Climate change - hoax or reality?

DM25 · Jun 7, 2019

Nothing wrong with environmentalism but just don't take it to the extreme where you worship the creation rather than the creator. Respecting the creation, respecting God's earth and not polluting it, is all fine and dandy. Man causing climate change is a hoax but man causing pollution isn't, as we can see in many of the overpopulated Asian and middle eastern cities, not great places to live because of the polluted air.

USincognito · Jun 7, 2019

Carl Emerson said:
Sorry friend, I am honestly not understanding you, could you please spell out your point in a bit more detail.

It's on me for being obtuse. Your original claim was that the UK exported wine. My point was that the UK didn't exist until 1808 so the UK never exported wine.

Carl Emerson · Jun 7, 2019

OK got it, sorry... bit slow here

mukk_in · Jun 7, 2019

OldWiseGuy said:
What has pollution data on the recent large forest fires revealed about wood burning. I'm guessing that a single large forest fire would more than equal all the wood burned for winter heating in the U.S.

Of course the obvious flaw in any study of co2 emissions from burning wood is that dead trees in the forest eventually give up most of their carbon to the atmosphere without providing any heat for anyone.

It's been a while, so I may not be remembering everything correctly. Wood burning stoves emit significant amounts of particulate matter most of which is carcinogenic (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons which are cancer producing). Our study and analysis didn't compare it to natural disasters and acts of God like forest fires. One could argue that forest fires and volcanic eruptions spew more CO_2 than all the wood burning stoves. Possible. Forest fires are also being aggravated by climate change (hot winds fanning the flames) and human error (poor camping practices and negligence on part of utility companies). Recent wildfires in CA could be a case in point.

Our study was to just quantify emissions from winter appliances. We proposed catalytic converters and gas assisted burners to significantly cut down emissions. Cities like Fairbanks have some of the worst breathable air due to PM emissions. Our test and analysis was in Crested Butte, CO.

We concluded that human intervention, like wood burning, is accelerating climate change (by adding to natural phenomena) more than what it used to be in the past (I think we used about 50 years of data prior to 1995 for our analysis). Of course, one could challenge that conclusion. Peace in Christ.

mukk_in · Jun 7, 2019

DM25 said:
Nothing wrong with environmentalism but just don't take it to the extreme where you worship the creation rather than the creator. Respecting the creation, respecting God's earth and not polluting it, is all fine and dandy. Man causing climate change is a hoax but man causing pollution isn't, as we can see in many of the overpopulated Asian and middle eastern cities, not great places to live because of the polluted air.

Indeed. You may want to check out the www.lung.org link in the OP. Many US cities have unbreathable air as well. I've been to some of them and like them. Sad.

USincognito · Jun 7, 2019

Carl Emerson said:
Check out Professor Duncan Steel who released a paper on how the earths axis and rotation has had a much greater effect on climate than previously thought, many times more than the so called 'greenhouse effect"

We know that changes to the earth's angle of rotation have caused changes in the past. That's precisely why scientists know that those changes are not the ones causing the current warming.

USincognito · Jun 7, 2019

Carl Emerson said:
Just noting that we have had warm periods before...

Yes, we have had warm periods before. The Medieval Warm Period lasted about 2 centuries and does not appear to have been global. It also happened in a pre-industrial period when there were many fewer mouths to feed on earth. Finally, it the warming seems to have been spotty, with some regions being warmer, others cooler and still others not experiencing much change.

USincognito · Jun 7, 2019

DM25 said:
Increased CO2 does not cause climate change, plain and simple. Increased temperature causes more CO2, not the other way around.

This talking point is based on nothing but pure fantasy. CO2 is a greehouse gas and that is a fact. Greenhouse gasses building up in the atmosphere cause the atmosphere to get warmer and that also is a fact. There are no other factors that climate scientists have observed for the current rise in temperature other than the increase in atmospheric CO2 from 280 ppm to 410ppm.

USincognito · Jun 7, 2019

Wrangler said:
AGW is the greatest hoax in the history of mankind.

Laughable hyperbole. Also I thought evolution was supposed to be the greatest hoax in the history of mankind. :scratch:

It is obviously political driven. EVEN IF everything alarmists say is true, I would still not support their agenda of increasing taxes and global control of energy.

Thank you for admitting that your position on AGW is so politicized you'd rather continue to make life hard for others than inconvenience yourself.

Why? Some generation of humans has to be the last. I pray they die free.

That's some serious Tragedy of the Commons nihilism.

Carl Emerson · Jun 7, 2019

USincognito said:
We know that changes to the earth's angle of rotation have caused changes in the past. That's precisely why scientists know that those changes are not the ones causing the current warming.

Prof Steel found errors in the way the data had previously been analysed. This is a peer reviewed paper released recently.

mukk_in · Jun 8, 2019

Carl Emerson said:
Prof Steel found errors in the way the data had previously been analysed. This is a peer reviewed paper released recently.

Yes, that's exactly why most of us report a statistical uncertainty band for 95% confidence levels. The error margin for our study was +- 7.5% (I think). It's not 100% accurate, but over 85%. Also, that's the maximum possible uncertainty/error in prediction. The real uncertainty could be much lower and hence the analysis more accurate.

Zoii · Jun 8, 2019

Carl Emerson said:
Track down his paper and read it - then come back with a comment.

I read through his credentials. While he is to be respected, His background, research or academic pursuits have not been in climate science.

The weight of my argument is to make a plea - please listen to those who have the expertise and NOT the 1% but the 99% consensus.

These scientists are not the boogey men some try to paint them. They are dedicated and skilled in their work above and beyond anyone else on this topic.

I worry when my generation is pushed by older generations to listen to those who are not qualified in the field.

Zoii · Jun 8, 2019

Albion said:
I disagree with your thesis.

But my thesis was - DONT listen to anyone here - including me - Listen to consensus of those who have the requisite expertise and experience in the field.

If you disagree whats your proposal - Dont listen to people with expertise. That seems counter-intuitive.

mukk_in · Jun 8, 2019

Zoii said:
I read through his credentials. While he is to be respected, His background, research or academic pursuits have not been in climate science.

The weight of my argument is to make a plea - please listen to those who have the expertise and NOT the 1% but the 99% consensus.

These scientists are not the boogey men some try to paint them. They are dedicated and skilled in their work above and beyond anyone else on this topic.

I worry when my generation is pushed by older generations to listen to those who are not qualified in the field.

That's great Zoii

.

Carl Emerson · Jun 8, 2019

Zoii said:
I read through his credentials. While he is to be respected, His background, research or academic pursuits have not been in climate science.

The weight of my argument is to make a plea - please listen to those who have the expertise and NOT the 1% but the 99% consensus.

These scientists are not the boogey men some try to paint them. They are dedicated and skilled in their work above and beyond anyone else on this topic.

I worry when my generation is pushed by older generations to listen to those who are not qualified in the field.

What you seem to be dismissing is that climate scientists have to use data from other disciplines. Steel, being an astrophysicist can provide understanding of data that climate scientists need, it is a collaborative effort.

Albion · Jun 8, 2019

Zoii said:
But my thesis was - DONT listen to anyone here - including me - Listen to consensus of those who have the requisite expertise and experience in the field.

….according to an anonymous poster online, that is.

Curtis.Hilliker · Jun 8, 2019

Genesis 8:22

"As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease."

OldWiseGuy · Jun 8, 2019

mukk_in said:
It's been a while, so I may not be remembering everything correctly. Wood burning stoves emit significant amounts of particulate matter most of which is carcinogenic (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons which are cancer producing). Our study and analysis didn't compare it to natural disasters and acts of God like forest fires. One could argue that forest fires and volcanic eruptions spew more CO_2 than all the wood burning stoves. Possible. Forest fires are also being aggravated by climate change (hot winds fanning the flames) and human error (poor camping practices and negligence on part of utility companies). Recent wildfires in CA could be a case in point.

Our study was to just quantify emissions from winter appliances. We proposed catalytic converters and gas assisted burners to significantly cut down emissions. Cities like Fairbanks have some of the worst breathable air due to PM emissions. Our test and analysis was in Crested Butte, CO.

We concluded that human intervention, like wood burning, is accelerating climate change (by adding to natural phenomena) more than what it used to be in the past (I think we used about 50 years of data prior to 1995 for our analysis). Of course, one could challenge that conclusion. Peace in Christ.

I like the idea of catalytic converters and gas assisted burners (burning the smoke as it were). Also pelletized wood burns cleaner as I understand it. Another aspect of burning wood is that is replaces long-buried fossil fuels thus returning the carbon cycle to the earth's surface rather than adding huge amounts of already sequestered carbon. Wood ash is useful as a soil supplement. Wood is also a renewable fuel, not to mention a very enjoyable fire on a cold winter night.

OldWiseGuy · Jun 8, 2019

Regarding global warming (and all other problems);

"The seriousness of any problem can be measured by our response to it."

-OldWiseGuy

OldWiseGuy · Jun 8, 2019

Zoii said:
I read through his credentials. While he is to be respected, His background, research or academic pursuits have not been in climate science.

The weight of my argument is to make a plea - please listen to those who have the expertise and NOT the 1% but the 99% consensus.

These scientists are not the boogey men some try to paint them. They are dedicated and skilled in their work above and beyond anyone else on this topic.

I worry when my generation is pushed by older generations to listen to those who are not qualified in the field.

Those scientists should employ 'vertical integration': Do the research and apply the solutions. Problem solved.

Climate change - hoax or reality?

Well-Known Member

a post by Alan Smithee

Well-Known Member

Yankees Fan

Yankees Fan

a post by Alan Smithee

a post by Alan Smithee

a post by Alan Smithee

a post by Alan Smithee

Well-Known Member

Yankees Fan

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Yankees Fan

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Now what.......

Wake me when it's soup.

Wake me when it's soup.

Wake me when it's soup.

Similar threads