Help! Climate denying father
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-12-2016, 08:45 PM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
Aractus,

Preindustrial 19th century CO2 was about 270-280 ppm.
It's now over 400 ppm, with all of that due to man made burning of fossil fuels.

Have you ever seen a house catch fire ?
It can start slow and if you take action right away with a fire extinguisher, you can save your house.
If you ignore it, the problem grows and spreads, until it's out of control and there isn't much you can do.

We can't leave this house of ours that we call Earth.
It's getting warmer and warmer every year, breaking records each year as the warmest on record.

Do you want to invest in a fire extinguisher or a grave plot ?

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Rahn127's post
07-12-2016, 12:09 AM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(06-12-2016 08:45 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  Aractus,

Preindustrial 19th century CO2 was about 270-280 ppm.
It's now over 400 ppm, with all of that due to man made burning of fossil fuels.

Have you ever seen a house catch fire ?
It can start slow and if you take action right away with a fire extinguisher, you can save your house.
If you ignore it, the problem grows and spreads, until it's out of control and there isn't much you can do.

We can't leave this house of ours that we call Earth.
It's getting warmer and warmer every year, breaking records each year as the warmest on record.

Do you want to invest in a fire extinguisher or a grave plot ?



Watch this video:



Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2016, 01:08 AM (This post was last modified: 07-12-2016 01:19 AM by Deltabravo.)
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(05-12-2016 12:35 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(05-12-2016 10:25 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  I think the above sums it up and I would not want to argue against it.

Ohhhhhhhhh, I'll gladly have a go, though!

(05-12-2016 10:25 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  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?

You're appealing to authority because you're saying "This guy here has a Big Degree and a Big Award in some field of science, and he's saying stuff about science, so I think his arguments have serious weight." The problem with this approach is that Dr. Giaever doesn't have knowledge in the correct field, as demonstrated by the fact that 1) many of his statements (which sound good to a layperson) have been roundly criticized by the actual experts in that field as straight-up myths about climate, and 2) he has himself acknowledged that he has never studied this area of science.

In other words, I am a biologist, but if I started lecturing on a physics subject in which I demonstrated that I was not knowledgeable, but people pointed to my expertise in "a" field of science, they would be wrong because my authority in that field does not equal the expertise of the combined expertise of those in the field of physics.

(05-12-2016 10:25 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  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.

Well, Maurice Strong was not a "political operative", but a former head of a couple of major oil companies who decided he wanted to work with the UN on the problems he saw his industry causing. I don't think you're making a fair description of him. Also, he hasn't done anything in that field since the Rio Summit in 1992, so he strikes me as an odd example. If you have evidence to demonstrate that he is crooked or biased in favor of someone pulling his strings, I'd be happy to consider evidence of such. (And I can't even begin to figure out what Al Gore's angle would be, other than to be aware of the problem and working to make other people aware of it, too.)

I have definitely noticed the correlation between age and the ability to accept new ideas, though, even among scientists.

In any case, the question is not whether his arguments sound good to you but whether the arguments he makes are sound. They are not, and he has been roundly criticized. That you would ignore that factor strikes me as particularly odd.

(05-12-2016 10:25 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  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.

Did you not see the links I posted on Lindzen? Please go back and consider what they say about his "clear and compelling reasons". Please.

(05-12-2016 10:25 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  There have been many scientific "movements" such as Lysenkoism which have been totally wrong.

Really? Do you know what Lysenkoism is? I suggest you look it up. Calling it a "scientific 'movement'" is a ridiculous parody of reality. It was a Soviet Communist ideology pushed by a single man (guess what his name was?) and backed by powerful people who felt his ideas fit their communist ideology. At no point did the scientific community at large agree with Lysenko. In fact, it was in direct opposition to what the scientific consensus was at the time (and remains today).


(05-12-2016 10:25 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  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

So, even though I pointed out that Giaever literally was paid for by the fossil fuel industry, and that we saw them do the same exact thing with a high-profile scientist who denied there was any real problem in defense of the Tetraethyl Lead additive that was making the industry a fortune... and that we saw the tobacco industry do the same thing with the concept of "cigarettes cause cancer even in the people who don't smoke them", hiring scientists to muddy the waters and cast doubt on those who were doing the real work in the field, you're going to think to yourself, "No, this time, this is really something we should doubt because this Giaever guy calls it pseudoscience"... really?

The giant red flag for you should have been when the guy used the term "correlate".

We have been sitting here, for pages, talking about how there are delaying factors (such as the ice melt) which absorb some of the energy being retained by the earth and keep the temps artificially below what they would be if the greenhouse effect was the only variable in the equation. We should expect a delayed response, not a correlated one.

As to the point about 2000-2014, you should be aware that he is outright misstating what the findings are for that period:

"Global surface temperature in 2014 was +0.68°C (~1.2°F) warmer than the 1951-1980 base period in the GISTEMP analysis, making 2014 the warmest year in the period of instrumental data, but the difference from the prior warmest year (2010), less than 0.02°C, is within uncertainty of measurement. The eastern two-thirds of the contiguous United States was persistently cool in 2014, cooler than the 1951-1980 average in all seasons. Record warmth at a time of only marginal El Niño conditions confirms that there is no “hiatus” of global warming, only a moderate slowdown since 2000. Global temperature in 2015 may further alter perceptions. We discuss the prospects for the 2015 global temperature in view of the seeming waning of the current weak El Niño."

http://csas.ei.columbia.edu/2015/01/16/g...-and-2015/

(Bold emphasis my own.)

I am sorry but I don't know how to split up a thread so I'll just respond to a few of your points.

As far as Lysenkoism is concerned, yes, I know what Lysenkoism is.

Again, I did not appeal to authority. I watched the videos I posted and I found the arguments compelling, not because I am "wowed" by degrees and accomplishments. As you pointed out, there are lots of people who support global warming. However, if you were a lawyer, for instance, and you wanted to present scientific evidence in court, you would find the most qualified expert in the field to support your case. You would then have to qualify him as an expert and this does involve looking at qualifications and experience so Lindzen would be a highly qualified expert while Gore would not be an expert at all: https://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=31232

As far as Maurice Strong is concerned, I worked for him and I know a lot about him. He had no education past high school and worked in the UN handing out entry badges.
Here's a short bio of his political manoeuvring:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dKnIFeiO1Y

My father was the senior accountant in Canada for ARCO and then Petro Canada, when it bought up ARCO's Canadian subsidiary, and worked on some of the projects mentioned in the video, like Lavelin and foreign aid through petroleum development aid to Venezuela.

In the end, Strong was exposed as an agent for the Chinese communist government.

https://usefulstooges.com/2015/12/21/who...ce-strong/

One thing I do know about is the Canadian oil industry and Canadian politics. My faculty advisor in undergrad was Tom Flanagan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Flanag...scientist)

Maurice Strong's connection to China was through his family and particularly a cousin by the name of Anna Louise Strong who was a friend of Mao: https://usefulstooges.com/2015/12/25/ann...r-for-mao/
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2016, 01:30 AM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
Here's another interesting take on Strong outlining his wacko new age philosophy as well. https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-p...ce-strong/

Google him. There is no doubt about his background because he admittedin the end, after he moved to Beijing, to having a life long relationship with China.

Here he is explaining how you create and manage a collective action to affect global policy, in the case of global warming, to move funds to poorer countries: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zo3bmHhgDTE
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2016, 01:48 AM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
I kinda feel sorry for Aliza.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2016, 02:04 AM (This post was last modified: 07-12-2016 02:13 AM by Deltabravo.)
RE: Help! Climate denying father
And here is a glacier, one among many, that is still expanding: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=85900

And here is the latest report on the "growing" Antarctic ice cap: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/...te-change/

Again, I watched as everyone did over many years, the retreat of the Columbia ice field but it had been retreating for a long, long time, well before any human activity could have affected it. It's not about age. It's about science being used to support a movement which has political consequences and when the political part becomes part of our culture, then it's impossible to take sensibly with people on the other side in the same way it is with any religious doctrine because a lot of people have never seen a glacier retreat naturally over time and just accept what they are now told. Back in the sixties and seventies, people just accepted it was natural, there was science telling us a mini-ice age was on the way, and then in the next decade we are told, and expected to believe, that there is no natural retreat and expansion of ice caps and glaciers, and it's just going to get hotter and hotter because of human activity.

You didn't answer how it is that the ice cap which covered Canada and the northern US states disappeared by the way. No warmest ever does...


Here are a dozen glaciers (or groups of glaciers) around the world that are growing almost as quickly as global warming skepticism.

1. Himalayan glaciers are growing, not shrinking

Things are not as they seemed to be in the IPCC report. Not only are the Himalayan glaciers not shrinking, they’re growing. Discovery reports:



Perched on the soaring Karakoram mountains in the Western Himalayas, a group of some 230 glaciers are bucking the global warming trend. They’re growing. Throughout much of the Tibetan Plateau, high-altitude glaciers are dwindling in the face of rising temperatures. The situation is potentially dire for the hundreds of millions of people living in China, India and throughout southeast Asia who depend on the glaciers for their water supply.

But in the rugged western corner of the plateau, the story is different, according to a new study. Among legendary peaks of Mt. Everest like K2 and Nanga Parbat, glaciers with a penthouse view of the world are growing, and have been for almost three decades.

“These are the biggest mid-latitude glaciers in the world,” John Shroder of the University of Nebraska-Omaha said. “And all of them are either holding still, or advancing.”

Source: Discovery

2. Alaska’s Hubbard Glacier. Growing. A lot.

Alaska’s Hubbard Glacier is advancing moving toward Gilbert Point near Yakutat at an average of seven feet per day.

The Army Corp of Engineers’ Hubbard Glacier website for has some great photos of the advancing behemoth.

Source: CDApress.com

3. Norwegian glaciers. Growing again.

IceAgeNow.com reports on the growth of Norwegian glaciers:



“After years of decline, glaciers in Norway are again growing, reports the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate. The actual magnitude of the growth, which appears to have begun over the last two years, has not yet been quantified, says NVE Senior Engineer Hallgeir Elvehøy.”The developments were originally reported by the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation (NRK).

Source: IceAgeNow.com

4. Glaciers growing on Canada’s tallest mountain

Canada.com tells the tale of glaciers growing on Canada’s tallest mountain:

“Canada’s tallest mountain, the Yukon’s towering Mount Logan, may have experienced a growth spurt.



“The University of Alaska aerial survey, conducted last summer with a laser altimeter by Fairbanks-based geoscientist Sandy Zirnheld, pegged Canada’s geographic zenith at 5,966 metres. That’s seven metres (23 feet) higher than the official height of 5,959 metres, determined in 1992 after a celebrated climb to the top by a team of Canadian researchers led by Mike Schmidt of the Geological Survey of Canada.



“Snow and ice accumulation is the most likely explanation,” Chris Larsen, the scientist leading the University of Alaska’s research on the continent’s northwest mountain ranges, said.”


Source: Canada.com

5. North to Alaska and more growing glaciers

Alaska’s glaciers have been in retreat for nearly 200 years. But now they’re advancing again.

MichNews.com reports the cold, hard facts:

“Unusually large amounts of Alaskan snow last winter were followed by unusually chilly temperatures there this summer. “In general, the weather this summer was the worst I have seen in at least 20 years,” says Bruce Molnia of the U.S. Geological Survey, and author of The Glaciers of Alaska. “It’s been a long time on most glaciers where they’ve actually had positive mass balance (added thickness).”

“Overall, Molnia figures Alaska had lost 10–12,000 square kilometers of ice since 1800, the depths of the Little Ice Age. That’s enough ice to cover the state of Connecticut. Climate alarmists claim all the glaciers might disappear soon, but they haven’t looked at the long-term evidence of the 1,500-year Dansgaard-Oeschger climate cycles. During the Little Ice Age—1400 to 1850—Muir Glacier filled the whole of Glacier Bay. Since then, the glacier has retreated 57 miles.

Source: MichNews.com

6. Glaciers are growing in California. California?

You might be surprised to learn that the Golden State has glaciers. And the Associated Press says they’re growing:

“Global warming is shrinking glaciers all over the world, but the seven tongues of ice creeping down Mount Shasta’s flanks are a rare exception: They are the only known glaciers in the continental U.S. that are growing.”

Source: FoxNews.com

7. A glacier is growing on Washington’s Mt. St. Helens.

Mount Saint Helens has glaciers? But it’s an active volcano. But, but, but…

KATU-TV reports the details:

“On May 18, 1980, the once bucolic ice-cream cone shape that defined Mount St. Helens in Washington state disappeared in monstrous blast of ash, rock, gas, and heat.

“Inside the volcano, which was once a soft dome of snow but is now a gaping, steaming menace with an unpredictable streak, an unexpected phenomenon is taking place: a glacier is growing.

“In these days of global warming concerns and scientists showing alarming then-and-now images of glaciers disappearing from mountainsides, it may be the only growing glacier in America – or maybe the world.

Source: KATU.com

8. Glaciers are growing in France and Switzerland, too

Another continent has reported in. According to an article in the Journal of Geophysical Research, glaciers are growing in France and Switzerland, too:



The research was conducted by six scientists from leading agencies and departments in France and Switzerland that deal with hydrology and glaciology. The research was funded by Observatoire des Sciences de l’Univers de Grenoble (OSUG), the European Programs ALPCLIM and CARBOSOL, and by the city of Chamonix Mont-Blanc.Vincent et al. collected a variety of datasets that could help them understand how the high-elevation glaciers of Mont Blanc were impacted by variations and trends in climate. Among other findings, they found that the mass balance of the glaciers is strongly controlled by precipitation, not temperature.

Vincent et al. state “The most striking features of these figures are the small thickness changes observed over the 20th century. For both areas, thickness variations do not exceed ±15 m. The average changes are +2.6 m at Dôme du Goûter (please note that this glacier is growing) and -0.3 m (-12 inches) at Mont Blanc.

“Considering the uncertainty interval, i.e., ±5 m, it can be concluded that no significant thickness change is detectable over most of these areas”. “All these results suggest that the SMBDôme du Goûter and Mont Blanc did not experience any significant changes over the 20th century.”

Source: World Climate Report

9. New Zealand’s largest glaciers are growing


Growing may not be a strong enough word. They’re surging. IceAgeNow.com reports the story:



Guides say the Franz Josef and the Fox glaciers continued advancing down their valleys in the past year and may soon be close to positions reached 40 years ago.

That (supposedly) contrasts sharply with the plight of many glaciers elsewhere on the planet, which are (supposedly) shrinking three times faster than they were in the 1980s, according to the World Glacier Monitoring Service (WGMS).



Franz Josef Glacier Guides base manager Tom Arnold estimated the Franz Josef and the Fox had advanced hundreds of meters in the past year.

Source: IceAgeNow.com

10. Russia’s glaciers are growing, too

The Russians don’t believe the IPCC forecasts, but they do believe their own eyes.



In 2002, a 22-million ton piece of ice broke off the gigantic Maili Glacier and crashed down a steep gorge into the village of Kami. It killed more than 150 people and injured hundreds more.The 500-foot wall of ice had been growing for six years. The Maili Glacier is just one of several glaciers in the North Caucasus Mountains that have been expanding at an alarming rate.

Other towns in the region have been partially buried by these advancing walls of ice. One local scientist in southern Russia said, “We may be seeing the beginning of a new great ice age!!!”

Source: IceAgeNow.com

11. Argentina’s Perito Moreno glacier is, you guessed it, growing

Is there a continent where glaciers aren’t growing? If so, South America isn’t one of them. Consider Argentina’s Perito Moreno glacier:

Nourished by Andean snowmelt, the glacier constantly grows even as it spawns icebergs the size of apartment buildings into a frigid lake, maintaining a nearly perfect equilibrium since measurements began more than a century ago.

“We’re not sure why this happens,” said Andres Rivera, a glacialist with the Center for Scientific Studies in Valdivia, Chile. “But not all glaciers respond equally to climate change.”

Source: IceAgeNow.com

12. Iceland’s Breidamerkurjokull glacier. Yup, it’s growing, too.

The Daily Mail UK ran a story on July 31, 2009 about the horrors of global warming. It was accompanied, for some inexplicable reason, by contradictory photos that showed the remarkable growth of Iceland’s Breidamerkurjokull glacier.

Their headline screamed, “How global warming is changing the face of the northern hemisphere.” The photos and caption told a story that was, you’ll pardon the expression, the polar opposite of what the article described.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Deltabravo's post
07-12-2016, 02:06 AM (This post was last modified: 07-12-2016 02:47 AM by Deesse23.)
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(06-12-2016 06:41 PM)Aractus Wrote:  Venus is much closer to the sun
Disclaimer:
Fistoff my thanks to god the almighty that he used an object 99% the size of earth to make the following comparison easily possible:

Average distance of Earth to Sun: 1,48
Average distance of Venus to Sun: 1,00
Ratio: 1,48
Energy received by Sun is proportional to 1/distance^2 iirc (any expert please correct me if wrong).
Ergo: Venus receives 1,48^2 = 2 (well, 1,44^2 = 2 to be precise Smartass ) times as much energy than Earth

Introduction of the term Spherical albedo

Quote:The albedo of a surface when the incident radiation is isotropic.
Spherical albedos are also used as the average of the plane albedo over all sun angles, or as the effective albedo of an entire planet.

Sperical albedo of Earth: 0.3
Sperical albedo of Venus: 0.9

Total net energy received from Sun:
Venus: 2 x (1-0.9): 0.2
Earth: 1x (1-0.3): 0.7

(1-albdeo) being the corrective factor of net energy received

Summary:
Venus receives twice as much energy from the sun but reflects 90% of this instead of 30% like earth (guess why its so bright in the sky, not only because its proximity to Earth), thus in effect Earth receives 3 times a much net energy (that stays within the system) than Venus, yet Temperatures on earth average 300K while temperatures on Venus are 730k.

Amongst many other factors (surface atmospheric pressure, 100% clouds on Venus, made of sulphuric acid, etc.):
CO2 concentration in Earths atmosphere: ppm
CO2 concentration in Venus´Atmosphere : 96%

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Deesse23's post
07-12-2016, 02:10 AM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(07-12-2016 02:06 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
(06-12-2016 06:41 PM)Aractus Wrote:  Venus is much closer to the sun
Disclaimer:
Fistoff my thanks to god the almighty that he used an object 99% the size of earth to make the following comparison easily possible:

Average distance of Earth to Sun: 1,48
Average distance of Venus to Sun: 1,00
Ratio: 1,48
Energy received by Sun is proportional to 1/distance^2 iirc (any expert please correct me if wrong).
Ergo: Venus receives 1,48^2 = 2 (well, 1,44^2 = 2 to be precise Smartass ) times as much energy than Earth

Introduction of the term Spherical albedo

Quote:The albedo of a surface when the incident radiation is isotropic.
Spherical albedos are also used as the average of the plane albedo over all sun angles, or as the effective albedo of an entire planet.

Sperical albedo of Earth: 0.3
Sperical albedo of Venus: 0.9

Total net energy received from Sun:
Venus: 2 x (1-0.9): 0.2
Earth: 1x (1-0.3): 0.7

(1-albdeo) being the corrective factor of net energy received

Summary:
Venus receives twice as much energy from the sun but reflects 90% of this instead of 30% like earth (guess why its so bright in the sky, not only because its proximity to Earth), thus in effect Earth receives 3 times a much net energy (that stays within the system) than Venus, yet Temperatures on earth average 300K while temperatures on Venus are 730k.

Amongst many other factors (surface atmospheric pressure, 100% clouds on Venus, made of sulphuric acid, etc.):
CO2 concentration in Earths atmosphere: ppm
CO2 concentration in Venus´Atmosphere : 96%

While I applaud your efforts I wonder why you bother. Consider

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2016, 02:13 AM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
Those websites are pure attack-dog propaganda bullshit. Here are his own words on the subject (I suggest you read the rest of the interview, which has a lot to do with the attacks against him.)

A common cry among your critics is that you are a socialist, a communist. Your links to China and North Korea give rise to that view with some. This, they argue, is all part of some secret agenda to create a totalitarian, unelected world government. Is this something you recognise? Are you – or have you ever been – a communist?

I've certainly never been a communist. [Laughs.] It doesn't mean that I don't look critically at all systems. The capitalist system has proved itself not able to deal with all of society's problems. In terms of socialism, yes, I've been accused of that. My belief is that the purpose of economic life is to meet the social needs of people. My kids sometimes ask me: "Are you a socialist or a capitalist?" I'm a socialist only in the sense that I believe that the purpose of economic life is to meet the social needs of people. I'm a capitalist in that I believe that's the best way to do so. Capitalism is not an end in itself but a means of creating and managing wealth to help meet social objectives. To me some people define socialism as the ownership of enterprises by governments on behalf of society. Well, sometimes that is very necessary. In Canada, we've never had a socialist government at the federal level, but we've had state corporations, or what we call crown corporations. There are times when every government has state involvement in the economy. In the US, take a look at the single biggest industry – the defence industry. It is very much state-controlled. I believe that the government is actually a very poor owner of enterprise. I've run enterprises in Canada that were owned by government and never believed that government was the best owner of enterprise.


https://www.theguardian.com/environment/...government

"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
07-12-2016, 02:23 AM (This post was last modified: 07-12-2016 02:26 AM by Deesse23.)
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(07-12-2016 02:10 AM)Banjo Wrote:  
(07-12-2016 02:06 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  Disclaimer:
Fistoff my thanks to god the almighty that he used an object 99% the size of earth to make the following comparison easily possible:

Average distance of Earth to Sun: 1,48
Average distance of Venus to Sun: 1,00
Ratio: 1,48
Energy received by Sun is proportional to 1/distance^2 iirc (any expert please correct me if wrong).
Ergo: Venus receives 1,48^2 = 2 (well, 1,44^2 = 2 to be precise Smartass ) times as much energy than Earth

Introduction of the term Spherical albedo


Sperical albedo of Earth: 0.3
Sperical albedo of Venus: 0.9

Total net energy received from Sun:
Venus: 2 x (1-0.9): 0.2
Earth: 1x (1-0.3): 0.7

(1-albdeo) being the corrective factor of net energy received

Summary:
Venus receives twice as much energy from the sun but reflects 90% of this instead of 30% like earth (guess why its so bright in the sky, not only because its proximity to Earth), thus in effect Earth receives 3 times a much net energy (that stays within the system) than Venus, yet Temperatures on earth average 300K while temperatures on Venus are 730k.

Amongst many other factors (surface atmospheric pressure, 100% clouds on Venus, made of sulphuric acid, etc.):
CO2 concentration in Earths atmosphere: ppm
CO2 concentration in Venus´Atmosphere : 96%

While I applaud your efforts I wonder why you bother. Consider

I love doing science Smartass
Actually the whole tihng took me less than 30mins to research and write down.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: