How many climatologists have ever studies physics? If they had they would realize that the so-called greenhouse effect cannot exist under accepted physical laws.
QUOTE ("Dr. Gerhard Gerlich"+)
5 Physicist’s Summary
A thorough discussion of the planetary heat transfer problem in the framework of theoretical
physics and engineering thermodynamics leads to the following results:
1. There are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effect, which explains the relevant physical phenomena. The terms \greenhouse effect” and \greenhouse gases” are deliberate misnomers.
2. There are no calculations to determinate an average surface temperature of a planet:
a) with or without atmosphere,
with or without rotation,
c) with or without infrared light absorbing gases.
The frequently mentioned difference of 33 C for the fictitious greenhouse effect of the atmosphere is therefore a meaningless number.
3. Any radiation balance for the average radiant flux is completely irrelevant for the determination of the ground level air temperatures and thus for the average value as well.
4. Average temperature values cannot be identifed with the fourth root of average values of the absolute temperature’s fourth power.
5. Radiation and heat flows do not determine the temperature distributions and their average values.
6. Re-emission is not reflection and can in no way heat up the ground-level air against the actual heat flow without mechanical work.
7. The temperature rises in the climate model computations are made plausible by a perpetuum mobile of the second kind [perpetual motion machine]. This is possible by setting the thermal conductivity in the atmospheric models to zero, an unphysical assumption. It would be no longer a perpetuum mobile of the second kind, if the average fictitious radiation balance, which has no physical justification anyway, was given up.
8. After Schack 1972 water vapor is responsible for most of the absorption of the infrared radiation in the Earth’s atmosphere. The wavelength of the part of radiation, which is absorbed by carbon dioxide is only a small part of the full infrared spectrum and does not change considerably by raising its partial pressure. Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects : : : 93
9. Infrared absorption does not imply “backwarming”. Rather it may lead to a drop of the temperature of the illuminated surface.
10. In radiation transport models with the assumption of local thermal equilibrium, it is assumed that the absorbed radiation is transformed into the thermal movement of all gas molecules. There is no increased selective re-emission of infrared radiation at the low temperatures of the Earth’s atmosphere.
11. In climate models, planetary or astrophysical mechanisms are not accounted for properly. The time dependency of the gravity acceleration by the Moon and the Sun (high tide and low tide) and the local geographic situation, which is important for the local climate, cannot be taken into account.
12. Detection and attribution studies, predictions from computer models in chaotic systems, and the concept of scenario analysis lie outside the framework of exact sciences, in particular theoretical physics.
13. The choice of an appropriate discretization method and the definition of appropriate dynamical constraints (flux control) having become a part of computer modelling is nothing but another form of data curve fitting. The mathematical physicist v. Neumann once said to his young collaborators: “If you allow me four free parameters I can build a mathematical model that describes exactly everything that an elephant can do. If you allow me a fifth free parameter, the model I build will forecast that the elephant will..fly.” (cf. Ref. [185].)
14. Higher derivative operators (e.g. the Laplacian) can never be represented on grids with wide meshes. Therefore a description of heat conduction in global computer models is impossible. The heat conduction equation is not and cannot properly be represented on grids with wide meshes.
15. Computer models of higher dimensional chaotic systems, best described by non-linear partial differential equations (i.e. Navier-Stokes equations), fundamental differ from calculations where perturbation theory is applicable and successive improvements of the predictions - by raising the computing power - are possible. At best, these computer models may be regarded as a heuristic game.
16. Climatology misinterprets unpredictability of chaos known as butterfly phenomenon as another threat to the health of the Earth. In other words: Already the natural greenhouse effect is a myth
from Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner of the Institute for Mathematical Physics at the Carolo-Wilhelmina Technical University, Germany , “Falsification of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effects Within the Framework of Physics”)
reasonmclucus
21st October 2007 - 08:25 PM
QUOTE (Soultechs+Oct 18 2007, 10:28 AM)
Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere affect the climate. The volumes of CO2 in the atmosphere as-well as the volumes of water vapor affect the amount of heat retained in the atmosphere. However cyclic climatic warm has probably occurred innumerable times in the past. Hundreds of millions of years ago speculatively speaking perhaps the Earth had the same climate as now. Then the atmosphere warmed up perhaps from underwater volcanic eruptions producing large amount of water vapor in the upper atmosphere melting all the ice on the planet. Perhaps warm blooded wildlife like seals, penguins, whales, became aquatic as a consequence of such cyclic melts in the Earths history. Perhaps most of the Earths surface was covered with water for hundreds of millions of years when you consider the amount of evolution that occurred to transform land mammals into aquatic mammals.
Most of the earth's surface (66%) is still covered with water.
Recent research indicates that significant ice caps might be less than 41. million years old.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/...70822151303.htm
yor_on
21st October 2007 - 10:03 PM
Wow :) all that from one guy. If he's right he's probably up for a Nobel Prise, don't you think :)
randomguy
21st October 2007 - 10:29 PM
QUOTE
How many climatologists have ever studies physics? If they had they would realize that the so-called greenhouse effect cannot exist under accepted physical laws.
How many global warming so-called "skeptics" have ever studied physics? If they had they would realise they are idiots who cannot be trusted to tie their own shoelaces.
Paul H:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| How many climatologists have ever studies physics? If they had they would realize that the so-called greenhouse effect cannot exist under accepted physical laws. |
How many global warming so-called "skeptics" have ever studied physics? If they had they would realise they are idiots who cannot be trusted to tie their own shoelaces.
Paul H:
Also check to see if the other planets in our solar system are also experiencing an increase of their temp as well. (Damn, tailpipe emissions are causing the global warming on mars too
good to see the 'tards are still knocking out the same old canards which supposedly disprove AGW.
http://environment.newscientist.com/channe...-change/dn11642
yor_on
21st October 2007 - 10:52 PM
It's so cool to read your definition of those scientists supporting global warming :)
Maybe you too will get a Nobel Prize?
You just need to frame it differently, like 'imagine a spherical shoelace, now follow its x-axis through z-coordinate inverted. Then imagine a idiot' :)
Or something to that notion? How about it?
chrono
21st October 2007 - 11:10 PM
[quote]8. After Schack 1972 water vapor is responsible for most of the absorption of the infrared radiation in the Earth’s atmosphere. The wavelength of the part of radiation, which is absorbed by carbon dioxide is only a small part of the full infrared spectrum and does not change considerably by raising its partial pressure.[\QUOTE]
heh!
They mentioned this during the PBS program "Global Dimming". In which they connect the lack of planes(and their plane made clouds) in the air after 9/11, the increase of heavy polluting in India & China, and reduced world-wide Pan Evaportion rates with human interference with the basic Water Cycle.
Which is only reinforced with Mt Saint Helens eruption and the temperatures that were recorded days afterwards. Nearly perfectly paralleling the temperature changes that we are currently having.
Who would've thought that the airplane conspirator's were right!!
GW is a deliberate set-up by the EU, and connected nations, to depress the US economy by pegging the US as the 'villian' and to force them to pay the perceived cost of 'fixing it'. Going even to the point of assessing a Carbon tax on imported goods, so it comes to roost with the largest national consumer of goods and not the ones actually responsible for making the pollution!
yor_on
22nd October 2007 - 12:00 AM
You know what :)
I'm not to sold at EU either :)
But... NNnnaaaaeeee :)
paul h
22nd October 2007 - 12:26 AM
QUOTE (randomguy+Oct 21 2007, 06:29 PM)
How many global warming so-called "skeptics" have ever studied physics? If they had they would realise they are idiots who cannot be trusted to tie their own shoelaces.
Paul H:
good to see the 'tards are still knocking out the same old canards which supposedly disprove AGW.
http://environment.newscientist.com/channe...-change/dn11642
randomguy,
So I took this from the link you posted
>Our solar system has eight planets, three dwarf planets and quite a few moons with at least a rudimentary atmosphere, and thus a climate of sorts. Their climates will be affected by local factors such as orbital variations, changes in reflectance (albedo) and even volcanic eruptions, so it would not be surprising if several planets and moons turn out to be warming at any one time.
Uhh, wouldn't that also include our rock too? duh huh
But if our planet warms it has to be man's doing... Hmmmm
this seem a bit too al gore for me. I suggested that the warming of our rock is in line with the warming of other objects in our local system and the web site you post to refute this only served to say that yes they are warming but the reason they are warming must be something other than the sun. Well it sure ain't the exhaust pipe of al gores jet causing them to warm. Give me a break,, there isn't a thing we can do to harm this planet. We can make life for us a bit tough or we can destroy ourselves, but this planet will shake us off her back like a dog shaking off flees. whether we are on it or not this planet will heat up and cool on predictable cycles. Now if you realy want to convence a 'tard like me that we are causing this rock to heat up then let's hear what you have to say about the 9 points of gores movie that the court say are lies.
Zarabtul
22nd October 2007 - 04:18 AM
I dunno I have studied this for yrs. before I ever caught our govt. messing up our Earth with their idiotic oil policies. It's a problem and for more reason than just what has been mentioned. It's going to happen for these reasons regardless of what anyone does sooner or later unless someone learns to start using the terraforming in ways that are cutting edge science and actually spread that around the gliobe not just think they are the only ones who are going to use it. Now i do agree with figuring out ways of making it a safe technology...
Volcanic Ash in the Atmosphere
pretty stuff really...
lengould
22nd October 2007 - 01:46 PM
QUOTE
GW is a deliberate set-up by the EU, and connected nations, to depress the US economy by pegging the US as the 'villian' and to force them to pay the perceived cost of 'fixing it'. Going even to the point of assessing a Carbon tax on imported goods, so it comes to roost with the largest national consumer of goods and not the ones actually responsible for making the pollution!
Sheesh! Might I suggest a counsellor. (Many of)You Americans are sounding more and more like paranoid schizophrenics. That economy thing couldn't have anything to do with the country continually spending more than it earns I suppose?
Guest_Lloyd
22nd October 2007 - 10:10 PM
QUOTE
You Americans are sounding more and more like paranoid schizophrenics.
That's just truth revealing itself like it always does, eventually.
Don't worry, rednecks will become extinct too!
L
ScienceIsNeverSettled
22nd October 2007 - 11:51 PM
hello everyone
i'm very skeptical about claims for man made global warming. i'm even more skeptical about the integrity and honesty many of those that are claiming man made global warming, especially those that are implying that the science is settled(see my username). some of them seem to genuinely believe that man is causing the warming without needing to corrupt the science (eg roger pielke), but many of them just seem to be willing to corrupt science, either due to their beliefs or to secure their career (eg michael mann, gavin schmidt, al gore, etc etc etc). the vast majority seem to belong to the latter group.
at this present time, there is no known concrete evidence that man is causing the warming. AGW is based upon several premises:
a) the hockey stick (thoroughly discredited).
b ) models. these can show anything that the author wants them to show, just like statistics. given that climate science is still not totally understood, models are only going to be a best guess, at present. climate modelers are saying: "we can't explain the warming of the last 50 years by natural causes. therefore, it must be caused by man". that's bad science and poor logic. we can only ever explain and understand concepts n terms of what we already know, so putting the blame on man is a bit like stone age man putting the blame on the gods or the man to describe lightning.
c) that co2 is either driving or in phases with temperature. i know for a fact that temperature drives co2 and methane levels for almost all of history, and is in phases at other times, but the theory that co2 is driving temperature through a feedback loop seems to be very shaky and unbelievable. it's almost like those with a vested interest in man made global warming have concocted that theory to suit their agenda, yet with very little proof. is it not a possibility that the warming produced by the MWP is driving the co2 up now?
it's worth bearing in mind that there are many unknowns in climate science, and is far from being complete or understood.
some more points:
a) these urban heat islands i'm quite dubious about. there is considerably more heat produced in urban areas than in the country.
b ) i keep on hearing alarmist news about the edges of icebergs breaking off, yet all the fair and credible science papers i've seen so far claims that the ice mass is growing in mass in total. and isn't the mass constantly in flux?
c) i remember being taught in school about climate change, but in those days the talk amongst scientists was that there was a probably an ice age. now those same scientists seem to have completely distanced themselves from ever claiming such theories. how strange.
i will be keeping an open mind.
chrono
23rd October 2007 - 02:54 PM
QUOTE (lengould+Oct 22 2007, 01:46 PM)
Sheesh! Might I suggest a counsellor. (Many of)You Americans are sounding more and more like paranoid schizophrenics.
Haven't bothered to look at the various treaty's, proposed global taxation schemes, or even the current 'studies' that point out that it's not the up & coming country's that are not actually responsible for their pollution but their 'enabler' country's now have you. Kinda hard not to sound 'paranoid' when you are being continuously lobbied as "the cause of AGW" due to trumped up science by liberal media and a group of nanny-states/countries that would very much benefit from reduced American economy strength.
All you have to do is take a quick look at european history to see how economic's are the rule to becoming dominate and controlling.
Fact on AGW: CO2 is NOT the real enemy! Bad science is, and greed is it's backer.
paul h
23rd October 2007 - 09:16 PM
Carbon footprint credits ???
In the past week I have heard of 5 or 6 companies buying carbon credits.
WHAT? CNN is one of them that bought carbon credits to allow them to put a green CNN logo on the TV screen.
Give me a break! How would paying money make anyone more carbon neutral?
And just WHO gets the money? Are they sending it to the Amish? Perhaps if my footprint is smaller than your you could send me a butt load of cash and I'll trade you my feets prints for yours.
point
24th October 2007 - 08:21 AM
People who do not take at least the threat of their own destruction seriously, have to be seriously mentally disturbed.
The real problem is the people who do not want the world to change because they already believe they own it. It will change because change is all there is, and fear of the loss of power will change also.
Enjoy your crumble!
egnorant
24th October 2007 - 01:56 PM
QUOTE (paul h+Oct 23 2007, 09:16 PM)
Carbon footprint credits ???
In the past week I have heard of 5 or 6 companies buying carbon credits.
WHAT? CNN is one of them that bought carbon credits to allow them to put a green CNN logo on the TV screen.
Give me a break! How would paying money make anyone more carbon neutral?
And just WHO gets the money? Are they sending it to the Amish? Perhaps if my footprint is smaller than your you could send me a butt load of cash and I'll trade you my feets prints for yours.
I have wondered how the carbon credits scam works.
Carbon production will destroy man...unless you give us money??!!
How long before a carbon tax is included on various products similar to a "sin" tax on tobacco and alcohol?
Soon unlicensed breathing will be considered tax evasion!
Carbon offset fee on utility bills, pet registration, Nascar tickets??
I have doubts.
Bruce
LeTUOtter
24th October 2007 - 03:08 PM
It is bogus, at least to me. Check out Wikipedia for an article on how CC's work.
But you know what's really funny to me? You know that company that Al Gore pays his carbon credit tax to? Guess who's the chairman of the board? You got it. Good ol' Al. He's basically taking money out of one pocket and putting it in another one. He should get a Nobel Prize for economics!
Corvidae
24th October 2007 - 03:32 PM
QUOTE (egnorant+Oct 24 2007, 01:56 PM)
I have wondered how the carbon credits scam works.
You're paying someone to remove X amount of carbon from the atmosphere. At least in a reputable service. There's a lot of scams out there. Which is to be expected any time you create a new market. They'll get regulated/arrested etc. over time.
Like um or not, carbon credit companies are going to grow and become more numerous. In the end they'll probably fail for being too little too late.
At this point convincing people of global warming is a pointless waste of energy. Just sell them on some beach front property and move on.
paul h
24th October 2007 - 09:13 PM
QUOTE (Corvidae+Oct 24 2007, 11:32 AM)
You're paying someone to remove X amount of carbon from the atmosphere. At least in a reputable service. There's a lot of scams out there. Which is to be expected any time you create a new market. They'll get regulated/arrested etc. over time.
Like um or not, carbon credit companies are going to grow and become more numerous. In the end they'll probably fail for being too little too late.
At this point convincing people of global warming is a pointless waste of energy. Just sell them on some beach front property and move on.
OK, this is a psychics forum. some one here please tell me how does one remove CO2 from the atmosphere??
And how would you know when to stop?
Do a google search on "
buying carbon footprint credits" (I did) There were just short of 100,000 hits. of the first 2 pages everyone of them had a place for you to pay them (based on how many tonnes you want to off set) based on the calculator my foot print was 12.6 this would be about 80 euros. . about 3 of them said that the money would be used to plant trees in Kenya. The others didn't say where the money went. They didn't say how many trees $80.00 would plant or that they would even try to keep them alive. For that matter I could design a nice web site and agree to plant a tree per ton for $50.00 (competition) nothing would stop me from planting the same tree over and over . and you would get a real nice certificate.
yor_on
24th October 2007 - 10:59 PM
Yeah i agree :) It's a scam working both ways. For some corrupted politicans in third world countries without industry's to get some pocket money, and for the industrialized nations to continue polluting without getting 'bad publicity' :))
So everybody is happy. Its like a compromise, you know he fooled you some, but you fooled him one better ::))
And in the end :)
Who cares, right.
paul h
24th October 2007 - 11:14 PM
>Who cares, right.
Apparently Point does.
>People who do not take at least the threat of their own destruction seriously, have to be seriously mentally disturbed.
Serious question:
How much co2 does a (one) tree remove?
suggestion:
instead of taxing my ity bity footprint, have the guys that are cutting down the rain forest re-plant those trees.
yor_on
24th October 2007 - 11:39 PM
Did you know that Japan used the profit from amongst other things the rain forest to restore it environment and that at a really huge cost :)
A little like almost any western country have done, well maybe not the rain forest as much as other cheap goods.
I wonder where China will turn when their time comes?
And Russia?
and?
paul h
24th October 2007 - 11:58 PM
Now I'm not saying that this rock isn't geting warmer but,, I just think that this GW thingy is blown way outa place. It all comes back to money (or power, see Al gore) We had a US senator stand up and state for the record yesterday that GW was responsible for the wild fires in California. (He forgot to mention the transformer that blew up or the arsonist that started the fire) He also forgot to mention the stupid environmentalist that got laws passed that stopped land owners of Forrest officials from doing controlled burns ( some endangered rat, you know like the ones that spread the plague) so that this sort of thing would not have the extra fuel.
And in order to feed the pig I will wind up having to pay a methane tax every time I break wind just so some tree hugger can rip people off collecting some scam footprint credit.
All of the petty things we could do to slow GW would either put us back into the 12th century or be allot more like having everyone go pee in the sea to replenish the saltwater.
Corvidae
25th October 2007 - 01:19 PM
QUOTE (paul h+Oct 24 2007, 09:13 PM)
OK, this is a psychics forum. some one here please tell me how does one remove CO2 from the atmosphere??
It can be done mechanically by simply lowering the temperature until the co2 condenses out of the air. Which is how it's done for small scale dry ice production.
I could tell you how they calculate co2 removal per acre of trees, but the simple fact is, you don't want to know. You would rather piss and whine about what a scam it is.
Really, don't worry about it. Just go get yourself a nice beach front condo to retire to.
adoucette
25th October 2007 - 01:59 PM
How exactly do planting trees REMOVE CO2 from the Biosphere?
I can see a slight time shift in the cycling of the CO2, but not actual removal.
I am curious, where are these millions upon millions of acres of arable land that we can plant trees in that are NOT being used now for OTHER purposes?
I've never seen any "CO2 Offset" involving tree planting that came close in CO2 uptake in the SAME TIME FRAME as the production of the original CO2.
Which, I believe, makes it a SCAM.
Arthur
Corvidae
25th October 2007 - 03:53 PM
QUOTE (adoucette+Oct 25 2007, 01:59 PM)
I am curious, where are these millions upon millions of acres of arable land that we can plant trees in that are NOT being used now for OTHER purposes?
Gone for the most part. Offset companies are being charged with forcing people off their land to plant trees. For the most part reforestation projects have reached their limit. There will always be a small market for them, but it's limited at best since most logging operations will replant anyway at this point, simply to plant their next crop of wood. Also many area's that have been clear cut (for instance in the US) are being used for something now. Leaving only patches of grassland that could conceivably be replanted to forest.
And of course there are more scam companies out there right now than legitimate operations. The last review in the UK only found 5 or 6 companies that were actually doing what they were charging people to do.
The better end of the offset market is using the money to pay for renewable energy or pay companies carbon credits for reducing their emissions in cap/trade economies.
Either way though, the carbon market is going to fail due to greed. From the scam companies that are just ripping people off, to the companies that will cheat to keep costs down.
None of it will work until enough consumers die. I'd actually say we need to increase co2 production to speed up the whole process. But then people might think by stopping the increases that it will fix the problem. So it's best to just sit back and let the world to drown in it's own mistakes. When the body count gets high enough, something will be done. After all, that's how a free market works.
adoucette
25th October 2007 - 04:21 PM
QUOTE (Corvidae+Oct 25 2007, 11:53 AM)
The better end of the offset market is using the money to pay for renewable energy or pay companies carbon credits for reducing their emissions in cap/trade economies.
I agree,
Therefor please send money to offset your excess Carbon Footprint to MY PayPal account.
Once sufficient OFFSETS have been accumulated I'll replace my standard double pane windows with even more efficient Argon filled ones.
That way, we'll BOTH feel better.
And you'll be helping SAVE THE POLAR BEARS.
Arthur
Corvidae
25th October 2007 - 08:10 PM
QUOTE (adoucette+Oct 25 2007, 04:21 PM)
And you'll be helping SAVE THE POLAR BEARS.
Nope, the polar bears and penguins have to die. And the coral reefs, fish, whales and the dolphins too. Athough if we're lucky the pine beetles will kill off all these damn pine forests that were planted everywhere that was clear cut centuries ago. If the people with that bright idea were still alive I'd bury them myself. Evil disgusting excuse for trees. (Yeah it's a personal issue, I even hate the smell of Pine Sol)
Sadly enough, I'm serious about letting most of the life on the planet die. Until environmental threats become a direct threat to species survival, they won't be dealt with. And they're unlikely to be recognized as a direct threat until after the death of millions.
Which pretty much means we can just sit back and watch the show until then. Maybe take bets on the next natural disaster. I'm betting on massive blizzard deaths sometime in late January early February in the UK. Followed by yet another year of flooding along the Mississippi (Damn those people need some floating houses.)
LeTUOtter
25th October 2007 - 08:37 PM
QUOTE (Corvidae+Oct 25 2007, 03:10 PM)
Followed by yet another year of flooding along the Mississippi (Damn those people need some floating houses.)
"Honey, we floated into the Gulf of Mexico last night! How am I going to get to work?! Ah, who the hell thought of this floating house!!"
adoucette
25th October 2007 - 09:05 PM
QUOTE (Corvidae+Oct 25 2007, 04:10 PM)
Nope, the polar bears and penguins have to die.
Does this mean you won't be contributing to my energy saving initiative?
Corvidae
25th October 2007 - 09:08 PM
QUOTE (LeTUOtter+Oct 25 2007, 08:37 PM)
"Honey, we floated into the Gulf of Mexico last night! How am I going to get to work?! Ah, who the hell thought of this floating house!!"
Hmm, now there's one way to repopulate New Orleans....
QUOTE
Does this mean you won't be contributing to my energy saving initiative?
Nope, too many investments that help me personally. At this point I see it as a choice of trying to plug the hole in the titanic with chewing gum, or steal your own life boat.
paul h
25th October 2007 - 09:37 PM
By the end of WW3 the ash will be blocking so much sunlight that you'll wish a polar bear would wonder by so you could make yourself a fur coat (not to mention lunch). besides the population will be so low by then that the co2 problem will have just fixed it's self.
In this day and age every one has to worry about something, so GW is as good as any other thing to worry about. besides this one will make someone rich. so long as they are not getting rich off of me I don't care, let them freak out. Me I freak out about Iran starting WW3 more than GW.
yor_on
25th October 2007 - 11:53 PM
One thing one can do is to have a really high tree near.
You know, just in case :)
paul h
25th October 2007 - 11:56 PM
QUOTE (yor_on+Oct 25 2007, 07:53 PM)
One thing one can do is to have a really high tree near.
You know, just in case
Huuu
Oint
26th October 2007 - 07:39 AM
QUOTE
>Who cares, right.
Apparently Point does.
>People who do not take at least the threat of their own destruction seriously, have to be seriously mentally disturbed.
I think you were just supposed to ignore the people who care, and let them get edited out of existence...
p
kaneda
26th October 2007 - 05:58 PM
These sort of threads are started by people who believe that they have found things that the tens of thousands of climate scientists never thought of, like checking the temperature trends in the past, notably the last century, the Sun and such. Cretins.
Corvidae
26th October 2007 - 07:07 PM
QUOTE (kaneda+Oct 26 2007, 05:58 PM)
These sort of threads are started by people who believe that they have found things that the tens of thousands of climate scientists never thought of, like checking the temperature trends in the past, notably the last century, the Sun and such. Cretins.
While I have to grant you your point is correct. There is a reason for it though. Things are being overlooked. That's why every time they go back and compare measurements to past predictions, it's worse than the predictions called for.
None of the computer models forecast arctic melting at the speed it's happening. They aren't taking into account something or older measurements simply weren't accurate enough. It leaves room for the skeptics to create doubt. It's tobacco marketing all over again. "Sell the controversy"
paul h
26th October 2007 - 09:32 PM
QUOTE (kaneda+Oct 26 2007, 01:58 PM)
These sort of threads are started by people who believe that they have found things that the tens of thousands of climate scientists never thought of, like checking the temperature trends in the past, notably the last century, the Sun and such. Cretins.
It has nothing to do with the thread or who started it. it has to do with extremist (at both sides) As for the climate scientists go I have seen very little from them but it seems to go both ways. What I hear more of are the propaganda specialist spouting doom and gloom. -- Oh my, we are killing the planet,, We can't keep this up,, We must stop doing these things,, We must go back and live like it was the 12th century. So my take of them is that we can be miserable by changing the way we live or we can be miserable as a result of how we live. WHAT"S the difference? no matter which, we're still going to be miserable if they have their way.
Now I ask you: several years ago we took freon and fluorocarbons off the shelf. What good did that do? by now there should have been some verifiable data to show if this was the right thing to have done. Yet no one has said that there were any results. only more doom and gloom. come on show me some data,,, what good did it do?
paul h
27th October 2007 - 12:03 AM
meBigGuy
27th October 2007 - 10:19 AM
What's wrong with global warming. If you love plants, you should love global warming. So what if a bunch of rich people built their houses too close to the Ocean?
I propose that we begin a program to release all the CO2 in the White Cliffs of Dover.
Friends of Ivy, Unite!Eat Beans, release Methane!!
Here is to a Truly Green Future!
In reality I'm a global warming skeptic (with regard to some aspects). Unfortunately, given the (lack of) quality of the arguments made by anti-global-warming Scientists, I find it a hard position to justify with any credibility. So I resort to idiocies like the above in a vain attemt to massage my ego.
But, I do like
SOME of the things Freeman Dyson says here (some of it is a bit looney even for me)
http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge219.html#dysonfQUOTE
To stop the carbon in the atmosphere from increasing, we only need to grow the biomass in the soil by a hundredth of an inch per year
:
kaneda
27th October 2007 - 03:04 PM
Corvidae. For Mankind we are in unknown territory here with global warming. We can only guess at what happened in past heat ages. We don't know if the mechanisms for heat ages work differently because of how they are caused and what exactly they effect.
A problem with a huge area of the Arctic melting (I think 23.C was given as the high temperature there) is that it leaves other ice exposed which will then start melting too. Also where huge areas have broken off and drifted away, that is not going to all reform. Only a relatively small area will do this on top of what is left and next year, even more will be eaten away. Ice water running into cracks in the ice and freezing overnight can cause more cracking as it expands, so causing ever deeper damage. Possibly we will see then end of the summer Arctic within a decade or less. That quick.
adoucette
27th October 2007 - 06:05 PM
Too bad the SH is not cooperating.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IM....area.south.jpgSo while the NH sea ice extent has been decreasing the SH has been increasing at the same time.
Fancy that.
Arthur
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click
here.
curse you Mr. Bush) 