Ice age coming by 2030!

Nov 2017
3,378
85
FL Treasure Coast & South Central FL
#21
You might want to avoid this discussion to avoid embarrassment. Methane is a greenhouse gas, and so, it has been studied as such. It is 20X more effective at trapping infrared radiation than carbon dioxide but, on average, it only stays aloft for about 8 years before it reacts to the bombardment of ultraviolet radiation (a component of sunlight) and bonds with O-H (hydroxyl radical).
Ummm, yeah like I said.

The biggest single source of methane gas production comes from termite flatus.

Ant's and termites generate 1000% more carbon world wide than humans.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Aug 2017
431
149
Medway Towns, Kent
#23
Fine then.....embarrass away.
conversely you can continue your scarey methane bomb warming paradigm...:)
you have to remember that since the CO2 bomb has been defused there are a number of unemployable "scientists" who are scrabbling around looking for a new funding source... the methane bomb is one of the many theories chucked out by these fellas following the failure of their CO2 bomb.... create a stir and look for that golden egg.... a new funding stream. When people lose intrest in this bomb then invent a new one and so on and so on.....

DO NOT PANIC!!!
 
Last edited:
Nov 2017
3,378
85
FL Treasure Coast & South Central FL
#25
conversely you can continue your scarey methane bomb warming paradigm...:)
you have to remember that since the CO2 bomb has been defused there are a number of unemployable "scientists" who are scabbling around looking for a new funding source... the methane bomb is one of the many theories chucked out by these fellas following the failure of their CO2 bomb.... create a stir and look for that golden egg.... a new funding stream. When people lose intrest in this bomb then invent a new one and so on and so on.....


Problem is, many (including tecoyah) accept global warming theory as fact. :confused:
 
Last edited:
Jul 2009
5,679
412
Opa Locka
#26
conversely you can continue your scarey methane bomb warming paradigm...:)
you have to remember that since the CO2 bomb has been defused there are a number of unemployable "scientists" who are scrabbling around looking for a new funding source... the methane bomb is one of the many theories chucked out by these fellas following the failure of their CO2 bomb.... create a stir and look for that golden egg.... a new funding stream. When people lose intrest in this bomb then invent a new one and so on and so on.....

DO NOT PANIC!!!
You high?
 
Mar 2011
746
159
Rhondda, Cymru
#28
And when is Ralph going to publish his thesis? It will be interesting to see what an educated climatologist made of it.
 
Nov 2016
1,377
283
Victoria, BC
#33
I have listened to both sides and have serious doubts about either's ability to predict climate change much more than a few weeks in advance.
You commit an extremely basic error of conflating "weather" with "climate".

It is very difficult or impossible to predict weather more than a few weeks (or days) in advance.

Predicting climate change into the future is much more amenable to scientific analysis.

There is so much information easily available on these matters that it is inexcusable to be ignorant about global heating.
.
 
Likes: 1 person
Jan 2018
401
162
Arkansas
#35
Predicting climate change into the future is much more amenable to scientific analysis.
That is a bunch of baloney. There is a thing called dependent and independent variables. The short range forecasting methodology is established using dependent variables. It is then verified using independent variables.

These extremely long forecasts. i.e. years and decades in advance are prepared using only dependent data. You can erroneously prove virtually anything using only dependent variables. Because of this fundamental difference, all sorts of claims are made for these extremely long climate predictions because the lack the ability to actually verify the forecast.

As far as knowing the difference between climate and weather, I don't really give a rats ass what you think I know or do not know. What counts is that I know the difficulty of doing both. And that I understand.
 
Nov 2017
3,378
85
FL Treasure Coast & South Central FL
#36
That is a bunch of baloney. There is a thing called dependent and independent variables. The short range forecasting methodology is established using dependent variables. It is then verified using independent variables.

These extremely long forecasts. i.e. years and decades in advance are prepared using only dependent data. You can erroneously prove virtually anything using only dependent variables. Because of this fundamental difference, all sorts of claims are made for these extremely long climate predictions because the lack the ability to actually verify the forecast.

As far as knowing the difference between climate and weather, I don't really give a rats ass what you think I know or do not know. What counts is that I know the difficulty of doing both. And that I understand.
You really:

 
Nov 2016
1,377
283
Victoria, BC
#37
That is a bunch of baloney. There is a thing called dependent and independent variables. The short range forecasting methodology is established using dependent variables. It is then verified using independent variables.

These extremely long forecasts. i.e. years and decades in advance are prepared using only dependent data. You can erroneously prove virtually anything using only dependent variables. Because of this fundamental difference, all sorts of claims are made for these extremely long climate predictions because the lack the ability to actually verify the forecast.
That all sounds very scientific, but applied to the facts of global heating, it is just gibberish.

Given an increase in CO2, there MUST be an increase in temperature.

That is simple physics, established long before the Koch Brothers and their allies and useful idiots started funding Climate Denial.

The drastic warming of the Arctic and the increase of the "Omega" pattern in the jet stream (which is why you have been freezing your butts off in the Benighted States of America) show that basic physics cannot be abrogated --- even by the Koch Brothers.
.
 
Jan 2018
401
162
Arkansas
#38
Given an increase in CO2, there MUST be an increase in temperature.
That would be true, only if CO2 were the only factor. And that was my point, there are numerous factors which affect the climate. Saying only one has an influence and implying that single factor will not be affected by the other factors is pure gibberish.

It is a complicated interactive world out there. Everything that occurs eventually affects everything else.

When I was in meteorology school at St Louis University in 1960, one of the favorite comments of my professor, Dr. Fred Bates, was "There is one factor you cannot predict and that is little boys lighting matches." Meaning predictions can never be perfect because there always unknowns that cannot be predicted.
 
Nov 2016
1,377
283
Victoria, BC
#40
That would be true, only if CO2 were the only factor. And that was my point, there are numerous factors which affect the climate. Saying only one has an influence and implying that single factor will not be affected by the other factors is pure gibberish.
Obviously there are other possible factors, but over and over again, suggested counter factors have been shown to be inadequate to reverse the CO2 effect.

And, once again, there is the little matter that it is a fact that the globe is heating --- in close agreement with the best climate models.

But of course, this will mean nothing to the useful idiots of the Koch Brothers, since they are only concerned with the totalitarian regulations and social controls which effective measures to mitigate global heating will necessitate. Scientific truth means nothing to them.

What is ironic is that such siblings of mental chaos usually are proud and supportive of their country's actions during the Second World War, which required totalitarian dictation over society and economy far more extreme than that needed to deal with the global heating crisis --- which is a far more extreme crisis than WW2 ever was.
.
 

Similar Discussions