Originally posted by pjclarke
View Post
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Reply to: Bad News for the Climate zealots
Collapse
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
- You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
- You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
- If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
Logging in...
Previously on "Bad News for the Climate zealots"
Collapse
-
-
Originally posted by DodgyAgent View PostItis tripe because it undermines your propaganda
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by pjclarke View PostYou already shared that tripe with us http://forums.contractoruk.com/gener...ml#post2335622
Google apparently also needs a 'memory loss' button.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by DimPrawn View PostSo, the temperature data is only accurate for the last 40 years, which in climate terms mean diddly squat.:
The surface record confirms the high res proxy data, which goes back approximately 1400 years, give or take.
The high res data confirms the low resolution proxies, which go back hundreds of thousands of years.
Most greenhouse gas emissions are water vapour and methane, CO2 is a small proportion.
Of this small proportion, the majority of CO2 emitted is natural, the human element of this small slice of greenhouse gases is again, small.
The effects of this small slice of a small slice are limited.
The CO2 problem in 6 easy steps « RealClimate
And yet Man Made Climate Change is more of a threat to human civilization than global nuclear war, disease, asteroid strike, terrorism and all other possible threats combined.
Climate Change Is ‘Mother of All Risks' to National Security
Last edited by pjclarke; 30 November 2016, 12:38.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by DodgyAgent View PostI found this: .
Google apparently also needs a 'memory loss' button.
Leave a comment:
-
So, the temperature data is only accurate for the last 40 years, which in climate terms mean diddly squat.
Most greenhouse gas emissions are water vapour and methane, CO2 is a small proportion.
Of this small proportion, the majority of CO2 emitted is natural, the human element of this small slice of greenhouse gases is again, small.
The effects of this small slice of a small slice are limited.
And yet Man Made Climate Change is more of a threat to human civilization than global nuclear war, disease, asteroid strike, terrorism and all other possible threats combined.
And then we are expected to swallow this bulltulip are we?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by pjclarke View PostGoogle needs a 'credible source' button.
That piece starts with a quotation,
Small problem, Houghton never said it.
From <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_T._Houghton#Misquotation>
So, zero for accurate research so far. The rest is a Straw Man - it is well-understood that natural sources of CO2 are many times larger than manmade; the point is that CO2 sources and sinks used to be in equilibrium. Manmade CO2 is only a few % of total emissions, but enough to cause an imbalance, in fact natural sinks, the ocean and biosphere, have absorbed about half of our emissions, but because CO2 hangs around for a long time, that small percentage accumulates year on year.
I found this:
CO2 is actually a rather flawed “greenhouse gas.” When CO2 is first introduced into the atmosphere it rapidly absorbs as much heat (in the form of infrared radiation) as possible. But it doesn’t take long for CO2 to become “optically saturated.” This means that after reaching roughly 0.0020 percent (20 parts per million) of the atmosphere, CO2 starts fading. From then on, it takes ever-doubling amounts of CO2 to trap the same amount of heat. By the present concentration of 0.04 percent (400 parts per million), CO2 is essentially saturated—and can’t meaningfully trap much additional heat.
This limitation of CO2 actually runs completely counter to the prevailing notion that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will continue to trap ever greater amounts of heat. In truth, basic science demonstrates exactly the opposite, which is why climate scientists actually base most of their projected warming on “positive feedback” from water vapor.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by pjclarke View PostGoogle needs a 'credible source' button.
That piece starts with a quotation,
Small problem, Houghton never said it.
From <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_T._Houghton#Misquotation>
So, zero for accurate research so far. The rest is a Straw Man - it is well-understood that natural sources of CO2 are many times larger than manmade; the point is that CO2 sources and sinks used to be in equilibrium. Manmade CO2 is only a few % of total emissions, but enough to cause an imbalance, in fact natural sinks, the ocean and biosphere, have absorbed about half of our emissions, but because CO2 hangs around for a long time, that small percentage accumulates year on year.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by DodgyAgent View PostIt was termites fault ... <Blether> ....
That piece starts with a quotation,
"Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen."
— Sir John Houghton, first chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and lead editor of its first three reports.
In a November 2006 article in Australia's*The Daily Telegraph, journalist*Piers Akerman*quoted Houghton as saying "Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen", attributing the quotation to his 1994 book*Global Warming, The Complete Briefing. This has since been quoted by many*sceptics, including*Benny Peiser*and*Christopher Monckton, and is listed at the top of the front page of*Christopher Booker's*The Real Global Warming Disaster. However, the quotation does not appear in any edition of Houghton's book. Houghton has never said any such thing and believes the opposite
So, zero for accurate research so far. The rest is a Straw Man - it is well-understood that natural sources of CO2 are many times larger than manmade; the point is that CO2 sources and sinks used to be in equilibrium. Manmade CO2 is only a few % of total emissions, but enough to cause an imbalance, in fact natural sinks, the ocean and biosphere, have absorbed about half of our emissions, but because CO2 hangs around for a long time, that small percentage accumulates year on year.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by pjclarke View PostI've told you a million times not to exaggerate.
Point is, we've been around for a similarly small fraction of the planet's history; it is what the current warming, which is extremely rapid compared to the relatively stable and benign period in which human civililisation developed, will do that is relevant, seems to me.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by pjclarke View PostNumber Six well underway.
The danger is, these things happen so gradually, almost background noise on a human scale, that almost nobody notices. We just lost >20% of the Great Barrier Reef to bleaching and it raised barely a ripple. In fact, pointing out these causes for concern gets you labelled a zealot.
I Love CO2: Termites emit ten times more CO2 than humans. Should we cap-and-tax them? The public has been led to believe that increased carbon dioxide from human activities is causing a greenhouse effect that is heating the planet. But carbon dioxide comprises only 0.035% of our atmosphere and is a very weak greenhouse gas. Although it is widely blamed for greenhouse warming, it is not the only greenhouse gas, or even the most important. Water vapor is a strong greenhouse gas and accounts for at least 95% of any greenhouse effect. Carbon dioxide accounts for only about 3%, with the remainder due to methane and several other gases.
Not only is carbon dioxide's total greenhouse effect puny, mankind's contribution to it is minuscule. The overwhelming majority (97%) of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere comes from nature, not from man. Volcanoes, swamps, rice paddies, fallen leaves, and even insects and bacteria produce carbon dioxide, as well as methane. According to the journal Science (Nov. 5, 1982), termites alone emit ten times more carbon dioxide than all the factories and automobiles in the world.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by DimPrawn View PostThe only accurate data is satellite data, and that only goes back till about 1980.
So we are making sweeping predictions based on sampling the small temperature changes in about 0.0000000000000000000000000000001% of the Earth's climate history..
Point is, we've been around for a similarly small fraction of the planet's history; it is what the current warming, which is extremely rapid compared to the relatively stable and benign period in which human civililisation developed, will do that is relevant, seems to me.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by d000hg View PostThe "ideal temperature", even if we can collapse the entire world climate into one number, is not the important thing. It's the RATE of change. The world has been MUCH warmer and MUCH colder than it is right now. Life is not equipped to cope with sudden change in climate as attested to by the 5 or so mass extinctions some caused by the emergence of life.
The danger is, these things happen so gradually, almost background noise on a human scale, that almost nobody notices. We just lost >20% of the Great Barrier Reef to bleaching and it raised barely a ripple. In fact, pointing out these causes for concern gets you labelled a zealot.
Leave a comment:
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Is an unpaid umbrella company required to pay contractors? Today 09:28
- The truth of umbrella company regulation is being misconstrued Yesterday 09:23
- Labour’s plan to regulate umbrella companies: a closer look Nov 21 09:24
- When HMRC misses an FTT deadline but still wins another CJRS case Nov 20 09:20
- How 15% employer NICs will sting the umbrella company market Nov 19 09:16
- Contracting Awards 2024 hails 19 firms as best of the best Nov 18 09:13
- How to answer at interview, ‘What’s your greatest weakness?’ Nov 14 09:59
- Business Asset Disposal Relief changes in April 2025: Q&A Nov 13 09:37
- How debt transfer rules will hit umbrella companies in 2026 Nov 12 09:28
- IT contractor demand floundering despite Autumn Budget 2024 Nov 11 09:30
Leave a comment: