|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
baltec1
|
Posted - 2011.08.30 21:02:00 -
[1]
Originally by: Bane Necran Just the latest nail in the coffin for the man-made global warming theory.
Nope. We have seen solar activity like what we have now before and it didn't result in what we see going on now.
The biggest solar worry is how badly our communications are going to be impacted over the next decade or two.
|
baltec1
|
Posted - 2011.08.30 22:11:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Bane Necran You're such a neophobe, baltec1
Pretty sure you were among the people i discussed this with before, and i'm not going to repeat myself. If the findings of NASA and CERN are so easily dismissed by you then there's nothing i can do.
Well its kinda hard to defunk an entire science when the very people who run an experiment say that their rusults are interesting but dont answer what the solar interaction means. Its very interesting stuff I'll give you that but we do have records that go back far enough to know that the current solar activies do not explain what is going on with the climate.
Undoubtdly the sun has an impact but there are many other facters too including us.
|
baltec1
|
Posted - 2011.09.01 08:40:00 -
[3]
Edited by: baltec1 on 01/09/2011 08:44:47
Originally by: Riedle Edited by: Riedle on 31/08/2011 23:59:22
Quote:
No offense, but even though you've been saying it for years, I prefer to listen to these guys instead. I'll wait until NASA has something to say about the ramifications of the cosmic ray study.
It also doesn't help that the OP is misrepresenting the cosmic ray study's significance.
As for the planets are warming argument, check out item 40, or specifically this link. Also, the user comments are pretty interesting.
You can listen to whomever you like. I have done my research. I know the the alarmist approach has bastardized the science. it is appalling really. I'm not here to try to convince you or anyone else. I don't care what you think. It will all come out, it always does. Nature doesn't seem to be cooperating and no matter where they decide to cherry pick their temperatures to suit their laughably wrong models sooner or later people will wise up. They already are.
My comment was on the viciousness of people who don't think I should be able to think the way that I do or that there is something wrong with me that I do think this way.
That's all.
Oh, and just so you know - NASA's primary mission these days? Outreach to the Muslim world. LOL Pathetic what politics can do to science. And sad.
The irony of this post is that the anti-climate change lobby does exactly this in the hope most people won't do the research into what they are saying. This very topic is a fine example of good science getting hijacked by people with an agenda.
|
baltec1
|
Posted - 2011.09.01 18:40:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Roosterton The Earth has gone through continental splits, been hit by meteors (or something which wiped out an entire species of big scary things), has been through ice ages, and has driven many of its own species' into extinction, without the help of humans. (See: dinosaurs, mammoths.) Despite all that, life has adapted and evolved. I find the notion that certain parts of the world becoming one or two degrees warmer will throw entire ecosystems off balance to be rather silly.
I'm not saying that it's not a good idea to practice things like conserving oil and recycling, but acting as though global warming is a SERIOUS ISSUE and a THREAT TO DRIVE ALL OF EARTH TO EXTINCTION is quite stupid, and strikes me as people blowing things way out of proportion. Regardless of how much we're contributing to it.
A 10 degree C change in global temp would wipe out 90% of life on earth.
|
baltec1
|
Posted - 2011.09.02 14:40:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Riedle Run away run away!
The sky is falling for nigh on 20 years now! lol
oh yeah, but it hasn't even been warming for the past 10
oops
You need to look at the last 200000 years to get the trend. The last 300ish years you will find a very large spike (in scientific terms). In the last 10 years we have seen record after record broken all over the planet but it is not evenly spread. For example the largest rises are at the poles while some places have seen a cooling trend because of global warming inpacting wind currents. Its a complicated matter and so easily miss-interpreted by people who don't want it to be true and people who make genuine mistakes.
|
baltec1
|
Posted - 2011.09.04 07:28:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Riedle
Exactly. Look at the Mann Hockey stick as proof to how badly some people want to believe. A fellow Canuck disproved it. (or exposed it if you prefer)
Meanwhile climate data gathered via ice cores, satalite data, weather stations from across the globe and even hundreds of years worth of data collected by the royal navy from around the worlds oceans show that we are warming up and the chemical composition of the atmosphere is changing.
|
baltec1
|
Posted - 2011.09.04 14:27:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Riedle
Right, so you are a believer. Thought so. The whole discreditation of the Mann hockey stick, if you even know what that is, was that the warming we have experienced is nothing out of the ordinary at all. Neither was the warming in the 1940's or the cooling in the 1970's or the cooling of the 2000's for that matter.
The midieval warming period was much warmer that it is now. Kind of hard to blame that on the ol' SUV
But it is warmer than in the medieval warming period...
The oceans are also more acidic, ice shelves are much much smaller and desertification is increasing.
|
baltec1
|
Posted - 2011.09.05 08:44:00 -
[8]
Edited by: baltec1 on 05/09/2011 08:45:31
Originally by: Riedle
Of course, we do not know is the MWP was warmer than it is today or not. We will never know for sure.
We have very accurate temperature data going back 600,000 years thanks to ice cores.
Originally by: Riedle
Carbon Dioxide is a very minor Global warming gas.
True but we are producing vast quatities of it
Originally by: Riedle
Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant.
It is when you produce too much of it. Not only is it a greenhouse gas but when it disolves in water it becomes acidic which is harmfull to sea life and also causes faster erosion in rock such as limestone.
Originally by: Riedle
The Sun is a much larger driver of climate change.
All evidence says that it is not the main driving force and if it was, why is the planet warming while the sun is cooling?
Originally by: Riedle particulate matter in the atmosphere is a larger driver of climate change
If this were true we would be seeing a gradual cooling of global temperatures not warming.
Originally by: Riedle Carbon dioxide is necessary for plant growth
This is not as true as you would think. Yes they need it but too much casuses issues and they can only absorb so much.
Originally by: Riedle we cannot measure the premodern era temperatures accurately.
Yes we can. We have accurate tempeature and atmospheric data going back 600,000 years thanks to ice cores and geological records (although nowhere near as good) give a good idea of temperature going back over a billion years.
Originally by: Riedle The 'computer models' purported to simulate and forecast global temperatures have turned out to be laughably wrong.
Computer simulations are very accurate when it comes to global temperatures and have made several predictions on volcanic impacts upon global temperatures with a 100% success record and to date, they have predicted everything correctly. They only have issues with local weather preditions due to the complicated way weather interacts with itself and sea/land masses.
|
baltec1
|
Posted - 2011.09.05 14:28:00 -
[9]
Edited by: baltec1 on 05/09/2011 14:30:03
Originally by: Riedle
How would we even know that? We can try and extrapolate temperatures by proxy but we cannot even directly measure them obviously so the accurate records are guesses about generalities.
Yes we can see what temperature it was. You see, when the ice is formed it traps air making in effect a time capsule of the atmosphere. Now the air has a different chemical makeup depending upon the temperature. Scientists can measure the levels of two types of oxygen to get an exact temperature level at the time the snow was compacted into ice.
Originally by: Riedle
It is a bit player in the atmosphere.
It is the primary greenhouse gas the keeps the Earth warm
Originally by: Riedle
Well obviously you never read the article in the OP. Read that and try again. If you are such an admirer of science why do you even refuse to read opposing theories? Oh that's right - it's a belief system for you.
I think you need to go read the third link again.
Originally by: Riedle
uhh, no. We are emitting less particulate matter now than we were due to much better methods of using coal, for example to power our electrical plants. The pollution per kilowatt has come down quite a lot.
Which has resulted in higher temperatures across europe as less partical matter is released. Also after 9/11 all air traffic was grounded across US airspace. This resulted in higher temperatures across the continent. If global dimming due to partical ejection into the antmosphere was indeed a more powerfull force then we would be seeing a cooling trend not a warming.
Originally by: Riedle
Is that right? lol
Yes, you learn this in basic biology
Originally by: Riedle
We have a grasp on the general thanks to ice cores and geological data. To combine that with 'accurate' 20th century records is a fools errand.
see first reply
Originally by: Riedle
Riiight... lol I was in the AGW game earlier than you I guess.
You mean back when satalite data was giving the wrong reading due to a misscalculation to include orbit decay? Yea they fixed that in the late 70s.
I sujest you go read up on the climate impact predictions report on the Mount Pinatubo eruption made by climate models.
Also, thanks for the link but I like to get my info from scientific papers rather than blogs on the internet and badly biased "news" reports.
|
baltec1
|
Posted - 2011.09.05 16:05:00 -
[10]
Edited by: baltec1 on 05/09/2011 16:06:58 Edited by: baltec1 on 05/09/2011 16:05:15
Originally by: Riedle
Quote: Yes we can see what temperature it was. You see, when the ice is formed it traps air making in effect a time capsule of the atmosphere. Now the air has a different chemical makeup depending upon the temperature. Scientists can measure the levels of two types of oxygen to get an exact temperature level at the time the snow was compacted into ice.
Right, they take an indirect data source and guestimate what the temperature was. They have no way to take a direct temperature reading like we have had in the 20th century. Two very different methods used to describe the same thing should never be used on the same graph. basic science 101.
Wrong again. You get the exact temperature readings because the levels of oxygen 18 are directly impacted by temperature.
As for the CO2 comments, please go look up the impact large amounts of CO2 have has on venus.
|
|
baltec1
|
Posted - 2011.09.05 22:41:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Riedle
k, what part are you not getting? They can look at proxies - in this case as you say with oxygen 18 and make inferences about what the temperatires may have been to produce that but they are guestimates and are not direct measurements. This is not a difficult assertion to accept unless it impacts a belief system you are uncomfortable in accepting.
It is you who is not getting it. Oxygen 18 levels are directly impacted by temperature. Therefor if we know how much oxygen 18 there is we know just warm or cold the climate is. The chemestry does not change.
Originally by: Riedle
Thanks for proving my point. Exactly how many people live on Venus?
No you missed the point I was making entirely. Because of CO2 the temperature on venus is hot enough to melt lead.
|
baltec1
|
Posted - 2011.09.06 21:02:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Riedle
Nope, sorry. They look at Oxygen 18 as a proxy to estimate precipitation temperature to then extrapolate the atmospheric temperature. It is a guestimate. At the end of the day, a totally different method than direct measurement of the temperature. They should not be used side by side in a graph using these two very different methods. Simple.
They can be used side by side in a graph due to the fact they are very accuratly measured and hold true. There is a direct impact on the amount of oxygen 18 and temperature which can be accuratly measured. Of corse we havent even added in the results of ice crystals, pollon, chemical composition of the air ect which all can be used. Put it all together and we can get a very good idea of what was going on at the time the ice formed.
Originally by: Riedle
How much more c02 is on Venus compared to Earth? lol Oh and how much closer is Venus to the Sun than the Earth? lols
It was volcanic activity not the sun that caused the runaway warming on venus. You should look up these things before putting your foot in it.
|
baltec1
|
Posted - 2011.09.06 22:35:00 -
[13]
Edited by: baltec1 on 06/09/2011 22:34:59 bah double post
|
baltec1
|
Posted - 2011.09.07 16:54:00 -
[14]
Edited by: baltec1 on 07/09/2011 16:59:37
Originally by: Riedle
my foot in it? lol Just giving you an education, son
So your contention now is that it is hot on Venus because of it's atmopheric conditions and not due to it's proximity to the sun?
yikes. ok...
Then I guess it's only cold on Neptune cause there ain't enough c02 in it's atmosphere? How am I doing?
:)
Badly.
Lets start with Mercury. Now the day side is 430¦C which very very hot. At night temperatures drop to -163 ¦C. A hell hole with no atmosphere, this is what the sun can do at this orbit.
The average temperature on Venus is 460¦C. Planet wide both day and night. This means the the planet second furthest from the sun is hotter than the closest and take in that word. The average temperature both day and night. It is impossible for the sun to be the reason for venus being what it is.
Not only this, but the atmosphere is increadably reflective so the energy of the sun is also diminished as a large chunk is reflected back into space. Venus is a fine example of catastrophic golbal warming caused by c02.
Originally by: jason hill in the uk in medival times the uk used to grow grapes in the southern part of england ...we still cannot do this to this day ..because of climate change
Just to point out. There are scottish vineyards.
|
baltec1
|
Posted - 2011.09.07 21:06:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Riedle Edited by: Riedle on 07/09/2011 18:47:22 Mercury doesnÆt even have an atmosphere for all intents and purposes. ItÆs front side is exposed to the sun and the back side is practically exposed to the cold vacuum of space. See if you actually knew what it is you are talking about you would know this.
Here are some more facts for you CO2 makes up 0.0360% of the EarthÆs atmosphere Co2 makes up 96.5 % of VenusÆ atmosphere û no one is saying anything of the sort is going to happen here on Earth so while you are correct that Venus holds it heat in very well itÆs because almost the whole atmosphere on Venus is pure Co2 û lol Co2 in the EarthÆs atmosphere is, by contrast, a trace gas. Even the worst case scenario of increases will barely move this if at all.
So you comparing the two is an exercise for the brain dead.
Sorry but I am not brain dead so you are going to have to try harder.
According to you c02 is a harmless gas and the sun the the real powerhouse. Granted I gave you the most extream example but untill now, you didn't think co2 was a factor even on venus. I am also not sure what you are trying to say about Mercury.
It is quite clear you do not have a great grasp on the science or many of the facts on this subject.
|
|
|
|