Global Warming

asdasd wrote:

its kinda like a religion.

Thanks for that insight


Yes for me I can happily switch between being for the global warming forcing theory and being against it.Sometimes you need to be both sides of fence to see the story.I used to adhere the possibility that global warming forcing might be important either ion the short or long term.
Then suddenly IPCC comes out with it big statement that the debate was over its in the bag it a sure bet our goose is cooked.

Now being a reasonable sort of guy I figured lets see the other side of the coin in case there is is mistake.That's when you find out there is lot of agenda driven science driving both sides.

Then you start to see all the trapping of cult following with low level bitching about SUV are planet killers through to others stuff like the Brazil forests are the lungs of the planet. and then its a question can you trust any of the science

So I decided to build my own models and run my own models much more simplex than the what the IPCC or the big outfits could run but they threw up serious questions about the whole idea of Global warming forcing. and where the hell did this idea come from in the first place

Then when you start to dig down where some of the statistics are that both sides use sometimes you find that the information or paper that it based on is iffy at best and probably fraudulent

Does it mean that there is or isn't global warming.I don't know but I can see huge evidence of cult followers that have adopted a save the planet based on cult science

In public forums its real clear who are knee deep in their cults for or against.

For me its a science and nature rules anyway and now there is a media circus and cult driven agendas some with huge finances to force us into their religion so it difficult to sort the wheat from the chaff in this debate

Does that mean I burn as much fossil fuels as I can .No I am just such a tight miserable fecker I adhere to minimum house heating and driving smallest cars and cycling so as not to make those SOB fossil fuel companies rich of my back

But that's another religion which i don't disguise behind behind global warming issues

Derry

QUOTE=hoser expat;58819281]You decided to make your own models? Oh don't make me laugh. Do you have any idea how much work and hard core physics have gone into these models? They hae been under development and constant refinement since about 1975 (NCAR model). You've alreay proven that math isn't your thing.

On another note, an interesting article from CNN http://us.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/index.html[/QUOTE]



Here we go again the majority of climate scientists think something so they even stop to debate it and it becomes a de facto fact that us plebs will just have to swallow cause science voted it in .Science is now surplus to requirements if it doesn't fit the facts that the scientists want. Now thats what I call a quack science .

So we also see in that CNN link that petroleum geologists and meteorologists are not so convinced of this bunch in climate science and their climate change proof .
Is it that those who did Climate science in college were all a bunch of saddo's and the happy go lucky petroleum and meteorologists trainee scientists in colege were having so much fun and had seen the climate change guys in thier same science classes in the first few years when it was all one big science 101 class .Is it they suspected or even knew that climate scientists are all a bunch of a screwed up science with screwed up guys that never could score in your university years and good riddance to them

Maybe I should do a poll of petroleum scientist and meteorologists to see which theory they buy our goose is cooked or climate scientists are a bunch of saddo's not to be trusted with any science.


Anyway doing climate models starts with looking at the numbers

Lets see looking at one set supplied by a forefather of the CO2 hype is James Lovelock author of GHIA
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/01/23/james-lovelock-and-c.html

He states that 550 giga tons of CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere every year of which humans account for 30 giga tons of this
My maths suggests this about ~1/18th but to make it simple lets say its ~1/20th of the total CO2 created every year..Now at basic level how can Humans with ~5% of the CO2 emission's be responsible for all this claimed extra heating effect.

Now I saw in one section that up to 100PPM of CO2 is where we get the majority of global warming from CO2 for which if there was no CO2 we would all freeze our butts and probably die .Then as CO2 levels increase the extra marginal heating from CO2 levels off.At about 270PPM the extra heating effect becomes near totally level and if there is any increase it very marginal.Oh yeah its another hockey stick

Our dear friend David Bellamy a scientist OK not a climate scientist said on the RTE late late show last week that even if humanity somehow managed to double the levels of CO2 (which would require the burning of all known oil and gas supplies and 1/3 of all known coal which is something like 300 plus years of coal at today's consumption ) we would only raise the temperature of the planet earth a mere 2 degrees Centigrade and that could easily take another 200 plus years to do that if we tried very hard .

Now whats in for me to believe you a another claimer of a multi degree climate scientist in cyber land over Bellamy who has shown a more real in depth ability to do real science ???

So now we got another number

270 PPM from ~ 1889 versus todays 2009 ~380 PPM .
OK lets get down and dirty with the maths and lets say 100 years equals 100PPM

Lets get the total volume of the atmosphere in giga tons and lets see what giga tons that is..
total atmospheric mass is 5.1480×1018 kg = 5.1480*10^? in giga tons ( a big number I did in the past )


Then lets get the giga tons of 100ppm and see what we get

5.1480*10^? in giga tons /100=1% and /100 =0.01% which is giga tons that is what CO2 increased level volume of the earths atmosphere is over 100 years


Then we divide that ~100 to get the yearly rate and then 365 for the daily rate of CO2 increase and then we find its something very small number which is something like 1/65,000,000 of the atmoshere is carbonised every day.
From this figure man contributes less than 1/10 of that so were looking at most 1 / 650,000,000 of the atmosphere a day is carbonised by mankind

Really the atmosphere is more like an ocean in size compared to human scale activity and if it was a even one atmoshere pressure from top to bottom of it would be ~5 miles high instead to be getting thinner as we go up in height .That's a deep ocean



Then you have to step back from this model and ask yourself if even the numbers were wrong by a huge factor like say it was 1/10,000,000 is this a threat to any planet never mind the planet earth.


In maths science numbers less than 1/1000 in noisy complex systems are more likely to be a quack science than a real science

So for me the real question Is this CO2 subject some new form of watching paint dry or a real bona fida science

So before I go off and spend years of time doing more complex computer models seeing I have three plus years training in computer programing and so I could have a stab at this kind of model should I instead check further where the rumour originally came from the case CO2 is a green house gas of importance .
Like maybe is some sort of mythical boogie man. science .Where is the evidence for this whole theory CO2 global warming come from in the first place and who is dreaming up this stuff or is this the ultimate garbage in even more garbage out in the computer world .

That's when where you start checking back in history to see the progress of C02 from ~1790 there abouts and the first idea was coined that CO is a global warming gas . We can trace CO2 and it birth pangs through the history of the universities and its popular whipping boy for all sorts of bizarre things. Mice are put inside sealed jars with some plants and those mice didn't get snuffed as quick as the mice in sealed glass jars without plants. Then we see the idea that plants do all the work to save us from turning the planet into a planet Venus.Its quite amusing to read books from the not so far past that figured that the world without plants would become a total CO2 atmosphere in a few decades when clearly it would take some ~65,000,000 days or 200,000 years to carbonize all the atmosphere.

You could write a good script what half backed science nonsense got attached to the CO2 gas through history

Then along comes the climate science guys most who probably never questioned what exactly does this CO2 look like if we collected it all into one place and set madly to to see can they reproduce results that fit the fit the CO2 warming effect is cooking our goose .Mostly because this is the quasi religious fact as dished down from on high over the eons of time that most all colleges ever existed that CO2 will cook our goose .

Then that's when we find the more the climate scientists run the complex climate models the more they seem to drop the CO2 warming effect and its gone from ~2.5 watts at the equator per square meter to now the number I saw was 1.63 watts from a total of ~1400 watts at the equator or as we now know is something like 0.1% heating effect. Really I joke you not 1.63 watts who are they kidding .

Me thinks this is the complex climate model proving to them that Bellamy who has probably studied the subject is correct and the climate scientists couldn't score for nuts when they went to college and their maths are even worse than mine .It exactly what results i would expect as they are trying to find the impossible that is lost in the noise of the complex climate system. That's not counting the cult followers that want and often demand certain results to be proved .

Life's a bitch but lots of science like rocket launches to Mars went wrong because some one mixed up the maths and the space craft crashed .into that planet . So chances are when the complex programs throw up and somebody figures it out then this is just another crash in science and they just got to dust themselves down comb the ruffled feathers and get back to the real climate science
That means if climate scientists have a theory concept brain fart whatever they must prove it and not vote on it



Derry