Climate Change or Changing Climate

[ditchman]

11 hours ago, LV98 said:

My understanding of it is that visible light and UV which constitutes most of the light output by the sun can pass mostly unhindered through earth's atmosphere as it is close to any of the resonant vibrational frequencies of the atmospheric gas molecules. This light is then absorbed by the earth. This energy is then re-radiated as lower frequency infrared radiation, which is close to the resonant vibrational frequencies of greenhouse gas molecules and therefore strongly absorbed. Increasing the concentration of these greenhouse gasses increases the amount of absorbed light and therefore the amount the atmosphere is heated.

Stonepark, touching on what you said "Greenhouse gas is a misnomer, Co2 neither acts like a solid band or contains heat like glass. Over 99.996% of light (energy) never touches a CO2 molecule on it's passage through the atmosphere"

I am not sure what you mean by "acts like a solid band" , but I am sure CO2 contains heat, at the end of the day all matter we interact with has a heat capacity. Aso I am not sure what you mean by light touching things, light is an electromagnetic field, therefore it is not simply confined to one small point, rather it is a field who's strength decays as you get further away from it meaning it will interact with greenhouse gas mollecules in the air as the oscillating electric field of the light produces a force acting on the electric dipoles in the molecules. 

 

Regarding your paragraph here "Not only do CO2 pundits try to convince you that CO2 is affects temperatures more than H2O which is 10 times more abundant in the atmosphere (and responsible for 75% of all heat retention), they fail to notice the oceans, which are on average 3,500m deep and absorb heat to such an effect, the atmosphere is neglible as a whole, and planetary heating which is due to the SUN and it's light and heat absorption into the oceans at the tropics in particular.". I agree that water vapor in the atmosphere does also have a significant affect but disagree with the statement that the atmosphere is negligible. Whilst its heat capacity is, the insulating effect it has is not, a significant amount of infrared radiation absorbed by the atmosphere is re-radiated back down to earth and absorbed again thus heating it, of course the more IR that is absorbed by the atmosphere the more heating there is. This means the planet absorbs more light that it radiates meaning there is a net energy surplus and its temperature increases. If I remember correctly, it doesn't take a huge increase in the amount of radiation flux trapped to result in a 1 or 2 degree rise in temperature.

 

Regarding this paragraph: "This CO2 obsession ignores what we are experiencing precession in planetary terms with our orbit, our cycle through space (hint both we and the sun are moving in a linear fashion through space as well as rotating and Earth circling the sun), passing through not only the solar current sheet, but also the galactic current sheet, and which have effects on solar output, earth input, etc etc that are all totally ignored under the CO2 models and mantra.". I agree that there are other affects to take into account such as changes in the earth's core and magnetic field, precessions in the earth's rotation al axis and other effects. However many will say that these cannot explain the rapid rise in global temperature that has been observed over the last 100 years or so.

I am not sure how big the effect of the solar current sheet is as the current density of it is quite low, I would have thought that the solar wind would have a greater heating effect but I may well be wrong. Not sure what the galactic current sheet is though and how big its effect is I was under the impression that the effect of even the nearest stars in the galaxy (except the sun) is negligible as they are light years away, maybe your could explain, I am interested.

 

 

 

 

 

thats far too much for me to understand............do you work for the govt' ?

[Bigbob]

43 minutes ago, ditchman said:

thats far too much for me to understand............do you work for the govt' ?

Too much too early here too 

[Rewulf]

50 minutes ago, ditchman said:

thats far too much for me to understand............do you work for the govt' ?

Not exactly ....

Look into the light (wave) 

[LV98]

40 minutes ago, Bigbob said:

Too much too early here too 

Not sure to be honest, I'm a PhD student. The reason I have a bit of knowledge in this area is I did a masters degree in physics, in which I studied the science behind the greenhouse effect as well as other areas.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Rewulf]

50 minutes ago, LV98 said:

Not sure to be honest, I'm a PhD student. The reason I have a bit of knowledge in this area is I did a masters degree in physics, in which I studied the science behind the greenhouse effect as well as other areas.

 

Joking apart , that is very interesting, what does the science say ?
Is it predominantly man made in your honest opinion ?

For the record , I dont believe the earth is flat, there are no lizard people or contrails poisoning us 😃

[ditchman]

1 hour ago, LV98 said:

Not sure to be honest, I'm a PhD student. The reason I have a bit of knowledge in this area is I did a masters degree in physics, in which I studied the science behind the greenhouse effect as well as other areas.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

your knowledge has been gained/won/learnt..........by someones views...and maybe govt' funded........just remember there are other views out there....use your knowledge of the facts in physics to form you own opinions..

[LV98]

25 minutes ago, ditchman said:

your knowledge has been gained/won/learnt..........by someones views...and maybe govt' funded........just remember there are other views out there....use your knowledge of the facts in physics to form you own opinions..

I would say that I'm a pretty independent thinker. Whilst I do believe that climate change is a mostly man made phenomena, I don't think it to be quite the existential threat threat that some people would say. So don't worry I'm not the type who's going to glue myself to the m25 any time soon. Also this may just be a speculation but I believe there may be another, more sinister agender behind some of these environmental protests, as a way of getting people to voluntarily give away their freedoms in the name of saving the environment.

 

 

[old man]

21 minutes ago, LV98 said:

I would say that I'm a pretty independent thinker. Whilst I do believe that climate change is a mostly man made phenomena, I don't think it to be quite the existential threat threat that some people would say. So don't worry I'm not the type who's going to glue myself to the m25 any time soon. Also this may just be a speculation but I believe there may be another, more sinister agender behind some of these environmental protests, as a way of getting people to voluntarily give away their freedoms in the name of saving the environment.

 

 

Possibly true. Politicians never grant freedoms, they are always eroded?

[ditchman]

24 minutes ago, LV98 said:

I would say that I'm a pretty independent thinker. Whilst I do believe that climate change is a mostly man made phenomena, I don't think it to be quite the existential threat threat that some people would say. So don't worry I'm not the type who's going to glue myself to the m25 any time soon. Also this may just be a speculation but I believe there may be another, more sinister agender behind some of these environmental protests, as a way of getting people to voluntarily give away their freedoms in the name of saving the environment.

 

 

thats where we part company....i think totally other wise....backed up with previous facts.....

[discobob]

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

there are no lizard people

Your one according to Henry 🤣

 

1 hour ago, LV98 said:

Also this may just be a speculation but I believe there may be another, more sinister agender behind some of these environmental protests, as a way of getting people to voluntarily give away their freedoms in the name of saving the environment.

Bullseye - do you want my design for a fur lined tin foil hat??

Who funds Greta?? Never been answered

[Rewulf]

19 minutes ago, discobob said:

Your one according to Henry 🤣

Yet he can clearly see from my avatar Im a cat person 

1 hour ago, ditchman said:

thats where we part company....i think totally other wise....backed up with previous facts.....

His comments conflict somewhat ...

 

1 hour ago, LV98 said:

Whilst I do believe that climate change is a mostly man made phenomena

Your studies should make you a little more confident , you should KNOW that climate change is mostly man made, does the 'science' not state that this is so ?
We could bend the statement a little to say , man HAS changed the climate to a degree, and argue that that degree pales into insignificance against other planetary factors, such as orbital shift ect, for which science has very clear evidence for ?
But that is not the message we hear.

1 hour ago, old man said:

I don't think it to be quite the existential threat threat that some people would say.

As youve stated this , if its not the existential threat we are told it is, why the ridiculous measures we are being subjected to by virtually all world governments ?
I would say that climate change IS an existential threat from other cosmic factors, asteroid strikes or as mentioned orbital factors, and a large swing in temperature change either way (+ or - 10 degrees C ) would certainly take a massive toll on the planet and its population. But very little we could do about that with present technology.

Please dont take this the wrong way, but projected worse case scenarios of +5 C by the end of the century wouldnt destroy the human race, and sea level rise would be more than manageable .
The greater threat is temperature going down 5 C , mankind has learned to adapt to excess heat, but cold has a knock on effect on food production that would be devastating.

[Newbie to this]

1 hour ago, LV98 said:

Whilst I do believe that climate change is a mostly man made phenomena

So what caused it to change before man emerged 

[LV98]

The reason I can't state these things with a higher degree of confidence is (I should have mentioned this at the start for which I appologise) is that I decided not to specialise in climate science, instead I focused more on plasma physics,nuclear physics, material science and optoelectronics. So whilst my knowledge of the physics behind climate change is ok I don't know the specific details behind the models used to make predictions. However, having looked at the evidence which is the very strong correlation between increasing CO2 and global temperatures, all occurring whilst mankind is undergoing industrialisation it is pretty compelling. Also these increased are much more rapid than any others that have been measured in the past (using ice cores in the arctic to look at past atmospheric  composition)

 

 

 

 

[ditchman]

i base my reasoning on past events...........i find stats' and the interperatation of them 100% accurate and 100% useless

[Rewulf]

18 minutes ago, LV98 said:

However, having looked at the evidence which is the very strong correlation between increasing CO2 and global temperatures, all occurring whilst mankind is undergoing industrialisation it is pretty compelling. Also these increased are much more rapid than any others that have been measured in the past (using ice cores in the arctic to look at past atmospheric  composition)

Understood, its the RATE at which the CO2 and temperature has increased, which is the concern ?

But what caused these temperature changes, when mankind was barely established, and had no industrialisation ?

 

[Rewulf]

[LV98]

39 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Understood, its the RATE at which the CO2 and temperature has increased, which is the concern ?

But what caused these temperature changes, when mankind was barely established, and had no industrialisation ?

 

There could be many factors which caused the changes in CO2, ranging from volcanic activity, changes in solar output, earth's rotation and orbit also have an effect as far as I understand.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Rewulf]

19 minutes ago, LV98 said:

There could be many factors which caused the changes in CO2, ranging from volcanic activity, changes in solar output, earth's rotation and orbit also have an effect as far as I understand.

Of course there could, but what we can say is that previous climate change DEFINITELY wasnt caused by man.

This time around , allegedly 97 % of the world scientific community say its DEFINITELY man made ?

The rhythmic factor of ice ages/warming should really be an indication of planetary shifts or solar fluctuations, unless you can think of anything else ?

[LV98]

The cycles I know of which can affect the climate are sunspot cycles which have a period of about 11 years and Milankovitch cycles which have a period of about 100000 years or so. Therefore neither of these can really explain the increase in warming over the past century as their periods of oscillation are either much too long or short. There is some evidence that sunspot cycles fluctuate in strength with a period of about 400 years if I remember correctly, which could be responsible for the warming but many climate scientists claim not all of it the fluctuation is not strong enough to cause the level of warming observed.

 

 

[Newbie to this]

Man is an arrogant creature, thinking we fully understand, something which we know only what we think is right.

How many times must these so called experts get their predictions wrong, before they finally show some humility, and admit they may be wrong, and they do not fully understand our planet, nature or it's effects.

[Yellow Bear]

4 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

How many times must these so called experts get their predictions wrong, before they finally show some humility, and admit they may be wrong, and they do not fully understand our planet, nature or it's effects.

What, and jump off their current gravy train

[LV98]

20 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

Man is an arrogant creature, thinking we fully understand, something which we know only what we think is right.

How many times must these so called experts get their predictions wrong, before they finally show some humility, and admit they may be wrong, and they do not fully understand our planet, nature or it's effects.

You make a good point, sometimes in science we don't know about or are aware of all the factors at play in the systems we study, which can lead us to be wrong, but also make new discoveries of course. You may have noticed that most of the time I did not write things in definite terms, that is because I understand I don't know everything and could by wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Newbie to this]

13 hours ago, LV98 said:

You make a good point, sometimes in science we don't know about or are aware of all the factors at play in the systems we study, which can lead us to be wrong, but also make new discoveries of course. You may have noticed that most of the time I did not write things in definite terms, that is because I understand I don't know everything and could by wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You may well have, but I believe it has been peddled that the science is complete on global cooling, sorry that's not right, global warming, no that's not right, climate change....... or is it global warming again now. Maybe we will find out in 10 years when it's irreversible... repeat when predictions do not come to fruition.

Any true scientist knows, the science is never complete. That is, except a climate scientist.

Edited March 9, 2023 by Newbie to this

[discobob]

4 hours ago, Rewulf said:

Of course there could, but what we can say is that previous climate change DEFINITELY wasnt caused by man.

This time around , allegedly 97 % of the world scientific community say its DEFINITELY man made ?

The rhythmic factor of ice ages/warming should really be an indication of planetary shifts or solar fluctuations, unless you can think of anything else ?

That 97% is the worst case statistics mangling ever with very selective sampling - in simple words - a lie

even the founder of Greenpeace doesn’t believe in Climate Change!

[ditchman]

Just now, discobob said:

That 97% is the worst case statistics mangling ever with very selective sampling - in simple words - a lie

even the founder of Greenpeace doesn’t believe in Climate Change!

or jerermy corbyns brother !!