C
Calliso
Guest
Yeah I agree in the end all this really says is that of the few climatologists that responsded most agree global warming is in part due to humans. But in the end it is better to debate the science not the scientists.
- Status
Likely?
Please tell me this is just an ironic sense of humor that I somehow missed the joke on.
The single hottest part of our solar system, and it is dismissed as the main cause of warming?
I am glad we can agree here.
What they have found is climate change.
As skeptical as I am concerning the climate change on earth based on how little we know of the climate system, I am sure you can appreciate the level of skeptisism I have for scientists that claim to know the cause of climate on another planet.
N
Neolithic
Guest
It’s positively extraordinary that so many people can discuss an issue that so few know anything about.
The carbon emissions essentially create a blanket, trapping the sun’s heat, thus causing an increase in global temperature.
That’s third grade science, folks.
The carbon emissions essentially create a blanket, trapping the sun’s heat, thus causing an increase in global temperature.
That’s third grade science, folks.
Exactly.
There is too little known of the climate to be able to predict with any reliability what the temperature will be a few decades from now.
The sooner people realize this, the better.
Unfortunately, the popular media has sold many people a good dosage of pride. Pride that man is somehow able to foresee all of these things, that man can control these things, that man is responsible for it all, that man must stop it all.
In actuality, man has little to no control of the climate, and it is simply pride that makes us believe otherwise.
We are not nearly as powerful as the media would have us believe.
E
Ender
Guest
Greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation and then re-radiate it back out in all directions, including back to the earth. The higher the concentration of gases (up to a point), the more radiation is absorbed and returned to earth. Given that the extra heat is first absorbed in the atmosphere, however, that is where warming should occur first. The models all predict this. Unfortunately, the data doesn’t support the models since a chart of atmospheric temperature taken by satellites shows little of the warming that surface stations are reporting.
“But sir,” said the student, “your theory is contradicted by the facts.”
“So much the worse” replied the teacher “for the facts.”
Ender
N
Neolithic
Guest
Or, in another words, it creates a thick blanket that doesn’t allow heat to escape.
Most of the light energy from the sun is emitted in wavelengths shorter than 4,000 nanometers (.000004 meters). The heat energy released from the earth, however, is released in wavelengths longer than 4,000 nanometers. Carbon dioxide doesn’t absorb the energy from the sun, but it does absorb some of the heat energy released from the earth. When a molecule of carbon dioxide absorbs heat energy, it goes into an excited unstable state. It can become stable again by releasing the energy it absorbed. Some of the released energy will go back to the earth and some will go out into space.
So in effect, carbon dioxide lets the light energy in, but doesn’t let all of the heat energy out, similar to a greenhouse.
From Michigan State University.
Like I said, third grade science. Whatever special reactions occur are irrelevant when the issue is discussed among non-scientists, like all of us. We should, however, at least have the basics down, which, until now, few did.
Oh, and the first bold part contradicts your “facts.”
C
Calliso
Guest
It seems that might not quite be the case
realclimate.org/index.php?p=170
tamino.wordpress.com/2007/12/31/msu/
The second link I found the best more up to date and seems to include more data sets.
A
Agnus_Dei_1
Guest
Why is global warming even in a Catholic forum? You have to ask yourselves… WHY? Who started this question, very insidious and specious. It’s very presence gives it a veil of credibility, as if the question even has merit.
The next question will be, shouldn’t we continue to kill and contracept babies to death so we can save ourselves…
AS IF WE ARE GOD!!!
The next question will be, shouldn’t we continue to kill and contracept babies to death so we can save ourselves…
AS IF WE ARE GOD!!!
C
Calliso
Guest
Eh? this discussion exists here simply because people decided to discuss it. Plain and simple. Though the current direction of the thread is far off from the original posters intent I think. But stuff like that happens all the time in threads. If a thread goes on as long as this one has and is still completely on the topic as stated in the OP it;s practically a miracle.
A
Agnus_Dei_1
Guest
I’m sorry for questioning you person-god. Please save us from global warming.
Some consider it a moral issue. Some do not. The question as to what (if anything) to do about it becomes relevant in that context.
Which question? There have been several in this thread.
Perhaps you should start you own thread on that.
Why bring that up in a thread titled “Global Warming?”
E
Ender
Guest
What I said was that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. Fourth grade science would tell you that the energy from the sun is primarily ultraviolet. This is absorbed by the earth and then re-emitted as … infrared. Both of our statements are correct; your misunderstanding of the science involved is not really a contradiction of my comment.
Ender
N
Neolithic
Guest
I don’t quite think it was my misunderstanding that caused the problem. I rather think it was your inability to express yourself.
T
tmpumpkinbug
Guest
The boss of the man who convinced Al Gore global warming is real has his doubts.
theregister.co.uk/2009/01/28/nasa_climate_theon/
While I think that we are charged to be good stewards of the earth and all its creatures and we need to do so responsibly, I am not a fan of the “sky is falling” theory of global warming. We can’t acccurately predict the weather within a 48 hour period and yet we’re supposed to know what’s going to happen in 20 years+?
And 30 something years ago they thought the earth was cooling. Back in the 20s, they thought it was warming:
theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/
Maybe it’s a normal cycle? And do we really know based on the last few hundred years what the earth’s “natural” average temperature should be? It’s been around for millions of years. And we’re arrogant enough to think we know what’s best?
The global warming petition project, signed by over 31,000 American scientists:
petitionproject.org/
Bottom line, respect the earth and use its resources responsibly but I don’t think we need to go crazy and scare people with information that is in dispute and unproven theories. Some of the proposed changes can be expensive and that’s bad for the economy and jobs. Plus if we rush into any major changes we can possibly cause other problems that may make things worse.(Ex. -Those light bulbs that are more efficient but are bad for the environment when you’re done with them.)
This issue needs to be examined and taken into consideration along with all ramifications and the impact we will have if we do the wrong thing.
theregister.co.uk/2009/01/28/nasa_climate_theon/
While I think that we are charged to be good stewards of the earth and all its creatures and we need to do so responsibly, I am not a fan of the “sky is falling” theory of global warming. We can’t acccurately predict the weather within a 48 hour period and yet we’re supposed to know what’s going to happen in 20 years+?
And 30 something years ago they thought the earth was cooling. Back in the 20s, they thought it was warming:
theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/
Maybe it’s a normal cycle? And do we really know based on the last few hundred years what the earth’s “natural” average temperature should be? It’s been around for millions of years. And we’re arrogant enough to think we know what’s best?
The global warming petition project, signed by over 31,000 American scientists:
petitionproject.org/
Bottom line, respect the earth and use its resources responsibly but I don’t think we need to go crazy and scare people with information that is in dispute and unproven theories. Some of the proposed changes can be expensive and that’s bad for the economy and jobs. Plus if we rush into any major changes we can possibly cause other problems that may make things worse.(Ex. -Those light bulbs that are more efficient but are bad for the environment when you’re done with them.)
This issue needs to be examined and taken into consideration along with all ramifications and the impact we will have if we do the wrong thing.
O
otjm
Guest
Just as a curiosity, how many perished in Europe when a searing heat wave did not blast it? In other words, there is an assumption within your statment that the 50,000 who perished did so specifically as a result of the heat wave. If someone was dying with cancer, would it be all that awfully hard to say they died sooner because of the heat wave, without any proof whatsoever(other than their death) that the heat wave had any impact at all?
It seems to me I hve seen within the last year some comments that the mean heat level actuallly had gone down. Sorry I can’t locate it right now; but the point has been made repeatedly that it was only since the what - 70’s? that we even started to be able to make measurements from satellites; measurements prior to that were sporadic and nowwhere near as detailed, so our supposed base from which to work is seriously lacking. Throughout known history there have been significant temperature fluctations, all without any significant human causation; it is now assumed based on modeling which is open to question, whether human activity is capable of amking any impact on what can simply be another natural swing. And it was not all that many years ago that we were getting scientific predictions of an impending ice age.
M
Monty_Arch
Guest
You bet it is. Global warming is bogus. If you try to “fix” it, it will be economically devastating, which means people will end up being poor. Global warming is a political football.
:winter:
M
Monty_Arch
Guest
Al Gore realizes this, too. After making Inconvenient Truth, he bought a condo along the Pacific Coast.
N
Neolithic
Guest
Look, I think Al Gore is basically a crook. I think he’s a politician who saw an opportunity in Global Warming to earn an obscene amount of money and keep his name in the contemporary ear.Al Gore realizes this, too. After making Inconvenient Truth, he bought a condo along the Pacific Coast.
That doesn’t mean, however, that the scientists who aren’t writing books and making movies, of which there are many, are wrong. Al Gore took a factual issue and used it to make some dough.
I don’t like Al Gore, to be honest. I don’t like Joe Biden. I like Clinton and Obama, though. To be quite honest, the only Vice President I can remember thinking wasn’t a crook was George H.W. Bush.
M
Monty_Arch
Guest
I’m comfortable with that and so is Czech President Vaclav Klaus who said, “I don’t think that there is any global warming,” said the 67-year-old liberal, whose country holds the rotating presidency of the European Union. “I don’t see the statistical data for that.”
I don’t either.
:clapping:
- Status