BF2S Forums If this is true, the Dems will win...

S.Lythberg wrote:

Ender2309 wrote:

topal63 wrote:

3. The ability of CO2 to redirect IR radiation back to towards the Earth, towards the lower atmosphere primarily is a well known effect. Known for about 100 years now.

you seem to know what you're talking about topal, so i'll ask you something i've never understood. if CO2 is so reflective (for IR), wouldn't all that harmful radiation get bounced out of the earth before it ever reached us?

no, CO2 blocks heat, not solar radiation.

Not quite...

Solar radiation is a whole concoction of different electromagnetic waves:

About half of the radiation is in the visible short-wave part of the electromagnetic spectrum. The other half is mostly in the near-infrared part, with some in the ultraviolet part of the spectrum.

Infrared energy is heat energy.

CO2 and other Greenhouse gasses are molecules with a particular shape. They absorb infrared waves. This causes them to vibrate. Then some of these molecules re-emit the infrared energy. This occurs in all dircetions, so some IR is reflected back - hence the greenhouse effect.

lavadisk wrote:

G3|Genius wrote:

air conditioning the outdoors.

That would cause OMG greenhouse gas just like breathing out c02 does!

DAMNIT PEOPLE! STOP EXHALING! ITS CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING!

It's about half-way through.



---------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE MAIN PART...

Ok, let's actually think about what we are doing... we are burning vast amounts of wood, coal, hydrocarbons - our natural 'carbon stores'. And by vast, I mean in amounts the you or I can't even comprehend. It is that much. Now we have been doing this at an accelerating rate ever since the industrial revolution. That would mean it's been going on for about 200 years.

But wait a minute. 'Didn't the worlds supply of hydrocarbons form over 10,000's of years'¹? Didn't the forests take centuries to form? All that coal was formed when absolutely massive forests were buried in a deoxygenated environment (ie, totally buried after a cataclysmic event. If they died one by one, the trees would have rotten away). So the formation of the 'carbon stores' took millennia and trapped amounts of carbon that are incomprehensible...

Now people claim that the warming is part of 'a natural cycle'. BULLSHIT!. We are burning all of these carbon resources in a mere fraction of the time they took to develop. Sure, there could be a natural cycle, but by pumping all this CO2 into the atmosphere we are fucking the 'earths CO2 equilibrium'². That is where the problems begin.


NOTES:
1. Documentary "Crude".
2. Equilibrium of the carbon cycle gets messed up.






Mcminty.

The_Mac wrote:

That's amusing. So in the 70s it was all about global cooling, then in the 90s it was Global Warming. Now they have a little bit of both. That's not...suspicious at all. :roll:

I posted part of this (below) in an older thread - it is relvant to your spurious comment.

Climate myths: They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
New Scientist Article (May 16, 2007):
http://environment.newscientist.com/cha … ge/dn11643

National Geographic, 1976

I don't see anything in/or about this article that clearly demonstrates a coming ice-age in this media generated article (aimed at the public at large). Here it appears that the science is clearly out at the time of this publication (as in "What's happening to our Climate" - "Toward an uncertain future"). Therein it mentions the need for further research - so clearly in 1976 some of the data was out (some of the science missing); nothing more is implied.

182|dunc wrote:

hmmm........well writen ,but i see the words "THEORY" ,"CORRELATION"and"SENSATIONAL HEADLINES". It all sound very familliar.
If you have lived through the 1970s like me,you would have heard all the talk of global catastropthy before and would find yourself reluctant to believe it all again.^The crash of 79^by Paul Erdman and ^Silent Spring^by Rachel Carson frightened a generation.Both were based on dodgy science,popular thoeries and statistical correlations extrapolated into the future.It was all bollocks

That is the very point. There is a major difference between the media sensationalizing science and actual science. Sensational articles in Time Magazine, Newsweek, or a popular Science Mag does not equal actual science, scientific publication and/or peer review. My feeling is that people (we as people in general) tend to remember the headlines and not the details. And, often the details contradict the sensational headlines.

It should be obvious to you (or at least I think it should be); that they (the limited group of contrarians) are trying to equate any mention in the media of Global Warming (now) equals the false sensational headlines (media creations) of the past. This is a fallacy.

The so-called 1970s sensational articles about a coming ice-age (or catastrophic global cooling) were actually spurious and few (and mostly sensational headlines not actual science). There was no hysteria - it came and went like a flash in a pan - came & went without a whimper then went bye-bye. Until it was revived (some 25+ years after being utterly dead), and given new life by contrarians making erroneous and entirely false arguments. It is just more media hype, sensationalism & myth (fallacy) making by contrarians (IMO).

Here is Peter Gwynne's 1975 Newsweek Article - "The Cooling World."

I don't see anything in/or about this article that clearly demonstrates a coming ice-age either, but he [Peter Gwynne] clearly is making wild claims.

The sensational claims are more the product of bad journalism (the author's pen) rather than bad science.

Read the article it is absurd. He [Peter Gwynne] throws everything he can think of into this article. He even tries to associate "random tornado disasters" by proximity to the idea of "climate cooling" and that - that is the cause - in this article. And he writes this while stating "the climate seems to be cooling" ... while "meteorologists disagree" as to the cause.

Here is a 1975 NY Times article from a reasonable Schmeck:
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceag … -01-19.pdf
Basically calling for research to be done.

And lastly,
Here is something interesting about the myth of so-called "global cooling" or the "coming ice age" hysteria in the 1970s, from no other than contrarian Richard Lindzen:

"... the scientific community never took the issue to heart, governments ignored it, and with rising global temperatures in the late 1970s the issue more or less died. In the meantime, model calculations--especially at the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton--continued to predict substantial warming due to increasing carbon dioxide. Those predictions were considered interesting, but largely academic, exercises--even by the scientists involved."

Last edited by topal63 (2007-06-22 08:35:32)

Well, I've come to believe a warmer Earth is more "ideal" if that means less people will exist on it as a result.

I think there are too many people on this planet.  We're already seeing a major crunch on the world's resources.  That, and it will be fun to see the looks on the skeptics' faces when things go completely to hell.

What I hate the most about the global warming debate is that both the right and the left seem to completely misinterpret the purpose of it.  Lots of liberals (not all of them) use it to scare other people into voting for idiots like Al Gore, and neo-cons use it as an opportunity to brand everything to the left of them as fear-mongerers.

The truth is, global warming is about pollution.  I don't think theres ONE person who would disagree with the fact that the sooner the world becomes independent of other country's oil, ESPECIALLY from the middle-east, the better.  Its about oil, and how we're running out of it.  In the next hundred years or so, we may be out.  And if we haven't become mostly independent of from it by then, we're screwed, BIG time.

So babble on and on about how liberals are this, conservatives are that.  The fact is, we need to develop alternative, renewable sources of energy ASAP.  Beyond that fact, all the rest of the argument seems to be based on one retarded exaggeration or another.

Turquoise wrote:

I think there are too many people on this planet.  We're already seeing a major crunch on the world's resources.  That, and it will be fun to see the looks on the skeptics' faces when things go completely to hell.

Except most of the fuckers will probably be dead by the time things get really bad.

But, if this thread keeps going the way it's going, my climate bingo card is going to be full soon.