but it is 500 degrees hotter than Mercury, so the distance, while a factor, is not enough to raise the temperature to such an incredible level.Kmarion wrote:
It's also 24 million miles closer to the sun.S.Lythberg wrote:
CO2 warms the atmosphere, and offers little in the way of cooling (think Venus, 98% CO2, and 900 degrees)
With the millions of yards of sediment that flow into the ocean each year and every year, why is it not certain that the world's sea-level will continue to rise indefinitely?
subduction?geNius wrote:
With the millions of yards of sediment that flow into the ocean each year and every year, why is it not certain that the world's sea-level will continue to rise indefinitely?
Lot's of factors come into play, not just co2. Mass, density, it orbits 30 percent closer,..etc. It is nearly engulfed with sulfuric acid and has no oceans.S.Lythberg wrote:
but it is 500 degrees hotter than Mercury, so the distance, while a factor, is not enough to raise the temperature to such an incredible level.Kmarion wrote:
It's also 24 million miles closer to the sun.S.Lythberg wrote:
CO2 warms the atmosphere, and offers little in the way of cooling (think Venus, 98% CO2, and 900 degrees)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2% H2SO4 isn't engulfed...Kmarion wrote:
Lot's of factors come into play, not just co2. Mass, density, it orbit 30 percent closer,..etc. It is nearly engulfed with sulfuric acid and has no oceans.S.Lythberg wrote:
but it is 500 degrees hotter than Mercury, so the distance, while a factor, is not enough to raise the temperature to such an incredible level.Kmarion wrote:
It's also 24 million miles closer to the sun.
My point is that the CO2 adds an extra 700 degrees than would be expected based on size and distance alone.
Wow...how naive.
I was referring to the clouds. Smaller less dense objects also heat more rapidly. My point is to compare apples to apples.S.Lythberg wrote:
2% H2SO4 isn't engulfed...Kmarion wrote:
Lot's of factors come into play, not just co2. Mass, density, it orbit 30 percent closer,..etc. It is nearly engulfed with sulfuric acid and has no oceans.S.Lythberg wrote:
but it is 500 degrees hotter than Mercury, so the distance, while a factor, is not enough to raise the temperature to such an incredible level.
My point is that the CO2 adds an extra 700 degrees than would be expected based on size and distance alone.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Earth's core is far hotter than that of Venus, and its atmosphere is much less dense.Kmarion wrote:
I was referring to the clouds. Smaller less dense objects also heat more rapidly. My point is to compare apples to apples.S.Lythberg wrote:
2% H2SO4 isn't engulfed...Kmarion wrote:
Lot's of factors come into play, not just co2. Mass, density, it orbit 30 percent closer,..etc. It is nearly engulfed with sulfuric acid and has no oceans.
My point is that the CO2 adds an extra 700 degrees than would be expected based on size and distance alone.
Astronomy debate aside...
Al Gore should not have won the nobel peace prize, the world is in no way more peaceful because of him.
Cow farts will kill us all.
But that's the only thing holding my interest .S.Lythberg wrote:
Astronomy debate aside...
.
The actual planet is (slightly) less dense.. 4/5ths of the earth.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
True, but that would have little bearing on its surface temperature.Kmarion wrote:
But that's the only thing holding my interest .S.Lythberg wrote:
Astronomy debate aside...
.
The actual planet is (slightly) less dense.. 4/5ths of the earth.
It may be less dense, but that has also allowed it to cool internally to a much lower temperature (or not, there are two different models for Venus's interior, one totally solidified, and one almost completely liquid.
My point is that the temperature at the surface is almost entirely governed by the atmospheric composition and atmospheric density. If Venus had an atmosphere similar to earth, temperatures would likely never go above 150 degrees, but the heat trapped by miles of CO2 at 100atm of pressure causes the surface to reach 900 degrees, day or night.
And this is the picture that Gore and friends keep trying to paint for the future of earth, and even if every last molecule of fossil fuels were burned off, the Earth wouldn't even be close to this scenario
The climate will change. I was just trying to say that you could have used something a little closer to home too illustrate that point ... Like my first post in this thread. I said the Sahara used to have many rivers running through it. It transformed extremely fast. I worry about people who think a tax increase will have a direct impact on what the earth has been doing for hundreds of millions of years. There aren't too many people who deny the earth is warming. It seems to me that if we are to take the inevitable seriously we should be thinking a little more outside of the box.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I'm glad you raised that. That was a question which confused scientists for... centuries, really, until the discovery of deep-sea vents. It turns out that water - and the sediments in them - are 'taken into' the earth's crust through the seabed, 'filtered' of any sediments and what-have-you, and then blown out of the deep-sea-vents (which look surprisingly like chimney stacks)geNius wrote:
With the millions of yards of sediment that flow into the ocean each year and every year, why is it not certain that the world's sea-level will continue to rise indefinitely?
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Necessity (governments mandating regulation) is the Mother of Innovation (more efficient use of energy).G3|Genius wrote:
I'm not against researching and trying to find more efficient use of energy. I'm extremely enthusiastic about getting off our dependence of Middle East oil.Hurricane wrote:
That's pretty interesting evidence.
All I have to ask though, and this is to all the camps... regardless of the cause and rate of global warming, what the hell harm is there in researching cleaner energy and more efficient use of energy?
I'm against higher taxes, I'm against government mandating regulations.
This link pretty well kills all the arguments against global warming.
http://environment.newscientist.com/cha … th/dn11462
By the way, the last time the temperature of the Earth rose by 6 degrees 95% of all life on Earth ended. So even if you think there might be some debate on the issue, you'll obviously agreee that it's best be cautious. If we assume global warming is real and turns out not to be, we've researched new energy sources and cleaned up the environment, things we will have to do at some point anyway. If we assume global warming is incorrect and we get it wrong, we'll destroy the vast majority of life on the planet.
Yet people argue against doing something about it.....
For the record I am a scientist.
http://environment.newscientist.com/cha … th/dn11462
By the way, the last time the temperature of the Earth rose by 6 degrees 95% of all life on Earth ended. So even if you think there might be some debate on the issue, you'll obviously agreee that it's best be cautious. If we assume global warming is real and turns out not to be, we've researched new energy sources and cleaned up the environment, things we will have to do at some point anyway. If we assume global warming is incorrect and we get it wrong, we'll destroy the vast majority of life on the planet.
Yet people argue against doing something about it.....
For the record I am a scientist.
Indeed: subduction.Spark wrote:
I'm glad you raised that. That was a question which confused scientists for... centuries, really, until the discovery of deep-sea vents. It turns out that water - and the sediments in them - are 'taken into' the earth's crust through the seabed, 'filtered' of any sediments and what-have-you, and then blown out of the deep-sea-vents (which look surprisingly like chimney stacks)geNius wrote:
With the millions of yards of sediment that flow into the ocean each year and every year, why is it not certain that the world's sea-level will continue to rise indefinitely?
Unless we're saying that volcanic activity forces more "earth" above sea level than flows into the ocean each year, then it's safe to say that sea levels will continue to rise.
Figures. I live in the Wisconsin, the land of cows. I'll get my revenge by cooking up a nice steak tonight.usmarine2005 wrote:
Cow farts will kill us all.
yeah sure you're a scientist. what's your field. what are your credentials.PureFodder wrote:
This link pretty well kills all the arguments against global warming.
http://environment.newscientist.com/cha … th/dn11462
By the way, the last time the temperature of the Earth rose by 6 degrees 95% of all life on Earth ended. So even if you think there might be some debate on the issue, you'll obviously agreee that it's best be cautious. If we assume global warming is real and turns out not to be, we've researched new energy sources and cleaned up the environment, things we will have to do at some point anyway. If we assume global warming is incorrect and we get it wrong, we'll destroy the vast majority of life on the planet.
Yet people argue against doing something about it.....
For the record I am a scientist.
and for the record I'm a genius. look see it says it right there below this post and to the left as well. /sarcasm.
edit the guy below me is, too.
Last edited by G3|Genius (2007-12-12 11:37:06)
Amen.S.Lythberg wrote:
Al Gore should not have won the nobel peace prize, the world is in no way more peaceful because of him.
I've only had time to look over a couple of the links in any depth (Dr Carter's paper and Dr Evans' paper). I can safely say they're rubbish (use data from proven unreliable sources, make bogus unsubstantiated claims, etc. - Dr Evans doesn't even seem to be able to spell properly and seems little more qualified than I to comment on global warming (he is a computer and electrical engineer, like myself, not an expert in the field)).
I've glanced over the others - can't see much actual science in them to be refuted, but I'll have to have a proper look later - as well as going over WHY the other two papers are so flawed.
I've glanced over the others - can't see much actual science in them to be refuted, but I'll have to have a proper look later - as well as going over WHY the other two papers are so flawed.
Hey I looked at the website and it didn't say anything. here is a quotePureFodder wrote:
This link pretty well kills all the arguments against global warming.
http://environment.newscientist.com/cha … th/dn11462
By the way, the last time the temperature of the Earth rose by 6 degrees 95% of all life on Earth ended. So even if you think there might be some debate on the issue, you'll obviously agree that it's best be cautious. If we assume global warming is real and turns out not to be, we've researched new energy sources and cleaned up the environment, things we will have to do at some point anyway. If we assume global warming is incorrect and we get it wrong, we'll destroy the vast majority of life on the planet.
Yet people argue against doing something about it.....
For the record I am a scientist.
1. Where the sun is responsible for global warming "This, they say, suggest that warming causes rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere, not vice versa. What is actually happening is a far more complicated interaction (see Ice cores show CO2 only rose after the start of warm periods)."
I looked at the link and all it said was that there was a faulty scientific mechanism for reading "ice core" and carbon in rocks.... BUT I thought it was the ice cores that showed cause and effect.... Apparently not because the article says that there is a strong CORRELATION between carbon dioxide and temperature..... well not $hit $herlock. Of course there is a correlation and it is really strong BUT before you go out at declare carbon dioxide to be the CAUSE of global warming shouldn't you at least pin down that it is the cause or at least a cause. But the evidence does appear to point to it being merely an effect. using the word "Complicated" means they don't know, its an admission that Carbon Dioxide is not proved to be the cause of global warming. If that's true then the whole underpinning of the scientific debate that is occurring is questionably bunk.
The real problem with the science in this area is that much of the data generated is generated using computer modeling and in the world of statistics "there are lies, dam lies and then there are statistics." Do you know how a person gets a PhD in statistics. They take a bunch of numbers, scramble them up to a degree that no one can tell what you did with them and then present them to "prove" some point. And that is exactly what is occurring here... you draft you assumptions anyway you want, plug in the numbers, input a few variables and generate some numbers. If you are not satisfied with the result, shake up the assumptions and the variables and generate new numbers until you arrive at the desired conclusion.
You should keep in mind that action on pollution is required in various local areas accross the world. the pollution problem is a real LOCAL problem not a global problem. So don't get wrapped up in the global warming is the equivalent of pollution or that pollution and global warming are synonymous because they are not. That is the idea perpetrated by governments and industrialists who are facing real pollution problems but do not want to put in place needed pollution controls for fear of creating an econpmic disadvatage in their countries and driving businesses away. So they concoct this global warming scam, pay for billions in faulty scientifc research to "prove" their point all in order to create a level global playing field where everyone has to obey the same pollution controls that they find are necessary for their locality. Its a scam, its a scam, its a scam... you can't say that enough.
I really cannot believe how "global warming" has caught on as a movement and is now approaching the status of a religious faith where it is almost blasphemous to criticize the science.
Here are my predictions, before I changed my assumptions about putting too much faith in these government paid scientists
a. 6 degree rise in temperature means 95% extinction rate. - "It all good as long as they save the cows"
b. 3 degrees means 10 feet of sea level rise, 6 degrees gets you 20 feet. - "Get your New Orleans beads now."
c. 10 degrees means death to all humans - "can't wait for that one, a first class seat to the Resurrection, I bring my little flag and wave bye bye
to all of you global warming believers"
d. 20% chance that global warming will be a full fledged UN recognized religion by 2050 - "I hear the space ship lands in 2060."
Last edited by Diesel_dyk (2007-12-12 13:10:59)
Field is chemistry and physics, credentials are a masters degree in chemistry and I'm currently writing my ph.d thesis.G3|Genius wrote:
yeah sure you're a scientist. what's your field. what are your credentials.PureFodder wrote:
This link pretty well kills all the arguments against global warming.
http://environment.newscientist.com/cha … th/dn11462
By the way, the last time the temperature of the Earth rose by 6 degrees 95% of all life on Earth ended. So even if you think there might be some debate on the issue, you'll obviously agreee that it's best be cautious. If we assume global warming is real and turns out not to be, we've researched new energy sources and cleaned up the environment, things we will have to do at some point anyway. If we assume global warming is incorrect and we get it wrong, we'll destroy the vast majority of life on the planet.
Yet people argue against doing something about it.....
For the record I am a scientist.
and for the record I'm a genius. look see it says it right there below this post and to the left as well. /sarcasm.
edit the guy below me is, too.
@ Diesel_dyk
The solar spectrum has little in the way of infra-red radiation. the majority of the sun's emissions are at higher frequencies. This means that the solar energy passes through the greenhouse gasses such as CO2 in the atmosphere because they have absorbtion spectra that don't overlap much with the emission spectra of the sun. The suns rays hit the Earth, get absorbed, loose energy and are re-emitted as lower energy frequencies, typically visible and infra red. CO2 strongly absorbs these frequencies. The CO2 absorbs the emitted energy then re-emmits it at slightly lower frequencies (loosing some energy to vibrational, rotational and translational excitation of the CO2 molecule). The direction of emission is random, hence roughly half is emitted back down to the Earths surface. The more greenhouse gasses there are in the atmosphere, the more of the radiation that the Earth's surface emitts is re-directed back to the surface insead of off into space, the hotter the planet gets. More greenhouse gasses = hotter planet.
The reason that the ends of ice ages don't match the rises in CO2 levels is because the end of ice ages are a completely different system to that of CO2 caused global warming. No serious scientist has ever claimed the link between ice ages anding and CO2 levels, bacause there is no link. he natural cycles of global warming do happen and are happening, but the current situation is demonstratably well out of sync with any natural cycle. The effect of greenhouse gasses is to shift the entirety of the natural cycles to a higher average temperature.
If you read all of the link you'll discover the obvious reason that the sun isn't the cause of recent warming being that the suns output isn't increasing, in fact the suns output has slightly decreased in the last hundred years. The fact that the stratosphere is cooling (completely in keeping with greenhouse gas caused global warming) absolutely destroys any argument that the sun is causing the current rise in global temperatures.
You can spend all day claiming that all global warming science is a scam, but without actually addressing the evidence you may as well be ranting about aliens beaming messages into your brain.
As far as scientists gaining money from global warming goes, the skeptics seem to miss the truth of the matter. The reason that there are so many grants for research into global warming ISN'T because of the vast majority of scientists claiming that global warming is real. Once scientists agree on any point there's no point researching it any more, bye bye funding. The reason there is so much money is because of the idiots that are denying that global warming is real. They're stopping governemnts from doing anything about it until they are all convinced, and since the problem is so significant the only option is to plunge large amounts of cash into doing more and more research to try to stop the idiots that care more about money today than the state of the world when their kids grow up.
Government paid scientists discovered just about every technological, sociological and economic part of the modern world. Everyday you put your life in the hands of scientists and show absolute trust in them. If you didn't you wouldn't cross any bridge, get in a car, eat any processed food, get in a plane, use anything electronic etc. etc. Why suddenly decide they've begun to lie about this and only this issue?
I'm not sure where your rant about industrialists being big global warming supporters came from, the truth is quite the opposite.
Global warming is Big business now... The Scientists get grants to study global warming... Do you think they're gonna cut off their own gravy train... I believe we shouldnt pollute unneccessarily... but until Al Bore moves into a 4x6 tent and eats vegetables he picks in the woods...
I will continue to use my evil electrical computer to mod and play games... and my super evil refrigerator that keeps my beer cold...(Sometimes i leave the door open on my fridge to help cool the earth)... whatever i can do to help...
I will continue to use my evil electrical computer to mod and play games... and my super evil refrigerator that keeps my beer cold...(Sometimes i leave the door open on my fridge to help cool the earth)... whatever i can do to help...
Last edited by [TUF]Catbox (2007-12-12 16:58:16)
Love is the answer
look forward to it.Bertster7 wrote:
I've only had time to look over a couple of the links in any depth (Dr Carter's paper and Dr Evans' paper). I can safely say they're rubbish (use data from proven unreliable sources, make bogus unsubstantiated claims, etc. - Dr Evans doesn't even seem to be able to spell properly and seems little more qualified than I to comment on global warming (he is a computer and electrical engineer, like myself, not an expert in the field)).
I've glanced over the others - can't see much actual science in them to be refuted, but I'll have to have a proper look later - as well as going over WHY the other two papers are so flawed.
Pure, I have a question. I didn't get to read that entire link you posted in great detail, though through what I read it is not the humans fault (however I wish it was for what malicious cynicism I have) for what is happening. As well, I didn't see a section on what we could do against it.
I pose this question for clarification rather then debate, but if humans don't impact GW enough to matter and it's attributed to another solar "entity" then what can we do?
I pose this question for clarification rather then debate, but if humans don't impact GW enough to matter and it's attributed to another solar "entity" then what can we do?