Lore wrote:It's just that Palin's understanding of climate changes verges on the idiotic as compared to Bill Nye.
Satori wrote:hmmm
a degree in journalism vs a degree in engineering ???
oh wait
Palin was 1/2 governor of Alaska
that should count for something
seriously though
Grandma Palin should be home baby sitting her kids illegitimate children
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Tanada wrote:Satori wrote:hmmm
a degree in journalism vs a degree in engineering ???
oh wait
Palin was 1/2 governor of Alaska
that should count for something
seriously though
Grandma Palin should be home baby sitting her kids illegitimate children
You entirely miss my point. Neither of them are scientists or climate researchers, therefore everything they say on the subject is something they were told by someone else that they are just repeating. Because Sarah Palin says things you disagree with and Bill Nye says things you agree with has no baring on the fact that both of them are just parroting someone else.
There are a handful of climate scientists who disagree with AGW and a large number who agree, to have an honest discussion the people doing the interviews would have invited actual climate scientists on both sides of the issue to explain their positions and why they believe they have drawn the correct conclusions.
Instead they selected two well known non-scientists to represent the two sides, allowing each of them to rely on rhetoric and clever word play rather than actual studies and verifiable science done by themselves.
pstarr wrote:IMHO both sides are ginning up the actual science to further their own agendas/cause.
For instance the dailykos/climateprogress article on big oil lies is disingenuous (big word for lying lol). It wants to claim the oil companies new their work was heating the planet. But that is BS.
The 50-year old claim (in the old oil company advertisement) refers to waste heat (a byproduct of fossil-fuel combustion) melting glaziers. But waste heat barely contributes to greenhouse warming. Otherwise temperatures would have risen faster during a period of lower thermal efficiency (early in the industrial age, when more waste heat generated) than in decades when thermal efficiency has increased energy-use efficiency and reduced waste heat.
vtsnowedin wrote:pstarr wrote:IMHO both sides are ginning up the actual science to further their own agendas/cause.
For instance the dailykos/climateprogress article on big oil lies is disingenuous (big word for lying lol). It wants to claim the oil companies new their work was heating the planet. But that is BS.
The 50-year old claim (in the old oil company advertisement) refers to waste heat (a byproduct of fossil-fuel combustion) melting glaziers. But waste heat barely contributes to greenhouse warming. Otherwise temperatures would have risen faster during a period of lower thermal efficiency (early in the industrial age, when more waste heat generated) than in decades when thermal efficiency has increased energy-use efficiency and reduced waste heat.
How could the waste heat from burning 85 million barrels of oil a day and the equivalent of 78mbd of coal plus 58mbd of natural gas not be a contributing factor. All three waste from 33 to 67 percent of their energy as heat out the exhaust stack or radiator. That is a lot of hot air and double what we were releasing back in 1975. The mass of the atmosphere is known so it would not be hard to do the math. That heat may not be the primary cause of global warming but it is certainly a factor or contributor.
Or to look at it another way. CO2 maybe what keeps the waste heat from radiating out into space but the exhaust gasses from burning fossil fuels is the source of the excess heat we need to get rid of.
Is waste heat produced by human activities important for the climate?
No. The sun provides almost 10,000 times as much energy to the Earth’s surface per time unit and unit area, namely 242 Wm-2, as we emit into the atmosphere or waters through industry, transport, housing, agriculture and other activities by using fossil fuels and the nuclear fuel uranium (0.03 Wm-2). The average heat flux of a human body, about 100 Joules per second (i.e. 100 Watts per person) represents only a few percent of the energy flux produced by our power supply systems in industrial countries. The human body’s heat flux is part of the natural energy budget, since the carbon contained in our food would be emitted as carbon dioxide by other creatures if not by ourselves. It is thus negligible. Compared to radiative forcing through greenhouse gas emissions which has already amounted to 3 Wm-2 and is supposed to steadily increase, we do not change global climate significantly through the heat we produce by using fossil fuels and the nuclear fuel uranium.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Tanada wrote:[
BTW when you are talking about burning fossil fuels you can not count just the ejected waste heat that goes up the stack. All of the chemical energy from combustion is released into the environment, we just get useful work out of some of it before it gets released.
What the heck, I went ahead and did a quick google search, here is the statement from the Max Planck Institute, a physics research organization.Is waste heat produced by human activities important for the climate?
No. The sun provides almost 10,000 times as much energy to the Earth’s surface per time unit and unit area, namely 242 Wm-2, as we emit into the atmosphere or waters through industry, transport, housing, agriculture and other activities by using fossil fuels and the nuclear fuel uranium (0.03 Wm-2).
vtsnowedin wrote:Tanada wrote:[
BTW when you are talking about burning fossil fuels you can not count just the ejected waste heat that goes up the stack. All of the chemical energy from combustion is released into the environment, we just get useful work out of some of it before it gets released.
Point taken.
What the heck, I went ahead and did a quick google search, here is the statement from the Max Planck Institute, a physics research organization.Is waste heat produced by human activities important for the climate?
No. The sun provides almost 10,000 times as much energy to the Earth’s surface per time unit and unit area, namely 242 Wm-2, as we emit into the atmosphere or waters through industry, transport, housing, agriculture and other activities by using fossil fuels and the nuclear fuel uranium (0.03 Wm-2).
But was not that 10,000 in balance? All of our industrial fossil fuel use is the additional and if CO2 keeps it from escaping it is cumulative year on year. The CO2 may also be disrupting the balance of the original 10,000 units by a factor larger then our direct heat input but I have to think a fire burning 200 million barrels of oil each and every day has to show up somewhere.
Lore wrote:Like the tobacco industry as long as you had them saying there is nothing to worry about it gave smokers an excuse to neglect the evidence. It wasn't till people had the ability to sue on that evidence did the industry begin to change its tune.
Once everyone agrees that a problem does exist and is getting worse day-by-day, then maybe a positive response can be made as to actually doing something about it.
ennui2 wrote:Lore wrote:Like the tobacco industry as long as you had them saying there is nothing to worry about it gave smokers an excuse to neglect the evidence. It wasn't till people had the ability to sue on that evidence did the industry begin to change its tune.
Once everyone agrees that a problem does exist and is getting worse day-by-day, then maybe a positive response can be made as to actually doing something about it.
People have been raising alarm bells about AGW since when? Mid to late 90s at least. At what point did the scientific community reach consensus? Probably some time BEFORE Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth. If Big Oil didn't fuel its denial machine, then, do you think people would really change their behavior? Considering that people still smoke, I don't think some of the coulda-shoulda-woulda logic behind this makes sense.
Within a few short centuries, we are returning to the air a significant part of the carbon that was extracted by plants and buried in the sediments during half a billion years’
‘Through his worldwide industrial civilization, Man is unwittingly conducting a vast geophysical experiment. Within a few generations he is burning the fossil fuels that slowly accumulated in the earth over the past 500 million years’
‘By the year 2000 the increase in CO2 will be close to 25%. This may be sufficient to produce measurable and perhaps marked changes in climate.’
‘The climate changes that may be produced by the increased CO2 content could be deleterious from the point of view of human beings.’
Return to Environment, Weather & Climate
Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 257 guests