• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

Climate Change Debate

HAzelGroveWolf said:
Worth a look:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11688994/The-Pope-joins-the-EU-in-a-sad-world-of-make-believe.html
Click to expand...

Its just a vague, barely coherent rant, devoid of evidence. You rail against people you denigrate as being 'english lit graduates', yet Booker's degree is in History. He's also claimed asbestos, passive smoking and BSE are harmless....

Oh, and he beleives in 'intelligent design'.

So no, its not 'worth a look'. In fact, the only reason you cite it is not that it brings anything new to the table, but simply because you agree with him.
 
Visage said:
So if its natural, whats the root cause?
Click to expand...

There are numerous identifiable cycles determined by Fourier analysis of paleo proxies for temperature eg Greenland ice cores.
Oceanic heat flow, solar variation, internal fission and other unknowns influence climate. Carbon dioxide is likely a bit player.
 
Yes, all those things can theoretically change the climate. But do you have any direct evidence that any if them have suddenly started to change the climate in the last hundred years?
 
Visage said:
Its just a vague, barely coherent rant, devoid of evidence. You rail against people you denigrate as being 'english lit graduates', yet Booker's degree is in History. He's also claimed asbestos, passive smoking and BSE are harmless....

Oh, and he beleives in 'intelligent design'.

So no, its not 'worth a look'. In fact, the only reason you cite it is not that it brings anything new to the table, but simply because you agree with him.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with all Booker writes nor should I. You simply dismiss the article because it does not agree with your political view.
Historians are in my view important, I enjoy the subject, hopefully they help prevent repetion of the past ideologies (we wish).
 
None of those natural cycles change the climate as quickly as it currently is. They're red herrings.
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
I don't agree with all Booker writes nor should I. You simply dismiss the article because it does not agree with your political view.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with it - it's an opinion piece, after all, and he's entitled to his opinion. What I disagree with is the notion that it adds anything to the debate or is 'worth a look'.
 
Visage said:
Yes, all those things can theoretically change the climate. But do you have any direct evidence that any if them have suddenly started to change the climate in the last hundred years?
Click to expand...

All those things are directly evidenced which is why the sceptism exists.
 
Says the man who asserts they are influencial and provides no evidence himself. You're the one making the assertation that they are responsible, the burden of proof is on you.
 
Visage said:
I don't disagree with it - it's an opinion piece, after all, and he's entitled to his opinion. What I disagree with is the notion that it adds anything to the debate or is 'worth a look'.
Click to expand...

The important point is that there is a debate and that the so called 'science' is flaky at best.
 
The Bear said:
Says the man who asserts they are influencial and provides no evidence himself. You're the one making the assertation that they are responsible, the burden of proof is on you.
Click to expand...

I've done plenty of that, there is no proof anywhere that a tiny contribution of carbon dioxide by man has any identifiable poor consequences,
indeed there maybe benefits.
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
I've done plenty of that, there is no proof anywhere that a tiny contribution of carbon dioxide by man has any identifiable poor consequences,
indeed there maybe benefits.
Click to expand...

Why dont you take a look at https://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm

Its got varying levels of explanation, dependent on your level of scientific acumen. You probably want to go for the 'Basic' explanation, and then ask someone to help you with the more advanced ones.


If you disagree with the explanations therein, come back and tell us why and we'll help you.
 
Visage said:
Why dont you take a look at https://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm

Its got varying levels of explanation, dependent on your level of scientific acumen. You probably want to go for the 'Basic' explanation, and then ask someone to help you with the more advanced ones.


If you disagree with the explanations therein, come back and tell us why and we'll help you.
Click to expand...

Desperation has set in if you resort to 'skeptical science'. You have to find a positive feedback to water vapour to have any worries about the radiative properties of carbon dioxide.
 
Have you come up with evidence yet for a natural cause of climate change in the last 100 years?
 
Visage said:
Have you come up with evidence yet for a natural cause of climate change in the last 100 years?
Click to expand...

Natural well known cycles are sufficient. Was this simple explanation what you are looking for?http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives/its-water-vapor-not-the-co2.html

Climate changes and there is sod all we can do about it. I doubt we have an understanding that can offer the control knob you desire. I've made it clear that there is no immediately accessible technology that can distance us from organic chemistry fuels.
In any case what is the ideal global climate?
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
Natural well known cycles are sufficient. Was this simple explanation what you are looking for?http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives/its-water-vapor-not-the-co2.html
Click to expand...

Nope. Firstly, that article doesnt even mention the word cycle, let alone provide any evidence for it. What it does do, however, is argue against many points you make.

For example, water vapour:

It’s true that water vapor is the largest contributor to the Earth’s greenhouse effect. On average, it probably accounts for about 60% of the warming effect. However, water vapor does not control the Earth’s temperature, but is instead controlled by the temperature.
Click to expand...

In other words, water vapour amplifies the greenhouse effect, but it doesnt cause it.

Also, on CO2:

The greenhouse effect that has maintained the Earth’s temperature at a level warm enough for human civilization to develop over the past several millennia is controlled by non-condensable gases, mainly carbon dioxide, CO2, with smaller contributions from methane, CH4, nitrous oxide, N2O, and ozone, O3. Since the middle of the 20th century, small amounts of man-made gases, mostly chlorine- and fluorine-containing solvents and refrigerants, have been added to the mix. Because these gases are not condensable at atmospheric temperatures and pressures, the atmosphere can pack in much more of these gases . Thus, CO2 (as well as CH4, N2O, and O3) has been building up in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution when we began burning large amounts of fossil fuel.
Click to expand...

So the greenhouse effect is caused, in part by atmospheric CO2, which you agree mankind has increased dramatically.



So you failed to prove the point you were asked to prove, and instead disproved two of your most oft-repeated claims. Well done.
 
So I'll ask again - what natural cycle has caused the warming we've seen in the last 100 years?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top