The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: What criteria would be required to refute man-made climate change?  (Read 5077 times)

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4701
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Why has nobody done the experiment? Because there is no career in it. And the consequences would be too awful to contemplate.

A couple of students could muck about for a year, collect their MSc, and kill an entire multigigabuck industry with just one number, to say nothing of destroying the reputations of thousands of ecofascists, green politicians and respected academics at a stroke.

Problem is that there is so much money and reputation invested in The Belief that the greenhouses would be destroyed by Believers, so the experiment would have to be done in secret, which would promote accusations of conspiracy, data manipulation and outright cheating, if not a proper witch hunt  and a few unexplained accidental deaths.

Face it, you wouldn't be happy if you discovered that the government had been lying to you for the last 30 years and spending "green" taxes on subsidising windmill manufacturers, unemployable academics, and expensive summit meetings. You might even vote! 

Imagine what would happen if archaeologists found the body of Jesus in a cave with a rock door. "Joseph of Arimathea? No, mate, his family plot is XXVI. Jesus is in plot XXIV. Has been for years. Miracle? More like a clerical cockup. Anything else I can help you with?"  Now multiply the impact by a factor of 10.

I dare anyone to do the experiment.
 

Offline William McC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 158
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
My whole problem with climate change is that it makes us out to be bigger than we are. The temperature of the planet is not controlled by a little CO2.

The temperature of the planet is controlled by the ice caps. When the ice caps recede billions of BTU's spew into space. When the caps freeze over billions of BTU's are preserved. Since water is heaviest at 40 degrees Fahrenheit most of the ocean is at 40 degrees Fahrenheit. Under the oceans in tropical areas there is 40 degree water.

So the poles act as a thermostat, but so does the entire ocean. Because when the sun comes up over the cool oceans near the equator the surface of the ocean separates from the mass of the ocean quickly, almost creating an oil slick of rather warm almost hot water, on the surface of the ocean that does not mix with the underlying water. That top layer of very warm water acts as a blanket that actually preserves the lower temperature water below at 40 degrees. That is why in the north some of the hottest surface temperatures of water can be found during the months of march, because all of the suns heat is captured and held on the surface of the water.

Plants grow better and faster in CO2 and therefore reproduce more and consume a lot more CO2.

http://www.rockwelder.com/chemicals/ChemistryAndWheels.pdf

http://www.rockwelder.com/chemicals/Water.pdf

http://www.rockwelder.com/weather/Weather.pdf

Sincerely,

William McCormick
« Last Edit: 20/09/2016 04:57:15 by William McC »
 

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 242
  • Thanked: 10 times
    • View Profile
I would say collect the data first. Don't even worry about publication until you have the CO2 and control data sets. The analysis would be very interesting. Once you have the data you could publish the raw data and initial conclusions here.

If he did it and published the results here he would not be allowed to publish it anywhere else. Thus it would vanish into oblivion.

But, if he did that would you thne change your opinion in any way?
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums