Anti pollution masks - waste of money?

[kwackers]

nothing has been done to see what happens when you mix and match the CO2 with other gases or indeed water vapour the no1 greenhouse gas. so the experiment has not been repeated using modern standards

Not only has the experiment been repeated using atmospheric mixes but all the computer modelling is done based on an atmospheric mix.
That particular experiment was intended to demonstrate why CO2 is a greenhouse gas, not as the be all and end all of proof of global warming.

Don't get me wrong. I appreciate the internet trumps science every time. Hence why we know the earth is flat and the moon landings MUST have been falsified. Global warming is a con, bicycles are more polluting than cars, Donald Trump ordered the assassination of Kennedy and the Wombles are just petty thieves.

Mass extinctions are moderately common in the earths history, up to now the evidence shows they were all caused by atmospheric effects. The sixth will be no different. Just a shame it has to be brought on by greed and supported by idiots.

P.S. There's no evidence that "siberian geothermal activity killed off 97% or so of life on the planet a few million years back".
For a start there hasn't been a mass extinction since the dinosaurs which killed about 75% 65 million years ago, so a "few million" is wildly off the mark.
The extinction event you're probably talking about is the Permian-Triassic which was 250 million years ago. There are many theories about this but nothing is "known".

[Vorpal]

so in short the science is based on comparing the temperature of a jar of pure CO2 and a jar of normal air when exposed to sunlight. so when the atmosphere is pure CO2 we are indeed in trouble.

nothing has been done to see what happens when you mix and match the CO2 with other gases or indeed water vapour the no1 greenhouse gas. so the experiment has not been repeated using modern standards just taken as a given that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. when it became a pollutant I can't say but lumping it in with sulphur dioxide to sound sinister probably has a lot to do with it. Thatcher became a sceptic when she looked at the science behind AGW even though she used the same arguaments to kill off coal a few years earlier.

AGW science only focused on warming and not cooling which is just as important. but leaving the solar variance out of the studies was just sheer stupidity.

nor are they taking into account that science since the 70s has shown that CO2 lags behind temperature changes by around 800 years, CO2 is driven by climate it is not a driver.

so the stuff I studied in the 80s based on science since the 50s that we are going back into the ice age we never left only paused 11,000 years ago still holds true. and the recent proof that that ice age might have been paused by a series of massive meteor impacts is rather worrying. as is the fact that during the last ice age siberia was not frozen under miles of ice sheet only antarartica, europe and north america. whether this is down to the geothermal history of siberia is unknown, but it is known that siberian geothermal activity killed off 97% or so of life on the planet a few million years back.

Actually, they have done lots of experiements with different gases and made computer models from the results, then comparing it to what is actually happening in our atmosphere. They then make further improvements on the computer models. They've been doing this for 40 years, so I think they have a pretty good idea by now the impact of various green house gases on our atmosphere and global temperatures.
Secondly, they use the spectrum of radiation to measure what atmospheric contents are reflecting back radiation. High resolution FTIR spectroscopy*, allows us to find the wavelengths of long-wave (infrared) radiation reaching the ground. This can be compared to the spectrums of various gases and other contents measured in the laboratory.
Scientists have been using verious methods for a long time to measure radiation in order to better understand the influence of atmospheric CO2 on both incoming solar energy and outgoing long-wave radiation. Less longwave radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases. Increased longwave radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths.

There is no 'proof' that the ice age was caused by meteor strikes. It is a theory that has some feet. Similarly, even the scientists who have provided the most recent evidence that vulcanism in Siberia contributed to the great die-off 250 million years ago, suggest that more study is needed** to detemine if the gasses released by volcanic activity could have been responsible.

edited to add: cross-posted with kwackers, so maybe a waste of time

* https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=35
** https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 132746.htm also http://news.mit.edu/2013/permian-acid-r ... ion-112513

[crazydave789]

you state there have been experiments but a computer model is not an experiment when it is 95% inaccurate.


https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/88 ... -indonesia

yes I know its the express, but it has nothing to do with niburu causing princess dianas death.

so we now have NASA claiming that the Bali volcano will stop global warming for 5 years. convenient that is considering it stopped in 1998. but it fails to match the IPCC scientific view that the increased CO2 it is producing means they have to claim that warming will continue while the ash cloud and SO2 will block solar radiation causing cooling. every year it gets colder and every year we are told it has broken all climate records when the evidence is to the contrary. the IPCC makes no allowance for anything else it has to be blamed on CO2 and man made CO2 at that. Nothing else will do it is in the IPCC mission statement.

the problem was never the IPCC reports, the leaked pre doctored copies show that there was never a problem with the original data sets, the problem is the politically written summary for policy makers which contradicts the data so badly they have to rewrite the reports to fit the summary. science is now based on those flawed data sets so billions is being wasted desperately searching for a tropospheric hot spot that will never come.

the clue is in the title intergovernmental panel on climate change - it is not a global scientific panel on climate change. 35000 accredited PHDs in climate science petitioned against an inconvenient truth. the IPCC relies on less than 250 phds and a handfull of friends of the earth pamphlets to tell the developed world that it wants to charge them 3 trillion a year in extra taxes because they cannot think of another way of wealth redistrubution. the science is far from settled despite the constant ever desperate daily press on the subject trying to counter the bleeding obvious going on outside the window. you cannot claim to predict the future based on incomplete and biased data. the climate is chaos theory writ large with thousands of inputs that never get factored into the climate models I used to run a climate model using one of those process sharing programs that uses millions of PCs to simulate a super computer similar tot he SETI program. I ran it for years on a spare machine and produced around 80gb of program data. it's aim was to forecast global temps for 2050, Casino 21 I think it was called. Casino being the right word for it. still it was fun to watch.

http://www.phase-trans.msm.cam.ac.uk/20 ... sics01.ppt a nice scary pile of propaganda.

I watched a channel 4 documentary a while back about the earths natural history (something hosted by baldrick) and every episode had to claim that CO2 caused massive global warming killing everything off when that just has not been proven. just like every business announcement from the BBC bases everything on Brexit or 16 years ago when every news broadcast seemed to start with 'since the events of september 11' the constant cries of wolf are turning the tide against the push for global govt and they don't like it, just like they didn't like the brexit or trump votes - how dare the public have a different opinion. even worse once it has been shown the sky will not fall in ever more are going against the group think political grain.

the constant virtue signalling from the so called greens who are destroying everything they touch is laughable - they get an idea into their heads that works on a small scale like biofuels or renewables then go mental on it causing massive environmental damage. if they were serious then the intergovernmental green conferences would be on skype, not some resource poor sunny island in the pacific sinking under the weight of tourists and delegates after some free sunshine and snorkelling- not rising seas - NASA has destroyed that myth years ago.

Al Gore claimed Hurricane Katrina was just the start of it despite evidence to the contrary and it being the quietest decade for a hundred years, again this year claims of endless CO2 powered destruction that never happened. Every single weather event is blamed on global warming and the message is failing. They have to switch that message to pollution and soon,the earth needs cleaning up but it can't be taxed so will end up costing someone. that 300bn of climate model money could have built fleets of ships to sift the oceans and set up nursery zones to replenish damaged stocks.

man has no effect on climate and will never control it, we can only adapt to it and that is the way to go as it is far far cheaper to do. two trillion wasted so far paying for bad science, something silly like 300bn just for failed modelling. Lovelock had it right with his Gaia theory and daisy world, the earth is self regulating and man needs to stop tinkering with it. eventually it will decide to kill off 4 bn of us and we can settle back down again. of course the UN wants to see the global population down to 1bn but that's another story.

one ongoing theory is that the deep ocean currents are powered by gravitational shifts - not salinity claimed by others, they know the moon has a massive effect on how the earths climate is controlled and balanced and taking it further out many of the oscillation patterns match the earths axis wobbles and positions of the other planets in the solar system as planets line up and combine their gravities - for good reason the planetary alignments signalled possible disasters. but so as long as we keep going round the sun and the sun keeps going around the galaxy then so to will ocean currents. there is no evidence of the NAD switching off but there is an increasing understanding of oceanic decadal oscillations though not the cause or why the atlantic takes 60 years to cycle compared to half that in the pacific. they knew these varying currents effected polar ice thickness and weather patterns yet were still happy to blame it on man made CO2 as nature allowed them to push a false agenda, now they admit that there is a geothermal hotspot under the antarctic melting the ice while the antarctic itself has never been colder.

The biggest threat to mankind and nature is from space. a fraction of the money wasted on faux science could and should have set up a permanent near earth object detection system as we are long overdue a big hit. At least the models they are using to track the space wanderers are reasonably accurate. but those are around 0.5% of what is out there.

but back to the OP - I wouldn't bother with a mask except when it is cold, it is quite easy to burn your lungs in the subzero air if you are gasping.

[kwackers]

you state there have been experiments but a computer model is not an experiment when it is 95% inaccurate.

Wrong.

The current models correctly predict the current state based on past variables. In that respect they're very accurate.
Predicting the future requires us to get more accurate measurements of a host of things some of which we've only recently started obtaining and increasing the amount of processing power available to allow more fine grained calculations.

We of course can't say with absolute certainty how eco systems will respond and so the predictions come with caveats. But that's not inaccuracy, it's simply a known limitation which is tied to the prediction. Likewise we can't know how people are going to respond or what technologies might come along.

But current computer models can take 'old' data and create the current world. That's the minimum requirement for any computer model so in that respect they're pretty accurate.
If you want to simply argue that they can't guarantee what the future holds then knock yourself out. But they can answer a lot of 'what if' questions and thus give us pretty good guidelines.

Not that any of this really matters.
It's simple really, changing societies from wasteful, high energy use to recycling, low energy use benefits us all regardless of whether you have faith in scientists or the internet.

(I haven't bothered reading the rest of your diatribe. I learned a long time ago to stop at the first piece of nonsense.)