Who to trust to make important decisions like this subject. Politicians? Not me. Too many are payed off and just plane corrupt.
Religion? There all not part of mine. Why would I want a member of a different religion to have any say over me?
People not schooled in the subject? They can spot things the schooled have missed but in the long run I trust people who really know what there talking about not just figured.
People who know how to study the information, know how evaluate it, know what it means. Can learn from there mistakes.
Know when a consensus is made, with better information a new consensus can be made.
Science tells me the Earth would be getting warmer if we did not exists.
Science also tells me the carbon we put into the air makes it warmer. Two bottles of gas, one all co2 the other all air. The co2 container would be warmer. Burning coal and oil takes co2 out of the ground and puts it into the air, making it warmer.
This is basic science. Something that can be done at home. Have we put enough things in the air to make a noticeable difference? Science says yes.
Do people just figuring have a right to risk others for there figuring?
[QUOTE=croxis;171324]Again, the issue isn't climate change, but the rate of change. Systems can only adapt up to a given rate of change. Rapid changes is what causes massive problems.[/QUOTE]
I'm willing to wager that the vast majority of the multi-billion member human race is incapable of adapting to all but the slowest conceivable rate of change. The fact that we occupy so much space makes countless variants of our livelihood nearly impossible to maintain given even the smallest shift.
The science consensus is that humans add to global warming.
The consensus is that HIV causes AIDS. There are scientist who don't think so.
Google "HIV doesn't cause AIDS"
This and humans don't make a big difference in global warming is the same thing.
This should pulverize that dead horse.
[QUOTE=Chaosed;171343]The consensus is that HIV causes AIDS. There are scientist who don't think so. Google "HIV doesn't cause AIDS"[/QUOTE]
Never heard of that one.
[QUOTE]Two bottles of gas, one all co2 the other all air. The co2 container would be warmer.[/QUOTE]
What does that have to do with global warming? What kind of junk science is that? Maybe during winter we should all fill our homes with bottles of CO2 so we could huddle against those and save a lot of money burning fossil fuels for heating. I think you are missing an important factor in your bottle theory. ;)
But if we applied that same logic, construction workers should all wear baseball caps instead of hardhats for protection against falling objects, because unlike a baseball cap if a hardhat falls from high above it breaks into a thousand pieces when it hits the ground? Yep, that makes perfect sense. :D
HINT: Global warming has nothing to do with the temperature of CO2 itself. The greenhouse effect is increased as the concentration of CO2 rises and causes the solar radiation to be trapped inside our atmosphere instead of being reflected directly back into space.
Also as a reminder, this is roughly what makes up the air we breathe... CO2 is somewhere inside the "Other" category. :D
[QUOTE=Chaosed;171376]co2 holds heat. That is what makes it a greenhouse gas.
Your graph says it doesn't take much of a change in co2 to alter the global temperature.
If you did fill your house with bottles of co2 the bottles would be warmer.[/QUOTE]
...No. No. Not at all. Absolutely not.
First, the graph doesn't even relate to temperature. It has no relation to the significance of any particular substance and how its existence relates to temperature change. Just because Carbon Dioxide is in the smallest group doesn't mean its change is going to somehow be more significant.
Second, simply filling bottles with carbon dioxide will not make them warmer or cooler. That is a function of pressure, large-spectrum light exposure, and bottle opacity/material. Other factors excluded, your bottle of CO2 is going to match the ambient temperature quite easily.
What makes Carbon Dioxide a greenhouse gas is [B]how[/B] it functions. I feel wikipedia explains it best.
[quote=Wikipedia: Greenhouse Gas]When sunlight reaches the surface of the Earth, some of it is absorbed and warms the surface. Because the Earth's surface is much cooler than the sun, it radiates energy at much longer wavelengths than the sun does, peaking in the infrared at about 10µm. The atmosphere absorbs these longer wavelengths more effectively than it does the shorter wavelengths from the sun. The absorption of this longwave radiant energy warms the atmosphere; the atmosphere also is warmed by transfer of sensible and latent heat from the surface. Greenhouse gases also emit longwave radiation both upward to space and downward to the surface. The downward part of this longwave radiation emitted by the atmosphere is the "greenhouse effect." The term is a misnomer, as this process is not the mechanism that warms greenhouses.
The major greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36–70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth (not including clouds); carbon dioxide, which causes 9–26%; methane, which causes 4–9%, and ozone, which causes 3–7%. It is not possible to state that a certain gas causes a certain percentage of the greenhouse effect, because the influences of the various gases are not additive. (The higher ends of the ranges quoted are for the gas alone; the lower ends, for the gas counting overlaps.)[3][4] Other greenhouse gases include, but are not limited to, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and chlorofluorocarbons (see IPCC list of greenhouse gases).
The major atmospheric constituents (nitrogen, N2 and oxygen, O2) are not greenhouse gases. This is because homonuclear diatomic molecules such as N2 and O2 neither absorb nor emit infrared radiation, as there is no net change in the dipole moment of these molecules when they vibrate. Molecular vibrations occur at energies that are of the same magnitude as the energy of the photons on infrared light. Heteronuclear diatomics such as CO or HCl absorb IR; however, these molecules are short-lived in the atmosphere owing to their reactivity and solubility. As a consequence they do not contribute significantly to the greenhouse effect.
Late 19th century scientists experimentally discovered that N2 and O2 did not absorb infrared radiation (called, at that time, "dark radiation") and that CO2 and many other gases did absorb such radiation. It was recognized in the early 20th century that the known major greenhouse gases in the atmosphere caused the earth's temperature to be higher than it would have been without the greenhouse gases[/quote]
source: [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#The_.22greenhouse_effect.22"]Wikipedia: Greenhouse Gas[/URL]
[quote=Wikipedia: Greenhouse Effect]The Earth receives energy from the Sun in the form of radiation. Most of the energy is in visible wavelengths and in infrared wavelengths that are near the visible range (often called "near infrared"). The Earth reflects about 30% of the incoming solar radiation. The remaining 70% is absorbed, warming the land, atmosphere and oceans.
For the Earth's temperature to be in steady state so that the Earth does not rapidly heat or cool, this absorbed solar radiation must be very closely balanced by energy radiated back to space in the infrared wavelengths. Since the intensity of infrared radiation increases with increasing temperature, one can think of the Earth's temperature as being determined by the infrared flux needed to balance the absorbed solar flux. The visible solar radiation mostly heats the surface, not the atmosphere, whereas most of the infrared radiation escaping to space is emitted from the upper atmosphere, not the surface. The infrared photons emitted by the surface are mostly absorbed in the atmosphere by greenhouse gases and clouds and do not escape directly to space.[/quote]
[URL="http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb"]U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007[/URL]
Ugg, that report was laced with so much non-objectivity it makes my head spin. When I see their work published through the peer review process instead of writing books then I may give some credence. Show me the papers.
Actually Sanfram I saw on 'Bill Nye the Science Guy' were he had two vary large glass bottles. Filled one with co2 the other with o2 or regular air or some such thing.
After a wile, with the bottles side by side, the co2 filled bottle was warmer then the other bottle. Thus co2 it the air makes it warmer.
co2 absorbers inferred, not just reflects it. from your article.
Something yesterday from NPR. Soot is just under co2 in contributing to 'Global Warming'
Ant the 2ed Wiki article, 'The inferred photons emitted by the surface are mostly absorbed in the atmosphere by greenhouse gases and do not escape directly into space.'
They absorb the inferred, thous greenhouse gases do, That means there warmer then the other molecules.
Alec M Office of the GOP ranking member. Thats were I stop reading. Bush the Bloody has the worst case of politicizing science then every president before him. And if the trend continues the next will be worse.
Consensus means a simple majority. 2,000 to 400 is a consensus. At 90% too (I'm bad at math if that number is wrong) Humans make global warming worse.
10% is within the loony extreme.
[QUOTE=Chaosed;171426]Actually Sanfram I saw on 'Bill Nye the Science Guy' were he had two vary large glass bottles. Filled one with co2 the other with o2 or regular air or some such thing.
After a wile, with the bottles side by side, the co2 filled bottle was warmer then the other bottle. Thus co2 it the air makes it warmer.
co2 absorbers inferred, not just reflects it. from your article.
Something yesterday from NPR. Soot is just under co2 in contributing to 'Global Warming'
Ant the 2ed Wiki article, 'The inferred photons emitted by the surface are mostly absorbed in the atmosphere by greenhouse gases and do not escape directly into space.'
They absorb the inferred, thous greenhouse gases do, That means there warmer then the other molecules.
Alec M Office of the GOP ranking member. Thats were I stop reading. Bush the Bloody has the worst case of politicizing science then every president before him. And if the trend continues the next will be worse.
Consensus means a simple majority. 2,000 to 400 is a consensus. At 90% too (I'm bad at math if that number is wrong) Humans make global warming worse.
10% is within the loony extreme.[/QUOTE]
The entire point I made stated that CO2 is *not* inherently warmer than oxygen. Its absorption and re-emission of longwave radiation and resulting containment of said waves is what makes the transmissive CO2 cannister warmer when exposed to sources of infrared radiation, but neither substance will be warmer when compared against one another as a substance. The absorption itself isn't the problem, either. One of the larger components of the issue at hand is the omnidirectional re-emission of the longwave radiation as described in the article I linked to.
[QUOTE=Chaosed;171426]Actually Sanfram I saw on 'Bill Nye the Science Guy' were he had two vary large glass bottles. Filled one with co2 the other with o2 or regular air or some such thing.
After a wile, with the bottles side by side, the co2 filled bottle was warmer then the other bottle. Thus co2 it the air makes it warmer.
co2 absorbers inferred, not just reflects it. from your article. [/quote]So that's why the air coming out of my lungs is so much warmer than the air going in! It's all the CO2 in there![QUOTE=Chaosed;171426]Something yesterday from NPR. Soot is just under co2 in contributing to 'Global Warming'[/quote]Hmm, we're going to have to rewrite the laws of thermodynamics to make sense of this one. Despite the exothermic process which releases the potential energy stored in the bonds of substances such as coal and oil, the waste products have plenty of heat left to contribute to the global climate.
At least next time I get cold, I'll know to burn a few logs, and then bask for days in the heat provided from the ashes.[QUOTE=Chaosed;171426] Ant the 2ed Wiki article, 'The inferred photons emitted by the surface are mostly absorbed in the atmosphere by greenhouse gases and do not escape directly into space.'
They absorb the inferred, thous greenhouse gases do, That means there warmer then the other molecules. [/quote]No! Understanding is beginning to dawn! Quick, quash it! It goes against your preconceptions![QUOTE=Chaosed;171426] Alec M Office of the GOP ranking member. Thats were I stop reading. Bush the Bloody has the worst case of politicizing science then every president before him. And if the trend continues the next will be worse.
Consensus means a simple majority. 2,000 to 400 is a consensus. At 90% too (I'm bad at math if that number is wrong) Humans make global warming worse.[/quote]You're the one politicizing science in this thread. As I and just about everyone else has stated, science has been wrong before, and siding with the majority does not shield you from being wrong in the event of greater understanding leading to different conclusions.
You're siding with sources that are aligned politically with your beliefs, while immediately discounting others. Not even bothering to read, understand, and intelligently refute them, simply discounting them out of hand because they don't fit in with your preconceived notions. You accused your opponents of being ignorant for ignoring credible sources, yet I think you need to take a long, hard look at yourself under those criteria.[QUOTE=Chaosed;171426]10% is within the loony extreme.[/QUOTE]Einstein was once a minority of one. He was called a loony too.
Also, you still haven't said anything that makes me think you understand science. At all.
Einstein was proven wright over time. More and more people came to see his theories as correct. as opposed to the people who don't accept global warming as having a human component. Your numbers are reducing.
Sanfam, put some wight vinyl in a car and black vinyl next to it. The black vinyl will be warmer.
Edit.
Yes you can believe what you want. The science is out and I don't grant you the right to deny action from such a minority's view.
I don't see the point about the vinyl. it's still the same logic behind it as Sanfam explained about CO2 and jars. Just because black material absorbs more heat then the white one it doesn't mean we want to cover out planet in white smoke instead of black smoke. Also the black vinyl won't be warmer if the car is inside a garage with no light source.
Ozone is a good one. I remember all of the hysteria about it back in the day, about how we were going to lose the ozone layer, and ecosystems were going to collapse, with millions or billions dead (depending on who was talking) and burdened by an epidemic explosion of skin cancer.
Oh yeah, it turned out to be a real freakin' nightmare, all right. We were on the verge of collapse, for sure.
Like I said, it's not that I don't believe in climate change, or that we're responsible. I understand the science on the basic levels. I just disagree about what we should, or will, do about it.
Climate change and obesity share some similar themes. Both have several factions finding several ways to institute change. One such faction is that rooted in a technological solution. A magic pill to lose weight or a magic toy to keep the planet cool.
Another faction is searching a life style solution. Overweight? Eat what you want just eat a bit less of it. Climate change causing issues? Do what you want just do less of it.
One of the stark contrasts I found occurred when I went to Vancouver BC during spring break. I saw two fat people over a period of 4 days. Everyone bloody walked everywhere.
Biggles said it best that a healthy application of the precautionary principle would be the most effective course of action. Eating less, more locally, more seasonally and more veggyly reduces fuel consumption. Choosing to live close to one's work reduces fuel use and time loss in commute. Using low power states for computers that are on all the time, wearing warmer cloathing indoors and notching down the heat a couple degrees, buying items based on value instead of flat cost or features, etc etc etc.
Such changes are not meant to be absolute and range in degree of impact. The reason why fad diets don't work is because they mandate absolutes. Same with mitigating climate change and environmental impacts. Madating everyone to live in huts wont work. Suggesting people to get a 2500 sq ft home instead of 3000 sq ft home for two people is a much better.
There are three possible events:
The delta of global energy in the climate system is 0
The delta is positive.
Delta is negative.
For the last two we look at the magnitude. Is delta too high or too low for systems to adapt sucessfully?
We have two options:
Change nothing
Change something
Doing nothing would either result in no climate change if delta is 0, or climate change based on the magnitude of delta.
Doing something by making some different life style choices would, at minimum, result in less environmental damage and, in many cases, monitary savings. If there is no change in the energy in the system then there are still positive benifits. If there is delta then at least the magnitude is reduced.
Precautionary principle. When used properly it is amazing.
Oh, if you want another scare tactic that was used so bloody things can be fixed: Y2K.
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
[QUOTE=Alec M;171759]Ozone is a good one. I remember all of the hysteria about it back in the day, about how we were going to lose the ozone layer, and ecosystems were going to collapse, with millions or billions dead (depending on who was talking) and burdened by an epidemic explosion of skin cancer.[/QUOTE]
You need to go live in NZ or sourthern South America for a while.
[QUOTE=Biggles;171767]You need to go live in NZ or sourthern South America for a while.[/QUOTE]
Please. It's a relatively minor problem these days, hardly the death of the planet it was supposed to be. NZ and South America, yeah, they're doing okay.
But we humans did do some stuff to prevent more ozone layer depletion, and if wiki is to be believed it really hasn't stoped yet, only slowed down so much we think what we did was enough.
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
Indeed. By the time the media got anywhere near ozone, most countries had already stopped producing CFCs. Amusingly, this time it was Europe that was the hold out. The US was quite happy to take the sensible approach. NZ still feels the effects of the ozone hole every summer, getting UV levels around 40% greater in 2006 than equivalent northern latitudes. Much of this is due to factors such as cleaner air and the Earth being closer to the Sun in the Southern Hemisphere summer, but a fair chunk is due to less ozone. The scientists at NIWA think that it will take around 100 years for ozone levels to recover, because CFCs have a lifetime in the atmosphere of 50 to 100 years.
Also, I can't speak for the media in Canada, but the media in NZ never claimed the ozone whole was going to be the "death of the planet."
Comments
Religion? There all not part of mine. Why would I want a member of a different religion to have any say over me?
People not schooled in the subject? They can spot things the schooled have missed but in the long run I trust people who really know what there talking about not just figured.
People who know how to study the information, know how evaluate it, know what it means. Can learn from there mistakes.
Know when a consensus is made, with better information a new consensus can be made.
Science tells me the Earth would be getting warmer if we did not exists.
Science also tells me the carbon we put into the air makes it warmer. Two bottles of gas, one all co2 the other all air. The co2 container would be warmer. Burning coal and oil takes co2 out of the ground and puts it into the air, making it warmer.
This is basic science. Something that can be done at home. Have we put enough things in the air to make a noticeable difference? Science says yes.
Do people just figuring have a right to risk others for there figuring?
I'm willing to wager that the vast majority of the multi-billion member human race is incapable of adapting to all but the slowest conceivable rate of change. The fact that we occupy so much space makes countless variants of our livelihood nearly impossible to maintain given even the smallest shift.
We should do what China is doing, Attacking the weather with anti aircraft guns and big pointy rockets!!!!
Attack Kill kill killl
[url]http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=11269[/url]
The science consensus is that humans add to global warming.
The consensus is that HIV causes AIDS. There are scientist who don't think so.
Google "HIV doesn't cause AIDS"
This and humans don't make a big difference in global warming is the same thing.
This should pulverize that dead horse.
Never heard of that one.
[QUOTE]Two bottles of gas, one all co2 the other all air. The co2 container would be warmer.[/QUOTE]
What does that have to do with global warming? What kind of junk science is that? Maybe during winter we should all fill our homes with bottles of CO2 so we could huddle against those and save a lot of money burning fossil fuels for heating. I think you are missing an important factor in your bottle theory. ;)
But if we applied that same logic, construction workers should all wear baseball caps instead of hardhats for protection against falling objects, because unlike a baseball cap if a hardhat falls from high above it breaks into a thousand pieces when it hits the ground? Yep, that makes perfect sense. :D
HINT: Global warming has nothing to do with the temperature of CO2 itself. The greenhouse effect is increased as the concentration of CO2 rises and causes the solar radiation to be trapped inside our atmosphere instead of being reflected directly back into space.
Also as a reminder, this is roughly what makes up the air we breathe... CO2 is somewhere inside the "Other" category. :D
[IMG]http://www.doncaster.gov.uk/airq/images/air_pie_chart.jpg[/IMG]
Your graph says it doesn't take much of a change in co2 to alter the global temperature.
If you did fill your house with bottles of co2 the bottles would be warmer.
Your graph says it doesn't take much of a change in co2 to alter the global temperature.
If you did fill your house with bottles of co2 the bottles would be warmer.[/QUOTE]
...No. No. Not at all. Absolutely not.
First, the graph doesn't even relate to temperature. It has no relation to the significance of any particular substance and how its existence relates to temperature change. Just because Carbon Dioxide is in the smallest group doesn't mean its change is going to somehow be more significant.
Second, simply filling bottles with carbon dioxide will not make them warmer or cooler. That is a function of pressure, large-spectrum light exposure, and bottle opacity/material. Other factors excluded, your bottle of CO2 is going to match the ambient temperature quite easily.
What makes Carbon Dioxide a greenhouse gas is [B]how[/B] it functions. I feel wikipedia explains it best.
[quote=Wikipedia: Greenhouse Gas]When sunlight reaches the surface of the Earth, some of it is absorbed and warms the surface. Because the Earth's surface is much cooler than the sun, it radiates energy at much longer wavelengths than the sun does, peaking in the infrared at about 10µm. The atmosphere absorbs these longer wavelengths more effectively than it does the shorter wavelengths from the sun. The absorption of this longwave radiant energy warms the atmosphere; the atmosphere also is warmed by transfer of sensible and latent heat from the surface. Greenhouse gases also emit longwave radiation both upward to space and downward to the surface. The downward part of this longwave radiation emitted by the atmosphere is the "greenhouse effect." The term is a misnomer, as this process is not the mechanism that warms greenhouses.
The major greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36–70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth (not including clouds); carbon dioxide, which causes 9–26%; methane, which causes 4–9%, and ozone, which causes 3–7%. It is not possible to state that a certain gas causes a certain percentage of the greenhouse effect, because the influences of the various gases are not additive. (The higher ends of the ranges quoted are for the gas alone; the lower ends, for the gas counting overlaps.)[3][4] Other greenhouse gases include, but are not limited to, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and chlorofluorocarbons (see IPCC list of greenhouse gases).
The major atmospheric constituents (nitrogen, N2 and oxygen, O2) are not greenhouse gases. This is because homonuclear diatomic molecules such as N2 and O2 neither absorb nor emit infrared radiation, as there is no net change in the dipole moment of these molecules when they vibrate. Molecular vibrations occur at energies that are of the same magnitude as the energy of the photons on infrared light. Heteronuclear diatomics such as CO or HCl absorb IR; however, these molecules are short-lived in the atmosphere owing to their reactivity and solubility. As a consequence they do not contribute significantly to the greenhouse effect.
Late 19th century scientists experimentally discovered that N2 and O2 did not absorb infrared radiation (called, at that time, "dark radiation") and that CO2 and many other gases did absorb such radiation. It was recognized in the early 20th century that the known major greenhouse gases in the atmosphere caused the earth's temperature to be higher than it would have been without the greenhouse gases[/quote]
source: [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#The_.22greenhouse_effect.22"]Wikipedia: Greenhouse Gas[/URL]
[quote=Wikipedia: Greenhouse Effect]The Earth receives energy from the Sun in the form of radiation. Most of the energy is in visible wavelengths and in infrared wavelengths that are near the visible range (often called "near infrared"). The Earth reflects about 30% of the incoming solar radiation. The remaining 70% is absorbed, warming the land, atmosphere and oceans.
For the Earth's temperature to be in steady state so that the Earth does not rapidly heat or cool, this absorbed solar radiation must be very closely balanced by energy radiated back to space in the infrared wavelengths. Since the intensity of infrared radiation increases with increasing temperature, one can think of the Earth's temperature as being determined by the infrared flux needed to balance the absorbed solar flux. The visible solar radiation mostly heats the surface, not the atmosphere, whereas most of the infrared radiation escaping to space is emitted from the upper atmosphere, not the surface. The infrared photons emitted by the surface are mostly absorbed in the atmosphere by greenhouse gases and clouds and do not escape directly to space.[/quote]
source: Wikipedia: [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect"]Greenhouse effect[/URL]
[URL="http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb"]U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007[/URL]
After a wile, with the bottles side by side, the co2 filled bottle was warmer then the other bottle. Thus co2 it the air makes it warmer.
co2 absorbers inferred, not just reflects it. from your article.
Something yesterday from NPR. Soot is just under co2 in contributing to 'Global Warming'
Ant the 2ed Wiki article, 'The inferred photons emitted by the surface are mostly absorbed in the atmosphere by greenhouse gases and do not escape directly into space.'
They absorb the inferred, thous greenhouse gases do, That means there warmer then the other molecules.
Alec M Office of the GOP ranking member. Thats were I stop reading. Bush the Bloody has the worst case of politicizing science then every president before him. And if the trend continues the next will be worse.
Consensus means a simple majority. 2,000 to 400 is a consensus. At 90% too (I'm bad at math if that number is wrong) Humans make global warming worse.
10% is within the loony extreme.
After a wile, with the bottles side by side, the co2 filled bottle was warmer then the other bottle. Thus co2 it the air makes it warmer.
co2 absorbers inferred, not just reflects it. from your article.
Something yesterday from NPR. Soot is just under co2 in contributing to 'Global Warming'
Ant the 2ed Wiki article, 'The inferred photons emitted by the surface are mostly absorbed in the atmosphere by greenhouse gases and do not escape directly into space.'
They absorb the inferred, thous greenhouse gases do, That means there warmer then the other molecules.
Alec M Office of the GOP ranking member. Thats were I stop reading. Bush the Bloody has the worst case of politicizing science then every president before him. And if the trend continues the next will be worse.
Consensus means a simple majority. 2,000 to 400 is a consensus. At 90% too (I'm bad at math if that number is wrong) Humans make global warming worse.
10% is within the loony extreme.[/QUOTE]
The entire point I made stated that CO2 is *not* inherently warmer than oxygen. Its absorption and re-emission of longwave radiation and resulting containment of said waves is what makes the transmissive CO2 cannister warmer when exposed to sources of infrared radiation, but neither substance will be warmer when compared against one another as a substance. The absorption itself isn't the problem, either. One of the larger components of the issue at hand is the omnidirectional re-emission of the longwave radiation as described in the article I linked to.
After a wile, with the bottles side by side, the co2 filled bottle was warmer then the other bottle. Thus co2 it the air makes it warmer.
co2 absorbers inferred, not just reflects it. from your article. [/quote]So that's why the air coming out of my lungs is so much warmer than the air going in! It's all the CO2 in there![QUOTE=Chaosed;171426]Something yesterday from NPR. Soot is just under co2 in contributing to 'Global Warming'[/quote]Hmm, we're going to have to rewrite the laws of thermodynamics to make sense of this one. Despite the exothermic process which releases the potential energy stored in the bonds of substances such as coal and oil, the waste products have plenty of heat left to contribute to the global climate.
At least next time I get cold, I'll know to burn a few logs, and then bask for days in the heat provided from the ashes.[QUOTE=Chaosed;171426] Ant the 2ed Wiki article, 'The inferred photons emitted by the surface are mostly absorbed in the atmosphere by greenhouse gases and do not escape directly into space.'
They absorb the inferred, thous greenhouse gases do, That means there warmer then the other molecules. [/quote]No! Understanding is beginning to dawn! Quick, quash it! It goes against your preconceptions![QUOTE=Chaosed;171426] Alec M Office of the GOP ranking member. Thats were I stop reading. Bush the Bloody has the worst case of politicizing science then every president before him. And if the trend continues the next will be worse.
Consensus means a simple majority. 2,000 to 400 is a consensus. At 90% too (I'm bad at math if that number is wrong) Humans make global warming worse.[/quote]You're the one politicizing science in this thread. As I and just about everyone else has stated, science has been wrong before, and siding with the majority does not shield you from being wrong in the event of greater understanding leading to different conclusions.
You're siding with sources that are aligned politically with your beliefs, while immediately discounting others. Not even bothering to read, understand, and intelligently refute them, simply discounting them out of hand because they don't fit in with your preconceived notions. You accused your opponents of being ignorant for ignoring credible sources, yet I think you need to take a long, hard look at yourself under those criteria.[QUOTE=Chaosed;171426]10% is within the loony extreme.[/QUOTE]Einstein was once a minority of one. He was called a loony too.
Also, you still haven't said anything that makes me think you understand science. At all.
Sanfam, put some wight vinyl in a car and black vinyl next to it. The black vinyl will be warmer.
Edit.
Yes you can believe what you want. The science is out and I don't grant you the right to deny action from such a minority's view.
Nobody is perfect, and no one solution ever can hope to be.
That doesn't lessen his contributions.
However the only law which so far has always held true are the laws of thermodynamics.
Ozone depletion.
Oh yeah, it turned out to be a real freakin' nightmare, all right. We were on the verge of collapse, for sure.
Like I said, it's not that I don't believe in climate change, or that we're responsible. I understand the science on the basic levels. I just disagree about what we should, or will, do about it.
Another faction is searching a life style solution. Overweight? Eat what you want just eat a bit less of it. Climate change causing issues? Do what you want just do less of it.
One of the stark contrasts I found occurred when I went to Vancouver BC during spring break. I saw two fat people over a period of 4 days. Everyone bloody walked everywhere.
Biggles said it best that a healthy application of the precautionary principle would be the most effective course of action. Eating less, more locally, more seasonally and more veggyly reduces fuel consumption. Choosing to live close to one's work reduces fuel use and time loss in commute. Using low power states for computers that are on all the time, wearing warmer cloathing indoors and notching down the heat a couple degrees, buying items based on value instead of flat cost or features, etc etc etc.
Such changes are not meant to be absolute and range in degree of impact. The reason why fad diets don't work is because they mandate absolutes. Same with mitigating climate change and environmental impacts. Madating everyone to live in huts wont work. Suggesting people to get a 2500 sq ft home instead of 3000 sq ft home for two people is a much better.
There are three possible events:
The delta of global energy in the climate system is 0
The delta is positive.
Delta is negative.
For the last two we look at the magnitude. Is delta too high or too low for systems to adapt sucessfully?
We have two options:
Change nothing
Change something
Doing nothing would either result in no climate change if delta is 0, or climate change based on the magnitude of delta.
Doing something by making some different life style choices would, at minimum, result in less environmental damage and, in many cases, monitary savings. If there is no change in the energy in the system then there are still positive benifits. If there is delta then at least the magnitude is reduced.
Precautionary principle. When used properly it is amazing.
Oh, if you want another scare tactic that was used so bloody things can be fixed: Y2K.
You need to go live in NZ or sourthern South America for a while.
Please. It's a relatively minor problem these days, hardly the death of the planet it was supposed to be. NZ and South America, yeah, they're doing okay.
Also, I can't speak for the media in Canada, but the media in NZ never claimed the ozone whole was going to be the "death of the planet."
Then a reporter made pictures with animals in hats?