| 
Posted 4 Days Ago by  dsg-silicon dioxide is hard
Has he gone? Can we be serious again now? 
|
 
|  | |
| |
Posted 4 Days Ago by Happy Nerd
Entry: The Science of Climate Change - A55110566
Author: DSG - U13965605
|
| | |
| |
Posted 4 Days Ago by lil.. ACE/Scout {Auntie Giggles}
Yep, he's gone.
Now, perhaps you could just take another look at that section. FM isn't a fool, he just doesn't express himself in the most friendliest of manners. So I wouldn't ignore him completely  ?
lil x
|
| | |
| |
Posted 4 Days Ago by Giford
>The argument is rather thin here
Exactly. And it would get not a whit thicker if DSG is a professor of meteorology, nor a jot thinner if he never went to high school. Let's debate the merits of the Entry, not the merits of the author - or, to put it another way, focus only on the issue, not outright on the individual.
I for one would like to see some actual science in this Entry if it's going to be called 'The Science of Climate Change'.
Gif 
NB: for non-Dwarfers among you: BSC = Bronze Swimming Certificate. SSC = Silver Swimming Certificate.
|
| | |
| |
Posted 4 Days Ago by BigAl - Keeper of the Glowing Pickle and Blue Banana, Patron Saint of Left Handers
Hi Shagbark,
Ref.Your statement <he largest portion of our Atmosphere is Nitrogen, but I always thought that it was transparent in terms of greenhouse effect.
The relevant part of your link says that
'Nitrogen can also enter the atmosphere as the smog-component nitric oxide (NO) and the greenhouse gas nitrous oxide (N2O).'
Yes, that's true - but those gases are not nitrogen! In #254 I pointed out that N2O has 310 x the Greenhouse Factor of CO2. However, it's only in the atmosphere at 0.00031%, giving an overall Greenhouse Effect of (0.00031 x 310) = 0.096.
A
|
| | |
| |
Posted 4 Days Ago by BigAl - Keeper of the Glowing Pickle and Blue Banana, Patron Saint of Left Handers
Oops. I've just realised I omitted a '0' in the concentration of atmospheric N2O. It should be 0.000031%, giving an overall GHE of 0.0096. 
|
| | |
| |
Posted 4 Days Ago by dsg-silicon dioxide is hard
Gif,
There are limits to the length of an Entry. I have tried, within those limits, to present the fact that the science is not settled, there are dissenting views (backed by peer-reviewed papers, with all that that now means) and there is a close connection (maybe too close) between the science and politics. (If you want more science, there are many links to direct you in the direction you seek, I hope, if not, let me know).
I hope, like all of us, that some scientists are right and that we should reduce our carbon emissions dramatically to stop a 'tipping point' from happening. But, before I start walking everywhere, taking extremely cold showers and going to bed very early, I need to be convinced. I am betting that there is no link between 'warming' and anthropogenic CO2. If there is, I will do what is necessary. If there isn't, I will be very, very angry.
|
| | |
| |
Posted 4 Days Ago by Giford
So if your Entry is about dissenting views and whether or not there is a consensus, and doesn't have space for a discussion of the science, why call it 'The Science of Climate Change'? Why not call it 'Dissenting Views on Global Warming', or 'The Conspiracy View of Global Warming'? At least by labelling it as what it is you have a fighting chance of getting it into the Guide.
Furthermore, if your specific intention is a polemic (i.e. to present the viewpoint that there is no consensus on global warming), you'd be better submitting this to the Post than the EG. The EG is not the place for opinion pieces.
Well, in my opinion, anyway 
Gif
|
| | |
| |
Posted 3 Days Ago by Julzes--the_missing_letters_spell_yroix
One thing should be said: If the good researchers who have given their all to this subject on the research front had only spent 5% of their time communicating to laypeople about the fact that there is a risk management issue that dictates erring on the side of extreme caution then we would all have a better understanding of this debate. No, the science is far from perfect. For all that we know, anthropogenic greenhouse gas releases are preventing an ice age that was coincidentally about to occur. It makes the most sense, though, to assume this not to be the case. It's a travesty that attempts at predicting are jumping ahead of the models' capacities, but it's the way scientists have unfortunately tried to manage the risks. In other words, they have been treating us like idiots and only really saying what they think to each other: This stuff is difficult, and we don't really know the whole thing well enough to predict squat yet; but it looks like things are going downhill fast, and we have to say something more precise than what we reasonably should because "might" won't cut it with consumers whose pocketbooks are affected (They'll prefer to take that chance).
|
| | |
| |
Posted Yesterday by shagbark
I'm cynical enough about people that I think even if we say
We must change or we will reach a tipping point that will make life in 2100 extremely problematical, they will say let the people in 2100 worry about it- the next ten years are going to be slightly cooler and so I will go on doing what I've been doing.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Yesterday by dsg-silicon dioxide is hard
From a review about Nigel Lawspn's bokk 'An Appeal to Reason'
>>>Take the IPCC's predictions of what might happen 50 or 100 years hence. The idea that this can be done with any accuracy, says Lord Lawson, is "inherently absurd". "We have only to ask ourselves whether the Edwardians, even if equipped with the most powerful modern computers, would have been able to foresee the massive economic, political and technological changes that have occurred over the past hundred years," he says.
But even if you accept the IPCC predictions, look what happens. The IPCC says that world temperature will increase by 2100 by somewhere between 3.2F and 7.2F. A warming of half way between these two points works out at an average temperature increase of 0.05 degrees F per year. In the last 25 years of the past century, temperature increased at the rate of 0.04 degrees per year. (In this century, it has not increased at all!) Has this proved so appalling to manage?
Lord Lawson then notes that the IPCC predicts that, at this level of temperature rise, global food production will actually increase. He takes the IPCC's gloomiest prediction of the economic effects of global warming over the same period. By its own figures, the difference between what would happen with global warming and without it amounts to this: in a hundred years' time, people in the developed world would be "only 2.6 times better off than they are today, instead of 2.7 times, and their contemporaries in the developing world would be "only" 8.5 times as well off as people in the developing world are today, instead of 9.5 times better off".
So this is the projected catastrophe, to avoid which the people of the present generation are being asked to curtail their carbon emissions by 70 per cent. We must tighten our belts for future generations, who even the gloom-mongers believe will be much, much richer than we are. This is not science, politics or economics, but masochism. Or rather, since our leaders will, on the whole, exempt themselves from the punishments they want to impose, it is sadism.>>>
|
| | |
| |
Posted 17 Hours Ago by Julzes--the_missing_letters_spell_yroix
Risk management! Consider the worst case that the prediction gives. Deciding to look at the midpopint is reckless.
|
| | |
| |
Posted 15 Hours Ago by dsg-silicon dioxide is hard
Really? Why?
|
| | |
| |
| |
Key |  |  |
A: An older reply to the parent Posting
B: The parent Posting, to which this is a reply
C: A newer reply to the parent posting
D: The first reply to this Posting
| | |
Click on this icon to make a complaint about a specific Posting | |
|
Home
Reply
