disputed FACTS - Page 6 - Router Forums
 370Likes
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #51 of 336 (permalink) Old 11-02-2019, 12:06 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Country: Canada
First Name: Brent
Posts: 150
 
Default

Huh? What are you talking about? Some forms of nitrogen have been and still are well understood pollutants.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaninVan View Post
It was only a couple of years ago that the 'Sky is Falling' crowd tried to run the 'Nitrogen is a pollutant' flag up the end of days flagpole. They were laughed into silence.
timbrframr is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #52 of 336 (permalink) Old 11-02-2019, 12:23 PM
Registered User
 
DaninVan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Country: Canada
First Name: Dan
Posts: 14,248
 
Default

Did you read the article at that link? Pollution, absolutely; climate change, pull the other leg.
harrysin likes this.
DaninVan is offline  
post #53 of 336 (permalink) Old 11-02-2019, 12:54 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Country: Canada
First Name: Brent
Posts: 150
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cherryville Chuck View Post
I've read that we are up to 407 ppm now. As I said before that equates to 1 molecule for every 2456 other molecules of all the other gases. Pretty close to the equivalent of a fart in a hurricane.

Those graphs you posted links to are quite interesting. It appears that the rise in CO2 was CAUSED by the temperature spikes at about 120,000 years, 240,000 years, and 315,000 years ago. And the current rise started with a temperature surge about 15,000 years ago. Which about coincides with the end of the last ice age. The temperature spike closest to year zero might be the 1930s which was the hottest decade in modern times. What is also interesting to note is that despite CO2 levels rising exponentially, the graph shows that we are cooling down instead of warming up. Just like most reputable scientists have been claiming lately. Maybe we are headed into an ice age like they were telling us back in the 70s.
A couple of issues here. I mean no offence, but I can tell by some of the things you say, you're not formally educated in the field of atmospheric chemistry or similar fields. To a lay person, things like 420ppm might sound like a pretty low concentration, but really, if you have no idea of the physics of what is happening, you have no capacity to say if it's significant or not. For example, 400ppm concentration is TWENTY times the concentration of Arsenic Pentachloride required to kill you. But since something SEEMS like a low concentration to a lay person, it's ok to think it's safe? I mean if 407ppm is just a "fart in a hurricane" then surely 20ppm would be ok right? Wrong.....you'd be dead.

Obviously it's an extreme example to make a point. The significance of something requires a full understanding of the thing and how it relates to everything it interacts with so concluding it's insignificant based on zero science or understanding is ill-advised. Fortunately, there are thousands of PhD wielding scientists out there who DO understand how this works and can tell us that this is a significant number so we don't have to come to our own conclusions based on....well...not much.

The whole "CO2 lagging temperature" thing is a popular talking point from the denier handbook. However, it has been well addressed in the peer reviewed literature and we know that orbital changes are what trigger warming, but the increase in CO2 concentrations that result from the initial warming is what makes the warming so severe. It acts as a form of feedback loop.
timbrframr is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #54 of 336 (permalink) Old 11-02-2019, 01:35 PM
Registered User
 
DaninVan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Country: Canada
First Name: Dan
Posts: 14,248
 
Default

An excellent interview with renowned Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry;

https://iamamalaysian.com/2019/03/07...lobal-warming/



"denier handbook"... ie, a critical list of flaws in the AGW playbook.
"Peer reviewed literature" ... a lot if not most can be found in the lists of retracted papers. https://slate.com/technology/2015/04...se-papers.html

More on"Peer Review"...
https://principia-scientific.org/fai...se-gas-theory/
harrysin likes this.

Last edited by DaninVan; 11-02-2019 at 01:43 PM. Reason: added text
DaninVan is offline  
post #55 of 336 (permalink) Old 11-02-2019, 01:52 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Country: Canada
First Name: Brent
Posts: 150
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaninVan View Post
Did you read the article at that link? Pollution, absolutely; climate change, pull the other leg.
I did read it. The reference in the post was " nitrogen as a pollutant" being laughable....it's not laughable, it's well accepted....

Now the full lifecycle of nitrogen fertilizer from manufacture to fate in the environment in the context of ACC is another matter, but I'm sure it's not a benign industry.
timbrframr is offline  
post #56 of 336 (permalink) Old 11-02-2019, 02:26 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Country: Canada
First Name: Brent
Posts: 150
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaninVan View Post
An excellent interview with renowned Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry;



"denier handbook"... ie, a critical list of flaws in the AGW playbook.
"Peer reviewed literature" ... a lot if not most can be found in the lists of retracted papers.
Some might say "infamous" is a better description of Curry: see sourcewatch.

The denier handbook is full of easily-addressed propaganda that people keep repeating over and over hoping attrition over scientific integrity will win. They're tired and old.....

The peer review process exposes one's work to the whole global community of experts who would like nothing more than to rip apart someone else's work. From my time in academics, I know this to be true, so when papers stand the test of time you know it's not for lack of attempts to discredit them. The assertions from the denier camp however are shown over and over to fail even the simplest of scientific scrutiny and are often supported (like Judith Curry!!) by the oil and gas industry. As she has shown, denying climate change makes you good money. And with the billions spent on denial propaganda, there's a lot to be made in it! Follow the money indeed.....
timbrframr is offline  
post #57 of 336 (permalink) Old 11-02-2019, 03:29 PM
Moderation Team
 
Cherryville Chuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Country: Canada
First Name: Charles
Posts: 15,402
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by timbrframr View Post
A couple of issues here. I mean no offence, but I can tell by some of the things you say, you're not formally educated in the field of atmospheric chemistry or similar fields. To a lay person, things like 420ppm might sound like a pretty low concentration, but really, if you have no idea of the physics of what is happening, you have no capacity to say if it's significant or not. For example, 400ppm concentration is TWENTY times the concentration of Arsenic Pentachloride required to kill you. But since something SEEMS like a low concentration to a lay person, it's ok to think it's safe? I mean if 407ppm is just a "fart in a hurricane" then surely 20ppm would be ok right? Wrong.....you'd be dead.

Obviously it's an extreme example to make a point. The significance of something requires a full understanding of the thing and how it relates to everything it interacts with so concluding it's insignificant based on zero science or understanding is ill-advised. Fortunately, there are thousands of PhD wielding scientists out there who DO understand how this works and can tell us that this is a significant number so we don't have to come to our own conclusions based on....well...not much.

The whole "CO2 lagging temperature" thing is a popular talking point from the denier handbook. However, it has been well addressed in the peer reviewed literature and we know that orbital changes are what trigger warming, but the increase in CO2 concentrations that result from the initial warming is what makes the warming so severe. It acts as a form of feedback loop.
Actually I started out as a chemistry major at what is now the University of Southwest Alabama but my allergies couldn't tolerate organic esters so I wound up switching to physics when I transferred to the University of Alabama. I spent a couple of years at that before I realized I would rather be doing physical type labors as opposed to sitting at a desk. I was pretty good at physics too. I scored a perfect score on one of my course final exams.

The arsenic (someone else I know used carfentanyl as an example instead) involves a biological process. That has nothing to do with climatology. The theory behind CO2 changing climate is that the CO2 molecules reflect solar energy back to earth that would normally just radiate into outer space. Once again I'll repeat that the idea that one molecule out of every 2457 can reflect any meaningful amount of energy back to earth is fairly absurd. It is true that nitrogen has a deleterious effect on certain ecosystems in that it promotes algal growth where it isn't particularly desirable. However, as long as you are fond of eating you need to be okay with that as nitrogen is essential for growing crops. (BTW, I still work seasonally in the fertilizer industry for the United Farmers of Alberta hauling anhydrous ammonia (NH3 is 82% N) plus I treat wheat, barley, and peas for seeding in the springtime so I'm fairly knowledgeable about that process too.)

Some nitrous oxides tend to be health irritants but I don't know of any proof that they affect climate. If they did then we should logically see climate aberrations in cities like Los Angeles and Beijing. As far as whether a graph is accurate about weather trends, have a look at the ones you think are accurate and if they don't show that the 1930s were the hottest years on modern record then yours are fake. All the ones I see promoting climate change don't show that.

Here's some interesting quotes from the past:
The Washington Post reported that “the Arctic Ocean is warming up … and in some places seals are finding the water too hot.” That was in 1922, and explorers wrote about Arctic ice cycles long before that. “We were astonished by the total absence of ice in Barrow Strait,” Sir Francis McClintock wrote in 1860, whereas at this time in 1854 it was “still frozen up.” As to continental USA weather, a commentator said “Snows are less frequent and less deep, and the rivers scarcely ever [freeze over] now.” That was Thomas Jefferson, in 1799. The 1970s manmade global cooling scare was replaced by today’s warming crisis.
DaninVan likes this.

Someone I consider a master woodworker once told me that a master woodworker is not someone who never makes mistakes. He is someone who is able to cover them up so that no one can tell.
Cherryville Chuck is offline  
post #58 of 336 (permalink) Old 11-02-2019, 04:35 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Country: Canada
First Name: Brent
Posts: 150
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cherryville Chuck View Post
Actually I started out as a chemistry major at what is now the University of Southwest Alabama but my allergies couldn't tolerate organic esters so I wound up switching to physics when I transferred to the University of Alabama. I spent a couple of years at that before I realized I would rather be doing physical type labors as opposed to sitting at a desk. I was pretty good at physics too. I scored a perfect score on one of my course final exams.

The arsenic (someone else I know used carfentanyl as an example instead) involves a biological process. That has nothing to do with climatology. The theory behind CO2 changing climate is that the CO2 molecules reflect solar energy back to earth that would normally just radiate into outer space. Once again I'll repeat that the idea that one molecule out of every 2457 can reflect any meaningful amount of energy back to earth is fairly absurd. It is true that nitrogen has a deleterious effect on certain ecosystems in that it promotes algal growth where it isn't particularly desirable. However, as long as you are fond of eating you need to be okay with that as nitrogen is essential for growing crops. (BTW, I still work seasonally in the fertilizer industry for the United Farmers of Alberta hauling anhydrous ammonia (NH3 is 82% N) plus I treat wheat, barley, and peas for seeding in the springtime so I'm fairly knowledgeable about that process too.)

Some nitrous oxides tend to be health irritants but I don't know of any proof that they affect climate. If they did then we should logically see climate aberrations in cities like Los Angeles and Beijing. As far as whether a graph is accurate about weather trends, have a look at the ones you think are accurate and if they don't show that the 1930s were the hottest years on modern record then yours are fake. All the ones I see promoting climate change don't show that.

Here's some interesting quotes from the past:
The Washington Post reported that “the Arctic Ocean is warming up … and in some places seals are finding the water too hot.” That was in 1922, and explorers wrote about Arctic ice cycles long before that. “We were astonished by the total absence of ice in Barrow Strait,” Sir Francis McClintock wrote in 1860, whereas at this time in 1854 it was “still frozen up.” As to continental USA weather, a commentator said “Snows are less frequent and less deep, and the rivers scarcely ever [freeze over] now.” That was Thomas Jefferson, in 1799. The 1970s manmade global cooling scare was replaced by today’s warming crisis.
Yes, obviously the mechanism of action is very different between arsenic in the body and CO2 in the atmosphere, but I think it was clear I was making the point about what lay people deem significant numbers and what is actually significant can be very different.

The CO2 (and other gasses) as a greenhouse gas phenomenon is well understood and has been a accepted for ages now. In fact my wife (who is a chemist by the way) says it's rudimentary enough that basic chem/physics labs can demonstrate it in action now. Why should we all ignore the thousands of scientists all over the world who have tested the principle and exposed their work to the world for scrutiny just because you think it's "absurd"? If you're positive it can't work, show us the experimental data.

The 1930s were hot in the US, but globally (remember, the us is only around 2% of the globe!) they weren't anything special and in fact were a little cooler than the 20th century average. Look up the national climate data centre, they have charts and sources cited for you. It is all supported by groups around the globe who have found very similar results.

The quotes you provided simply reflect individual observations that reflect the variability of weather around the world, but they were also just points in time, at a couple points.

The "global cooling" talking point we hear all the time is denier propaganda trying to discredit science. I looked it up and there was something like 3 papers in the 70s that talked about it, all the while hundreds of warming papers were being published. I think it was Life magazine that published an article on global cooling which got people excited, but this was NOT something supported by the vast majority of science. Don't use Life magazine to decide your science.....use scientists.
tooler2 likes this.
timbrframr is offline  
post #59 of 336 (permalink) Old 11-02-2019, 05:10 PM
Registered User
 
DaninVan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Country: Canada
First Name: Dan
Posts: 14,248
 
Default

There's a serious risk here of (my) stepping over the courtesy line. so I'm excusing myself.
jw2170 and Stick486 like this.
DaninVan is offline  
post #60 of 336 (permalink) Old 11-02-2019, 05:37 PM
Moderation Team
 
Cherryville Chuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Country: Canada
First Name: Charles
Posts: 15,402
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by timbrframr View Post
Yes, obviously the mechanism of action is very different between arsenic in the body and CO2 in the atmosphere, but I think it was clear I was making the point about what lay people deem significant numbers and what is actually significant can be very different.

The CO2 (and other gasses) as a greenhouse gas phenomenon is well understood and has been a accepted for ages now. In fact my wife (who is a chemist by the way) says it's rudimentary enough that basic chem/physics labs can demonstrate it in action now. Why should we all ignore the thousands of scientists all over the world who have tested the principle and exposed their work to the world for scrutiny just because you think it's "absurd"? If you're positive it can't work, show us the experimental data.

The 1930s were hot in the US, but globally (remember, the us is only around 2% of the globe!) they weren't anything special and in fact were a little cooler than the 20th century average. Look up the national climate data centre, they have charts and sources cited for you. It is all supported by groups around the globe who have found very similar results.

The quotes you provided simply reflect individual observations that reflect the variability of weather around the world, but they were also just points in time, at a couple points.

The "global cooling" talking point we hear all the time is denier propaganda trying to discredit science. I looked it up and there was something like 3 papers in the 70s that talked about it, all the while hundreds of warming papers were being published. I think it was Life magazine that published an article on global cooling which got people excited, but this was NOT something supported by the vast majority of science. Don't use Life magazine to decide your science.....use scientists.
You'll want to pay particular attention to Freeman when he says "I helped create the climate model being used and I thought it was important to add in factors for accelerated plant growth due to higher CO2 levels but (they or the person in charge) didn't think it was important". You can also go back to one of my first posts and see the graphs that Tony Heller prepared from the original raw data and see how both the data has been manipulated. His best video is just under 13 minutes but at about 9 minutes into the 51 minute video of him speaking to a group of Washington State senators he'll go through his credentials at at the end of his presentation at about the 45 minute mark you'll hear him reply to one of the senators as to why his graphs differ from pro climate change scientists.

If your wife is a chemist she may have a little familiarity with black body and white body theories so let's imagine an experiment using those two theories. You are in a room with a floor, ceiling , and 3 walls that all exhibit black body characteristics, i.e. they reflect no energy at all. Every electromagnetic radiation that strikes them is absorbed. The fourth wall is composed of a ratio of 2456 pixels .001" in size to 1 pixel that exhibits white body characteristics, i.e. all the electromagnetic radiation that strikes it is reflected 100%. You walk into the room with a flashlight and shut the door behind you. Would enough light be reflected for you to be able to tell which wall had the white body pixels mixed in? Pretty good chance the answer would be no. That's a fair analogy of what that one CO2 molecule in every 2457 is capable of.
DaninVan and Stick486 like this.

Someone I consider a master woodworker once told me that a master woodworker is not someone who never makes mistakes. He is someone who is able to cover them up so that no one can tell.
Cherryville Chuck is offline  
Closed Thread

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Router Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome