fundamentally flawed. I by no means have the concentration or the time to read and understand the entire paper but I have read enough to understand that the use of atmospheric pressure coupled with solar irradiance is the new model which is used. This, it turns out, neatly explains why increasing co2 on Earth does not effectively correlate to the temperature fluctuations observed here. It also explains in a new way why Venus - with it's very high pressure is so hot and remains so (not due to runaway greenhouse as is commonly said) It also explains why Mars which like Venus has much of it's atmosphere of co2 but at a low pressure does not retain solar heat. It seems to be the pressure of the gases which is governing back radiation and heat capture not only the species of the gas.
That's as far as I got.
Of course if this turns out to be correct, it won't matter how much co2 is pumped into the atmosphere, it won't make much difference to temperature at all. Not to mention the well known Band Saturation Effect which further restricts the warming power of co2. (https://www.coursera.org/learn/global-warming/lecture/CnAIV/the-band-saturation-effect)


Please comment if you are interested.

The paper....

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-ac...cal-planetary-temperature-model.php?aid=88574
 

Berthold

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
1,729
Reaction score
68
Location
EU
Medium January temperature in Berlin Tempelhof (former American Airbase) in the last 263 years. Starting date is birth year of W. A. Mozart. Goethe was seven years old. America did not yet exist I think :)



Abb.1: Der Januarverlauf in Berlin über die letzten 263 Januarmonate. Am wärmsten war der Januar 1796 mit 6,2 C. Am kältesten der Januar 1823 mit -11,6 C. Keinesfalls war der Januar 2018 der wärmste in Berlin, er gehörte aber zu den recht milden in den Monatsreihen.
 

Berthold

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
1,729
Reaction score
68
Location
EU
Fine, if You have gas you should never mine for coal like Germany had to do for a long time.
In the Ruhr district in the middle of Germany after the 2. world war about 500000 people lost their life direct or indirect by coal mining, most of them by silicosis.
 

Secundino

Adorable Stud
Joined
Dec 31, 2012
Messages
2,315
Reaction score
0
Location
Spain
¿crying crocodile tears for some dead? And why should now we believe such hypocrisy ...

Industry goes for the cheapest resources and maximum return, not for environmental goals. If industry had to pay for nuclear waste and environmental damage, nuke energy wouldn't exist.
 

Berthold

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
1,729
Reaction score
68
Location
EU
Industry goes for the cheapest resources and maximum return, not for environmental goals. If industry had to pay for nuclear waste and environmental damage, nuke energy wouldn't exist.
Nonsense, industry pays for nothing. Everything has to be payed by the final consumer.
If costs rise for the industry e. g. by environment improvement prices are raised also.
 
2

Latest posts

Top