Global Warming: For Experts Only

futurecurrents · Dec 1, 2017

piezoe said:
Stu I made a mistake , you seemed quite knowledgeable, but I now realize your science acumen is quite limited. If you'll spend the time , it takes a few hours plus some time to think, to view Salby's and Shaviv's Youtube presentations you will have a better idea of why so many first rate scientists are now questioning the validity of the Hansen Hypothesis. There are several of Salby's starting with Hamburg four years ago. Also the Miskolczi papers are either brilliant or wrong, its not known which yet, but they represent an entirely different approach. But I can't recommend those papers to you because the level of specialized physics knowledge required is substantial. As far as Salby, who is retired at least for the moment, and Shaviv go, these are two of the most respected physicists in their respected fields. Salby is atmospheric physics and Shaviv is astrophysics. James Hansen was an administrator, he was highly competent and well trained, but he got caught up in politics and obviously relied a bit to much on younger less experienced folks working in his lab. Miskolczi worked at GISS, but left when the Directors tried to suppress publication of his paper. He has followup papers published since.

Your response above was the clue for me. I didn't say exactly what you claim I said, in fact I said something different but your interpretation of what I actually did say was the clue to me that we are not communicating well.

Appealing to some mythical authority. Ad homing Trolling Hansen again. No Salby and Shaviv are NOT being suddenly respected. Google it.

Stu shows far more logic, science and truth than you do. It's not even close.

wildchild · Dec 1, 2017

futurecurrents said:
Appealing to some mythical authority. Ad homing Trolling Hansen again. No Salby and Shaviv are NOT being suddenly respected. Google it.

Stu shows far more logic and truth than you do. It's not even close.

FecalCurrents, I thought this topic was for experts only. Why are you commenting?

gwb-trading · Dec 1, 2017

futurecurrents said:
Yes, we know that you would like to censure me and the facts. That is the opinions of the experts. Do you think that is important?

And did you ever think that new eyes could be here? If it bothers you, put me on ignore.

Maybe it is time for you to stop reposting the same thing hundreds of times as the moderators have demanded.

As they have stated to you multiple times it is an abuse of the ET forum.

futurecurrents · Dec 1, 2017

wildchild said:
FecalCurrents, I thought this topic was for experts only. Why are you commenting?

What about you wild. Do you think CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

vanzandt · Dec 9, 2017

Video of starving polar bear highlights climate change effects

http://metro.co.uk/2017/12/09/video-starving-polar-bear-reminder-need-stop-global-warming-7145081/

Cuddles · Dec 9, 2017

vanzandt said:
Video of starving polar bear highlights climate change effects

http://metro.co.uk/2017/12/09/video-starving-polar-bear-reminder-need-stop-global-warming-7145081/

Dang...

Fc, do you trade carbon credits? Might actually make a difference and turn a buck while at it.

vanzandt · Dec 9, 2017

Here4money said:
Dang...

Fc, do you trade carbon credits? Might actually make a difference and turn a buck while at it.

If it were 1982, they'd probably say the polar bear was dying of the aids epidemic.

Cuddles · Dec 9, 2017

vanzandt said:
If it were 1982, they'd probably say the polar bear was dying of the aids epidemic.

I don't know what brought about the poor animal's death... this shit happens thousands of times a day everywhere with all sorts of fauna.... Still sad state of affairs to watch one die like that.

For all we know, it could be gingivitis, or he just so happened to be a sad bear that gave up on life thanks to Trump.

futurecurrents · Dec 9, 2017

stu · Dec 10, 2017

stu said:
CO2 in the atmosphere stays there.

piezoe said:
not very long. half life around 5 to 10 years maybe.

stu said:
It is a single molecule of CO2 which has a half life around 5-10 years, not the effect of atmospheric CO2, which once put in the atmosphere carries its effects for hundreds of years.

piezoe said:
What!!! There is no half life associated with a single molecule.

If you weren't trying to be such a smartass all the time, you'd know very well it is perfectly reasonable to associate half life with residence time and not just with atom disintegration in radioactive substances.

Your (wrong) remark about CO2 half life having 5-10 (it is nearer to 30 years) was in the context of residence time being how long it would remain active in the atmosphere.
In that same context it was quite reasonable for me to point out it's the individual molecules of CO2 that have that half life /residence time of 5-10 years, while the effects last for hundreds.

And by the way, we are talking about CO2 the hydrocarbon not C14 the radiocarbon. So in the context of this thread, your use of the term half life only really makes sense in relation to CO2 residence times. Probably your obsession arguing around Miskolczi and cosmic radiation(C14), muddled your thinking.

The whole of your argument is not only based upon denying fact ( you still haven't even acknowledged the glaring mistake in your Bumble Bee and The Electric Fan metaphor) but apparently it is also to argue anything and everything out of context.

To summarize, what you are trying to do in glorifying Salby et al is to say the extraordinary steep and profound rise in global temperature has nothing to do with human CO2 emissions (the only thing it can be as there is nothing else that to account for it ), but is due to ideas not supported by the laws of physics and science itself.

It is the equivalent of asserting the steep rise in Dow Jones over the last 100 years is not because of human activity, but is due to any idea not supported by any fact.