What Do You Gain By Denying Climate Change?

Yes, I can!

 

Well said.

I've been casually interested in this issue for nearly 3 decades; first heard about it on talk radio. And while I'm no expert, I have learned the difference between climate and weather. Also, I personally know someone who accompanied scientists at the South Pole who were researching this very topic. 12 years ago, he told me that what the scientists were finding, was dire.

So, while I've never jumped frantically off the deep end, latching onto any/every claim made... I have calmly weighed the opinions of those in-the-know. And at the very least, I'm aware that NOW is the time to take whatever actions we can to mitigate or help mankind survive what is very likely to come.

 

Thank you.

The OP asked what do you get out of denying the science. Many didn't answer and simply started expressing their talking points. Some well considered, some rediculous. But if I may answer the OPs question with a pov, I would suggest that those who are against Climate Science are motivated by fear. I think they feel that limiting CO2 output will restrain the economy or will create a tax burden on the individual. To this I say, that big oil is making trillion off of oil, and they can well afford to clean up their act. However industry is amoral, and will not do anything that takes a cent away from their bottom line, unless there is a consequence to doing nothing. In America corporations set policy for themselves by lobbying government to form regulatory bodies which amount to bum wipers.

So if industry is amoral, it has to be treated as an entity and not as a individual. This is the major reason that Citizens United was a God awful ruling and has created societies where the people are bombarded by corporate propaganda. I therefore do not blame the ignorant for being ignorant, but I do blame them for being too lazy to realize that Big Brother exists in the form of corporations without conscience.

I know I change directions in the above topic, but I was attempting brevity with the understanding that most here will be able to follow my leaps in logic.

 

Laziness - if I do not think there is any reason to act then I do not have to. It is the "dirty bedroom" mindset. "But Muuuuuuuum I don't have to clean up my room because a) it is not really dirty (CO2 does not affect the climate) b) Billy's bedroom is a lot messier and his mum does not make him clean it up (China causes more pollution than America) etc etc

And of course the all time favourite - "But I Didn't mess it up!!" (man only produces a small amount of the CO2 in the atmosphere)

 

They say "but easy to access the energy resource."

 

Do you want a class room analysis?? If so, how far do you want it to go??? ;


Hydrogen gas in nature is present as the diatomic (2 atoms) molecule, H2. Likewise oxygen gas in nature is present as the diatomic molecule O2. On the other hand, water consists of two hydrogen atoms chemically bonded to an oxygen atom, that is: H2O. These are very different chemical substances

In water vapor, the hydrogen and oxygen are still bound together as water even though it is invisible and fills the air. That is one molecule of oxygen is still bound to two of hydrogen. This water vapor becomes visible as fog or the liquid that condenses on the outside of a cold glass of iced tea or your windshield in the mornings.

Gaseous hydrogen and oxygen are pure. That is, each molecule is composed of only hydrogen or oxygen atoms. These two gasses can be combined to form water.
Another difference is that water vapor is not explosive where the pure gasses can put on a real show when exposed to flame.


First it "kaboomb"s, then it is water vapor. One "kaboomb" is the difference. H2 gas + O2 gas has more potential energy than H2O gas. Think of electrolyzing water (H2O->H2+O2) as prying apart two strong magnets. They make quite a clashing event when they get back together again.

H2 and O2 can be distilled apart. Liquid nitrogen temperature, 77K, would do it. O2 at one atmosphere would liquify in a cold bowl having LN2 under it, but the H2 would stay a gas and could be piped away into a separate container. You can't distill part H2O. It is all one "substance", made of only one kind of molecule. So at a given temperature, it will all take the same state, solid, liquid, or gas.

Dry gasses like H2 and O2 have a very different flavor to a scientist, than does a commonly interactive substance like water (H2O).

Water is stickier than air and other light gasses. Sticks to itself, sticks to other things. H2 and O2 are dry gasses that must be cooled far below room temperature to be liquid, and not much of them bothers to dissolve in any room-temperature liquid either. You can pressurize a balloon with 100% H2, or 100% O2, and it inflates, because being hundreds of degrees above boiling, they stay gasses.

Water, on the other hand:

- is liquid till 80 degrees C hotter than room temp.

- dissolves to >2% in many solids, and >50% in many liquids.

- has noticeable adsorbed layers on solid bodies, tens or hundreds of molecules thick, even when the object seems dry.

- only does a few % in air at room temp. If you put a little more vapor into a balloon, it goes and adds itself to the liquid water on the walls, and the balloon will never inflate.

Water vapor, by going to and from the liquid state, often transports heat in the "heat-pipe" fashion: absorbing heat and evaporating, drifting across as gas, condensing and releasing heat, and wicking as liquid right back to the starting point.

So your jacket won't keep you warm if it's wet, which it will be if has been permeated with dense-enough water vapor. H2 and/or O2 gasses do not have this effect. They are just like nice dry air in that regard.

Water is a polar molecule, but H2 and O2 are non-polar. Polar means it has a (+) end and a (-) end, and can be spun around by an electric field. So water vapor (steam) in a microwave oven absorbs some (2.4GHz) microwaves and gets hot. H2 and O2 absorb microwaves too, but at different frequencies and generally more weakly. Really difficult to heat up dry air in a microwave oven. Moist air is not too difficult.

The balanced reaction is H2 + H2 + O2 --> H2O + H2O + heat. You can see there are 3 molecules on the left, and 2 molecules on the right. So once the heat is taken away, and if all the H2O stays vapor, it's possible that some balloon would be 1/3 smaller at a given pressure and less buoyant in a given surrounding atmosphere.

An X2 molecule (eg H2, O2, N2, F2, I2) is mechanically simpler than H2O. An X2 molecule cannot spin around it's long (atom-to-atom) axis, if it did, all that would be revolving is an electron cloud having almost no mass.

Just about all the mass is in the nuclei, which are infinitesimal points right on that axis of spin. So H2 and O2 molecules can't use that axis to have kinetic energy. So they pick up less kinetic energy in a sea of mechanical chaos (heat), So they take less energy to be rattled up to a given temperature. It is called specific heat, and it is lower for an H2 or O2 molecule than for an H2O molecule. The V-shape of the H2O molecule can also wiggle, called angular modes of vibration. That adds to specific heat too. X2 molecules have only the stretch-mode of vibration.

 

Who has time to watch Fox news or any other news channel???

Global warming cleverly hides itself with 1 million sq miles more arctic ice
posted at 5:01 pm on September 8, 2013

The science is settled unsettling. Comedian Lewis Black said it best on his White Album when he asked, “Do you know what Meteorologist means in English? It means liar.” It seems that we now have more science to settle atop the mountains of previous science which all purports to prove one thing or another. You can decide on the reasons for yourself, but the arctic ice sheet is back with a vengeance.

A chilly Arctic summer has left nearly a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year – an increase of 60 per cent.

The rebound from 2012’s record low comes six years after the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013.

Instead, days before the annual autumn re-freeze is due to begin, an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia’s northern shores.

Good news for polar bears, if nothing else. But talks of a clear Northwest Passage seem to have fallen by the wayside. In fact, a few people who were counting on it rather heavily are left sort of… stuck.

Only six years ago, the BBC reported that the Arctic would be ice-free in summer by 2013, citing a scientist in the US who claimed this was a ‘conservative’ forecast. Perhaps it was their confidence that led more than 20 yachts to try to sail the Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific this summer. As of last week, all these vessels were stuck in the ice, some at the eastern end of the passage in Prince Regent Inlet, others further west at Cape Bathurst.

Shipping experts said the only way these vessels were likely to be freed was by the icebreakers of the Canadian coastguard. According to the official Canadian government website, the Northwest Passage has remained ice-bound and impassable all summer.

Some of the analysts currently scratching their heads over how the planet stubbornly refuses to do what they insist it must are apparently now reflecting on some much older data. Reports are available which indicate a massive melting of the arctic ice sheet in the 1920′s and 30′s, long before the era of global climate studies. But then, it crashed into another period of increased freezing and expansion. The current photo has a few of them wondering if we might be in danger of heading into another ice age, which would be disastrous for mankind.

And once more you have proven nothing but your ignorance

 

I think he wanted H2O or HOH. But if you could, can you explain the effects on water in a singularity using the models proposed in string theory? Is it still non-compressable? Also why is Smurfette such a slut?

 

Oh, haven't you heard??? According to the U.N. there will be no life left on the earth in 100 years!!! Oh, wow, aren't you scared?? Earth shaking news, right?? Of course, there were people saying that the year 2000 was the tipping point in 1978. Then it was the year 2025. Now it's 2114. First, they can't get the year right and now they made it so the year will be long after they are dead. But if the action they wanted was taken the Clim'ies would say, "See, we saved the planet". If no action was taken they would melt into the woodwork and come up with some other catastrophe looming on the brink!!! In 1973 it was, "OH, WE ARE GOING INTO A NEW ICE AGE". 5 years later it was, "OH, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE GLOBAL WARMING TO THE POINT WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SURVIVE"!! Now it's, "OH, CLIMATE CHANGE IS GOING TO WIPE UP OUT IN 100 YEARS"!!! Ever notice how the point that we get wiped out keeps getting shoved farther and farther down the road??? And of course, according to them, "IT'S ALL MANS FAULT"!!! Don't you people get tired of being alarmist???


U.N. climate author withdraws because the report has become ‘too alarmist’

Thursday, March 27, 2014

One of the authors of a U.N. draft report on climate change pulled out of the writing team, saying his colleagues were pulling too far to the left and issuing unfounded “alarmist” claims at the expense of real solutions.

“The drafts became too alarmist,” said Richard Tol, a Dutch professor of economics at Sussex University in England, to Reuters.

SPECIAL COVERAGE: Energy and Environment

Mr. Tol was part of a team of 70 authors working on revisions to a U.N. report on climate change, to be issued in Japan on March 31. The final draft, which is the copy that Mr. Tol found objectionable, included findings that a warming global temperature will lead to disruption in food supplies and stagnating economies — and that coral reefs and lands in the Arctic may already have suffered irreversible damages, Reuters said.

“The report is a product of the scientific community and not of any individual author,” the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, said in a statement. “The report does not comprehensively represent the views of any individual.”

The U.N. agency also said Mr. Tol advised months ago of his reluctance to participate in the summary writing of the report. He had still been invited to Japan to help with its drafting, however, Reuters reported.

Mr. Tol said many of the other authors “strongly disagree with me,” but that he found the IPCC’s emphasis on climate change alarmism — and focus on risk — came at the expense of providing solutions for the world’s governments to adapt and overcome.

He said, for instance, farmers could grow new and different crops to offset any negative impacts from climate change that impacted food supplies.

“They will adapt,” Mr. Tol said, Reuters reported. “Farmers are not stupid.”

He also decried the fact the U.N. report downplayed possible economic benefits of warming. For example, he said: Warmer winters could mean fewer deaths among the elderly and possibly better crop growths in some areas.

“It is pretty damn obvious there are positive impacts of climate change, even though we are not always allowed to talk about them,” Mr. Tol said in the Reuters report.

 

You don't like the analysis??? Post your own!!

 

Weather isn't worse then ever before etc.. Where are you getting this? We had a great year in FL this year. Was it another one of those years that had weather events somewhere in the world?

Also the data shows we are cooling at the moment. That is why you embrace the new "climate change" vagueness. Notice that or not? Climate change just means "all bad weather events". You never blame massive food production like we had last year worldwide on it. Just the games that are just around the corner. During an obesity epidemic no less.

 

1.) Please post the data that shows that the climate is showing a decline in stored energy.

2.) I am glad it was nice in florida. Perhaps you should learn to swim for it will one day be completely under water. The melting of the Greenland ice sheet will cause the ocean to rise 23 feet, and florida has a foundation of mostly lime stone. No sea walls will hold back the tide, because the tide will simply go under neath the levees and through the lime stone. .

3.) Why is it that the trolls come out late at night? I have a a physics degree, I don't even look at American media propaganda.

4.) I spend my time building pollution control devices for Syncrude. Fracking is poisoning the hell out of Americas environment and leaking massive amounts of methane into the atmosphere. Why do you think DIck Cheney changed the Clean Water act before he left office? You yanks see all of the conspiracies in the world, except for the real ones.

 

It's obvious that it's ONLY other peoples work that you clim'ies respect, therefore I'll give it to you. Mister, answer a few questions yourself before you start pointing the finger. If we are lossing Ice mass as you claim why have we gained so much of it in the Antarctic??? If CO2 is the devil you claim it to be, why when the world was on fire during WW2 did the temp go down the following years?? From 1992 to 2002 we had a decade of high temps but we also had unusual sun activity to the point that the ice caps on Mars were melting also (oh, it MUST have been that little rover we sent up there that did it since MAN is responsible for everything in you clim'ies book). You have had valid questions put to you yet you run.

 

Yeah they have been telling me Florida is going to be covered with water my whole life. I make a living low tiding, and I can tell you that water hasn't moved an inch in my time on this planet. Not one inch. In fact, the mangroves are building more land.

Yeah, lets do fracking then and not waste a bunch of money making government people rich fighting something that isn't happening. Either way emissions will drop, and you will have some other world is ending scenario for us all to hear about.

Record ice in Greenland and Antartica. Global warming...sorry, "climate change" scientists were trapped in some ice down south this year. It was way past where it should be. They still managed to come back with a world is going to end point of view I am sure. That is how you make the big money after all.

Meanwhile, the energy companies you greens hate so much have come up with a viable solution. Fracking. So of course you hate them for it and campaign that the world should sacrifice and pay astronomical prices to the polluting Chinese for their solar panels. I don't know if it is jealousy, or you just mad that the companies you denigrate -like Haliburton - have cut emissions worldwide more then any government program or policy - and made a profit off of it without having to force the money away with threats of violence. (taxation)

Halliburton has done more for the environment then Kyoto. Then all the green parties. Then all the environmental scientists who have ever been published on the subject of global warming combined. More then Al Gore by miles. No Nobel Prizes though, media hate, and pushes for new taxes and exposing their trade secrets so other nations can nationalize their research and technology again.

 

Show me your data which support your claim. But before you do, I will tell you that fuel consumption was down during world war II. This is because fuels were stock piled for the war effort or refineries were destroyed and didn't produce fuels. Also many chemicals were introduced to the atmosphere that were global coolents. H2S for example.

After the war global cooling aerosols were introduced and were part of the reason that a massive cooling would be seen in the 70s. WIthout greenhouse gases the current temperatures on Earth would be about 50 degrees cooler, so I would suggest that the depletion of the Greenhouse Gas ozone would have had a dramatic effect on IR retention.

All a person has to do to see the effect of global cooling caused by Ozone depletion is to look at what is happening in Antarctica. While the rest of the planet is heating up, the huge Ozone hole over that continent is one of the forces causing it to cool.

If you would like to stop with the name calling, I will continue to talk to you, but if you can restrain yourself from doing what trolls do, then I will simply ignore you.

 

Fuel consumption was down for civilians but as I already pointed out, just one bomber box of 1,000 planes we sent over Germany used 800,000 gals of high octane gasoline. Not the high filtered diesel oil used today in the jets. The U.S. ran their tanks on gas, the Germans used both gas and diesel, the Russian T-34 ran on Diesel. ALL the ships that were used were either coal fire or crude oil fired. The landing craft for the most part used diesel. Most all steel plants around the world were coal fire. What do you think the majority of boilers ran on? Coal, crud oil, and natural gas were what keep the war machines around the world running. The Axis powers of WW2 had a problem with fuel and oil from 1943 on but England NEVER did as the U.S. never did. True, on the home front gas was rationed at 3 gals. a week but in the war theaters it was used when ever it was needed. During WW2 we had a total of 101 oil tankers for the U.S. Navy, along with 63 gas tankers. Ya, we were hurting for oil and gas were we not??? I haver to go to work, have a good day!

 

What is to be gained from worrying and whining about it ?

The climate changes... always has... who is denying it ?

Since that, along with global warming, is all prophesied in the Bible... what in the world do you "Sky is Falling" types think you can do about it?

Lol..... aside from worry and whine, I mean.



By the way.... based on which forum you picked for this thread, it's good to see even you can admit AGW is nothing but political.
Assuming that's what you meant to say when you said "climate change" instead..... because no one denies "climate change"

 

No mate. A straw man, in colloquial terms, is when you criticize something another person *does not say*. So far basically that's all you've done in responding to my posts. It's fine if you want to add something, kind of stream of thought like, but that's a far stretch from your comments. Basically, if you give generic topical responses to my ppsts, rather than what I'm actually saying, you won't get far.

 

The IPCC has not power to "give" government anything.

That part didn't even make sense.

The rest of it is false. In fact, predictions from the original models are bearing out.

Right wingers like to rewrite the issue as though global warming is a scenario from some Hollywood disaster movie.

Instead, it's a very gradual encroachment.

When West Nile Virus appears in northern Pennsylvania, and tourists in the US come down with berry berry, those are symptoms of global warming.

As are rising sea levels and sinking coastal plains (caused by the incursion into the water table).

 

You have to remember that (according to the right wing narrative), global warming is a conspiracy hatched by scientists all over the world to scare us into giving them more grant money.

In the face of the relentless assault by the pocket protector crowd, the world's richest corporations lie protate and vulnurable!

 

Wow, you just made no sense at all.

 

Wow, another strawman. Seems like that's all you chicken littles got these days.

 

There are few things that are inevitable; one is that the climate will change. Do we humans have anything to do with it? Probably. Is it significant? Maybe. I think the real question where you will find the most interesting answers is "Who is profiting from sensationalizing climate change?"

 

The problem is that you've 'learned' the 97% claim the same way you've 'learned' about global warming in general.

 

There is already a reactor next to Biscayne national park.