Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6645|Canberra, AUS
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.
I presume you know the specifics of the theory.

Which type of UV radiation is it that is the core of the greehouse effect? UVA, right? The one not stopped by the ozone layer?

BTW.... all the governments and the media of the world are in agreement about the 'humans are responsible' bit. Now they're arguing over which humans are responsible.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|5965|Truthistan
Thanks Spark you lead right into the next point that I wanted to make

Industrialists have learned how to form and mold public opinion and use environmental causes to further their agendas

Remember the hole in the ozone layer. How we were all going to fry, get cancer and die or our crops would fail and we would all starve.
What happened with that. It used to be on the TV every night?!

Well the hole in the ozone and the fight against CFCs was the first attempt by an industrialist to use an environmental cause to mold public opinion for his financial benefit.

You see there was this guy who bought up the entire stock pile of R12 -the stuff used in air conditioners. He cornered the market and pushed hard to get CFCs banned. His main tool was the whole hole in the ozone scam. The public was inundated with scientific studies and predictions and the public reacted and politicians passed laws banning the production of  R12. That drove the price of the R12 stockpile through the roof and he made huge sums of money. But that was only the beginning because the replacement for R12 was R134a and guess who owned the patent on R134a??? That's right the same guy. You see he created and used an environmental cause to get a rival product with an expired patent banned, but not before he bought out the stock pile. This was all orchestrated to make his patented product R134a the only product available.

And since that magical scientific fairytale ride have you heard very much about the hole in the ozone layer.... I thought the effects of CFCs were supposed to keep getting worse for the next 50 years whether or not we stopped using CFCs... Guess not.

The lesson to be learned is that science can and is being manipulated and is being used to manipulate public opinion.
I would be really surprised if anyone here has ever heard about story.
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|5965|Truthistan
If you don't think industrialists scientists and government officials can get together on the global warming scam, check this group out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group

I have talked to one person who attended one of the Bilderberg group meetings back in the mid 1990s and the topic of discussion back then was "the environment" and how tap into and utilize public concern for the environment. That was mid 1990s and  these guys were thinking about this stuff, way in advance of the global warming propaganda machine. Now in 2007 look how far its come. Believe me, if you are an ordinary person, these guys don't have your interests or the environment in mind.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6571|132 and Bush

Xbone Stormsurgezz
PureFodder
Member
+225|6256

Defiance wrote:

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?
Basically there are several natural cycles that can and do go on regardless of what we do. These cycles are often misinterpreted as showing that global warming by CO2 and other greenhouse gasses is wrong as there is no correlation between these natural cycles and CO2 levels, which there aren't. What we're seeing at the moments doesn't fit any of the natural cycles. The effect of greenhouse gasses is to shift the cycle that fluctuates between temperature x and temperature y, and change is so the cycle fluctuates between x+1 and y+1  then as we pollute more it cycles between x+2 and y+2. The dangerous high point of the natural cycle will be higher than before.

One analogy is taking 2 cups and half filling one with water, now pour the water into the other cup, then back into the other cup etc. this represents the natural cycle. Now each time you pour the water between the cups, add a teaspoon of water from the tap this extra water is our contribution of greenhouse gasses. Each time you pour the cup the amount you are adding is small compaired to the amount being poured between the cups, but the reason the cup ultimately overflows is because of you adding to the total water in the system not because of the water that was in there in the first place.
PureFodder
Member
+225|6256

Diesel_dyk wrote:

If you don't think industrialists scientists and government officials can get together on the global warming scam, check this group out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group

I have talked to one person who attended one of the Bilderberg group meetings back in the mid 1990s and the topic of discussion back then was "the environment" and how tap into and utilize public concern for the environment. That was mid 1990s and  these guys were thinking about this stuff, way in advance of the global warming propaganda machine. Now in 2007 look how far its come. Believe me, if you are an ordinary person, these guys don't have your interests or the environment in mind.
Apparently they also came up with NAFTA, the Oklahoma bombing and are trying to bring about the apocalypse. That's some good crazy conspiracy theory you've found.
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6645|Canberra, AUS

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Thanks Spark you lead right into the next point that I wanted to make

Industrialists have learned how to form and mold public opinion and use environmental causes to further their agendas

Remember the hole in the ozone layer. How we were all going to fry, get cancer and die or our crops would fail and we would all starve.
What happened with that. It used to be on the TV every night?!

Well the hole in the ozone and the fight against CFCs was the first attempt by an industrialist to use an environmental cause to mold public opinion for his financial benefit.

You see there was this guy who bought up the entire stock pile of R12 -the stuff used in air conditioners. He cornered the market and pushed hard to get CFCs banned. His main tool was the whole hole in the ozone scam. The public was inundated with scientific studies and predictions and the public reacted and politicians passed laws banning the production of  R12. That drove the price of the R12 stockpile through the roof and he made huge sums of money. But that was only the beginning because the replacement for R12 was R134a and guess who owned the patent on R134a??? That's right the same guy. You see he created and used an environmental cause to get a rival product with an expired patent banned, but not before he bought out the stock pile. This was all orchestrated to make his patented product R134a the only product available.

And since that magical scientific fairytale ride have you heard very much about the hole in the ozone layer.... I thought the effects of CFCs were supposed to keep getting worse for the next 50 years whether or not we stopped using CFCs... Guess not.

The lesson to be learned is that science can and is being manipulated and is being used to manipulate public opinion.
I would be really surprised if anyone here has ever heard about story.
All I can say in response to this is a big fat FUCK YOU.

Skin cancer caused by ultraviolet radiation is one of the leading causes (if not THE leading cause - it was a few years ago if i remember right) of death in Australia. And you're saying that it's all bullshit?

Why don't we hear about the ozone layer. BECAUSE WE'VE DONE OUR BIT. It's getting better... slowly. The CFC's take a while to disintergrate, but at least there aren't more of them chewing up ozone.

A question. Do you know ANYTHING about the science? At all? Enough with the political bullshit. This is a scientific problem and should be dealt with as such.

Last edited by Spark (2007-12-13 02:56:40)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|5965|Truthistan
WOW how do I respond to the big FU.... Let me see
Man I made you mad I guess I hit a nerve. No doubt I like a good conspiracy theory But the best ones involve people looking out for their own self interests. Especially money.

As for the politics of global warming, well it might be news to you BUT science is not conducted in a bubble.
The academic world IS political, I have some experience there and I know exactly how it works.
1 Get you PhD and a post doc
2. get a tenure track position
3. start producing papers of publishable quality
4. Start firing off grant applications
5. Pi$$ all over your students
6. Get tenure

The fast track to tenure is to get big grants. universities love grant money and most if not all universities will take between 3% to 10% of the grant money you receive. It is in your interests to further your career in academia by researching popular issues where grant money is made available. Of course it helps if your personal belief system coincides with the desires of the grantor. If the grantor wants to prove global warming then guess what, a person with publication record of proving global warming who also writes a grant application trying to further the "science" in that area is going to get the grant money. Get the grant money and get tenure.

Of course others are weeded out along the way through the "peer review process."  And an academic must publish or perish as the saying goes. Publishing in peer reviewed journals means having to undergo a vetting of your papers. These journals have boards, on these  boards sit other people in your field who subscribe to one theory or another, they vet your paper and decide whether to publish it. And if your paper says something against conventional wisdom, or the ruling theory at the time, or shows fault in theory that the board members personal support through their publications then guess what???? your paper is labelled as unpublishable. The opposite is true where you paper is more likely to be published if it supports, furthers or makes even more outlandish claims that the papers of the person sitting on the board.. why?? because you pushed the envelope and make the board member into a conservative in the field. A sure fire way to get published is to cite from the papers of the board members, they like that too. That not a conspiracy. That's the academic world. Welcome to academic politics 101. Science is not made in a bubble. Money talks, academics want to further and protect their careers and when they get on the grant money gravy train good luck to you and your career if you get in their way. A lot of these guys don't care, they spend their time counting their years of service as they get towards their pension and they file for grant money so that they can travel for free. That's a pessimistic view but I also know professors who have killed themselves out of depression because academia is also a depressive trap with two ways out, pension or death.

No science is made in a vacuum, there is politics, economics, business interests and also the human interest at play.

Global warming is money jackpot for these guys. you make predictions that are not supposed to come true until after you retire, if at all, and by that time you made it to pension or you are dead so what do you care. Not a conspiracy, just people going through life.

SO DON'T GIVE ME THAT ITS A SCIENCE PROBLEM BS... YOU OBVIOUSLY DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. THEORY IS ONE THING REALITY AND PRAGMATISM ARE ANOTHER. AND IF YOU ARE ALREADY IN THE ACADEMIC FIELD OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE OR SOMETHING ELSE THEN YOU SHOULD ALREADY KNOW HOW THE SYSTEM WORKS.

$HIT MY WEATHERMAN CAN'T TELL ME WHAT THE WEATHER WILL BE LIKE 12 HOURS FROM NOW AND YOU GUYS WANT TO MAKE GRAND APOCALYPTIC PREDICTIONS ABOUT WEATHER CHANGE.

Please, if you want to be scientist and go into academic endeavors and solve the worlds problems, fine... but don't expect me to smell your BS and call it a rose.

I've been there and seen how they make the hot dogs. Soylent green anyone?

PS: I think that would be the long version of FU

Last edited by Diesel_dyk (2007-12-13 21:11:08)

Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6645|Canberra, AUS
Are you a scientist?

'Cos what you've told me has NEVER, EVER come out of a professional scientist - who are much more professional than you think.

And for the third time... do you know ANY of the science behind the theory, or are you full of political rhetoric and conspiracy theories?

Last edited by Spark (2007-12-13 21:47:01)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|5965|Truthistan
You know I've been reading what has been written here
oscillation cycles with growing amplitude Y+1 goes Y+2.
Pollution is bad
the sun causes skin cancer
The green house effect is what warms the earth
Yes that's all true - except the oscillation thing which has an inherent flaw because there would be a limit to the severity of the oscillation due to collapse of the entire system that fuels the oscilliation. ie goes back to a new equilibrium.

But I want to hear the words
"Its proven that carbon dioxide is THE CAUSE of global warming." And what I've heard is that there are competing theories, It s a complicated system, BUT don't challenge the science. All I've seen are correlations and that's not proving anything. I think that the oceans as a carbon sink that breath in CO2 when cold and exhale CO2 when warm can explain what we are seeing. Sure humans have some effect, but its not the sole effect and probably not even a major effect. The major player in our atmosphere is the sun, the second are the oceans. Look at those first.... but if people did that they there would be the realization that there is nothing we could really do about it. Right? and who would put billions of dollars into research for something that we can't do anything about.

No onewould invest billions unless they see an opportunity for governments and business to make many times that investment and that is exactly what is happening. There is no denying that there are many good reasons for pushing the public towards a more sustainable future given the earth's shrinking resources, pollution etc BUT none of that goes to prove global warming does it? Sorry to keep bringing up the politics but global warming is a political creation and governments are trying to create a political fix. The science in this area is secondary to those agendas, even if scientists don't want to admit it.

You know there are other interesting ideas out there for example the idea that at the age of the dinosaurs the earth had 2x atmosphere with more oxygen and carbon dioxide than todays atmosphere... that enabled the dinosaurs to grow to be gigantic.
One scientist even tested the theory on tilapia by pressurizing a tank and increasing oxygen and carbon dioxide. the result were 2x sized tilapia fish. that research seemed to indicate that not only has the earths climate been different but that at times the earth's atmosphere has been much more dense. Now what would a thicker atmosphere say 2x or more dense with a higher percentage of O2 and CO2 do to the climate ... has anyone looked at that? Wouldn't the thickness of the atmosphere be dependant on the earth's gravity? and how much the earth itself could hold onto or shield from the solar winds. And what if the solar winds grew less intense or more intense what effect would that have on atmoshpere.

Now what do you think of those questions from this scientist?

Last edited by Diesel_dyk (2007-12-13 23:02:39)

PureFodder
Member
+225|6256
Ok, if you get past ph.d and post doc and get a job before writing publishable papers you've a fairly terrible scientists. I'm writing 2 and I'm a lowly ph.d researcher.

The sun: Has been shown not to have increased it's output over the last hundred years. How does that explain global warming? We aren't getting closer to it at the moment (there is a natural cycle that involves periodically getting close to the sun, the Milankovitch cycle, but it can't explain current trends). The stratosphere is cooling, a result that completely excludes any possibility of the sun causing global warming, but fits the greenhouse gas theory.

The oceans: Carbon goes in, carbon goes out, the oceans are a temporary carbon sink. The CO2 we emit is coming from outside the cycle. The oceans simply move CO2 around in the cycle, we add to the total volume of CO2 in the cycle.

Yes atmospheric concentrations etc. were different millions of years ago, if global warming occurs over millions of years then species can happily adapt to the new climate. If it occurs over a few hundred years species cannot adapt fast enough to the changing local climate and get wiped out.

There is alot of bullshit science going around trying to prove and disprove global warming. You believe the bullshit that says global warming isn't man made. Why isn't that the conspiracy theory trying to discredit global warming? The cost on business is going to be huge hence the massive amount of resistance to doing anything about it.

I've already proved that CO2 causes global warming. The science behind that aspect is real easy to understand. All scientists agree on that aspect of global warming.
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6645|Canberra, AUS

Diesel_dyk wrote:

You know I've been reading what has been written here
oscillation cycles with growing amplitude Y+1 goes Y+2.
Pollution is bad
the sun causes skin cancer
The green house effect is what warms the earth
Yes that's all true - except the oscillation thing which has an inherent flaw because there would be a limit to the severity of the oscillation due to collapse of the entire system that fuels the oscilliation. ie goes back to a new equilibrium.
Very true. But equilibrim only comes after chaos, and that period of chaos is what worries people.

But I want to hear the words
"Its proven that carbon dioxide is THE CAUSE of global warming."
A cause.

And what I've heard is that there are competing theories,
Most of which have been debunked

It s a complicated system, BUT don't challenge the science.
Are you a scientist?

All I've seen are correlations and that's not proving anything.
Uhhh... correlations form the basis of a massive swathe of science. I think you've watched too much Global Warming Swindle.

I think that the oceans as a carbon sink that breath in CO2 when cold and exhale CO2 when warm can explain what we are seeing.
The carbon dioxide in oceans aren't stored in the water. All the living organisms, such as algae and plankton, suck up the CO2 and use it to build their bodies and grow. That's what was responsible for the truly enormous plankton blooms which gave us our massive coal and oil deposits. Those can't be unlocked in such an easy way, beacuse the carbon remained safe in their corpses

Sure humans have some effect, but its not the sole effect and probably not even a major effect.
Too bad the scientists who actually study the thing don't agree with you.

The major player in our atmosphere is the sun, the second are the oceans.
Neither of which are changing.

Look at those first.... but if people did that they there would be the realization that there is nothing we could really do about it. Right? and who would put billions of dollars into research for something that we can't do anything about.
We can try. And I spit on your notion that we can't do anything. Is it that hard to turn off lights when you don't need them?

In any case it'll be a lot better than mantaining our current practices and spewing shit across the planet.


No onewould invest billions unless they see an opportunity for governments and business to make many times that investment and that is exactly what is happening. There is no denying that there are many good reasons for pushing the public towards a more sustainable future given the earth's shrinking resources, pollution etc BUT none of that goes to prove global warming does it? Sorry to keep bringing up the politics but global warming is a political creation and governments are trying to create a political fix. The science in this area is secondary to those agendas, even if scientists don't want to admit it.
Bit rich from the guy who refuses to acknowledge the science at all.

You know there are other interesting ideas out there for example the idea that at the age of the dinosaurs the earth had 2x atmosphere with more oxygen and carbon dioxide than todays atmosphere... that enabled the dinosaurs to grow to be gigantic.
One scientist even tested the theory on tilapia by pressurizing a tank and increasing oxygen and carbon dioxide. the result were 2x sized tilapia fish. that research seemed to indicate that not only has the earths climate been different but that at times the earth's atmosphere has been much more dense. Now what would a thicker atmosphere say 2x or more dense with a higher percentage of O2 and CO2 do to the climate ... has anyone looked at that? Wouldn't the thickness of the atmosphere be dependant on the earth's gravity? and how much the earth itself could hold onto or shield from the solar winds. And what if the solar winds grew less intense or more intense what effect would that have on atmoshpere.

Now what do you think of those questions from this scientist?
OK. Now I can clearly see that you've got information from a source, a sentence, or article, but have no indepth knowledge of it whatsoever.

I can explain if you want. The truly insane levels of oxygen (which we know from isotope geochemistry, which is something i would prefer not to have to explain) were due to cyanobacteria being the dominant organisms of the planet for billions of years. BILLIONS OF YEARS.

Do you comprehend just how staggeringly different the timescales we are dealing with are?
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
G3|Genius
Pope of BF2s
+355|6597|Sea to globally-cooled sea
yes, please explain it.

edit: without using vulgarities or other hostile speech patterns, as is your trademark.

Last edited by G3|Genius (2007-12-14 06:00:16)

PureFodder
Member
+225|6256
Actually CO2 is soluble in water and a small percentage reacts with water to form carbonic acid.
G3|Genius
Pope of BF2s
+355|6597|Sea to globally-cooled sea
I wish to say one more thing to Spark.  All this "are you a scientist" crap doesn't mean anything.  My wife is a High School AP Chemistry teacher.  She graduated with her degree in Chemistry from Seton Hall University with a 3.989 GPA (Suma Cum Laude).  Her concentration was in Organic Chem.  She has said, and I think many true scientists would agree, the more you learn, the less you feel you know.

Only a non-scientist would say "if you aren't a scientist, you have no authority."  By that logic, why the hell is this even an argument, since a politician made the documentary that started this whole fear-mongering movement?

My point is, if being a scientist is enough, then I will say: my wife has done her own research on this and feels that the research on both sides of the argument is poor, because both sides have an agenda and neither side is really researching to learn.  They seem to be researching to prove the other side wrong.  This is contrary to the Scientific Method.

Now.  She has more authority than you, Spark.  The way you argue and behave in D&ST, I would say you're probably 14 or 15 years old, highly impressionable, and ultimately too lazy to do your own research, rather to go out and repeat what has been told to you by your peers and your elders.

If this is incorrect, then grow up.  Ultimately, you're so abusive in your arguing that one cannot honestly take you seriously.  If you have already been through University, perhaps you should have taken a class in Logic.

Your method of arguing is falacious.  Look it up: appeal to force.  Your language is threatening, and you are trying to convince those who disagree with you to stop arguing with you by swearing at them and calling them jackasses, rather than facing the issue.

I have yet to see you respond to a post in a mature, concise, well-structured and thought out response.
apollo_fi
The Flying Kalakukko.
+94|6501|The lunar module

PureFodder wrote:

This link pretty well kills all the arguments against global warming.
http://environment.newscientist.com/cha … th/dn11462
QFE.

See also http://environment.newscientist.com/art … 426041.100
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6645|Canberra, AUS

G3|Genius wrote:

I wish to say one more thing to Spark.  All this "are you a scientist" crap doesn't mean anything.  My wife is a High School AP Chemistry teacher.  She graduated with her degree in Chemistry from Seton Hall University with a 3.989 GPA (Suma Cum Laude).  Her concentration was in Organic Chem.  She has said, and I think many true scientists would agree, the more you learn, the less you feel you know.
Very true. But he's going around saying all the science is bullcrap, so he has to be a scientist of some sort... right?

Only a non-scientist would say "if you aren't a scientist, you have no authority."  By that logic, why the hell is this even an argument, since a politician made the documentary that started this whole fear-mongering movement?
This argument was around and mostly decided a decade ago.

My point is, if being a scientist is enough, then I will say: my wife has done her own research on this and feels that the research on both sides of the argument is poor, because both sides have an agenda and neither side is really researching to learn.  They seem to be researching to prove the other side wrong.  This is contrary to the Scientific Method.
He has NO research. I have done mine.

Now.  She has more authority than you, Spark.  The way you argue and behave in D&ST, I would say you're probably 14 or 15 years old, highly impressionable, and ultimately too lazy to do your own research, rather to go out and repeat what has been told to you by your peers and your elders.
You believe what you want.

If this is incorrect, then grow up.  Ultimately, you're so abusive in your arguing that one cannot honestly take you seriously.  If you have already been through University, perhaps you should have taken a class in Logic.

Your method of arguing is falacious.  Look it up: appeal to force.  Your language is threatening, and you are trying to convince those who disagree with you to stop arguing with you by swearing at them and calling them jackasses, rather than facing the issue.

I have yet to see you respond to a post in a mature, concise, well-structured and thought out response.
Forgive me if I feel too strongly on this issue.

But that is how I feel.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6645|Canberra, AUS

G3|Genius wrote:

yes, please explain it.

edit: without using vulgarities or other hostile speech patterns, as is your trademark.
Isotope geochemistry?

Very well.

Oxygen as found in the air comes in two main isotopes, O14, and O16 [i think]. I'm not quite sure how the more unstable one (which I think is O14, I'll have to look it up) forms, but my guess would be due to solar radiation (which is the cause of most isotopes in the atmosphere - including ozone [though it's not an isotope. similar thing.])

Temperature, however, is the determining factor in causing this. the isotopes will accumulate at different rates depending on the temperature - especially in the fossils of dead animals (and especially fish, because the ocean is where most of the isotopes end up). If we know the date (which is another thing in itself), a simple calculation tells us the oxygen-isotope ratios at the time that the animal died. From this ratio we can work out the temperature (as temperature is the factor which alters the ratios). Obviously you need thousands of samples, but it is a fairly accurate method.

That's the basics as I understand it.

BTW... a correction. I just remembered: we don't need isotope geochemistry to measure oxygen levels... whoops.

But yes, that's about it. The animals grew large on the steady but proportionally giant levels of oxygen at the time (somewhere like 30-40%). Incidentally that's also another reason why the KT meteor was so devestating - lots of oxygen = lots of fire.


The reason those who, well, are in favour of the science are so obsessive is that the consequences are being felt NOW. We missed our mark years ago. Now we're into damage control.

So it gives me endless amounts of frustration when people seem to obstinately stay behind the rest of the world in moving foward. Unfortunately, these people are the ones who need to be the centre of any solution.

Last edited by Spark (2007-12-14 07:03:42)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|5965|Truthistan
I hate to pick a sore BUT

You Said
"The reason those who, well, are in favour of the science are so obsessive is that the consequences are being felt NOW. We missed our mark years ago. Now we're into damage control."

--> the home shopping network uses the same tactic, get on board now you have 1 minute left to buy.... 30 seconds..... 10 seconds.... omg I missed my chance.... now I HAVE to catch up.  Creating fear of impending doom is a requisite of getting people to act in ways that they would not normally act. It has nothing to do with science and is a tool of a "snake oil salesman." I have no doubt that if the natural cycle of temperature change was in a cooling trend we would be talking about an impending ice age instead of global warming.

You said
"So it gives me endless amounts of frustration when people seem to obstinately stay behind the rest of the world in moving forward. Unfortunately, these people are the ones who need to be the centre of any solution."

--> moving with the rest of the world... it is political after all. Thanks for proving my point. Global warming is a political construct, a new age buzz word that some countries are on board with and others are not. I don't blame the US for not being on board when the latest protocols in the New Bali treaty, like Kyoto, do not require any changes from developing countries like China, Brazil and India. China is going to be building about 500 coal fired electric generating stations in the next 20 years to meet its demands. Should we hamper our economy and let the Chinese walk all over us. Its bad enough now that almost every toy and tool is made in China. And what do you think the Chinese will say when its their "turn" to cut production of greenhouse gases? They will tell everyone where to go. You know at some point in time the "science" rhetoric over global warming has to take a back seat to real economic and national security interests. The US is right to be wary of this political push.
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|5965|Truthistan
On an aside here is another dirty secret about academia

"if you get past ph.d and post doc and get a job before writing publishable papers you've a fairly terrible scientists. I'm writing 2 and I'm a lowly ph.d researcher. "
TRUE if your not publishing by the time your in your PhD then you are going no where.

NOW for the dirty secret
When you get into your PhD don't be surprised when you find yourself writing papers for your supervisor who will put his name on them... That's what grad students are for... to write papers for the supervisor.  and if you are too good at writing them, then guess what? you are going to be prevented from graduating by your supervising professor because he will want you to write more papers.

How to get out of the trap --> write great papers and after a sufficient time stop and refuse to write more and demand to have time to finish your thesis and graduate... the supervisor will want to get rid of you and get a new student to write papers... so you graduate. But don't burn your bridges doing it.

Last edited by Diesel_dyk (2007-12-18 09:56:41)

Snowmanimal
Not so unique forum title
+30|6513|My head

Spark wrote:

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.
I presume you know the specifics of the theory.

Which type of UV radiation is it that is the core of the greehouse effect? UVA, right? The one not stopped by the ozone layer?

BTW.... all the governments and the media of the world are in agreement about the 'humans are responsible' bit. Now they're arguing over which humans are responsible.
Actually, UVC is not blocked.  UVA and UVB can be blocked by our clothes and sunscreen. UVC penetrates deep.
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6645|Canberra, AUS

Diesel_dyk wrote:

I hate to pick a sore BUT

You Said
"The reason those who, well, are in favour of the science are so obsessive is that the consequences are being felt NOW. We missed our mark years ago. Now we're into damage control."

--> the home shopping network uses the same tactic, get on board now you have 1 minute left to buy.... 30 seconds..... 10 seconds.... omg I missed my chance.... now I HAVE to catch up.  Creating fear of impending doom is a requisite of getting people to act in ways that they would not normally act. It has nothing to do with science and is a tool of a "snake oil salesman." I have no doubt that if the natural cycle of temperature change was in a cooling trend we would be talking about an impending ice age instead of global warming.

You said
"So it gives me endless amounts of frustration when people seem to obstinately stay behind the rest of the world in moving forward. Unfortunately, these people are the ones who need to be the centre of any solution."

--> moving with the rest of the world... it is political after all. Thanks for proving my point. Global warming is a political construct, a new age buzz word that some countries are on board with and others are not. I don't blame the US for not being on board when the latest protocols in the New Bali treaty, like Kyoto, do not require any changes from developing countries like China, Brazil and India. China is going to be building about 500 coal fired electric generating stations in the next 20 years to meet its demands. Should we hamper our economy and let the Chinese walk all over us. Its bad enough now that almost every toy and tool is made in China. And what do you think the Chinese will say when its their "turn" to cut production of greenhouse gases? They will tell everyone where to go. You know at some point in time the "science" rhetoric over global warming has to take a back seat to real economic and national security interests. The US is right to be wary of this political push.
Of course not.

But these are political problems that you're bringing up. Not scientific ones, which are my concern. How we go about it - that is up to politicians to decide as the scientific problems require a change in political thinking. In that sense, yes you have a point. This is partly a political problem, but it is PRIMARILY a scientific one and the political repurcussions are from the scientific observations.

Ty snowmanimal. Wasn't sure which type it was, how silly of me
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|6732

Meh... the earth needs a good cleaning anyway.
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6645|Canberra, AUS

usmarine2005 wrote:

Meh... the earth needs a good cleaning anyway.
Yeah, but we could find a more discriminate way to do said cleaning.

The GBR is a nice place, and having enough water to shower for more than three minutes helps too.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
Drakef
Cheeseburger Logicist
+117|6332|Vancouver
I strongly recommend reading what the Royal Society has put forth about arguments against climate change. They outline eight misleading arguments that are often used to disprove global warming.

Royal Society wrote:

Our scientific understanding of climate change is sufficiently sound to make us highly confident that greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming. Science moves forward by challenge and debate and this will continue. However, none of the current criticisms of climate science, nor the alternative explanations of global warming are well enough founded to make not taking any action the wise choice. The science clearly points to the need for nations to take urgent steps to cut greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, as much and as fast as possible, to reduce the more severe aspects of climate change. We must also prepare for the impacts of climate change, some of which are already inevitable.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard