Let's nuke climate change!

@sonhouse said
Yet another lunatic fringe posing as science.
I found this link where this dude looked closely at 'bioBS site'

http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/2012/10/nasif-s-nahle-google-scholar-and.html

Metal sure can pick em. ANY post is viable if it agrees with his take on science.

Attacking the source with another fringe site falsely posing as a higher authority shows nothing. Facts are what matter, not assertions from a hit link.

Attacking the source while ignoring facts is a pathetic tactic. It shows intellectual laziness on your part. It is also cowardly because it is an attempt to run away from a true debate.

@metal-brain said
You are claiming it is flawed so you prove it.

To explain how it is flawed, you have to first need to learn real physics rather than that gibberish, which you are clearly incapable of doing. Any real physicist that reads that gibberish will tell you its all nonsense. You must be desperate to resort to using that.

@humy said
To explain how it is flawed, you have to first need to learn real physics rather than that gibberish, which you are clearly incapable of doing. Any real physicist that reads that gibberish will tell you its all nonsense. You must be desperate to resort to using that.

That is clearly your psychological projection. Explain your assertion. Your failure to prove me wrong tortures you, That is evident.

@metal-brain said
http://www.biocab.org/Overlapping_Absorption_Bands.pdf

Ok. So this guy is overturning 200 years of established science with an unpublished draft? Why should we trust that data over Fourier and countless others? People already forget that this CO2 business is supported by centuries of solid data collected by world famous scientists?

Fear of nuclear power is clearly misplaced, as we've demonstrated over and over again on this thread. There's zero evidence that Fukushima caused any harm outside of a narrow radius, but people love talking about how they found radiation elsewhere as if it's not everywhere to begin with.

Meanwhile, there is evidence (albeit open to some interpretation, I'll admit) that CO2 is something to be feared. It seems very likely that it is changing our planet in meaningful ways. It's making it hotter and harder for us to live in. It's not an existential threat on its own, but it is something we can and should fix. Building nuclear recycling plants is a great way to start.

@metal-brain said
http://www.biocab.org/Overlapping_Absorption_Bands.pdf

I had a look at their site. The first thing I noticed is that there is no indication that any of them have any qualifications. The guy describes himself as a professor, but that is an academic post and not a qualification. The paper is badly written, there's a form to writing these things which you can see an example of here [1], note this is Ed Witten on particle physics - I'm not expecting you to read it, just note that this is what a paper should look like.

Regarding the actual content, he's relying on a book [2] which I assume is authoritative, but it is really unclear whether he's applied the equations he's snatched from it correctly.

Now let us proceed to calculate the magnitude of the overlapped radiative emissionbands of the water vapor and the carbon dioxide. To do this, we apply the following formula:

With no indication of where the formula comes from and why it is relevant, not even a page number. He then writes this conclusion:

The emissivity of the water vapor decreased by 0.0872 units.

He really ought to have been able to work out the units, or better still quote them as a percentage. Atmospheric physics isn't my thing, but the calculation is for conditions at 1m height and the conclusion might be different at 50,000ft. It is not obvious why this calculation is relevant. The people who produce global climate models take some care in including effects and might be expected to have thought of this particular effect anyway. There is no indication in the paper that he's investigated their absence. I don't regard this paper as being evidence.

[1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.03363.pdf
[2] Modest, Michael F.; Radiative Heat Transfer; Second Edition 2003. Elsevier Science, USA and Academic Press, UK.

@wildgrass said
Ok. So this guy is overturning 200 years of established science with an unpublished draft? Why should we trust that data over Fourier and countless others? People already forget that this CO2 business is supported by centuries of solid data collected by world famous scientists?

Fear of nuclear power is clearly misplaced, as we've demonstrated over and over again on this ...[text shortened]... ut it is something we can and should fix. Building nuclear recycling plants is a great way to start.

What year is that publication? It didn't come after the GW theory propaganda did it? Al Gore got his cause and effect backwards. You seem to forget the whole movement was built on a lie. Why do you trust the proven liars? It is illogical to defend liars instead of those that tell the truth.

YouTube

CO2 increase is the best thing that ever happened to this planet. You have been dismissing the upside of CO2 increase in an illogical way. Freeman Dyson pointed out that cement production increases CO2 as well. Do you have a problem with production of hydrolyzed lime?

Stop calling CO2 a threat. You are repeating mindless propaganda that makes no sense. All of the lies from alarmists and you still believe them after discrediting themselves. It is your religion based on political bias, not science at all. You ignore the science when it is inconvenient.

@deepthought said
I had a look at their site. The first thing I noticed is that there is no indication that any of them have any qualifications. The guy describes himself as a professor, but that is an academic post and not a qualification. The paper is badly written, there's a form to writing these things which you can see an example of here [1], note this is Ed Witten on particle phys ...[text shortened]... Radiative Heat Transfer; Second Edition 2003. Elsevier Science, USA and Academic Press, UK.

I think you posted the wrong link. I don't think we were talking about "JT Gravity and the Ensembles of Random Matrix Theory".

If there is something incorrect in the article point it out. All I am really getting from you is that you don't want to believe it so you are nitpicking at things like you not knowing what their qualifications are. It isn't my fault you don't know. If you find something that is contradicted by another subsequent article I am willing to look at it, but your nitpicking at trivial stuff while avoiding facts doesn't impress me.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature08769

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0442(2004)017%3C0238%3AAMOTPC%3E2.0.CO%3B2

https://www.amazon.com/Slaying-Sky-Dragon-Greenhouse-ebook/dp/B004DNWJN6

@metal-brain said

If there is something incorrect in the article point it out.

We already have.

@humy said
We already have.

No, you didn't. Everything you mentioned was non specific and irrelevant. Facts are relevant.

@metal-brain said
What year is that publication? It didn't come after the GW theory propaganda did it? Al Gore got his cause and effect backwards. You seem to forget the whole movement was built on a lie. Why do you trust the proven liars? It is illogical to defend liars instead of those that tell the truth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQHhDxRuTkI

CO2 increase is the best thing t ...[text shortened]... eligion based on political bias, not science at all. You ignore the science when it is inconvenient.

I pointed out work done by the USDA showing increase in CO2 negatively effects the nutrient levels of rice. This is not a good thing. The more CO2, the less nutrients in rice, a staple for hundreds of millions of people.

@metal-brain said
What year is that publication? It didn't come after the GW theory propaganda did it? Al Gore got his cause and effect backwards. You seem to forget the whole movement was built on a lie. Why do you trust the proven liars? It is illogical to defend liars instead of those that tell the truth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQHhDxRuTkI

CO2 increase is the best thing t ...[text shortened]... eligion based on political bias, not science at all. You ignore the science when it is inconvenient.

Al Gore might be a convenient villain but he's far from an authority on anything non-political. He was just taking what the scientists were telling him ("If we reduce CO2 emissions we might just be able to slow down this climate change business, according to our sophisticated experimental and computational models."😉 and turning it into digestible sound bites. Of course there's a lot lost in translation. Just don't listen to him.

Yes I have a problem with the current practice of cement production. This kind of stuff isn't hard or expensive to fix. Lots of new studies are emerging that show small changes make a big difference. Ignoring 200 years of research in favor of a professor with poor writing skills who is measuring emissivity in "Units" without relevant context (i.e. what that means) seems wildly off base.

I have no political bias. I'm just interested in solutions. Recycling nuclear waste is practical, efficient, low cost (the fuel is literally free), and will be zero emissions once the facilities are built. The risk of meltdown is close to zero. I'll vote for the public servant who can pull the permits to make that happen.

@metal-brain said
No, you didn't. Everything you mentioned was non specific and irrelevant. Facts are relevant.

The fact I mentioned that what is written in that link is gibberish is a specific relevant fact.

@sonhouse said
I pointed out work done by the USDA showing increase in CO2 negatively effects the nutrient levels of rice. This is not a good thing. The more CO2, the less nutrients in rice, a staple for hundreds of millions of people.

That is probably because CO2 causes the plants to grow faster. I seriously doubt it is a direct effect you can blame on CO2.

@wildgrass said
Al Gore might be a convenient villain but he's far from an authority on anything non-political. He was just taking what the scientists were telling him ("If we reduce CO2 emissions we might just be able to slow down this climate change business, according to our sophisticated experimental and computational models."😉 and turning it into digestible sound bites. Of course ther ...[text shortened]... own is close to zero. I'll vote for the public servant who can pull the permits to make that happen.

Global warming is a political issue. Every democrat that got into the debates says global warming is a problem, some even said it was the biggest problem. There was not one exception that I noticed.
You cannot honestly say climate scientists are not biased because of political leanings. Every person debating me on this issue is a leftist including yourself. That is not a mere coincidence.
If Al Gore was taking what the scientists told him they were incompetent scientists. I don't buy that at all though. He is still pushing his backwards cause and effect. He has not stopped misleading people. What are the odds nobody set him straight on his big lie? Is the father of the whole movement that ignorant because nobody brought it up? Nonsense, he is a propagandist deliberately misleading people. He is scaring leftists into wanting to be taxed.

It is all about expropriation of wealth. Why else would they lie about hurricanes getting worse because of GW? Why else would they lie about forest fires being because of GW?

Why do you still have faith in liars? Normally lies discredit people, but you give liars a free pass. Alarmists are allowed to make mistakes, not skeptics. It is a double standard based on faith and nothing else. No matter how wrong alarmist get it they are still right in their own minds.

@humy said
The fact I mentioned that what is written in that link is gibberish is a specific relevant fact.

Gibberish. Yeah, that is really specific....moron!