• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

The Great Global Warming Swindle

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by Upisoft, Jul 10, 2007.

  1. Upisoft

    Upisoft CEO of a waterfal

    +111
    Atheist
    Married
    There are no many fields that require extensive computational power. Your presumption is that the others that are working honestly in the field can expose the forgery. However they may not have free supercomputer at hand to run the models several hundreds of times. If the models are publicly available, I mean their source code as a computer simulation. Anyway do you think their simulation software is bug free?

    Yes, I will not eat breakfast and will save the money. Probably after 10000 years I will have enough money to buy a super computer...

    It doesn't seem to.
     
  2. Baggins

    Baggins Senior Veteran

    +452
    Humanist
    Married
    UK-Labour
    So it all boils down to 100's of scientists of all faiths and none from many countries have all banded together to tell lies to Upisoft.

    where's an Orly owl when you need one.

    I just can't see why the converse, that 100's of scientists from all over the world have come to a mutual decsion that man is effecting the climate by pumping large amounts of a known greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, upsets him so.

    Is he Exxon's biggest share holder or something? I work in the oil industry and I am quite prepared to believe that the scientists are correct, when that many scientists reach a concensus the usually are as close to the truth as present evidence will allow.
     
  3. Chalnoth

    Chalnoth Senior Contributor

    +354
    Atheist
    Single
    You speak as if there is only one group doing climate model simulations. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    You don't have to buy a supercomputer to examine their methods.
     
  4. Upisoft

    Upisoft CEO of a waterfal

    +111
    Atheist
    Married
    That's not true and you know it. Apparently there are people that are not involved, but unfortunately they somehow become "former professors of climatology". So, it is obvious that if you don't agree, you're out of the field. Thus, this is not science, but politics.
     
  5. Upisoft

    Upisoft CEO of a waterfal

    +111
    Atheist
    Married
    IPCC.

    But I can't reproduce their results without one. So, if they forged the result, but the method is quite OK, how would I know?
     
  6. FishFace

    FishFace Senior Veteran

    +163
    Atheist
    I ask again: where is your evidence for this. Furthermore, where are your calculations showing how large or small a temperature increase we will see if absorption is increased by 1%.

    No. CO[sub]2[/sub] absorbs light in the 16.7 micron region, removing that light from the earth's emission spectrum. The only realistic way for that light to be put back in to the spectrum is by re-emission of that absorbed light by CO[sub]2[/sub] at the same wavelength. Re-emission by other atmospheric components is unlikely to be a significant contributor.

    That means that adding CO[sub]2[/sub] will increase both absorption and emission, although it will increase absorption by more, since re-emission emits in a random direction, and does not happen for 100% of absorptions.

    Thus it is only ever possible to nearly make the earth opaque at 16.7 microns, and you've not shown A) that it is and B) that adding more CO[sub]2[/sub] will not result in a significant temperature increase because of that.
     
  7. FishFace

    FishFace Senior Veteran

    +163
    Atheist
    Biofuel is carbon neutral. It takes out very slightly more carbon dioxide than is returned when you burn it - due to incomplete combustion. If that tiny imbalance turns out to be significant in the long run, the solution is simple - burn some other carbon-containing compound.
     
  8. FishFace

    FishFace Senior Veteran

    +163
    Atheist
    Look, you don't believe them, that's OK. But if you're going to try and discredit them, for goodness sake do it intelligently. Have you even looked at those graphs?! Compare the two orange lines - their shapes are completely different. I'm trying desperately to consider your points objectively, but when you trot out nonsense like this... it's very hard, because you look, once again (like with those flow maps) that you're frantically looking for anything that contradicts the climate scientists and, in the rush, failing.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_atmosphere#Pressure_and_thickness
     
  9. CACTUSJACKmankin

    CACTUSJACKmankin Scientist

    +124
    Judaism
    Private
    US-Democrat
    Maybe you can't but unless that's the only supercomputer using that software, the methods can be reproduced elsewhere. The scientific method does not require reproducibilty by any joe shmo from the row, just reproducibility. I doubt you have the means to replicate the methods of particle accelerator experiments too.
     
  10. CACTUSJACKmankin

    CACTUSJACKmankin Scientist

    +124
    Judaism
    Private
    US-Democrat
    BTW my 2 cents on global warming is that both its occurance as a current trend and its anthropogenic cause are the consensus views of the scientific community. The debate from the opposing side from my observation overwhelmingly uses denialist tactics such as touting lone or few skeptical scientists as expert to provide illusion of scientific debate and the use of "common sense debunkings" of complex science. I also think that the evidence that i have seen from paleoclimatology and melting ice caps is very scary, convicing, and warrants action in the near term.
     
  11. KCDAD

    KCDAD Well-Known Member

    +343
    Methodist
    Married
    US-Republican
    There is no consensus,nor should there be... the data is political, not scientific and the Lone and Skeptics scientists are former Climate Warming advocates who have seen the light and been "shunned" by the PC "give me grant money" chorus.
     
  12. Chalnoth

    Chalnoth Senior Contributor

    +354
    Atheist
    Single
    How, pray tell, can data be political? Next you'll be telling us that earthquakes adhere to the Democratic party line!
     
  13. CACTUSJACKmankin

    CACTUSJACKmankin Scientist

    +124
    Judaism
    Private
    US-Democrat
    No consensus? hmmm:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#Controversy_concerning_the_science
     
  14. Upisoft

    Upisoft CEO of a waterfal

    +111
    Atheist
    Married
    Such increase in absorption is unrealistic.

    It clearly does not remove it. Even Venus with 97% CO[sub]2[/sub] and 100 times more dense atmosphere is emitting with 50% relative intensity at that wavelength. If you were right Venus would not emit a single photon at that wavelength. (See post #363 for diagram and link)
    Anyway here is a quote about an experiment they made to see how much CO[sub]2[/sub] absorbs.
    The quote is taken from here: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

    Why do you think that is the case? CO[sub]2[/sub] absorbs the energy, which is turned into heat, that can be transferred to any other atmospheric component. Then any other atmospheric component is able to emit its thermal energy as infrared.

    I don't understand why you insist that other atmospheric components are unable to emit at that wavelength. This is thermal radiation.

    You have the links and quotes. Others did it, when the Global warming was not political issue.
     
  15. FishFace

    FishFace Senior Veteran

    +163
    Atheist
    You assert.

    If I remove a ball from a bucket of balls, does that necessarily mean there are no balls left? CO[sub]2[/sub] removes some balls, and then puts some back in.

    So, when you have shown us that such a tiny change produces an insignificant change in the earth's temperature, you might have something going for you.

    This will happen, but due to the way a black body radiator radiates, it is unlikely to put large amounts of radiation back at the required wavelength, and in the required direction.

    You probably have point A, but you have nothing on point B.
     
  16. Upisoft

    Upisoft CEO of a waterfal

    +111
    Atheist
    Married
    I agree that their shapes are completely different. I also see that the first orange line starts higher than actual while the second one starts lower. How do you explain that? The CO[sub]2[/sub] that is released now changes the past? I wander what graph would be produced by the model if the initial state was set like one known from the red line. I mean, why they set arbitrary high initial state when they want to show how their model copes with current trends and arbitrary low initial state when they want to show how their model will not work without their CO[sub]2[/sub] "fix".
     
  17. Upisoft

    Upisoft CEO of a waterfal

    +111
    Atheist
    Married
    Yes, I don't have one, but particle accelerators are still outside the politically induced hysteria.
     
  18. Upisoft

    Upisoft CEO of a waterfal

    +111
    Atheist
    Married
    So, do you have paleoclimatology "evidence" that human induced global warming happened in the past? No. You only have evidence that global warming happened, but it wasn't induced by us. I've never saw a model to explain either the medieval warm period or the little ice age, but regardless of that inability they happened.

    Maybe the medieval warm period was caused by global burning of evil witches...^_^^_^^_^
     
  19. KCDAD

    KCDAD Well-Known Member

    +343
    Methodist
    Married
    US-Republican
    I see ... a little defensive about the Dems, are we? I didn't mention the Democrat Party, did I? Seems to me, they are both in on this scam. Money is money... no one cares where it comes from.

    Do you know what consensus means? 30 out of how many? 270?

    Do you really believe that every person in "all the national academies of science" agree? Don't be naive. Where do these academies get their funding? Follow the money.

    I guarantee that there are more than the petroleum geologists that disagree with the findings of the politically motivated IPCC.
     
  20. Upisoft

    Upisoft CEO of a waterfal

    +111
    Atheist
    Married
    Like this:
    Politic 1: "Hey, we need more money from taxes."
    Politic 2: "We can't increase then, there will be revolution if we do that."
    Politic 1: "So, do you have any idea."
    Politic 2: "Let's see. These guys climatologists say that the climate is warming up. All people know that CO[sub]2[/sub] causes greenhouse effect, so why we don't blame it and tax people that produce it."
    Politic 1: "Great idea. But they will not believe us."
    Politic 2: "We will create IPCC then... Those climatologists must start earning their money."
     
Loading...