C
chippie244
Guest
Are you a scientist?
The cost of civil disobedience?
- Thread starter WillyEckerslike
- Start date
C
chippie244
Guest
I am a mind readerNo.
C
chippie244
Guest
You are welcome to do that
greenback78
Active Member
Nor me. How do you feel about vaccination?
peter palmer
Screwfix Select
Only we dont trust our own experts, I'm of the opinion that the IET write a load of ******** every year for simply no other reason than extracting money from hard working people.
B
Bollerks
Guest
If you look at who comprises the JPL64, CENLEC & IET Wiring Regulations Committees you will note that the major manufacturers of electrical components/accessories are either there singularly or as a part of BEAMA.
They all **** down the same pipe and do indeed hold sway over what the contents of BS7671 eventually are. The terms money & safety have a rather incestuous relationship here.
They all **** down the same pipe and do indeed hold sway over what the contents of BS7671 eventually are. The terms money & safety have a rather incestuous relationship here.
greenback78
Active Member
Yes but I’m guessing that’s your field of expertise so you are commenting from an informed point of view. Have you acquired several years of post-doctoral research experience in the field of climate change?
No, but then again i haven't studied Politics either.
Are you saying i should believe all that them charlatans tell me. ?
btiw2
Screwfix Select
Errrr. Yes. Ice cores supply this.
I have no idea why you think these data help your case. Over 400ppm isn't normal, is it?
Great! So you accept that the climate can change. Presumably you also accept it's through physical and chemical processes - i.e. it's not magic or the gods.
It turns out that there are multiple ways that this can happen.
Solar irradiance (light from the sun) can change. We have satellites that measure this now, and know that's not the cause today.
The distance from the Earth to the Sun and the angle the Earth presents to the sun can change. Clearly this hasn't changed noticeably in the last fifty years, but it can kick-start the end of ice ages.
The atmosphere can change. Sometimes nature does this, but this time it's us releasing the CO2. Carbon dioxide doesn't care where it comes from. It's a molecule. It doesn't care about much.
It's also worth noting how slowly nature changes temperatures (compared to us).
Link for people who prefer data with comics attached: https://xkcd.com/1732/
btiw2
Screwfix Select
You don't need to be a scientist to understand this.
You don't need any science beyond what you were taught in high school to understand the basics.
1. That CO2 absorbs infrared (and heats up) has been known since the C19th.
Energy can neither be created, nor destroyed, just converted from one form (infrared that would have gone into space) to another (heating the atmosphere).
This fact is so old that it comes from a time when people were still debating the atomic model.
Thermodynamics revision: https://www.bbc.com/bitesize/guides/z99jq6f/revision/4
2. When you were in your early teens you were taught the combustion equation in chemistry.
This simple equation tells us how much CO2 is produced when we burn hydrocarbons. For each kg of hydrocarbon burnt we get roughly three kg of CO2.
Combustion equation revision: https://www.bbc.com/bitesize/guides/zfqsv9q/revision/1
3. You were probably taught times tables at school too.
Times tables revision: https://www.bbc.com/bitesize/topics/zqbg87h
4a. Using economic data with facts 2 and 3 we can calculate the amount of CO2 we've added.
Homework: calculate the amount of CO2 we've added.
4b. In both chemistry and physics lessons you were also taught about isotopes.
Isotopes allow us to double check our answer from 4a. We can check the isotopic fingerprint of the CO2 in the atmosphere.
This extra CO2 was from fossil fuels.
Isotope revision: https://www.bbc.com/bitesize/guides/z964y4j/revision/2
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
None of this is controversial. It is easily understood by anybody with a periodic table, a basic education and a calculator.
We know how much CO2 we've released and we know that it causes warming.
You don't need to be a scientist. You just need O-level chemistry.
I'm not relying on the authority of climate scientists here, or relying on complicated equations.
This is literally kids' stuff, from first principles, stuff that we need to agree upon first.
To deny basic scientific facts makes people sound like flat earthers, or those crazy Americans who believe the world is a few thousand years old. Let's not do that.
Soooo BTIW2 - If this is all so obvious (and it is - to anybody who isn't being wilfully moronic) then why do we even need scientists?
Scientists are not needed to study this simple effect; they're needed to study the other consequences[1].
Note - I'm not saying anything about taxes or which countries are to blame or even whether this warming is a bad thing.
Carbon dioxide doesn't care about politics, tax systems, or even human life. It's a molecule, and molecules don't give a fig.
I'm all for scepticism, but if you're sceptical of the periodic table and the electromagnetic spectrum - then that's not scepticism, that's just gormless.
[1] e.g. We already know that we're seeing warming in excess of the amount that can be explained by CO2 alone.
One reason is that warm air can hold more moisture than cold air. As CO2 warms the atmosphere it holds more water and water is another greenhouse gas (one that absorbs reflected infrared).
Releasing CO2 has a multiplier effect. It's for these second, third and nth order effects that we need professional scientists.
You don't need any science beyond what you were taught in high school to understand the basics.
1. That CO2 absorbs infrared (and heats up) has been known since the C19th.
Energy can neither be created, nor destroyed, just converted from one form (infrared that would have gone into space) to another (heating the atmosphere).
This fact is so old that it comes from a time when people were still debating the atomic model.
Thermodynamics revision: https://www.bbc.com/bitesize/guides/z99jq6f/revision/4
2. When you were in your early teens you were taught the combustion equation in chemistry.
This simple equation tells us how much CO2 is produced when we burn hydrocarbons. For each kg of hydrocarbon burnt we get roughly three kg of CO2.
Combustion equation revision: https://www.bbc.com/bitesize/guides/zfqsv9q/revision/1
3. You were probably taught times tables at school too.
Times tables revision: https://www.bbc.com/bitesize/topics/zqbg87h
4a. Using economic data with facts 2 and 3 we can calculate the amount of CO2 we've added.
Homework: calculate the amount of CO2 we've added.
4b. In both chemistry and physics lessons you were also taught about isotopes.
Isotopes allow us to double check our answer from 4a. We can check the isotopic fingerprint of the CO2 in the atmosphere.
This extra CO2 was from fossil fuels.
Isotope revision: https://www.bbc.com/bitesize/guides/z964y4j/revision/2
----------------------------------------------------------------
Revision flash card:
Burning stuff releases CO2.
CO2 heats the planet.
We've added a lot of CO2.
Burning stuff releases CO2.
CO2 heats the planet.
We've added a lot of CO2.
None of this is controversial. It is easily understood by anybody with a periodic table, a basic education and a calculator.
We know how much CO2 we've released and we know that it causes warming.
You don't need to be a scientist. You just need O-level chemistry.
I'm not relying on the authority of climate scientists here, or relying on complicated equations.
This is literally kids' stuff, from first principles, stuff that we need to agree upon first.
To deny basic scientific facts makes people sound like flat earthers, or those crazy Americans who believe the world is a few thousand years old. Let's not do that.
Soooo BTIW2 - If this is all so obvious (and it is - to anybody who isn't being wilfully moronic) then why do we even need scientists?
Scientists are not needed to study this simple effect; they're needed to study the other consequences[1].
Note - I'm not saying anything about taxes or which countries are to blame or even whether this warming is a bad thing.
Carbon dioxide doesn't care about politics, tax systems, or even human life. It's a molecule, and molecules don't give a fig.
I'm all for scepticism, but if you're sceptical of the periodic table and the electromagnetic spectrum - then that's not scepticism, that's just gormless.
[1] e.g. We already know that we're seeing warming in excess of the amount that can be explained by CO2 alone.
One reason is that warm air can hold more moisture than cold air. As CO2 warms the atmosphere it holds more water and water is another greenhouse gas (one that absorbs reflected infrared).
Releasing CO2 has a multiplier effect. It's for these second, third and nth order effects that we need professional scientists.
J
joinerjohn1
Guest
Looking at the nice graph you supplied with that post, you can also see that around 350,000 yrs ago the ppm of CO2 rose at roughly the same rate as modern times, and again about 275,000 yrs ago. Could you explain these rises please ?
peter palmer
Screwfix Select
Yea Einstein, according to your graph Co2 has fluctuated all over then show for the last 800,000 years, something made it do it and it certainly wasn't man made, its high at the present time if your graph is in any way accurate but why so different this time, why is it man made this time round and why isn't it more severe than before we were industrialised? After all 800,000 years ago we had warm, then we had an ice age and then it all melted again and got hot enough to grow grapes in Newcastle. Its supposedly far worse this time round but all we get is a bit of wind and rain.
btiw2
Screwfix Select
Of course JJ.
Here's the raw data: https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/vostok.icecore.co2
The rate of change is illusory because of the scale of the x axis. If we look at the raw data we see that the largest rate of change was about 0.1 ppm per decade.
We're seeing more than 100 times that now.
Hope that helps.
btiw2
Screwfix Select
Yes. Carbon dioxide doesn't have to be man made. It's a simple molecule.
It's man made this time around because man is making it. I don't know how else to explain it without sounding even more patronising.
J
joinerjohn1
Guest
The axis of both x and y seem to be evenly spaced out both in years and ppm of CO2, so I'd rethink the illusory bit. The approximate years I refer to both show a steep change, comparable with today's changes. I'd just like some sort of explanation for the comparable rises ( which could not be man made)