| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/14/2009 09:40:59 PM · #201 |
| How's life in Saudi Arabia, Tammam? |
|
|
|
07/14/2009 09:42:56 PM · #202 |
|
|
|
07/14/2009 09:51:08 PM · #203 |
Originally posted by Timosaby:
I'm yet to see clear and conclusive evidence that climate change is CO2 driven. |
Look at Venus. It's much hotter than Mercury, and it's atmosphere is 96.5% CO2.
Message edited by author 2009-07-14 21:54:41. |
|
|
|
07/14/2009 09:53:16 PM · #204 |
Scalvert,
Correlation does not imply causality. |
|
|
|
07/14/2009 09:57:08 PM · #205 |
Originally posted by Timosaby:
Correlation does not imply causality. |
Yeah, it could just be that all the aliens left their irons on before they left to build the pyramids. "In the absence of the greenhouse effect caused by the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the temperature at the surface of Venus would be quite similar to that on Earth."
Message edited by author 2009-07-14 22:02:50. |
|
|
|
07/14/2009 10:17:46 PM · #206 |
I doubt we have enough records or historical data to know much about the mechanics of entirely different planets and I wouldn't venture out to make any conclusions based interplanetary comparisons between Earth, Mercury or Venus.
Also just went over your wiki link, it states that it was suggested that Venus was covered in water? As far as i know water vapor is a way worse greenhouse gas than CO2, your link even states that:
"Studies have suggested that several billion years ago Venus's atmosphere was much more like Earth's than it is now, and that there were probably substantial quantities of liquid water on the surface, but a runaway greenhouse effect was caused by the evaporation of that original water, which generated a critical level of greenhouse gases in its atmosphere."
Not to mention Venus is closer to the Sun than Earth, which would probably explain why its in the state its in, no? Thanks for the wiki link i'm learning loads about Venus now :P
Message edited by author 2009-07-14 22:31:08. |
|
|
|
07/14/2009 10:48:30 PM · #207 |
Originally posted by Timosaby:
As far as i know water vapor is a way worse greenhouse gas than CO2... |
"there were probably substantial quantities of liquid water on the surface, but a runaway greenhouse effect was caused by the evaporation of that original water, which generated a critical level of greenhouse gases in its atmosphere."
Then read that statement again. If water slowed heat transfer more than CO2, then Venus would have been hotter when it was water rich and cooler now that the water is gone and the atmosphere is mostly CO2. Water vapor has a larger effect here on earth simply because there's much more of it in the atmosphere (like an early Venus), but that doesn't mean it's "worse."
Originally posted by Timosaby:
Not to mention Venus is closer to the Sun than Earth, which would probably explain why its in the state its in, no? |
No. Mercury is MUCH closer to the sun, yet Venus is nearly twice as hot as Mercury.
Message edited by author 2009-07-14 22:52:13. |
|
|
|
07/14/2009 11:00:44 PM · #208 |
We really shouldn't be making comparisons between earth and Venus in my opinion, they're simply different. Again from your wiki link:
"Much of Venus's surface appears to have been shaped by volcanic activity. Overall, Venus has several times as many volcanoes as Earth, and it possesses some 167 giant volcanoes that are over 100 km across. The only volcanic complex of this size on Earth is the Big Island of Hawaii. However, this is not because Venus is more volcanically active than Earth, but because its crust is older. Earth's oceanic crust is continually recycled by subduction at the boundaries of tectonic plates, and has an average age of about 100 million years, while Venus's surface is estimated to be about 500 million years old"
We couldn't possibly compare the two, they've developed and are composed differently and are not nearly the same age.
Still no conclusive evidence that CO2 is a cause of climate change. It's surely associated with warmer temperatures, but is not the cause. |
|
|
|
07/14/2009 11:51:59 PM · #209 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Timosaby:
I'm yet to see clear and conclusive evidence that climate change is CO2 driven. |
Look at Venus. It's much hotter than Mercury, and it's atmosphere is 96.5% CO2. |
They should start a cap and trade program on Venus then. |
|
|
|
07/14/2009 11:53:27 PM · #210 |
Originally posted by Timosaby:
We couldn't possibly compare the two, they've developed and are composed differently and are not nearly the same age. |
Actually, there's no better comparison– Venus is often referred to as Earth's twin for that very reason. They ARE nearly the same age (the planets formed together from the same protoplanetary disk), they share similar orbits, structure and composition, and both are/were volcanically active.
There's plenty of conclusive evidence. It's just that some crackpots choose to deny it. James A. Peden is a good example. This long-retired scientist calls human contribution to CO2 levels "insignificant" (when we pump 27 million tons of the stuff into the atmosphere every day), and makes highly misleading statements to support his claims. Yes, there are more polar bears today for the same reason there are more right whales, but they're now threatened by an unprecedented reduction in the sea ice they hunt from. Yes, there has been a recent increase in the area of Antarctic ice, but also a dramatic loss around the Ross Sea, Arctic Circle and temperate glaciers (a global net loss).
I love that his claim to fame is that he "spent some of his earlier years as an Atmospheric Physicist at the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh and Extranuclear Laboratories in Blawnox, Pennsylvania, studying ion-molecule reactions in the upper atmosphere." A. His work experience doesn't guarantee that he was actually competent. B. The upper atmosphere that this guy studied decades ago is very different from the the lowest levels where greenhouse gases do their the dirty work. C. "Enos worked at NASA studying the effects of microgravity on biological functions" sounds more impressive than it really is D. A list of 650 scientists who question global warming is not evidence of its untruth. I'm sure you could have gotten 2,000 people to sign a statement claiming they believed Jim Jones was the messiah. If that really mattered at all, then here's 12,000 members of the clergy who say evolution is fact.
Message edited by author 2009-07-14 23:55:03. |
|
|
|
07/15/2009 12:08:34 AM · #211 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Timosaby:
We couldn't possibly compare the two, they've developed and are composed differently and are not nearly the same age. |
Actually, there's no better comparison– Venus is often referred to as Earth's twin for that very reason. They ARE nearly the same age (the planets formed together from the same protoplanetary disk), they share similar orbits, structure and composition, and both are/were volcanically active.
There's plenty of conclusive evidence. It's just that some crackpots choose to deny it. James A. Peden is a good example. This long-retired scientist calls human contribution to CO2 levels "insignificant" (when we pump 27 million tons of the stuff into the atmosphere every day), and makes highly misleading statements to support his claims. Yes, there are more polar bears today for the same reason there are more right whales, but they're now threatened by an unprecedented reduction in the sea ice they hunt from. Yes, there has been a recent increase in the area of Antarctic ice, but also a dramatic loss around the Ross Sea, Arctic Circle and temperate glaciers (a global net loss).
I love that his claim to fame is that he "spent some of his earlier years as an Atmospheric Physicist at the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh and Extranuclear Laboratories in Blawnox, Pennsylvania, studying ion-molecule reactions in the upper atmosphere." A. His work experience doesn't guarantee that he was actually competent. B. The upper atmosphere that this guy studied decades ago is very different from the the lowest levels where greenhouse gases do their the dirty work. C. "Enos worked at NASA studying the effects of microgravity on biological functions" sounds more impressive than it really is D. A list of 650 scientists who question global warming is not evidence of its untruth. I'm sure you could have gotten 2,000 people to sign a statement claiming they believed Jim Jones was the messiah. If that really mattered at all, then here's 12,000 members of the clergy who say evolution is fact. |
So you are more of a climate expert them James A. Peden. Got it. |
|
|
|
07/15/2009 12:27:15 AM · #212 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
So you are more of a climate expert them James A. Peden. Got it. |
I make no claim to that effect, but I can certainly recognize bad science when it includes already debunked or obviously misleading claims. |
|
|
|
07/17/2009 06:40:16 AM · #213 |
I agree CO2 has nothing to do with it, but that doesn't mean man isn't the cause of global warming. I believe its magnetic shifts from the Earth's poles, definitely the underlying cause of it, and on top of that, radiation increasing from the sun since the magnetosphere is uneven.
Message edited by author 2009-07-17 06:42:26. |
|
|
|
07/17/2009 09:23:02 AM · #214 |
I, for one, have stopped farting. I am no longer contrbuting methane to global warming.
|
|
|
|
07/17/2009 12:46:23 PM · #215 |
If increased CO2 levels resulted in rising temperatures, then we should see CO2 preceding temperature rises – instead of historic temperature rises followed by increased CO2 levels.
If manmade CO2 was the root cause of Global warming, then why has the earth cooled (.4 degrees since 2001) during the growth in developing nations and their CO2 emissions? Note: In the last 30 years the earth̢۪s temperature has elevated 1 degree and lost 40% of that in the last 8 years. An odd event if the root cause of Global Warming is manmade CO2 (aka anthropological/anthropogenic).
“It continues to amaze me that folks who don’t believe pharmaceutical company-funded or oil-company-funded research unquestionably accept politically-funded and politically-motivated university research. Astounding.â€
itallics quote source
|
|
|
|
07/17/2009 01:00:17 PM · #216 |
Originally posted by Flash:
If increased CO2 levels resulted in rising temperatures, then we should see CO2 preceding temperature rises – instead of historic temperature rises followed by increased CO2 levels. |
If tsunamis resulted in rising water levels, then we should see a tsunami before each coastal flood (an equally moronic statement that presupposes only one factor). How many historic rapid increases in CO2 without counterbalancing factors (volcanic cloud cover to help reflect IR radiation) have there been? Hmm... counting the current manmade event... ONE! Oh my goodness, the earth has cooled .4 degrees during solar minimum! Woo... a higher low to be followed by a higher high as we move toward solar maximum. Whatever. |
|
|
|
07/20/2009 02:39:50 PM · #217 |
I'm not sure I can provide "solid" evidence that humans are causing global warming, and even if I could, that doesn't mean the nay-sayers will believe it. But one's thing for sure: even if we aren't CAUSING it we certainly not helping the environement.
So instead of sitting on my hands saying "Well, I'm not the PRIMARY cause of it", I'll do what I can to help. I'll take my bike as often as possible, I'll recycle as much as I can, I try to save water. If I really need to buy a car (but right now the collective transports are just fine for me), I'll buy a car with the lowest fuel consomation possible.
I'll try to save as much energy as possible.
We are way too late, global warming is way too advanced to simply wait for a scientific breaktrough. The only thng that can save us for everybody to do just a little bit of their part.
It doesn't require much, we are around 450 millions in north america alone, if each one of us just do a little bit, we can do a difference.
And for those who complain that China isn't bound by the Kyoto accord, know that beacause of their fast growing economy and the fact that they benefit from the errors we made in our industrial era, the are building more and more eco-friendly buildings and urban designs.
We may or may not be causing global warming (I think we are, but even if we aren't), but we certainly can do do something about it.
|
|
|
|
07/29/2009 12:00:30 PM · #218 |
//www.vancouversun.com/news/Global+warming+religion+First+World+urban+elites/1835847/story.html
Does anyone in Vancouver know the political slant of this newspaper? And has anyone read the book referenced in this article? Of course he must be a crackpot to believe such things... :)
hmmm... Geologist. perhaps slippy has been busy doing more than photography! |
|
|
|
07/29/2009 12:18:41 PM · #219 |
Yes it does seem to have become a new religion.
Promoting CO2 reductions via plans like Kyoto is not the best cost effective way to improve life on earth.
There are many, many issues that need immediate attention that could improve things much more for far less cost.
1) Promote R & D for alternative energy sources. This will cost far less than Kyoto and reduce CO2 far more than Kyoto.
2) Stop encouraging people to settle on flood plains. The main reason flood damage has become astronomical is the fact that more people and more infrastructure has been built in flood prone areas.
3) Improve on preventative measures, like improving existing levees etc.
Climate change is inevitable regardless of whether humans are present or not. Humans may affect the speed at which it occurs.
Message edited by author 2009-07-29 12:19:19. |
|
|
|
07/29/2009 02:57:17 PM · #220 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Mercury is MUCH closer to the sun, yet Venus is nearly twice as hot as Mercury. |
Sorry buzzzzzzzzzt! Wrong. Venus is not nearly twice as hot as Mercury.
Sunlit areas on Mercury reach 427C which is only a few tens of degrees less than Venus. Without knowing why the Venetian atmosphere consists primarily of CO2, making comparisons for the purpose of promoting theories of global warming is a waste of time. |
|
|
|
07/29/2009 03:02:03 PM · #221 |
Originally posted by FireBird:
Without knowing why the Venetian atmosphere consists primarily of CO2, making comparisons for the purpose of promoting theories of global warming is a waste of time. |
So you require evidence that the CO2 came from Venusians over-exploiting their fossil fuels before you'll consider that reducing it in our own atmosphere might be a good idea? |
|
|
|
07/29/2009 03:10:17 PM · #222 |
Originally posted by FireBird:
Sorry buzzzzzzzzzt! Wrong. Venus is not nearly twice as hot as Mercury. |
The mean surface temperature of Venus is 735 K. The mean temperature of Mercury is 200 - 340 K, depending on latitude. The maximum surface temperature of Mercury is only 700 K despite its much closer proximity to the sun. |
|
|
|
07/29/2009 03:19:57 PM · #223 |
Originally posted by FireBird:
Without knowing why the Venetian atmosphere consists primarily of CO2, making comparisons for the purpose of promoting theories of global warming is a waste of time. |
Do you also need to know how the refrigerant got into your freezer before you'll accept that it's responsible for keeping your Phish Food cold? |
|
|
|
07/29/2009 03:29:03 PM · #224 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
So you require evidence that the CO2 came from Venusians over-exploiting their fossil fuels before you'll consider that reducing it in our own atmosphere might be a good idea? |
No smart ass. And I've not decided to speak for you either. At no point did I discuss any over-exploiting, or any idea that reducing CO2 in our atmosphere would be a good idea. So why do you think you need to speak for me? I'm curious. |
|
|
|
07/29/2009 03:32:15 PM · #225 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Do you also need to know how the refrigerant got into your freezer before you'll accept that it's responsible for keeping your Phish Food cold? |
We're not talking about fish food. Try some more dodging and dissembling. That attempt was lack luster. |
|
