Gordon Brown beats the crap out of climate change

[Druckles]

True fact: Pirates can cure global warming.

 

[No Limit]

Yes. Now read Druckles' article.

I thought you were much smarter than that.

Ok, I get it. All those scientific committees are totally wrong. Some personal web site hosted on mysite.verizon.com on the other hand is right. The government has brainwashed all these organizations so they can make money off the global warming scare just like they made money off parking tickets. ****ERS! We need to start the revolution, you convinced me repiV.

 

[repiV]

I thought you were much smarter than that.

Ok, I get it. All those scientific committees are totally wrong. Some personal web site hosted on mysite.verizon.com on the other hand is right. The government has brainwashed all these organizations so they can make money off the global warming scare just like they made money off parking tickets. ****ERS! We need to start the revolution, you convinced me repiV.

If you cared to search for the relationship between water vapour, the environment and global warming you would find that it's not just "some personal website hosted on mysite.verizon.com".
A personal website it may be, but it's a very good article and it should at the very least make you investigate the issue further. Does it not set alarm bells ringing in your head when you figure how significant the water vapour issue most probably is yet you've never even really heard about it before?

If the actual facts surrounding the issue are murky and glossed over, the primary spokespeople for the cause are mired with scandal or make numerous factual errors in their presentations and we're subjected to a sickening level of doomsday propaganda on an ongoing basis, it's a pretty good indicator that there's more to it than meets the eye. People with nothing to hide don't need to peddle doomsday propaganda or hide the facts. They also don't need to denounce people who disagree as heretics - sorry, "climate change deniers" and quell any rational debate on the issue. Modern environmentalism is a religion, and you're a follower.

Now, you're only interested in going along with whatever the majority says, regardless of whatever factors influence that majority to say what they say. So you're an uninformed, disinterested sheep, just like all those right-wing Republicans you whine about on a daily basis. You want someone else to do your thinking for you.
Moreover, you completely dismiss the opinions of thousands upon thousands of scientists who disagree with your point of view whilst upholding the opinions of scientists as the only meaningful point of argument.
That's utterly ridiculous and moronic. Completely hypocritical.

You aren't even worth having a discussion with, clearly.

 

[Druckles]

There's actually a theory that's it's to do with cosmic rays. Watched a film on it in a physics lesson (back when still at school). Not sure whether there any articles on it.

It basically says it happens once every so often and can be backed by the fact it does actually happen, or something. I'll have to find an article on it.

 

[repiV]

There's actually a theory that's it's to do with cosmic rays. Watched a film on it in a physics lesson (back when still at school). Not sure whether there any articles on it.

It basically says it happens once every so often and can be backed by the fact it does actually happen, or something. I'll have to find an article on it.

We've also experienced both a miniature ice age and a warm period where the planet was hotter than it is today in the last millenium. Hundreds of years before industrialisation.

 

[No Limit]

Does it not set alarm bells ringing in your head when you figure how significant the water vapour issue most probably is yet you've never even really heard about it before?

No I haven't heard of it before, I can admit that. You might have heard of it before but that doesn't mean you understand a damn thing about it.

A personal website it may be, but it's a very good article and it should at the very least make you investigate the issue further.

No thanks. I'm a network administrator by day and a web designer/programmer by night. I have no interest in studying for another degree. When someone needs network advice they come to me, when I need advice on climate change I go read a break down of the various respectable scientific studies on the subject. You can sit here and pretend you know what you are talking about because you read about water vapor on some blog. But excuse me for not buying in to your conspiracy bullshit, to be perfectly honest with you I don't take advice about science from someone that knows nothing about science, just like I don't take advice about my car from a hair stylist.

:cheers:

 

[repiV]

No I haven't heard of it before, I can admit that. You might have heard of it before but that doesn't mean you understand a damn thing about it.

I don't need to understand it to know that it's quite obviously a critical factor that must be considered. I also don't need to understand it to discover that it is a significant topic of debate just by a quick search of the internet, and if it's completely obscured from the media then someone has something to hide.
I also know from everyday experience that water vapour has a very powerful greenhouse effect - it's called humidity.

No thanks. I'm a network administrator by day and a web designer/programmer by night. I have no interest in studying for another degree. When someone needs network advice they come to me, when I need advice on climate change I go read a break down of the various respectable scientific studies on the subject. You can sit here and pretend you know what you are talking about because you read about water vapor on some blog. But excuse me for not buying in to your conspiracy bullshit, to be perfectly honest with you I don't take advice about science from someone that knows nothing about science, just like I don't take advice about my car from a hair stylist.

:cheers:

So basically, you're an uninformed, disinterested sheep and you want someone else to do your thinking for you. You don't even care if there are political motives behind what they have to say.
You can't expect me to take you even semi-seriously when your opinions are based on pure faith and you flat-out refuse to improve your knowledge of the subject beyond what the media spoonfeeds you, and nor can you expect me to take the "global warming movement" seriously when its momentum is based on millions of people who know nothing but have faith, just like you.

 

[No Limit]

So basically, you're an uninformed, disinterested sheep and you want someone else to do your thinking for you. You don't even care if there are political motives behind what they have to say.
You can't expect me to take you even semi-seriously when your opinions are based on pure faith and you flat-out refuse to improve your knowledge of the subject beyond what the media spoonfeeds you, and nor can you expect me to take the "global warming movement" seriously when its momentum is based on millions of people who know nothing but have faith, just like you.

No, what I understand is that there are uninformed people out there like you that know absolutely nothing about a subject but think they understand enough about it to criticize people that spend all their life doing it. I run in to these people every day in my line of work. People that try to lecture me why we should be spending all that money running our own mail servers to handle around 2,000 accounts which produce around 100,000 messages a day when you can get a mail server at godaddy for $3.95 a month. Or because they saw a mac commercial on TV saying macs are better than PCs they want to know why we aren't upgrading any of our windows machines to macs. And when you try to explain these simple things to them they will walk away and then talk behind your back about how much more they know about these things than you do. Remember, nobody likes a know it all, they are total douchebags. I'm sure you run into them all the time when talking about bikes. There is nothing wrong with admitting you don't understand something, but when you pretend you do when you really dont you are as I said before nothing more than an uninformed douchebag.

 

[Baserape>]

Global warming is being accelerated by man, only a fool would state otherwise. We are damaging our natural environment beyond repair, not because of the emissions we produce but because of what we take and don't replace.

 

[repiV]

No, what I understand is that there are uninformed people out there like you that know absolutely nothing about a subject but think they understand enough about it to criticize people that spend all their life doing it. I run in to these people every day in my line of work. People that try to lecture me why we should be spending all that money running our own mail servers to handle around 2,000 accounts which produce around 100,000 messages a day when you can get a mail server at godaddy for $3.95 a month. Or because they saw a mac commercial on TV saying macs are better than PCs they want to know why we aren't upgrading any of our windows machines to macs. And when you try to explain these simple things to them they will walk away and then talk behind your back about how much more they know about these things than you do. Remember, nobody likes a know it all, they are total douchebags. I'm sure you run into them all the time when talking about bikes. There is nothing wrong with admitting you don't understand something, but when you pretend you do when you really dont you are as I said before nothing more than an uninformed douchebag.

I never claimed to understand it. It doesn't mean I have to believe everything I'm told about it by people who have an agenda - although the apparent credibility comes from the fact that so many people have faith in global warming, moreso than any other factor. Conventional wisdom is often wrong.

You don't need to be a world-leading scientist to realise the effect of water vapour on the environment, either.

Now, here is an article from NASA that is rather neutral on the issue of global warming, but discusses the effects of water vapour in some detail.

Clicky

Since water vapor is the most important heat-trapping greenhouse gas in our atmosphere, some climate forecasts may be overestimating future temperature increases.

Now, forgetting the question of whether man-made climate change is real or not, if water vapour is the most important heat-trapping greenhouse gas in our atmosphere, WHY did you not even know that?
If what we are being told is an accurate representation of the truth, it would be common knowledge that water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas. Assuming that it does indeed account for 95% of greenhouse gases, and keeping in mind that the majority of all other greenhouse gases come from natural sources, that puts a very serious question mark over whether we can even affect the climate at all.

Evidently there is a correlation between humidity and heat because you only get humidity when it's hot. If you increased the quantity of water vapour in the atmosphere in Europe significantly, the climate would get much hotter and more humid.

 

[repiV]

Global warming is being accelerated by man, only a fool would state otherwise. We are damaging our natural environment beyond repair, not because of the emissions we produce but because of what we take and don't replace.

Only a fool would claim that there is a 100% certainty that global warming is being accelerated by man without actually knowing anything about the subject.

 

[fatchance]

Only a fool would claim that there is a 100% certainty that global warming is being accelerated by man without actually knowing anything about the subject.

When it's perpetuated as facts by majority, it's essentially becomes the truth, even though it's the dumbest FAD in history.

 

[Eejit]

Your water vapour blog is quite flawed repiV.

Several of his key references are themselves flawed and do not themselves have references and are not peer-reviewed.

One of his references only supports his claims by twisting the information (i.e. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/environment/appd_d.html)

He also adjusts the Global Warming Potential for the other greenhouse gases, but not for water vapour. Water vapour is left out of the calculations traditionally because it's contribution varies so much with temperature, and it's absorption spectra overlap with other greenhouse gases.
In fact increased global warming is subject to positive feedback mainly because of water vapour so it's silly to say that people are trying to downplay it's importance.



Get better sources, and read their sources. /facepalm.


Edit: Also the NASA story says that water vapour being accounted for in models will probably show faster warming. Read the whole thing damnit.

 

[Druckles]

Your water vapour blog is quite flawed repiV.

It wasn't his source, it was mine.

And it's more sources than you've come up with. Water vapour is accepted as a cause of global warming by many other scientists.

 

[Eejit]

I'm not saying it isn't...
Your link was saying that since it's a greenhouse gas which isn't affected by us to a large degreee then the whole global warming theory was false or at least wildly exaggerated.

In fact it's an important factor in the greenhouse effect potentially becoming runaway, but is a minor factor in causing the process to being with. Two quite different things.

Saying it's "more sources than I've come up with" is laughable though. Quality is the main thing that matters in references, not quantity.
Anyhow, I only posted here to demonstrate how poor your source was since nobody else had done so, I would have been happy to lurk otherwise.

Sorry for misattributing the link though.

 

[repiV]

Your water vapour blog is quite flawed repiV.

Several of his key references are themselves flawed and do not themselves have references and are not peer-reviewed.

One of his references only supports his claims by twisting the information (i.e. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/environment/appd_d.html)

He also adjusts the Global Warming Potential for the other greenhouse gases, but not for water vapour. Water vapour is left out of the calculations traditionally because it's contribution varies so much with temperature, and it's absorption spectra overlap with other greenhouse gases.
In fact increased global warming is subject to positive feedback mainly because of water vapour so it's silly to say that people are trying to downplay it's importance.



Get better sources, and read their sources. /facepalm.

Thanks for pointing that out. It doesn't change the fact that a) it's an important issue that has barely even been touched on in the mainstream coverage and b) it's not quite as clear-cut and obvious as some would have you believe.
The important thing is that it was brought up and discussed.

Edit: Also the NASA story says that water vapour being accounted for in models will probably show faster warming. Read the whole thing damnit.

I did, and I know what it says. I was simply using a reputable source to demonstrate that water vapour is the most significant of all greenhouse gases, I'm not trying to prove anything beyond that.

The problem is that global warming has become such a matter of faith it may as well have a church dedicated to it. People come up with all these ridiculous, self-destructive ideas to "stop global warming before it destroys the earth" and anyone who even dares to question is treated like a heretic. It even has the idiot-friendly catchphrases like "carbon footprint" to go along with it.
If we can have a discussion about the possible long-term effects of polluting our atmosphere without all the hysterical doomsday bullshit, that's great. All I see at the moment is a flock of loyal and clueless followers and a load of excuses to create all sorts of new taxes when we're poor enough already.
I'm not about to surrender my liberties on the basis of our "carbon footprint" (I'll go puke now) when nearly 97% of all CO2 in the atmosphere comes from natural sources. Especially when the penalties and incentives they bring in are completely detached from their actual effects on the environment - vehicle emissions are responsible for 2% of all pollution in the UK and yet motorists are the scapegoat for global warming and we pay absolutely through the nose just for the privilege of being on the road. And when fuel duty is raised, it's not only motorists who suffer - everyone suffers, because it inflates the cost of freight and thus the cost of everything you buy. Global warming mania puts and keeps people in poverty - almost everything I earn goes on my motorbike (well, it did before I broke my leg) and running a car is a lot more expensive. And unlike myself, for whom it's purely a very expensive luxury I'm willing to sacrifice things for, most people in this country NEED private transport.

In short, I'm sick of hearing about global warming and I give it no credibility because of the climate porn, the clueless idiots who come up with dumbass ideas, the dumbass ideas that are forced upon me and the mob mentality. If you want something to be taken seriously, present it in a serious fashion. Not like Judgement Day is upon us and we all must repent.

 

[Eejit]

I did, and I know what it says. I was simply using a reputable source to demonstrate that water vapour is the most significant of all greenhouse gases, I'm not trying to prove anything beyond that.

It's misleading to call it the most significant.
Water vapour is indeed the most abundant greenhouse gas, but since it has so much overlapping absorption frequencies as the other gases it's effect is reduced from what it would be in their absence. I think it also absorbs at lower wavelengths, afaik the further from the IR the absorption is the less greenhouse effect.

It's definitely most important in perpetuating and exacerbating the greenhouse effect (well except for the frozed seafloor methane possibly melting), but not in initiating it which I think is what people are mainly worried about currently. I imagine that's why it is often overlooked rather than some huge conspiracy.
Of course, the important thing is that though we are only responsible for a few percent of the atmospheric CO2, it is in a fine balance and upsetting that can have these runaway, positive feedback effects.

 

[repiV]

It's misleading to call it the most significant.
Water vapour is indeed the most abundant greenhouse gas, but since it has so much overlapping absorption frequencies as the other gases it's effect is reduced from what it would be in their absence. I think it also absorbs at lower wavelengths, afaik the further from the IR the absorption is the less greenhouse effect.

It's definitely most important in perpetuating and exacerbating the greenhouse effect (well except for the frozed seafloor methane possibly melting), but not in initiating it which I think is what people are mainly worried about currently. I imagine that's why it is often overlooked rather than some huge conspiracy.

I see. So what about the fact that even if you ignore water vapour, the vast majority of greenhouse gases come from natural sources?

Damn your sneaky editing.

Of course, the important thing is that though we are only responsible for a few percent of the atmospheric CO2, it is in a fine balance and upsetting that can have these runaway, positive feedback effects.

Proof?
The climate is forever changing due to natural effects, how is this any different or more catastrophic?

Also, what about the claim that, historically, CO2 levels actually follow changes in temperature rather than causing them?

 

[Eejit]

Proof?
The climate is forever changing due to natural effects, how is this any different or more catastrophic?

Also, what about the claim that, historically, CO2 levels actually follow changes in temperature rather than causing them?

It's not going to be any more different or catastrophic for the planet, the same thing has happened before.
However an ice age (can be caused by global warming by some theories involving buggered ocean currents) or melting ice caps will seriously mess with our civilisations.
Imagine how NYC flooding will affect the Dow Jones

I think that data about CO2 levels following changes in temperature is an imcomplete picture without enough resolution of the times in question. For example, CO2 levels are regulated in several ways such as weathering which uses up CO2, and increase in dissolved C02 in the oceans. This prevents rapid changes in the atmospheric concentration by providing a 'buffer'.
However even a relatively small increase in CO2 can cause a change in temperature sufficient to start water vapour positive feedback looops, or freeing the millions of tons of frozen methane gas at the bottoms of the seas.


I'm afraid I don't have links to back these up atm, I remember most of this stuff from my lectures and textbooks from back when I studied Earth Science (I dropped it last year). But basically the Earths climate is self-regulating and goes through cycles.
The thing we don't want to happen is us prematurely triggering a change in cycle before we can all get into space and off this rock

Earth can survive ice ages and global floods, we know it has before. Even our species could. But civilisation would likely head for a dark age if there was any significant change in the worlds climate.

 

[repiV]

It's not going to be any more different or catastrophic for the planet, the same thing has happened before.
However an ice age (can be caused by global warming by some theories involving buggered ocean currents) or melting ice caps will seriously mess with our civilisations.
Imagine how NYC flooding will affect the Dow Jones

We had a miniature ice age a few hundred years ago, it didn't seem to bother anyone too much...
If it's no different from the natural things that have happened before, why are people willing to destroy the world's economy just to TRY and do something about it that probably won't even have any major effect?
That's the insanity.

I think that data about CO2 levels following changes in temperature is an imcomplete picture without enough resolution of the times in question. For example, CO2 levels are regulated in several ways such as weathering which uses up CO2, and increase in dissolved C02 in the oceans. This prevents rapid changes in the atmospheric concentration by providing a 'buffer'.

It's necessary to know more about these times though, I would say.

However even a relatively small increase in CO2 can cause a change in temperature sufficient to start water vapour positive feedback looops, or freeing the millions of tons of frozen methane gas at the bottoms of the seas.

Interesting.

I'm afraid I don't have links to back these up atm, I remember most of this stuff from my lectures and textbooks from back when I studied Earth Science (I dropped it last year). But basically the Earths climate is self-regulating and goes through cycles.

That's cool. I'd rather talk to someone who knows what they're on about who doesn't have sources than someone who has no idea and a load of links and doomsday prophecies to throw around.

The thing we don't want to happen is us prematurely triggering a change in cycle before we can all get into space and off this rock

Earth can survive ice ages and global floods, we know it has before. Even our species could. But civilisation would likely head for a dark age if there was any significant change in the worlds climate.

If the climate is self-regulating, does that not include any changes that may be caused by us?
I'm guessing the dark age caused by a significant change in the climate would be no worse than the dark age caused by throwing the economy to the dogs in an attempt to stop climate change. And what is the likelihood of anything we're currently doing actually HAVING that significant effect? Through the natural course of technology, our activities will no longer be having any adverse effect on the environment by the 22nd century anyway. Well, apart from urbanisation...
A *small* amount of global warming isn't necessarily a bad thing...mild winters save lives.

 

[Eejit]

We had a miniature ice age a few hundred years ago, it didn't seem to bother anyone too much...
If it's no different from the natural things that have happened before, why are people willing to destroy the world's economy just to TRY and do something about it that probably won't even have any major effect?
That's the insanity.

The little ice age was a cooling of <1 degree C afaik. It is thought to have been the cause of several famines...
With todays world population being far, far greater than at that time and the global economics even a 'small' one like that could have a very bad effect on the world. A couple of spectacular worldwide crop failures and things could really go up in smoke.

They believe they can fix carbon emmissions without ruining the economy. I'm not enough of an authority on modern economics and industry to say for sure myself but I imagine there must be some way of doing it.

That's cool. I'd rather talk to someone who knows what they're on about who doesn't have sources than someone who has no idea and a load of links and doomsday prophecies to throw around.

Well I probably know a good bit more than the average joe, but it was a course I did for credits not for my main degree so I'm not a real expert.

If the climate is self-regulating, does that not include any changes that may be caused by us?

It's self-regulating over geological time periods. Perhaps self-correcting is a better term.

A *small* amount of global warming isn't necessarily a bad thing...mild winters save lives.

Like I said, a small change has a large potential to quickly escalate.


Edit: btw think this is me checking out for tonight, might have a look at the thread tomorrow if I remember. I mainly want people to remember: just because the media doesn't cover all aspects of a science doesn't mean that (reputable) scientists don't take it all into account themselves.

 

[99.vikram]

I'm guessing the dark age caused by a significant change in the climate would be no worse than the dark age caused by throwing the economy to the dogs in an attempt to stop climate change.

So you're saying that a reduced dependence on non-renewable resources....will DAMAGE the economy in the long run? /facepalm

 

[Sulkdodds]

If I didn't believe much global warming was driven by humans, I would draw a political cartoon of Gordon trying to beat up a cloud.

Sometimes, I wish I had different opinions!

 

[Druckles]

Read title wrong.

Thought some newbie was attempting to create a mod with our beloved Half-Life protagonist vs climate.

 

[repiV]

So you're saying that a reduced dependence on non-renewable resources....will DAMAGE the economy in the long run? /facepalm

No, that's quite obviously NOT what I said. What the **** do you take me for anyway?


Eejit, I'll reply to you tomorrow...

 

[fatchance]

Global suicide should make the earth happy.

Then come Nibiru and earth is smashed to pieces afterall...


aw....

 

[Parrot of doom]

Not to mention it ruins land for agriculture and contaminates water supplies, releases large amounts of methane, and takes up a lot of space.

I think you'd do well to watch Penn and Tellers excellent documentary on recycling. A satirical twist it may have, but it does a very good job of pointing out the flaws of recycling policy.

And don't triple post. There's a perfectly legitimite Edit button, you're just taking up space in this thread.

When admin you become, then policy you make. Until then, quiet be.

 

[Pesmerga]

He should be investing more in space travel and technologies.

 

[Druckles]

I think you'd do well to watch Penn and Tellers excellent documentary on recycling. A satirical twist it may have, but it does a very good job of pointing out the flaws of recycling policy.



When admin you become, then policy you make. Until then, quiet be.

:frown: I shall frown on you, therefore, as silence forced upon me, it has.

 

[Parrot of doom]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw

 

[Pesmerga]

Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide!

 

[Mr Stabby]

I think you'd do well to watch Penn and Tellers excellent documentary on recycling. A satirical twist it may have, but it does a very good job of pointing out the flaws of recycling policy.

Our recycling policy may be shite, but it doesn't change the fact that landfill is a problem.

 

[Parrot of doom]

Why is it a problem?

 

[Eejit]

Because we need land for agriculture?

 

[Parrot of doom]

We've got more than enough of that. Next?

 

[Eejit]

Hahaha no we actually don't.

Fail.

 

[Parrot of doom]

Yes we do actually. Theres plenty of food in the EU, and plenty of empty and unused land.

 

[Eejit]

Ohhhh you're talking EU only. I'm talking world food supply and population growing faster than food production.

Bigger picture ftw.

 

[Parrot of doom]

Theres plenty of land to provide enough food for the entire world, and many times over.

Corruption and mismanagement of resources is the issue. The availability of land to grow food is not.