Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To be political, I think climate change is better description than global warming. Yes, I too, hate all these doush bag sounding people that talk like they know what's going on. Just because your 30 and unemployed doesn't make you scientist.
Actually global warming and climate change are two different things.....The warming oceans and atmosphere are causing the climate to change.
I had a chat with someone in Arizona. Struck up a conversation while he was walking his dogs (turns out was was a board member at Intel but that's beside the point). He commented that the asphalt had a lot to do with the heat.
One of the side effects of the massive expansion in the Phoenix/ Scottsdale/ Tempe area is lots and lots of asphalt. Asphalt holds lots and lots of heat even after the sun goes down. Geographically it's a valley, surrounded by mountains so not much in the way of crosswinds to clear out the hot air.
One might say that this is a form of man made warming but it's in a limited area (kind of like a micro climate) with negligible impact on 'The Planet'.
Thank you, this is an example of not over thinking the answer.
Actually global warming and climate change are two different things.....The warming oceans and atmosphere are causing the climate to change.
Yes, that is why we have two different words for them. Global warming is a form of climate change. The two are very closely related, but to most people global warming is a form of political stance so I would like to use climate change in which could mean many different things.
I found this out in a previous post. Where I am now is comparing water to a green house gas. I agree with the idea of green houses gases trapping heat, not from the sun, but from the surface. My question now is with water vapor being a green house gas. If I understand it correctly from the information earlier presented, super cells are supported by inferred and microware light and not visible light. Water vapor only absorbs very little visible light. But light is bent in water vapor, some of it is reflected into space and the rest is bent so much that it hits many other water vapor molecules before it reaches the surface. That is why, from what I understand, it is darker on a cloudy day and you don't get sun burnt.
Water vapor is a better greenhouse gas than CO2 is.
The actual mechanism is that the gas molecules absorb and then reradiate the long wave length light.
The sunlight short waves visible and UV are reflected inside water droplets. The same effect that gets you a rainbow. If you look at a rainbow you can see the colors. Inside the arc it is white then blue then yellow then red. then dark.
Clouds are white. But thin clouds are net warming. They are better at reflecting IR back than at reflecting sunlight away.
In terms of life outside the human race, the earth has adapted very well to climate change for millions of years. Would you agree with that?
No, it has adapted, but in a very painful and awkward way.
What does man do? Put up barriers, hog resources, divert water, pollute, etc etc. Would you agree this makes it much more difficult for nature to adapt to climate change?
Very much, we have seen polar bears and other artic animals struggling as the poles are getting hotter. I think we have done much more damage with deforestation, than with climate issues.
I guess I need to know if your concern, the reason for the thread, is for the inconveniences that climate change will cause humans or the ecological impact climate change will have.
I think your response should be how population, or whatever the population is producing, is the cause for loss of precipitation in the west. The purpose for this tread is to get educated on the cause of the drought in the Midwest.
Because, if your concern is in regards to the ecology of that region, human population is a very large part of the climate change impact.
You continue to cover California, which isn't wrong, it is part of the west, but some areas have little populations and are experiencing the same drought. I'm not discouraging you, I'm hoping you can find a cite or make an educated argument in that direction, thank you.
You continue to cover California, which isn't wrong, it is part of the west, but some areas have little populations and are experiencing the same drought. I'm not discouraging you, I'm hoping you can find a cite or make an educated argument in that direction, thank you.
Really, you don't think the earth has adapted very well to the millions of years the climate has changed.
You are mixing a lot of terms and concepts here and I don't exactly follow your train of thought. By 'super cell' do you mean a specific type of thunderstorm?
In which case we are talking about clouds, which are not water vapor but are liquid water and/or ice, which has different optical properties. Clouds (not super cells, which are relatively rare) do have a climate impact through to the scattering of light (not 'bending') back to space and the absorption of outgoing infrared (not microwave) radiation. Depending on the specifics of the cloud (altitude, thickness, phase) they can have either a warming or cooling effect. This has all been studied extensively. Again I would refer you to a NASA to learn about these things: NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Clouds and Climate Change
I will do some reading before my next post to you, I thought clouds were made of water vapor as planes and things can fly right through them. What your saying is mind blowing to me that clouds are liquid or crystalized, not saying your wrong. Secondly I don't find super cells to be that uncommon as I'm in the Midwest. The idea I was going after is common sense. Weather men/women say water is picked up of the coast of Africa in the form of water vapor on an enormous scale. Clouds are then created. The suns energy creates the tall clouds that produce strong storms like hurricanes. The thing is water vapor is constantly lifted and the clouds are lifted to great heights. They say this is done by the power of the sun. I understand I had somethings wrong, but for this system to work they have to pick up a lot of the suns energy. Once again thank you, and I will do some reading.
I recently went on vacation in the Western US. While I was in arid America I got to talking to some people about the problems they faced. We were on the subject of global warming and a man said, "I know one thing, Arizona is going to get hotter". I got to thinking when I was out there, when these places get hot it is because the air is dry so the sun light comes down and hits things without much to impede it. As you reach higher altitudes there is less atmosphere to stop the sun light as well. So if this carbon dioxide traps heat, in fact wouldn't act like water in the atmosphere making the days cooler and the nights warmer? Also, to help some of those wanting to get off topic, I'm not promoting global warming. From what I understand it is to blame for the drought that the west is experiencing. This is just a thought of mine, please correct me if my science isn't right.
There are 100 ways the "science" of global warming makes absolutely no sense.
That's why I call it "Climate Scientology" because the believers do not listen to any facts other than the ones that confirm their faith in their new religion.
Really, you don't think the earth has adapted very well to the millions of years the climate has changed.
Ok.
The earth has always adapted, but humans are also adaptable although a changing climate will cost us dearly ....We have been living in a stable environment since the dawn of civilization, but it is changing rapidly.
There are 100 ways the "science" of global warming makes absolutely no sense.
That's why I call it "Climate Scientology" because the believers do not listen to any facts other than the ones that confirm their faith in their new religion.
Tell us about some of these 100 ways please.
If anything can be compared to a religion it is the cult of denial, as what you believe has no evidence, whereas climate science is based solely on peer reviewed scientific evidence and observation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
