Jump to content

Who here is a global warming skeptic?


Recommended Posts

Tim, I see you are trying the red herring approach again.

Why bother? Surely you have realised by now that it doesn't work.

Anyway, here's the latest balderdash you came up with "Once the methane has entered the water and dissolved how long do you think it will take for half of it to escape to the surface layers of the ocean and then into the atmosphere?"

and the obvious reply is that if the water wasn't already virtually saturated with methane, the hydrates wouldn't form.

 

So the gas can't dissolve- it bubbles out and the bubbles rise at a rate depending on their size- if they agglomerate as they rise they will get quicker.

The bubbles will rise at (very roughly) the same rate as those from a scuba diver- I haven't measured it but it looks to about a metre per second, so from depths of a kilometre or so it would take about quarter of an hour.

I could be a few orders of magnitude worth of wrong there and you still wouldn't have a valid point.

 

So, seriously, why post that sort of dross?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 942
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I am a global warming skeptic. I think it is not only plausible to have doubts, but essential, especially if we wish to honour the memories of Bacon and Galileo and Newton. We should doubt the data ga

Lots of things.   I am pretty well convinced that there is a problem with CO2 levels and decreasing Ph of the oceans. This could be serious indeed.   I am also convinced, based on isotope abundan

Can you please post some kind of evidence - preferably new evidence - which made you come to this conclusion? And FOX News does not count. Instead of forcing the climate sciences to "prove" that clim

Posted Images

!

Moderator Note

 

Tim the Plumber

 

I am posting this in all three of the ongoing Climate Change threads. Arguments from incredulity, ridicule, use of red herrings, ad hominem arguments, and false dilemmas are all logical fallacies; they are rhetorical devices that may seem on the surface to advance a case but in reality all they do is misdirect the debate and obscure the truth. The use of logical fallacies is against the rules of ScienceForums.net - Section 2 Posting: Rule 4

 

You have been cut a lot of slack so far in these debates as we wish to provide an non-partisan arena for discussion through which agreed scientific principles can be elucidated. However, we do insist on the use of a basic scientific methodology and this precludes the use of logical fallacies.

 

The dismissal of a serious scientific point backed up by peer-reviewed literature with ridicule or a simple denial of facts is just not acceptable.

 

Please do not respond to this moderation within the thread. You can report this post if you feel it was unjust.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

^ If you think that claiming that a slight increase in temperature of 1-2 degrees will result in an additional 5000 people per year dying in the UK you are either barking mad or being deliberately misleading.

 

The paper you sited started with the premise that it was assumed that no adjustment was taken into account before calculating the deaths.

 

If, however, people took the jumper off them the whole argument falls down.

 

The climate of the Channel Islands is not exactly uncomfortable. Old people go there for holidays in the summer. If the climate of Yorkshire becomes warmer to the point of being half way between what it is now and that, lovely!

 

Sometimes the most scientific statements do not involve quoting papers or experts but just pointing out that the King has no clothes on!

 

Color not used as the moderator likes conformity in all things, posting styles to opinions. :-In Edit; It's OK, I've changed the font instead.

Edited by Tim the plumber
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes the most scientific statements do not involve quoting papers or experts but just pointing out that the King has no clothes on!

 

I've heard this exact argument from two acquaintances, both of whom are petroleum engineers. I'll ask you the same thing I asked them: Did they teach you this about science at school, or at work?

Link to post
Share on other sites

^ If you think that claiming that a slight increase in temperature of 1-2 degrees will result in an additional 5000 people per year dying in the UK you are either barking mad or being deliberately misleading.

 

The paper you sited started with the premise that it was assumed that no adjustment was taken into account before calculating the deaths.

 

If, however, people took the jumper off them the whole argument falls down.

 

The climate of the Channel Islands is not exactly uncomfortable. Old people go there for holidays in the summer. If the climate of Yorkshire becomes warmer to the point of being half way between what it is now and that, lovely!

 

Sometimes the most scientific statements do not involve quoting papers or experts but just pointing out that the King has no clothes on!

 

Color not used as the moderator likes conformity in all things, posting styles to opinions. :-In Edit; It's OK, I've changed the font instead.

The data on which reports like this

http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_projects/2005/action1/docs/action1_2005_a2_15_en.pdf

into the excess deaths are based are essentially body counts.

What you are saying is, in effect, it's their own fault they died because they should have taken their jumpers off.

 

Apart from being unscientific, that's a crass slur against a group of people who are no longer in any position to protest.

 

Such an assertion is, among other things, a breach of the forum rules.

Link to post
Share on other sites

^ If you think that claiming that a slight increase in temperature of 1-2 degrees will result in an additional 5000 people per year dying in the UK you are either barking mad or being deliberately misleading.

 

I'll repeat what I asked you in the relevant thread - do you have anything other than your own personal incredulity to support your statement? You are contradicting published science:

 

"A significantly raised risk of heat-related and cold-related mortality was observed in all regions. The elderly were most at risk. In the absence of any adaptation of the population, heat-related deaths would be expected to rise by around 257% by the 2050s from a current annual baseline of around 2000 deaths, and cold-related mortality would decline by 2% from a baseline of around 41 000 deaths. " http://jech.bmj.com/...13-202449.short

 

So an actual reasoned response rather than insults and personal incredulity are required. In your first response to that paper, you simply got the maths completely wrong.... now you've presented equally ridiculous reasoning to reject its results. I mean, are you really trying to say that at risk people die during heat waves because they don't "take their jumpers off"?

 

It's a patently incorrect and supremely ignorant argument. If you have to attempt to reject the vast body of literature and medical records on the association between heat waves and mortality to try and build and argument, it would appear that if anyone is being deliberately misleading here, it would be you.

 

 

http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1476-069X-9-37.pdf

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378512211000806

Edited by Arete
Link to post
Share on other sites
"A significantly raised risk of heat-related and cold-related mortality was observed in all regions. The elderly were most at risk. In the absence of any adaptation of the population, heat-related deaths would be expected to rise by around 257% by the 2050s from a current annual baseline of around 2000 deaths, and cold-related mortality would decline by 2% from a baseline of around 41 000 deaths. " http://jech.bmj.com/...13-202449.short

 

My bold.

 

Take the jumper off. Job done.

 

For the advanced class; buy a nice garden chair and make sure there is enough ice in the freezer for fruit cocktails in the afternoon.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Take the jumper off. Job done.

 

So you don't haven anything other than your own personal incredulity to support your ridiculous argument that mortality during heat waves is caused by people not removing their jumpers?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So you don't haven anything other than your own personal incredulity to support your ridiculous argument that mortality during heat waves is caused by people not removing their jumpers?

I quoted the paper. It says that the effect is only if NO ADAPTION OF ANT KIND happens.

 

So any conclusions you draw from it about any actual real world effects where people will take off their jumpers are 100% unjustified.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I quoted the paper. It says that the effect is only if NO ADAPTION OF ANT KIND happens.

 

So any conclusions you draw from it about any actual real world effects where people will take off their jumpers are 100% unjustified.

 

Again, do you have anything to support the assertion you're making? If you actually read beyond the single sentence of the paper quoted, the simulation is using current mortality rates and do not take into account future changes in human behavior that would reduce mortality due to heat waves, as future developments which reduce mortality - such as medical advances are difficult or impossible to predict.

 

This means that for your assertion about jumpers to have any merit whatsoever, you'll need to establish that people currently die during heat waves due to not removing jumpers, and that removal of jumpers in the future is likely to have a significant effect on mortality during heat waves.

 

If you are unable, it seems reasonable to assume that you are making up nonsensical retorts on the spot in an attempt to justify an a priori position, rather than approaching any of the evidence in good faith.

Link to post
Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

 

Tim the plumber

 

I have already asked you in a modtip - quoted in full below - to modify your posting content. In short, and to repeat "Arguments from incredulity, ridicule, use of red herrings, ad hominem arguments, and false dilemmas are ...against the rules of ScienceForums.net - Section 2 Posting: Rule 4"

 

If you continue to post without reference to scientific argument you risk yours posts being hidden, you will start to accrue warning points, and possibly even risk further sanction in terms of suspension. We insist, especially in the science fora, that the discussion is rational and evidence based - to re-iterate it is not acceptable to merely express disbelief, to soapbox without reference to counterargument, or to dismiss argument merely because you disagree with it.

 

The dismissal of peer-review supported evidence with puerile jokes is really not in the spirit nor within the rules of the Science Forum. The implicit portrayal of the poor who live in areas harshly affected by climate change as unadvanced is repugnant.

 

 

My bold.

 

Take the jumper off. Job done.

 

For the advanced class; buy a nice garden chair and make sure there is enough ice in the freezer for fruit cocktails in the afternoon.

 

 

!

Moderator Note

 

Tim the Plumber

 

I am posting this in all three of the ongoing Climate Change threads. Arguments from incredulity, ridicule, use of red herrings, ad hominem arguments, and false dilemmas are all logical fallacies; they are rhetorical devices that may seem on the surface to advance a case but in reality all they do is misdirect the debate and obscure the truth. The use of logical fallacies is against the rules of ScienceForums.net - Section 2 Posting: Rule 4

 

You have been cut a lot of slack so far in these debates as we wish to provide an non-partisan arena for discussion through which agreed scientific principles can be elucidated. However, we do insist on the use of a basic scientific methodology and this precludes the use of logical fallacies.

 

The dismissal of a serious scientific point backed up by peer-reviewed literature with ridicule or a simple denial of facts is just not acceptable.

 

Please do not respond to this moderation within the thread. You can report this post if you feel it was unjust.

 

 

Do not respond to this moderation within the thread - report this post if you feel it is unfair.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I quoted the paper. It says that the effect is only if NO ADAPTION OF ANT KIND happens.

 

So any conclusions you draw from it about any actual real world effects where people will take off their jumpers are 100% unjustified.

 

I would expect a reasonable person to interpret this as "no changes from what steps are already taken", which presumably includes donning proper attire, turning on a fan, opening a window, etc. Unless you think all of these people are stupid, and, frankly, I can't tell if that's what you think or not. Because insisting that people are dying because they can't figure out that they should remove an article of clothing when it gets warm has got to be one of the lamest excuses for an argument I've ever seen, and I've spent time debating creationists.

 

"No adaptations" (again, to a reasonable person) probably means installation of air conditioning or other technology to mitigate the effects of the warming.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I would expect a reasonable person to interpret this as "no changes from what steps are already taken", which presumably includes donning proper attire, turning on a fan, opening a window, etc. Unless you think all of these people are stupid, and, frankly, I can't tell if that's what you think or not. Because insisting that people are dying because they can't figure out that they should remove an article of clothing when it gets warm has got to be one of the lamest excuses for an argument I've ever seen, and I've spent time debating creationists.

 

"No adaptations" (again, to a reasonable person) probably means installation of air conditioning or other technology to mitigate the effects of the warming.

You think that will be necessary if there is a 1 degree warming?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You think that will be necessary if there is a 1 degree warming?

 

As already pointed out to you, the frequency, severity and duration of heatwaves are predicted to increase in response to global warming.

 

"Model results for areas of Europe and North America, associated with the severe heat waves in Chicago in 1995 and Paris in 2003, show that future heat waves in these areas will become more intense, more frequent, and longer lasting in the second half of the 21st century." http://www.sciencema.../5686/994.short

 

Please stop ignoring evidence that is provided, or refute it with actual evidence if you wish to argue against it. Doing so, as you are leads to a circular discussion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You think that will be necessary if there is a 1 degree warming?

 

I will defer to the scientists who did the analysis, but I have no reason to doubt it. I have observed that heat waves cause deaths, and an increase in temperature will result in more severe heat waves. I also have an appreciation of statistics, so I realize that a 1 degree increase in an average does not imply a uniform 1 degree increase each day of the year; the implication is that heat waves are more severe in temperature and/or duration. I am hard-pressed to understand why someone wouldn't think that more deaths would result from that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...I realize that a 1 degree increase in an average does not imply a uniform 1 degree increase each day....

...not to mention that...

 

Since atmospheric water vapor increases by about 4% for every 1 degree increase, there is also the "feels like" factor to consider. It's not the heat, it's the humidity! ;)

~

Edited by Essay
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

You think that will be necessary if there is a 1 degree warming?
A greenhouse gas imposed one degree rise in global averaged temps does not mean a generally one degree warmer atmosphere planet wide.

 

Far more likely, the boost in the average will come from a higher prequency of locally extreme events and disproportionately focused temp hikes (such as warmer winter nights, heat waves in some places, etc). The frequency - the odds, that is, in any one location - of very hot local temps has to rise quite a bit to move the global average - so disproportionately greater numbers and severities of damaging events are likely to accompany small increases in the global average temperature.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...not to mention that...

 

Since atmospheric water vapor increases by about 4% for every 1 degree increase, there is also the "feels like" factor to consider. It's not the heat, it's the humidity! ;)

~

Well I was waiting for somebody else to explain that humidity is the amount of water vapor in the air divided by the amount that air of that temperature and pressure could carry, x 100 to get a percentage. So an increase of 1 degree would not mean an increase in humidity directly. In fact the opposite initially.

 

Warmer climates are not necessarily more humid.

 

I only do basic science, but it's good to have somebody that does do those points don't you think?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I was waiting for somebody else to explain that humidity is the amount of water vapor in the air divided by the amount that air of that temperature and pressure could carry, x 100 to get a percentage.

Nope, that's a relative humidity, not an absolute humidity.

So, you are wrong about this too

"So an increase of 1 degree would not mean an increase in humidity directly. In fact the opposite initially."

"I only do basic science,"

No, you get basic science wrong.

"but it's good to have somebody that does do those points don't you think?"

No, not really, it means that someone has to waste time correcting you.

If you didn't bother to post rubbish in the first place, it would be better all round.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, that's a relative humidity, not an absolute humidity.

So, you are wrong about this too

"So an increase of 1 degree would not mean an increase in humidity directly. In fact the opposite initially."

"I only do basic science,"

No, you get basic science wrong.

"but it's good to have somebody that does do those points don't you think?"

No, not really, it means that someone has to waste time correcting you.

If you didn't bother to post rubbish in the first place, it would be better all round.

 

Well the wiki definition is;

 

There are three main measurements of humidity: absolute, relative and specific. Absolute humidity is the water content of air.[2]Relative humidity, expressed as a percent, measures the current absolute humidity relative to the maximum for that temperature. Specific humidity is a ratio of the water vapor content of the mixture to the total air content on a mass basis.

 

I was using the one that the weatherman on the TV uses. The one almost everyone uses when they say it's humid.

 

The one which is relevant to discussions about the effect on humans of higher temperatures.

Edited by Tim the plumber
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I was using the one that the weatherman on the TV uses. The one almost everyone uses when they say it's humid.

 

The one which is relevant to discussions about the effect on humans of higher temperatures.

 

"I was using the one that the weatherman on the TV uses. The one almost everyone uses when they say it's humid."

And, with just a little bit more effort, you could have used the right one.

 

"The one which is relevant to discussions about the effect on humans of higher temperatures."

They all are, but not in a simple way.

 

In general, heating the air makes it difficult for people to lose excess heat.

It does that directly (because it's hot) and also (indirectly) by raising the absolute humidity.

So, making it hotter makes people feel hotter.

Did you really need someone to explain that to you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you really need someone to explain that to you?

 

Given that we’re over 270 posts and he’s still not getting it; did you really need to ask? :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the wiki definition is;

 

 

 

I was using the one that the weatherman on the TV uses. The one almost everyone uses when they say it's humid.

 

The one which is relevant to discussions about the effect on humans of higher temperatures.

Relatively, to a degree, you're right! My feeble attempt at humor was not very accurate or relevant.

 

But 4% more "absolute" humidity per degree, globally, is accurate and relevant.

 

That represents a huge amount of heating, which doesn't register on a thermometer, called latent heat. Does your basic background in science explain what that means for the weather, erosion, or (if sustained) for global climate?

 

~

Edited by Essay
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In general, heating the air makes it difficult for people to lose excess heat.

 

 

Matters are more subtle than this, although personally keeping cool when it is very hot is no subtle matter.

 

Standard body temperature is 37 degrees centigrade.

 

So for ambient below this temperature the body has to burn ingested fuel to stay alive

Conversely, above this temperature survival requires the body has to reject heat.

 

Having lived and worked in places where this barrier is regularly crossed for extended periods I can attestify that crossing this temperature barrier makes quite a difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Relatively, to a degree, you're right! My feeble attempt at humor was not very accurate or relevant.

 

But 4% more "absolute" humidity per degree, globally, is accurate and relevant.

 

That represents a huge amount of heating, which doesn't register on a thermometer, called latent heat. Does your basic background in science explain what that means for the weather, erosion, or (if sustained) for global climate?

 

My information of the impacts of a degree of warming are mostly from the work of the IPCC.

 

I am unaware of any direct impact of a degree of warming upon any aspect of erosion of any substance other than ice.

 

Perhaps you could elaborate about this and the amount of heat energy involved in a degree of atmospheric warming. I suggest that the initial big number is divided by the surface area of the world so we can consider it per square meter. The enthalpy expressed thusly will, I expect come out as a small number of Joules.

 

It would, however, be a lot more informative to simply visit England for a week or so, ask if the weather you are experiencing is exceptional and then visit the Channel Island. I expect the change will always be pleasant one. They have a nice mild climate as opposed to the chilly one England has.

 

Matters are more subtle than this, although personally keeping cool when it is very hot is no subtle matter.

 

Standard body temperature is 37 degrees centigrade.

 

So for ambient below this temperature the body has to burn ingested fuel to stay alive

Conversely, above this temperature survival requires the body has to reject heat.

 

Having lived and worked in places where this barrier is regularly crossed for extended periods I can attestify that crossing this temperature barrier makes quite a difference.

 

Yep, which do you think is the issue in the UK?

 

How often do you think 37 degrees c is exceeded in the UK?

 

Do you think that a raise of 1 degree will cause an additional 5000 deaths per year as has been said/implied on this thread with a peer reviewed paper to support that position. I have been unable to site any paper which refutes that. I have also been unable to site any paper which refutes the idea that the ocean is dry. My position has caused me to be warned by the moderators. Hey ho, looks like they (he?) will ban me now....

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.