• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Whilst on the subject of Climate change

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Whilst on the subject of Climate change

    Why I Stopped Believing in Man-made Global Warming and Became a Climate Skeptic | Climate Change Dispatch

    For starters, CO2 is actually a rather flawed “greenhouse gas.” When CO2 is first introduced into the atmosphere it rapidly attracts as much heat as possible. But it doesn’t take long for CO2 to become “optically saturated.” This means that after reaching roughly 0.0020 percent (20 parts per million) of the atmosphere, CO2 starts fading. From then on, it takes ever-doubling amounts of CO2 to trap the same amount of heat. By the present concentration of 0.04 percent (400 parts per million), CO2 is essentially saturated—and can’t meaningfully trap much additional heat.

    This limitation of CO2 actually runs completely counter to the prevailing notion that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will continue to trap ever greater amounts of heat. In truth, basic science demonstrates exactly the opposite, which is why climate scientists actually base most of their projected warming on “positive feedback” from water vapor.

    Significantly, water vapor functions as the predominant heat-trapping gas in the atmosphere. And so, when climate scientists use computer models to predict future warming due to man-made climate change, they are essentially saying the following: We know that CO2 rapidly fades as a greenhouse gas. We think that before CO2 becomes saturated, it will raise global temperatures enough to add more water vapor to the atmosphere. This added water vapor will trap more heat, which will raise temperatures more, which will add more water vapor. The result will be a feedback loop that keeps driving a rise in temperatures.

    There’s a major flaw in this theory, however, and one that climate scientists have never been able to solve. Simply put, water vapor in the atmosphere inevitably transitions to clouds. And cumulus clouds not only reflect solar radiation back into space but also produce rain—which not only lowers surface temperatures but also scrubs CO2 from the atmosphere.

    Regardless of the cloud problem, this presumed climate “sensitivity” to CO2 is the overall engine of man-made warming and continues to be programmed into computer models. But it remains a tenuous argument. So the real question should be: Well if CO2 isn’t driving global warming, what is?
    Let us not forget EU open doors immigration benefits IT contractors more than anyone

    #2
    Originally posted by DodgyAgent View Post
    There’s a major flaw in this theory, however, and one that climate scientists have never been able to solve. Simply put, water vapor in the atmosphere inevitably transitions to clouds. And cumulus clouds not only reflect solar radiation back into space but also produce rain—which not only lowers surface temperatures but also scrubs CO2 from the atmosphere.
    OK, can you explain how rain "scrubs" CO2 from the atmosphere?
    Also, if you come up with a theory into how it does it, can you tell us all what it produces by scrubbing?
    …Maybe we ain’t that young anymore

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by WTFH View Post
      OK, can you explain how rain "scrubs" CO2 from the atmosphere?
      Also, if you come up with a theory into how it does it, can you tell us all what it produces by scrubbing?
      Probably in the same way that if you stuck a hosepipe in your ear and a put bucket under your arse there is an outside chance the water would scrub whatever it is you use for a brain
      Let us not forget EU open doors immigration benefits IT contractors more than anyone

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by DodgyAgent View Post
        Probably in the same way that if you stuck a hosepipe in your ear and a put bucket under your arse there is an outside chance the water would scrub whatever it is you use for a brain
        So another poster asks you a serious question and instead of explaining it you are rude. I will have to remind other posters don't bother explaining things to DA as he is a rude thick bastard.
        "You’re just a bad memory who doesn’t know when to go away" JR

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by DodgyAgent View Post
          Why I Stopped Believing


          “The period of the disintegration of the European Union has begun. And the first vessel to have departed is Britain”

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by SueEllen View Post
            So another poster asks you a serious question and instead of explaining it you are rude. I will have to remind other posters don't bother explaining things to DA as he is a rude thick bastard.
            Yeah that would be great, for your word carries so much weight around these parts SE.
            “The period of the disintegration of the European Union has begun. And the first vessel to have departed is Britain”

            Comment


              #7
              Random blogger shows every National Science Academy in the world where they have gone wrong! Not.

              This limitation of CO2 actually runs completely counter to the prevailing notion that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will continue to trap ever greater amounts of heat
              But that's not the prevailing notion. From IPCC AR3

              It has been suggested that the absorption by CO2 is already saturated so that an increase would have no effect. This, however, is not the case. Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation in the middle of its 15 mm band to the extent that radiation in the middle of this band cannot escape unimpeded: this absorption is saturated. This, however, is not the case for the band's wings. It is because of these effects of partial saturation that the radiative forcing is not proportional to the increase in the carbon dioxide concentration but shows a logarithmic dependence. Every further doubling adds an additional 4 Wm-2*to the radiative forcing.
              https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/044.htm

              There’s a major flaw in this theory, however, and one that climate scientists have never been able to solve. Simply put, water vapor in the atmosphere inevitably transitions to clouds. And cumulus clouds not only reflect solar radiation back into space but also produce rain—which not only lowers surface temperatures but also scrubs CO2 from the atmosphere.
              High clouds also act as an insulator, which is why clear nights get colder than cloudy ones. You're not even trying, this is Climate Denial 101.

              Regardless of the cloud problem, this presumed climate “sensitivity” to CO2 is the overall engine of man-made warming and continues to be programmed into computer models.
              Sensitivity is an emergent property of the models, that is, it is an output and is not 'programmed in' anywhere. This is a fundamental error. But then all of this guys sciency-looking but wrong talking points are covered by the IPCC and explained all over the interweb.

              Last time. I won't bother again.
              Last edited by pjclarke; 22 November 2016, 20:09.
              My subconscious is annoying. It's got a mind of its own.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by WTFH View Post
                OK, can you explain how rain "scrubs" CO2 from the atmosphere?
                Also, if you come up with a theory into how it does it, can you tell us all what it produces by scrubbing?
                Last one from me too.
                Actually this happens.
                Acid rain.
                Ocean acidification - and that's the real problem.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by SueEllen View Post
                  So another poster asks you a serious question and instead of explaining it you are rude. I will have to remind other posters don't bother explaining things to DA as he is a rude thick bastard.

                  If you want an honest answer - I haven't got a fuc*ing clue so I decided that abuse was the best way to answer the question
                  Let us not forget EU open doors immigration benefits IT contractors more than anyone

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by RSoles View Post
                    Last one from me too.
                    Actually this happens.
                    Acid rain.
                    Ocean acidification - and that's the real problem.
                    Not if you grow Diatoms it isn't
                    Let us not forget EU open doors immigration benefits IT contractors more than anyone

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X