A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

What do conservative policy intellectuals think about climate change?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old April 7th 15, 08:08 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Sam Wormley[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,966
Default What do conservative policy intellectuals think about climatechange?

On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 6:45:13 PM UTC+1, Sam Wormley wrote:

It is the cooling that is reduced by greenhouse gasses.
http://edu-observatory.org/olli/Climate/Week1.html

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the
atmosphere cause a "greenhouse effect" which affects the planet's
temperature. These scientists were interested chiefly in the
possibility that a lower level of carbon dioxide gas might
explain the ice ages of the distant past. At the turn of the
century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that emissions from human
industry might someday bring a global warming. Other scientists
dismissed his idea as faulty.

In 1938, G.S. Callendar argued that the level of carbon dioxide
was climbing and raising global temperature, but most scientists
found his arguments implausible. It was almost by chance that a
few researchers in the 1950s discovered that global warming truly
was possible.

In the early 1960s, C.D. Keeling measured the level of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphe it was rising fast. Researchers began
to take an interest, struggling to understand how the level of
carbon dioxide had changed in the past, and how the level was
influenced by chemical and biological forces. They found that the
gas plays a crucial role in climate change, so that the rising
level could gravely affect our future. (This essay covers only
developments relating directly to carbon dioxide, with a separate
essay for Other Greenhouse Gases.

The History of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide on Earth
http://www.planetforlife.com/co2history/index.html


On 4/7/15 12:59 PM, oriel36 wrote:

Every era has a chance to make its presence felt for future
generations and the recovery of astronomy falls on our generation at
this juncture where even the planet's daily temperature fluctuation
comes into play in the most fundamental way in response to a single
rotation each 24 hours.

You insist the proportion of rotations to an orbital cycle is 366 1/4
rotations to 1 and contrary to every known experience of a rotation
each 24 hours and extended on to February 29th which draws attention
to the parent observation which determines the fractional proportion
as 365 1/4 rotations to 1 orbital cycle.

I am a supporter of funding even though I don't require it myself but
for genuine researchers who see the big picture inherent in undoing
the damage created by the 'scientific method' . The Earth is not a
greenhouse and it warms and cools in two ways over the course of a
annual circuit corresponding to two separate surface rotations to the
central Sun. This is the foundation of planetary climate, period !.


Jerald, you are not mentally able to stay on subject.
Bye



  #12  
Old April 7th 15, 09:24 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
oriel36[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,478
Default What do conservative policy intellectuals think about climate change?

On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 8:08:16 PM UTC+1, Sam Wormley wrote:
On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 6:45:13 PM UTC+1, Sam Wormley wrote:

It is the cooling that is reduced by greenhouse gasses.
http://edu-observatory.org/olli/Climate/Week1.html

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the
atmosphere cause a "greenhouse effect" which affects the planet's
temperature. These scientists were interested chiefly in the
possibility that a lower level of carbon dioxide gas might
explain the ice ages of the distant past. At the turn of the
century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that emissions from human
industry might someday bring a global warming. Other scientists
dismissed his idea as faulty.

In 1938, G.S. Callendar argued that the level of carbon dioxide
was climbing and raising global temperature, but most scientists
found his arguments implausible. It was almost by chance that a
few researchers in the 1950s discovered that global warming truly
was possible.

In the early 1960s, C.D. Keeling measured the level of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphe it was rising fast. Researchers began
to take an interest, struggling to understand how the level of
carbon dioxide had changed in the past, and how the level was
influenced by chemical and biological forces. They found that the
gas plays a crucial role in climate change, so that the rising
level could gravely affect our future. (This essay covers only
developments relating directly to carbon dioxide, with a separate
essay for Other Greenhouse Gases.

The History of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide on Earth
http://www.planetforlife.com/co2history/index.html


On 4/7/15 12:59 PM, oriel36 wrote:

Every era has a chance to make its presence felt for future
generations and the recovery of astronomy falls on our generation at
this juncture where even the planet's daily temperature fluctuation
comes into play in the most fundamental way in response to a single
rotation each 24 hours.

You insist the proportion of rotations to an orbital cycle is 366 1/4
rotations to 1 and contrary to every known experience of a rotation
each 24 hours and extended on to February 29th which draws attention
to the parent observation which determines the fractional proportion
as 365 1/4 rotations to 1 orbital cycle.

I am a supporter of funding even though I don't require it myself but
for genuine researchers who see the big picture inherent in undoing
the damage created by the 'scientific method' . The Earth is not a
greenhouse and it warms and cools in two ways over the course of a
annual circuit corresponding to two separate surface rotations to the
central Sun. This is the foundation of planetary climate, period !.


Jerald, you are not mentally able to stay on subject.
Bye


The subject is how a civilization assigns the wrong proportion of rotations per orbital cycle based on trying to model planetary dynamics using timekeeping averages including the calendar framework.

People who argue against 'global warming/climate change' are far worse than those who have convictions that the Earth is a static greenhouse and ignore the fact that the planet warms and cools each day as different locations turn towards and away from the central Sun.

Here is the most stupid conviction ever to enter the human mind by way of astronomy and one you all share here -

http://www.clarkfoundation.org/astro.../Extraday.html

When you lose the ability to interpret a basic temperature graph and eventually put the extra rotation at the end of the 4th cycle of 365 rotations then forget 'climate change', this is about human intellectual survival.

Tell your family and friends, sing it out from every classroom and observatory - the Earth turns once each 24 hours and every day. Then you will be back in a sane world where creation is loved once more instead of a doom laden junkyard of you miserable people.





  #13  
Old April 7th 15, 09:59 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,018
Default What do conservative policy intellectuals think about climate change?

On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 5:54:20 AM UTC-6, wrote:

(Hint, your two Chevy Volts don't count.)


How do you know he doesn't live in an area where the electricity comes from a
nuclear power plant or a hydroelectric dam?

John Savard
  #14  
Old April 7th 15, 10:03 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,018
Default What do conservative policy intellectuals think about climate change?

On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 11:45:13 AM UTC-6, Sam Wormley wrote:
At the turn of the
century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that emissions from human
industry might someday bring a global warming. Other scientists
dismissed his idea as faulty.


Well, there you are then. Panspermia has been discredited, so *obviously* global
warming must be a crackpot idea too. Or at least this kind of "logic" will be
attempted.

John Savard
  #15  
Old April 8th 15, 12:25 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Uncarollo2
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 803
Default What do conservative policy intellectuals think about climate change?

On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 3:59:57 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 5:54:20 AM UTC-6, wrote:

(Hint, your two Chevy Volts don't count.)


How do you know he doesn't live in an area where the electricity comes from a
nuclear power plant or a hydroelectric dam?

John Savard


I get my power guaranteed from Byron nuclear plant as well as local wind turbines. People in this area get to choose. The Byron plant is very reliable, has been running for more than 30 years. I have friends that work there. I wish they would build more, with latest technology of course. Right now NatGas plants are cheaper to build and run, which is unfortunate, but economics rules.
  #16  
Old April 8th 15, 04:48 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
RichA[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 553
Default What do conservative policy intellectuals think about climate change?

On Monday, April 6, 2015 at 12:19:31 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:
Take a look:

http://grist.org/politics/what-do-co...limate-change/

The interesting thing is that the insurance industry cannot afford to deny climate change.


Tiresome. Things cost more, insurance is required to cover more than decades ago, they can't get out of things like before.. Also, population densities are much higher in areas prone to problems. That is all that is driving increased insurance costs, and NOT global warming.
  #17  
Old April 8th 15, 10:31 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,472
Default What do conservative policy intellectuals think about climate change?

On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 7:25:53 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:
On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 3:59:57 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 5:54:20 AM UTC-6, wrote:

(Hint, your two Chevy Volts don't count.)


How do you know he doesn't live in an area where the electricity comes from a
nuclear power plant or a hydroelectric dam?

John Savard


I get my power guaranteed from Byron nuclear plant as well as local wind turbines.


Your power comes from the grid, which is largely powered by fossil fuels regardless of whatever "guarantee" your utility company is claiming.

Right now NatGas plants are cheaper to build and run, which is unfortunate, but economics rules.


Those nat gas plants are backing up the windmills that you seem to be claiming for yourself.
  #18  
Old April 8th 15, 10:49 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,472
Default What do conservative policy intellectuals think about climate change?

On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 4:59:57 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 5:54:20 AM UTC-6, wsne... wrote:

(Hint, your two Chevy Volts don't count.)


How do you know he doesn't live in an area where the electricity comes from a
nuclear power plant or a hydroelectric dam?


A large portion of the energy on the grid is still generated by fossil fuels and will continue to be almost indefinitely.

Any electricity he uses for his plugin cars is electricity unavailable for others to use. The utility companies must burn fossil fuels to make up for that.

His plugin cars are not carbon free. There is embedded carbon in their construction and maintenance, and in the power plants/windmills that power them, and in the roads and other infrastructure that they use.

The money he uses to buy the plugin cars came from an economy that is still dependent on fossil fuels, and if one has enough money to afford a plugin car, and to pay some premium for "green" electricity, then that additional income represents unnecessary carbon emissions that occurred elsewhere.

Using a plugin car as atonement for flying around in jets is a bit like a dieter adding a low-cal salad to her high-cal meal and still expecting to lose weight.






  #19  
Old April 8th 15, 11:15 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Mike Collins[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,824
Default What do conservative policy intellectuals think about climate change?

wrote:
On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 4:59:57 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 5:54:20 AM UTC-6, wsne... wrote:

(Hint, your two Chevy Volts don't count.)


How do you know he doesn't live in an area where the electricity comes from a
nuclear power plant or a hydroelectric dam?


A large portion of the energy on the grid is still generated by fossil
fuels and will continue to be almost indefinitely.

Any electricity he uses for his plugin cars is electricity unavailable
for others to use. The utility companies must burn fossil fuels to make up for that.

His plugin cars are not carbon free. There is embedded carbon in their
construction and maintenance, and in the power plants/windmills that
power them, and in the roads and other infrastructure that they use.

The money he uses to buy the plugin cars came from an economy that is
still dependent on fossil fuels, and if one has enough money to afford a
plugin car, and to pay some premium for "green" electricity, then that
additional income represents unnecessary carbon emissions that occurred elsewhere.

Using a plugin car as atonement for flying around in jets is a bit like a
dieter adding a low-cal salad to her high-cal meal and still expecting to lose weight.


75% of french electricity is nuclear. There no reason why other countries
can't achieve the same.
  #20  
Old April 8th 15, 11:53 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,472
Default What do conservative policy intellectuals think about climate change?

On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 6:16:10 AM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
wsnell01 wrote:


Using a plugin car as atonement for flying around in jets is a bit like a
dieter adding a low-cal salad to her high-cal meal and still expecting to lose weight.


75% of french electricity is nuclear. There no reason why other countries
can't achieve the same.


France, with less than 1% of the World's population, consumes more than 9% of the World's uranium.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Climate change will change thing, not for the better Uncarollo2 Amateur Astronomy 89 May 8th 14 03:04 PM
Koch funded climate scientist reverses thinking - climate change IS REAL! Uncarollo2 Amateur Astronomy 21 August 8th 12 10:43 PM
Conservative Change Foul Weather Patriot Astronomy Misc 1 September 9th 08 03:59 PM
- IDA policy Change RMOLLISE Amateur Astronomy 0 April 1st 06 05:40 PM
- IDA policy Change Matthew Ota Amateur Astronomy 0 April 1st 06 05:39 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.