Is news coverage of stories global?
-
So, in the case of snow "If it's worldwide, then possibly. !" (it is global cooling) But if its not snowing (warming) non worldwide then it IS global warming. Nice logic. Care to explain?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
I don't see what's so difficult here... AVERAGE temperature. If you average the temperature for each region, including the oceans, and put it all together (Weighting by area, of course), you get a number. If that number goes up, the planet is getting warmer. The hard part is actually measuring that.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Yes, volcanoes spit a lot of crap into the air, but that DOES affect the climate. Here's the first link from google:
As I stated.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Morality has nothing to do with science.
Neither does AGW. And no, oxygen is not human fod. Carbohudrates are. As for txiocity we arent even remotely near those levels of CO2 so its a spurious argument.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
And no, oxygen is not human fod. Carbohudrates are.
And what happens if you ingest too much carbs? That can kill you too. Too much of ANYTHING can kill you. Just because it's "good" in proper doses, doesn't mean that more of it is good.
fat_boy wrote:
As for txiocity we arent even remotely near those levels of CO2 so its a spurious argument.
Perhaps, but we're getting sidetracked anyway. I thought we were talking about temperature effects.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
I don't see what's so difficult here... AVERAGE temperature. If you average the temperature for each region, including the oceans, and put it all together (Weighting by area, of course), you get a number. If that number goes up, the planet is getting warmer. The hard part is actually measuring that.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
Ian Shlasko wrote:
the planet is getting warmer.
No no no. Only PART of the planet is warming. It is crucial that this is understood. The theory of GH gass warming states that the cold periods and regions will be affected more than the warm. So nights warm, and the poles warm. So if only ONE pole is warming then we are not looking at GH gass caused warming, regardless of what the average temperature does. It is also part of GH gass warming theory that the troposphere, wghere CO2 accumulates, warms MORE than the surface. It has to in order to radiate heat back to the surface. However the troposphere is not warming sufficiently in line with GH gass theory. And that is even after the data has been adjusted to show more warming than originally measured. Both of these facts show categorically that the warming seen today only in the northen hemisphere is NOT caused by CO2.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
fat_boy wrote:
And no, oxygen is not human fod. Carbohudrates are.
And what happens if you ingest too much carbs? That can kill you too. Too much of ANYTHING can kill you. Just because it's "good" in proper doses, doesn't mean that more of it is good.
fat_boy wrote:
As for txiocity we arent even remotely near those levels of CO2 so its a spurious argument.
Perhaps, but we're getting sidetracked anyway. I thought we were talking about temperature effects.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
Yes, so back on track. There is no proof whatsoever that the recent warming trend is caused by CO2. Prof Bob Watson of DEFRA, a prominent AGW scientist, stated on Channel 4 news that they canot account for the recent warming and thus, in the absence of any other demonstrable cause, CO2 must be the reason. There is NO scientific proof that CO2 is causing warming. It is only circumstantial guesswork.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
the planet is getting warmer.
No no no. Only PART of the planet is warming. It is crucial that this is understood. The theory of GH gass warming states that the cold periods and regions will be affected more than the warm. So nights warm, and the poles warm. So if only ONE pole is warming then we are not looking at GH gass caused warming, regardless of what the average temperature does. It is also part of GH gass warming theory that the troposphere, wghere CO2 accumulates, warms MORE than the surface. It has to in order to radiate heat back to the surface. However the troposphere is not warming sufficiently in line with GH gass theory. And that is even after the data has been adjusted to show more warming than originally measured. Both of these facts show categorically that the warming seen today only in the northen hemisphere is NOT caused by CO2.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
What point are you trying to prove here? * That the planet isn't warming? * That it IS warming, but not because of CO2? * That the warming isn't uniform? Pick your position, then get back to me. You're jumping all over the place trying to counter every point I make. My position is that the AVERAGE temperature of the planet is increasing, and that this will significantly affect heat distribution and climate patterns throughout the globe, and I think it's likely that industrialization has something to do with it.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
The Climategate has definately been in the news in Norway. And has resulted in more momentum for the GW skeptics, which I'm glad to see.
Good. How about the errors in the 4th AR fomr the IPCC. The errors about glaciers, africa, antarctica, the netherlands, and the recent statements by Phil Jones, former head of CRU. Have you seen those too?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
What point are you trying to prove here? * That the planet isn't warming? * That it IS warming, but not because of CO2? * That the warming isn't uniform? Pick your position, then get back to me. You're jumping all over the place trying to counter every point I make. My position is that the AVERAGE temperature of the planet is increasing, and that this will significantly affect heat distribution and climate patterns throughout the globe, and I think it's likely that industrialization has something to do with it.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
My point is that an average temoperature is misleading because if one pole is warming and the other cooling (which is what is heppening today) then GH gasses are not at work. If GH gasses were at work both poles would be warming. GH gass theory states this. It really is quite fundamental.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
My position is that the AVERAGE temperature of the planet is increasing, and that this will significantly affect heat distribution and climate patterns throughout the globe, and I think it's likely that industrialization has something to do with it.
I disagree, and here is why. Lets look at what we do know. Man has increased atmospheric CO2 by 30% The effect of CO2 is logarithmic. The first part has twice the effect of the next part and so on. So we have already done pretty much all we can to the planet through CO2. And what has been the effect? A slight increase in average temperature, and some signs of increased plant growth. We have not seen any change in weather or climate patterns over this period.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
My point is that an average temoperature is misleading because if one pole is warming and the other cooling (which is what is heppening today) then GH gasses are not at work. If GH gasses were at work both poles would be warming. GH gass theory states this. It really is quite fundamental.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
My position is that the AVERAGE temperature of the planet is increasing, and that this will significantly affect heat distribution and climate patterns throughout the globe, and I think it's likely that industrialization has something to do with it.
I disagree, and here is why. Lets look at what we do know. Man has increased atmospheric CO2 by 30% The effect of CO2 is logarithmic. The first part has twice the effect of the next part and so on. So we have already done pretty much all we can to the planet through CO2. And what has been the effect? A slight increase in average temperature, and some signs of increased plant growth. We have not seen any change in weather or climate patterns over this period.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
The effect of CO2 is logarithmic. The first part has twice the effect of the next part and so on. So we have already done pretty much all we can to the planet through CO2.
I've never heard that before... What's your basis?
fat_boy wrote:
And what has been the effect? A slight increase in average temperature, and some signs of increased plant growth. We have not seen any change in weather or climate patterns over this period.
- The ecosystem is a pretty immense thing, and changes don't take effect instantly... It takes time for things to circulate... How much time, I honestly don't know. But just think of the concept of pre-heating an oven... Takes a few minutes just to heat up that small amount of air... Now extrapolate to the entire planet, and you can see how it would take some time. 2) We haven't seen any changes? I keep seeing articles about how the hurricane patterns are changing, for one. As for the "slight" increase in average temperature... Don't forget, the ecosystem is a pretty delicate thing, and there are such things as positively-reinforcing changes. If the temperature at the poles rises a few degrees, parts (Not all, just parts) of the ice caps will melt off into the ocean. We're already seeing that. Now, the ice caps are like giant mirrors on the poles, reflecting sunlight and exerting a cooling effect on the atmosphere. If they shrink, and aren't replaced elsewhere, then less sunlight is being reflected, which means more is being absorbed. This, in turn, will heat the planet up more. As I keep saying, I'm no meteorologist, but the basics of the theory are pretty much common sense. It's all a question of magnitudes. CO2 does affect the climate, but how much? How much do other greenhouse gases (Carbon monoxide, methane, nitrous oxide, etc) affect it? How much can the atmosphere absorb? How much does the temperature have to change before heat transfer currents are affected? Look, I'm not saying we're all going to die in ten years from being deep fried in an ocean of carbon dioxide. I just think it's hard to believe that 6.6 billion people driving cars and burning coal for electricity have no effect on the ecosystem, and I think spewing immense amounts of pollutants into the atmosphere and expecting it to just vanish is naive at best.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark.
-
Yes, so back on track. There is no proof whatsoever that the recent warming trend is caused by CO2. Prof Bob Watson of DEFRA, a prominent AGW scientist, stated on Channel 4 news that they canot account for the recent warming and thus, in the absence of any other demonstrable cause, CO2 must be the reason. There is NO scientific proof that CO2 is causing warming. It is only circumstantial guesswork.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Heh, I like this guy... Just read the Wikipedia[^] article on him, after writing my last post... The big quote they have is pretty much the same thing as what I just wrote in my other post. Anyway, I'd like to see a transcript of the interview you're referencing... I found one editorial from Watson: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/21/ofcom.channel4[^], that seems quite sensible.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
Heh, I like this guy... Just read the Wikipedia[^] article on him, after writing my last post... The big quote they have is pretty much the same thing as what I just wrote in my other post. Anyway, I'd like to see a transcript of the interview you're referencing... I found one editorial from Watson: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/21/ofcom.channel4[^], that seems quite sensible.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/science_technology/climate+email+row+scientists+speak+out/3524137[^] Third video down. He is debating with Lawson.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Can't watch videos at work :(
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
fat_boy wrote:
The effect of CO2 is logarithmic. The first part has twice the effect of the next part and so on. So we have already done pretty much all we can to the planet through CO2.
I've never heard that before... What's your basis?
fat_boy wrote:
And what has been the effect? A slight increase in average temperature, and some signs of increased plant growth. We have not seen any change in weather or climate patterns over this period.
- The ecosystem is a pretty immense thing, and changes don't take effect instantly... It takes time for things to circulate... How much time, I honestly don't know. But just think of the concept of pre-heating an oven... Takes a few minutes just to heat up that small amount of air... Now extrapolate to the entire planet, and you can see how it would take some time. 2) We haven't seen any changes? I keep seeing articles about how the hurricane patterns are changing, for one. As for the "slight" increase in average temperature... Don't forget, the ecosystem is a pretty delicate thing, and there are such things as positively-reinforcing changes. If the temperature at the poles rises a few degrees, parts (Not all, just parts) of the ice caps will melt off into the ocean. We're already seeing that. Now, the ice caps are like giant mirrors on the poles, reflecting sunlight and exerting a cooling effect on the atmosphere. If they shrink, and aren't replaced elsewhere, then less sunlight is being reflected, which means more is being absorbed. This, in turn, will heat the planet up more. As I keep saying, I'm no meteorologist, but the basics of the theory are pretty much common sense. It's all a question of magnitudes. CO2 does affect the climate, but how much? How much do other greenhouse gases (Carbon monoxide, methane, nitrous oxide, etc) affect it? How much can the atmosphere absorb? How much does the temperature have to change before heat transfer currents are affected? Look, I'm not saying we're all going to die in ten years from being deep fried in an ocean of carbon dioxide. I just think it's hard to believe that 6.6 billion people driving cars and burning coal for electricity have no effect on the ecosystem, and I think spewing immense amounts of pollutants into the atmosphere and expecting it to just vanish is naive at best.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I've never heard that before... What's your basis?
Heres a google blast: http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=CO2+temperature+logarithmic&meta=&aq=o&oq=[^]
Ian Shlasko wrote:
It takes time for things to circulate... How much time, I honestly don't know. But just think of the concept of pre-heating an oven... Takes a few minutes just to heat up that small amount of air
We have beem producing CO2 in quantity since 1880. Surely enough time to see any effets of CO2.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I keep seeing articles about how the hurricane patterns are changing, for one
This is not true. It is speculation but has not been born out in studies of hurricane frequency or intensity. What you are hearing is media chatter.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
parts (Not all, just parts) of the ice caps will melt off into the ocean. We're already seeing that.
No we arent. Only ONE icecap is mshowing signs of melting, the north pole. The south pole has been getting colder for 50 years and is gaining ice. The total sea ice has not changed at all. My internet is so slow currently that I cant find a link, so feel free to look yourself.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Now, the ice caps are like giant mirrors on the poles, reflecting sunlight and exerting a cooling effect on the atmosphere
AT the low angles if incidence at the poles water is a mirror to sunlight. You will see this if you lok at a sunset across the sea. However, the issue of tipping points, or irreversible change can easilly be disproved by considering that the earth has been a lot warmer than today in the past. And yet here we are.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
CO2 does affect the climate
There is no proof at all that CO2 causes warming. It is an unproved theory. Even Bob Watson states that the only evidence for CO2 changing the climate is circumstantial. t is possible of course, a
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I've never heard that before... What's your basis?
Heres a google blast: http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=CO2+temperature+logarithmic&meta=&aq=o&oq=[^]
Ian Shlasko wrote:
It takes time for things to circulate... How much time, I honestly don't know. But just think of the concept of pre-heating an oven... Takes a few minutes just to heat up that small amount of air
We have beem producing CO2 in quantity since 1880. Surely enough time to see any effets of CO2.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I keep seeing articles about how the hurricane patterns are changing, for one
This is not true. It is speculation but has not been born out in studies of hurricane frequency or intensity. What you are hearing is media chatter.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
parts (Not all, just parts) of the ice caps will melt off into the ocean. We're already seeing that.
No we arent. Only ONE icecap is mshowing signs of melting, the north pole. The south pole has been getting colder for 50 years and is gaining ice. The total sea ice has not changed at all. My internet is so slow currently that I cant find a link, so feel free to look yourself.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Now, the ice caps are like giant mirrors on the poles, reflecting sunlight and exerting a cooling effect on the atmosphere
AT the low angles if incidence at the poles water is a mirror to sunlight. You will see this if you lok at a sunset across the sea. However, the issue of tipping points, or irreversible change can easilly be disproved by considering that the earth has been a lot warmer than today in the past. And yet here we are.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
CO2 does affect the climate
There is no proof at all that CO2 causes warming. It is an unproved theory. Even Bob Watson states that the only evidence for CO2 changing the climate is circumstantial. t is possible of course, a
fat_boy wrote:
Heres a google blast: http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=CO2+temperature+logarithmic&meta=&aq=o&oq=\[^\]
Interesting. None of the first bunch of links seemed to dispute that CO2 causes warming. They're just disputing the amount. They say every time we double the CO2 in the air, the temperature rises by a finite amount. That would imply that the increase will gradually slow, not that the increase isn't happening.
fat_boy wrote:
We have beem producing CO2 in quantity since 1880. Surely enough time to see any effets of CO2.
And we ARE seeing ice caps melting, aren't we? All this news about the northern passage opening up? Time for Russia to start shipping things over the pole, etc etc. Anyway, the way this is working, the CO2 we put into the atmosphere is something like 5% of the total, the rest being natural. The trick is that the other 95% is balanced by other natural processes, so our 5% is kind of the overflow... It's tiny trickle, but it's adding up. Couple that with the time it would take for changes to propagate... This isn't like turning on your heating system and seeing how long it takes to warm up the house. This is like closing one window in your house half an inch, and waiting for the average interior temperature to change. It's not a huge amount, but our ecosystem is fragile.
fat_boy wrote:
This is not true. It is speculation but has not been born out in studies of hurricane frequency or intensity. What you are hearing is media chatter.
Yeah, isn't the IPCC studying this, among other things? A couple guys act like idiots and get exposed, and suddenly everyone just ignores all of the science.
fat_boy wrote:
No we arent. Only ONE icecap is mshowing signs of melting, the north pole. The south pole has been getting colder for 50 years and is gaining ice. The total sea ice has not changed at all. My internet is so slow currently that I cant find a link, so feel free to look yourself.
Ok, did some research, and that seems to be true. Interesting that the warming is uneven, since most of the industrialized world is in the northern hemisphere. What's more interesting is where the new snow and ice are coming from. Antarctica is a desert (The term defines as a lack of precipitation, not high temperatures), in that it usua
-
fat_boy wrote:
Heres a google blast: http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=CO2+temperature+logarithmic&meta=&aq=o&oq=\[^\]
Interesting. None of the first bunch of links seemed to dispute that CO2 causes warming. They're just disputing the amount. They say every time we double the CO2 in the air, the temperature rises by a finite amount. That would imply that the increase will gradually slow, not that the increase isn't happening.
fat_boy wrote:
We have beem producing CO2 in quantity since 1880. Surely enough time to see any effets of CO2.
And we ARE seeing ice caps melting, aren't we? All this news about the northern passage opening up? Time for Russia to start shipping things over the pole, etc etc. Anyway, the way this is working, the CO2 we put into the atmosphere is something like 5% of the total, the rest being natural. The trick is that the other 95% is balanced by other natural processes, so our 5% is kind of the overflow... It's tiny trickle, but it's adding up. Couple that with the time it would take for changes to propagate... This isn't like turning on your heating system and seeing how long it takes to warm up the house. This is like closing one window in your house half an inch, and waiting for the average interior temperature to change. It's not a huge amount, but our ecosystem is fragile.
fat_boy wrote:
This is not true. It is speculation but has not been born out in studies of hurricane frequency or intensity. What you are hearing is media chatter.
Yeah, isn't the IPCC studying this, among other things? A couple guys act like idiots and get exposed, and suddenly everyone just ignores all of the science.
fat_boy wrote:
No we arent. Only ONE icecap is mshowing signs of melting, the north pole. The south pole has been getting colder for 50 years and is gaining ice. The total sea ice has not changed at all. My internet is so slow currently that I cant find a link, so feel free to look yourself.
Ok, did some research, and that seems to be true. Interesting that the warming is uneven, since most of the industrialized world is in the northern hemisphere. What's more interesting is where the new snow and ice are coming from. Antarctica is a desert (The term defines as a lack of precipitation, not high temperatures), in that it usua
I think you hit it on the head Ian. I don't care about whether or not the planet won't die. I care about whether or not my son will have to wear a mask to walk outside. I care about whether or not his health will be bad from this. If people being alarmists changes the way every nation behaves so that companies aren't dumping whatever chemicals they want into a river that is used for recreation all the better. If they force these companies to start behaving like a human life is more important than a few dollars in profit, all the better. If people start recyling and that helps stretch out resources and we invest in new ways to get energy, this is only a good thing.
-
fat_boy wrote:
Heres a google blast: http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=CO2+temperature+logarithmic&meta=&aq=o&oq=\[^\]
Interesting. None of the first bunch of links seemed to dispute that CO2 causes warming. They're just disputing the amount. They say every time we double the CO2 in the air, the temperature rises by a finite amount. That would imply that the increase will gradually slow, not that the increase isn't happening.
fat_boy wrote:
We have beem producing CO2 in quantity since 1880. Surely enough time to see any effets of CO2.
And we ARE seeing ice caps melting, aren't we? All this news about the northern passage opening up? Time for Russia to start shipping things over the pole, etc etc. Anyway, the way this is working, the CO2 we put into the atmosphere is something like 5% of the total, the rest being natural. The trick is that the other 95% is balanced by other natural processes, so our 5% is kind of the overflow... It's tiny trickle, but it's adding up. Couple that with the time it would take for changes to propagate... This isn't like turning on your heating system and seeing how long it takes to warm up the house. This is like closing one window in your house half an inch, and waiting for the average interior temperature to change. It's not a huge amount, but our ecosystem is fragile.
fat_boy wrote:
This is not true. It is speculation but has not been born out in studies of hurricane frequency or intensity. What you are hearing is media chatter.
Yeah, isn't the IPCC studying this, among other things? A couple guys act like idiots and get exposed, and suddenly everyone just ignores all of the science.
fat_boy wrote:
No we arent. Only ONE icecap is mshowing signs of melting, the north pole. The south pole has been getting colder for 50 years and is gaining ice. The total sea ice has not changed at all. My internet is so slow currently that I cant find a link, so feel free to look yourself.
Ok, did some research, and that seems to be true. Interesting that the warming is uneven, since most of the industrialized world is in the northern hemisphere. What's more interesting is where the new snow and ice are coming from. Antarctica is a desert (The term defines as a lack of precipitation, not high temperatures), in that it usua
Eeek, long post, but here I go:
Ian Shlasko wrote:
not that the increase isn't happening
Yes, according to GH gas theory. Next quesiton, is that theory proved or not?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
And we ARE seeing ice caps melting, aren't we?
No, only the north pole. The south pole is gaining ice and cooling.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
our ecosystem is fragile
IMO its robust, very pibust. Look at the earths past, and yet life kept on. Species died, species evolved, but never was life under threat.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
isn't the IPCC studying this
They quoted a scientists early findings in their 4th AR. Sicne then the scientist has retracted stating that their is no stastical increase in extreme weather incidence or severity. So no change.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Interesting that the warming is uneven
Exactly, its not global. But CO2 is evenly distributed in the atmosphere, and yest does not cause warming in the south. GH gas theory states that the poles warm the most, and yet only one is, so what we are seeing today isnt GH gas warming.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The planet will recover, given enough time. It has enough of a track record to make this pretty obvious. The question is whether it will remain habitable in the meantime. Make no mistake, this isn't about the survival of the planet. This is about HUMANS still being able to live on it
Yes, the poanet IS rough. And WE are the most adaptable of species. Look at the variety of climates we already inhabit. Do you thihink we cant easially adapt further?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
the moon is actually a bit hotter in the daytime
A bit! The earth gets to 50 or so, the moon is over twoce that.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I don't know if you're familiar with the greenhouse effect, though. The issue is that the greenhouse gases are transparent to visible light, but reflect/absorb infrared. Light comes from the sun and heats the planet... Basically, they don't do much to the incoming sunlight (Which heats us), but they lessen the amount of heat radiated into space. The AGW theory is, to my understanding, that th
-
As I live in an area that normally gets some snow that melts within a week, I want to now where the global warming is as I trudge through the 16 inches of snow from two weeks ago awaiting the next 4 to 8 inches today? The Nobel committee should ask for their money back! Average snowfall Jan 8.1 Feb 6.2 Mar 4.5 Apr 0.9 May 0.0 Jun 0.0 Jul 0.0 Aug 0.0 Sep T Oct 0.1 Nov 2.3 Dec 5.5 Year 27.6
Wow...I just love it when people put their foot into arenas that they haven't fully studied. I would assume that the majority of people on this site are programmers by education...meaning a BS in computer science, computer engineering, etc... Probably even a few Master's and PhDs in here in those subjects. Well, I actually have a Masters in Environmental Science. I just want to say that I think you're all morons when it comes to GW. It's like me trying to talk about the efficiency of chips based on NAND gates. I know what a NAND gate is, and from my Computer Architecture course I can say that you can build an entire chip out of NAND gates, but you all are making claims like if I said, all chips are made exclusively out of NAND gates or even that NAND gate use is a myth, no one uses NAND gates anymore! Stick to subject you actually know something about.
-
Eeek, long post, but here I go:
Ian Shlasko wrote:
not that the increase isn't happening
Yes, according to GH gas theory. Next quesiton, is that theory proved or not?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
And we ARE seeing ice caps melting, aren't we?
No, only the north pole. The south pole is gaining ice and cooling.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
our ecosystem is fragile
IMO its robust, very pibust. Look at the earths past, and yet life kept on. Species died, species evolved, but never was life under threat.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
isn't the IPCC studying this
They quoted a scientists early findings in their 4th AR. Sicne then the scientist has retracted stating that their is no stastical increase in extreme weather incidence or severity. So no change.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Interesting that the warming is uneven
Exactly, its not global. But CO2 is evenly distributed in the atmosphere, and yest does not cause warming in the south. GH gas theory states that the poles warm the most, and yet only one is, so what we are seeing today isnt GH gas warming.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The planet will recover, given enough time. It has enough of a track record to make this pretty obvious. The question is whether it will remain habitable in the meantime. Make no mistake, this isn't about the survival of the planet. This is about HUMANS still being able to live on it
Yes, the poanet IS rough. And WE are the most adaptable of species. Look at the variety of climates we already inhabit. Do you thihink we cant easially adapt further?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
the moon is actually a bit hotter in the daytime
A bit! The earth gets to 50 or so, the moon is over twoce that.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I don't know if you're familiar with the greenhouse effect, though. The issue is that the greenhouse gases are transparent to visible light, but reflect/absorb infrared. Light comes from the sun and heats the planet... Basically, they don't do much to the incoming sunlight (Which heats us), but they lessen the amount of heat radiated into space. The AGW theory is, to my understanding, that th
fat_boy wrote:
Exactly, its not global. But CO2 is evenly distributed in the atmosphere, and yest does not cause warming in the south. GH gas theory states that the poles warm the most, and yet only one is, so what we are seeing today isnt GH gas warming.
Except it's not evenly distributed. In a static system, given enough time, it would be. But CO2 is being continuously produced by animal life and industry (And other processes), and continuously being consumed by plant life and absorbed into the oceans. The northern hemisphere has a lot more land mass, so there's a lot more production of CO2. There's also more consumption by plant life up here, but not as much absorption by oceans. So you'll see a higher concentration of CO2 in the northern hemisphere (Not hugely higher, but measurably)... Found that when researching a few posts ago, but lost the link.
fat_boy wrote:
Yes, the poanet IS rough. And WE are the most adaptable of species. Look at the variety of climates we already inhabit. Do you thihink we cant easially adapt further?
We have our limits, though. Before industrialization, hot climates had much higher disease and mortality rates than temperate ones. That's mostly changed, because we can ship food from where it's produced to where it's needed. If the amount of accessible, arable land, however, falls below some threshold, we won't be able to produce enough food to survive. Also, if some species die out because of regional climate shifts, it alters the food chain, which also affects us indirectly (Not always negatively). Yes, we're adaptable, but we do have limits. Perhaps I should clarify... Yes, the planet is very robust and adaptable. What's fragile is the current equilibrium, that we're equipped to survive in. Anyway, if AGW is correct, the caps melt, and sea level shoots up even 10-20 feet, we can wave goodbye to a lot of land, and overpopulation will become even more of an issue, and then we have a slew of other problems... Cause and effect.
fat_boy wrote:
A bit! The earth gets to 50 or so, the moon is over twoce that.
A bit higher than your quoted numbers, I meant :)
fat_boy wrote:
So what does all this IR coming fomr the sun fo? Well it smacks into the CO2 and is blocked. Of not, like the mon, the surface would be a lot hotter. So, CO2 acts to media
-
Wow...I just love it when people put their foot into arenas that they haven't fully studied. I would assume that the majority of people on this site are programmers by education...meaning a BS in computer science, computer engineering, etc... Probably even a few Master's and PhDs in here in those subjects. Well, I actually have a Masters in Environmental Science. I just want to say that I think you're all morons when it comes to GW. It's like me trying to talk about the efficiency of chips based on NAND gates. I know what a NAND gate is, and from my Computer Architecture course I can say that you can build an entire chip out of NAND gates, but you all are making claims like if I said, all chips are made exclusively out of NAND gates or even that NAND gate use is a myth, no one uses NAND gates anymore! Stick to subject you actually know something about.
William Winner wrote:
Stick to subject you actually know something about.
Why? A debate like this encourages us to do research, and learn new things. We may not come to a consensus, and we may make some mistakes along the way, but I've already learned a few things from this thread. Just because I'm a programmer, doesn't mean I can't develop interests in other things. If I followed your advice, I never would have written and published my novels, because I would have just focused on programming.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
William Winner wrote:
Stick to subject you actually know something about.
Why? A debate like this encourages us to do research, and learn new things. We may not come to a consensus, and we may make some mistakes along the way, but I've already learned a few things from this thread. Just because I'm a programmer, doesn't mean I can't develop interests in other things. If I followed your advice, I never would have written and published my novels, because I would have just focused on programming.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
I don't have a problem with debate, but debate needs to be well-founded. I was mostly annoyed with good old fat_boy Where he got:"The theory of GH gass warming states that the cold periods and regions will be affected more than the warm." bewilders me or that the troposphere would have to warm substantially for it to be greenhouse gases. And the very first article in that google link that he sent can't be taken as truth just because it's on the internet. One of the sources of the article is an article saying that the greenhouse effect doesn't even exist. The truth is that climate is not well understood. In fact, Dr. Lubchenco, the NOAA Administrator is trying to create a new line office to deal solely with Climate Change. This would be the first US government division to be seriously devoted to trying to understand climate change. I would say that the majority of climate change research is done with an intent in mind to prove one side of the other, which inherently removes the objectivity of the research. I would also say that much of the work that has been presented, such as "An Inconvenient Truth" has the numbers blown out of proportion and are alarmist propaganda. That doesn't mean that some of its not true, but really, no one fully understands it. You (Ian) actually seem to have a pretty good grasp of the research, but you're dealing with people that don't and don't want to take the time to examine it with an objective eye.
-
I don't have a problem with debate, but debate needs to be well-founded. I was mostly annoyed with good old fat_boy Where he got:"The theory of GH gass warming states that the cold periods and regions will be affected more than the warm." bewilders me or that the troposphere would have to warm substantially for it to be greenhouse gases. And the very first article in that google link that he sent can't be taken as truth just because it's on the internet. One of the sources of the article is an article saying that the greenhouse effect doesn't even exist. The truth is that climate is not well understood. In fact, Dr. Lubchenco, the NOAA Administrator is trying to create a new line office to deal solely with Climate Change. This would be the first US government division to be seriously devoted to trying to understand climate change. I would say that the majority of climate change research is done with an intent in mind to prove one side of the other, which inherently removes the objectivity of the research. I would also say that much of the work that has been presented, such as "An Inconvenient Truth" has the numbers blown out of proportion and are alarmist propaganda. That doesn't mean that some of its not true, but really, no one fully understands it. You (Ian) actually seem to have a pretty good grasp of the research, but you're dealing with people that don't and don't want to take the time to examine it with an objective eye.
oh yea, well you are a poopy head. ;) You are also pretty much spot on. My thinking on this whole subject is simple. If we start paying attention and act like what we do freaking matters and has an effect on the future generations, then the entire GW thing did something good. People need to start looking at long term and not right now...