Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

The Technology & Economic Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to Technological and Economic developments in India. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11638
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby A_Gupta » 18 Dec 2015 20:27

Need for similar studies in India:
http://cta.ornl.gov/TRBenergy/trb_docum ... %20118.pdf
"Analysis of High-Speed Rail’s Potential to Reduce CO2 Emissions from Transportation in the United States"

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11638
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby A_Gupta » 18 Dec 2015 20:43

UK study:
http://www.greengauge21.net/wp-content/ ... mpacts.pdf
... at any given load factor, high speed rail already outperforms both car and short haul jet aviation even without electricity being decarbonised.


Code: Select all

Mode                        Assumed load factor      gCO2/pass km
Short haul aviation                 80%                     120
Car (new car average)               30%                     105
High speed rail (TGV Reseau)        70%                      30

Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby Bade » 18 Dec 2015 22:30

https://eos.org/articles/plankton-revea ... co2-levels
If they’re right, it will answer a lot of questions we’ve had for a long time,” said Laura Peterson, a professor of environmental studies at Luther College, who was not involved in the research.

Although scientists have assumed that CO2 levels must have tracked with the ancient temperature drop, they’ve struggled to prove so until now. “These are the first results that have shown that,” Peterson said.


A possible method to cross-check for efficacy of Carbon sequestration.
https://eos.org/articles/trying-out-muo ... rbon-leaks

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11638
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby A_Gupta » 19 Dec 2015 00:20

I have summarized a bunch of stuff, nothing that hasn't been posted or linked on various BRF forums, about high speed rail and India's carbon future.
http://arunsmusings.blogspot.com/2015/1 ... uture.html

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16518
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby NRao » 21 Dec 2015 11:52


Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4846
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Climate Change: Propoganda VS Reality.

Postby Neshant » 21 Dec 2015 15:28

Avarachan wrote:The president believes that “there is no global warming, that this is a fraud to restrain the industrial development of several countries including Russia,” says Stanislav Belkovsky, a political analyst and critic of Putin. ....


That is the objective.

That is why Europe especially is eager to push through the climate change agenda even though its based on bogus science. The fact that the name had to be changed from global warming to more ambiguous sounding climate change tells you the science behind global warming is a load of bullocks.

One of our major natural resources is coal. We should not be getting involved in arrangements that disadvantages our economic development.

Frankly its stupid to join these global summits on climate change wherein the agenda from Europe is how to constrain the industrial development of the East. They co-ordinate their strategies on how to bind developing countries to these treaties behind closed doors and later how to use threats of economic depravation to enforce it - all the while having polluted their way to success. None of this is good for India and they certainly don't have our best interest (or for that matter the planet's best interest) in mind. That ignorant posters here are cheering it on is testament to the fact that they don't understand what's really going on.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16518
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby NRao » 24 Dec 2015 19:32


Satya_anveshi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3532
Joined: 08 Jan 2007 02:37

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby Satya_anveshi » 24 Dec 2015 23:54

posting here for the lack of appropriate thread:
"Unstoppable" California Gas Leak Now Being Called Worst Catastrophe Since BP Spill

Since initially reporting on California's Alison Canyon gas leak, more details have emerged on the scale (and potential for no solution) of the problem as the infamous Erin Brockovich writes, "the enormity of the Aliso Canyon gas leak cannot be overstated. Gas is escaping through a ruptured pipe more than 8,000 feet underground, and it shows no signs of stopping," as according to the California Air Resources Board, methane - a greenhouse gas 72 times more impactful in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide - has been escaping from the Aliso Canyon site with force equivalent “to a volcanic eruption” for about two months now.



According to the California Air Resources Board, methane — a greenhouse gas 72 times more impactful in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide — has been escaping from the Aliso Canyon site with force equivalent “to a volcanic eruption” for about two months now. So far, the total leaked gas measures somewhere around 100,000 tons — adding “approximately one-quarter to the regular statewide methane emissions” during that same time frame.

“The relative magnitude of emissions from the leak compared to other sources of methane in the State underscores the urgency of stopping the gas leak. This comes on top of any problems caused by odor and any potential impacts from exposure,” states the initial report on the Aliso leak by air quality officials.

“The enormity of the Aliso Canyon gas leak cannot be overstated. Gas is escaping through a ruptured pipe more than 8,000 feet underground, and it shows no signs of stopping. As the pressure from the weight on top of the pipe causes the gas to diffuse, it only continues to dissipate across a wider and wider area,” explained Erin Brockovich, who spent time in nearby Porter Ranch investigating the leak.

sudarshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2184
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby sudarshan » 26 Dec 2015 01:17

Coming to the intriguing world of gas radiation. We spoke of this "absorptivity" factor. Absorptivity is the fraction of incident radiation, averaged over all wavelengths, which is absorbed by the medium. This is of course the spectral absorptance, weighted by the spectral distribution of the incident radiation. If the medium is gray, the absorptivity is independent of the spectral distribution of the incident radiation. The "gray body" approximation is a good one for many solids. Not so for gases.

The other difference between solids and gases, is what they do with the radiation that they don't absorb. Solids usually reflect, gases usually transmit (and scatter to some extent - which is a form of reflection). This transmissivity of gases is what is responsible for the greenhouse effect. The original greenhouse effect was the one observed with transparent solids, such as glass or plastics, which covered an area within which one could grow crops even in colder weather.

The transmittance/ absorptance of a gas depends on its density and the length of travel that light has to undergo within the gaseous medium. There is an exponential dependence on this optical thickness, which is the product of the density and the length of travel. The dependence is characterized by a parameter termed the "absorption coefficient," and this parameter is strongly dependent on spectral location.

Image

So when we talk about gas radiation, we don't talk so much about the spectral absorptance. Instead, we deal with this "absorption coefficient" (and a similar parameter for scattering, the "scattering coefficient").

sudarshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2184
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby sudarshan » 26 Dec 2015 03:03

Gases absorb radiation at distinct and single frequencies, which are termed as "lines" in the observed spectra. These frequencies correspond to energies of transition between electronic orbits, vibrational modes, or rotational modes. The number of vibration and rotation modes depends on the number of atoms in the gaseous molecule. The vibration and rotation modes of monatomic gases like helium or neon are easy to analyze, nitrogen or oxygen are more complex (diatomic), while CO2 is way more complex (triatomic). Even more complex gases are methane, ethane, and higher hydrocarbons.

Electronic transitions usually correspond to frequencies in the UV or visible ranges of the spectrum. Vibration transitions occur in the near or mid infrared. Rotational transitions are associated with even lesser energy. But the thing is - vibration and rotation transitions can occur simultaneously. So there are distinct bands around each line in the vibration transition. Each band is theoretically a set of sharp lines, with each line corresponding to one single frequency in the spectrum. But in practice, things get more interesting.

Image

Each vibration/ rotation transition can only occur when that exact quantum of energy is absorbed (or emitted). But then, molecules collide all the time, so the molecule can absorb a photon at a higher frequency than required, and the rest of the energy can be carried away by the colliding molecule. Or the molecule can absorb a photon at a lower frequency than required, with the remaining energy supplied by a colliding molecule. So each line has a distinct shape, owing to this "collision broadening." But lines can also be broadened by other phenomena, like the Doppler effect, or Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. In addition, if you use an instrument like a spectrometer to measure the spectra, the instrument will introduce additional broadening (though this is simply an effect of the measurement).

Image

Collision broadening is the primary broadening mechanism at lower temperatures. For collision broadening to occur, the photon absorption has to occur at the same time as a molecular collision, and this is a rather rare event, especially at lower pressures and temperatures. Doppler broadening comes in at higher temperatures. Collisions become more frequent as the pressure increases, so lines will be broadened more (i.e., the gas can absorb energy at frequencies which are further from the line frequency predicted by quantum mechanics, since there is a greater chance of the energy deficit or surplus being made-up-for by collisions).
Last edited by sudarshan on 26 Dec 2015 06:31, edited 1 time in total.

sudarshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2184
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby sudarshan » 26 Dec 2015 06:29

So now we know that:

1) Each gas has a distinct set of spectral lines, determined by its vibration-rotation characteristics, at which it absorbs radiation. There can be multiple vibration-rotation bands in the gas spectrum.

2) Each line is broadened by multiple phenomena, such as collision (pressure broadening), the Doppler effect, or the Uncertainty principle (quantum mechanics). So lines can overlap. In which case, the absorption coefficients add up at each spectral location.

But that's not all. The strength of each line (the integrated area under the curve of the broadened line) is a strong function of temperature. The width of each line is strongly dependent on the total pressure. And since collision broadening is the primary broadening mechanism, we also have to consider what gaseous species is colliding with our molecule of interest. In other words, the broadening will be different if our CO2 molecule collides with a hydrogen (light) molecule, as opposed to a nitrogen (heavier) molecule, as opposed to colliding with another CO2 molecule (much heavier than N2 or O2).

So before you can even think of calculating the absorptivity of a gaseous species, you have to:

1) Identify each line in each vibration-rotation band of the gaseous spectrum (there could be hundreds of thousands to millions of such lines in the spectra of an absorbing gas).

2) Identify what species are present in the gas mixture, and what are their partial pressures.

3) Identify the total pressure and temperature.

4) Calculate the spectral absorption coefficient for this mixture. This involves going one line at a time for each species, considering the effect of temperature, partial pressure, and total pressure for each line (since each line has its own unique parameters - although the mathematical dependence is the same - which characterize the dependence on each of these variables), and adding up the absorption coefficient from every line at each spectral location.

5) Once we have this spectral absorption coefficient, we have to convert this to gas absorptance by considering the partial pressure and path length.

6) Then we can weight the spectral absorptance with the spectral characteristics of the incoming radiation to get the total absorptivity.


An inhomogeneous gas medium with varying partial and total pressure, and varying temperature (which is what the atmosphere of a planet is, basically) :evil: is a nightmare to compute. :twisted: But that's not all. You have to do these computations at each iteration. Which means, you do one iteration, find out how much energy the gas has absorbed, then calculate the change in temperature and pressure due to that energy absorption, and redo the calculations at the new temperature, partial, and total pressure.

Is this even worth it? Radiative calculations will end up taking the vast bulk of computing resources, but what are the returns? Radiative heat transport is a small part of the overall heat and mass balance in the system.

So there are simplified ways of dealing with these absorption calculations (of course, at the cost of accuracy).

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11638
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby A_Gupta » 29 Dec 2015 19:23

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/cap ... orth-pole/

This is weather, not climate, but still of interest:
Big Icelandic storms are common in winter, but this one may rank among the strongest and will draw northward an incredible surge of warmth pushing temperatures at the North Pole over 50 degrees above normal. This is mind-boggling.


The GFS model projects the temperature at the North Pole to reach near freezing or 32 degrees early Wednesday. Consider the average winter temperature there is around 20 degrees below zero. If the temperature rises to freezing, it would signify a departure from normal of over 50 degrees.

Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby Bade » 31 Dec 2015 03:12

Western Indian Ocean phytoplankton hit by warming
The study says that the main reason for the decline in the phytoplankton is increased sea surface temperatures which suppress the mixing of surface and subsurface waters. The increased sea surface temperatures result in less dense water in the surface, a process known as stratification. Though the surface waters are exposed to sufficient sunlight required for photosynthesis of these plants, the nutrients (nitrates, phosphates and silicates) from the lower depths do not reach the surface due to stratification. Meanwhile, the subsurface phytoplankton do not have access to sunlight for photosynthesis and growth even though they have access to nutrients at the lower depths. This leads to less phytoplankton as these marine plants are asexual and multiply by cell division as they grow and reproduce in the presence of sunlight and nutrients.

Kannan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 98
Joined: 19 Apr 2005 23:26
Location: East Lansing, MI
Contact:

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby Kannan » 02 Jan 2016 23:13

This thread is beyond sad. It reminds me of young earth Creationists or Ted Cruz trying to use half learned knowledge to reinvent the wheel to their liking. The first mistake is making it Al Gore's hypothesis - he might be an impassioned voice but there are tens of thousands of scientists with a fairly deep understanding of it that will most likely exceed skimming a molecular spectroscopy text.

sudarshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2184
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby sudarshan » 06 Jan 2016 09:13

Solar radiation is transmitted by the atmosphere, reflected and absorbed by the earth. The earth has to get rid of the heat it absorbs, so it heats up and emits - but at a different wavelength than the incoming radiation.

The reflected fraction, which contains a lot of visible light, is what a human would see from space or the moon. The emission is mostly in the infrared.

Image

The incoming intensity has the characteristics of solar radiation (~6000 K, which means the intensity per unit wavelength peaks around 0.5 mu-m - green radiation). The reflection is assumed to be 30% of the incoming (i.e., the gray-body emissivity is 70%). So the remaining 70% is absorbed, and re-emitted in the IR. Since the earth reaches around 40 C (313 K), which is about 1/20th the surface temperature of the sun, the intensity per unit wavelength peaks around 10 mu-m.

In the figure, the incoming radiation is represented by the blue-shaded area, plus the pink-shaded area. The reflection is the pink-shaded area, and this area is 30% of the blue + pink area. So the blue area alone is absorbed. This is also re-emitted (red area), so the red-shaded region in the figure has the same area as the blue-shaded region. It just doesn't look that way, since the x-axis is logarithmic.

The outgoing radiation from the earth is the sum of the reflection and the emission. This curve is very significant, as we shall see.

The outgoing intensity curve again below:

Image

The blue region is 30% of the total area of the curve - again because of the assumption of a gray-body emissivity of 0.7 for the earth. Now if we superimpose the absorption bands of CO2, H2O, CH4, etc. on this curve, we'll know the effect of each of these gases - how much they contribute towards the greenhouse effect.

CO2 has a strong absorption band around 4.3 mu-m, but this is in a relatively unimportant area of the outgoing intensity curve. Other bands are around 2, 2.7, and 15 mu-m, but these are much weaker. H2O has a strong band around 6 mu-m, and this band is expected to be a major player for greenhouse heating.

So the next step is to evaluate the absorptance of each of these bands for atmospheric conditions. Then it is easy to tell how much additional energy would be absorbed if CO2 fraction zoomed up to 350, 500, 1000, 2000... ppm.

Assumptions: sun temperature, distance, diameter, etc. from public data, earth has a gray emissivity of 0.7, atmosphere is transparent to solar radiation.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3930
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby deejay » 11 Jan 2016 19:31

RT has a nice time lapse view of Arctic ice melts for last 25 yrs. Also some insights on new ice vs. old ice and reduction of old ice in Arctic:

https://www.rt.com/news/328468-arctic-ice-melting-timelapse/

Arctic Ocean ice levels are in decline and now a new time lapse by US scientists is showing how large ice packs which survive more than one summer are becoming less frequent occurrences.

Each year sea ice in the Arctic Ocean builds up in the winter months and thin ice melts away during summer.

However, old, multilayered icebergs are in decline and this visualization by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) gives some indication as to how the Arctic is “warming faster than the global average.”

Using satellite information, the video depicts the decline of nine years or older ice packs from 1990 to 2015.

The oldest packs, shown in white, can be seen to deplete dramatically around 2008 amid the darkest blue seasonal ice.

...

sudarshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2184
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby sudarshan » 16 Jan 2016 09:20

IR expert speaks out after 40 years of silence: It's the water vapor stupid, not the CO2.

Interesting take from an expert (? haven't checked out his expertise claim, admittedly), that CO2 is a non-issue for global warming. So do we have 100% total scientific consensus for AGW caused by CO2, or not?

But - I don't agree with some of the things this man claims. Like "there is no absorption from 9 microns to 13 microns by CO2." I'm actually seeing quite a bit of absorption by CO2 in this region, with line models. The other claim being "beyond 13 microns, there is CO2 absorption, but this wavelength corresponds to temperatures below that of the south pole, even." He seems to be confusing the wavelength of peak radiative intensity for a given temperature with the notion of "no radiation at that wavelength for a given temperature." This is not at all correct.

For example - radiative intensity per unit wavelength will peak at the wavelength of 13 microns at a temperature of around 230 K, or about -45 C. Radiative intensity per unit wavelength for a temperature of 300 K (~25 C - tropical temperatures) will peak around 10 microns. This man interprets this to mean - if we want to see significant radiation at 13 microns, we will not see this at 300 K, only at around 230 K. Nope, not true. At 300 K, there will be a distribution of radiative intensity which peaks at around 10 microns, but there will also be a lot of radiation at 13 microns, much more so than at 230 K. Blackbody intensity curves are such that an increase in temperature will increase radiation at all wavelengths, but the peak will shift towards lower wavelengths. Thus, the sun will radiate much more at 13 microns than the earth - only, the sun will radiate so much more massively at shorter wavelengths, that it will dwarf its radiation at 13 microns. The statement that this man makes about 13 micron radiation corresponding to temperatures below that of the south pole - it just makes me seriously doubt his expertise in IR radiation.

However, from calculations, I'm seeing that CO2 absorption will not increase all that much if its content in the atmosphere were to increase from its current value of 400 ppm, all the way to 2000 ppm. At the current rate of increase, going from 400 ppm to 2000 ppm will take 800 years. At a much accelerated pace of increase, it will still take about 300 years. Since the start of the industrial age, CO2 fraction in the atmosphere has gone up from about 280 ppm to the current 400 ppm.

So overall, it does seem to be the water vapor. One of the comments to the article is very interesting. It talks about IR telescopes, and the efforts made to set them up on high mountain peaks, so that the absorption by water vapor is greatly reduced. Nobody bothers about CO2 when setting up IR telescopes. The effort is to avoid water vapor, to try and get up above 99.9% of the H2O in the atmosphere. Or so the comment claims (with links to substantiate).

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11638
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby A_Gupta » 16 Jan 2016 20:05

^^^ To understand the different roles carbon dioxide and water vapor play in the climate, please e.g., look up:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... r-forcing/

Any mainstream scientist present will trot out the standard response that water vapour is indeed an important greenhouse gas, it is included in all climate models, but it is a feedback and not a forcing.


Or this:
http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/01/wa ... inant.html

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16518
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby NRao » 18 Jan 2016 02:56


Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby Bade » 18 Jan 2016 03:43

They should introduce a ban on honking too and mandate that cars be fixed with a horn-lock to disable its use for 5-10 minutes after the first use...just like a password lockout period. :-) People's habit in India can be changed only by forcing it going forward. Another way is to do away with horns altogether and maybe the driving will improve.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4846
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby Neshant » 18 Jan 2016 03:48

johneeG wrote:The beauty of a vague word like 'climate change' is that everything and anything can be spun as a sign of climate change. Hot, cold, flood, famine, ..etc can all be seen as signs of imminent great climate change. And of course, the solution is to pay more taxes.


Now that the mortgage backed security selling scam has run amuck as of 2008, Goldman Sachs needs a new scheme to milk money out of the productive economy. Enter carbon credit trading - paid for by higher prices on goods which society is forced to pay. It's just a continuation of one of the many banking scams out there which seeks to swindle wealth from those who have earned it.

Banking is not an industry producing anything of vslue. Since it produces no value, it has to devise schemes and scams to steal value from those who do produce value.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16518
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby NRao » 18 Jan 2016 05:12

Neshant,

Trading in such credits is rather old stuff.

Any time you "cap" anything, it is normal to "trade" (between participants). And, once you "trade", then the "trade" becomes speculative or special interests corner the "credits" and sell for profit.

Super Bowl tickets?

You can start an instrument to trade in such things too.

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6985
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby Amber G. » 18 Jan 2016 07:49

Image

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11638
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby A_Gupta » 23 Jan 2016 19:49

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/warm ... sert-19943
Warmer Indian Ocean Could Be ‘Ecological Desert’
"Rapid warming in the Indian Ocean is playing an important role in reducing phytoplankton up to 20 percent," said Roxy Mathew Koll, a scientist at the Centre for Climate Change Research at the Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology in Pune.

Over six decades, rising water temperatures appear to have been reducing the amount of phytoplankton – microscopic plants at the base of the ocean food chain – available as food for fish, according to research released in December by Koll and other scientists from the United States, South Africa and France.

That “may cascade through the food chain, potentially turning this biologically productive region into an ecological desert,” Koll said. Such a change would curb food security not only in Indian Ocean rim countries but also global fish markets that buy from the region, he said.

As waters in parts of the Indian Ocean have warmed by 1.2 degrees Celsius over the last century, the mixing of surface water and nutrient-rich deeper waters have slowed, the scientists said. That has prevented nutrients from reaching the plankton, which are mostly active in surface waters.

“The vertical mixing (of water) is a critical process for introducing nutrients into the upper zones where sufficient light is available for photosynthesis,” said Raghu Murtugudde, a scientist from the University of Maryland.

johneeG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3473
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby johneeG » 09 Feb 2016 21:22

[Off Topic Post Deleted]

Stick to the topic please.

Gus
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8216
Joined: 07 May 2005 02:30

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby Gus » 09 Feb 2016 21:51

Guilt by association?

johneeG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3473
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby johneeG » 09 Feb 2016 22:30

Climatalogist phil jones and climategate. Enough said!

Gus
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8216
Joined: 07 May 2005 02:30

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby Gus » 10 Feb 2016 03:13

You do understand that no amount of exposing al gore, pachauri and person x, y blah blah as aholes and perverts etc does nothing to address the central issue of climate change due to man, right?

Gus
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8216
Joined: 07 May 2005 02:30

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby Gus » 10 Feb 2016 03:17

You get to say enuff said - if you actually make a profound point that establishes your point firmly and clears all doubts and nothing more need to be said.

Throwing some guilt by association stuff is hardly an argument, least of all a "enuff said" argument.

Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10417
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby Vayutuvan » 10 Feb 2016 03:49

Phil Jones was cleared. The verdict was there was no professional misconduct by him or his research group.

johneeG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3473
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby johneeG » 10 Feb 2016 07:50

johneeG wrote:[Off Topic Post Deleted]

Stick to the topic please.


I am surprised this post was deleted. I really don't see how it was off-topic when there are similar allegations against both. Nobel Prize was awarded to both of them for their work on climate change and both of them face same allegations. If only one of them had such allegations, then one can say its 'guilt by association'. But, when both of them face the same charges, then its a pattern.

Anyway, its mod's call and I respect that.

Gus wrote:You do understand that no amount of exposing al gore, pachauri and person x, y blah blah as aholes and perverts etc does nothing to address the central issue of climate change due to man, right?


The actual points of science are already addressed. That issue has been done and dusted. The last remaining vestige was impeccable personal integrity (gore & pachauri) or professional integrity(jones). And that is also gone. Thats why I get to say 'enuff said'.

Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10417
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby Vayutuvan » 10 Feb 2016 10:32

Professional integrity of Phl Jones is nit "also gone". In anycase professional integrity, by definition, is professional integrity. Otherwise all in that particular profession, whatever the profession may be, do not have integrity as a collective. Every profession has certain requirements which need to be satisfied b anybody claiming to belong to that profession. For example, if one wants to be recignized as a CA or a doctor of medicine or a lawyer one needs to satisfy the requirements set by the respective professional communities. If is no different in STE.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4846
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby Neshant » 14 Feb 2016 21:06

I just watched a presentation where multiple ice cores show parts of the Earth warmed as much as 5 degrees per year for 5 years or 1000x faster than supposed present day global warming. This was well before modern humans were emitting anything thousands of years ago. Scientists can't explain any of that but still continue on with the bogus man made climate change theories.

This has got to be the biggest pseudo science propagation in history.

Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby Bade » 14 Feb 2016 22:11

Inquisition like days are not over for sure from the wild comments. ;-)

johneeG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3473
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby johneeG » 14 Feb 2016 22:32

Neshant wrote:I just watched a presentation where multiple ice cores show parts of the Earth warmed as much as 5 degrees per year for 5 years or 1000x faster than supposed present day global warming. This was well before modern humans were emitting anything thousands of years ago. Scientists can't explain any of that but still continue on with the bogus man made climate change theories.

This has got to be the biggest pseudo science propagation in history.


I think its normal. Its all grand theorizing particularly if it brings moolah. Thats why one needs to make a clear distinction between facts and opinions(theories).

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7298
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby disha » 16 Feb 2016 23:57

JohneeG and Neshant., one question for today. Only one and please try to answer it honestly (and no long links or tons of para).

1. Were humans present when the Earth warmed up as much as 5 degrees per for 5 years (as Neshant's ice core suggests)? BTW., that episode is Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum.

Gus
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8216
Joined: 07 May 2005 02:30

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby Gus » 17 Feb 2016 00:36

Yes yes the earth was a molten mass sometime in its past. Shall we go back to that because it was "natural" and was not "man made"

We are already seeing effects of climate change and that plants, animals and humans are migrating due to that and the real debate should be on what can be done as a collective and at individual level and what makes most sense for nations that are already rich and nations that need development to provide for its people. At individual level - cutting down meat, reducing wasteful consumerism, recycling , gardening and tree planting etc can be helpful. At national level political leaders and experts need to collaborate as to what makes most sense.

Instead here we are exposing al gore and some dark conspiracy blah blah. Disappointing to see this continue in brf.

sudarshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2184
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby sudarshan » 17 Feb 2016 22:56

Gus wrote:Yes yes the earth was a molten mass sometime in its past. Shall we go back to that because it was "natural" and was not "man made"

We are already seeing effects of climate change and that plants, animals and humans are migrating due to that and the real debate should be on what can be done as a collective and at individual level and what makes most sense for nations that are already rich and nations that need development to provide for its people. At individual level - cutting down meat, reducing wasteful consumerism, recycling , gardening and tree planting etc can be helpful. At national level political leaders and experts need to collaborate as to what makes most sense.

Instead here we are exposing al gore and some dark conspiracy blah blah. Disappointing to see this continue in brf.


First bolded part: climate is always going to change, there's no sense in freezing the current climate as some sort of "ideal climate."

Second bolded part: plants, animals, and humans are going to keep migrating in response to multiple phenomena, climate change being one of them.

Third bolded part: This "what can be done" bit - what is the aim here, what is the goal of whatever it is you want people to do? To freeze the current climate patterns and stop them from changing forever? Not going to happen. To stop animals and plants and humans from migrating and keep them frozen to their current domains forever? Turn the world into one big zoo and keep all species confined to their cages? Or is the aim simply to "limit CO2," so that CO2 levels stay frozen at their current levels forever?

Specifically, if your aim is to limit CO2 levels, then please answer the following questions. If there is a volcanic eruption next year that throws a whole lot of CO2 into the atmosphere, what should the human response be? Should we curtail industrial activity for the next couple of years or decades, to the extent that is needed to keep CO2 levels constant? Should we plant a million trees after every volcanic eruption? Or should we cap all volcanoes and keep them from erupting?

This argument that "AGW deniers" are all against reducing pollution, limiting human consumption, going organic, recycling, or reducing meat consumption, is very specious. I don't think many AGW deniers are arguing for the opposite of any of this. AGW deniers only question whether CO2 is the sole bad guy, and if so, are human sources of CO2 really that significant, and if so, whether or not the planet has natural ways of absorbing that CO2, or should we all go into a global panic right now.

People like me, who are open to the possibility that CO2 could be a bad guy, but who don't believe that the science is "settled," simply rebel against the panic-mongering and the claims of "settled science" and seek to do our own investigation. We also resent being told that we deserve the death penalty for daring to question this "settled science." We very much resent being portrayed as people who want to maximize consumption, who are against recycling, pro-pollution, pro-ocean-garbage, pro-carcinogens - whatever. If you're going to advocate reduced consumption, sensible industrialization, reduced pollution, more recycling - I'm with you. If you want me to share in your sense of panic and doom and "what will our grand-children say" and to demonize CO2 every day - well, you're on your own there.

johneeG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3473
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby johneeG » 17 Feb 2016 23:04

And CO2 is perhaps one of the least harmful things in the world. CO2 is supposed to be like Oxygen for plants. CO2 is recycled by the plants into oxygen which is then recycled into CO2. This is a cycle.

The real pollutants are chemicals which are released due to industrial activity. These chemicals are not recycled by the nature. These chemicals pollute land, air and water. And thus leading to health hazards.

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7298
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby disha » 18 Feb 2016 01:24

JohneeG/Neshant., please answer my question.

To your carbon recycling - what happens when forests are destroyed? And their wood burnt? What happens to your CO2 cycle then? Will not CO2 accumulate?


Return to “Technology & Economic Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests