BBsq69 Posted March 26, 2019 Share Posted March 26, 2019 On 3/19/2019 at 10:00 PM, Thestarider said: BB my friends listen the this Nobel Laurate explain climate change. As I continually tell my brother who worked in the same area as Giaever, this is about the science. Scientific belief is not religious belief, it is based on theory which people write papers on which are then rigorously tested by their peers. Peers who are the experts in these subjects which incidentally is Astronomy - the subject of my first degree - not by semi-conductor physicists. Darwin doesn't peer review Einstein and Einstein doesn't peer review Darwin. The further back in time you go, the less knowledge there is so in the past you had polymaths. Isaac Newton, the greatest scientist of the last 2 millennia, wasted much of his life on the nonsense of alchemy. Nowadays it takes a lot to be an expert in a single branch of physics. Let's move on to the statistics. Although let me stress in this case it really is about the science and we were expecting the evidence to take quite a few years to start showing up. Now unquestionably it is showing up. Everyone knows there are lies, damn lies and statistics. But this just means that people can misinterpret data. Proper scientists can do so but usually they get called out over it. This talk of Giaever was in 2008 - he ignored the science and tried to use statistics. Now I have found myself trying to explain probability (simpler and less controversial than statistics) to Maths professors because some of it is counter-intuitive and has mean heavily misunderstood in some famous court cases. I don't claim to be an expert myself but since I have a top degree in the subject I do have more understanding than the average man, and maybe professor, in the street. Giaever probably does have a good understanding of statistics but in his talk he is misleading about that and does dismiss the scientific theory which is pretty damn shocking for a Nobel Laureate not to mention misleading.in that area as well. Now he knows the graph and in the middle of that decade it flattens out and he dismisses the 0.8 rise over 100 years - see my earlier post about that - because by 2019 it his risen by almost 0.9 (and I am not using a rolling average merely because I can't be bothered because you wouldn't believe it anyway but trust me it would be within a few percentage points of that and lets discuss his use of percentages later) in the last 40 years. I have my doubts about some of the extreme claims made in the models myself because of other factors and assumptions but we know putting certain heavier molecules is going to cause an increase in the greenhouse effect because that is what the science tells us. Does that mean a definite increase temperature? NO! Does it mean we are more likely to have a devastating temperature? YES! Back to his 288.8/288 = 0.3% nonsense. This is the increase in Kinetic Energy (provided there was no change in the current level of gases) in the lower level of the atmosphere so he's saying that that kind of increase is trivial because it is low percentage. But it tends not be trivial to life which is quite sensitive to temperature plus more heavy gases escape into the atmosphere increasing the problem so the real picture is much more complex than the simple one he presents. During most of the history of the Earth the climate would have been incredibly uncomfortable for humans. What we are in is a window of opportunity and as we get more sophisticated with our understanding of science we can model more accurately. The 0.3% is meant to be "Look there's nothing to worry about" but that 0.3% rise is now over 40 years not 150 years. Yes I'm choosing my period just like he chose his although mine is when the fossil fuel is kicking in whereas he is counting coming out of the mini ice age I talked about last time. Mentioning the human contribution during the 19th century should really have been beneath him and was used to emphasise his point but evidential nonsense. The significant rise in the human contribution started in the 1950s so maybe it would be fairer to look at what has happened since then. Solar cycles also have an effect which can decrease or increase the rate of warming and it could be that affected the period immediately before he gave this talk. Too tired to go on but basically the vast majority of climate scientists are clear on the science although naturally you can expect their models to be different, none of them are good. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ipiratemedia Posted March 26, 2019 Share Posted March 26, 2019 11 hours ago, BBsq69 said: Isaac Newton, the greatest scientist of the last millennia, wasted much of his life on the nonsense of alchemy. Nowadays it takes a lot to be an expert in a single branch of physics. 11 hours ago, BBsq69 said: 288.8/288 = 0.3% nonsense. Boy genius! (compliment) I liked Isaac Newton and his "nonsense of alchemy;" you seemed to have the effect of an intellectual conversion or revelation, open your eyes to a new truth hidden from those not yet initiated. Thanks, this world is full of verifications of the theories. Unfortunately, Our problem lies with DECEPTION. Yes, a scientist was once praised, but the lies, as you eloquently stated. Most Scientist today don't utter a word, for fear of retribution. DECEPTION: Is "climate change" an imagined problem that unlike "catastrophic global warming" is not falsifiable? More questions, Is climate change an imagined problem promoted by censorship and the media without scientific evidence? Yes, climate change by man is an imagined unproven problem. Global Warming is on its way to being a two trillion dollar scam. Our politicians (New-World-Order) goals are to have total power and control over "we the people." These politicians are using powerful human motivators in climate change: Fear and Guilt. We fear our modern way of life will kill children and grandchildren. We the people are being told, carbon dioxide is a toxic pollutant and must be curtailed. In fact, without carbon dioxide above 150 parts per million, all plants would die. If these politicians succeed, food and energy will again be reserved for the rich and billions of humans will die of starvation or exposure. I think they call it Democratic-Socialism... Thank you for your personal input BB, I find it to be informative and educational... IMO! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBsq69 Posted March 26, 2019 Share Posted March 26, 2019 On 3/26/2019 at 5:21 AM, ipiratemedia said: More questions, Is climate change an imagined problem promoted by censorship and the media without scientific evidence? Yes, climate change by man is an imagined unproven problem. Except the science is real. Now I'm not suggesting we will turn into Venus as some models have once again suggested recently, but to actually pretend that humans are not having a significant effect on the atmosphere is just plain wrong. Of course we know from our experience of the world that certain people will leap upon things and get so fanatical and preachy about it that people do keep silent. I shall not pretend that is not a thing. It comes from both right and left but more recently it has been the left that has been dominant with this bullying. But the fact that that happens does not alter the science and climate experts are pretty much all agreed of the effect mankind has. It's a consensus not a conspiracy. Scientist accept these theories because they have looked at them and rigorously tested both the theory and where possible the actuality. It is a very long way from faith. I have probably mentioned this before because although I don't care for the TV series "Friend" - young people struggling to live in Central Park apartment, possibly the most desirable real estate in the world makes it hard to sympathise, Pheobe disputes the age of the Earth. When Ross tells her she's wrong, Pheobe says they should agree to differ, but Ross is not having that informing her it is not a different opinion but a fact. Ross then proceeds to give her a load of evidence about fossils but she remains unconvinced claiming that the mystery is "Who put the fossils there?" I am not sure what happens next but like any scientist Ross is clearly annoyed. Science moves on. We all know, Theories are disproved all the time but as time moves on we get closer to the truth. The absorption and reflection of radiation within the gases in the atmosphere is well understood and is certainly what scientists accept as the correct explanation. However if i go on I risk repeating myself because the man made cause of the warming (which has been witnessed statistically and by anyone who has actually noticed the weather over the last decade) is the one part that we can do something about. We can't do anything about orbital perturbations (not without a very large bomb) solar cycles, volcanoes, plate tectonics, algae blooms (although this could be linked to small changes in temperatures) and global weather systems (but again there is some chicken and egg) here. The so called relatively small effect on Carbon Dioxide etc. is not really small. This a seperate example but we now know the huge effect plastic is having on our oceans. Before many would have claimed that it only takes up a fraction of fraction of a percent and yet the more we look into it the more we realise exactly how pervasive it is. The real problems with global warming lie in the future but what was being said in the 1980s when I was studying it at university is coming to pass now. The truth is during the time of human civilisation, never has the climate been changing so fast. And those that do not see it are ostriches. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thestarider Posted April 18, 2019 Author Share Posted April 18, 2019 A must watch truth about the Paris Climate Change Accord. President Trump was right to get out of this so called Accord !!! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StnCld316 Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 They posted on the News the other day that the North Pole is moving to Russia. That's good for Canadians. Russia can keep it we've had our deal with it for Centuries. Time to let some other Country put up with the Winter Wrath. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happyone Posted April 19, 2019 Share Posted April 19, 2019 2 hours ago, StnCld316 said: They posted on the News the other day that the North Pole is moving to Russia. That's good for Canadians. Russia can keep it we've had our deal with it for Centuries. Time to let some other Country put up with the Winter Wrath. Wow--that is not good. I do not think that the Russian's will appreciate a person who gives stuff away living in Russia Santa --watch out. 😏 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foamy T. Squirrel Posted April 19, 2019 Share Posted April 19, 2019 3 hours ago, StnCld316 said: They posted on the News the other day that the North Pole is moving to Russia. That's good for Canadians. Russia can keep it we've had our deal with it for Centuries. Time to let some other Country put up with the Winter Wrath. Dude; that suggests that the Earth's magnetic field will be pointing to St. Petersburg. If I follow my Cub Scout compass directly north, and find the right telephone lines, I'll be able to scamper over there and find our beloved Eva! Fantastic! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBsq69 Posted April 19, 2019 Share Posted April 19, 2019 The North Pole and the magnetic North Pole are not related but it will be interesting to see the effects of the movement of the latter because it may be about to move quickly, maybe even flip. The actual North Pole doesn't really move more than an extremely tiny amount. The axis does relative to space so we will have a different pole star in the future but Polaris will be back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBsq69 Posted April 19, 2019 Share Posted April 19, 2019 5 hours ago, Thestarider said: A must watch truth about the Paris Climate Change Accord. President Trump was right to get out of this so called Accord !!! So his argument is because China isn't doing enough the US should do nothing and BTW the US produces about 10 times the amount of CO2 as India not twice. It's around twice what China produces but that's extremely misleading. No argument about the science though ... because there isn't one! As well as commitments from leading nations it was a least a statement of intent from the world. The US whether it likes it or not has to set an example as does Western Europe but once again Trump is interested in rust belt votes and the petrochemical industry than leading the world. Listen to scientists not politicians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thestarider Posted April 19, 2019 Author Share Posted April 19, 2019 36 minutes ago, BBsq69 said: So his argument is because China isn't doing enough the US should do nothing and BTW the US produces about 10 times the amount of CO2 as India not twice. It's around twice what China produces but that's extremely misleading. No argument about the science though ... because there isn't one! As well as commitments from leading nations it was a least a statement of intent from the world. The US whether it likes it or not has to set an example as does Western Europe but once again Trump is interested in rust belt votes and the petrochemical industry than leading the world. Listen to scientists not politicians. Nope not true as of Sept 2015 The 5 Countries That Produce the Most Carbon Dioxide (CO2) The 5 Countries That Produce the Most Carbon Dioxide (CO2) WWW.INVESTOPEDIA.COM Learn about the top five countries, China, the United States, India, Russia and Japan, that are the largest contributors to carbon dioxide emissions. More Action Is Necessary The picture of top emitters differs depending on how emissions are assessed. But regardless of how you analyze it, an international climate agreement cannot be successful without significant action from countries at the top of the emitters list. According to the 2017 BP Statistical Review of World Energy, since 2005 annual U.S. carbon dioxide emissions have declined by 758 million metric tons. That is by far the largest decline of any country in the world over that timespan and is nearly as large as the 770 million metric ton decline for the entire European Union. By comparison, the second largest decline during that period was registered by the United Kingdom, which reported a 170 million metric ton decline. At the same time, China's carbon dioxide emissions grew by 3 billion metric tons, and India's grew by 1 billion metric tons. Thus, I don't think it's the least bit misleading to claim that the U.S. is leading the world in reducing carbon dioxide emissions. 2013 Wikipedia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robwin Posted April 19, 2019 Share Posted April 19, 2019 I wonder what sparked off the Iron Age, Ice Age and all the other age happenings 1000's of years ago ?, i don't recall there being any carbon emissions around during these periods Or could it be just normal planet climatic changes which has always occurred over 1000's of years and always will ? Still it gives some people something to fucking whinge on about, have all these marches and demonstrations etc etc, oh yes and and yet another excuse for goverments to screw yet more taxes out of the general public. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happyone Posted April 19, 2019 Share Posted April 19, 2019 47 minutes ago, Robwin said: I wonder what sparked off the Iron Age, Ice Age and all the other age happenings 1000's of years ago ?, i don't recall there being any carbon emissions around during these periods Or could it be just normal planet climatic changes which has always occurred over 1000's of years and always will ? Still it gives some people something to fucking whinge on about, have all these marches and demostrations etc etc, oh yes and and yet another excuse for goverments to screw yet more taxes out of the general public. The dinosaurs were farting too much, so to save the earth, God destroyed them. There weren't any politicians to ban dinosaur farts back then 😏 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts