princetrumpet wrote:
Mangy Moose,
There's an article that came out very recently in IBD called "The Warm Turns". Check it out, you'll get a kick out of it.
some great stuff there
Global Warming
Sort:
lol
I believe Global Warming is an anthropogenic effect of increasing CO2 emmissions (greenhouse gas) during the Industrial Revolution. A sharp rise of CO2 in the following graph correlates with an increase in temperature because we know greenhouse gases trap heat, thus warming the planet:
princetrumpet wrote:
SSnyder,
This is precisely the problem with this debate: everyone has "evidence" they believe in. Yet, the evidence cited by the believers is very poor because it lacks depth on key issues.
Why have we had no warming in the last ten years?
Why have the last seven years shown COOLING globally?
Why is the Arctic adding ice?
Why is there a loss of polar ice caps on Mars?
Why am I sitting in minus twelve degree weather in Minneapolis?
You say you're not an Al Gore fan. Okay, fine. Like it or don't, since he is the most widely recognized proponent of man-made Global Warming® why is he not called to question by the media. Why is everyone so ready to accept his version of things and why won't he debate?
Why is your side so willing to accept the findings of the IPCC which is made up of very few scientists? It's made up of politicians and people with agendas.
The era of the man-made Global Warming® scam is over. Only the politicians who want to keep it as an election issue will use it. If you wish to educate yourself, read "The Deniers" and you'll know what happens to scientists that have dared to go against the grain and question authority. It's very dangerous and smacks of witch hunting.
I think I can answer that:
1. Conservationist, environmentalist, and stricter emission & pollution control acts have slowed Global Warming down.
2. This is just my theory, it's gloally cooling because there always has to be a counter-effect to EVERYTHING or else Global Warming will fry the Earth... Global Cooling COULD be caused by the melting of ice meaning more evaporation, more clouds, more reflection, and thus cooling the planet...
3. The Arctic is not adding ice, it's melting away... Every year the ice begins to retreat further and further towards the poles.
4. What does Mars have anything to do with what's happening on Earth?
5. No one said Global Warming was a fast process.
ADK
Agreed
Jan 5, 2009
0
#28
ADK wrote:
I believe Global Warming is an anthropogenic effect of increasing CO2 emmissions (greenhouse gas) during the Industrial Revolution. A sharp rise of CO2 in the following graph correlates with an increase in temperature because we know greenhouse gases trap heat, thus warming the planet:
You have used the famous and well-accepted "Hockey Stick" graph that has been used to propagate the Global Warming® mythology. No one told you, ADK, that the upturn in the graph is concurrent with the same time that man began to keep instrumental records of earth's temperature. How convenient.
Previous to this graph, produced by Michael Mann of U Mass, scientists depended on a graph that included the medieval period and went from the year 1000 to the year 2000. That graph showed the middle ages to have been quite bit warmer than TODAY in what is known as "The Medieval Warming Period". By the 14th century, we began something called "the Little Ice Age" where from which we've been emerging since the 18th century. Your graph completely leaves that bit of information out!
More to the point, a scientist named Steven McIntyre found flaws in the methodology of the Hockey Stick graph and found it to be very deceptive.
"McIntyre may not be an academic scientist (he was a scientist in the mining industry who recognized that the graph resembled the deceptive graphics mining promoters used to hype risky hard-rock mineral exploration projects based on isolated results) but from the first he proved to be a serious staitician who could ask unsettling questions. He dogged Mann relentlessly, demanding that Mann share more details on his data and methodology. After much back and forth and many struggles to get mann to identify his data and methods, McIntyre claimed to have proved he found Mann's methodology deeply flawed. In fact, argued McIntyre, when Mann's errors are corrected, the hockey stick disappears."
Lawrence Solomon, The Deniers, Chapter 1, The case of the Disappearing Hockey Stick
Jan 5, 2009
0
#29
I think I can answer that:
1. Conservationist, environmentalist, and stricter emission & pollution control acts have slowed Global Warming down.
2. This is just my theory, it's gloally cooling because there always has to be a counter-effect to EVERYTHING or else Global Warming will fry the Earth... Global Cooling COULD be caused by the melting of ice meaning more evaporation, more clouds, more reflection, and thus cooling the planet...
3. The Arctic is not adding ice, it's melting away... Every year the ice begins to retreat further and further towards the poles.
4. What does Mars have anything to do with what's happening on Earth?
5. No one said Global Warming was a fast process.
ADK
1. Starting in what year? Many of those acts were enacted in the 70s when Global Cooling® was being touted as what would destroy us.
2. Your theory has no grounding in any kind of serious science.
3. And the Antarctic has been adding ice. Meanwhile, less ice in the Arctic means ships will have shorter routes to delver goods, thereby decreasing their costs and the amount of energy expended in getting their goods to their destinations. Next.
4. If Global warming is Anthropogenic, why is Mars experiencing loss of polar ice caps?
5. That's convenient. How fast is it?
princetrumpet wrote:
I think I can answer that:
1. Conservationist, environmentalist, and stricter emission & pollution control acts have slowed Global Warming down.
2. This is just my theory, it's gloally cooling because there always has to be a counter-effect to EVERYTHING or else Global Warming will fry the Earth... Global Cooling COULD be caused by the melting of ice meaning more evaporation, more clouds, more reflection, and thus cooling the planet...
3. The Arctic is not adding ice, it's melting away... Every year the ice begins to retreat further and further towards the poles.
4. What does Mars have anything to do with what's happening on Earth?
5. No one said Global Warming was a fast process.
ADK
1. Starting in what year? Many of those acts were enacted in the 70s when Global Cooling® was being touted as what would destroy us.
2. Your theory has no grounding in any kind of serious science.
3. And the Antarctic has been adding ice. Meanwhile, less ice in the Arctic means ships will have shorter routes to delver goods, thereby decreasing their costs and the amount of energy expended in getting their goods to their destinations. Next.
4. If Global warming is Anthropogenic, why is Mars experiencing loss of polar ice caps?
5. That's convenient. How fast is it?
I'm not quite so sure on #1...
I said #2 was a theory...
I have a link for #3 => http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/qthinice.asp
On Mars, Global Warming is a NATURAL process... Humans are just speeding it up!
I'm not a scientist, yet, but it's not the fastest thing in the world.
ADK
paul211 wrote:
ADK wrote:
I believe Global Warming is an anthropogenic effect of increasing CO2 emmissions (greenhouse gas) during the Industrial Revolution. A sharp rise of CO2 in the following graph correlates with an increase in temperature because we know greenhouse gases trap heat, thus warming the planet:
How does Co2 increase correlate to an increase in temperature?
You have not shown the direct correlation, perhap you are only quoting a next person? Show us a graph where the 2 factors are linked.
And when you say: "because we know greenhouse gases trap heat, thus warming the planet": what is your supporting documentation??
CO2 is a greenhouse gas... The reason it's called that is because it lets heat in and it does not let it escape, like a greenhouse. Since it does not let heat escape, the planet warms (Global Warming- natural process- temperature INCREASE). I went over why greenhouse gases like CO2 warm the planet in class... As the sun's light hits the Earth's surface it changes into infrared radiation which greenhouse gases (CO2, water vapor, etc.) absorb & trap in the atmosphere... Therefore, if there is MORE CO2 there will be less and less of that heat that gets radiated back into space... CORRELATION: CO2 & TEMP. INCREASE!
ADK
Jan 6, 2009
0
#32
Here's the problem I have with all of that is the hurry to implement public policy based on fear tactics and sketchy theory. I have to give credit to both Clinton and Bush 43 for looking at Kyoto and saying "Wait a minute... why are WE being held responsible for something that is being caused by the two biggest polluters on the planet, China and India, while they get a pass on the regulations?" Kyoto was class warfare lunacy of the highest order and it was right not to sign on.
I reiterate: the IPCC, which was the group everyone hung their hats on, was NOT primarily a group of scientists.
The media have given everyone the impression that we who hold these anti-IPCC/Gore positions don't believe there's something going on with the climate. That's a myth. Most of us believe there are changes. Where we part company is the root cause. Does anyone even consider for a moment that the sunspot activity that has been concurrent with recent warming has virtually ended at the same time we have experienced cooling? That huge gas ball in the sky DOES have some bearing on our surface temperatures, like it or don't. Sunspot activity DOES have some bearing on it, as well.
The other bit of mythology is that somehow, if you don't buy into the Global Warming® nonsense, you hate the Earth and don't care about pollution and conservation of resources. This has to be the most aggravating myth of all. The US has been a world leader in recycling and emission controls for YEARS. That's why foreign cars have to be adjusted before they are sold on our shores: because they have lower standards than we do. Find me another country with 300,000,000 people in it that does more regarding the environment that the US. Just today, President Bush signed into law a bill that sets aside 195,000 square miles to protect marine life in the Pacific. His ranch in Crawford has been quietly regarded as the most green residence any sitting president has had... a huge difference from the home in Tennessee where Al Gore lives.
The US has been doing PLENTY to conserve, replant, recycle and I'm tired of the mythology of those that say we haven't been doing enough.
I agree with you on that, princetrumpet. The U.S. is doing much more than any other country our size. Maybe it wasn't the U.S. that caused Global Warming, but maybe it was all other countries.
. I'm just kidding, the blame falls on all of us.
By the way, I checked out The Deniers yesterday. It is very interesting.
Jan 6, 2009
0
#34
Like I said, earlier, Snyder, you are a gentleman and I admire your integrity for being willing to look at another view. Having spent much of my life on the center-left, I underwent a period of change that began with becoming a father. That one event changed a lot of the theory that I operated under.
You have my respect.
At least we don't have the problem yet. But we should start fixig it.
princetrumpet wrote:
Here's the problem I have with all of that is the hurry to implement public policy based on fear tactics and sketchy theory. I have to give credit to both Clinton and Bush 43 for looking at Kyoto and saying "Wait a minute... why are WE being held responsible for something that is being caused by the two biggest polluters on the planet, China and India, while they get a pass on the regulations?" Kyoto was class warfare lunacy of the highest order and it was right not to sign on.
I reiterate: the IPCC, which was the group everyone hung their hats on, was NOT primarily a group of scientists.
The media have given everyone the impression that we who hold these anti-IPCC/Gore positions don't believe there's something going on with the climate. That's a myth. Most of us believe there are changes. Where we part company is the root cause. Does anyone even consider for a moment that the sunspot activity that has been concurrent with recent warming has virtually ended at the same time we have experienced cooling? That huge gas ball in the sky DOES have some bearing on our surface temperatures, like it or don't. Sunspot activity DOES have some bearing on it, as well.
The other bit of mythology is that somehow, if you don't buy into the Global Warming® nonsense, you hate the Earth and don't care about pollution and conservation of resources. This has to be the most aggravating myth of all. The US has been a world leader in recycling and emission controls for YEARS. That's why foreign cars have to be adjusted before they are sold on our shores: because they have lower standards than we do. Find me another country with 300,000,000 people in it that does more regarding the environment that the US. Just today, President Bush signed into law a bill that sets aside 195,000 square miles to protect marine life in the Pacific. His ranch in Crawford has been quietly regarded as the most green residence any sitting president has had... a huge difference from the home in Tennessee where Al Gore lives.
The US has been doing PLENTY to conserve, replant, recycle and I'm tired of the mythology of those that say we haven't been doing enough.
China and India may be the biggest polluters NOW, but just recently the U.S. was the biggest polluters on the planet with our fossil fuel emissions. I do agree, however, that the U.S. has made a lot of efforts to conserve, replant, and recycle.
ADK
paul211 wrote:
This subject is not one I am ready to conclude on as there are proponents of the Co2 theory and opponents.
Read opponent's views here:
http://personals.galaxyinternet.net/tunga/DefectiveGlobalWarming.pdf
http://www.321energy.com/editorials/bloom/bloom062307.html
For me these views do make sense.
Anf if truly the Co2 absorbs heat from the sun and radiates it both to the atmosphere and to earth, warming the planet's atmosphere, then why do we not build large satellites with huge mirrors that reflect the heat waves back into space?
We have the technology and if all the countries contribute to the project, we will first create jobs, so needed everywhere, resulting in an economic growth.
And this would project would enable us to measure over a decade the impact of absorbing less heat from the sun on earth and arrive once and for all to a scientific conclusion with measurements rather than theorizing on the subject.
How many satellites are needed? This is a question for scientists to answer.
If we put too many we can always shut them off for a while to see the impact.
The surface of the earth is approximately 510,000,000 square kilometers.
Using 12 hours daylight and 12 hours night time, just a premisse that anyone can change, then only about 1/2 of the surface of earth is hit by sunrays. And it also takes into consideration that any radiation wave lenght emitted by the sun has it's full strength only when emitted perpendicular to the sun's body.
By using my premisse I also do not have to account for the earth inclination angle that reduces the amount of sun rays that hit at full strength the surface of the earth.
So we now have 205,000,000 km2 of earth surface to protect from the sun's rays.
I will further say that the highest hit area with the sun's rays is between the tropic of Cancer and the tropic of Capricorn which is about 46 degrees latitude between the two tropics or about 25% of the earth surface exposed to sun, and only 1/2 of this distance is hit directly by sunrays on the earth surface, we now have 12.5% of the earth sun exposure surface hit strongly by sunrays. Latitudes run 90 degrees North and South of the equator.
We are now left wiht 25,625,000 km2 to cover with mirror satellites.
As we do not want to block all of the sunlight needed for life on earth for the photosynthesis process for the plants as one example, I will use 10% of the surface to have satellites, a 5% number does not prove anything scientifically or statistically.
So now we have to cover only 2,562,500 km2.
If we use additional mirrors on these satellites to additionally make a barrier to sun rays by reflecting the light from one satellite to another, we can build about 3000 satellites with mirrors I think to handle the problem.
There are currently about 6,000 satellites gravitating the earth,and they also reflect partially the sun's radiation.
In summary, I do not have the answer but we can perhaps find out!
Your talking about trillions of dollars we will be spending on something that might not even work. Think about it: sending satellites into orbit with reflective mirrors? Have you accounted for the numerous meteorites that will damage the mirrors? The maintenance? The inconvenience? In addition, we do not know how blocking some of the sun's rays will affect Earth. It's a fact that Earth's ecosystems are fragile, and we do not want to possibly desstroy all that. I found an interesting article that may explain why reflecting the sun's rays is dangerous AND in the article replace the volcanic emissions with refelctive mirrors and it'll have the same effect... http://www.normanspencer.co.nz/Next60000Years/MiniIceage.html
ADK
Exactly how does putting satellites with mirrors up in space improve the economy? 100-1,000's of meteorites burn up in the Earth's atmosphere everyday! In orbit there is nothing that will stop it on impact! Even a pebble sized rock that's moving really fast can do a lot of damage... It's not a joke. The space lab is a lot sturdier than a mirror. Maintenance will be near impossible because of the # of satellites, the risk of going into space; and what if there was a failure in a satellite it would probably crash into others and they'll burn up in the Mesosphere. I know it is very basic and part of the experimentation, but we must have a small-scale test on Earth in one of NASA's vacuum rooms before we even attempt it in space. I do agree we must take action, as a world, not any individual country. The only problem is most people do NOT even agree that Global Warming is real. Yes the planet has undergone periods of warm and cold... That is natural, but what I am saying is that Humans are just speeding the cycle up. Just to be clear, Global Warming is real, it's a natural process, but we are just speeding it up... AND to support my opinion; the melting ice that leaves Polar Bears stranded and hungry.
ADK
Jan 7, 2009
0
#39
Too much of the opinions held by the left are based on faulty information. Here's the latest case in point. Please read the whole article. It's about the guy (James Hansen of NASA) that "forgot" to carry the two one day and provided the Global Warming® crowd with information that claimed 1998 was the warmest year on record. Horrors! Little problem, though. His screwed up the math and it turns out the warmest year in the 20th century was 1926.
This article discusses more bad information:
Contrary to Gore's contention, the debate is far from over. Even the leftist Huffington Post recently chided Gore for his fear mongering.
princetrumpet, it could just be another period of cooling... That doesn't mean Global Warming doesn't exist. Global Warming is real, it's a natural process, but we, as the human race, are speeding it up. Earth still goes through periods of warm and cold. The adverse effects of our mistakes might cause a greater and much hotter WARM period and a greater and much cooler COLD period. I hypothesis this as Global Warming and Global Cooling. Eventually it will get to a point where it is uncontrollable, unpredictable, and uninhabitable.
ADK
I'm not angry. It's just that I know that in the long run, we will see who's right.
well be right
thank you