Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

donate to eham
   Home   Help Search  
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 17 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Science of Climate Change  (Read 30187 times)
KE6EE
Member

Posts: 1854




Ignore
« on: October 06, 2015, 10:28:24 AM »

I have run across in various forum topics here over the past few years some surprising (to me) perspectives on climate change. Recently I made a comment, intended as humor, about the likelihood of increasing damage from UV to our antenna systems due to climate change. After my comment I put a  Grin. I take this emoticon to mean "it's a joke folks" or something similar.

Shortly thereafter appeared a rather rude reply labeling me as someone of a particular political stripe and, also, as a tree-hugger.

I need to make it clear that I do prefer looking at, and sitting among, trees, compared to doing such things in a parking lot, on an airport runway or even on the sidewalk of a busy downtown financial district in a nearby big city.

I do rub elbows often with trees and shrubs around my house on my own property. There's not really any hugging going on. There's often much snipping, sawing and, yes, hacking as even in the recent several-years drought here in northern California, the vegetation continues its relentless advance towards enveloping my house, my antennas and ultimately my straight key and bug collection.

Now back to my topic. I think it's relevant to ham radio because ham radio is science-based. The widespread acceptance of global climate-change and global warming is also science-based. It's not a political matter.

For those hams who, like me, feel comfortable trying to navigate more than one field of science, the website below is full of useful, high-quality reference material on the science of climate change. Lots of good reading available there.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?a=17

I would also like to say something about my politics. Or, more accurately, what my politics are not. My politics are not reactionary, conservative, libertarian, liberal, neoliberal, progressive, radical or Marxist. They are complex, contain elements which some people might put into any one of these categories but which I could, if I cared to, put into several of them. Maybe.

I like trees and I think being surrounded by more trees is always much better than being surrounded by no trees at all.

My first direct experience of global climate change was 58 years ago as a boy while glacier-climbing in the Canadian Rockies. Many of the older, highly-experienced mountaineers took the time to point out how much the great glaciers had receded in the past couple of decades since they had started their climbing careers. Yes, those days were long before the current scientific consensus on global warming. Skepticism was no doubt warranted then. Not to say that I was skeptical. I certainly was impressed, however, at how much the glaciers had shrunk.

« Last Edit: October 06, 2015, 10:30:59 AM by KE6EE » Logged
K1ZJH
Member

Posts: 3310




Ignore
« Reply #1 on: October 06, 2015, 10:31:40 AM »

Nice troll.  Glad the fish are NOT biting today.
Logged
N0SYA
Member

Posts: 402




Ignore
« Reply #2 on: October 06, 2015, 11:41:18 AM »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFUDEmMjC-c

lol



Logged

If you have a clumsy child, you make them wear a helmet. If you have death prone children, you keep a few clones of them in your lab.
KE6EE
Member

Posts: 1854




Ignore
« Reply #3 on: October 06, 2015, 12:00:30 PM »

Nice troll.  Glad the fish are NOT biting today.

It seems to me like I got a nibble though.  Grin

"Application of the term troll is subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. Like any pejorative term, it can be used as an ad hominem attack, suggesting a negative motivation."

--Wiki
« Last Edit: October 06, 2015, 12:04:00 PM by KE6EE » Logged
AC7CW
Member

Posts: 975




Ignore
« Reply #4 on: October 06, 2015, 01:24:14 PM »

There are several aspects to Climate Change
--Political
--Science
--Anxiety prone people

Politically the only bunch of scientists that are absolutely certain of Global Warming are the ones that work for the UN. The UN would like to use GW as a way to implement a tax. They never are going to change their position no matter the actual facts.

The science has been based on computer models. Only very recently has it been discovered that the Ocean strongly reacts to warming in a fashion to counteract it. Computer models that don't include that are way, way off. Fraud in the science is rampant and has been exposed over and over. Outside of that the science is really good LOL

I've known anxiety prone people that hadn't any capacity for sorting issues out. One woman I knew had some brain lesions caused by Black Mold. She would call me at 5am with anxieties about WiFi causing her hair to fall out. Lots of anxiety prone people get caught up in every scare story imaginable...

GW is a yawner to me for all the above reasons.

Logged

Novice 1958, 20WPM Extra now... (and get off my lawn)
KB4QAA
Member

Posts: 3256




Ignore
« Reply #5 on: October 06, 2015, 01:34:33 PM »

Miss Manners reminds: 

"In polite company don't talk about Sex, Politics, Religion or Global Warming".
Logged
KE6EE
Member

Posts: 1854




Ignore
« Reply #6 on: October 06, 2015, 01:39:06 PM »

Politically the only bunch of scientists that are absolutely certain of Global Warming are the ones that work for the UN.



The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities":

    American Association for the Advancement of Science
    American Astronomical Society
    American Chemical Society
    American Geophysical Union
    American Institute of Physics
    American Meteorological Society
    American Physical Society
    Australian Coral Reef Society
    Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
    Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
    British Antarctic Survey
    Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
    Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
    Environmental Protection Agency
    European Federation of Geologists
    European Geosciences Union
    European Physical Society
    Federation of American Scientists
    Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
    Geological Society of America
    Geological Society of Australia
    International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
    International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
    National Center for Atmospheric Research
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    Royal Meteorological Society
Logged
KE6EE
Member

Posts: 1854




Ignore
« Reply #7 on: October 06, 2015, 01:40:12 PM »

Miss Manners reminds: 
"In polite company don't talk about Sex, Politics, Religion or Global Warming".

I'd agree but possibly this isn't the polite company Miss Manners had in mind.
Logged
DL8OV
Member

Posts: 760




Ignore
« Reply #8 on: October 06, 2015, 01:58:11 PM »

Strange, when I was a boy the list of verboten subjects was sex, politics, religion and the hairy wart on the end of Aunt Martha's nose, but I digress.

I do not deny that global warming exists, the retreating glaciers bear testament to what is going on. What I am puzzled about is that CO2 forms only 0,04% of the atmosphere yet it is supposed to be causing all this trouble AND, we are responsible, rather than the numerous volcanos and millions of cows breaking wind on a regular basis. I remain to be convinced and for now I am keeping my Mea Culpa in reserve.

Peter DL8OV
Logged
KE6EE
Member

Posts: 1854




Ignore
« Reply #9 on: October 06, 2015, 03:17:37 PM »

What I am puzzled about is that CO2 forms only 0,04% of the atmosphere yet it is supposed to be causing all this trouble AND, we are responsible, rather than the numerous volcanos and millions of cows breaking wind on a regular basis.
Peter DL8OV

Yes CO2 is currently but a small fraction of the atmosphere and 100s of millions of years ago during the Carboniferous Era it was still a small fraction. Then it was more than twice the current level.

In those days there was also significantly more oxygen in the atmosphere than now. The world was a much much hotter place completely unsuitable for most modern species of plants and animals. Humans, not a chance.

The world was an extremely hot tropical swamp unlike anything today. Lots of primitive plant life. Lots of decay of these plants which formed the basis for what we now call fossil fuels. Think of how much petroleum there has been and still is to be pumped out of ancient geological strata. That gives you an idea of how much dead material was put down under those conditions.

Even though CO2 is but a small fraction of the atmosphere, it has a powerful effect on heat absorption from solar radiation.
I am sure if you do a search you will find an explanation of the physics of this absorption.

In terms of the relative production of CO2 through natural processes on earth, it's true that human-related production is relatively small. On the other hand there are large natural processes, on land from vegetation as well as volcanoes and in the sea. In those natural processes huge amounts of CO2 are produced, but even larger amounts of CO2 are absorbed. Vegetation absorbs CO2 as does the ocean. Because absorption from natural causes is so high, there has been until now a negative effect on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from natural process.

Man made production of CO2 relatively small, only a few percent of natural production. However man made production (including domestic cow gas) is not compensated by natural absorption, so the effect of man made CO2 is to increase the overall atmospheric level.

It's all about balance, and accurate knowledge of the balance, that underlies current climate change science.

More explanation can be found here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm
« Last Edit: October 06, 2015, 03:21:19 PM by KE6EE » Logged
NJ1K
Member

Posts: 514




Ignore
« Reply #10 on: October 06, 2015, 05:53:02 PM »

Wow, if you believe all that, I imagine it would be very easy for someone to sell you a bridge. 
Logged
KE6EE
Member

Posts: 1854




Ignore
« Reply #11 on: October 06, 2015, 06:07:26 PM »

Wow, if you believe all that, I imagine it would be very easy for someone to sell you a bridge. 

Who me? Believe what? Please be specific!

You might excuse my grammar-school-level introduction to the science of paleogeology.

I think belief comes when we talk about some bearded guy in the sky making the earth in a few days then taking a day off.

Not interested in buying a bridge. Never have been.  Grin
Logged
W8JX
Member

Posts: 12080




Ignore
« Reply #12 on: October 06, 2015, 07:08:56 PM »

Wow, if you believe all that, I imagine it would be very easy for someone to sell you a bridge. 

Who me? Believe what? Please be specific!

You might excuse my grammar-school-level introduction to the science of paleogeology.

I think belief comes when we talk about some bearded guy in the sky making the earth in a few days then taking a day off.

Not interested in buying a bridge. Never have been.  Grin

I would not worry about nj1k. He and ones like him are in total denial and will be to bitter end.
Logged

--------------------------------------
Ham since 1969....  Old School 20wpm REAL Extra Class..
ND6M
Member

Posts: 556




Ignore
« Reply #13 on: October 06, 2015, 07:13:31 PM »

What I am puzzled about is that CO2 forms only 0,04% of the atmosphere yet it is supposed to be causing all this trouble AND, we are responsible, rather than the numerous volcanos and millions of cows breaking wind on a regular basis.
Peter DL8OV

Yes CO2 is currently but a small fraction of the atmosphere and 100s of millions of years ago during the Carboniferous Era it was still a small fraction. Then it was more than twice the current level.

In those days there was also significantly more oxygen in the atmosphere than now. The world was a much much hotter place completely unsuitable for most modern species of plants and animals. Humans, not a chance.

The world was an extremely hot tropical swamp unlike anything today. Lots of primitive plant life. Lots of decay of these plants which formed the basis for what we now call fossil fuels. Think of how much petroleum there has been and still is to be pumped out of ancient geological strata. That gives you an idea of how much dead material was put down under those conditions.

Even though CO2 is but a small fraction of the atmosphere, it has a powerful effect on heat absorption from solar radiation.
I am sure if you do a search you will find an explanation of the physics of this absorption.

In terms of the relative production of CO2 through natural processes on earth, it's true that human-related production is relatively small. On the other hand there are large natural processes, on land from vegetation as well as volcanoes and in the sea. In those natural processes huge amounts of CO2 are produced, but even larger amounts of CO2 are absorbed. Vegetation absorbs CO2 as does the ocean. Because absorption from natural causes is so high, there has been until now a negative effect on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from natural process.

Man made production of CO2 relatively small, only a few percent of natural production. However man made production (including domestic cow gas) is not compensated by natural absorption, so the effect of man made CO2 is to increase the overall atmospheric level.

It's all about balance, and accurate knowledge of the balance, that underlies current climate change science.

More explanation can be found here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

what a circular arguement,.............................. epic failure
Logged
KE6EE
Member

Posts: 1854




Ignore
« Reply #14 on: October 06, 2015, 07:42:33 PM »

what a circular arguement,.............................. epic failure

Please specify exactly why you think what I wrote is a circular argument.

NB: If you cannot spell "argument" correctly I am inclined to doubt that you know what a circular argument is.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 17 Next   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!