+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 33

Thread: Who To Believe

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    10

    Who To Believe

    Who do we beleive about global warming the goverments say it factories and cars and power stations etc that we are responsible yet some scientists say its natural and we have little impact on it. A volcano can erupt and add more to global warming in a couple of hours than we do in decades and this a natural event of our ever changing planet. Are we just seeing the natural change that occurs every few thousands of years and the goverments are using this and their scare monger tactics to enforce more controls on a growing population or are we actually harming our enviroment. I think that while ever our goverments hold secrets and continue to use their positions for personal gratification we will never be entirely sure of what the truth is.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    4,548

    Re: Who To Believe

    It's tough to say who to believe. But I can suggest who you should not believe. Polititians or government officials. Especially any that are running for election. From them you will hear exactly what you want to hear if they expect your vote. Sooner or later, hopefully sooner, science will come to a concensus that most of us will be able to comprehend. Until then, why believe anybody? If the alarmists are correct and the earth is doomed and we don't take action soon then we're toast. But if they are incorrect and we do take action anyway because a politician promised you that he would, that could destroy the economy and might cause more damage to the environment than doing nothing at all, where will we be then? In my view, the best thing is to keep an open mind and let real science do it's job. In otherwords, more thinking and less believing.
    Last edited by bogie; 05-03-2007 at 10:41 PM.
    The terminally stupid and certifiably insane.

  3. #3
    Lord_jag's Avatar
    Lord_jag is offline I am God because I say I am. Prove me wrong. User Rank
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,796

    Re: Who To Believe

    Part of the problem is that the scientists don't agree with each other that the globe will actually warm. Weather will become more severe and eratic, but we're not sure about how that will affect the globe. There are simply too many variables to figure out at the moment.

    Here is what we do know. CO, CO2, NO and NO2 and a hundred other greenhouse gasses are increasing in our environment. We produce many of these chemicals in great abundance. These chemicals have a knack for holding heat from the sun in the earth and causing warming in the *local* climate.

    We also know that much of the earth's surface is covered in water. If that water starts to warm, more of it will evaporate and cause more clouding.

    If there are more clouds, more new energy from the sun will be reflected back into space. At this point there is no model to show how much energy is reflected or how this can affect a climate whatsoever. This is the research I am currently working on(Not the science part, but the sensor maintenance part. I get to talk to many enviromental scientists every day)

    There is also great evidence that falling rain filters these gasses out of the air to make carbonic acid, nitric acid and many other acidic rains. These acid rains may destroy the ecosystem but removing them from the atmosphere reverses global warming.

    I have also noted that severe storms such as hurricanes have increased dramatically in frequency and power over the last few years. It is logical that the more moisture there is in the air, the more rain can fall and the more power there is in a storm.

    If you put all of these ideas together, you see why scientists say that the globe cannot possibly warm overall. As the oceans warm 1/10th of a degree, more sunlight is reflected by all of the evaporated water. Far more rainfall happens in severe storms as there is more water in the air, more greenhouse gasses are filtered out of the air, and the earth air actually cools. When the air cools, the oceans cool, making less clouds, making less rain, absorbing less greenhouse gasses.

    In other words, the further we get from the happy equilibrium that we enjoy, the harder the earth will fight to get back there. We will just have to deal with more severe weather, more acid rain and more acid ponds, acid lakes, acid streams etc.

    Bue everyone in science agrees that polluting the atmosphere is a bad idea. Even if the earth doesn't warm, the economic costs of severe wearther are getting harder and harder to take.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,324

    Re: Who To Believe

    Ah but there are positive feedback mechanisms in place as well.

    Higher temperatures means more water vapour in the air, and water is also a greenhouse gas. Heat the planet up and you get more water vapour in the air, the water traps more heat which heats the planet further...

    Higher temperatures means that the polar ice melts. Ice is very good at reflecting sunlight (has an albedo of .99 from memory). So if you heat the planet up you reduce the amount of ice, which means more sunlight is absorbed....

    There are many, many feedback mechanisms in place, both positive and negative, which is probably why its so hard to model.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    838

    Re: Who To Believe

    How big is the greenhouse effect. Is it real? There are other reasons that an atmosphere warms.
    Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,324

    Re: Who To Believe

    Quote Originally Posted by phlipper
    How big is the greenhouse effect. Is it real? There are other reasons that an atmosphere warms.
    Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics
    That guy doesn't know what he's talking about.

    1. The troposphere cools as altitude increases: in dry air, at a rate of around 1oC per 100m; under typical atmospheric humidity, by around 0.7oC per 100m. This cooling reflects the decrease of atmospheric pressure as altitude increases. Higher is cooler, both by day and by night.
    Yes, the troposphere does cool as you get higher. Then you enter the stratosphere and it gets hotter. Then you enter the mesosphere and it gets cooler. Then you enter the thermosphere and it gets hotter. (These temperature variations are exactly how we define where one region ends and the next begins)

    2. Backradiation of the heat radiation outgoing from the earth's surface would only be possible by reflection, similarly to the effect of aluminium foil under roof insulation. But the CO2 share in our atmosphere cannot cause reflection in any way. Within homogeneous gases and gas mixtures no reflections occur. As is well known in optics, reflection and even refraction occur only at the boundaries of materials of different optical density, or at phase boundaries of a material or a material mixture (solid-liquid, liquid-gaseous, solid-gaseous). Thus it occurs with suspended water drops or ice crystals, or at the boundary between surface water and air - but never within homogeneous materials, e.g. air, water, glass.
    The heating that occurs because of CO2 isn't due to reflection, its due to absorption and re-emission, so all of this is nonsense.

    3. If outgoing thermal radiation from the earth’s surface is absorbed in the atmosphere, the absorbing air warms up, disturbing the existing vertical pattern of temperature, density and pressure, i.e. the initial state of the air layers. It is well known that warmed air expands and, because it is then lighter than the non-warmed air around it, rises. The absorbed warmth is taken away by air mass exchange. Just this occurs with near-surface air that is warmed by convection from earth's surface, vegetation, buildings and so on. For the same reason the windows of heated rooms are kept closed in winter – otherwise the warm air would escape.
    Haven't got a clue what he's talking about here. What on Earth is air mass exchange???

    4. A prerequisite for any type of heat transfer is that the emitter is warmer than the absorber. Heat transfer is determined by the ratio of the fourth powers of the temperatures of the emitting and the absorbing bodies. Because temperature is uniform within minute volumes of gas in the air, and temperature decreases with increasing altitude, back transfer to near-surface air of radiation from higher CO2-molecules is impossible. In fact, this is just as impossible as it is to use a to cooler heat radiator to heat up a warmer area.
    Yes, and much of the atmosphere at height is warmer than it is on the surface. Regardless, this point would still be wrong.

    Imagine if temperature decreased with height and that was the whole story. Then what he is saying is that increasing the temperature of the molecules in the upper atmosphere would not increase the temperature on the surface because heat can't go from a colder point to a warmer point.

    That's true, BUT

    What is actually happening is that heat is flowing from the surface through to the upper atmosphere and out into space. If you heat up the outer atmosphere the rate at which that heat can escape from the surface decreases, which will shift the equilibrium temperature upwards.

    5. The energy discharge from the troposphere takes place at its upper boundary layer, at the transition of the atmosphere from its gaseous state to a state approaching a vacuum. Only in this zone do gases start to emit even small quantities of energy by radiation. The other energy transfer mechanisms - thermal conduction and convection - which at denser pressure are far more efficient than radiation, no longer operate because of the low density of the atmosphere there. But from the surface where man lives and up to 10 to 17km altitude (depending on geographical latitude), gases transfer the small quantities of energy they might acquire from absorbed radiation by convection and conduction - not by radiation.
    The first bit is wrong; the gases emit energy by radiation at all pressures. The second bit is just a hand waving argument - he's saying that at some pressures thermal conduction and convection are more effecient than radiation (this is true) but then just assumes that the point at which radiation is ineffecient is conveniently at 10km above the Earth's surface.

    How does he know the cutoff point isn't 10,000 bar? If this were the case then radiation would be the only important mechanism. How does he know the cutoff point is 1pbar? If this were the case then only convection and conduction would be important.

    Fact is he's just taken a simple principle and assumed that it proves his point without doing any work or calculations whatsoever.

    6. From the upper atmosphere down to earth’s surface, air pressure rises continuously. The determinant of atmospheric pressure is the mass and the weight of that part of the atmosphere above the point in question. And as pressure increases, so does temperature. The rise in temperature is caused by the thermodynamic characteristics of the main components of the atmosphere, i.e. N2 and O2. Everyone knows that compression causes gases to warm: the effect is noticeable even when inflating bicycle tires. The atmosphere is no different.
    Yes, pressure increases as you get closer to the surface. This guy has obviously done highschool chemistry and no further, since he thinks that all there is to it is the ideal gas equation, PV=nRT. Pressure is proportional to temperature, if you hold the volume constant and if you are at equilibrium. Neither of these are true of the Earth's atmosphere. The density of the atmosphere changes as you increase with height, and the atmosphere is not in equilibrium primarily because of forces being driven by the sun but also geothermal heating.

    Come back in 5 billion years when the Sun has exhausted its fuel supply and the Earth has cooled, and then the above argument will be true.

    (Also, the ideal gas equation is based on the kinetic theory of gases, which needs to be modified by biatmoic gases and fails entirely for triatomic or greater gases, such as CO2)

    (Lol. I was right. The next thing he does is talk about the ideal gas equation)

    7. A special feature of our atmosphere is its water content. Water occurs in three states. The solid and liquid forms (clouds) show radiation characteristics completely different from gases: they reflect radiation. Thus only water in its liquid or solid states shows qualities to some extent comparable to a greenhouse (i.e. mimicking, however locally, the effect of fixed and airtight glass or foil). Naturally clouds do not prevent vertical air exchange. Moreover condensation and solidification of the water in air releases substantial amounts of heat, which largely determines the temperature of the lower atmosphere. By contrast, the heat transport and storage characteristics of trace gases like CO2 are negligible factors in determining air temperature.
    Again, a hand waving argument. Yes condensation releases energy, but he's simply assuming that it is a large part of heating in the lower atmosphere. How does he know this? Why can't it be that condensation is a small part, or insignificant? How does he know CO2 is negligible unless he has done the calculations????

    This guy is a joke.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    26,288

    Re: Who To Believe

    science is a prisoner of greed!?therfore the earth is doomed!?man with sciences help will destroy the earth!?i'm amazed it's lasted this long!?but escalation is in the cards like never before!?there are no longer any limits or safeguards capable of restraining men and their greed!?and then if that dont do it!?accidents like chernobyl or worse are bound to happen!?look what happened when some home grown aquarium seaweed was dumped in the mediteranean!?by the jock cousteau institute no less!?(they didn't invent it)how ironic!?man made evolution that will destroy the oceans biodiversity!?but science if it does not self destruct will just replace the whole natural world with 1 of it's own!?including the humans!?beleive it!!.....just askn....

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    327

    Re: Who To Believe

    Quote Originally Posted by lexx
    science is a prisoner of greed!?therfore the earth is doomed!?man with sciences help will destroy the earth!?i'm amazed it's lasted this long!?but escalation is in the cards like never before!?there are no longer any limits or safeguards capable of restraining men and their greed!?and then if that dont do it!?accidents like chernobyl or worse are bound to happen!?look what happened when some home grown aquarium seaweed was dumped in the mediteranean!?by the jock cousteau institute no less!?(they didn't invent it)how ironic!?man made evolution that will destroy the oceans biodiversity!?but science if it does not self destruct will just replace the whole natural world with 1 of it's own!?including the humans!?beleive it!!.....just askn....
    Uh ...huh!

    The rebuttals of that Greenhouse gas violating Physics are great thanks for that Kazza.
    In a website populated by conspiracy theorist's, die hard christians, New Age leftovers, right wing fanatics, and just plain old nut cases, intelligence can still find a place. Phew

    And there's this from New Scientist for any one tempted to take seriously the TV Program Global warming Swindle

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    26,288

    Re: Who To Believe

    i left out 1 WORD and the meaning got dragged into the pot of all that is wrong with criticizing science!?the aloof attitude that it aint gone bad yet and when it does,the sheepish grins will abound!?the WORD i left out was.....discoveries/applications/results!?it's the discoveries/applications/results of science that will destroy/replace all life and existence as we know it!?now some people think this is a GOOD thing!?at least until it happens to them!?then they cry NIMBY!?meanwhile,they just casually hang onto their beloved faith in the goodness of science!?totally ignoring the actual results of it's workings!?until............because with MAN,as an UNDISCOVERED/UNKNOWN entity everything is a 2 edged sword!?but hey!religion EXPLAINS MAN completely!?for a man can know science but nothing of himself!?a man can know himself completely yet have no interest in science!?which is better for the WORLD!?hehe!!...just askn...

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    327

    Re: Who To Believe

    Quote Originally Posted by lexx
    i left out 1 WORD and the meaning got dragged into the pot of all that is wrong with criticizing science!?the aloof attitude that it aint gone bad yet and when it does,the sheepish grins will abound!?the WORD i left out was.....discoveries/applications/results!?it's the discoveries/applications/results of science that will destroy/replace all life and existence as we know it!?now some people think this is a GOOD thing!?at least until it happens to them!?then they cry NIMBY!?meanwhile,they just casually hang onto their beloved faith in the goodness of science!?totally ignoring the actual results of it's workings!?until............because with MAN,as an UNDISCOVERED/UNKNOWN entity everything is a 2 edged sword!?but hey!religion EXPLAINS MAN completely!?for a man can know science but nothing of himself!?a man can know himself completely yet have no interest in science!?which is better for the WORLD!?hehe!!...just askn...
    Reaally how.. um... interesting!

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    26,288

    Re: Who To Believe

    Quote Originally Posted by bogie
    It's tough to say who to believe. But I can suggest who you should not believe. Polititians or government officials. Especially any that are running for election. From them you will hear exactly what you want to hear if they expect your vote. Sooner or later, hopefully sooner, science will come to a concensus that most of us will be able to comprehend. Until then, why believe anybody? If the alarmists are correct and the earth is doomed and we don't take action soon then we're toast. But if they are incorrect and we do take action anyway because a politician promised you that he would, that could destroy the economy and might cause more damage to the environment than doing nothing at all, where will we be then? In my view, the best thing is to keep an open mind and let real science do it's job. In otherwords, more thinking and less believing.
    i want you to EXPLAIN your STATEMENT...."it's TOUGH to say WHO to believe"!?disregarding your THEN following diatribe!?hehe!!..just askn..

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    26,288

    Re: Who To Believe

    Quote Originally Posted by pancho
    Reaally how.. um... interesting!
    the aloof goof never leaves his roost!?until the dawn of the real bites at his heel and the ouch becomes an appeal to the ears that have zeal for the truth!?or not!?hehe!!...just askn.....

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    327

    Re: Who To Believe

    Quote Originally Posted by lexx
    the aloof goof never leaves his roost!?until the dawn of the real bites at his heel and the ouch becomes an appeal to the ears that have zeal for the truth!?or not!?hehe!!...just askn.....
    Oh how quaint!
    Is this some kind of truth you have privileged access to because of the nonsensicality you utter.
    But aloof I am not, just stringing you along.
    Here boy... whistle.... whistle.... heeerrre boy...... come on fella.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    19

    Re: Who To Believe

    there was global warming 10000 years ago that lead to a change in life expectancy and climate bt there were no cars then so its a natural occurance the sun and the sea are resonsible for climate chang.as most of you are not aware the earth rotational field is slowing down by 0.000000000000000002 exp 1000 mph a hour this is due to an odd orbit around the sun which theoretically only corrects every 11000 years.
    the only reason why scientists are saying we are causing global warming because there are trillions to be made out of it.in a few years the truth will be revealed that global warming was a hudge hoax resulting in a economy crash and that is when a cashless society will be formed also known as the one-world-system.

    i say this will all hapen in the next 35 years but the whole climate change wont hapens for anothe couple of centuries

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,324

    Re: Who To Believe

    Quote Originally Posted by shields
    there was global warming 10000 years ago that lead to a change in life expectancy and climate bt there were no cars then so its a natural occurance the sun and the sea are resonsible for climate chang.as most of you are not aware the earth rotational field is slowing down by 0.000000000000000002 exp 1000 mph a hour this is due to an odd orbit around the sun which theoretically only corrects every 11000 years.
    the only reason why scientists are saying we are causing global warming because there are trillions to be made out of it.in a few years the truth will be revealed that global warming was a hudge hoax resulting in a economy crash and that is when a cashless society will be formed also known as the one-world-system.

    i say this will all hapen in the next 35 years but the whole climate change wont hapens for anothe couple of centuries
    I don't think I need to point it out, its pretty obvious from your spelling, but you haven't even have a clue what you are talking about...

    0.000000000000000002 exp 1000 mph a hour = 0.000000000000000002 * e^1000 miles per hour per hour.

    This is roughly 10^100 miles per hour hour. The Earth's rotational field (as if that saying even makes sense) is slowing at 10 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion times the speed of light every hour? And no one has noticed this before?

  16. #16
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    19

    Re: Who To Believe

    explain (if the world isnt slowing down) why we have a leapyear?


    Go here:

    International Earth Rotation Service
    http://hpiers.obspm.fr/eop-pc/

    Look in the upper left column under "Earth Orientation". Then click on "Leap Second". Read carefully. Note that there have been 21 "leap seconds" added to the clock since 1972. It seems that the day has lengthened by 21 seconds in just 32 years. That's a lot. The Earth is slowing down.