1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'

Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by ethics, Nov 21, 2009.

  1. mikepd

    mikepd Veteran Member


    That sums up my feelings on the issue as well. We should have a backup plan in case GW is real so we won't be caught flat-footed. We also need to implement that plan before a tipping point is reached as if we delay and GW is true then we will be literally in a world of hurt.
     
  2. Biker

    Biker Administrator Staff Member

    The problem with all that is it's all conjecture. Even now they're finding that the original projections were based on faulty information regarding CO2. The entire climate change bullshit is politics. The science flew out the window decades ago when it became fashionable to "save the planet".
     
  3. Dewitt60

    Dewitt60 Farming with technology

    We're making decisions based on a few years of recorded data when the earth iss millions of years old. Perhaps the earth hsa coolded and warmed in thousnd year time frames. We simply don't have enough data to make a reasonable decision.
     
  4. Sierra Mike

    Sierra Mike The Dude Abides Staff Member

    That makes my head spin, man. If it were true, why would they need to lie about it, especially if the truth exposes what they want?
     
  5. Greg

    Greg Full Member

    People lie or tell the truth or are mistaken about many things irrespective of reality, irrespective of what they know or don't know or think they know, including GW.
     
  6. Kluge

    Kluge Observing your world for over 50 years

    This is why.

    Because they set a precedent by trying to pull the wool over the public's eyes and the budding Greenpeace-type organizations caught them red handed lying through their teeth. Since then it has been the standard of glory for environmental activists to catch the big lie and change the big picture..
     
  7. Biker

    Biker Administrator Staff Member

    And yet, study after study is refuting the climate change religion.

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/12/02/antarctic_ice_sheet_carbon_levels/

    Actual study can be read here:

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/334/6060/1261
     
  8. Kluge

    Kluge Observing your world for over 50 years

    Nice article.
    Especially where it says :
    Say, how do you like this one called ICE AGE EPOCHS AND THE SUN’S PATH THROUGH THE GALAXY
    The first page is a nice summary of recent astronomical climate studies.
    You might want to notice that the main article still explains the earth climate part of the theory by saying that cloud cover would cause cooling.
    Then you can remember the many times we've discussed earth's molten core as the most likely source of climate-altering heat, and how a reflective layer of cloud might have the opposite effect to that expected by the majority of individuals addressing the question. Putting that in terms a sixth grader might understand, on a cold day are your hands going to be warmer with or without mittens?
     
  9. Greg

    Greg Full Member

    The theory I'm familiar with is that the Sun's heat warms the Earth's surface, some reflects and radiates off into space, and that more clouds reflect the re-radiated heat back to contain it in the atmosphere. Therefore more clouds causes the temperature to increase. Thus the term "greenhouse gases," referring to green houses used for growing vegetables, where the opaqueness of the glass traps heat inside.

    I don't know "how a reflective layer of cloud might have the opposite effect to that expected by the majority of individuals addressing the question" since I don't know what the majority of individuals think, but if they think clouds make it colder then IMO they're wrong. Cloudy nights are usually warmer than nights with clear skies. I hope almost everybody knows that.
     
  10. mikeky

    mikeky Member

    Greg, the impact of clouds is to reflect radiation back into space before it reaches the earth, and so the overall impact would be less global warming. The uncertainty in the amount of cloud cover to include in the global warming models is a major issue with these.
     
  11. Greg

    Greg Full Member

    Remember that the incoming radiation changes wavelength after hitting the Earth. It's shorter incoming, hits and warms the ground and vegetation, gets re-emitted as warmth (infrared has a longer wavelength). A clear sky allows the infrared rays to escape to space, cloud cover traps it.

    Of course if the entire Earth is covered with clouds then that's a different story.
     
  12. SixofNine

    SixofNine Jedi Sage Staff Member

    Venus is a good example of that, though, despite the efforts of many 1950s scifi stories and movies, not the result of industrial activity. :D
     
  13. mikeky

    mikeky Member

    That's right, but it's not just clouds (really water) that absorb the infrared waves, but also the other greenhouse gases. In other words, the other greenhouse gases warm the air, which causes more water vapor in the air that can absorb more infrared, which causes the air to warm more, which would cause more water vapor, which can capture more infrared, etc., in a continuing cycle up to some upper limit.

    But what the current climate models don't do a very good job of is being able to estimate the amount of cloud formation in the warmer climate - clouds that would prevent visible light from entering the atmosphere in the first place, lowering the overall energy striking the ground/oceans that could be re-radiated.
     
  14. Arc

    Arc Full Member

    Speaking just for myself the issues have all ways been black and white. Do humans living on the planet and going about their lives contribute to climate change? Yes. Does the planet have constant climate change separate from any impact of man? Yes. Does man's impact in of itself significantly and or permanently adversely affect the climate? Maybe. However, it is at best so minimal that there is no clear and convincing proof that it does. Is the cost to improve or change the alleged climate change caused by man worth the cost it would take to remedy it? Definitely not.

    TG
     
  15. Greg

    Greg Full Member

    The thing that bugs me most is that if the US (and perhaps EU) take steps to control mankind's effects on the climate (and incurs great cost) yet the third world (India, China, etc.) takes no steps (and has much lower "tax" on manufacturing and population effects) then the whole situation devolves into hurting the economies most which do the most to prevent GW. That's going to encourage the economies most who hurt the climate most.

    If this is a problem and if we intend to solve it then we need a global solution. Fixing things in the US is only going to hurt the US and won't solve the problem.
     
  16. Biker

    Biker Administrator Staff Member

    Might want to look at the top 10 as far as countries and amount of pollution they produce.
     
  17. Greg

    Greg Full Member

    http://www.actionforourplanet.com/#/top-10-polluting-countries/4541684868

    So tell me what difference it will make if US does everything to control the problem but China, Russia and India don't.
     

Share This Page