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.
Wow, what a clever response. You must be supr-smrt.
Alright genius, I'm calling you on your BS. Explain in detail how the first law of thermodynamics applies, and how "heat from steam/internal combustion engines" is more of a problem wrt AGW than people heating their homes.
It applies in terms of conservation of energy.
It's almost the entire basis for the "man-made" argument.
Quote:
Oh, and in case you've been living under a rock for the last decade or two, you surely know that the AGW proponents never even tried to claim that "heat from steam/internal combustion engines" is/was the source of the warming.
I look forward to your physics lesson.
You should have paid more attention in history and physics. Then you wouldn't require an on-line education. Industrial revolution and thermodynamics. They're intimately related. It isn't a coincidence that human population growth shadows industrialization. And global warming shadows human population growth.
Just so you can show that you have a grasp of the counter argument, exactly what is the source of the man-made contribution to global warming?
Well, according to the SCIENTIEST that believe in AGW (I don’t believe in the 'A' in AGW), man has produced several "greenhouse gases"
Among those CO2 has been produced in the largest volume although there are several other trace gases that have greater heat trapping capability.
The largest trace gas is methane.
According to the AGW science, the sun radiates heat to the Earth, some of that heat is absorbed and some is radiated back toward space. The Earth’s atmosphere naturally has green house properties (98% of it from Water Vapor) that trap some of this escaping heat as it leaves the atmosphere.
That natural heat trapping is what keeps our atmosphere warm and allows for life. AGW proponents suggest that this added CO2 and other trace gases trap additional heat. This additional heat though not a large amount, causes a forcing that is exponential in nature. So while there is very little additional heat trapped, it leads to expanded heating of the atmosphere.
This causes the planet to heat up more than it would under normal circumstances and thus impacts the climate. It will shift weather patterns causing previous green areas to dry up, and it will cause micro climates to shift. Those shifts can cause the flora and fauna in micro climates to be stressed and can lead to extinction.
(Back to heating)
Once the heating crosses certain thresholds, will cause Ice Caps to melt thus raising ocean levels and flooding areas where hundreds of millions of people live.
THAT is the backbone of AGW theory. There is more to it, but you can rest assured that heat produced by your lawn mower is NOT part of the equation… Not even according to Dr. James Hansen, the most quacky of the AGW proponents.
Earlier in the thread, there was a link to the some data compiled from the Russian Scientists.
In that link, among a ton of data, there were a few determinations that can and perhaps should be examined.
They determined that thermal inertia of the ocean causes the global warming observed during the last years. This is a result of a solar flux. I'm not sure wholly of how, but they are implying it's an effect of the sun rather than an effect of the earth. If you read this differently, let me know. I was a PoliSci major and have no real Science degree.
They also noted very strongly that CO2 is not aiding Global Warming.
Quote:
It should be noticed that not only carbon dioxide does not help global warming, but it is also very useful as it stimulates the development of life on the Earth being a critically essential "food" for the plants ― the major cleaners of the nature. Higher concentrations of carbon dioxide accelerates the growth of forests and plants. The evidence of this fact is the so-called "green revolution" ― a sharp and global increase in the productivity of agriculture all over the world in XX century. The direct proportionality of agricultural productivity and the concentration of CO2 is confirmed by a number of experiments. In case the supply of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere ceased, the plants would exhaust its reserve in approximately 10 years. After this, every living thing on the Earth may cease to exist. CO2 is not toxic! CO2 does not react with any substance within a human body and it is a harmless gas unlike CO. CO2 is very important for life.
I don't wish to be putting on airs that I completely understand the full data, but I think it's worth exploring.
Again, this link was found by another poster earlier in this thread: ASTROMETRIA
US Scientists have made a gross error in treating their science like a religion and taking leaps of faith rather than due diligence in maintaining the integrity of their data.
It has been remarked upon that with all of the homogenization and pasteurization and circular structure of their theories, they may not be able to guarantee they can go back and restructure it effectively for purposes of following and anticipating client change.
I believe that we should know WHAT is happening first and foremost. It's cavalier to believe that we can assume that we have any control the earth without proof of the causology of its fluctuations. But it's downright irresponsible and silly that we can't even attempt to follow or forecast ahead because we blindly followed this assumption and fouled our own data.
So, before the "blamestorming" and money being thrown at anything to correct what we're not even sure is a problem, I'd like to see some real science and confirmed data of what IS. Why can launch off of that.
Money and grants should go in the direction of reconstructing and verifying our data integrity with a strong guarantee that politicians and special interest groups (profiteers) have absolutely NO ability to be involved or have a say!
No other legislation should be able to be launched from any of this false data. Alternative energy sources are a wonderful direction, but also should be reviewed for negative consequences as well.
For instance: Large scale solar is great, but in its current large scale application, it's covering the soil...and potentially affecting other eco-systems.
Wind energy also has negative effects we need to explore.
I say this so we can aware enough to avoid another ready, FIRE, aim incident.
Last edited by Robinstyler; 02-16-2010 at 11:15 AM..
It's almost the entire basis for the "man-made" argument.
I have to thank you for the remarkable entertainment value of your posts in this thread. You have demonstrated that if you're being genuine in your position, you know absolutely nothing about this subject. I'm actually still trying to figure out if you're just yanking our chain, because nobody who would actually engage in the debate could possibly be as uninformed as you appear to be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Gringo
You should have paid more attention in history and physics. Then you wouldn't require an on-line education. Industrial revolution and thermodynamics. They're intimately related. It isn't a coincidence that human population growth shadows industrialization. And global warming shadows human population growth.
Thanks for being on "that" side of the discussion - you're doing wonders for "this" side.
Well, according to the SCIENTIEST that believe in AGW (I don’t believe in the 'A' in AGW), man has produced several "greenhouse gases"
Among those CO2 has been produced in the largest volume although there are several other trace gases that have greater heat trapping capability.
The largest trace gas is methane.
According to the AGW science, the sun radiates heat to the Earth, some of that heat is absorbed and some is radiated back toward space. The Earth’s atmosphere naturally has green house properties (98% of it from Water Vapor) that trap some of this escaping heat as it leaves the atmosphere.
That natural heat trapping is what keeps our atmosphere warm and allows for life. AGW proponents suggest that this added CO2 and other trace gases trap additional heat. This additional heat though not a large amount, causes a forcing that is exponential in nature. So while there is very little additional heat trapped, it leads to expanded heating of the atmosphere.
This causes the planet to heat up more than it would under normal circumstances and thus impacts the climate. It will shift weather patterns causing previous green areas to dry up, and it will cause micro climates to shift. Those shifts can cause the flora and fauna in micro climates to be stressed and can lead to extinction.
(Back to heating)
Once the heating crosses certain thresholds, will cause Ice Caps to melt thus raising ocean levels and flooding areas where hundreds of millions of people live.
And the source of those greenhouse gases is... ?
Quote:
THAT is the backbone of AGW theory. There is more to it, but you can rest assured that heat produced by your lawn mower is NOT part of the equation… Not even according to Dr. James Hansen, the most quacky of the AGW proponents.
I'll say that heat from lawnmowers is trivial in comparison to the heat produced by vehicles, power plants, factories, climate control systems and all human controlled heat engines of various types that have been running continuously and in ever-increasing numbers for the past two centuries.
Of course, it fits your argument to ignore that heat contribution. A contribution that was absent prior to industrialization.
I have to thank you for the remarkable entertainment value of your posts in this thread. You have demonstrated that if you're being genuine in your position, you know absolutely nothing about this subject. I'm actually still trying to figure out if you're just yanking our chain, because nobody who would actually engage in the debate could possibly be as uninformed as you appear to be.
Thanks for being on "that" side of the discussion - you're doing wonders for "this" side.
I'll await your explanation of the contribution of heat engines in the past two centuries. Because so far, you argument is that there is none. And yet, you call me clueless.
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.
