From the dreaded foxnews.com
Global warming skeptics as knowledgeable about science as climate change believers, s
- Thread starter Fuckallyall
- Start date
Re: Global warming skeptics as knowledgeable about science as climate change believer
The whole approach to assessing global warming is wrong. Is it because of increasing energy output from the Sun or increase in energy absorption of the Earth?
We are slowly changing the color of the atmosphere to a darker color that coverts more of the light to heat. Normally that light would hit a tree leave and the carbon would be shaded in the trunk. Now that tree, coal, or oil is being burned up; light is hitting some carbon rich asphalt roof or road; or black carbon in the atmosphere.
NASA or the private sector could easily setup something to make that determination in real time. You would be able to determine if any CO2 reductions are making any impact and help policy makers. This would end the uncertainty in global warming...
The whole approach to assessing global warming is wrong. Is it because of increasing energy output from the Sun or increase in energy absorption of the Earth?
We are slowly changing the color of the atmosphere to a darker color that coverts more of the light to heat. Normally that light would hit a tree leave and the carbon would be shaded in the trunk. Now that tree, coal, or oil is being burned up; light is hitting some carbon rich asphalt roof or road; or black carbon in the atmosphere.
NASA or the private sector could easily setup something to make that determination in real time. You would be able to determine if any CO2 reductions are making any impact and help policy makers. This would end the uncertainty in global warming...
Re: Global warming skeptics as knowledgeable about science as climate change believer
well...
well...
Re: Global warming skeptics as knowledgeable about science as climate change believer
We have no instrumentation in deep space looking at reflected light from the Earth to assess global warming definitively and in real time.
An incandescent bulb vs a florescent bulb will output energy at 10 watts in a different manner. The incandescent bulb will produce more heat rather than light, while the florescent bulb will produce more light and little heat. Based on the light levels, you can infer whether the Earth on an entire hemisphere basis is producing more heat because of carbon or water vapor. A dark object vs a light object will reflect more light and be cooler while a dark object will get warmer and reflect little light.
If less light is coming back from the Earth, it is getting warmer or retaining the energy.
I know they have read temperatures of a region but what about from an entire hemisphere?
I think under the Bush years, NASA officials were intimidated into discussing projects on global warming. Many of their papers were edited heavily and they were forced to put another rover on Mars for the 20th time to keep busy. Many of those people that remain, have retained that same fear even under the Obama administration.
We have no instrumentation in deep space looking at reflected light from the Earth to assess global warming definitively and in real time.
An incandescent bulb vs a florescent bulb will output energy at 10 watts in a different manner. The incandescent bulb will produce more heat rather than light, while the florescent bulb will produce more light and little heat. Based on the light levels, you can infer whether the Earth on an entire hemisphere basis is producing more heat because of carbon or water vapor. A dark object vs a light object will reflect more light and be cooler while a dark object will get warmer and reflect little light.
If less light is coming back from the Earth, it is getting warmer or retaining the energy.
I know they have read temperatures of a region but what about from an entire hemisphere?
I think under the Bush years, NASA officials were intimidated into discussing projects on global warming. Many of their papers were edited heavily and they were forced to put another rover on Mars for the 20th time to keep busy. Many of those people that remain, have retained that same fear even under the Obama administration.
Re: Global warming skeptics as knowledgeable about science as climate change believer
If this were really an argument about facts, you might be correct but it's not. It's a purely political argument that falls in line with the current Republican anti-science mindset.
The whole approach to assessing global warming is wrong. Is it because of increasing energy output from the Sun or increase in energy absorption of the Earth?
We are slowly changing the color of the atmosphere to a darker color that coverts more of the light to heat. Normally that light would hit a tree leave and the carbon would be shaded in the trunk. Now that tree, coal, or oil is being burned up; light is hitting some carbon rich asphalt roof or road; or black carbon in the atmosphere.
NASA or the private sector could easily setup something to make that determination in real time. You would be able to determine if any CO2 reductions are making any impact and help policy makers. This would end the uncertainty in global warming...
If this were really an argument about facts, you might be correct but it's not. It's a purely political argument that falls in line with the current Republican anti-science mindset.
Re: Global warming skeptics as knowledgeable about science as climate change believer
hahaha.... fascinating article. My favorite part was the implicit suggestion that there is an equivalence of meaningful (peer-reviewed)data on both "sides" of the issue. As though there isn't massive agreement among the vast majority of climate experts and scientists that humans are having a deleterious impact on the climate system. Funny stuff.
In the final calculus deniers of man-made climate change will be seen to be about as clueless and dishonest as those who chose to deny the ill health effects of smoking (and second hand smoke)back in the 80s and early 90s. It's a shame too because all the irresponsible deflection and hand-wringing about big-gov conspiracies etc are taking valuable time away from mitigating some of the avoidable consequences of this reality.
That's pretty sad.
hahaha.... fascinating article. My favorite part was the implicit suggestion that there is an equivalence of meaningful (peer-reviewed)data on both "sides" of the issue. As though there isn't massive agreement among the vast majority of climate experts and scientists that humans are having a deleterious impact on the climate system. Funny stuff.
In the final calculus deniers of man-made climate change will be seen to be about as clueless and dishonest as those who chose to deny the ill health effects of smoking (and second hand smoke)back in the 80s and early 90s. It's a shame too because all the irresponsible deflection and hand-wringing about big-gov conspiracies etc are taking valuable time away from mitigating some of the avoidable consequences of this reality.
That's pretty sad.
Last edited:
Re: Global warming skeptics as knowledgeable about science as climate change believer
It's as definitive as most scientific theories and ideas. You can find a few scientists who disagree with evolution and politicians who reject it. There are many politicians that will argue about the sun rising in the east if they thought it would help them raise money.
It's as definitive as most scientific theories and ideas. You can find a few scientists who disagree with evolution and politicians who reject it. There are many politicians that will argue about the sun rising in the east if they thought it would help them raise money.
Re: Global warming skeptics as knowledgeable about science as climate change believer
What climate change folks like to cite is the planet Venus and the density of the atmosphere which cause the temperature to spike up to 500 degrees. The length of day on Venus is 243 Earth days, the Sun can build up temperatures similar to the Moon because there is no night.
It also has temperatures around -200 degrees, for the side of the planet not facing the Sun! What happens is the atmosphere causes similar to a magnifying glass, energy from the Sun to concentrate in a smaller area, that receives an intense blast of heat energy for a short period of time.
The central tower temperatures is 3000 degrees; however, the ground under the reflecting dishes is much cooler. As light travels through the atmosphere, it begins to concentrate into a smaller area. If the planet Earth had no atmosphere, the difference in area covered by the light in the atmosphere and the ground would be minimal. Global warming creates a greater difference causing a solar tower effect.
As the planet rotates, the Earth will spike in temperature to 300 degrees than crash as it rotates around the Sun. However, a greater area of the planet will not receive as much solar radiation, it will be concentrated into a smaller area.
What climate change folks like to cite is the planet Venus and the density of the atmosphere which cause the temperature to spike up to 500 degrees. The length of day on Venus is 243 Earth days, the Sun can build up temperatures similar to the Moon because there is no night.
It also has temperatures around -200 degrees, for the side of the planet not facing the Sun! What happens is the atmosphere causes similar to a magnifying glass, energy from the Sun to concentrate in a smaller area, that receives an intense blast of heat energy for a short period of time.
The central tower temperatures is 3000 degrees; however, the ground under the reflecting dishes is much cooler. As light travels through the atmosphere, it begins to concentrate into a smaller area. If the planet Earth had no atmosphere, the difference in area covered by the light in the atmosphere and the ground would be minimal. Global warming creates a greater difference causing a solar tower effect.
As the planet rotates, the Earth will spike in temperature to 300 degrees than crash as it rotates around the Sun. However, a greater area of the planet will not receive as much solar radiation, it will be concentrated into a smaller area.
Last edited:
Re: Global warming skeptics as knowledgeable about science as climate change believer
I want you fellas to look up "peer review" and the concept of scientific consensus.
Type less brothers... read more.
I want you fellas to look up "peer review" and the concept of scientific consensus.
Type less brothers... read more.
Re: Global warming skeptics as knowledgeable about science as climate change believer
just stating the obvious. Some act as if those that don't acknowledge the climate changes are not 'in touch with reality'. Like I said climate changes everyday.
The only reason this issue is still alive is cause Al Gore is tryin to pimp you out of some money.
just stating the obvious. Some act as if those that don't acknowledge the climate changes are not 'in touch with reality'. Like I said climate changes everyday.
The only reason this issue is still alive is cause Al Gore is tryin to pimp you out of some money.
Re: Global warming skeptics as knowledgeable about science as climate change believer
So 95%+ of climate experts/scientists are engaged in a political conspiracy at the behest of Al Gore?
Come on man.
So 95%+ of climate experts/scientists are engaged in a political conspiracy at the behest of Al Gore?
Come on man.
Re: Global warming skeptics as knowledgeable about science as climate change believer
There should always be skepticism in the consensus by the scientific community. The temperature that should be used to assess is the peak temperature to determine if this solar tower effect is going on.
There should always be skepticism in the consensus by the scientific community. The temperature that should be used to assess is the peak temperature to determine if this solar tower effect is going on.
Re: Global warming skeptics as knowledgeable about science as climate change believer
There should be and there is. The issue is when people pretend like two arguments are on equal ground when they clearly are not all for the sake of politics.
There should always be skepticism in the consensus by the scientific community. The temperature that should be used to assess is the peak temperature to determine if this solar tower effect is going on.
There should be and there is. The issue is when people pretend like two arguments are on equal ground when they clearly are not all for the sake of politics.
Re: Global warming skeptics as knowledgeable about science as climate change believer
No, that would be the oil industry!
No, that would be the oil industry!
Re: Global warming skeptics as knowledgeable about science as climate change believer
Climate scientists have been intrigued by observations that
Antarctic sea ice shows a small but statistically significant
expansion of about 1.9% per decade since 1985, while sea
ice in the Arctic sea ice has been shrinking over past decades.
<IFRAME SRC="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21991487" WIDTH=760 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21991487">link</A>
</IFRAME>
Climate scientists have been intrigued by observations that
Antarctic sea ice shows a small but statistically significant
expansion of about 1.9% per decade since 1985, while sea
ice in the Arctic sea ice has been shrinking over past decades.
<IFRAME SRC="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21991487" WIDTH=760 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21991487">link</A>
</IFRAME>
Re: Global warming skeptics as knowledgeable about science as climate change believer
SOURCE
The Climate Is Set to Change
'Orders of Magnitude' Faster
Than at Any Other Time
in the Past 65 Million Years
'Orders of Magnitude' Faster
Than at Any Other Time
in the Past 65 Million Years
The pace of global warming is going to make it difficult if
not impossible for species to find appropriate habitats.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/lV8PI4R5nI4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Temperature Data: 1880-2011
not impossible for species to find appropriate habitats.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/lV8PI4R5nI4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Temperature Data: 1880-2011
Some of the earliest clues scientists had that Earth's climate has changed over time were mismatches between the fossil record and a current ecosystem. How could this palm tree have grown in Wyoming? Why have fossils of the tropical breadfruit tree been found as far north as Greenland? These cold places must have once been warm and wet. The world is not as it has always been.
And somehow, despite the tumult, species adapted, moving thousands of miles to habitats where they could survive. Won't species today just do the same as temperatures rise in the years ahead?
It seems they may not have the chance. A new paper in the journal Science finds that climate change is now set to occur at a pace "orders of magnitude more rapid" than at any other time in the last 65 million years. That breakneck speed may mean extinction for species that cannot keep up.
For example, the paper's authors Noah S. Diffenbaugh and Christopher B. Field of Stanford write, consider the global cooling that took place beginning some 52 million years ago. That change was of a greater magnitude than even the worst-case global-warming projections for the 21st century. But that transition occurred over a period lasting 18 million years, not a matter of decades. Similarly, the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, thought one of the more rapid climatic shifts, was 100-fold slower than the most dramatic 21st century scenarios, and 10-fold slower than the best-case ones. "Further," the authors add, "the rates of global change during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA), Little Ice Age (LIA), and early Holocene were all smaller than the observed rates from 1880 to 2005 and than for the committed warming calculated to occur over the 21st century if atmospheric concentrations were capped at year-2000 levels" (emphasis added because haha).
The specifics of how this "unprecedented rate of global warming" will affect terrestrial species are uncertain, and will likely vary region to region, habitat to habitat. For some species, hospitable environments may emerge just kilometers away. For others, the authors put it in words that conceal the turmoil, "the constraint may be no-analog climates." Meaning, simply, that they'll have nowhere to go.
And somehow, despite the tumult, species adapted, moving thousands of miles to habitats where they could survive. Won't species today just do the same as temperatures rise in the years ahead?
It seems they may not have the chance. A new paper in the journal Science finds that climate change is now set to occur at a pace "orders of magnitude more rapid" than at any other time in the last 65 million years. That breakneck speed may mean extinction for species that cannot keep up.
For example, the paper's authors Noah S. Diffenbaugh and Christopher B. Field of Stanford write, consider the global cooling that took place beginning some 52 million years ago. That change was of a greater magnitude than even the worst-case global-warming projections for the 21st century. But that transition occurred over a period lasting 18 million years, not a matter of decades. Similarly, the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, thought one of the more rapid climatic shifts, was 100-fold slower than the most dramatic 21st century scenarios, and 10-fold slower than the best-case ones. "Further," the authors add, "the rates of global change during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA), Little Ice Age (LIA), and early Holocene were all smaller than the observed rates from 1880 to 2005 and than for the committed warming calculated to occur over the 21st century if atmospheric concentrations were capped at year-2000 levels" (emphasis added because haha).
The specifics of how this "unprecedented rate of global warming" will affect terrestrial species are uncertain, and will likely vary region to region, habitat to habitat. For some species, hospitable environments may emerge just kilometers away. For others, the authors put it in words that conceal the turmoil, "the constraint may be no-analog climates." Meaning, simply, that they'll have nowhere to go.
SOURCE
Re: Global warming skeptics as knowledgeable about science as climate change believer
The technology and science now exists that we dont need fossil fuels to generate baseload electricity. Unfortunately there are people in positions of power that are criminals, idiots, or dont belong in their positions period that try to block progress.
Maybe the human race should die off...
The technology and science now exists that we dont need fossil fuels to generate baseload electricity. Unfortunately there are people in positions of power that are criminals, idiots, or dont belong in their positions period that try to block progress.
Maybe the human race should die off...
Similar threads
