Climate Change means no more flying for you after 2050

One person claimed there was more water vapor (25%) in the atmosphere than oxygen.
What I probably should have made more clear is the combination of H and O whether bonded as water vapor or inert equals approx. 25% of the atmosphere. Hope that makes it more clear. Here's a thermal conductivity chart to give you an idea of the radiative qualities of each of the gases found in the atmosphere. As you will notice CO2 is kind of a disappointment given all the hoopla you guys make it out to be.

thermal.png
 
Is it all just clickbait? Is it your view that all the dire warnings are nothing more than attempts to generate counters?
The article posted by the OP is clickbait. The scientific studies are not.

Hahaha. You can't resist responding to my posts even though you said you didn't want to interact with me. :D
 
That's another debate. I have theories and there are several scientists that support it, that oil is abiotic much like gold, silver, lead and other inorganic mineral based compositions.
Yes, that IS a hypothesis that hasn't been definitely disproven, though it's a minority view. Might be, might not be. It seems awfully foolish though to burn oil without restraint on the basis of an unproven hypothesis; it's little better than wishful thinking at this point.

What do you think makes water vapor?
That's an awfully strange comeback. What do YOU think makes water vapor?

You have it backwards. Higher temperatures produce more CO2.
I think you misunderstood what Capn Jack was saying. Whatever increases temperature will increase the saturation concentration of water vapor, since the saturation point is temperature dependent. CO2 is one kind of forcing that increases temperature via the greenhouse effect. (I hope you aren't arguing against that, as that IS one part of the science that is settled.) As you yourself have stated, water vapor is a potent greenhouse gas, so more water vapor leads to higher temperatures. In other words, water vapor acts as a POSITIVE feedback.

If we eliminated CO2, would the sky still be blue?
Yes. Diatomic nitrogen and oxygen are the main causes of the wavelength-dependent scattering of sunlight in the atmosphere (Rayleigh scattering) that makes the sky appear blue.

Everything is open for debate, except in the case of climate science. Seems when real scientists want to debate the climate scientists, they never show up, and then accuse them of being "deniers". That's no way to conduct a debate.
Not everything is open for debate. Some laws of physics are well established and we're quite sure we won't find violations of them on the scale of our ordinary experience. If you claim to invent a machine that can generate electricity without any kind of energy source, most scientists will ignore you straightaway. Another way to get branded a kook is to argue that the greenhouse effect violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics, as a couple of Russian (?) physicists did a few years back.

One factor out of a myriad of thousands. That's why the models are so inaccurate.
By "account for" I meant in keeping track of the balance of CO2 in the atmosphere, not in modeling future climate. Yes, CO2 is only one factor and there is apparently some physics going on that they aren't able to properly account for. Another factor is the coarseness of the spatial grids used in the models. But that's another subject.
 
The article posted by the OP is clickbait. The scientific studies are not.

Hahaha. You can't resist responding to my posts even though you said you didn't want to interact with me. :D

I'm just trying to get you to pick a side! :incazzato:

(although we all already know);)
 
I don't think there was any time scientists felt the world was flat. If you knew about the Galileo house arrest (and you have that correct, he mainly PO'd the Pope, who previously supported him, with that Simplicio character), then you also know that Eratosthenes of Cyrene knew the world was round and did a pretty good job of calculating it's circumference around 240 years before the birth of Christ. Sailors knew the world was round because they could see the hull, followed by the masts and sails, disappear from view as they opened the distance from the another ship.

The repetitive theme of science prior to about the time of the industrial revolution was that it wasn't revered as the religion it is now, since it was mostly wrong.

I even gave the title of a modern book which described clearly that "science" believed the North Pole was likely a sauna, as recently as the early 1900s.

Three generations prior to my lifespan, is all that is. My grandfather was alive when people believed that crap from "science".
 
What I probably should have made more clear is the combination of H and O whether bonded as water vapor or inert equals approx. 25% of the atmosphere. Hope that makes it more clear. Here's a thermal conductivity chart to give you an idea of the radiative qualities of each of the gases found in the atmosphere. As you will notice CO2 is kind of a disappointment given all the hoopla you guys make it out to be.

thermal.png


But at least we can connect CO2 to fossil fuels and justify taxing the snot out of them. How could you do that with water?
 
What do YOU think makes water vapor?
convection

CO2 is one kind of forcing that increases temperature via the greenhouse effect.
And a very poor one at that.

Another factor is the coarseness of the spatial grids used in the models. But that's another subject.
That's what they're trying to clean up and make more uniform as we speak. Still going to be many years before we have any conclusive results, and even then it still won't be perfect.
 
I don't think there was any time scientists felt the world was flat. If you knew about the Galileo house arrest (and you have that correct, he mainly PO'd the Pope, who previously supported him, with that Simplicio character), then you also know that Eratosthenes of Cyrene knew the world was round and did a pretty good job of calculating it's circumference around 240 years before the birth of Christ. Sailors knew the world was round because they could see the hull, followed by the masts and sails, disappear from view as they opened the distance from the another ship.
Yep, the fallacy that educated people in Columbus's day thought the world is flat has been debunked so thoroughly that no one teaches it to elementary school kids any more. In fact that knowledge predates Eratosthenes: Aristotle knew the Earth was round, based on the shape of its shadow on the Moon during eclipses, and also because the constellations visible from a given location varies with latitude. I always thought it was strange that he didn't use the argument you mention of how ships disappear in the distance, as that should have been (and probably was) a well known fact in his day. Anyway the medieval Catholic Church based much of their natural philosophy on Aristotle, so it was well known that the Earth was round.
 
That's all it was, clickbait, just like the tabloid newspapers in the grocery store line, and most likely with less exposure. Some gullible people believe anything, and they always have.

So the Attorney Generals just fell prey to clickbait and the lawsuits are all just a big misunderstanding?
 
Sure are a bunch of amateur, absolutely unqualified, and without review "scientists" on this board.
Carry on.
Having fun?
This is some serious s___, think 10 pages of "debate" here makes a whit of difference?
<shaking head and shuffling off - only glad not to have waded thru 10 pages of mostly ad hominem arguments>
 
But at least we can connect CO2 to fossil fuels and justify taxing the snot out of them. How could you do that with water?
Dihydrogen monoxide is one of the most dangerous chemicals on earth. Many thousands of people die from it each year, but yet we hear no mention of any boycotting, protesting, or government sponsored scientific studies on what we can do to make that nasty chemical more friendly to the environment. But noooo... they'd rather pick on CO2 and make it the bad guy even though only a small handful of people actually die from it each year. :rolleyes:
 
convection
Huh??? :confused: Care to explain that?
And a very poor one at that.
Relatively poor compared to water vapor, true. But you can't just pump water vapor into the atmosphere to produce more warming because once air saturates, the water precipitates out. That doesn't happen with CO2 under conditions that exist on Earth.
 
So the Attorney Generals just fell prey to clickbait and the lawsuits are all just a big misunderstanding?
No, I think the AGs who are going after Exxon and others believe that the company did wrong. I am not convinced.

What I meant was that your article and the magazines in the grocery store line are part of the same phenomena.
 
That's one of the problems in the world today (and in the past). We have to be on sides, against each other.

I get what you're saying, but pretending not to disagree doesn't ease the tension. Everything is politicized now, and I don't think that is going to change. Social media gives almost every group a voice, and many of them have a quest for power. I'm surprised this thread lasted, and I'm glad it did. It takes these types of discussions a little while to distill into a form that reveals people's real beliefs. In cases like this, someone is right and someone is wrong. But both sides need to be honest about the political implications of their respective position. You don't have to be much of a student of history to see that an issue as powerful as MMGW will be seized by those who are striving for power. Fascism has its roots in this type of political battle and it mimics the philosophies that lead to some serious strife last century. To ignore that is to be naive or blissfully ignorant.
 
No, I think the AGs who are going after Exxon and others believe that the company did wrong. I am not convinced.

What I meant was that your article and the magazines in the grocery store line are part of the same phenomena.

The magazines, the online articles, and the lawsuits and power struggles are all intertwined. The cacophony of idiots that believe the articles keeps the equally stupid AGs in power. And their bosses.
 
Actually in a sense it does. It just takes way more time. Think about it.
No it doesn't. CO2 can't exist as either a liquid or a solid under naturally occurring conditions on Earth. So there is no equilibrium between different phases like there is with water. If you're referring to the slow removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, those are very different processes and you CAN increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by pumping more into it. That's exactly why we can alter the climate with CO2 and not with water vapor.
 
That's exactly why we can alter the climate with CO2 and not with water vapor.
Okay... it's a well established fact among the climate change zealots that mankind is the all mighty and has the power to change the weather and climate patterns.

Follow along with me if you will. Let's say I was King for day and had unlimited funding. With those funds I set up a worldwide network of CO2 scrubbers and sequestration stations that pumped the CO2 underground into salt domes, played out oil formations, or anywhere there was adequate cavitation in the subsurface to handle the incoming volume.

My plan would be that any city, region, or area with CO2 levels above 450 ppm would initially receive these scrubbers and stations with the rest of the world being built out over a period of time.

Let's say that after a period of 30 years due to my efforts I was able to get the worldwide measured CO2 down to 200 ppm.

Describe to me the world we would be living in with a 200 ppm CO2 level. :dunno:

.
 
The repetitive theme of science prior to about the time of the industrial revolution was that it wasn't revered as the religion it is now, since it was mostly wrong.

I even gave the title of a modern book which described clearly that "science" believed the North Pole was likely a sauna, as recently as the early 1900s.

Three generations prior to my lifespan, is all that is. My grandfather was alive when people believed that crap from "science".

And yet the crappy science of your grandfather's childhood gave us the world we live in today. Oh yes, they were all so wrong way back when... and yet here we are today. In just three generations we learned to fly and planted a flag on the Moon. All due to science and scientists. Nearly everything we enjoy in our modern lives is due to science. You know, airplanes, radio communications, digital computers, internet connectivity, diesel trucks, stuff like that. Not a whole lot of that going on back before your Grandpappy's days.

Gosh... all those "scientists" were so damn dumb back then. They sure didn't have a clue...
 
And yet the crappy science of your grandfather's childhood gave us the world we live in today. Oh yes, they were all so wrong way back when... and yet here we are today. In just three generations we learned to fly and planted a flag on the Moon. All due to science and scientists. Nearly everything we enjoy in our modern lives is due to science. You know, airplanes, radio communications, digital computers, internet connectivity, diesel trucks, stuff like that. Not a whole lot of that going on back before your Grandpappy's days.

Gosh... all those "scientists" were so damn dumb back then. They sure didn't have a clue...

The modern research scientist writing endless papers about climate is a pretty far cry from how science was practiced during the boom after the industrial revolution. The vast majority of that "science" back then, we would call "engineering" today. What we call this new "science activism", well, feel free to make something up. They aren't the same.
 
The basic problem, in my opinion, is SCIENCE vs POLITICS ...
 
The basic problem, in my opinion, is SCIENCE vs POLITICS ...
Saying you have evidence that there is warming is one thing. Saying that you want to create subsidies, taxes, and restrictions by passing laws because you have evidence of warming is another thing entirely.
 
The modern research scientist writing endless papers about climate is a pretty far cry from how science was practiced during the boom after the industrial revolution. The vast majority of that "science" back then, we would call "engineering" today. What we call this new "science activism", well, feel free to make something up. They aren't the same.

No they aren't any different. Those scientists way back when wrote research papers too. That's how they shared knowledge and got peer review and no it wasn't engineering. Engineering is what other people do with the scientific discoveries. You have to discover and understand before you can engineer greater, more complex machines.
 
No they aren't any different. Those scientists way back when wrote research papers too. That's how they shared knowledge and got peer review and no it wasn't engineering. Engineering is what other people do with the scientific discoveries. You have to discover and understand before you can engineer greater, more complex machines.

So is $30B necessary for something that won't lead to a "big complex machine", just a powerful useless bureaucracy? ;)
 
No they aren't any different. Those scientists way back when wrote research papers too. That's how they shared knowledge and got peer review and no it wasn't engineering. Engineering is what other people do with the scientific discoveries. You have to discover and understand before you can engineer greater, more complex machines.
My degree sez doctor of philosophy (petroleum engineering) so am I a scientist, an inginear, or a philosopher?
 
I believe that an atmospheric laboratory could construct a series of experiments using CO2 concentration as an independent variable and "system warming" as a dependent variable. I am aware of no literature or publications presenting this kind of experimental findings. Rather, we are offered printed projections from some computer model --along with a bunch of hand-waving and assurance that the computer model can't be wrong-- but the details are hidden from view and aren't subject to rigorous inspection and validation.
By making that statement I wanted to test the climate change zealots here on their knowledge of history. Seems they all love to disregard history and the associated facts thereof, and would much prefer to live in their little fantasy world of "here and now" .

Years ago just down the road from me there was a controlled "climate change" experiment that was publicized worldwide. It was called Biosphere II. Many of the nation's top educated fools got together and decided they were going to try and replicate Mother Nature and her ecosystem. Naturally as climate scientists, none of them had a pot to p*ss in, so they had to go begging for money to finance their little experiment. The irony of it all is... a bunch oil guys got together and gave them the money to play their little games.

I won't bore the people here with the details, but let's just say it was one of the most massive failures in scientific history. What's really funny is that Google has scrubbed much of the hard data and the white papers of why it was such a massive failure. Once again going to prove, that climate change zealots and their ilk hate history! :yesnod:
 
By making that statement I wanted to test the climate change zealots here on their knowledge of history. Seems they all love to disregard history and the associated facts thereof, and would much prefer to live in their little fantasy world of "here and now" .

Years ago just down the road from me there was a controlled "climate change" experiment that was publicized worldwide. It was called Biosphere II. Many of the nation's top educated fools got together and decided they were going to try and replicate Mother Nature and her ecosystem. Naturally as climate scientists, none of them had a pot to p*ss in, so they had to go begging for money to finance their little experiment. The irony of it all is... a bunch oil guys got together and gave them the money to play their little games.

I won't bore the people here with the details, but let's just say it was one of the most massive failures in scientific history. What's really funny is that Google has scrubbed much of the hard data and the white papers of why it was such a massive failure. Once again going to prove, that climate change zealots and their ilk hate history! :yesnod:
What does Biosphere II have to do with the discussion surrounding climate change? If I recall correctly, it was originally designed to test the feasibility of setting up a self-contained terrestrial ecosystem on another planet such as Mars. If the point is simply that Nature is a lot more complex than our naive thinking would lead us to believe as a first guess, I don't think anyone here would dispute that.
 
If the point is simply that Nature is a lot more complex than our naive thinking would lead us to believe as a first guess, I don't think anyone here would dispute that.
Exactamundo! For those that think mankind has even an inkling of understanding Mother Nature's entire ecosystem, and even worse yet; to think we even have a modicum of control over those systems... is utterly preposterous! As I've stated many times before... we're just temporary guests on this planet. Mother Nature will destroy us long before we destroy her!

Even though we're probably on opposite sides of the table, thank you for a respectable and civil debate. Wish more people were like you. :thumbsup:
 
Thank you! :)

I don't think we're entirely on opposite sides here. The only point I've really been making is that I think the basic physics behind climate science is more secure than some of your posts would lead someone to believe. That's not to say that the details of the model projections are reliable, they're obviously not. Nor do I think alarmist activism is completely supported by the science, though I think we know enough to be very concerned.

I do agree that we're not in any position to "destroy nature". We can certainly cause extinctions, there are even historical examples of that, and humans might be responsible for the extinction of some of the Pleistocene megafauna like the mastodon and the wooly mammoth. We can do a lot of damage to the habitability of the planet for ourselves and many other species, but life on Earth has survived far worse catastrophes. Short of an all-out nuclear war, I can't see us even coming close to wiping out all life on the planet. Even then there will be survivors, even if they're only cockroaches, tardigrades, and viruses.
 
Soon our world will looks like the movie, "The Book of Eli"
 
Exactamundo! For those that think mankind has even an inkling of understanding Mother Nature's entire ecosystem, and even worse yet; to think we even have a modicum of control over those systems...

And that's the problem. We don't have control of the climate, but can effect it. What happens after we add our effect is all theoretical and unknown. We don't have a very complete understanding of the complete ecosystem and that's why we have to study it, not bury our heads in the sand pretend it's all OK no matter what we do.

The evidence so far does show we are having an effect. The theories presented pre-port that our effect on the climate is not beneficial to mankind. More study is needed so that we can have a better understanding.

You're right, mother nature could wipe us out any time, but like the huge random meteorite speeding towards us to cause our demise, wouldn't be better to know that there are meteorites, that they can kill us all, how to look for them and come up with a plan to save ourselves just in case one should come? Shouldn't we give ourselves a fighting chance rather than except fate?
 
And that's the problem. We don't have control of the climate, but can effect it. What happens after we add our effect is all theoretical and unknown. We don't have a very complete understanding of the complete ecosystem and that's why we have to study it, not bury our heads in the sand pretend it's all OK no matter what we do.
Nothing wrong with studying and trying to understand our ecosystem. I fully support and encourage it. It's when those studies and the wildly exaggerated claims thereof (with no valid or supporting evidence whatsoever), evolve into a religion/cult based on political or monetary influences. At that point it becomes nothing but junk science, and then you lose all credibility with those of us who actually do know how to think for themselves. ;)
 
Last edited:
And that's the problem. We don't have control of the climate, but can effect it. What happens after we add our effect is all theoretical and unknown. We don't have a very complete understanding of the complete ecosystem and that's why we have to study it, not bury our heads in the sand pretend it's all OK no matter what we do.
That's a good way of putting it. Control implies that we can exert an influence in a predictable way. We certainly don't know enough to do that, but it's clear that we're at least capable of having an influence on the climate, and it's likely that we already are doing so, though to what extent we can measure it at this point is debatable. More study is exactly what is needed; the current administration's stance is very much as you say, burying our heads in the sand so that we won't be able to tell whether we are approaching a catastrophe.

The evidence so far does show we are having an effect. The theories presented pre-port that our effect on the climate is not beneficial to mankind. More study is needed so that we can have a better understanding.
Agreed 100%. We are almost certainly having an effect, but how much and how detrimental it will be for us is not fully known yet.

You're right, mother nature could wipe us out any time, but like the huge random meteorite speeding towards us to cause our demise, wouldn't be better to know that there are meteorites, that they can kill us all, how to look for them and come up with a plan to save ourselves just in case one should come? Shouldn't we give ourselves a fighting chance rather than except fate?
That's another thing I wonder about, will the Trump administration (or more accurately, Congress acquiescing to them) table the various NEO search missions already in progress and being planned? I don't know the exact funding route for those projects so I'm not sure if the requested cuts to NASA would affect them. But if they are cut, that would be a very short-sighted move IMO.
 
Last edited:
Hardly a peer-reviewed journal, and as good a source as the link that started this thread.

And an interesting post that won't get much press:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2017/08/recent-warming-natural/
It actually shows up a lot just on the journal name in a google search. However, it shows that the journals publish information contrary to the MGW theory (others in this thread have claimed otherwise, and have created a mysterious cabal with their base under KDEN) and it also shows that is is possible to get funding for papers contrary to MGW (as I asserted earlier).
Real journal link here:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214242817300426

In the blog, they make this claim:
[qoute]My colleague, Dr John Abbot, has been using this technology for over a decade to forecast the likely direction of particular stock on the share market – for tomorrow. [/quote]
I hope Dr. Abbott is very wealthy now :)

I did read the journal article and I didn't see where it predicted temperatures into the future. The test periods ended anywhere from 1950 through 2000. I would like to see what their neural network would predict through 2100 and that should be easy to do. The other models do make some kind of prediction and can stand or fail on those predictions.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top