|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
06-23-2011, 09:56 AM
If what you claim is true then post a link to where your model has been used and a paper published in a credible scientific journal. Diplomas by the way are a long way from a degree and certainly a very long way from a masters or doctorate (which are about the bare minimum qualifications of any climate scientists). Maybe you could provide some links to the journals with papers which show that methane is much more important than CO2? As I said I am happy to discuss the science but it would be nice if one of you deniers actually posted links to the scientific papers that you are making your conclusions from. As you would know if you really are involved in science, as you claim, the qualifications of an author of a paper are extremely important as is the process of being published in credible scientific journals. If you are unable to verify the qualifications of an author and where they received those qualifications and they have only published their paper on the internet without any peer review then it should be viewed with extreme scepticism. So many of the supposed 'scientific' papers on the internet are anything but and are often posted by 'scientists' who received their qualifications from some fundamentalist christian institution in the deep south of the US. Would you trust such qualifications?
Where did you get your diploma from? As the following article attests it's really not hard to get a diploma or degree that requires little, if any, academic application.  diploma mill - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com (I know it's just an opinion piece but it makes some very good points) Methane is without doubt another important greenhouse gas and some of the largest contributors are the gas and coal industries. Efforts to reduce CO2 emissions will also flow on to help reduce methane emissions. One of the biggest emitters of methane though are wetlands. And recent warming in Siberia is turning what was once permafrost into swamps and wetlands. More warming will see more methane released which will excacerbate the greenhouse warming which will also liberate more CO2 from the oceans which will excacerbate warming. It is this scenario of runaway warming that is feared. The warming will continue until the ice caps are gone and our sea levels will inundate most of the worlds' major cities and vasts amounts of what is currently excellent agricultural land and causing the movement of billions of people. Plus major variations in the climate in what are currently the worlds' main food producing areas. This would obviously be catastrophic would it not? We know the earth can be a lot warmer than it is currently. Maybe some even want it to be warmer. What's important though is how quickly it changes. If it is reasonably gradual then we'll adapt a lot better than if it is rapid. We know the climate can change quite rapidly. I have never claimed that I know everything because of some sheet of paper I have. More importantly I think is that I don't claim to know better than the most respected scientists in the world on this subject. It's people who do that, especially those that don't have any specific knowledge or qualifications in the subject, that I get tired of. 
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
06-23-2011, 10:34 AM
I would gladly give away any info you would need, if it wasn't for a small clause which I agreed upon at age 16, when we began the research under the military supervision (they had the only supercomputer in my country able to manage the massive amount of data for the model), so about 41 years left until it will become public.
What I can say are just hints, can't give any real data, but most of it can be found scattered on the net, mass per cubic meter of methane vs CO2, heat retention degree of methane, quantity of methane produced by one animal per day, and for this animals we changed the landscape which also has a pretty big part of it (for every square km of forest cut for agriculture fields, there is an increase/decrease of ~ 0.5 to 1 degree -per half year - in ~10 to 15 square km area*). The speed of climate changes, we can't change it unfortunately anymore, just decrease the acceleration of it. Maybe we could have done it if we got onto that topic when the industrial era began. *any increase/decrease influences atm pressure, which in turn creates winds, which in turn moves the water for cool down in other areas... PS: Sorry, it was better if I would have said Olympic medal (even though it wasn't a physical one), instead of Diploma? "Manganese? Is that manga language?" - lol? 
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
06-23-2011, 10:50 AM
As I say if you want to debate some part of the science please post a link to a credible scientific paper that argues your point. We all know what the concensus is amongst the most eminent climate scientists in the world. To just tell me that what you believe is just from 'hints scattered' on the internet doesn't exactly fill me with confidence about the credibility of the imformation. Now I may have a science degree with a major in meteorology but I would be the first to admit this doesn't make me any sort of expert. I would only claim that maybe if I had gone on and received a PHD and then went on to work or do research within that field of science. I didn't so I am no expert but like any person who is not an expert in something I seek my knowledge on the subject from the experts. I mean I could easily write up something that looked scientific making all sorts of claims and post it on the internet and I could guarantee that there'd be some fools out there who'd quote what I wrote to back up their arguments somewhere. That isn't science. It's why knowing exactly what sites you are getting your 'hints' from is important and why I am asking you to provide links to the science you are making your conclusions from. Just because it's on the internet doesn't make it true or even remotely credible you know?
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
06-23-2011, 12:02 PM
Quote:
Quote:
How do you explain the presence of senior scientists from the Christians and muslims ? Heavenly religion is a paper written by God , about the method of use of the human being and how you can use the mind and the heart and how to deal with the world. Completely if a person buys a new machine must read manual to use. The myths you are talking about is the " Earth" religion that have been invented by humans like worship stones . Please don't talk about something you don't know .
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
06-24-2011, 02:58 AM
Gonative; A Volcano pumps out more CO2 in a day than the industrialized earth does in a year. There are currently more than a dozen active volcanos right now. Each one is like a giant smoke stack straight from the earth's core.
I'm not against being a responsible owner of earth, but I'm not going to be bullied into tradeing in my car, changeing my damn light bulbs or keeping my thermostat set to 60. The earth warms and cools, it has for eons and there's NOTHING mankind can do about it. I do agree that mankind can create local micro climates but good ol mother earth beats us hands down when it comes to macro climate. Fr3sh; Your country was used and a abused..So? My ancestors were swiss, they were enslaved by the Austrians, abused and misused..same thing. They broke free and made something of themselves, I also have scottish and Irish ancestors, both were horribly mistreated by the British, some of them immigrated to the US. My great grandfather was a coal miner and was nearly crushed to death in a mine cave in. I joined the army to pay for school, was active dureing Desert Storm. The West didn't just "steal everything" we worked our asses off. Yet your Excuse is "evil west polutes, steals and enslaves..whoa is me"? The only person who can fix your predictament is you. You can't expect anyone else to because they will want payment for services rendered.
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
06-24-2011, 03:25 AM
Ryzorian please show me a link to your assertion a volcano puts out more CO2 in a day than all of industrialised earth. I have already posted a link to a very recent study which found that just last year mankind produced 135 times the CO2 than all the volcanic output on the earth (you obviously didn't read it). I mean it's easy enough to say just about anything on a forum like this but it seems you denialists have great difficulty substantiating your claims by posting any links to the 'science' that has informed your opinion. Please show me what makes you believe that one volcano can release more CO2 in a day than all of mankinds contribution in a year. It's difficult to discuss that further if I have no idea of how you have come to that conclusion. Or do you not want to discuss it? Like to treat your 'science' like religion? You just believe in things without any proof whatsoever?
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
06-25-2011, 01:02 AM
Any volcan web site shows this, a volcano can pump out millions of tons of CO2, amoung other greenhouse gases. In Fact, Venus wich is highly volcanic, is a massive greenhouse BECAUSE of those volcanos. This is common knowledge. Remember those massive die off's in Africa by those old volcanic lakes, a few years ago? A land slide disturbed the deeper part of the lake and released massive quantities of Co2 into the local enviroment...SO much CO2 that it litterally killed hundreds of people.
The eruption in Peru has put out so much debris and pollution it's shut down air traffic in the region. Penatubo in the Philipenes, when it erupted spewed out so much dust and gas that it actually droped earths mean tempature by a dagree over the next year..This is recorded information, go check it yourself. Check out the timbora eruption back in the late 1700 to early 1800's..it was a caldara eruption..a super volcano. It was such a massive eruption it actually negated summer for a year. It's reguarded as the "year with out summer". Man doesn't hold a candle to earth.
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
06-25-2011, 04:26 PM
It's obvious that you aren't big on knowledge in this field of science and the fact you cant actually point me towards any study that supports your points is pretty telling. It's seeming like these points are just your opinions based on nothing but your ignorance.
Anyway if you would actually like to learn something about CO2 from volcanic and anthropogenic sources I really do encourage you to read the following http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011EO240001.pdf As you probably won't read it because ignorance appears to be something you consider a strength let me quote a couple of paragraphs Quote:
Quote:
Here's an interesting look at the psychology of climate change denial. I could link a whole lot of schololarly articles on it but I doubt you'd read them. This one has video which I'm going to assume may keep your interest slightly longer. May help to understand why you are the way you are. Climate Change Denial
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
06-25-2011, 04:33 PM
Quote:
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
06-26-2011, 02:40 AM
Quote:
Have Co2 levels been higher in the past than they are today? And, what is the saturation point at which the "greenhouse" effect of Co2 abates? As for methane gas, it really hasn't been increasing at all, has it? In reality, the level of methane in the atmosphere is declining. Can you name a single one of the numerous UN climate models over the past two decades which has shown to be accurate? There are numerous scientists and Nobel Prize winners who are skeptical of climate change are there not? Many of these scientists are climatologists and meteorologists, are they not? One is even the former head of the American National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, right? Climate change is not "settled science".
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
