Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Rods2 on 20 July 2017, 21:26:16
-
Scientists have been aware that the global climate is not behaving as expected as CO2 has risen with the world staying much colder than expected. The experiments on the heating effects of CO2 that are used in climate models were performed over 100 years a go with CO2 in glass tanks. A scientific paper has been published arguing that the very use of glass tanks to hold the CO2 are very different circumstances to what happens in the atmosphere.
This paper has found a correlation between a planet's temperature due to the amount of the Sun's heat reaching it and the density of the air pressure on the plant. The composition of the gas has no effect. The study only uses a small number of planets and moons in the Solar system to confirm this relationship and further work is required to prove or disprove this is correct. Very little science is totally settled so this is of no surprise and it is going to be interesting to see how the climate change models evolve where the theory they are based on doesn't reflect what is happening in the real world.
Personally, due to the combination of Newtonian maths and chaos theory, I can't see how we can meaningfully predict the long term future in much the same way that economic modeling is a similar problem and much of the time little more than a guess due to the chaos element. In both cases when there is known correct historical data you can see where the models are wrong and try to improve them but this is hardly predicting the long term future in any meaningful way.
https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/New-Insights-on-the-Physical-Nature-of-the-Atmospheric-Greenhouse-Effect-Deduced-from-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf (https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/New-Insights-on-the-Physical-Nature-of-the-Atmospheric-Greenhouse-Effect-Deduced-from-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf)
Those that think it doesn't affect them or their life need to remember that on average every working person is paying about £500 in renewable subsidies per year and this is only going to keep on growing.
-
WHEN it is found that CO2 in not the villain, the government (our and any other government) will ignore it because they do not want to lose the taxation income from "pollution" penalties.
Ron.
-
...due to the combination of Newtonian maths and chaos theory...
Newtonian maths? I thought the big thing about maths is that maths is maths? are there lots of different maths?
-
Those that think it doesn't affect them or their life need to remember that on average every working person is paying about £500 in renewable subsidies per year and this is only going to keep on growing.
A bit one sided wouldn't you say?
We also pay money to fossil power stations to not produce energy. And plough vast sums of public money into cleaning up nuclear installations after the private companies that made good money off the nuclear electric have cried foul at footing the bill.
Except these aren't subsidies are they? Oh no, apparently we are only allowed to use the S word when it relates to renewables. When it comes to other forms of energy production, the costs we as tax payers bear on behalf of energy companies must be something else ::).
There seems to be a huge leap in your post from "our current climate change models don't fit with what we see happening in the last few decades" to having a pop at renewables. A pet peeve of yours.
Moving to the article, some reading around seems to indicate that the consensus view is that the maths is sound but it leaps to some conclusions which the numbers cannot Support. As someone who bowed out of maths at A-level, much of the article is somewhat beyond me. However, citing a single article whose narrative runs contra to a wealth of peer reviewed scientific study smacks of cherry picking your sources.
Unless you're going to tell me it's all a global conspiracy. In which case we need to adjourn for a moment while I don my tin foil hat and squirrel fur gilet.
-
I blame Putin. It woz im wot did it.
-
Think of the poor little children! :'(
-
Think of the poor little children! :'(
You and your children... ::)
-
I'm not going to get bogged down in a big debate here, but my view is regardless of whether or not "x" causes global warming or whatever, surely it can't do any harm to reduce emmissions/polution etc. Let's suppose the whole greenhouse gas thing is wrong, so what ? Is it wrong to continue to strive towards renewable energy ? Sod the cost, everything costs money.
-
I'm not going to get bogged down in a big debate here, but my view is regardless of whether or not "x" causes global warming or whatever, surely it can't do any harm to reduce emmissions/polution etc. Let's suppose the whole greenhouse gas thing is wrong, so what ? Is it wrong to continue to strive towards renewable energy ? Sod the cost, everything costs money.
Two things about space that should be considered...
Firstly, no one can here you scream.
Secondly, it's bastid freezing.
That CO2 powered bubble we live under keeps everything on the planet warm. It also feeds the plants.
Talking of bubbles, apologies for bursting the ecomental one with some basic chemistry :D
-
I'm not going to get bogged down in a big debate here, but my view is regardless of whether or not "x" causes global warming or whatever, surely it can't do any harm to reduce emmissions/polution etc. Let's suppose the whole greenhouse gas thing is wrong, so what ? Is it wrong to continue to strive towards renewable energy ? Sod the cost, everything costs money.
Indeed, and the polar caps are still shrinking with sea levels rising. It will be too late to say we should have spent £x on cutting pollution when we are going glug, glug, glug, goodbye! ::)
-
Nickbat to general chat please. ;D ;D
-
I'm not going to get bogged down in a big debate here, but my view is regardless of whether or not "x" causes global warming or whatever, surely it can't do any harm to reduce emmissions/polution etc. Let's suppose the whole greenhouse gas thing is wrong, so what ? Is it wrong to continue to strive towards renewable energy ? Sod the cost, everything costs money.
Indeed, and the polar caps are still shrinking with sea levels rising. It will be too late to say we should have spent £x on cutting pollution when we are going glug, glug, glug, goodbye! ::)
Don't worry, a chap called Noah will be along with an ark. ::)
-
I'm not going to get bogged down in a big debate here, but my view is regardless of whether or not "x" causes global warming or whatever, surely it can't do any harm to reduce emmissions/polution etc. Let's suppose the whole greenhouse gas thing is wrong, so what ? Is it wrong to continue to strive towards renewable energy ? Sod the cost, everything costs money.
Indeed, and the polar caps are still shrinking with sea levels rising. It will be too late to say we should have spent £x on cutting pollution when we are going glug, glug, glug, goodbye! ::)
Don't worry, a chap called Noah will be along with an ark. ::)
He wouldn,t be allowed to cut down the trees to build the damn thing though. ;)
-
I'm not going to get bogged down in a big debate here, but my view is regardless of whether or not "x" causes global warming or whatever, surely it can't do any harm to reduce emmissions/polution etc. Let's suppose the whole greenhouse gas thing is wrong, so what ? Is it wrong to continue to strive towards renewable energy ? Sod the cost, everything costs money.
Indeed, and the polar caps are still shrinking with sea levels rising. It will be too late to say we should have spent £x on cutting pollution when we are going glug, glug, glug, goodbye! ::)
Don't worry, a chap called Noah will be along with an ark. ::)
He wouldn,t be allowed to cut down the trees to build the damn thing though. ;)
Don't worry about that, the modern day Noah would build it from high impact, latest technology, high CO2 plastic! ;D ;D ;D ;) ;)
-
With the monsoon in full swing here since yesterday, I think that we might need Noah and his Ark! ::)
Whatever it's made of! ;D
-
I'm not going to get bogged down in a big debate here, but my view is regardless of whether or not "x" causes global warming or whatever, surely it can't do any harm to reduce emmissions/polution etc. Let's suppose the whole greenhouse gas thing is wrong, so what ? Is it wrong to continue to strive towards renewable energy ? Sod the cost, everything costs money.
Indeed, and the polar caps are still shrinking with sea levels rising. It will be too late to say we should have spent £x on cutting pollution when we are going glug, glug, glug, goodbye! ::)
Don't worry, a chap called Noah will be along with an ark. ::)
He wouldn,t be allowed to cut down the trees to build the damn thing though. ;)
Don't worry about that, the modern day Noah would build it from high impact, latest technology, high CO2 plastic! ;D ;D ;D ;) ;)
There is another thing - plastic . Billions of tons of the stuff. We recycle it only for much of it to be sent to five other countries where 50% is dumped.
-
Interesting:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/06/bombshell-study-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-government-climate-data/
-
No, not interesting, at all. ;D
-
No, not interesting, at all. ;D
I think he was being ironic ;)