• 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!

Interesting Read iF You Belive in "Climate Change" and "Carbon Footprints"

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

    Interesting Read iF You Belive in "Climate Change" and "Carbon Footprints"

    http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=1597

    Most interesting quote to come out of the peice is:

    He laments the paucity of geologic knowledge among IPCC scientists — a knowledge that is central to understanding climate change, in his view, since geologic processes ultimately determine the level of atmospheric CO2. ‘The IPCC needs a lesson in geology to avoid making fundamental mistakes,’ he says. ‘Most leading geologists, throughout the world, know that the IPCC’s view of Earth processes are implausible if not impossible.’

    Catastrophic theories of climate change depend on carbon dioxide staying in the atmosphere for long periods of time — otherwise, the CO2 enveloping the globe wouldn’t be dense enough to keep the heat in. Until recently, the world of science was near-unanimous that CO2 couldn’t stay in the atmosphere for more than about five to 10 years because of the oceans’ near-limitless ability to absorb CO2.

    ‘This time period has been established by measurements based on natural carbon-14 and also from readings of carbon-14 from nuclear weapons testing, it has been established by radon-222 measurements, it has been established by measurements of the solubility of atmospheric gases in the oceans, it has been established by comparing the isotope mass balance, it has been established through other mechanisms, too, and over many decades, and by many scientists in many disciplines,’ says Prof. Segalstad, whose work has often relied upon such measurements.

    Then, with the advent of IPCC-influenced science, the length of time that carbon stays in the atmosphere became controversial. Climate change scientists began creating carbon cycle models to explain what they thought must be an excess of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. These computer models calculated a long life for carbon dioxide.

    Amazingly, the hypothetical results from climate models have trumped the real world measurements of carbon dioxide’s longevity in the atmosphere. Those who claim that CO2 lasts decades or centuries have no such measurements or other physical evidence to support their claims. Neither can they demonstrate that the various forms of measurement are erroneous. ‘They don’t even try,’ says Prof. Segalstad. ‘They simply dismiss evidence that is, for all intents and purposes, irrefutable. Instead, they substitute their faith, constructing a kind of science fiction or fantasy world in the process.’

    In the real world, as measurable by science, CO2 in the atmosphere and in the ocean reach a stable balance when the oceans contain 50 times as much CO2 as the atmosphere. ‘The IPCC postulates an atmospheric doubling of CO2, meaning that the oceans would need to receive 50 times more CO2 to obtain chemical equilibrium,’ explains Prof. Segalstad. ‘This total of 51 times the present amount of carbon in atmospheric CO2 exceeds the known reserves of fossil carbon– it represents more carbon than exists in all the coal, gas, and oil that we can exploit anywhere in the world.’

    Also in the real world, Prof. Segalstad’s isotope mass balance calculations — a standard technique in science — show that if CO2 in the atmosphere had a lifetime of 50 to 200 years, as claimed by IPCC scientists, the atmosphere would necessarily have half of its current CO2 mass. Because this is a nonsensical outcome, the IPCC model postulates that half of the CO2 must be hiding somewhere, in ‘a missing sink.’ Many studies have sought this missing sink — a Holy Grail of climate science research– without success. It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere,’ Prof. Segalstad concludes. ‘It is all a fiction.’





    #2
    No comments on this, i thought some of the tree hugging hippies would bite....

    Comment


      #3
      We all believe in man made Climate Change now. It is caused by 4x4's and makes it rain, windy, hot, dry, snowy etc.

      And we all believe that Gordon Brown is lovely and we must all vote Labour.

      HTH

      Comment


        #4
        Global warming? The answer is, of course, so easy: Everyone turn your fridges up a notch. Save a penguin, do it today.

        Comment


          #5
          It was certainly a good few degrees warmer today than Friday. At this rate, by next July it should be six or seven hundred degrees centigrade in London. Phew! What a scorcher!

          Or was it Thursday? [mumble...]

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by Ardesco
            No comments on this, i thought some of the tree hugging hippies would bite....
            Well, that's the only worth of an article like that, to get people to bite. Tom Segalstad is the climate change denier's equivalent to David Irving. He's welcome to his theories, but he's going against the vast majority of scientists. As we've said before in these threads, one person working in isolation only has to come up with what people want to hear and immediately they will be given more credit than hundreds of other people who all agree on the inconvenient truth.

            Anyway, it ends up being your own choice as to whether you believe or not. I have absolutely no doubt that the climate is changing worldwide, and very quickly. Whether that is down to human activity or not is pretty much irrelevant in the end and how the weather actually ends up affecting us could be a complete lottery, but it will affect us.

            More alarming than climate change to me though is the certainty of Peak Oil. That also incites completely conflicting views from experts and amateurs all over the web, and again it has to be your own choice whether you believe it's going to be a problem or not. I'm convinced anyway, but then I'm a Doomer (as opposed to a tree hugging hippy).

            Comment


              #7
              Switched off when I got to 'melaniephillips'.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by dang65
                Well, that's the only worth of an article like that, to get people to bite. Tom Segalstad is the climate change denier's equivalent to David Irving. He's welcome to his theories, but he's going against the vast majority of scientists. As we've said before in these threads, one person working in isolation only has to come up with what people want to hear and immediately they will be given more credit than hundreds of other people who all agree on the inconvenient truth.

                Anyway, it ends up being your own choice as to whether you believe or not. I have absolutely no doubt that the climate is changing worldwide, and very quickly. Whether that is down to human activity or not is pretty much irrelevant in the end and how the weather actually ends up affecting us could be a complete lottery, but it will affect us.

                More alarming than climate change to me though is the certainty of Peak Oil. That also incites completely conflicting views from experts and amateurs all over the web, and again it has to be your own choice whether you believe it's going to be a problem or not. I'm convinced anyway, but then I'm a Doomer (as opposed to a tree hugging hippy).
                The vast majority of scientists also rely entirely upon their governments for funding. Given that govts are always looking for new ways in which to raise tax and control the people who they are actually supposed to serve. It is logical to presume that scientists will be prone to support their governments agenda.
                Let us not forget EU open doors immigration benefits IT contractors more than anyone

                Comment


                  #9
                  Article about UK crops with interesting additional points.

                  I guess people have apocalypse fatigue. That was the basis of a programme on the telly at the weekend, Apocalypse Now & Then, which went methodically through nuclear war, the new ice age, bird flu and asteroid strikes and pointed out that they were all groundless fears which never materialised into the mass world killers scientists told us they would be. Finally they got on to global warming and decided that was a load of scaremongering nonsense as well. There was no scientific justification given for this belief, just that the 'cry wolf' nature of previous scares, amplified by the media, must mean that climate change is also fake. That programme will have been very reassuring to the deniers as well, I'm sure.

                  The didn't debunk Peak Oil though. In fact, they didn't mention it at all, which is really worrying.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by King Cnvt
                    We all believe in man made Climate Change now. It is caused by 4x4's and makes it rain, windy, hot, dry, snowy etc.

                    And we all believe that Gordon Brown is lovely and we must all vote Labour.

                    HTH

                    I disagree....my 10 year old 4x4 does not make it rain... but it loves it when it does...

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X