It's getting warm

The primary goal of this site is to provide mature, meaningful discussion about the Vancouver Canucks. However, we all need a break some time so this forum is basically for anything off-topic, off the wall, or to just get something off your chest! This forum is named after poster Creeper, who passed away in July of 2011 and was a long time member of the Canucks message board community.

Moderator: Referees

User avatar
5thhorseman
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2163
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 11:04 am

Re: It's getting warm

Post by 5thhorseman »

mr perfect wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 11:04 am
Micky wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 7:38 am
Or a fart from Etna.
I was on Mt Etna only 2 months ago.
She never called?

User avatar
5thhorseman
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2163
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 11:04 am

Re: It's getting warm

Post by 5thhorseman »

Strangelove wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 2:34 pm
Per wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 1:41 pm
Strangelove wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 1:41 pm
Look, even if CO2 were a greenhouse gas, it's a teensy weensy factor, truth is it's water vapour that is the most important.

Image
You keep confusing ”largest amount” with ”most important”. :|

They are not the same thing.
Whatever Per, my statement is irrefutable... try a little research. :eh:

All those scientists of yours who say anthropogenic climate change is a big deal agree with my statement above.

Water vapour is BY FAR (many, many times over) the most important greenhouse gas.
So Per, SL, what's the unit of measurement for greenhouse gas effectiveness. Is it an R value or something? Should I ask the dude? Any scientists around here?

User avatar
Micky
MVP
MVP
Posts: 13239
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 5:27 am
Location: Richmond, B.C.

Re: It's getting warm

Post by Micky »

Image

.......Other .. Image
"evolution"

User avatar
Per
MVP
MVP
Posts: 6293
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:45 am
Location: Sweden

Re: It's getting warm

Post by Per »

Strangelove wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 2:34 pm

I agree with the scientific theory that says humans have an insignificant effect on the global climate at best.

Why are you so sure the scientific theory you ascribe to is the correct one, hell you obviously don't do any research on the matter! 8-)
Similarly, until the 20th century there was a folk belief about the climate, which Weart expresses this way in his book: “Hardly anyone imagined that human actions, so puny among the vast natural powers, could upset the balance that governed the planet as a whole … such was the public belief and scientists are members of the public, sharing most of the assumptions of their culture.”
The idea of a benevolent natural balance has emotional appeal -- just as creationism did -- but if history is any guide, the smart money is on the more science-based view that replaced it.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/artic ... -seriously
Whatever you do, always give 100 %!
Except when donating blood.

User avatar
Per
MVP
MVP
Posts: 6293
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:45 am
Location: Sweden

Re: It's getting warm

Post by Per »

5thhorseman wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 10:21 pm
So Per, SL, what's the unit of measurement for greenhouse gas effectiveness. Is it an R value or something? Should I ask the dude? Any scientists around here?
OK, first of all, CO2 is not the most abundant (that would be water vapor) nor the most potent (several other green house gases lock in more heat relative to their amount, see below) but it is still the most important one.

Why? Because water vapor is rather stable over time, and human enterprises does not have a major impact on it, and while other greenhouse gases may pack more clout, they are released in smaller amounts and only remain in the atmosphere for decades or centuries, while CO2 that reaches the atmosphere typically lingers there for thousands of years. Also, CO2 accounts for 81% of greenhouse gas emissions.

So, while methane or nitrous oxide may have a more dramatic immediate effect, per amount released, their impact is still dwarfed by the longer term and greater amount of CO2 emissions.

Water vapor - yeah, if you talk about the normal greenhouse effect, the one that enables us to live on earth, water vapor is a huge part of that, but it has little or no relevance for the climate change we are experiencing.
Carbon dioxide (CO2): Carbon dioxide is the primary greenhouse gas, responsible for about three-quarters of emissions. It can linger in the atmosphere for thousands of years. In 2018, carbon dioxide levels reached 411 parts per million at Hawaii's Mauna Loa Atmospheric Baseline Observatory, the highest monthly average ever recorded. Carbon dioxide emissions mainly come from burning organic materials: coal, oil, gas, wood, and solid waste.

Methane (CH4):The main component of natural gas, methane is released from landfills, natural gas and petroleum industries, and agriculture (especially from the digestive systems of grazing animals). A molecule of methane doesn't stay in the atmosphere as long as a molecule of carbon dioxide—about 12 years—but it is at least 84 times more potent over two decades. It accounts for about 16 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions.

Nitrous Oxide (N2O): Nitrous oxide occupies a relatively small share of global greenhouse gas emissions—about six percent—but it is 264 times more powerful than carbon dioxide over 20 years, and its lifetime in the atmosphere exceeds a century, according to the IPCC. Agriculture and livestock, including fertilizer, manure, and burning of agricultural residues, along with burning fuel, are the biggest sources of nitrous oxide emissions.

Industrial gases: Fluorinated gases such as hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, chlorofluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) have heat-trapping potential thousands of times greater than CO2 and stay in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years. Accounting for about 2 percent of all emissions, they're used as refrigerants, solvents, and in manufacturing, sometimes occurring as byproducts.

Other greenhouse gases include water vapor and ozone (O3). Water vapor is actually the world's most abundant greenhouse gas, but it is not tracked the same way as other greenhouse gases because it is not directly emitted by human activity and its effects are not well understood. Similarly, ground-level or tropospheric ozone (not to be confused with the protective stratospheric ozone layer higher up) is not emitted directly but emerges from complex reactions among pollutants in the air.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/envi ... use-gases/

Finally, as for your question on unit of measurement, it’s GWP (global warming potential) and you can read all about it here:
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/unders ... potentials
Whatever you do, always give 100 %!
Except when donating blood.

User avatar
Strangelove
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 26632
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 12:13 pm
Location: Lake Vostok

Re: It's getting warm

Post by Strangelove »

Strangelove wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 9:43 am
Per wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 10:08 pm
Mind you, the greenhouse effect is not bad per se. If it weren't for the green house gasses (of which CO2 is the most important) the earth would be a giant snow ball. Thanks to the greenhouse effect it is hospitable for us.
Look, even if CO2 were a greenhouse gas, it's a teensy weensy factor, truth is it's water vapour that is the most important.

Image

Humans are not responsible for climate change, lol you've been hornswoggled...
Well it sounds like you did a little research and changed your tune:
Per wrote:
Wed Jan 15, 2020 1:38 pm
Water vapor - yeah, if you talk about the normal greenhouse effect, the one that enables us to live on earth, water vapor is a huge part of that, but it has little or no relevance for the climate change we are experiencing.
Other greenhouse gases include water vapor and ozone (O3). Water vapor is actually the world's most abundant greenhouse gas, but it is not tracked the same way as other greenhouse gases because it is not directly emitted by human activity and its effects are not well understood.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/envi ... use-gases/
So you're admitting water vapour IS the most important greenhouse gas.

But now you're saying the most important greenhouse gas doesn't contribute to climate change? :?
____
GO CANUCKS GO!!!

User avatar
Strangelove
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 26632
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 12:13 pm
Location: Lake Vostok

Re: It's getting warm

Post by Strangelove »

https://principia-scientific.org/co2-da ... jdiWMFKDE0

CO2 Data Manipulation

Published on July 30, 2019

Written by Dr Tim Ball (Climatologist)
Anyone who wants scientific proof that the alarmists are downplaying/outright-ignoring the MASSIVE effect of water vapour on climate change

... along with other forms of data manipulation...

should read this entire article.

I looked around and this one is excellent.
____
GO CANUCKS GO!!!

User avatar
Strangelove
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 26632
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 12:13 pm
Location: Lake Vostok

Re: It's getting warm

Post by Strangelove »

https://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse System

Known causes of global climate change, like cyclical eccentricities in Earth's rotation and orbit, as well as variations in the sun's energy output, are the primary causes of climate cycles measured over the last half million years. However, secondary greenhouse effects stemming from changes in the ability of a warming atmosphere to support greater concentrations of gases like water vapor and carbon dioxide also appear to play a significant role. As demonstrated in the data above, of all Earth's greenhouse gases, water vapor is by far the dominant player.

The ability of humans to influence greenhouse water vapor is negligible. As such, individuals and groups whose agenda it is to require that human beings are the cause of global warming must discount or ignore the effects of water vapor to preserve their arguments, citing numbers similar to those in Table 4b . If political correctness and staying out of trouble aren't high priorities for you, go ahead and ask them how water vapor was handled in their models or statistics. Chances are, it wasn't!

Image

ImageImageImageImageImage
Yeahno, mankind isn't affecting the global climate with his drop-in-the-bucket amount of gas emissions...
____
GO CANUCKS GO!!!

User avatar
The Brown Wizard
MVP
MVP
Posts: 11790
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:19 pm
Location: in the shed with a fresh packed bowl

Re: It's getting warm

Post by The Brown Wizard »

Is Per justifying an increase to his 57% tax rate that supports the hordes of benefit seeking economic refugees again?

"Of course i want them destroying our socio-economic prosperity! I love how they take advantage of us!"
Witchcraft... Oh, but it IS. A dark and terrible magic...

User avatar
Per
MVP
MVP
Posts: 6293
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:45 am
Location: Sweden

Re: It's getting warm

Post by Per »

Strangelove wrote:
Wed Jan 15, 2020 4:57 pm
https://principia-scientific.org/co2-da ... jdiWMFKDE0

CO2 Data Manipulation

Published on July 30, 2019

Written by Dr Tim Ball (Climatologist)
Anyone who wants scientific proof that the alarmists are downplaying/outright-ignoring the MASSIVE effect of water vapour on climate change

... along with other forms of data manipulation...

should read this entire article.

I looked around and this one is excellent.
Seems you are looking in all the wrong places. The name alone, Principia Scientific, scars my eyes and ears for linguistic reasons. They could at least have had the decency to add an a to the end of Scientific. Now it just becomes a hodge podge of Latin and English. It look slike when people are trying to use fancy words without understanding what they mean.

Anyway, I decided to check their credentials, and yeah, tinfoil hat conspiracy site seems to be a reasonable assessment:
Factual Reporting: LOW
Country: United Kingdom
World Press Freedom Rank: UK 33/180

History

Founded in 2010, Principia Scientific International (PSI) is an organization based in the United Kingdom which promotes fringe views and material to claim that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas. PSI has also published a book, titled “Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory.” According to their about page “Principia Scientific International (PSI) is the only independent science body in the world that is legally incorporated to champion the traditional scientific method, as set out in the work of Karl Popper”

Funded by / Ownership

Principia Scientific does not list names regarding ownership, however they state “Since June 2017 Principia Scientific International is legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. We are a ‘Community Interest Company’ overseen and regulated by Companies House.” Revenue is generated through donations.

Analysis / Bias

In review, PSI claims as their number one mission to “be the leading independent voice for principled science as per the Traditional Scientific Method (TSM)”, which was championed by scientific philosopher Karl Popper. The general philosophy of Popper is that scientist should actively attempt to falsify a hypothesis, rather than prove it. The right leaning American Council on Science and Health has written why this method may not be the best.

Principia Scientific covers many areas of science, however most stories center around climate change (global warming) and vaccinations. When it comes to climate change, PSI does not agree CO2 is the primary driver of global warming. PSI takes vaccinations to a whole other level with stories like this: Doctors Who Discovered Cancer Enzymes In Vaccines All Murdered!. This story is sourced to Neon Nettle, which we rate as a quackery level pseudoscience and tin foil hat conspiracy website. This story is listed as a Pants on Fire claim by Politifact.

In general, the information found on this website falls along the extreme right biased spectrum of science. This is an anti-scientific method website, that reveals a human influenced climate change denial website, which promotes climate change as a grand conspiracy with scientists “fudging” data.

A factual search list several failed fact checks.

“Doctors who discovered cancer enzymes in vaccines all found murdered.” – Pants on Fire
Solar Minimum expected to cool the upper-atmosphere – False
We are not heading towards a “mini ice age”, contrary to claims in some media – False
Overall, we rate Principia Scientific International (PSI) a strong conspiracy and Pseudoscience website that promotes anti-vaccine propaganda and frequent misinformation regarding climate change. (D. Van Zandt 7/18/2017) Updated (9/26/2019)
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/principi ... rnational/

Not that I want to shoot the messenger per se, but some messengers definitely deserve to be shot. :drink:

As for "Dr Tim Ball (climatologist)":
Ball claimed, in an article written for the Calgary Herald, that he was the first person to receive a PhD in climatology in Canada, and that he had been a professor for 28 years, claims he also made in a letter to then-prime minister of Canada, Paul Martin. Dan Johnson, a professor of environmental science at the University of Lethbridge, countered his claim on April 23, 2006, in a letter to the Herald stating that when Ball received his PhD in 1983, "Canada already had PhDs in climatology," and that Ball had only been a professor for eight years, rather than 28 as he had claimed. Johnson, however, counted only Ball's years as a full professor. In the letter, Johnson also wrote that Ball "did not show any evidence of research regarding climate and atmosphere," which Ball later admitted.

In response, Ball filed a lawsuit against Johnson. Johnson's statement of defence was provided by the Calgary Herald, which stated that Ball "...never had a reputation in the scientific community as a noted climatologist and authority on global warming," and that he "...is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist." In the ensuing court case, Ball acknowledged that he had only been a tenured professor for eight years, and that his doctorate was not in climatology but rather in the broader discipline of geography, and subsequently withdrew the lawsuit on June 8, 2007.

In February 2011, it was reported that climate scientist Andrew J. Weaver had sued Ball over an article Ball wrote for the Canada Free Press which was later retracted. In the article, Ball described Weaver as lacking a basic understanding of climate science and stated, incorrectly, that Weaver would not be involved in the production of the IPCC's next report because he had concerns about its credibility. Ball contended that the lawsuit was nothing more than an attempt to silence him because of his skeptical position on global warming. In February, 2018 Andrew Weaver's defamation suit against Ball was dismissed completely. The judge noted that Ball's words "lack a sufficient air of credibility to make them believable and therefore potentially defamatory" and concluded that the “article is poorly written and does not advance credible arguments in favour of Dr. Ball’s theory about the corruption of climate science. Simply put, a reasonably thoughtful and informed person who reads the article is unlikely to place any stock in Dr. Ball’s views...".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Ball
Whatever you do, always give 100 %!
Except when donating blood.

User avatar
Strangelove
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 26632
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 12:13 pm
Location: Lake Vostok

Re: It's getting warm

Post by Strangelove »

First of all you're talking about an article from 2011 (mine is from this past July).

Second of all the judge was ruling whether or not Prof Ball defamed Mr Weaver (ruled he did not).

The judge wasn't ruling on Prof Ball's scientific credibility as presented in the 2011 article

... as of course the judge is not qualified to do so.

This judge merely offered his opinion in passing as "an informed person".

Do ya GET IT?!!

An "informed person" knows scientific consensus = fact

... therefore Prof Ball must "lack credibility" because he disputes said consensus! :lol:

Around and around and around we go...

Ahem. A Professor of Climatology knows less about climatology than this judge, according to this judge.

Smacks a little of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E ... ger_effect

But yeah, the scientific consensus of the day is never wrong, right? :D

Image



Whatever Per, you went all ad hominem here, attack the science in the 2019 article or go home.

:drink:
____
GO CANUCKS GO!!!

User avatar
Topper
CC Legend
Posts: 11895
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Earth, most days.

Re: It's getting warm

Post by Topper »

We know who Weaver is.... fucking Horgan prop
Over the Internet, you can pretend to be anyone or anything.

I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.

User avatar
Topper
CC Legend
Posts: 11895
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Earth, most days.

Re: It's getting warm

Post by Topper »

Over the Internet, you can pretend to be anyone or anything.

I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.

User avatar
5thhorseman
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2163
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 11:04 am

Re: It's getting warm

Post by 5thhorseman »

Topper wrote:
Tue Jan 21, 2020 8:56 am
The cost of knee jerk pandering

https://business.financialpost.com/opin ... he-science
Sure, nuclear energy may not be "clean", but at least it's green and you can't replace all energy from fossil fuels with just wind, sun, and tide. Another example of eco-warriors taking things too far.

User avatar
Per
MVP
MVP
Posts: 6293
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:45 am
Location: Sweden

Re: It's getting warm

Post by Per »

Strangelove wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 2:17 pm
Whatever Per, you went all ad hominem here, attack the science in the 2019 article or go home
As if there were science in the article and not just paid for propaganda and conspiracy theories... :roll:

In all fairness, I have to confess I didn’t read the whole article. Once I got to this:
The result of determining “effectiveness” was the creation of a Global Warming Potential (GWP) chart. It was similar to the chart of Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS) created after the false claim that CFCs were destroying ozone in the upper atmosphere.
... I realized that he was either a nut case or a liar and couldn’t be bothered to waste more time reading that drivel.

It is a fact that chlorine will destroy ozone.
It is also a fact that CFCs break down in the atmosphere to release free chlorine.
It is also a fact that the levels of chlorine and bromine in the atmosphere have increased beacuse of human activities.
It is also a fact that this has caused a depletion of the ozone layer, which has been confirmed by various studies.
It is also a fact that once CFCs had been banned, the depletion of the ozone layer slowed down and in recent years there are even signs it has begun to recover, albeit it will take several decades before it has returned to historical levels.

https://www.britannica.com/science/ozon ... r-recovery

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/envi ... depletion/

https://www.epa.gov/ozone-layer-protect ... er-science

There’s no controversy here. This is actually the first time I have come across someone questioning the reality of the already more or less fixed problem of ozone layer depletion. It just confirms to me that he can not be taken seriously.

Btw, I thought it was a nice touch to include a link to an article from National Geographic, given that in one of the trials I quoted from above, Tim Ball was forced to admit not only that he had been a professor for 8 years rather than the 28 he claimed but more importantly that he had earned his doctor’s degree not in climatology but in geography.

Heck, maybe I can use my MBA degree to start working as a lawyer.... or perhaps engineer... I mean, who gives a fudge in what field you earned your degree, right? :lol:

As long as big oil and coal are willing to pay you for lending some sort of credibility to their desperate attempts to make people question the increasingly compelling evidence of anthropological climate change, it’s all good, right? :thumbs:

Also, from the quote I included in my earlier post:
Ball "...never had a reputation in the scientific community as a noted climatologist and authority on global warming," and that he "...is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist."
Kind of funny that you question me quoting The Guardian, one of Britain’s leading newspapers, and yet you choose to quote a proven liar posting on a conspiracy site. Sure, I went ad hominem, but when your source is pure shite, where’s the merit in trying to treat it as a proper argument just to humour you? It would surely just encourage you to continue to post drivel from unqualified posers. :|
Whatever you do, always give 100 %!
Except when donating blood.

Post Reply