We're right in the middle of the solar minimum. It's only going to get warmer again within the next decade before cooling down again.
Actually were going into a solar maximum, the minimum lasted longer than scientists expected. The Maximum is supposed to peak sometime in 2013.
General Post not directed at anyone:
I think global warming is happening but not to the extent we are led to believe and I believe it is at the very least in part natural phenomenon. Like another poster so eloquently stated it's all about funding, No crisis no funding. The other half is to tax the people of the world for the air we exhale, the fumes from our heat and cars. It's all a big scam in my opinion. I think researching cleaner ways to get around and live is a good thing, but just don't try to sell me on the alarmist propaganda that has been around for at least a half century.
I cant believe I missed this.
First off, whats wrong with that. Well to dumb it down nobody has done any research on just how well co2 insulates. We know it can, we can study it and figure out if co2 alone can cause the current temperature increase trend. But nobody has. Personally I don't think it can. I honestly believe this is just a scare for money. Why the hell do you think Al Gore is the face of this bs, he isn't a scientist. The personality type that most real scientists are typically mean they cant stand politics.
Don't dumb it down. Do elaborate please.
First off, it's not carbon dioxide alone. The other main greenhouse gas that has been increased anthropogenically is methane, but let's leave that for now and just deal with carbon dioxide:
Tyndall set out to find whether there was in fact any gas in the atmosphere that could trap heat rays. In 1859, his careful laboratory work identified several gases that did just that. The most important was simple water vapor (H2O). Also effective was carbon dioxide (CO2), although in the atmosphere the gas is only a few parts in ten thousand. Just as a sheet of paper will block more light than an entire pool of clear water, so the trace of CO2 altered the balance of heat radiation through the entire atmosphere.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
So 152 years ago it was discovered that Carbon Dioxide is effective at trapping heat. Moreso than water vapour in fact. It was significantly effective even in a few parts in ten thousand.
Why did you say we didn't know this? Clearly you've done no research, and you post nothing to back up what you say. Once again, stop making huge bold statements without backing up what you're saying. By the way what do you mean when you say nobody has done research on whether CO2 can trap heat, but "we know it can"? You're completely contradicting yourself. Perhaps doublethink is required to not believe in global warming. I don't know.
"Personally I don't think it can". Well excuse me. Nevermind the people who devote their lives to researching this kind of stuff in the most rigorous way possible, but you personally don't think it's possible. Well that's put us all in our place, hasn't it?
Al Gore is not "the face of global warming"
That's like saying that Newton is "the face of gravity" or that pythagoras is "the face of mathematics". People knew about global warming before Al Gore, and there have been countless others who have studied it. Al Gore just happens to be one of the most famous people to present information about it. If Al Gore said the sky was blue would you choose not to believe it? If you don't like what AL Gore's saying then hear it from all the other people who are equally or more educated on the topic.
"The personality type that most real scientists are typically mean they cant stand politics."
..I don't even know what to say to this. Some things just don't have a rational response.
Quote from OP »
This thread is pretty hilarious.
Also, I was expecting it to fall back a few pages pretty fast.
Surprise!
But anyway, OT, there is frost. In Memphis Tennessee. Right now
I'm not sure if you've actually been reading the thread, but anyone who still doesn't believe in anthropogenic global warming after reading everything in this thread must either be blind or mentally disabled. And there's nothing funny about global warming.
Edit: Another note directed at everyone in general: If you think that global warming is a conspiracy by the government to make you spend more, then why is it that for years up until recently, (Until the US got Obama and Australia got K.Rudd) the governments in most western countries have been trying to deny its existence?
I really don't see this whole global warming or climate change things as that big of a deal. Whatever happens, we'll adapt.
As far as the environment is concerned, CO2 is the least of our problems.
What about the countless toxic things dumped around the world?
What about the fact that much of the world does not have access to clean, drinkable water?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Deep in the human unconscious is a pervasive need for a logical universe that makes sense. But the real universe is always one step beyond logic."
-Muad'Dib
I really don't see this whole global warming or climate change things as that big of a deal. Whatever happens, we'll adapt.
Because we'd like to adapt in the most convenient and easy way possible and not through whatever unpredictable chaos will arise when we procrastinate on difficult problems. We have the ability to do something about it now.
As far as the environment is concerned, CO2 is the least of our problems.
What about the countless toxic things dumped around the world?
What about the fact that much of the world does not have access to clean, drinkable water?
You list these as if everyone's ignoring them in favor of trying to solve the climate change problem first. This is patently untrue, but in any case these problems would only be exacerbated by allowing an energy crisis to happen.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Because we'd like to adapt in the most convenient and easy way possible and not through whatever unpredictable chaos will arise when we procrastinate on difficult problems. We have the ability to do something about it now.
why do something now when you can procrastinate to the last minute?
It's just not convenient to be concerned with my "carbon footprint".
"Deep in the human unconscious is a pervasive need for a logical universe that makes sense. But the real universe is always one step beyond logic."
-Muad'Dib
Oh dear, global warming. I'll be putting up my flame-retardant shields.
OT: I believe that global warming is more of a natural process, or at least it's being heavily exaggerated. The "scientific consensus" of global warming is unbelievable, as it undermines the scientific method.
Al Gore is a hypocrite. He talks about how dangerous global warming is, and yet he lives in a mansion that uses a lot more energy than ours.
However, I believe that renewable sources of energy are the way of the future, for economic reasons. If new technologies can be developed allowing us to drill deeper into the Earth, geothermal power could become the world's main energy source.
EDIT: And yes, I know that Al Gore is not the face of global warming.
Explain how its unscientific instead of immediately resorting to political mud slinging.
Al Gore maintains that global warming is too urgent to warrant any debate, which is contradictory to what (most) scientists think. It's like a publicized conspiracy theory, in my opinion.
Most scientists believe that humans are effecting the climate though burning fossil fuels but what to do about is outside the scope of science.
That's not what I meant. I said that most scientists will debate with people who don't believe in global warming, instead of ignoring them and labeling them as crazy.
So science doesn't matter because ITS A CONSPIRACY!!!!!!
I might have worded that a little poorly. What I meant is that Al Gore is acting like a close-minded conspiracy theorist. You're starting to sound angry; please calm down (but then again, Poe's Law).
I might have worded that a little poorly. What I meant is that Al Gore is acting like a close-minded conspiracy theorist. You're starting to sound angry; please calm down (but then again, Poe's Law).
I think your acting like a close minded conspiracy theorist since your dismissing all the science becouse you don't like one person that's only tangentially related to the issue.
I think your acting like a close minded conspiracy theorist since your dismissing all the science becouse you don't like one person that's only tangentially related to the issue.
Tangentially - Nice choice of a word!
OT: I never said that I was dismissing any science. You're basically saying that if Al Gore wasn't in the picture, I would be just as militant about global warming as he is.
Al Gore maintains that global warming is too urgent to warrant any debate, which is contradictory to what (most) scientists think. It's like a publicized conspiracy theory, in my opinion.
Well, the thing is that the debate has already happened. It's over, and the consensus is that anthropogenic global warming is a real thing that's actually happening. There's no need to debate this again.
Well, the thing is that the debate has already happened. It's over, and the consensus is that anthropogenic global warming is a real thing that's actually happening. There's no need to debate this again.
Don't forget that anything can happen. Before you say that I'm contradicting myself, let it be known that I'm open-minded.
If your going to claim anything is unscientific but refuse to provide any remotely scientific argument as to why there is nowhere for it to go.
The temperature sensors could have been put in a city parking lot. Cities are naturally hotter than the country, and asphalt absorbs a lot of heat. There you go, sir/ma'am.
Don't forget that anything can happen. Before you say that I'm contradicting myself, let it be known that I'm open-minded.
Okay, sure, anything can happen, but that doesn't mean it will happen or that it's in any way likely to happen. Studies continue to be done, and they just reaffirm the conclusion that was reached long ago.
Okay, sure, anything can happen, but that doesn't mean it will happen or that it's in any way likely to happen. Studies continue to be done, and they just reaffirm the conclusion that was reached long ago.
The universe really is a fascinating thing, and don't forget about Murphy's Law.
Anyway, this discussion has really has devolved. I think I'm done here. But who wins? I don't think anyone has.
And yet you don't understand the first thing about thermodynamic efficiency. Others have already addressed why you're wrong about internal combustion being anywhere near as efficient as electric, so I don't think there's a need to go over this again.
Are you a double E? Maybe nuclear? What kind of engineer are you? Unless you think I somehow didn't make it past the E&M component of physics in high school, it doesn't seem like you'd know more about it than me.
If you must know, I was studying for an electrical engineering degree. I gave up quickly, I thought about being nuclear physicist and did some research. I was thinking I would like to be right there doing some research on the brink of a new discovery. Then I found out you never realy get to do research, most things have been discovered anyway. Right now im going for cellular biology. As far as high school goes, never went there. I ad more of a private education and stated at a local community college when I was 17, or 16? I don't remember I needed some credits that would transfer and it was cheaper anyway.
As far as electric being more efficient well. Efficiency has always been on the side of the simplistic design. Having 4 legs works real well, but a car that moves on 4 legs would be retardedly complex and definitely be a waste. So I wont believe you unless you can show broken down research from a reliable source, someone who knows more than me and not an electric car manufacturer.
This is basic ****ing mathematics. There is a finite amount of fossil fuel. It will run out. End of story. Sure, you can argue that none of them have run out yet, but are you trying to say that they'd never run out? Because I think that's why everyone thinks you're dumb.
In not saying we will never run out I'm saying the issue is over hyped. Stop putting words into my mouth. Using that same logic, there's a finite amount of sand on all of the beaches in California. For the sake of preservation, go log every single grain, please. You never know when some hooligan will come and steal that precious sand. My argument is that long before it actually is an issue, money and the need for an alternative will stop it. Right now we are seeing a massive push towards faking an energy crisis.
Nope, not what I was talking about. I'm saying nobody is doing research into how efficient it is. We all know co2 is an effective greenhouse gas. The question is, is it responsible for the warming trend? Nobody has calculated the efficiency of it so nobody knows. I would post a link to the research that hasn't been done but, you know... That and common sense dictates that there wouldn't be an argument if it was known.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Stupid url limit! Mac tech support at: topic/649868-guide-mac-support-101-upd-14-june/
Actually were going into a solar maximum, the minimum lasted longer than scientists expected. The Maximum is supposed to peak sometime in 2013.
General Post not directed at anyone:
I think global warming is happening but not to the extent we are led to believe and I believe it is at the very least in part natural phenomenon. Like another poster so eloquently stated it's all about funding, No crisis no funding. The other half is to tax the people of the world for the air we exhale, the fumes from our heat and cars. It's all a big scam in my opinion. I think researching cleaner ways to get around and live is a good thing, but just don't try to sell me on the alarmist propaganda that has been around for at least a half century.
Don't dumb it down. Do elaborate please.
First off, it's not carbon dioxide alone. The other main greenhouse gas that has been increased anthropogenically is methane, but let's leave that for now and just deal with carbon dioxide:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
So 152 years ago it was discovered that Carbon Dioxide is effective at trapping heat. Moreso than water vapour in fact. It was significantly effective even in a few parts in ten thousand.
Why did you say we didn't know this? Clearly you've done no research, and you post nothing to back up what you say. Once again, stop making huge bold statements without backing up what you're saying. By the way what do you mean when you say nobody has done research on whether CO2 can trap heat, but "we know it can"? You're completely contradicting yourself. Perhaps doublethink is required to not believe in global warming. I don't know.
"Personally I don't think it can". Well excuse me. Nevermind the people who devote their lives to researching this kind of stuff in the most rigorous way possible, but you personally don't think it's possible. Well that's put us all in our place, hasn't it?
Al Gore is not "the face of global warming"
That's like saying that Newton is "the face of gravity" or that pythagoras is "the face of mathematics". People knew about global warming before Al Gore, and there have been countless others who have studied it. Al Gore just happens to be one of the most famous people to present information about it. If Al Gore said the sky was blue would you choose not to believe it? If you don't like what AL Gore's saying then hear it from all the other people who are equally or more educated on the topic.
"The personality type that most real scientists are typically mean they cant stand politics."
..I don't even know what to say to this. Some things just don't have a rational response.
I'm not sure if you've actually been reading the thread, but anyone who still doesn't believe in anthropogenic global warming after reading everything in this thread must either be blind or mentally disabled. And there's nothing funny about global warming.
Edit: Another note directed at everyone in general: If you think that global warming is a conspiracy by the government to make you spend more, then why is it that for years up until recently, (Until the US got Obama and Australia got K.Rudd) the governments in most western countries have been trying to deny its existence?
[simg]http://i54.tinypic.com/4zzw1z.png[/simg]
As far as the environment is concerned, CO2 is the least of our problems.
What about the countless toxic things dumped around the world?
What about the fact that much of the world does not have access to clean, drinkable water?
-Muad'Dib
Because we'd like to adapt in the most convenient and easy way possible and not through whatever unpredictable chaos will arise when we procrastinate on difficult problems. We have the ability to do something about it now.
You list these as if everyone's ignoring them in favor of trying to solve the climate change problem first. This is patently untrue, but in any case these problems would only be exacerbated by allowing an energy crisis to happen.
why do something now when you can procrastinate to the last minute?
It's just not convenient to be concerned with my "carbon footprint".
anyhow, unpredictable chaos is fun.
-Muad'Dib
OT: I believe that global warming is more of a natural process, or at least it's being heavily exaggerated. The "scientific consensus" of global warming is unbelievable, as it undermines the scientific method.
Al Gore is a hypocrite. He talks about how dangerous global warming is, and yet he lives in a mansion that uses a lot more energy than ours.
However, I believe that renewable sources of energy are the way of the future, for economic reasons. If new technologies can be developed allowing us to drill deeper into the Earth, geothermal power could become the world's main energy source.
EDIT: And yes, I know that Al Gore is not the face of global warming.
Undermines this
Explain how its unscientific instead of immediately resorting to political mud slinging.
Al Gore maintains that global warming is too urgent to warrant any debate, which is contradictory to what (most) scientists think. It's like a publicized conspiracy theory, in my opinion.
Al Gore isn't a scientist
Most scientists believe that humans are effecting the climate though burning fossil fuels but what to do about is outside the scope of science.
So science doesn't matter because ITS A CONSPIRACY!!!!!!
THAT IS ALL I HAVE TO SAY CHILDREN.
I never said that he was.
That's not what I meant. I said that most scientists will debate with people who don't believe in global warming, instead of ignoring them and labeling them as crazy.
I might have worded that a little poorly. What I meant is that Al Gore is acting like a close-minded conspiracy theorist. You're starting to sound angry; please calm down (but then again, Poe's Law).
then why do you keep bringing him up.
I think your acting like a close minded conspiracy theorist since your dismissing all the science becouse you don't like one person that's only tangentially related to the issue.
Because he's a very well-known figure.
Tangentially - Nice choice of a word!
OT: I never said that I was dismissing any science. You're basically saying that if Al Gore wasn't in the picture, I would be just as militant about global warming as he is.
EDIT: This discussion seems to be devolving.
Well, the thing is that the debate has already happened. It's over, and the consensus is that anthropogenic global warming is a real thing that's actually happening. There's no need to debate this again.
If your going to claim anything is unscientific but refuse to provide any remotely scientific argument as to why there is nowhere for it to go.
Don't forget that anything can happen. Before you say that I'm contradicting myself, let it be known that I'm open-minded.
EDIT:
The temperature sensors could have been put in a city parking lot. Cities are naturally hotter than the country, and asphalt absorbs a lot of heat. There you go, sir/ma'am.
Like we could find out that the Earth's really been flat all these years.
Okay, sure, anything can happen, but that doesn't mean it will happen or that it's in any way likely to happen. Studies continue to be done, and they just reaffirm the conclusion that was reached long ago.
Oh my goodness, the Flat Earth Society was right! :tongue.gif:
The universe really is a fascinating thing, and don't forget about Murphy's Law.
Anyway, this discussion has really has devolved. I think I'm done here. But who wins? I don't think anyone has.
If you must know, I was studying for an electrical engineering degree. I gave up quickly, I thought about being nuclear physicist and did some research. I was thinking I would like to be right there doing some research on the brink of a new discovery. Then I found out you never realy get to do research, most things have been discovered anyway. Right now im going for cellular biology. As far as high school goes, never went there. I ad more of a private education and stated at a local community college when I was 17, or 16? I don't remember I needed some credits that would transfer and it was cheaper anyway.
As far as electric being more efficient well. Efficiency has always been on the side of the simplistic design. Having 4 legs works real well, but a car that moves on 4 legs would be retardedly complex and definitely be a waste. So I wont believe you unless you can show broken down research from a reliable source, someone who knows more than me and not an electric car manufacturer.
In not saying we will never run out I'm saying the issue is over hyped. Stop putting words into my mouth. Using that same logic, there's a finite amount of sand on all of the beaches in California. For the sake of preservation, go log every single grain, please. You never know when some hooligan will come and steal that precious sand. My argument is that long before it actually is an issue, money and the need for an alternative will stop it. Right now we are seeing a massive push towards faking an energy crisis.
Nope, not what I was talking about. I'm saying nobody is doing research into how efficient it is. We all know co2 is an effective greenhouse gas. The question is, is it responsible for the warming trend? Nobody has calculated the efficiency of it so nobody knows. I would post a link to the research that hasn't been done but, you know... That and common sense dictates that there wouldn't be an argument if it was known.