Climate change: ‘Clear and unequivocal’ emergency, say scientists Watch

Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#21
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#21
(Original post by fat__boy)
Read the signature list, those arent scientists, they are nobodies.
Not sure you're in a position to be calling them nobodies...
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#22
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#22
(Original post by Neurocandid)
Crazy how we care about the environment but not the ones who dwell in it 🤧
Pardon me?
0
reply
MonkeyChunks
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#23
Report 4 weeks ago
#23
(Original post by Greywolftwo)
Because of the selfish nature and collective greed of humanity prevails
Isn't every animal greedy and selfish?

Why should man, since we are part of nature, not behave naturally?
0
reply
username4977980
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#24
Report 4 weeks ago
#24
(Original post by MonkeyChunks)
Isn't every animal greedy and selfish?

Why should man, since we are part of nature, not behave naturally?
Because if a predator is too successful it runs out of prey and the ecosystem collapses. In this case we're the predator that is too successful.
0
reply
MonkeyChunks
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#25
Report 4 weeks ago
#25
(Original post by AJ126y)
Because if a predator is too successful it runs out of prey and the ecosystem collapses. In this case we're the predator that is too successful.
But we arent running out of prey. Crop yields continue to set records, and meat is cheap and plentiful. So what you say isnt a valid argument.

Name one animal that doesnt use it's environment, to the maximum, for it's benefit.

Man is actually unusual in that he sees his impact on other species, and actively tries to minimise it.
1
reply
username4977980
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#26
Report 4 weeks ago
#26
(Original post by MonkeyChunks)
But we arent running out of prey. Crop yields continue to set records, and meat is cheap and plentiful. So what you say isnt a valid argument.

Name one animal that doesnt use it's environment, to the maximum, for it's benefit.

Man is actually unusual in that he sees his impact on other species, and actively tries to minimise it.
We're not running out of prey no but we are running out of resources. This world simply can't cope with soon to be 11 billion humans all wanting the lifestyle of westerners. Your last statement is simply not true. We try to minimise it when we remember and decide we care. Which is not very often. A lot of scientists are debating whether we are in fact in the middle of a humanity induced 6th mass extinction.
0
reply
MonkeyChunks
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#27
Report 4 weeks ago
#27
(Original post by AJ126y)
We're not running out of prey no but we are running out of resources. This world simply can't cope with soon to be 11 billion humans all wanting the lifestyle of westerners. Your last statement is simply not true. We try to minimise it when we remember and decide we care. Which is not very often. A lot of scientists are debating whether we are in fact in the middle of a humanity induced 6th mass extinction.
What has population and climate change got to do with each other?

(and global birth rate is down to 2.7 kids per couple, from over 7, so no, in a generation global population will peak. )

A lot of the media talks crap, there is no current extinction, mass or otherwise. No scientist thinks there is, unless they are a fool who cant look at facts. Why not google just how many species have gone extinct since say 1940, and compare that to before 1940. You will be surprised.
0
reply
Ellie__99
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#28
Report 4 weeks ago
#28
(Original post by Napp)
Strong words from the scientific community and yet so many (especially that fatuous orange prig) seem to doubt them.


https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-50302392
Yes, meaningful action is what we need. So good to hear so many people speak up about it.
0
reply
MonkeyChunks
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#29
Report 4 weeks ago
#29
(Original post by Ellie__99)
Yes, meaningful action is what we need. So good to hear so many people speak up about it.
Actually there is nothing to do, CO2 only causes mild warming and a big increase in plant growth. It is beneficial to the planet.

If you want to do something about capitalism, consumption, growth and so on, then do so, but dont destroy science with lies to achieve those aims.
0
reply
username4977980
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#30
Report 4 weeks ago
#30
(Original post by MonkeyChunks)
Actually there is nothing to do, CO2 only causes mild warming and a big increase in plant growth. It is beneficial to the planet.

If you want to do something about capitalism, consumption, growth and so on, then do so, but dont destroy science with lies to achieve those aims.
Hmmm I think the planet Venus would disagree with you there. Its atmosphere is about 90% CO2 and its hot enough to melt lead. So not exactly mild warming.
0
reply
Captain Haddock
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#31
Report 4 weeks ago
#31
(Original post by MonkeyChunks)
Actually there is nothing to do, CO2 only causes mild warming and a big increase in plant growth. It is beneficial to the planet.

If you want to do something about capitalism, consumption, growth and so on, then do so, but dont destroy science with lies to achieve those aims.
Please, TSR user MonkeyChunks, point us in the direction of the Real Science. Surely, as a student of Logic and Reason, you would never expect us to take your word for it?
0
reply
MonkeyChunks
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#32
Report 4 weeks ago
#32
(Original post by Captain Haddock)
Please, TSR user MonkeyChunks, point us in the direction of the Real Science. Surely, as a student of Logic and Reason, you would never expect us to take your word for it?
OK, first off is NASA NVAP data, it shows no increase in water vapour, the increase that is needed to amplify the mild warming of CO2 into something potentially dangerous.

Second is NASA LAI, it shows the fertilisation effect of CO2.

Third, ERBE. It shows increasing outgoing LWR to space with increasing surface temperature. GH warming is the retention of LWR to cause surface warming, not the opposite.

Those are the crucial aspects that show CO2 causes mild warming, a much greener planet, and that much of the recent warming is not due to CO2.
Last edited by MonkeyChunks; 4 weeks ago
0
reply
MonkeyChunks
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#33
Report 4 weeks ago
#33
(Original post by AJ126y)
Hmmm I think the planet Venus would disagree with you there. Its atmosphere is about 90% CO2 and its hot enough to melt lead. So not exactly mild warming.
Venus' atmosphere is 90 times thicker than earths. Mars too has a pure CO2 atmosphere, it is very thin, it's surface is very cold.

Do you know what lapse rate is? m The variation of temperature with pressure ie Boyles law?
0
reply
Captain Haddock
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#34
Report 4 weeks ago
#34
(Original post by MonkeyChunks)
OK, first off is NASA NVAP data, it shows no increase in water vapour, the increase that is needed to amplify the mild warming of CO2 into something potentially dangerous.

Second is NASA LAI, it shows the fertilisation effect of CO2.

Third, ERBE. It shows increasing outgoing LWR to space with increasing surface temperature. GH warming is the retention of LWR to cause surface warming, not the opposite.

Those are the crucial aspects that show CO2 causes mild warming, a much greener planet, and that much of the recent warming is not due to CO2.
As the Earth heats up, it emits more heat. Real breakthrough stuff, there.
0
reply
MonkeyChunks
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#35
Report 4 weeks ago
#35
(Original post by Captain Haddock)
As the Earth heats up, it emits more heat. Real breakthrough stuff, there.
Yes, emits to space. Simple isnt it.

Now what does that tell you about the surface warming, was it caused by retaining long wave in the system by CO2, or was it caused by an increase in energy coming into the system?
0
reply
Captain Haddock
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#36
Report 4 weeks ago
#36
(Original post by MonkeyChunks)
Yes, emits to space. Simple isnt it.

Now what does that tell you about the surface warming, was it caused by retaining long wave in the system by CO2, or was it caused by an increase in energy coming into the system?
But the LWR going into space doesn't come directly from the Earth's surface. The bulk of LWR emitted from the Earth's surface is absorbed by GHGs. Those same GHGs then reradiate that heat in all directions. If they are radiating more into space, it also means they are radiating more back to the surface.
0
reply
MonkeyChunks
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#37
Report 4 weeks ago
#37
(Original post by Captain Haddock)
But the LWR going into space doesn't come directly from the Earth's surface. The bulk of LWR emitted from the Earth's surface is absorbed by GHGs. Those same GHGs then reradiate that heat in all directions. If they are radiating more into space, it also means they are radiating more back to the surface.
Well, in fact you are wrong. The mass of the troposphere, which does the absorption and radiation of energy, through GH gasses is very cold at the top, very cold. It's ability to radiate is based on its temperature (I am sure you know about black body radiation). GH gasses radiate very little to space compared to what they radiate back towards the ground.

You are also ignoring the 'energy cant be created or destroyed rule'.

You cant have more energy to space and more energy to the ground unless you have an increase of energy coming into the system, energy of course from the sun. If this is the case then warming is solar driven, not CO2 driven.

If the energy in is a constant, then more at the surface has to mean less to space.



Compare this data, over a 15 year period, from ERBE, with climate models.

As you can see the climate models predict less outgoing radiation to space with increasing surface temperatures, ERBE, real physical data, shows the opposite.



Name:  ERBE.gif
Views: 8
Size:  28.2 KB
0
reply
z-hog
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#38
Report 4 weeks ago
#38
Climate models will always show what people want them to show, anybody could come up with contradictory results for cash. There was a woman in the City who got a plush job once thanks to her foresight in answering the simple question of how much you get by adding 2 and 2. The correct answer: how much would you like it to be. Only smart people get it, though.
0
reply
username4977980
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#39
Report 4 weeks ago
#39
(Original post by z-hog)
Climate models will always show what people want them to show, anybody could come up with contradictory results for cash. There was a woman in the City who got a plush job once thanks to her foresight in answering the simple question of how much you get by adding 2 and 2. The correct answer: how much would you like it to be. Only smart people get it, though.
Yes but the laws of physics unlike politics or economics are non-negotiable.
0
reply
MonkeyChunks
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#40
Report 4 weeks ago
#40
(Original post by AJ126y)
Yes but the laws of physics unlike politics or economics are non-negotiable.
They are, and the laws say CO2 on its own causes very mild warming and a big increase in plant growth.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Did you vote in the 2019 general election?

Yes (358)
45.9%
No (83)
10.64%
I'm not old enough (339)
43.46%

Watched Threads

View All