- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Bill, are you seriously suggesting your “well….I reckon…” take provides greater ‘proof’ than established scientific finding, experimentally proven to a painstakingly precise degree, by a large number of qualified people who have dedicated their lives to such study?
Simply claiming that ‘physics’ is “being broken” because you say it is – this counts for proof as far as you’re concerned? Are you serious, or is this a kind of wind-up?
Experiments proving the heat trapping properties of CO2 can be found on the first reply I gave you, at the top of this thread. Come on.
right, laws of physics. very small nuclear missle levels a city, tiny things can affect much larger things.
Yes, tiny things can have catastrophic effects. Just think of bacteria and viruses.
Have you all gone mad? When something’s billions of tonnes, it isn’t tiny! But I may as well join in I suppose. Ingest 300 microgramme of pure LSD and you’re likely to have a very profound experience. Dissolve 300 microgramme of LSD in a litre of water (0.00003%), drink it, and exactly the same thing will happen (but you’ll need the loo more).
And just for good measure:
If you take a barrel of sewage and add a teaspoon of wine, you get sewage.
If you take a barrel of wine and add a teaspoon of sewage, you get sewage.You can’t break the laws of thermodynamics either.
Clark: According to Bill, who is obviously some sort of lay expert, if something is small, it can’t have any significant effect on anything else. That’s apparently some law of physics. He even quoted Scottie as if he were agreeing on the point, so it must be true.
*
It is rather disheartening to see that this utter tosh is good enough ‘reasoning’ for a substantial proportion of the public, that actual science can be dismissed as mere ‘opinion’.
So far in this thread we’ve had barrels of sewage and teaspoons of wine. That’s microbiology.
Bullets into bodies. That’s ballistics.
Nuclear missiles. That’s nuclear physics.
L.S.D. That’s pharmacology.
Allow me to introduce Arithmetic. 400 parts per million = 4 parts per 10,000 = 1 part per 2,500
Which is tiny. What is the mechanism that allows such a tiny amount of CO2 to have such a drastic effect?But Bill, you haven’t answered the question. By what mechanism does diluting carbon dioxide in (mostly) nitrogen reduce its known, measured radiative properties, and where can I look up this presumably well-quantified effect? Until you do, a trillion tonnes of it can’t be arbitrarily dismissed as “tiny”.
Fat Jon’s comment at 14:00 on October 6 is far more interesting.
Glenn thank you for starting this thread. I recently had an encounter of the sty you describe, in the last but one main thread on Ukraine.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2023/10/death-wish-2023/comment-page-2/#comment-1045172Sorry should be page 2 comment # 1045172
—
[ Mod: Don’t worry about it, SA. You didn’t type anything wrongly. A quirk of this forum software is that it automatically converts bare URLs into a dynamic clipping of the actual page, where it can. It’s an annoying feature that slows down loading times and would be better turned off. The mods can correct it by copying the URL text and adding it as a hypertext link over that same URL text. For example:<a href="https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2023/10/death-wish-2023/comment-page-2/#comment-1045172">https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2023/10/death-wish-2023/comment-page-2/#comment-1045172</a>
is rendered as:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2023/10/death-wish-2023/comment-page-2/#comment-1045172Forum participants can do this too. In fact, adding the URL as a hypertext link over any text will work. It’s helpful to add the hyperlink over a description of what it is being linked to, in normal prose.
A comment by Tom Welsh on <a href="https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2023/10/death-wish-2023/comment-page-2/#comment-1045172">7 Oct 2023 at 17:07</a>.
appears as:
A comment by Tom Welsh on 7 Oct 2023 at 17:07.Bill, sorry, I should have said at the time: your question – how has about 1,100,000,000,000 extra tonnes of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (your “tiny amount”) raised the global average temperature by a fraction of 1% so far (your “drastic effect”) – had already been answered by Fat Jon at 09:33 on Oct. 7 above:
– “CO2 simply has properties which include allowing short wave radiation (from the sun) through, but blocking long wave radiation (heat radiated from the ground). The more CO2 there is in the atmosphere, the bigger effect it has.”
Life is biology, biology is chemistry and chemistry is physics. EVERYTHING in the entire universe happens due to the interactions of quanta of energy some of which quanta we call particles. I’m not liking the false delineation between the scientific fields.
Most probably ET, but what are your views on climate change denialists, which after all is the subject of the thread?
Fat Jon, I think glenn_nl in the opening post invited more than just people’s opinions on “climate change denialists”. I think he also extended an invitation to people who don’t believe there is human activity that causes changes to some fundamental drivers of climate to come and honestly debate their tenets of disbelief.
I don’t wish to come across as rude or dismissive of Bill. He has stated that “in his opinion” the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is too “tiny” to have any significant effect. With all due respect to you, Bill, neither you nor I, nor glenn_nl or Clark, nor indeed anyone can have an “opinion” on this.
The physics experimental setups that show CO2 traps heat are numerous, and the methodologies are clearly explained for anyone to replicate and probably have been replicated millions of times by scientists and university students across the globe. No one has disputed the results.
The greenhouse effect and carbon dioxide.
That is proper science. Perform your experiment, document the results and crucially exactly describe your methodology so others can exactly replicate your experimental setup and test that they get the same results. From there, propose your theory that might explain the phenomenon you observed from your experiment. Using your theory perhaps make predictions that derive from your theory, and test in a suitable experiment with methodology fully described. If your prediction is correct then your theory gains credibility.
The mechanism by which CO2 (and other molecules like H2O, NO2 and methane) trap heat is well explained.
I think that if Bill were to explore the physics behind CO2 trapping heat, he may be convinced.
I am not at home and thus posting this using my phone which is fiddly as f***. Apologies in advance.
ET – You’re absolutely right, I would welcome people – denialists – honestly exploring the subject here.
Not many seem to want to do so. In fact, not one ever – not past a few baseless assertions which they refuse to discuss in any depth at all.
Recently, on the most recent post, we have climate denialism. I put out an invitation to take it here – given the lack of enthusiasm for off-topic discussion by mods. No takers, though. As ever, they get all shy and run away.
glenn_nl, not so.I,m still here and reading ETs link which is rather dense.
Bill – good on you in that case, I am very happy to be corrected. Thank you. If there’s anything you want to discuss about it so far, I am sure participants here will be very pleased to do so.
For a little light relief Bill you could watch Sabine Hossenfelder’s video on YT.
I Misunderstood the Greenhouse Effect. Here’s How It Works.She gives some interesting information in it, particularly how density/gravity affects the greenhouse gas effect.
I’d just like to say to all the “climate has always changed (so let fossil fuel companies do whatever they want)” brigade that around 300 million years ago, millipedes grew as big as cars, and flying insects bigger than dustbin lids. Earth’s atmospheric oxygen ratio has been up to 67% higher than it is now, and 33% lower. But obviously civilisation can survive anything, because Hollywood.
Jon, “sweeping and rather vague conclusions” whut. Fossil fuel emissions are the most significant factor in causing the climate to change” is not “sweeping and vague”. I assume you are talking about the IPCC summary, which is well known for minimising some of the danger to appease policy makers. I suppose I could refer you to the Royal Society position on the matter, but I’m quite sure you can look at that for yourself.
Here is a list of resources. the discussion forum is available for whatever questions you desire more precise answers to.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/Fat Jon, I promised you a reply weeks ago, but I couldn’t formulate what I wanted to say and I still can’t, and I have been very short of time. So here is a post by Tom Murphy that I think says what I feel better than I could say it myself:
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2023/08/our-time-on-the-river/
You’re absolutely right that climate change is used as an excuse, a sop, and a distraction from the broader problem; “oh, we just move to renewable energy and the problem is solved. Look, we’re already doing it!”
Yeah, right :-/
(I seem to remember spotting a few half-truths in your claims about climate change, but it’d be petty to bang on about them. Suffice to say that climate change is serious; details can be confirmed from appropriate sources.)
Here; I’ll quote the paragraph that resonated with what you wrote and prompted me to post the link. The “boat” is a metaphor for technology or “progress”:
– “Probably the most common reaction among the subset of the billions of privileged humans in the boat who even acknowledge the danger is to focus on the boat, and how it might be modified to continue insulating us from limits and danger. Technology, innovation, ingenuity, science, and extraction/exploitation have done marvels in getting us to this state (overlooking the dominant role of the river itself, as we are prone to do), so let’s double down and do more of that! Such reactions tend to be piecemeal: dividing the predicament into identifiable problems that individually might have viable “solutions” but do little to change the overall state of affairs. Solar panels might address CO2, for instance, but not the “meta” peril of ecological overshoot enabled by a hubristic, supremacist relationship to the natural world.”
Glenn_nl, brilliant! Arnold Schroder, and here is his website:
https://www.againsttheinternet.com/
You’re a more hardcore atheist than me, Glenn. It’s coincidences like that which convince me there is something, well, divine going on in our universe.
I hope Fat Jon sees my reply; I feel I have let him down, taking so long about it.
I think glenn_nl’s generalisation about denialists’ “baseless assertions” (28th October) – which is itself a baseless assertion – indicates it’s rather unlikely honest debate is actually being sought but rather to use Craig Murray’s site to promote his own views on climate change. Calling someone a “denier” or denialist or some similar term is predicated on one’s own position being self-evidently true and the so-called “denier” being willfully ignorant. That’s not the basis for starting an honest debate. If you want honest debate you first need to stop using terms like “denier”, “denialist”.
Andy – thanks for writing.
My motivation for starting this thread was pretty much as stated. I was a bit irritated with people who drop into conversation that climate change is all a hoax, but then refuse to discuss the point past such assertions to any level of seriousness. They make a few standard simplistic assertions, ignore the rebuffs, and later just make them again and again.
Do you think ‘sceptic’ is any more honest? Is a person really a ‘sceptic’ when it comes to physics and chemistry generally, or is this scepticism reserved for things they simply do not want to believe, and science then suddenly becomes – for this single subject – suddenly all bullshit and full of charlatans and hoaksters?
Since these denialists or sceptics never – and I do mean never – stick around to argue their point, their position has gone way past scepticism and into denialism.
So actually, I think the term ‘denialist’ is most fair.
