Remember me
▼ Content

An alternative theory from a non-scientist


An alternative theory from a non-scientist29-04-2019 10:54
SuperCSG
☆☆☆☆☆
(2)
Forgive me for posting my unsophisticated thoughts on this very serious subject but I have held a less than mainstream view for a good many years and would like someone better educated than myself to enlighten me.

I learned from watching the original Jungle Book movie that man is the only animal to have conquered fire. In the year 1900 there were 1.6bn people on the planet; now we are close to 8bn - a 5x increase.

Everyone of us uses fire to warm our homes, to cook, for transport, to power machinery and pretty well all of our other activities. Every action produces heat; where does it go? Why isn't the most obvious culprit for global warming the setting of fires by an overpopulated, technologically developed world?

Your thoughts would be appreciated.
29-04-2019 11:18
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1507)
It's a very large planet, hardly overpopulated. Most of the planet surface is covered in water, not many burners inhabit the oceans. There really isn't a climate problem, or global warming in reality, it only exist on paper, and on computer screens. The computer simulations, climate models, are really more of a video game, where the climatologists play what-if. CO2 makes up about 0.04% of the atmosphere, 400 ppm. Not a large or significant percentage. Plants grow incredibly well in greenhouses augment with CO2, 1200-2000 ppm. Think this to be more of an indicator of what healthy levels of CO2 are in the environment. Plants provide the food for all life on this planet. I also believe water, and water vapor play a much bigger role in regulating global temperature, than given credit. The hype, and the pressured urgency to act, really smells of a scam, a confidence game. We only have information related to the issue, from the same source selling the concept. Seems to target CO2, and eliminates all else kind of conveniently. Not simply CO2, but only man's contribution. I just don't buy the hype, doesn't feel quite right.
29-04-2019 16:56
SuperCSG
☆☆☆☆☆
(2)
You don't think the planet is overpopulated? You don't live anywhere near me or have travelled as much as I have been lucky to do.

And you don't think the climate is changing? Again, I am not looking at stats, just out of my window each morning. I have been around for long enough to detect a distinct change without the need for anyone else to confirm it.

The point is not whether or not it is happening but why. My, very obvious, observation is worthy of some informed comment, I feel.
29-04-2019 17:20
James___
★★★★☆
(1829)
SuperCSG wrote:
Forgive me for posting my unsophisticated thoughts on this very serious subject but I have held a less than mainstream view for a good many years and would like someone better educated than myself to enlighten me.

I learned from watching the original Jungle Book movie that man is the only animal to have conquered fire. In the year 1900 there were 1.6bn people on the planet; now we are close to 8bn - a 5x increase.

Everyone of us uses fire to warm our homes, to cook, for transport, to power machinery and pretty well all of our other activities. Every action produces heat; where does it go? Why isn't the most obvious culprit for global warming the setting of fires by an overpopulated, technologically developed world?

Your thoughts would be appreciated.



I think that Natural Climate Variation has a lot to do with it. I once posted 2 graphs. I combined the global warming with population growth and they are similar. Other graphs are similar as well. Stratospheric ozone, Greenland Sea abyss warming are 2 other graphs that are also similar.
At the moment I don't think that scientists have properly quantified how mankind influences the amount of heat in our environment.
I think I know what I find odd about how it's currently done. The "Carbon Footprint". Yet roads absorb heat during the day. With asphalt, the temperature around such surfaces can rise by 18º C. and then radiate that heat at night. This is why snakes will be seen on paved roads at night, they're warming themselves. When compared to how much carbon is produced to pave a road, how long does that road last? After the production of CO2 has stopped or does it's effect continue on into the future?
Edited on 29-04-2019 17:25
29-04-2019 18:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10166)
SuperCSG wrote:
Forgive me for posting my unsophisticated thoughts on this very serious subject but I have held a less than mainstream view for a good many years and would like someone better educated than myself to enlighten me.

I learned from watching the original Jungle Book movie that man is the only animal to have conquered fire. In the year 1900 there were 1.6bn people on the planet; now we are close to 8bn - a 5x increase.

Everyone of us uses fire to warm our homes, to cook, for transport, to power machinery and pretty well all of our other activities. Every action produces heat; where does it go? Why isn't the most obvious culprit for global warming the setting of fires by an overpopulated, technologically developed world?

Your thoughts would be appreciated.


Fires simply use the potential energy stored in fuel. The heat from fires radiate into space along with the rest of it.

Our fires are actually a very tiny part of the heat lost to space. Most of what the Earth radiates is from what is absorbed from the Sun. Without the Sun, our puny little fires will not keep us warm. The Earth would be dead within 48 hours.


The Parrot Killer
29-04-2019 18:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10166)
SuperCSG wrote:
You don't think the planet is overpopulated?
No. There are vast stretches of Earth where there is little population at all, and there are enough total resources for everyone. They are just not even distributed.
SuperCSG wrote:
You don't live anywhere near me or have travelled as much as I have been lucky to do.
It sounds like you have traveled only to populated areas. Get out in the country more.
SuperCSG wrote:
And you don't think the climate is changing?
Not English. There is no such thing as global weather, so there is no such thing as global climate. The change itself is undefined. From when to when? Why are those two moments in time important? Why are any other two moments in time not important? The phrase 'climate change' has no meaning. It's a buzzword that can only be defined by itself.
SuperCSG wrote:
Again, I am not looking at stats, just out of my window each morning.
You are looking at weather, not climate. Weather changes from moment to moment.
SuperCSG wrote:
I have been around for long enough to detect a distinct change without the need for anyone else to confirm it.

The thing about observations is that they tend to be the result of certain preconclusions. You hear the climate is changing. You look out the window each day and confirm to yourself the climate is changing. It is a self fulfilling observation. Observations, you see, are subject to the problems of phenomenology. They are not a proof. They are evidence only.

While YOU see a changing climate, others do not. As for me, all I see are variations in seasons. I live in the Pacific Northwest. We've had winters with no snow, and we've had winters with 10 ft of snow on the ground. We've had cold wet Springs, and we've had very dry and hot Springs. There is no progression. These simply occur as random events. No weather station log is noting a change of temperature other than the usual daily and seasonal ones. NOAA is lying to you. So is NASA. It's not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

SuperCSG wrote:
The point is not whether or not it is happening but why. My, very obvious, observation is worthy of some informed comment, I feel.

Your observation is subject to the problems of phenomenology.

Take the simple observation of a sunrise.

To some, it represents a god rising into the sky to light His world.
To some, it represents a vehicle, such as a chariot for said God.
To some, it is a ball of fire, like a very hot coal.
To some, it is a Sun circling a stationary Earth, which is at the center of the Unverse.
To some, it is a stationary Sun that appears to move across the sky because of the Earth's spin.
To some, it is not stationary, and neither is the Earth. Both are moving through space at tremendous speed, and the Sun is a fusion reaction.

Six different observers, six different observations. All from the same event.

Observations are more than just the stimulation of our senses, even if you instruments to augment those senses. They are also an interpretation of what that stimuli means. That interpretation is according to our own personal model of the Universe that we each have. That model is as unique to each of us as fingerprints.

Surely you've seen optical illusions. These are simple examples of the same thing in action.

Interpreting the weather you remember from yesterday is different than today is not due to 'climate change' (which remains undefined). It is due the weather ever changing. It always has. It is also due to what you remember (which is naturally selective).


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 29-04-2019 18:29




Join the debate An alternative theory from a non-scientist:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N221207-12-2019 12:09
Revealing the 160 year systematic error behind greenhouse theory with Raman Spectroscopy2422-09-2019 22:20
The most honest climate scientist among the most dishonest climate scientists203-09-2019 04:38
Theory coming to fruition?1418-05-2019 22:43
Whirlpool theory of ocean deadzones?325-04-2019 05:47
Articles
Theory
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact