Help! Climate denying father
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-12-2016, 08:24 PM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
It is exactly like a greenhouse. Except that the covering (glass) of the greenhouse is the atmosphere itself, as the percent of CO2 and other greenhouse gases goes up, retaining more heat in the earth's surface and lower atmosphere than would have been retained without it. The air cannot escape the earth any more than it can escape the greenhouse; they work by the same principle. I don't understand why this is a hang-up for you.

It's not a 100% perfect analogy but it's not intended to be, any more than "The Big Bang" is an accurate description of the expansion of the Singularity. What both terms are is a good way to explain the general function of the phenomenon being described, in a way that's catchy enough to use in conversation.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
04-12-2016, 11:59 PM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(04-12-2016 06:44 PM)Aractus Wrote:  Yeah good, you're not adding anything of value anyway. I do know how to read science you know. I still do not know how you think objects that contain no matter contain heat. Have you ever observed the heat of a photon? No you haven't, because you can't observe them. You can only observe their reactions with matter which transfers energy, hence heat.

From wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect:
Quote:The mechanism is named after a faulty analogy with the effect of solar radiation passing through glass and warming a greenhouse. The way a greenhouse retains heat is fundamentally different, as a greenhouse works by reducing airflow and retaining warm air inside the structure.[2][5][6]

Well done Smile You scored a point. But what the Greenhouse effect is called doesn't change the fact that it does exist.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-12-2016, 12:42 AM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
I never said it doesn't exist! As I said I think I would agree 90-95% with the average warmist. Sceptics are not science deniers - the fundamental difference is when it comes to how much climate change is going to happen we say "wait and see". Anyway there are far more important environmental concerns than whether or not we should spend trillions of dollars trying to curb climate change. I mean look where I live - the ACT - we had a renewable target of 90% by 2020, then last year the Government announced 100% by 2025, and this year they're so happy with their progress they announced they moving the 100% target forward to 2020, and it looks like they'll get there as well. But setting the same target across regional NSW would be wholly unrealistic.

I think we (Australians) should be slowly moving away from polls-and-wires, and towards self-powered homes using solar and barriers. The cost of electricity in Australia will never come down until we decommission the P&W - or redesign them to be a smaller network for commercial districts.

My Blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-12-2016, 03:12 AM (This post was last modified: 05-12-2016 03:39 AM by Deesse23.)
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(04-12-2016 05:20 PM)Aractus Wrote:  They don't "trap heat", they produce heat by absorbing infrared radiation as it leaves the atmosphere.
That is nonsensical. Please explain how something can "produce heat by absorbing".

(04-12-2016 05:20 PM)Aractus Wrote:  That's why the term "greenhouse gas" is misleading - in a greenhouse heat is trapped by preventing heated air from escaping.

A greenhouse works because of two effects:

1) It prevents thermal convection. It prevents creation of an airflow created by parts of the air having different temperatures.

2) Glass is opaque to infrared light (keeps heat inside) but transparent to visible light (needed for Photosythesis)

If it wasnt for 2), bricks would work as well.

CO2 is termed a "greenhouse gas" because it acts similar to Glass in 2) not because of 1). Unlike glass it doesnt reflect the energy of infrared light, but rather absorbs it, thus keeping the energy "trapped" in the atmosphere for future release.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Deesse23's post
05-12-2016, 08:24 AM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(05-12-2016 12:42 AM)Aractus Wrote:  I never said it doesn't exist! As I said I think I would agree 90-95% with the average warmist. Sceptics are not science deniers - the fundamental difference is when it comes to how much climate change is going to happen we say "wait and see". Anyway there are far more important environmental concerns than whether or not we should spend trillions of dollars trying to curb climate change. I mean look where I live - the ACT - we had a renewable target of 90% by 2020, then last year the Government announced 100% by 2025, and this year they're so happy with their progress they announced they moving the 100% target forward to 2020, and it looks like they'll get there as well. But setting the same target across regional NSW would be wholly unrealistic.

I think we (Australians) should be slowly moving away from polls-and-wires, and towards self-powered homes using solar and barriers. The cost of electricity in Australia will never come down until we decommission the P&W - or redesign them to be a smaller network for commercial districts.

You place emphasis on cost as the determining factor for importance for whether or not climate change should be directly addressed, this is greedy and idiotic. Yes, combating climate change will be expensive, no that does not mean we shouldn't address it.

You've got so many things so bass-ackwards it is hard to know where to start.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-12-2016, 08:46 AM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(05-12-2016 08:24 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You place emphasis on cost as the determining factor for importance for whether or not climate change should be directly addressed, this is greedy and idiotic. Yes, combating climate change will be expensive, no that does not mean we shouldn't address it.

You've got so many things so bass-ackwards it is hard to know where to start.

Well, there's some method to the madness. What is the cost of not addressing it, that's my question? As far as I'm aware, the prediction is, "catastrophic", which is why the climate change deniers seem to spend lots of time talking about times that climate predictions failed to come true Rolleyes

To me the issue is not will the predictions come true but more, why the hell *shouldn't* we do something about it? Aractus himself just said NSW is meeting its environmental targets, so what's the issue? We know for a fact that the world's resources are not infinite and must be managed - we have a huge human population and we already use resources unsustainably. Just because the catastrophe that *could* happen hasn't happened yet seems a daft reason not to conserve or limit pollution. Especially from CO2 which is a known threat.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-12-2016, 08:51 AM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(05-12-2016 08:46 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(05-12-2016 08:24 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You place emphasis on cost as the determining factor for importance for whether or not climate change should be directly addressed, this is greedy and idiotic. Yes, combating climate change will be expensive, no that does not mean we shouldn't address it.

You've got so many things so bass-ackwards it is hard to know where to start.

Well, there's some method to the madness. What is the cost of not addressing it, that's my question? As far as I'm aware, the prediction is, "catastrophic", which is why the climate change deniers seem to spend lots of time talking about times that climate predictions failed to come true Rolleyes

To me the issue is not will the predictions come true but more, why the hell *shouldn't* we do something about it? Aractus himself just said NSW is meeting its environmental targets, so what's the issue? We know for a fact that the world's resources are not infinite and must be managed - we have a huge human population and we already use resources unsustainably. Just because the catastrophe that *could* happen hasn't happened yet seems a daft reason not to conserve or limit pollution. Especially from CO2 which is a known threat.

"Aractus himself just said NSW is meeting its environmental targets, so what's the issue?"

Encouraging no response is a bad thing to encourage.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-12-2016, 10:25 AM (This post was last modified: 05-12-2016 10:28 AM by Deltabravo.)
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(04-12-2016 12:11 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Ivar Giaever? Oh, FFS, Deltabravo, do you have any good information in your head?

While Giaever is certainly a highly accomplished physicist, that does not automatically make him a climate expert as well. As Giaever himself has admitted, he has spent very little time researching the subject, and it shows. He simply bounces from one climate myth to the next, demonstrating a lack of understanding of Climate Science 101, and then insults the entire scientific field by comparing it to a religion.

Giaever has used his position of scientific authority as a Nobel Laureate to misinform people about a subject on which he has not even done the most basic research. That is not how a good scientist should behave, and that is why Giaever has rightfully and deservedly been criticized.


http://www.skepticalscience.com/ivar-gia...ntist.html

( See also: http://www.snopes.com/2015/07/08/nobel-i...te-change/ )

And Skeptical Science also has a good examination of your "MIT meteorologist" and his pseudoscience:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic...indzen.htm

Edit to Add: Here's a hint for future reference... before you make an Appeal to Authority, make sure the people you're citing are authorities on the subject. Dodgy

Hi,

First, I want to make a point about "appealing to authority". I didn't post those videos because I was trying to use the credentials of these two scientists as proof of the validity of what they were saying. I used the videos because I had watched them and I was impressed by the arguments presented. Also, I am often criticised on this forum for not citing what I say and coming to my own conclusions based on my experience and my own conclusions from a variety of sources which I can't necessarily, at any particular point, find. I am told I should be using "peer reviewed" sources and citing them in support of what I say. This is "appealing to authority". The authority is right, I am wrong, is the general attitude here so...which is it?

As far as Ivar Giaever is concerned, he isn't someone whose name I am familiar with but I think his accomplishment of winning a Nobel prize puts him in a certain class of scientists whose views should not be dismissed in favour of people like Maurice Strong who chaired the Rio Summit, and was a political "operative" with a clear political agenda and a life long "plan", or Al Gore. I listened to the video and I found what he said to be compelling and I found it put into scientific words things which I had puzzled about. I didn't come to this subject, as I have posted earlier, because I am a supporter of the use of fossil fuels or don't care about the environment. As I posted, I found myself, like a lot of older people being told that all we had understood about the ice age coming to an end and still being at the tail end of the last ice age had nothing to do with a very small change in temperature in the latter part of the 1900's so it is something many of us find to be odd.

I have listened to a number of videos by Lindzen, and other videos on Youtube, and they all present very clear and compelling reasons to question the validity of global warming science.

There have been many scientific "movements" such as Lysenkoism which have been totally wrong.

I just feel that in light of the topic of this thread, that it is important to say to some people who question the skepticism of more "mature" critics of global warming, that the views of critics are not "out there" and that the arguments against global warming need to be listened to and considered very carefully, as Giaever says:

As part of the 62nd Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting, Giaever referred to agreement with the evidence of climate change as a "religion" and commented on the significance of the apparent rise in temperature when he stated, "What does it mean that the temperature has gone up 0.8 degrees Kelvin, Probably nothing." Referring to the selection of evidence in his presentation, Giaever stated "I pick and choose when I give this talk just the way the previous speaker (Mario Molina) picked and chose when he gave his talk." Giaever concluded his presentation with a pronouncement: "Is climate change pseudoscience? If I’m going to answer the question, the answer is: absolutely."[15][16]

Giaever repeated his claims in a speech at the same place in 2015,[17] referring to data on global average temperature published amongst others by NASA [18] that show global average surface temperature has risen less than 1K in 140 years,[19] and not risen at all for the years from 2000 - 2014.[20]

A main point of his speech was discussing reliability of the statistical calculation of this temperature with respect to the quite inhomogeneous spatial distribution of measurement locations over the globe, especially the poor coverage in the southern hemisphere.[21] He highlighted the fact evident from the dataset used by NASA for the calculations that there have been only 8 measurement locations on the entire Antarctic continent, which holds the greatest and currently further increasing mass of ice found on earth. He claimed that these facts erode the credibility of accuracy usually attached to these data, notwithstanding that established statistical procedures have been used to cope with that lack of data statistical independence and hence data quality.

Another main point was that observed significant change in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations in a magnitude of 40% during the last 250 years of the industrial age [22] does in no way correlate with the observed temperature change [23] in that time, thus experimentally rendering invalid the claim that rising concentrations of CO2 are the cause of global warming, as stated by the UN led Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and leading climatologists from different countries in a vast amount of publications, and widely believed as a fact in scientific as well as political discussions worldwide.

Giaever, on the base of the facts presented, urged the scientific community to rethink and to reject these claims as baseless or at least not properly founded, and to redirect the immense funds invested in technologies aiming to reduce CO2 emissions to the real problems of humanity. Wiki

I think the above sums it up and I would not want to argue against it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-12-2016, 10:37 AM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
I also found Lindzen's presentations very well reasoned and I think the assessment of his credibility in Wiki is useful in helping one to decide whether global warming science should be accepted while critics, however reasonable should be derided:

"He has criticized the scientific consensus on global climate change, pointing out that scientists are just as liable to err when the science appears to point in just one direction. He drew an analogy in 1996 between the consensus in the early and mid-twentieth century on eugenics and the current consensus about global warming.[65] In a 2007 interview on The Larry King Show, Lindzen said:[66]

We're talking of a few tenths of a degree change in temperature. None of it in the last eight years, by the way. And if we had warming, it should be accomplished by less storminess. But because the temperature itself is so unspectacular, we have developed all sorts of fear of prospect scenarios – of flooding, of plague, of increased storminess when the physics says we should see less.

I think it's mainly just like little kids locking themselves in dark closets to see how much they can scare each other and themselves.

In a 2009 editorial in the Wall Street Journal, Lindzen said that the earth was just emerging from the "Little Ice Age" in the 19th century and says that it is "not surprising" to see warming after that. He goes on to state that the IPCC claims were[67]

Based on the weak argument that the current models used by the IPCC couldn't reproduce the warming from about 1978 to 1998 without some forcing, and that the only forcing that they could think of was man. Even this argument assumes that these models adequately deal with natural internal variability—that is, such naturally occurring cycles as El Niño, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, etc.

Yet articles from major modeling centers acknowledged that the failure of these models to anticipate the absence of warming for the past dozen years was due to the failure of these models to account for this natural internal variability. Thus even the basis for the weak IPCC argument for anthropogenic climate change was shown to be false.

According to an April 30, 2012 New York Times article,[68] "Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point "nutty." He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate." He also believes that decreasing tropical cirrus clouds in a warmer world will allow more longwave radiation to escape the atmosphere, counteracting the warming.[68] Lindzen first published this "iris" theory in 2001,[9] and offered more support in a 2009 paper.[51]

Third-party characterizations of Lindzen[edit]
An April 30, 2012 article in The New York Times included the comments of several other experts. Christopher S. Bretherton, an atmospheric researcher at the University of Washington, said Lindzen is "feeding upon an audience that wants to hear a certain message, and wants to hear it put forth by people with enough scientific reputation that it can be sustained for a while, even if it's wrong science. I don't think it's intellectually honest at all." Kerry A. Emanuel, another M.I.T. scientist, said of Lindzen's views "Even if there were no political implications, it just seems deeply unprofessional and irresponsible to look at this and say, 'We're sure it's not a problem.' It's a special kind of risk, because it's a risk to the collective civilization."[68]

A 1996 article in The New York Times included the comments of several other experts. Jerry D. Mahlman, director of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, did not accept Lindzen's assessment of the science, and said that Lindzen had "sacrificed his luminosity by taking a stand that most of us feel is scientifically unsound." Mahlman did, however, admit that Lindzen was a "formidable opponent". William Gray of Colorado State University basically agreed with Lindzen, describing him as "courageous". He said, "A lot of my older colleagues are very skeptical on the global warming thing". He added that while he regarded some of Lindzen's views as flawed, he said that, "across the board he's generally very good". John Wallace of the University of Washington agreed with Lindzen that progress in climate change science had been exaggerated, but said there are "relatively few scientists who are as skeptical of the whole thing as Dick [Lindzen] is".[3]

The November 10, 2004 online version of Reason magazine reported that Lindzen is "willing to take bets that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now".[69] However, on June 8, 2005 they reported that Lindzen insisted that he had been misquoted, after James Annan contacted Lindzen to make the bet but claimed that "Lindzen would take only 50 to 1 odds".[70]

The Guardian reported in June 2016 that Lindzen has been a beneficiary of Peabody Energy, a coal company that has funded multiple groups contesting the climate consensus.[71]

Lindzen has been called a contrarian, in relation to climate change and other issues.[72][73][74] Lindzen's graduate students describe him as "fiercely intelligent, with a deep contrarian streak."[75]

Awards and honors[edit]
Lindzen is a recipient of the American Meteorological Society's Meisinger and Charney Awards, American Geophysical Union's Macelwane Medal, and the Leo Prize from the Wallin Foundation in Goteborg, Sweden. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), and the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters, and was named Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Meteorological Society. He is a corresponding member of the NAS Committee on Human Rights, and a member of the United States National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate. He was a consultant to the Global Modeling and Simulation Group at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, and a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at California Institute of Technology's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Lindzen is an ISI highly cited researcher,[76] and his biography has been included in American Men and Women of Science.[77]"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-12-2016, 10:42 AM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
At work.

Hello DeltaBravo. Smile

Just a side note but as is being reported (Can't get the data page atm) 2016 is shaping up to be a hotter 'average' year than any before it.

Can some one post the XKCD (Sorry, can't remember the exact name of the comic) page here for referance?

Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: