Deception by Science

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by RenaissanceMan, Nov 18, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,105
    RenaissanceMan,
    CO[sub]2[/sub] emissions are not nonsense, you just have to look at the exhaust output of the common combustion engine to realise this. I gather you probably know that we exhale CO[sub]2[/sub] but we and other animals (As well as bio-degrading waste) produces CH[sub]4[/sub]. These molecules do play an important part of our ecosystems balance, in fact NASA had some time back a rather interesting animation involving "Methane Earth", this satellite captured gas composition animation observed the ebb and flow of gas composition the world over. It provided observation of how one month would have a high CO[sub]2[/sub] concentration and another would have higher CH[sub]4[/sub] as various environmental changes (High temperatures, lowering pressure fronts etc) would aid in gas conversions.

    While indeed their are in fact two disingenuous factors to "global warming" (One being the scientists that work for petroleum companies or car manufacturers not wanting their products taxed higher, and the other being over obsessive "Greenies" with stories of the coming apocalypse.) this doesn't undermine the fact that us humans have played a factor in our environments change. (You just have to look at the amount of radio emissions we produce worldwide to understand that all that energy excerpted into generating wavelengths obviously converts into potential energy that might well effect molecular composition.)

    What I will say about the climate on earth however is this, If the planet's CO[sub]2[/sub] skyrockets, then it's probably for the best. You see for us humans ever to consider colonising other planets, we are going to have to have ways of converting heavy CO[sub]2[/sub] atmospheres into something liveable. CO[sub]2[/sub] increases here on earth generally forces our hand in getting on track with a potential future that we'd otherwise never aspire to do because of cost, time or distance.

    Note:
    My actual interest in Climate change originated from working with Gas Flaring that's utilised in many different areas: Landfill sites, Tank storage systems (These usually have various other chemicals that most people would realise are poison if just vented), Oil barges, Waste treatment plants etc.

    The systems we sold were "variable" in the sense that constant measurements of gas composition led to a greater efficiency in gas combustion compared to the "open-ended pipe" variants of flare which can't alter with gas composition and rarely burn at the optimum flowrate. (Burning at a rate too slow or too fast increases the likelihood of uncombusted or highly toxic gases to emerge)

    So we had a constant output of what gases were leading into the system and what gases existed in the exhaust, which was actually more data collection than standard flares that only have the EPA check on their efficiency through emissions tests once or twice a year.
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2010
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    In that case your sentence should have begun "Your discounting of my and, God forbid, Fraggle's comments..."

    And that remains clumsy!
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,342
    aH, RenaissanceMan, what you perhaps don't grasp, is that some effects only come into play at certain concentrations, and so aren't linearly proportional necessarily, and also that starting a scale at zero diminishes the readability of the information,.... which is why the thermometers you are used to do not read all the way down to Zero °K!

    Maybe your life runs on tram lines, but science isn't all straight lines. You'd best leave the science to people who understand 2nd order relationships, and beyond. Oh, and quit trolling.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. jmpet Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,891
    Yes- you get it. Clumsy is the word- as in, his argument is clumsy. I also re-use words in different tenses in the same sentince to point out the dullard-esque redundancy of others' comments. My writing suits my mood and the topic at hand.
     
  8. RenaissanceMan RenaissanceMan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    193
    ...accidental duplication

    The edit function does not seem to permit deleting a post, unfortunately.
     
  9. RenaissanceMan RenaissanceMan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    193
    So stipulated.


    So it is.

    Absorbtion of infrared light by greenhouse gases is essentially instantaneous.
    Light does not bounce around within an infrared spectrophotometer for "days."
    Whether the water vapor in earth's atmosphere is "new" or "old," it all acts precisely the same. I also refer you to LeChatelier's Principle, which states that systems at equilibrium tend to reduce increases on one side of the equation. In other words, there is a dynamism tending to reduce increases in the carbon dioxide concentration. Plants have been shown to grow faster with higher CO2, just as they grow faster with more nutrients or water.

    The ~1.5% water vapor is always present, on average. Again, which water molecules are present, and their age, makes no difference.

    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_UeZlUJSTKEk/Smm_Zc4HxdI/AAAAAAAAAbs/WsWz-2xsWH8/s1600-h/issues062909.gif
     
  10. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    I'm beginning to wonder what they do teach.

    God, there's so many idiots in the world.
     
  11. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    If you can write with the skill of Milton or Shakespeare or Joyce, then it is permissible to flaunt the rules. Otherwise tired excuses simply show you up for what you are.
     
  12. RenaissanceMan RenaissanceMan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    193
    Methane is not the only other greenhouse gas. Adding more greenhouse gases to the last graph showing only carbon dioxide and water vapor only emphasized my point of Deception by Science.

    As Mark Twain, I believe, said, "Half a truth is a whole lie."



    Please, it is not just the "Greenies" who are in your second category. The "literally trillions of dollars" being spent by universities, governments, and others with huge axes to grind absolutely dwarf any monies spent by petroleum companies. And name for me one study or paper on Global Warming by Ford Motor Company or General Motors. Please provide a link where it can be found.

    Not to mention thinking, which is why many "Greenies" wear aluminum Beanies.


    This shouldn't be too hard. All we have to do is:

    Fly a bunch of Greenies in Aluminum (some call them "tin foil") Beanies to the planet of their/your choice. Bring in thousands of tons of:
    building materials
    heavy equipment
    gasoline
    air
    food
    water
    soil
    electrical generating equipment, and then

    build a huge greenhouse to
    contain the atmosphere and
    keep out deadly radiation, whereupon the Greenies in Beanies will
    create agricultural fields, grow crops, process food, and

    HOPE that one meteor doesn't shatter their/your greenhouse.

    I'll be back here, taking walks and reading books.

    "We will spread throughout the Milky Way." - Carl Sagan

    The guy was a character, wasn't he?
     
  13. RenaissanceMan RenaissanceMan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    193
    Yes there IS, ISN'T there.....

    "There are more fools in the world than there ARE people." - Heinrich Heine


    "I've been to like 57 states, with 2 more to go." - Barack Obama

    "Your insurance premiums might go down 3000 percent." - Barack Obama

    "Cinco de quatro." - Barack Obama, meaning to say "Cinco de Mayo"

    "I don't speak Austrian." - Barack Obama, socialist, destroyer of liberty
     
  14. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Probably should capitalize Destroyer of Liberty.
     
  15. RenaissanceMan RenaissanceMan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    193
    I stand pricelessly corrected. When has a Greenie in a Beanie ever made such a comment in Sciforums.com?
     
  16. RenaissanceMan RenaissanceMan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    193

    Good point.

    Destroyer of Liberty

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. RenaissanceMan RenaissanceMan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    193
    We agree. Dullard-esque redundancy is to be eschewed, especially in others.
     
  18. jmpet Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,891
    Yes- I absolutely refudiate the rules.

    How else shall we redefine English?
     
  19. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,832
    But water vapor isn't "exactly the same" as CO2 which stays in the atmosphere a lot longer. The graph follows the CO2 content, not water vapor.(??)

    You haven't explained why 3.4% is a lot different to 17.5%, or why you chose to use the first value.

    I assume you did this "on faith". If that's true, then you aren't very good at science are you? Here you are, on the one hand trying to claim deception is being foisted on the world, and on the other using deceptive statistics, pulling numbers out of your ass.

    That's a bit of a hoot. Did you know that plants don't grow very well at high temperatures?
     
  20. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,105
    Considering that wasn't his real name it would make a whole lot of sense.
    (Samuel Langhorne Clemens)

    I don't suppose you've bumped into that OilIsBlasphemy fellow.

    Business is a fickle thing, they wouldn't link a page on a website that would potentially undermine sales or their overall industry, it's just not the done thing. However generating deception to increase sales or lessen the blow back of a trend in economic downturn is obviously something that would indeed be in their best interests, obviously clandestine operations of this nature wouldn't look good if such a company was seen the root cause, so you'll just have to make do with conjecture of what would be done in the position of running a large company that deals in producing the largest amounts of CO[sub]2[/sub] emissions. (Not of course suggesting any of the finely named motor companies are indeed the largest producers of CO[sub]2[/sub], it's merely conjecture.)

    Hopefully you'll read a little more than OilIsBlasphemy, he tended to shutdown reading the paragraphs of text and only looked at the pretty pictures and quotations, one of his main failings in regards to diatribe.
     
  21. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Patriot act. Warrantless wiretaps. Supreme court appointed president. Case closed.
     
  22. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    That's total bullshit.
     
  23. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    You refudiate the rules do you? How wanderfoal! Your urigenealaty nose feu bounds.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page