jump to last post 1-45 of 45 discussions (289 posts)

The Great Global Warming Scam - The Ice Age is Coming

  1. sannyasinman profile image83
    sannyasinmanposted 5 years ago

    An independent weather forecaster who tells the truth - a rare commodity . . .

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwyjsJJr … ded#at=164

    1. tony0724 profile image60
      tony0724posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I am not smart enough to know all of this but what I do know is the climate is changing. And what I also know is last summer was the coldest I have ever spent in San Diego. And I also know last Tuesday the average temperature across the USA was 6 degrees below normal everywhere. And I saw an interesting tidbit today. In the UK they are experiencing the coldest winter in 1000 years.

      http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/16 … 000-years/

      1. MrNick profile image61
        MrNickposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Tony,

        I ask you to never use the Daily Star for anything - they are useless sensationalist rubbish.  Though I should point out it admits there has been colder winters in the last hundreds of years (and they dont state when it happened, it could be very recently)

        No offence, I simply know how useless the Daily Star at anything (though British press in general are useless)

    2. MrNick profile image61
      MrNickposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You are aware that many global warming models actually predict a drop in temperature, and many others predict the creation of extremes of temperature - which is to say extreme winters and summers?

      Indeed it is taught at a basic level - My A Level Geology teacher (who was later supported by University Lecturers on the subject) taught us that global warming would be simply the prelude to an Ice Age (which we are over due for by a factor of tens of thousands of years iirc).

      Now whilst I do believe in global warming I do not have any need to preach to those who don't - unless they try verifying their belief with 'facts' that don't make sense.

      A cold winter doesn't mean global warming is wrong.  In fact just looking at any one place is MEANINGLESS as to the study of global warming.  The clue is in the name... GLOBAL

      The video you linked to is something of a joke.  The start is proof - this is the same office pushing the global warming agenda'.  This is simply creating a straw man.  Whilst the UK offices do believe in global warming their predictions are not based on this - global warming is a LONG TERM prediction, the following winter's prediction has nothing to do with their 'agenda' on global warming.

      They use one winter as proof global warming is wrong by creating it as a straw man 'they said this will happen so they are wrong'.  The two use very different data, interpreted by very different people using very different models... the only reason to claim they are related is to push an agenda of their own.

      1. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Exactly. Climate is not the same thing as weather.

      2. EmpressFelicity profile image84
        EmpressFelicityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        None of this addresses the real issue of whether humans actually have an effect on climate change. 

        One of the things that Corbyn said in the video was that carbon dioxide levels throughout history have changed *after* a corresponding change in temperature, not before (so the sequence is "temperature rise, followed by CO2 rise" - not the other way round).  So there's no way that human beings pumping out more CO2 into the atmosphere can have an effect on temperature. 

        Plus you have a whole host of variables like sunspot activity (also mentioned in the video), plus how the temperature monitoring is actually done (in space?  near a city?), to confuse the issue.

        And another thing: even if someone served up conclusive proof on a plate that global warming (sorry, *cough* climate change) is man-made, I don't think for a moment that carbon trading or more red tape is going to solve matters - it will simply line the pockets of Al Gore & Co.

        1. MrNick profile image61
          MrNickposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I never pretended to address those aspects - my point was to show how the jibes at the Met office coupled with the comments on coldest winters etc were completely off base because they were arguing a strawman.  This video had VEY limited content worth noting, just an effort at laughing at people who believe in global warming whilst not actually proving anything wrong.

          I simply showed that having a cold winter does not make a slight bit of difference to the global warming theory - nor does someone getting their prediction wrong for one summer (and equally it is daft to lump all believers in global warming together with one persons prediction).

          Again I have nothing against those who don't believe in global warming.  What I do have an issue with is this video - all spin and no substance.  The effort was simply to try belittle believers by creating and destroying a strawman

        2. Don Simkovich profile image59
          Don Simkovichposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I didn't realize, carbon change and then a rise in temperature. People also forget there are positive things happening, too, which would certainly slow down climate change if humans are responsible. Ex, almost no stage one smog alerts in So Cal for years ... an environmentalist mentioned this. More hybrids on the road.

    3. Brooke Lorren profile image61
      Brooke Lorrenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I became interested in global cooling last summer, when I made a Squidoo page on the Little Ice Age which occurred between the mid 1200s and the mid 1800s.  While doing my research, I noticed that the two coldest periods of the Little Ice Age (the Maunder Minimum and the Year Without a Summer, which occurred during the Dalton minimum) were years where the sunspot activity was the lowest.

      Sunspot activity, which was huge during the 1990s (remember when every couple of years we'd get a warning that cable service could be interrupted due to sunspots?), has tapered off to almost nonexistence in the last couple of years.  There's a little sunspot activity, but nothing near what it was a decade ago.

      We have seen snow in Phoenix in the last week.  It snowed in Iraq in recent years.  A couple of days before it snowed here in southern Arizona, I told dd that it probably wouldn't snow here unless another little ice age happened.  Then it snowed.

    4. lady_love158 profile image61
      lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, Global Warming is the cause of everything, snow in France and England, tornadoes in the midwest, ice melting in the north pole, desert rains, typhones and earth quakes, oil spills and obesity in Americans!

      The left will use any excuse to rule over us minions!

    5. tritrain profile image79
      tritrainposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      No, it's The Great Ice Age Scam - Global Warming Coming!

      wink

  2. EmpressFelicity profile image84
    EmpressFelicityposted 5 years ago

    Fantastic!  Someone who actually knows what they're talking about.  Now sit back and wait for the ideologues to show up...

    Edit: this Piers Corbyn guy actually predicted the big freeze we're having now a year before it happened, which speaks volumes in my book.

  3. 68
    logic,commonsenseposted 5 years ago

    Chicken little and her cohorts should appear shortly.

  4. BillyDRitchie profile image60
    BillyDRitchieposted 5 years ago

    The same people crying about global warming now were the same crowd telling us another Ice Age was coming in the 60s and 70s.

    I think it's just a tad on the arrogant side to think we are advanced enough to really upset the balance of nature all that much...

  5. Evan G Rogers profile image81
    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago

    umm...

    that entire broadcast used one week's worth of weather in order to justify that we're going to enter a new Ice Age.

    ... come on... really? That's how we're doing things?

    It's warm outside now, I guess that means there will be no more snow EVER.

  6. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    Well, it's a good thing the new R chairs of committes are all going to be big-oil/big-pollution types!

    All those people dieing from lung disease, suffering from asthma, drinking poison can rest assured!...No change coming any time soon.
    And anyway--those diseases are just a figment of your imagination. Pollution never hurt anyone.

    Clean Air Act=MORE polluting! Isn't that Orwellian?  Hang on to your seatbelts, you aint seen nothing yet! Cause--YOU asked for it!!!

    1. couturepopcafe profile image60
      couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I guess it really doesn't matter what the forum subject is.  You always manage to figure out a way to blame the Republicans.  It's time you addressed specifically all the things you take issue with.  Creating a general haze of blame on a political party does no one any good.

      1. 0
        Toby Hansenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Republicans? I thought it was Osama and Kim lol

      2. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I just did.
        The "new" House Republicans will have big oil supporters as new committee chairmen.
        How do YOU think they will act on global warming?
        Just like Koch and Exxon want them to, that's how.

        And, do you eve hear the issue discussed without mentioning ALGORE?

        I just said the US military thinks global warming is a real threat--in more ways than one. Doesn't that address it for you?

        Now excuse me, I have to go read about how the Democrat Obama is wasting money on a vacation and how Democrats are so much stingier than Republicans. Phew, glad there's no partisanship there, boy wink

        1. tony0724 profile image60
          tony0724posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I won't mention the fact then that Obama in an effort to turn around our economy has not had one official who has run a business instead he plucks them from Wall Street including his new appointment. The other ones ran off to college to teach their failed theories to our kids. Oh joy!

          1. lovemychris profile image80
            lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            But.... but...you're bashing Obama...that's all you ever do! That's all you people ever do!  Can't you address the issues without dissing Obama?????

            Not that it bothers me, but couturepopcafe seems to be offended by it. Right? Yes?
            Has to be the same for all, right?
            Riiiiiiight.

            The ole double standard.

            We bash Bush, it's un-American. You bash Obama, it's patriotic.
            I bash Repubs, it's not addressing the issue, you bash Obama........Have at it.

            Oh when will we grow up?

            1. couturepopcafe profile image60
              couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Sorry, girl.  One thing you can't justifiably say is that I'm an Obama basher.  Ok, I put in the occasional dig based on specific actions but I probably defend him as much as I put him down.  It's not that I'm offended by someone dissing Repubs but it would be a breath of fresh air if you would get off the Repub bashing wagon just for a bit and see that both sides are equally guilty.

              1. lovemychris profile image80
                lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I don't see them as equally guilty. Am I allowed to feel that way, or must I conform to the hype that "they are all alike"?
                I don't think they are.
                I think Republicans are much worse, as a whole.
                I think they are the Brood of Vipers from the Bible.

                So Sue me!

  7. Kushal101 profile image60
    Kushal101posted 5 years ago

    lol it remains so hot in India we would love to go back to the ice age.

  8. 0
    Home Girlposted 5 years ago

    Personally, I don't care. Finally I've bought winter boots! As soon as I've done that temperature outside went up considerably. Nice. Now I can enjoy walking. regarding climate changing...
    WHO REALLY KNOWS ???????????????????????????????????????
    http://www.easyfreesmileys.com/smileys/computer-17.gif

    1. couturepopcafe profile image60
      couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I feel your pain.

  9. Disturbia profile image60
    Disturbiaposted 5 years ago

    The climate is ALWAYS changing and has for billions of years. It's a natural phenomenon.

    1. 68
      logic,commonsenseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Absolutely correct!
      Those that think we have much influence on what nature does are arrogant and ignorant.

      1. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Really? Exxon Mobil and others have destroyed whole areas of life. Google it and see. Google "law-suits against oil companies".

        If you don't know the LETHAL damage they do, you will be enlightened.

        In fact, one such case happened right around here. They made a movie out of it starring John Travolta, called "A Civil Action". "families of children who died sue two companies for dumping toxic waste".

        Toxic waste. Kids die. Multiply that times a thousand. Of course, a lot of it happens in other countries...just like Koch recently rejected a windfarm on his view, but doesn't mind polluting the waters of some beautiful ocean.

        Where I come from, Michigan...all the Great Lakes died from this poisoning due to industry.
        Many many many children and others have been damaged beyond repair with all this "Texas Tea" and other fossil fuels.

        Ever hear of Black Lung Disease?

        We need clean energy. Renewable energy.
        And dam that stupid Beck for smearing Van Jones out of his job.

        Now it's over. Big oil is back in town. Congrats.

  10. The Taco Tagger profile image61
    The Taco Taggerposted 5 years ago

    The thing about the climate is that we have seen warming and cooling for ages. The thing about these "global warming experts" is that the facts are fudged for the benefit of making money. Al Gore for example is the biggest known pusher for global warming. Why? Well what he doesn't say is that he is the owner of the company that he buys carbon credits from. If you don't know what a carbon credit is, it is a piece of paper that basically absolves you of all your sins against the Earth. You pay them money to be wiped clean from all of the carbon emissions you have ever made on the Earth. Al Gore pays them... but he owns the company... so he's not losing any money, he's making it.

    To put it loosely: The Earth will continue doing what it's going to do. We don't need to worry about our planets natural cooling and heating so much as we need to worry about cleaning the place up for future generations.

    1. Druid Dude profile image59
      Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Think Geodesic! Perfect shape for an igloo for snowbound adventuring, can double as a "hogan" during those hot summer days in the forecast. Perfect shelter. We'll be running a sale on sunscreen, and introducing a new product line. High tech snowshoes!

  11. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    United States military says global warming is a threat to the planet as well as our national security. They are acting accordingly.
    Snooze we lose.
    More oil=more pollution=more disease and illness for all living things.

    1. couturepopcafe profile image60
      couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Hope you've decided to support organic farming and are driving a hybrid.  Hope you are burning coal for fuel, eating vegetarian (you know those cows and their pollution), hope you don't live in a wooden house (trees) or one which has aluminum siding or shingles or furniture made from petroleum-based synthetic materials.  You should also be wearing natural fibers, no synthetics which are all petroleum based, don't eat burgers or use electric stoves, get rid of your shoes if they're leather or synthetic, better stop using cosmetics unless you make them yourself.  Don't eat anything processed since all processed foods use chemicals in the processing.  Would you like paper or plastic?  Both use chemicals to process.  I could go on but you probably won't get the point anyway.

      1. 0
        Toby Hansenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Touche! I have used the same points on friends that the eco-terrorists have brainwashed. I never gets through to them, though.

      2. tony0724 profile image60
        tony0724posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You forgot to add that those reuseable bags we get at the market now contain a small amount of mercury. Charles Schummer vowed to fix it though. I know I'm relieved !

    2. 61
      C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      That's overstating. The pentagon has always accounted for worst cases in their scenarios regarding National Security. You'd be surprised what they actually account for. Literally every possible outcome. Alien invasion, epidemic, etc. The fact that they create scenarios for a possible event does not make it fact or even likely.

      1. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        "The navy was already alive to the potential threat, with melting sea ice in the Arctic opening up a new security province. The changing chemistry of the oceans, because of global warming, is also playing havoc with submarine sonar, a report last year from the CNAS warned.

        Dorothy Robyn, deputy undersecretary of defence for the environment told a conference call on Friday the Pentagon would seek to cut greenhouse gas emissions from non-combat operations by 34% from 2008 levels by 2020, in line with similar cuts by the rest of the federal government.

        The US air force, has built up America's biggest solar battery array in Nevada, and is testing jet fighter engines on biofuels. The Marine Corps may soon start drilling its own wells to eliminate the need to truck in bottled water in response to recommendations from a taskforce on reducing energy use in a war zone."


        Sounds like they do believe it is a true problem, and are acting on it.

        1. 61
          C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          the military has been pushing for energy efficiency for 30 years or so. The fact that they are calling it something different doesn't change anything. It just means that when you are a government agency and you use the right terminology you can get dollars. 
          Notice the Navy said they "WOULD SEEK" not that they are implimenting.  The Marine Corps "MAY" soon start drilling their own wells. All thats changed is rhetoric. It's the nature of the beast. Carbon foot print is todays buzz word. When it turns out this is all a scam or that it's not really cost effective it will be quietly abandoned.  All of this only proves my point. The Military has a history of thouroughly investigating all possibilities.

          1. lovemychris profile image80
            lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            So you deny that man-made pollution is causing problems for the enviromnment?
            It's no big deal, eh?

            No matter how many people think otherwise...EVEN as far as the US military, it's a scam.

            Can I ask you.....how do you like standing in back of a bus? Do you ever see that black soot coming out of truck valves and smokestacks of industry?

            Do you like your kids breathing that in 24/7?

            Or is it always "someone else's problem"?

            1. 61
              C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              "So you deny that man-made pollution is causing problems for the enviromnment?
              It's no big deal, eh?"

              Never said that. The discussion was and is about global warming theories. I can be concerned about the enviroment and not believe in GW. Just like I can be patriotic and be against the WAR. It's not a this or that thing.

              1. lovemychris profile image80
                lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                It is to me...I think pollution and global warming are one and the same.

                "Just like I can be patriotic and be against the WAR."
                Not from 2000-2008, you couldn't.
                That all changed once President Obama came in.
                360 switch.

                1. 61
                  C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  360 would be a complete revolution. I think you meant 180. However, the President didn't change that thinking.

  12. 0
    Toby Hansenposted 5 years ago

    Of course the climate is changing. It does every three months or so. It is called a season and there are four of them. Spring, summer,winter and autumn.
    Save the forests... wood chip a greenie!

  13. tony0724 profile image60
    tony0724posted 5 years ago
  14. barryrutherford profile image34
    barryrutherfordposted 5 years ago

    Okay maybe you sceptics can go and live in Tuvalu

    1. Pearldiver profile image87
      Pearldiverposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Oh Please!!!
      Everyone knows that place is sinking because it's people have doubled in weight over the last 10 years... as a result of Fast Food diets!!  roll

      1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
        uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Tuvalu is sinking.  Oh, no that means Waponi Wu is probably sinking, too.  That shoots the superconductor industry all to heck.

  15. couturepopcafe profile image60
    couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago

    No doubt the climate is changing.  Sorry.  The universe does its thing regardless of humans.

  16. Merlin Fraser profile image79
    Merlin Fraserposted 5 years ago

    Why is it that whenever this subject comes up the shouts of Bah Humbug and Do Nothing all seem to come from the US of A ?

    A country that per head of population, Imports more, consumes more, eats more, wastes more than any other country in the world.

    Should we therefore be surprised that as a mass consumption group obsessed with their own selfish well being above all else; that even when their own scientists and Government suddenly realise the world might just have a problem they collectively either ignore it or try to belittle the obvious?     

    Not that I think it will make a tiny rat's ass to the overly noisy minority in here but have a look at the graph below and then ask yourself how is that with such a rapid growth in the human population, that mirrors our increased use of crude oil by the way, how is it that this is NOT having an adverse effect on our climate ?

    You may also like to ask yourselves, if the world population continues to grow at the same rate where is all the food and fresh water going to come from to sustain life.... and I don’t mean just your life !   Just for once I’d like you to see past yourself and out toward the rest of the world.

    PS Just in case any of you are remotely interested   “Climate” and “Weather” are related but they are not the same thing.  For Climate you have to look at the world as a whole not just what is happening in one isolated place.... 



    http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd163/Merlin999/WorldPopulation.jpg

    1. Misha profile image75
      Mishaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      So a few nukes would be an answer then, right? The question is - what would be the most efficient targets for these nukes? Somehow USA does not seem to be the one. Conveniently, neither is Scotland. How about China, India, and Middle East? wink

  17. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    Here's for the Rah Rah crowd:

    "Our dependence on fuel adds significant cost and puts US soldiers and contractors at risk," said Dorothy Robyn, deputy undersecretary of defence for the environment. "Energy can be a matter of life and death and we have seen dramatically in Iraq and Afghanistan the cost of heavy reliance on fossil fuels."

    She told a conference call on Friday the Pentagon would seek to cut greenhouse gas emissions from non-combat operations by 34% from 2008 levels by 2020, in line with similar cuts by the rest of the federal government.

    In addition to the threat of global warming, she said the Pentagon was concerned that US military bases in America were vulnerable because of their reliance on the electric grid to cyber attack and overload in case of a natural disaster.

    The US air force, in response, has built up America's biggest solar battery array in Nevada, and is testing jet fighter engines on biofuels. The Marine Corps may soon start drilling its own wells to eliminate the need to truck in bottled water in response to recommendations from a taskforce on reducing energy use in a war zone."

    BUT--here's what's coming:

    By JOHN M. BRODER
    Published: December 30, 2010

    "WASHINGTON — With the federal government set to regulate climate-altering gases from factories and power plants for the first time, the Obama administration and the new Congress are headed for a clash that carries substantial risks for both sides.

    While only the first phase of regulation takes effect on Sunday, the administration is on notice that if it moves too far and too fast in trying to curtail the ubiquitous gases that are heating the planet it risks a Congressional backlash that could set back the effort for years.

    But the newly muscular Republicans in Congress could also stumble by moving too aggressively to handcuff the Environmental Protection Agency, provoking a popular outcry that they are endangering public health in the service of their well-heeled patrons in industry."

    It's Planet Earth vs Patrons of Industry.
    Who's side are you on?

    1. ediggity profile image61
      ediggityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Both.

      1. Castlepaloma profile image24
        Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        There is two super power in the world, Mulitariy complex and globol puclic opinion, I trust far more, the people and war solves nothing.

        Global Warning is real; I have lost 80% of my ice and snow sculpture business over it. In Vancouver the most dangerous Olympic ever was due to warming. In the pass 25 years ice has melted the size of Alaska and Texas combined in parlor region. Floods are the largest natural environment killer of all.

        What would change and convince the true leader of the world (the people) Is a natural abuse, maybe like a 100 million deaths in a few floods, should do it?

        1. ediggity profile image61
          ediggityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I wish I could think of something to slap a name brand on like Global Warming, and make a bunch of money.  Not really.  I guess climate change never really existed before name brands.

  18. Ralph Deeds profile image68
    Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/opini … 4&sTHE earth continues to get warmer, yet it’s feeling a lot colder outside. Over the past few weeks, subzero temperatures in Poland claimed 66 lives; snow arrived in Seattle well before the winter solstice, and fell heavily enough in Minneapolis to make the roof of the Metrodome collapse; and last week blizzards closed Europe’s busiest airports in London and Frankfurt for days, stranding holiday travelers. The snow and record cold have invaded the Eastern United States, with more bad weather predicted.

    All of this cold was met with perfect comic timing by the release of a World Meteorological Organization report showing that 2010 will probably be among the three warmest years on record, and 2001 through 2010 the warmest decade on record.

    How can we reconcile this? The not-so-obvious short answer is that the overall warming of the atmosphere is actually creating cold-weather extremes. Last winter, too, was exceptionally snowy and cold across the Eastern United States and Eurasia, as were seven of the previous nine winters.

    For a more detailed explanation, we must turn our attention to the snow in Siberia. q=global%20climate%20change&st=cse

    1. sannyasinman profile image83
      sannyasinmanposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Can you hear yourself?
      Global cooling is caused by global warming!

      So, you probably agree with these also:

      WAR is PEACE.
      FREEDOM is SLAVERY.
      IGNORANCE is STRENGTH.

      Ring any bells?

      1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
        Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You really haven't researched this have you?(beyond Rush Limbaugh's "analysis").

        Ralph's explanation is correct.  He based it on a credible source.

        1. Doug Hughes profile image61
          Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Global Warming is an observed fact.  Exhibit A is the photograpic evidence of the polar ice cap receding. We are seeing EXTREMES in the weather, which is different from global climate, which continues to measure warmer.

          What's disgusting is the way that wen finally confronted with overwhelming evidence of climate change - the denyers then claim - it's 'natural' - with NO support. And in 3 weeks are right back saying global warming is a myth.

          1. sannyasinman profile image83
            sannyasinmanposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Climate change is an observable fact. The climate has always changed and always will. There is no factual evidence of Man Made Global Warming, and it certainly has nothing to do with CO2 emissions.

            The scam has been shown to be a fabrication time and time again. The "facts" have been shown to be exaggerated, cherry-picked, and deliberately prejeudiced.

            What IS disgusting is the way that the Global Warming Alarmists, when finally confronted with overwhelming evidence of cheating and falsifying data (Climategate and others), and of global cooling, STILL claim that AGW will have catatrophic effects on the planet unless we all pay billions in Carbon Credit Taxes. This is a lie and a fraud which which will do NOTHING to help the planet, and which you, by your intransigence, help to reinforce.

            1. Doug Hughes profile image61
              Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Scroll up ten (or so) comments to the blue graph posted by Merlin Frasier.

              Look at population growth and see how it coincides with the industrial revolution. If you believe that change in the climate will lag the circumstances that cause the change, we have not seen the worst. Indeed, we may not have seen bad yet.

              Co2 and greenhouse gasses ARE a factor in climate change. It started when coal burning in London produced pollution so bad, they thought it was fog. No one will ever be able to draw a causal link that will stand up in court.

              There are two attitudes in play. The modern one is that we are Stewards of the Earth, with an obligation to leave our charge in better condition than when we assumed the office from the previous generation. The old view is that humans were given dominion over the earth and have a divine right to rape and plunder with no consideration of consequences.

              My 'intransigence' is a reflection of my contempt for the rapists.

              1. EmpressFelicity profile image84
                EmpressFelicityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Population growth wasn't caused by the Industrial Revolution - it happens anyway. (Do the bacteria in a Petri dish multiply because they've built factories and cities?)  On the subject of population growth: there's no way that the earth's population will ever get to two thousand billion or whatever the limit was in that graph.  In fact, as standards of living in the Third World (hopefully) rise, population growth will slow down and even reverse due to smaller family sizes.  (You don't need to have loads of kids when you know that they stand a near 100% chance of reaching adulthood.) 

                The coal pollutants that caused the fog were things like sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide, not CO2.  It's easy to set up an experiment that shows a direct link between nitrogen and sulphur emissions and respiratory disease.  It's not so easy to prove a link between anthropogenic CO2 and global warming.

                1. Doug Hughes profile image61
                  Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  *SIGH*  I did not say that population growth was caused by the industrial revolution or vice versa.  I asked the reader to observe how global population in the last 200 years has gone from less than 1 billion to approaching 6 billion.  Instead of living with nature, we have become expert in manipulating our environment - to a degree that it threatens the civilization we have built over the last 2 centuries.

                  There are a LOT of factors that go into global warming. Without a time machine to make measurements over the last few centuries exact proof is impossible.  The argument that - absent absolute proof we should do nothing - is foolishness. Pumping hydrocarbons into the air is good for the profits of oil and coal industries - and it's poisonous for the environment.  It's past time we woke up.

            2. barryrutherford profile image34
              barryrutherfordposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              You say


              ""The scam has been shown to be a fabrication time and time again. The "facts" have been shown to be exaggerated, cherry-picked, and deliberately prejeudiced.""



              THat is a a very long bow to draw !


              there might be a few blogs that say this but there is no scientific literature !

              1. Doug Hughes profile image61
                Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                And I suppose the polar caps are NOT receeding...

                1. tony0724 profile image60
                  tony0724posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Actually Doug they are growing again

                  http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e … 086746.ece

                  1. kerryg profile image87
                    kerrygposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Nope. That article was published in April 2010.

                    By June 2010, we recorded the lowest ice extent ever recorded for the month.

                    http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmen … -melt-0528

                    As of December 6th, 2010 the Arctic recorded its second lowest ice extent for the month of November since satellite record began, because winter ice cover is reforming uncharacteristically slowly.

                    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

                  2. Doug Hughes profile image61
                    Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    From the aticle you cited...

                    "Vicky Pope, a Met Office scientist, said the Arctic Oscillation had affected weather across the hemisphere... "“The reality is that greenhouse gases are making the world warmer, but it is a mistake to see short-term changes in weather, currents or Arctic ice cover as evidence of this,” Pope said.

                    “Instead you have to look at long-term trends. These show that Arctic summer sea ice is decreasing by 232,000 square miles a decade, nearly 2.5 times the area of Great Britain.

                    “On current trends it will still become ice-free in summer by around 2060.”

              2. sannyasinman profile image83
                sannyasinmanposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Here are just a few . there are MANY more . .

                16 October 2010. Global Warming Alarmists caught exaggerating yet again. This time it’s the highly respected Royal Society in the UK. British numbers on carbon dioxide are wrong. Royal Society grossly exaggerates impact of CO2 
                “The Royal Society advises the British government on matters concerning climate change. Due to the scale of the error any forthcoming review will necessarily result in a substantial downward revision of the threat posed by CO2 in the official government numbers”.
                http://www.suite101.com/content/royal-s … or-a296746


                11 October 2010. US physics professor: 'Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life'
                http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james … long-life/


                10 october  2010. Legal Defeat for Global Warming in Kiwigate Scandal.
                As reported in a Suite101 article by the same writer of April 2010 'Kiwigate is a Carbon Copy of Climategate' it was shown that the scientist who made the controversial “bold adjustments” is none other than Jim Salinger who is also a lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
                http://www.suite101.com/content/legal-d … al-a294157

                And of course, the daddy of them all, the Climategate emails which largely contributed to the death of the Copenhagen Treaty

                26 Jan 2010. Scientists in stolen e-mail scandal hid climate data
                http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e … 004936.ece

                Climategate analysis by John P. Costella B.E.(Elec.)(Hons.) B.Sc.(Hons.) Ph.D.(Physics) Grad.Dip.Ed.
                http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/repri … lysis.html

                Q. How do you create a Global Warming panic when the weather is not cooperating?
                A. http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/mos/m … rming.html

                29 Nov 2010. Climate change data dumped
                http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e … 936328.ece

                30 Jan 2010. IPCC Climate chief was told of false glacier claims before Copenhagen but kept quiet for 2 months.
                http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e … 009081.ece

                12 Jan 2010.  Dr Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the UN climate change panel, the IPCC, admitted that his alarmist scare about the Himalayan Glaciers melting was untrue.  The IPCC’s 2007 report, which won it the Nobel Peace Prize, said that the probability of Himalayan glaciers “disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high”. This report from the BBC in 2005 is scaremongering, and of course has the desired effect of panicking the people into submission.
                http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4346211.stm

                But it emerged last week that the forecast was based not on a consensus among climate change experts, but on a media interview with a single Indian glaciologist in 1999.

                31’000 scientists sign petition. There is no concensus.
                http://www.petitionproject.org/


                Video - Weather channel founder sues Al Gore (with 30’000 scientists)
                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6zpHtbM3hc


                Dec 2009. Open Letter to IPCC Chairman by Monckton
                http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/image … letter.pdf


                Oct 2007. UK judges ruling on 9 errors in Al Gore’s film
                http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthn … ruths.html

                Or if you prefer a video . .
                Global Warming Doomsday Called Off
                http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?doc … 407994295#

        2. sannyasinman profile image83
          sannyasinmanposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          You appear to have researched it even less.

          "Ralph's explanation" is not his opinion, but a direct "lift" word for word from the NY article.

          And what exactly is a credible source? NY Times, Washigton Post, CNN, BBC? Maintream is not synonymous with credible.

          A lie, however many "credible" sources support it, is still a lie.
          The truth, even if spoken by a minority of 1, is still the truth.

          1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
            Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            If your "1" is financed by oil companies, you should be at least a little skeptical.  You should look to a variety of sources, not just the radical "1" that supports your absurd position.

            1. EmpressFelicity profile image84
              EmpressFelicityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              In all the posts of yours I've seen on these forums, I've never seen you actually back any of your points up.

              Just saying.

              1. Doug Hughes profile image61
                Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Ron's observation that studies financed by oil/coal/energy companies are the only ones that support the idea that pumping hydrocarbons into the air has no effect. 

                If you want to refute his statement, by all means, we are waiting for a list of studies that support raping the planet - ones not financed by companies in the process of raping the planet.

                1. EmpressFelicity profile image84
                  EmpressFelicityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Err... the fact that temperature changes lag behind CO2 changes, for one.  The fact that we've had cyclical variations in temperatures for centuries.  And the almost certain probability that introducing measures like carbon trading isn't going to make any difference anyway, even if human-derived CO2 does cause climate change.  All it's going to do is impose extra tax burdens/bureaucracy on us minions, and make a few people very rich.  And it won't make the CO2 disappear, it will just change the places where it's generated.

                  And that "raping the planet" emotional blackmail tactic just won't wash with me, sorry.  You seem to be very willing to dismiss climate change sceptic research on the grounds that it's financed by oil companies (what, all of it?), yet you're strangely reluctant to draw similar links between the supporters of anthropogenic global warming and the benefits they might derive.  BTW, here's one for ya!

                  http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL0490971420080604

                  "(Reuters) - Generation Investment Management, an investor in green firms chaired by former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, has bought a 9.6 percent stake in UK-listed Camco International Ltd (CAMIN.L), Camco said on Wednesday.

                  The stake is worth around 6.4 million pounds ($12.59 million) at Camco's current price of 40 pence a share.

                  While Gore, a politician turned environmental activist chairs Generation Investment, David Blood, a former CEO of Goldman Sachs Asset Management, is managing partner of the firm, which was founded four years ago.

                  Camco identifies and develops greenhouse gas emission reduction projects. It also provides carbon and sustainable development consultancy services, including emissions assessment, carbon management and strategy and policy work, to companies and governments."

                  1. Doug Hughes profile image61
                    Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    "Posted 9:20 AM 04/28/10 

                    The fact that British oil giant BP's (BP) profit surged 135% in the first quarter bodes well for the other oil companies announcing earnings this week. The fact that British oil giant BP's (BP) profit surged 135% in the first quarter bodes well for the other oil companies announcing earnings this week. Thanks to the steady rise in the price of oil, results from other oil majors should not disappoint.

                    On Tuesday, BP reported replacement-cost profits of $5.6 billion, versus $2.4 billion during the same period last year. Impressively, the company was able to more than double its profits, even though its oil production remained flat. The doubling of crude prices from about $40 per barrel in the first quarter last year to more than $80 per barrel this year had a lot to do with BP's success."

                    See full article from DailyFinance: http://srph.it/dnIb8L

                    So which is bigger - 12.59 million the value of the Camco stake or 5.6 billion, the first quarter earnings for BP this year. Care to give us some scale how much MORE the incentive of BP is over the period of a year, rather than just a quarter, and how big the total pie is when you include the other oil giants? Then you see in terms of relative size, this is not David vs Goliath - the companies going up against the oil, coal and energy companies are outweighed like a mosquito is outweighed by an elephant.

                  2. kerryg profile image87
                    kerrygposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Actually, CO2 both leads and lags temperature, which is one of the issues that make the worst case scenarios of scientists really nightmarish (for humanity).

                    Higher temperatures cause the Earth to release stored CO2 as a result of things such as peatlands drying out, slower plant growth in tropical regions, wildfires and forest destruction by pests such as the spruce beetle that are dependent on warmer temperatures, desertification, and the saturation of the ocean carbon sink. The CO2 "lag" then increases the temperature further, causing more wildfires, desertification, etc. etc., causing more CO2 to be released...

                    Even if you disagree with anthropogenic climate change, you have probably noticed that all these things are happening right now, and if they continue to happen, it does not bode well for life as we know it.

            2. sannyasinman profile image83
              sannyasinmanposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              This particular "1" truth comes from an INDEPENDENT weather forecaster who accurately predicted the freezing weather conditions in Europe and the USA, completely contradicting the "established", "official" and "credible" forecasts of the National Met. Offices, who of course forecast milder winters in keeping with a planet which is warming up.

              This scientist reiterates that climate change is driven by the activity of the sun, and is not caused by excessive amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere - and in fact, that more CO2 is a good thing, as other hubbers have also commented.   

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwyjsJJr … ded#at=164

              Sorry to disappoint you, but he has nothing to do with any oil company. There are many more INDEPENDENT scientists who have spoken out now to expose the great AGW Scam, which has nothing to do with concern for the planet, and everything to do with money, power and control.

              Unfortunately, whilst we squabble amongst ourselves, governments are pressing ahead with the introduction of carbon taxes to supposedly "fight man made global warming". The enormity of the lie beggars belief - but then BIG lies are always easier to pass than small ones.

  19. ediggity profile image61
    ediggityposted 5 years ago

    So, I guess the question should be, "Is the Theory of Global Warming Correct?"  Oh, never mind, it's a scientific theory, it has to be correct.lol

  20. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    Al Gore is not a politician turned activist, he's an activist who happens to be a politician. He started being public about his environmental feelings in the 70's. That's a long time ago.

    "When Earth in the Balance first came out, it caused quite a stir--and for good reason. It convincingly makes the case that a crisis of epidemic proportions is nearly upon us and that if the world doesn't get its act together soon and agree to some kind of "Global Marshall Plan" to protect the environment, we're all up a polluted creek without a paddle. Myriad plagues are upon us, but the worst include the loss of biodiversity, the depletion of the ozone layer, the slash-and-burn destruction of rainforests, and the onset of global warming. None of this is new, of course, nor was it new in 1992. But most environmentalists will still get a giddy feeling reading such a call to action as written by a prominent politician."

    Just because Russsshhhhh says he's ALGORE the vampire, doesn't make it so.

    1. EmpressFelicity profile image84
      EmpressFelicityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Since when has Rush been working for Reuters?

  21. barryrutherford profile image34
    barryrutherfordposted 5 years ago

    Doug Hughes I think you have the wrong end of the stick.  my first two lines were from the previous poster.


    I believe the science on global warming

    1. Misha profile image75
      Mishaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      That is exactly where the problem is Barry. smile Real science has nothing to do with beliefs. It deals with hypotheses and theories. Once science get reduced to beliefs, you get scams like GW. smile

      GW is not even a theory, it is a hypothesis, and making any kind of far-fetching moves based on a not proven yet hypothesis is stupid at best and evil at worst. smile

      1. kerryg profile image87
        kerrygposted 5 years ago in reply to this
        1. Misha profile image75
          Mishaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Cool, so since the ACTION of implementing new measures and policies requested by GW gang is going to HARM the public by the way of wasting limited resources that could have been used more efficiently elsewhere - for example for feeding hungry or developing cure for cancer or re-educating unemployed or saving endangered species - the burden of proof is on the side of said gang, according to precautionary principle smile

          1. ediggity profile image61
            ediggityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Some climate scientists consider Global Warming a Theory, and some consider Anthropogenic Global Warming a hypothesis.  Some just think it's a hoax.smile

          2. kerryg profile image87
            kerrygposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Yup, developing alternatives to a finite energy source that is found primarily in violently unstable regions of the world is soooooo bad for humanity. So is planting trees and getting livestock out of feedlots and onto pasture and cutting back the amount of plastic cr*p we give our kids...

            Misha, I know you're referring to stuff like cap-and-trade and carbon offsets when you say global warming mitigation is going to harm humanity, but seeing as this is our 5038277782th discussion of this issue, I'm pretty sure that you know by now that I'm opposed to cap-and-trade and carbon offsets too, so please don't be intellectually dishonest.

            1. Misha profile image75
              Mishaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Huh? Where exactly my intellectual dishonesty is? Come on Kerry, you are quite a lovable lady and I admire you - but not to the extent of remembering your exact position on every conceivable issue. I am just a human with limited memory abilities, and there are quite a few lovable ladies around. smile

        2. EmpressFelicity profile image84
          EmpressFelicityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I used to be an advocate of this, but I'm not any more.  Don't get me wrong - I believe that new technologies should be thoroughly researched to determine what effect they might have on the environment/human or animal health, but at the end of the day, each new technology that emerges is going to have consequences that NOBODY could have foreseen when it was still on the drawing board.  However, human ingenuity is such that we are almost certain to find a method of dealing with such consequences as and when they arise.

          If the PP had been applied when the electric lightbulb was invented, we'd all still be using candles and gas lamps.  And we certainly wouldn't be sitting here having this discussion at our computers, because the electricity transmission system that underpins our civilisation in its current form wouldn't exist.

          1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
            uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Perhaps the precautionary principle should be renamed the p**** principle.Bessemer, Diesel, Daimler, Pasteur, Benz, Biro would have had more difficulty bringing a product to market or instituting an innovative technique today in that great engine of innovation - the EU. It is no wonder that innovation has shifted, geographically, to the US and now to the Pacific Rim.

            It is only a matter of time before those who fear the dark beyond the fire stop all innovation.

      2. barryrutherford profile image34
        barryrutherfordposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I was wrong to use the word  believe. Rather I should have said I am convinced  by the many hundreds of peer reviewed scientific papers  that conclude amongst other things that continud pumping noxious waste gases such as carbon into the atmosphere is creating a greenhouse effect in the outer atmosphere that will result in an increase in catastrophic weather events and other events such as the bleaching of & therefore the gradual destruction of things like the great barrier reef.

        1. Misha profile image75
          Mishaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Barry, cool, so you are convinced. Sounds much better. smile I am sorry, and how many of those scientific papers and their peer reviews you personally read?

  22. Pcunix profile image91
    Pcunixposted 5 years ago

    Yet another thread where the usual crowd displays their complete ignorance of science.

    Global warming is real. That it can cause bitter cold in sone places and heavy snow elsewhere is also real and understood. But not by these folks, of course,,

  23. uncorrectedvision profile image61
    uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago

    I keep hoping for a real planet wide increase in global mean temperature.  How much easier life would be for every living thing if the world was warmer and wetter.  The increased CO2 in the atmosphere coupled with more atmospheric water vapor and warmer temperatures would result in several positive effects:
    an increased growing season
    less burning of valuable petroleum and natural gas for warmth
    an increased life span and range for all animals
    decreased mortality for animal newborns
    a drastic decrease in winter related deaths
    a much wider distribution and biodiversity among food crops

    Global warming, bring it on!  Oh yes, one more major impact of global warming would be the empty headed regulation of carbon dioxide and creating one more billionaire in the world - Albert Arnold "Al" Gore, JR.

    1. kerryg profile image87
      kerrygposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      "The increased CO2 in the atmosphere coupled with more atmospheric water vapor and warmer temperatures would result in several positive effects:"

      "an increased growing season"

      Depends entirely on where you live. Some plants need a certain number of days below a certain temperature to produce properly, most human food plants stop producing entirely if the temperature gets above a certain point.

      "less burning of valuable petroleum and natural gas for warmth"

      More burning for air conditioning.

      "an increased life span and range for all animals"

      Except alpine and polar, but who needs those, eh?

      "decreased mortality for animal newborns"

      Again, depends on where you are. Excessive heat can be just as damaging as excessive cold, especially in drier regions.

      "a drastic decrease in winter related deaths"

      A drastic increase in summer related deaths

      "a much wider distribution and biodiversity among food crops"

      Still depends on where you live.

      1. mistyhorizon2003 profile image88
        mistyhorizon2003posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Excellent response. I was going to respond to that post myself, but then I read your response and realised you had covered it really well.

        Another point in this overall debate, can any of us really take the chance on thinking 'GB' isn't real? If we then found out we were wrong it would be a bit late to say 'Whoops, those guys who reckoned global warming was real were right all along!'

        1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
          uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          We have already been told that it is too late to undo the damage of "global warming," "global climate change." "global climate chaos," - what ever it is being called today.  A hall mark of a bogus theory is a shifting definition of said theory.  There should be experimental evidence.  There should be provable benchmarks.  There should be provable effects that are NOT covered by the hypothesis. 

          Global warming is a doctrine, a dogma, a dictate but is not science.  It does not rise to the level of science because it avoids the necessities of other scientifically postulated theories.  But none of that really matters if one understands that global warming is not about life, environment or energy production.  It is about the Utopian vision and the power to accomplish that vision as conceived by liberals around the world.

          Al Gore, Prince Charles, Leonardo Di Caprio and any other number of Gaia's priests live lavishly, eat lavishly, consume lavishly, expend vast amounts of energy in their personal pursuits, burn prodigious amounts  of jet fuel as they travel the world telling me what I am doing wrong, what I am allowed to do, how I am to live, what I am allowed to own or eat.

          Global warming is no more than another example of that beloved liberal mind set - "Four legs good, two legs bad,"  as they don the farmers clothing and go about on two legs telling the rest of us that some are naturally more equal than others and WE must work harder.

      2. uncorrectedvision profile image61
        uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Really, it is your contention that warmer temperatures will not benefit every living thing despite the evidence throughout the world that milder temperatures result in population increases for all species.  Polar bear populations actually rise with milder winters as do caribou, elk, moose, wolf, etc...  Air conditioning is not a necessity for survival where as heat is in winter temperatures.  Life prospers in warm, wet environments.  One need only look at the globe itself to see how populations are distributed to understand that warmth is far better for life than cold.

        I wonder how warm it needs to be for food to stop growing?  I am pretty sure nothing is growing now in the frozen Indiana bean and corn fields that would be major food producers with more moisture and a longer growing season.  I am pretty sure those fields produce enormous amounts of food when temperatures are over 100F and the summer rains fall.

        I have driven across Kansas when the temperature was 105F and the wheat was thick and lush.  I have seen avocados, oranges and apricots growing in the irrigated deserts of Southern California. 

        Rice, bananas, plantain, and more grow through out Central American and the Caribbean farms, jungles and rain forests, despite high temperatures.  With the melting of the ice caps atmospheric water vapor should rapidly increase precipitation. I can't wait to grow rice in Indiana.

        It requires far fewer resources to adapt to a hot environment than to a frigid one.  One need only compare Alaska and California.  Both large geographically, blessed with abundant natural resources, natural beauty and vast coastal waters with good portage for fishing and trade.  Both have been available for exploitation by Americans since before 1870 yet, Alaska still has a tiny population and California the largest population in the nation.  Why?

        Weather.  California is warm through out the state and blazing hot in some portions.  Alaska is brutally cold through out much of the year with a very abbreviated growing season.  Warm is so much better than cold that animal populations flourish in the warm and struggle in the cold.

        1. kerryg profile image87
          kerrygposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          "I wonder how warm it needs to be for food to stop growing?"

          Funny you should mention. As it happens, we know exactly.

          The wheat field may have looked good at 105 degrees, but wheat stops growing at 95 degrees, so I'll bet the farmer was cursing the weather.

          Nearly everything slows or stops growing above 95 degrees, because 95 degrees is the temperature where photosynthesis breaks down. It ceases entirely above 104 degrees, so your 105 degree field of wheat was actually in thermal shock, however lush and healthy it may have looked.

          1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
            uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            So you are saying the wheat fields of
            Manitoba will be more productive and we can start growing tropical fruits and vegetables in Kansas. That is awesome.  I wonder how good the ice fishing needs to be or how thick and durable the snow cover before anthropogenic global warming advocates get burned at the stake like 14th century witches.  After all, it isn't science driven, it is faith that drives global warming theory.

            It is the belief that doom lurks just outside the glow of the campfire.  We have been down this road before and all that waits at the end is rack and ruin.  Why not just start a little doomsday cult and leave the rest of us alone, Al Gore.

            1. kerryg profile image87
              kerrygposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Bear in mind that this dinosaur-era tropical paradise you envision can't actually come to pass with the type of land masses we have currently. During the Cretaceous, sea levels were 200-300 meters higher than today and most of the modern US and Canada was underwater. Modern Europe was a chain of islands, and large chunks of Africa, Asia, South America, and India were also covered in ocean.

              So global warming might increase the wheat yield in Manitoba, yes, but tropical fruits and vegetables in Kansas are not likely, since Kansas has a continental climate tending towards arid. It's more likely to turn into a desert.

  24. Misha profile image75
    Mishaposted 5 years ago

    BTW, I would really appreciate if one of the proponents of AGW will explain to me how greenhouse effect works, exactly? Thank you. smile

    Oh, and please don't send me to wiki or another source, I want to hear your own explanation, in your own words. smile

    1. barryrutherford profile image34
      barryrutherfordposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Misha

      For a start this thread starts out with a false proposition.  That Scientist's are corrupt but lobbyists are pure.  Predicting the weather in Europe one season at a time is not what the Climate Change issue it is about.  Climate change/Global Warming Issue is about the average temperature that the globe heats overall.  Just a few degrees can make a massive difference just like a few degree increase in yours and mine body temperature is fatal.

      Here is a link which covers  my point

      http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/27606.html

      1. Pcunix profile image91
        Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Some of these people simple don't understand the difference between climate and weather.  The one is an event, the other is an average over some period of time, but they concentrate on local instances to deny overwhelming patterns.

        I really don't know where this comes from. Part of it is remnants of the typical "All Gore and the Internet" nonsense and probably has the same partisan source. Another part seems to be fruit loop conspiracy believers: "the commie liberals are trying to destroy capitalism by way of global warming!"

        Part of it is just ignorance. In a way, it has a beautiful symmetry: ignorance, partisanship and conspiracy all feed each other in this little whirlwind of insanity.

        Mix in a little resentment and ridicule of the scientific eggheads ("Oh, they used to say it was a coming Ice Age"), stir in the politics and season with fear. This is what you get.

      2. Misha profile image75
        Mishaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Barry, I never said lobbyists are angels. Neither I said scientists are evil. I do agree climate is changing. But, I do not think it is scientifically proven that climate is changing because of humans. More, I do think that Sun changes and other naturally occurring events influence our climate immeasurably more than whatever humans do, and this was before humans existed, and will be after humans seize to exist. And I do think that AGW, as promoted by AG and gang, is yet another attempt to rip the people of their money, nothing else. smile

        BTW, you did not answer my question from the quoted post, about greenhouse. smile

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
          Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Misha, I'm glad to see you admit that the climate at any given time is the product of a combination of natural and man made factors. The effect of both types of factors has been well documented scientifically. The effect of greenhouse gases has been measured and is therefore quite predictable. The natural factors are less predictable. The dispute is not a fallacious "either-or" one but one of whether the effect of greenhouse gases will be increased, balanced or counteracted by natural forces. Currently, the effect of greenhouse gases is causing significant changes in the global climate.

    2. Misha profile image75
      Mishaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      What, no takers? Should I take it nobody understands how greenhouse effect works?

      1. Pcunix profile image91
        Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You don't like Wikipedia's explanation?

        Oh, never mind.

        There are no takers because nobody wants to play whatever nonsense game you have in mind after they answer.

        Your thoughts about the influence of man vs. nature aren't shared by the majority of the scientific community, but even if they were, surely you don't think that our pollution has NO influence?

        Oh, no: I see what the problem is: as usual, you are worried that someone is robbing you of your precious money.  That's all it really is, isn't it?  Those shifty liberals looking for another way to get their hands in your pockets, right?

        1. 61
          C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          You of all people should see the reasons WHY people would be suspicious. Take Gore's story add a carbon credit program. One he makes money off of. Now take that idea and compare it to the scam televangelist use. See? It's the same thing. Even if GW was scientifically proven, how would carbon credits help the enviroment? It's LOGICAL that it helps no one other than Al Gore and his cronies!

          1. EmpressFelicity profile image84
            EmpressFelicityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            It's weird that only one (or at most two) of the pro GW people on this forum has actually acknowledged this.  All the others have their heads stuck well and truly in the sand, to the extent of saying that they don't even *want* to learn about carbon credits and how they work.

            1. 61
              C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Not to mention so many who seem to have a grasp of science, yet forget about the difference between ASSOCIATION and ROOT CAUSE. A point you made very well a few post back by the way. I'm afraid it was lost on most as well.

              1. EmpressFelicity profile image84
                EmpressFelicityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                When I die, I want my epitaph to be "Correlation does not imply causation" lol lol

                1. 61
                  C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  LOL, Data Analysis NERD!LOL Oh no, I got that...hmm guess I'm a NERD TOO!

            2. lovemychris profile image80
              lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              What has it to do with anything now?
              Repubs are back in control of the House. They have appointed 2 pro-oil people as committe chairmen...it is moot!

              Nothing will get done on ANY even REMOTE global warming concerns.
              It is Big Oil/Big Pollution all the way...and all the way to the bank for THEM....something none of you ever acknowledge. I guess it's just Gore who makes money huh?

          2. Pcunix profile image91
            Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I have no warm feelings about carbon credits.

            1. 61
              C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              So technically you don't neccessarily believe in GW either. You really believe the ends justify the means. GW is just a vehichle to a better enviroment.

              1. Pcunix profile image91
                Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I do believe in scientific consensus. From what I read, only a few nut cases are contesting this. They COULD be right, of course: in 1890, only a few nut cases thought heavier than air flight was possible.

                But the chances are that they are  not right and the fact that most contention has obvious ideological ties makes me more likely to think the nay sayers are fools and political shills.

                That many arguments here are presented from an obvious base of utter ignorance doesn't help, either. People who don't understand that local weather instances are meaningless, for example or those who insist that this is all a liberal plot to destroy capitalism - I could get banned if I responded as I honestly feel to those posts!

                From where I sit, 90% of the "controversy" is politically motivated, misinformed, pure ignorance and whacko conspiracy theories.  The other 10% represents genuine concerns with methodology and interpretation and deserves at least polite responses if not consideration.

      2. Misha profile image75
        Mishaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Still no takers? It's disheartening, really. OK, I am out with kids, will be back by the evening. Hope somebody will answer "Misha's challenge" by then. Or I will have to conclude you guys have no idea what you are talking about, so much for credibility of your opinion on the issue. wink

        1. kerryg profile image87
          kerrygposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          The Earth naturally reflects about 50% of incoming sunlight back towards space. Some of that is absorbed in the atmosphere by greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, water vapor, and methane and reflected back down to the surface and lower atmosphere, raising the temperature higher than it would be if the earth were heated by direct radiation alone. Changes in the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases can therefore affect the surface temperature of Earth by reflecting more or less of the sun's energy back to the surface.

          There, I can paraphrase a science textbook. What does that prove?

          1. barryrutherford profile image34
            barryrutherfordposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Kerryg

            This is a good synopsis I think of what Misha et al seems to be looking for. If Mischa et al   really want more prove they can search Google Scholar for the technically written scientific papers written for the most part by experts in their respective fields for the last 20/30/40 years>  It would be easy to play dumb and listen to the nay-sayers but to me this would dismiss the common sense argument of what we pump into the atmosphere & the already large examples of catastrophic severe record making weather events that the globe seems to be subjected to on a increasing basis...

          2. Misha profile image75
            Mishaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I knew I have reasons to like you Kerry, you seem to be the only person on this thread who actually try to approach the issue from a logic standpoint, not from beliefs. smile

            Let's see what we got there. I seriously want to understand the mechanism of that thing how you see it, so I would ask you to clarify a few points for me please, OK? So,

            The Earth naturally reflects about 50% of incoming sunlight back towards space.
            Which exactly part of Earth does the reflection? Is it surface or some layer(s) in the atmosphere, or both? If both, what is an approximate breakdown of amounts reflected and absorbed?

            Some of that is absorbed in the atmosphere by greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, water vapor, and methane and reflected back down to the surface and lower atmosphere, raising the temperature higher than it would be if the earth were heated by direct radiation alone. Changes in the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases can therefore affect the surface temperature of Earth by reflecting more or less of the sun's energy back to the surface.
            Several questions here.
            I thought that what is absorbed cannot be reflected. Like there are absorbing surfaces and reflecting surfaces. They do both of course, yet the part that is absorbed does not get reflected, and vice versa. I think it most likely is just a slip of the tongue, just want to make sure we are on the same page here smile
            Now, you are talking about gases reflecting a portion of already reflected from the Earth surface sunlight back to Earth. Do those same gases reflect the direct sunlight back into space, or their action is anisotropic? If later, what exactly is the mechanism of this anisotropy?
            Then, based on the molar weight of CO2 in comparison to other atmospheric gases (44 vs 32 for O2 and 28 for N2) one would expect CO2 to concentrate mostly right at the earth surface. How come it takes part in forming a reflective layer above the surface?

            Thank you smile

            1. kerryg profile image87
              kerrygposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Sorry, I was trying to avoid paraphrasing too directly, but caused confusion instead. Some things "reflect" and others "radiate" and they're not as interchangeable as I implied above.

              Basically, the sun's energy reaches the Earth in the form (mainly) of visible light. I'm a little vague on exact percentages, but my impression is that about 30% is reflected directly back into space by clouds and never reaches the Earth's surface at all. About 50% is absorbed by the surface, and the rest (I think - this is the part I'm most vague about) is absorbed by the atmosphere on the way in.

              The ~50% of light absorbed by the Earth's surface warms the surface by radiating outward in the infrared wavelengths through thermal radiation, sensible heat, and latent heat transport.

              The greenhouse effect is semi-anisotropic because greenhouse gases absorb relatively little energy in the visible light wavelengths, but relatively high amounts of energy in the infrared wavelengths. They radiate the energy in all directions and each layer of the atmosphere absorbs and re-radiates some of the energy moving up from below, so although some energy is radiated back into space from the upper levels of the atmosphere, a higher percentage is trapped down in the lower levels of the atmosphere because less energy is getting radiated directly outward at every level. This is what causes the greenhouse effect.

              Concerning your question on why CO2 doesn't stratify down by the surface due to its heavier molecular weight, the atmosphere is divided into two major sections: the homosphere and heterosphere. The homosphere consists of the troposphere, stratosphere, and mesosphere. It is the part involved with the greenhouse effect and the composition of the atmosphere in these sections doesn't depend on molecular weight because the gases are getting constantly mixed around by turbulence.

              The heterosphere consists of the thermosphere and exosphere and does stratify by molecular weight. The heavier gases are present only at the very lowest levels of the heterosphere (circa 100 km/62 mi/330,000 ft) and the upper levels consist almost entirely of hydrogen and helium.

              I hope this clarified your questions. smile

              1. Misha profile image75
                Mishaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Cool, thanks Kerry, it certainly answered what I asked. Based on that reading I am getting a few other questions, yet I'll try to see if I can figure them out myself, based on the info you provided. If not, I hope you don't mind me asking smile

  25. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    It's funny to me how all these people deride ALGORE the vampire as wanting to "get rich" off global warming.
    Just what do you think the oil, gas and coal industry goal has been all about? The betterment of mankind? Please. They put profit and riches over ALL else, including Mother Earth. And including toxic poisons making their way into human beings.
    We all know the money-grubbers will get their hands on it one way or the other. Better to do it with less harm to the environment, than the continued destruction they are doing now.

    Personally, I don't care what you call it. Pollution is deadly, causes harm to all living things. Period.
    Any one who says otherwise is lieing. AND, these pig-wigs are deliberately lazy and greedy too.

    "Some of the world's most promising oil and gas deposits lie deep in tropical rainforests. While these fossil fuels can be extracted in an environmentally-friendly way, governments and oil companies usually opt for expediency over consideration for the environment or the interests of local people most affected by production."--"OIL EXTRACTION: The Impact Oil Production in the Rainforest"

    Profits over people
    Greed over Good

    Enuff is Enuff!!!

    1. EmpressFelicity profile image84
      EmpressFelicityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Oh, for Gawd's sake!

      Yes, oil companies are greedy - I've heard about the activities of Shell in Africa and it isn't pretty.  But cap and trade isn't going to address that - it isn't even meant to address that.  So you and Doug talking about greedy oil companies has little to do with the topic of this thread.

      The oil, coal and gas industry is about providing a much-needed service in exchange for money.  Again, the fact that oil companies are often less than scrupulous in the methods they use is very reprehensible, but it's hardly on-topic.

      1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
        uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        MyChris:

        "Just what do you think the oil, gas and coal industry goal has been all about? The betterment of mankind? "


        Empress:

        "The oil, coal and gas industry is about providing a much-needed service in exchange for money.  Again, the fact that oil companies are often less than scrupulous in the methods they use is very reprehensible, but it's hardly on-topic."

        ME:

        I would prefer businesses act like business and concentrated on providing a product or service for a profit.  Good businesses do this every day.

        If there is greed in the global warming scam it is among grant driven science and the carbon credit market.  Al Gore will be made a billionaire.  He will not have created that wealth by innovation or effort but by fraud and politics.

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy … naire.html

        http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/busin … 3gore.html

        By the liberal definition of greed - Al Gore is greedy.

  26. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    "By the liberal definition of greed - Al Gore is greedy."
    And the rest of them? Just "Noble Capitalists"?
    Hardy har har har.
    And it exactly ON topic. Why are we discussing "global warming" in the first place???
    Because of the damage that some say the greed-meisters have caused on this planet with their diabolical quest for money.

    "One example that symbolizes our self-destructive, collective madness is the oil companies destruction of the Amazonian rainforest, the lungs of our planet. This is literally a full-bodied revelation showing us what we are doing to ourselves. Another literal example that is symbolically illustrating the wetiko complex in action is Monsanto genetically engineering terminator seeds that do not reproduce a second generation, thus forcing farmers to buy new seeds from Monsanto for each year’s new crop. This makes survival for many poor farmers impossible, which has triggered a wave of suicides among farmers, as Monsanto grows richer from the process."
    --The Greatest Epidemic Sickness Known to Humanity
    http://www.awakeninthedream.com/wordpress/?p=534

    I personally believe Al Gore has real concerns about the environment.
    Just as I do Jim Gordon, of the Wind farm off Cape Cod.
    Yet, they get smeared as "only after it for the money"....
    Well, what of Exxon/Mobil, BP and Koch Industries?
    You seem to give them a pass on that aspect of it. Why?

    1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
      uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I said nothing about noble capitalists and a non sequitur about Al Gore's greed doesn't negate the fact that he is, by liberal definition of greed, greedy(and consequently, a hypocrite).

      The global warming debate's origin is far older than industrialization.  It is a sociological and anthropological debate between the risk taker and the risk averse.  The horror lurks outside the fire light and if you taunt it we will all die.  It is the same thing the burned the witches or fueled sabotage.  The global warming debate is rooted in the same fear that drives liberals to seek Utopia. 

      It is ancient and primal; the primary reason there can never be peace between conservatives and liberals.

      1. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        It's not ancient, it's quite recent;

        "To quote Forbes, “To a considerable degree, the development of the wetiko disease corresponds to the rise of what Europeans choose to call civilization. This is no mere coincidence.” The unsustainable nature of industrial civilization is based on, and increasingly requires violence to maintain itself. Genuine ‘civilization,’ in essence, means not killing people. Referring to the lack of ‘civility’ in modern society, Gandhi was asked what he thought of Western civilization and responded by saying, “I think it would be a good idea.” Being under the sway of modern civilization can feel like something foreign to our nature is being imposed upon us, as if we are living in an occupied land."

        To take all this stuff out of the earth, "rape" it, as it were--is un-natural and damaging. This problem is more about greed vs sharing, than risk-taking vs not.

        And he's right--we are killing and dieing for oil. What happens when it's gone?

        1. Jim Hunter profile image60
          Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          "And he's right--we are killing and dieing for oil. What happens when it's gone?"

          Cars will run on your good intentions.

        2. uncorrectedvision profile image61
          uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Get off your computer and recycle it.  For if it is "rape" than look in the mirror for you are a practitioner.

          And it is as old as humanity.  It is the desire to have others live as you would make them to live.  To compel upon others your vision for how they are to live their lives.  It is the vision of the tyrant.

          1. lovemychris profile image80
            lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Wrong. it is the tyranny of a few who amass everything at the expense of the rest of us.

            Nice insult btw...I get this from the people at my local site also...something about freedom of speech bothers them too.

            "hold your breath.  I would bet the world would become a much more peaceful place... for the rest of us."

            1. EmpressFelicity profile image84
              EmpressFelicityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              This is freedom of speech, or hadn't you noticed?  Nobody is stopping you from having your say - they're just disagreeing with you and expecting you to provide some backing for your counterarguments.

              1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
                uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                HEY! the hold your breath...is my line.  She pulled it out of context but it is all mine.

                1. EmpressFelicity profile image84
                  EmpressFelicityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Oops, sorry LOL.  Oh well, the edit button is our friend.

              2. barryrutherford profile image34
                barryrutherfordposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Empress Felicity  This thread started with the 'title' assertion that global warming climate change science was a scam.  It is for you sceptics to provide compelling evidence to support that assertion...

              3. lovemychris profile image80
                lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                By asking me to stop breathing?

                1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
                  uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I am advocating for your position.  If you believe so strongly that CO2 will lead to human ruination than I merely suggest you cleave to your beliefs and hold your breath.

                  1. lovemychris profile image80
                    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    My interpretation? Stop breathing and die, we would all be better off.

            2. uncorrectedvision profile image61
              uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Not an insult.  The liberal would compel everyone else to live by the system from which they exempt themselves.  Again, if you are consuming or using anything petroleum based than you, too, are a "rapist" (by the way that was your term not mine.  I prefer hypocrite.)

              As for the accumulation by the few, do you count Al Gore in that few?  Do you count the lazy in that few?  Do you count the political class in that few?  Or is it just those who employ their intellect, effort, creativity, courage and yes, guile, to generate huge sums of ...jobs?

              1. lovemychris profile image80
                lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Well, I would say that when he got rich from tobacco, that was hypocritical, since he claims to care about the environment.
                But him getting rich on putting some halts on Global Warming is just putting his mouth where his money is.
                Money IS America...until that changes, what do you want him to do?
                At least it's for a better cause than tobacco.

                1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
                  uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I want him to live his values.  Gandhi lived his, Jesus lived his, Buddha lived his.  The prophet of Gaia isn't living his but he is telling me that I must live by his values while he eschews them.

                  1. lovemychris profile image80
                    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    He did quite a lot for his values. He wrote a book and made a movie.

                    I get your point, but I hardly think it makes a pea in a pod for this issue.

                    Really--who is to blame for this? It's all of us here with our "we can have everything we want, the rest of the world be damned."

                    IF we want to keep living this life-style, we have to pay. Someone always does...and it's far past our turn to pay for our own greedy use.

                    Look at it this way---if Gore uses more, he pays more, right? Makes sense to me.

      2. EmpressFelicity profile image84
        EmpressFelicityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Blimey, that last sentence is putting it a bit strongly. 

        There is an opposing camps thing going on here, sure, but I don't think it's as clear cut as you make out.  I see it in terms of collectivists versus individualists.  And I've seen just as many collectivists on the "conservative" side as on the "liberal" one (you'll excuse the quote marks, but I'm not from the US and I'm not used to bandying these terms around freely like many of you Americans do).

        What further complicates things is that the political views that a person espouses is often very much at odds with their private behaviour - you only have to think of our dear friend Al Gore, or U2 star Bono with his private jet.

        1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
          uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          It is a harsh reality.  I accept your distinction willingly.  If the individual is not important can you name some one who isn't an individual.  In the history of the whole world has there ever been a human collective?  We are not a volvox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvox) or grove of aspen trees. To me a collectivist conservative is an oxymoron.

          1. EmpressFelicity profile image84
            EmpressFelicityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            What about the religious conservatives who preach against gay marriage and the like?  They're basically doing the same type of thing as the Al Gore crowd - forcing their views on everyone else even though gay marriage is an activity that takes place between consenting adults.

            To me that's the definition of a collectivist - someone who tries to get everyone else to live life as the collectivist says it should be lived, even though it's none of the collectivist's s*dding business.

            1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
              uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              The defense of culture, civilization, society and language isn't collectivist.  It is the liberal who seeks a Utopian vision and excuses all actions as morally, rationally, institutionally, "societal-ly," "civilizational-ly" equal.  Life and society are complex things. To the contrary, homosexual "marriage" is compelling on society and civilization something that has not existed before, altering the nature of an ancient human institution, employing legislatures and governments to alter society and language - is it the religious groups who are forcing themselves on society or homosexual marriage advocates who are doing so?

              I offer this as a commentary on the nature of the disagreement not on the merits of either position.

              1. EmpressFelicity profile image84
                EmpressFelicityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                What is "society"?  Or "culture" come to that?  They're vague constructs, which people invoke whenever they feel like it to justify an inconsistent position. You criticise "liberals" for forcing their beliefs on everyone, and yet right wing religionists do exactly the same thing and you don't think that's equally bad?  I just don't get it.

    2. Castlepaloma profile image24
      Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I hear also Michael Moore dose it for money too, but, not in the same ball park as the greedy rich to me.

  27. Mark Ewbie profile image82
    Mark Ewbieposted 5 years ago

    I've not read any of this thread because there is no point.  You, and I, believe what we believe anyway - and no amount of forum posts will change that.

    It is amazing that so much heat is generated by global warming debate - or is it?  Maybe there is not so much heat generated after all because the science can't be proven until we are all dead, or at best, slightly damp.

    And history is written by the winners.

    What puzzles me is the dinosaurs.  Were the bones put there by relatives of Al Gore?  Are they just some kind of marketing tie up with Toy Story?  Does WWF sound too much like WTF to do any good?

    Anyway, honoured to have joined in the debate and I hope to have moved it further on.

    Mark - c/o Guantanamo SunnySide Residential Care Home.

    1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
      uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Cuba must be beautiful this time of year.

      1. Mark Ewbie profile image82
        Mark Ewbieposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        It is nice.  And I can look out of my window and see the polar bears mating.

        1. Pcunix profile image91
          Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          They don't like it when you watch, Mark.

        2. uncorrectedvision profile image61
          uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          To quote that great social thinker, Paris Hilton, "That's hot."

  28. thisisoli profile image63
    thisisoliposted 5 years ago

    In my opinion the majority of global changes are made by our orbital relation to the sun, which has thousands of patterns other than the four seasons.  A minor difference in our position to the sun can change our earths temperatures drastically.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
      Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      That may be true, but it's not inconsistent with the scientifically documented effect of green house gases from coal fired power plants, motor vehicles and other controllable man made sources.

  29. EmpressFelicity profile image84
    EmpressFelicityposted 5 years ago

    OK, enough already.

    Like Misha, I'm going to issue a challenge.  Are any of the people (Doug, LMC, Ralph etc.) who believe that anthropogenic CO2 causes climate change actually in favour of carbon trading?  (I've left you out of the list Kerry because I know you're not.)

    Enquiring minds want to know.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
      Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I don't know enough about carbon trading to form a strong opinion, I've read that some of the projects funded in Brazil and elsewhere are not doing what they are supposed to be doing. Apparently better mechanisms are needed to make sure that the offset projects are doing what they are purported to be doing.

      For motor vehicles a weight tax or higher gasoline taxes would be the best method of reducing carbon emissions in my opinion. I did a hub on this some time ago, but the idea of a weight tax hasn't gotten much traction. http://hubpages.com/hub/How-to-Reduce-C … r-Vehicles

    2. lovemychris profile image80
      lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I don't know anything about carbon trading....and would have to research before answering that.
      And I'm not really in the mood for a bunch of mumbo-jumbo I don't understand.
      What I AM in favor of is more renewable energy.
      More solar, wind, wave, hydro---anything to get us off fossil.
      And I see the HUGE stone wall that is put up for even the smallest dint of going in that direction from the oil crowd.

      I see pollution, I smell it, it burns my eyes and my lungs sometimes and I taste it in tap water--sometimes get belly aches.
      I don't need science to demonstrate the damage of man-made pollution....I live here.

      BTW--I have read that a Japanese company has developed mass-storage batteries that would be great for wind-farms and such. They can't get a loan from any bank to get it off the ground...because it cuts into the existing system too much.
      The Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound has spent millions, and had the Wind Farm in court for 10 years already,fighting this project.
      YET, Koch was going to start up a plant off the Bahamas....this is OK cause he doesn't have to see it?

      Ask anyone who has to live near an oil refinery, or a mountain-top removal plant how they feel about it.
      Or the myriad of diseases and toxins these industries have spawned if they care about global warming, or just plain pollution. It's the same thing.

      1. EmpressFelicity profile image84
        EmpressFelicityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        In other words, you want someone else to do your thinking for you.  OK then, here's a brief intro from http://science.howstuffworks.com/enviro … rading.htm:

        "Cap-and-trade schemes are the most popular way to regulate carbon dioxide (CO2) and other emissions. The scheme's governing body [translation: "government" - EF] begins by setting a cap on allowable emissions. It then distributes or auctions off emissions allowances that total the cap. Member firms that do not have enough allowances to cover their emissions must either make reductions or buy another firm's spare credits. Members with extra allowances can sell them or bank them for future use."

        What this paragraph doesn't mention is that these emissions allowances can be traded on the stock market and potentially make stacks of money for those "greedy" people you so despise.



        I would love to see the same thing, provided that any or all of these technologies is capable of doing that.  However, the introduction of alternative technologies isn't without its problems.  Wind energy ain't all that efficient.  Growing crops for biofuel squeezes out actual food crops, which therefore increases the price of food everywhere.  For the while at least, I'm afraid we're "stuck" with fossil fuels.

        1. lovemychris profile image80
          lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Uh, Noooo, I told you I had no interest in the subject. Still don't. And lookee here--all of a sudden, the Capitalists think it's a crime to make money. Sheeeeesh, go figure.

          I think we could be yards ahead of all this already, but the oil-mongers are keeping a lid on the alternatives. I've lived it here, on Cape Cod, and the people who are funding the opposition to the wind farm....truth means nothing to them.
          All of  sudden, they care about Gordon getting rich, and the damage they say it will do to the environment. But when you bring up the richness and environmental damage of coal and oil...they dismiss it as nothing.

          I think Tesla had the means for free energy for all of us, that's why they snuffed him out too.
          Watch the movie "Who killed the electric car?"

          It's organized opposition...wealthy and amoral opposition.
          So, who are any of you to complain about someone getting rich?
          It's gonna happen, sine this is America, and money is God here, so I'd rather have it happen with LESS damage to the earth and all living things, than MORE.

          1. EmpressFelicity profile image84
            EmpressFelicityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            roll  Anything to avoid having to examine your beliefs, eh?

            <rest of irrelevant ranting snipped>

            1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
              uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Felicity, dear, please tell me that you are Irish.

              1. EmpressFelicity profile image84
                EmpressFelicityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                No, I just have a short fuse lol lol

                1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
                  uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  big_smile Well no body is perfect - in temperament or ethnicity big_smile

            2. lovemychris profile image80
              lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              That has nothing to do with my beliefs.
              It's a game you all are playing to avoid responsibility.

              I believe...no, I KNOW that the oil and coal industry have destroyed the environment, caused wars, made a lot of people sick, killed a lot of people, killed whole areas of the earth, and we--who use 25% of all energy produced, have avoided this reality like the plague.
              I KNOW when something, or someone comes along to do something about it, it is de-railed by this same coal and oil cabal....By any means necessary.

              You tell me I need to know about caps and bans.....I don't.

              It doesn't matter one iota anymore.
              Big oil is back in power in the halls of our gvt. Any and all hope of renewables having a chance, or holding us responsible as a nation, are gone.

              You can all rejoice while the world burns, and more children breathe that horrific black soot into their lungs....cause we're free! We don't have to do anything. USA USA USA

              1. EmpressFelicity profile image84
                EmpressFelicityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Are you being paid for writing this?

                1. lovemychris profile image80
                  lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Are you kidding me? They would take off the adds if I dared write something like that. As it is, when I wrote about abortion, the adds were disabled.

                  There is very big Political Correctness in this country, in case you don't know. Some things you must NEVER mention. Others, you can spout to your hearts' desire.

                  Which is why Howards Stern was drummed out of commercial radio, and Numb-Nuts Limbaugh is still there.

                  1. Evan G Rogers profile image81
                    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Well, to be fair - Rush Limbaugh never had a girl orgasm on the air to a "fun-machine".

                    I'm a huge Stern fan - I used to wake up every morning listening to him. It's unfortunate that most of it was him yelling at Jackie.

  30. Iontach profile image87
    Iontachposted 5 years ago

    Well It probably is a scam, but there are indirect ways that global warming could cause a cooling affect in some places. For instance, the melting of the Ice in the North pole and Greenland icesheet is reducing the salinity of the North Atlantic Ocean thereby affecting the Gulf stream which is responsible for helping warm Ireland, UK and so on.
    Being from Ireland, I've noticed some weird weather over the past couple of years.
    I remember one year just before the summer, the weather was quite good, then all of a sudden it began to snow at the start of May! Weird...
    Plus the Summers here are getting warmer and sunnier, and the winters are getting a LOT colder (same as in the UK).
    This Winter was/is UNREAL, record low temperatures, Snow and ice everywhere! The snow stopped falling a couple of weeks ago but there are still massive piles of it left all over the place.

    Also, certain plants that were normally able to survive the winter are dieing from the frost. We have these plants in our garden that were always fine, but most of them died last winter and the rest this winder...madness...

  31. uncorrectedvision profile image61
    uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago

    How about better, longer lasting and more meaningful reforms?  How about a real challenge?  Everyone who believes that global warming is a scientific fact should reduce their own carbon foot print to zero; voluntarily, immediately stop all carbon dioxide production.  If those who think all of this is real just stop producing carbon, nothing can have a greater impact on global warming than such an immediate and drastic change.

    So why not put your beliefs into action.  Log off your computer, turn off your heat, stop driving your car and hold your breath.  I would bet the world would become a much more peaceful place... for the rest of us.

    1. Pcunix profile image91
      Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Do we doubt for a minute that oil is responsible for the wars we are in? Let oil pay for them, then.

      Sooner or later, the oil will run out. Ten years, twenty, a hundred, no matter what number you believe, they are all too soon.   If it doesn't get you, it will get your grandchildren or their children.

      We'll suffer horribly then or we we will all die in another war over who gets to use the very last of it.

      Why not start suffering some of that pain now, without the wars? Start taxing oil to cover some part of its true cost, which could help alternatives gain headway.  Yes, we'd all have to suffer some, but we would avoid much more down the road.

      But no, that would be interfering with Capitalism!  We must never do that!  Saving millions of people from terror and death is not important - we must never put human misery ahead of individual and corporate wealth!

      1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
        uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Doom, doom, doom all is doom.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_catastrophe

        Hardly a refutation of the course I recommend for you and your COMRADES.  Hold your breath and save us all, oh sacrificial one.  But no, you want to force everyone to live as you would have them live instead of embracing the sacrifice you demand from others.

        It is a wonderful attitude that we should all be forced to sacrifice starting with everyone but me.  You go first and show us all what a paradise will be created by your sacrifice.  By you I mean the billions of enlightened ALGORIANS.

        I am still waiting for Al Gore to make the sacrifices he demands from me.  The day he holds his breath will be a new beginning for us all.

        1. Pcunix profile image91
          Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Typical.

          You think I would not have to sacrifice?

          1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
            uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Than sacrifice NOW.  Shut off your computer, turn off your heat, park your car, stop eating food you don't grow and hold your breath.  The solution too your problem with global warming and oil is you.  Again, if everyone who believes as you do would just practice their beliefs and not seek to compel everyone else to live that way how much you would be admired and followed when proven right.

            The problem is that you would force everyone to live as you want them to live.  If you don't want to use oil or produce carbon dioxide - directly or indirectly - I will back that decision and praise you for it.  My problem is when you decide I must be made to live the life you want me to live. 

            Again the fundamental difference between the liberal and the conservative.  The conservative that doesn't like fire arms doesn't own one.  The liberal who doesn't like fire arms doesn't want anyone to own one.

            Take the leap, lead the way! Hold your breath.

        2. Pcunix profile image91
          Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          As usual, you ignore reality.

          Do you deny that oil will run out?

          1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
            uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            DOOM! Peak oil has been predicted time and again without materializing.  DOOM! There are competing theories regarding the origin of petroleum.  The a-biotic theory is gaining support.  So what if oil runs out.  We don't use animal fats to light our homes or wood to cook our food what makes you think that oil is the end all and be all of fuels?  Are you an oil executive?  Cheney, is that you?  DOOM!

            http://www.radford.edu/wkovarik/oil/

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image81
              Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              If oil actually IS about to run out, then price structures will reflect the change in supply.

              It's not like the last gallon of gasoline will be sold for $3.05 99/100 at a BP gas station! Let's get real!

              1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
                uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                True, it is far more likely that an alternative will be used as gasoline becomes more expensive.  It is the classic economics analogy of the nut room.

                There is a room filled with every kind and variety of nut.  Only one is your preferred nut.  You search among all the nuts for your favorite until it becomes so rare that your second choice becomes preferable.

                Preference is a function of price.  Once petroleum becomes scarce enough another alternative will be used.  Two hundred years ago would anyone have considered coal oil or natural gas preferable to whale oil?  Natural economic forces will replace oil as long as the foolish interference of liberal meddlers and their political monkeys doesn't screw it up.

                1. Pcunix profile image91
                  Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  We won't be searching for nuts. We will be killing people to get the last few.

                  1. Misha profile image75
                    Mishaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    You probably will - you certainly know yourself better. Most won't. smile

                  2. uncorrectedvision profile image61
                    uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    DOOM! DOOM! DOOM!!! Yawn.  Some simple analogies are too simple, I suppose.

                  3. Evan G Rogers profile image81
                    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Murdering entire civilizations for something that can be easily replaced if we just spend $2 more at the "re-fueling station" doesn't really seem like it's cost-effective.

                    Sure, the State might be willing to do so: it just robs wealth from it's citizens, then drafts them into their military (despite involuntary servitude having been outlawed), and then just throws the money and civilians away until they've gotten their reward...

                    But if it were a company this would be horribly consuming.

                2. Evan G Rogers profile image81
                  Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  good ol' marginal utility!

        3. kerryg profile image87
          kerrygposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I find it kind of hilarious how obsessed AGW deniers are with Al Gore. Y'all pay way more attention to him than any AGW proponent I've ever known. Most of us could care less what he says or does. tongue

          1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
            uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            That is evident since global warming nuts tend to give Gaia's high priest a pass on his sinful ways.

          2. Evan G Rogers profile image81
            Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            First off, world temperatures ARE increasing. They're just increasing at a rate that is slower than expected (much slower).

            Whether it's a man-made problem, I dunno - there's barely a scientific consensus on the matter as well. Humans are, undeniably contributing to the problem, but whether we're the major cause is unknown.

            But aside from all this, the reason why Al Gore gets so much flack is because of his movie. He made a movie that was filled with misleading information; full of 1-step short of lie statements; and splicing video footage together with audio that were discussing different things (for example: showing a natural, every-year-occurring collapse of a chunk of ice while talking about how a scientist says that temperatures will raise 30 degrees in 10 years... or whatever).

            AND THEN HE GOT A NOBEL PRIZE!!!

            That's why Al Gore gets all the flack - he pretty much lied, and got a Nobel Prize for it.

  32. tony0724 profile image60
    tony0724posted 5 years ago

    No matter which side of the debate you are on , it is funny that now we argue about the weather.

    1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
      uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Every body argues about the weather but nobody does anything about it. Mark Twain???

  33. barryrutherford profile image34
    barryrutherfordposted 5 years ago

    Uncorrectedivision.  It is intesteresting your directing pcunix to do things at the same time telling him not to persuade others to be responsible for their actions.

    THe issue with the greenhouse effect is that it is global and one country taking action other than the United States the worlds highest polluter.  But more than that a global collective action which started off with the Kyoto protocol....

    1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
      uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      It is not persuasion that Gaia's children advocate it is force.  Since the US is so sinful perhaps others should take the lead.  Aren't the holy Chinese building a coal fired plant a week?  Do you think they are clean coal technology?  What is the water and air like in China, India?  What is the soil like in the former Soviet bloc?

      If one is unwilling to live the values that they espouse for others than what good are those values.  All I ask is that others do as they would FORCE me to do.

      The evidence of a global change is questionable at best.  The proof that it is human caused is nonexistent.

  34. Merlin Fraser profile image79
    Merlin Fraserposted 5 years ago

    Why do we bother wasting our time on these issues, I have found that you cannot educate Pork. 

    The problem is not whether Global Warming is fact or fiction, I have read far too many comments on here to know that most who argue that it's fiction don't know the difference between Climate and Weather and that it is the Climate that effects the weather and not the other way around.

    The real issue is that one way or another we are asking people to give up on their wasteful life styles and change the way they live.

    They are not going to that that... and they will use every excuse they can to avoid the issue and convince themselves that they are right and they need do nothing.

    So be it ! 

    Most of us here arguing the toss won't live long enough to be in a position to say  "I told you so," which ever way it goes.

    The ones we should feel sorry for are the kids and their kids, they're the ones who will have to live and survive the consequences of our actions or as is more likely our inactions !

    The way I look at it is this, if Science doesn't come up with a long term solution humanity is screwed...

    Again So Be It !

    The Planet will survive and recover, it's done it before I'm sure it'll do it again. 

    Let's just hope the people who follow are smart enough to shoot Columbus in the head and sink his little boat !

    1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
      uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      How much better European life would have been if Columbus hadn't brought syphilis back with him.

      1. Merlin Fraser profile image79
        Merlin Fraserposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        At least that's curable with the right treatment, we still looking for the cure for McDonalds and Cola....

  35. LeeWalls profile image59
    LeeWallsposted 5 years ago

    People argue against the weather and deny there's a problem because they either don't want to own up to it or it's going to affect them one way or another. You can't fix the weather? You're not suppose to. How can man fix anything if all he gets his hands on he destroys.

  36. barryrutherford profile image34
    barryrutherfordposted 5 years ago

    As I said and others earlier on this post it is easier to get confused withglobal warming /Global cooling and the real issue that the Scientists are talking about that is the greenhous effect. 
    The issue is about carbon gases and their affect on the outer atmosphere by creating a greenhouse like effect on the overall temperature of the globe.  NOT the weather that occurs in individual parts at a particular point in time.

    As they predict and have predicted for some time there will be increasingly varied weather effects due to only a small incremental increase in the overall temperature. 

    As an analogy-If our core body increases by only a small degree we quickly start to sweat to get back to our core temperature.

    1. LeeWalls profile image59
      LeeWallsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Sign of the times; if you want to elaborate on your scientific greenhouse effect and carbon gases you may, but you CAN'T ignore the sign of the times.

      Now you may go back to your discussion, your issues and don't forget to smile in the process.

  37. Misha profile image75
    Mishaposted 5 years ago

    Ok Kerry, so I was pondering it for a while, and now am ready to ask for a few more clarifications, please smile

    Cool, we are good with that. I can argue of course that there still has to be a difference between the percentage of CO2 right at the surface and on say 20 miles altitude, but that seems to be really marginal, and therefore immaterial. So we accept it as a working approximation that composition of air does not change with altitude. smile


    Well, I did not really ask for exact numbers, at least for that stage of our conversation a rough approximation should be enough, so don't worry about it.


    Umm, this part seems to be a bit hard to understand to me. If you could elaborate on your understanding of what exactly "thermal radiation", "sensible heat", and "latent heat transport" mean and how they differ from each other, I would be grateful. Also, I can't really see how radiating outward would warm the earth surface? I would rather think that radiating outward would cool the source of this radiation, am I wrong? And the most difficult part to grasp here for me - you seem to imply that earth absorbes the visible light and converts it into heat, gets heated by this, and then emits this heat outwards? Did I understand it correctly?


    This part was giving me the hardest time to wrap my mind around until I realized that if we remove the earth converting light to heat - you are just describing on a micro level a regular mechanism of any kind of energy stream going through any kind of matter. Part gets reflected, part gets absorbed, and part goes through - if we take it to macro level. Nothing special here, why would it need a special name "greenhouse effect"? So, at that point it seems to me that the cornerstone of the whole thing is soil converting energy from visible wavelength to infrared wavelength - do I read correctly? BTW, do you know how a real greenhouse operates? smile

    1. kerryg profile image87
      kerrygposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      "Also, I can't really see how radiating outward would warm the earth surface? I would rather think that radiating outward would cool the source of this radiation, am I wrong?"

      Ah, sorry, that was me not being a scientist (or even a science writer) and overlooking a mistake in my explanation.

      The surface of the Earth warms up when it absorbs the energy. It cools when it radiates the energy outward.

      That's why the greenhouse effect is necessary to maintain the Earth at its current temperature. If there were no greenhouse gases, the heat radiated by the Earth's surface would just vanish back into space and the Earth would be substantially cooler than it is.

      Does that clarify the issue or do I have to explain thermal radiation, sensible heat, and latent heat transfer, too? I can if you want, but they're just different ways of moving heat from the surface to the atmosphere. The specific mechanisms aren't really that important to a basic understanding of the process.

      "And the most difficult part to grasp here for me - you seem to imply that earth absorbs the visible light and converts it into heat, gets heated by this, and then emits this heat outwards? Did I understand it correctly?"

      More or less. It's the atoms that make up the Earth, not the Earth itself, but I assume you know that. If you need an explanation of how light is transformed into thermal energy, I'm sure there are plenty of basic physics sites on the web that can explain it better than I can. wink

      "This part was giving me the hardest time to wrap my mind around until I realized that if we remove the earth converting light to heat - you are just describing on a micro level a regular mechanism of any kind of energy stream going through any kind of matter. Part gets reflected, part gets absorbed, and part goes through - if we take it to macro level. Nothing special here, why would it need a special name "greenhouse effect"? So, at that point it seems to me that the cornerstone of the whole thing is soil converting energy from visible wavelength to infrared wavelength - do I read correctly?"

      It's possible I'm just not understanding your point, but I don't see why giving a particular name to a particular process is in any way unusual or out of line from a scientific perspective. The greenhouse effect deals specifically with the effect of atmosphere on surface temperature and it's one of the foundations of climate science. This is not some controversial new theory we're discussing here - it was first proposed in the 1820s and has been widely accepted since the 1890s, though the theory has been refined in its particulars since then. It also does not apply exclusively to Earth. Venus is well known for its spectacular greenhouse effect thanks to an atmosphere consisting almost entirely of carbon dioxide.

      "BTW, do you know how a real greenhouse operates?"

      Mainly by preventing heat loss through convection. The result is similar to the greenhouse effect, but the mechanisms are different, so the term "greenhouse effect" is more an analogy than a direct comparison.

      1. Misha profile image75
        Mishaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Cool, thank you Kerry. smile

        No, you don't have to explain the details of sensible heat and such. I was just wondering where latent heat transfer takes place in the absense of a phase change - yet it is really irrelevant to the topic as you rightly noticed.

        Glad we are on the same page with a regular greenhouse, too smile

        Minor things aside, let me just summarize my understanding of your understanding of greenhouse effect, OK?

        About 50% of the light from the Sun, mostly visible wavelength, passes through the atmosphere and reaches the earth surface. Earth surface converts this light into heat and emits big part of it back. While passing through the atmosphere, the bigger portion of the infrared light is being absorbed and reflected back to earth by the atmosphere than it would have been if that energy were still in the form of visible light. This discrepancy is mainly due to the amount of CO2 and other "greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere and leads to higher heat being retained by earth with the amount of said gases increasing.

        Did I grasp it right?

        1. kerryg profile image87
          kerrygposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          The latent heat transfer happens as a result of water evaporating on the surface and condensing in the atmosphere.

          Re: the greenhouse effect, simplified but more or less consistent with my understanding, yes.

          1. Misha profile image75
            Mishaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            LOL Silly me, I forgot about water. Sure, full understanding here. smile

            OK, so I took my time to understand your position in detail, and to satisfactory sum it up in my own words. Isn't it the example of civilized discussion? wink

            Need a little more help from you though - as hard as I try I cannot find any meaningful materials or data on earth surface (soil and water) converting visible light into heat and/or infrared. Here are the examples of what i receive:

            http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy& … &cad=b
            http://www.google.com/#hl=en&&s … 14bc218727

            Bloody Google again, grrr. Can you help me on this? Thank you smile

            1. ediggity profile image61
              ediggityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              You would need to find reports on the attenuation coefficient for those compositions, which would aid in the calculation of light absorption/refraction/reflection/diffraction.

              1. Misha profile image75
                Mishaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I think you missed my point altogether. I'll wait for Kerry's reply smile

                1. ediggity profile image61
                  ediggityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I guess I did.  I thought your point was that you couldn't find any meaningful material on soil and water converting light into energy.smile

                  1. Misha profile image75
                    Mishaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Yep, specifically into heat, and I fail to see what any attenuation coefficients have to do with converting visible light into heat. smile

            2. kerryg profile image87
              kerrygposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Misha, how can you know enough physics to know that latent heat transfer requires a phase change and not know how atoms convert radiant energy to thermal energy? I'm willing to play along in case someone who really doesn't know this stuff happens to read it and get educated, but I find it hard to believe you are as ignorant as you claim, and if you're not, can we just cut to the chase? Translating scientific terminology into layman's English is time consuming and hard work, I'm not that good at it to begin with, and as much as I enjoy forum discussions/debates, I do have other things I need to do too. wink

              Basically, atoms and molecules naturally move around a certain amount at temperatures above absolute zero. When radiant (light) energy from the sun hits them and is absorbed, it excites them and makes them move faster. The increased vibration gives off thermal energy.

              In reality, it's much more complicated - light must be at the the right wavelength to be absorbed, for example, which is why black objects, which absorb all wavelengths, get heated more than white objects, which reflect all wavelengths - but that's the basic explanation.

              1. Pcunix profile image91
                Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                He's just playing with you, trying to find an opportunity to score points for his position.

                That was obvious from his very first "challenge".

                That's why I hate this stuff. So much of it is politically driven.

                1. 61
                  C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  The fact that you can read the conversation between Misha and Kerry and find "politics", tells me one thing. You are politically motivated.

                  1. Pcunix profile image91
                    Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    The fact that you can't see what is plain to see tells me quite a bit about you, also.

                2. kerryg profile image87
                  kerrygposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I know, I just like science and figure there's surely somebody around who slept through HS physics and might learn something as a result. wink

                  The scientific principles behind the greenhouse effect are pretty well established, so if you understand the greenhouse effect at the scientific level it becomes much harder to claim that raising CO2 levels from ~280ppm to almost 390 makes no difference to the climate.

                  1. Misha profile image75
                    Mishaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    At some point in the past the fact that earth is flat was pretty well establishes in scientific circles, too smile

                  2. Misha profile image75
                    Mishaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Yep, this is exactly why I am doing it, too. smile

              2. Misha profile image75
                Mishaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                So, you could not find any legible source either. That was expected, cause such sources do not exist. I just wanted you to find this out on your own. smile

                Yesterday night I put a flashlight next to a cup of water. Today it is still the same temp it was yesterday, and the flashlight battery is running out. Obviously I am using wrong wavelength for heating water. What do you think is the right wavelength interval, approximately? I can simplify your task, giving you a three choice quiz:

                1. UV
                2. Visible
                3. Infrared

                smile

                1. Pcunix profile image91
                  Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  See: as I said, he was just looking for his wedge.

                  Games, games, games. And for what purpose? To understand the science? Misha understands the science quite well - he has political motives here.

                  I intend to ignore him.  And all the rest of the people with political axes to grind.

                2. kerryg profile image87
                  kerrygposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Electromagnetic radiation at any frequency will heat objects it is absorbed by. Visible light does not do this as strongly as infrared, but it still happens.

                  Also, I was attempting to avoid the more complicated aspects because I don't understand them as well, but as I said above, direct thermal radiation isn't the only way of transferring heat, and actually plays an insignificant role in transferring heat directly from the surface to the atmosphere. It is more important between different levels of the atmosphere.

                  Most of the direct heat transfer from the surface is from latent heat and sensible heat and is powered by evaporation from oceans, lakes, etc. and by transpiration from plants.

                  1. Evan G Rogers profile image81
                    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I don't see too many radio waves boiling water...

                    This argument that "light waves increase temperature at any frequency" isn't entirely accurate. Some are just too un-energetic to raise temperatures.

                    Right now I have billions of radio waves going through my body, and countless other types of waves hitting me at the same time.  Yet I'm still the same temperature people were hundreds of years ago.

                    You need at least infrared to start heating most things.

        2. 61
          C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Misha/Kerry

          I see all of this discussion about GW and the GHE. Basically it comes down to heat conductivity and transfer. Wouldn't the fact that more and more of the earth is being covered in asphalt and concrete contribute to an overall increase to average temperature? I mean, even if you reduce emmissions, wouldn't the fact that large portions of the earth is basically a heat sinc be a contributor?
          Also you both keep describing light as "waves" that's technically not correct, is it not? Light is concentrated particles not waves such as sound.

          1. kerryg profile image87
            kerrygposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Light is a type of electromagnetic radiation. It exhibits properties of both particles and waves. Since we're mainly discussing heat transfer and related topics, we're focusing on the wave side of things.

            Darker surfaces such as asphalt and concrete do absorb more heat than lighter ones, so there definitely is an effect. It's especially obvious in the urban island effect - cities tend to be several degrees warmer than surrounding countryside. Also, anything that is covered in asphalt and concrete is not covered in plants, which is going to have an effect on the carbon cycle. I'm not sure exactly how much of an impact, but it would be an interesting topic to research.

            I know at least one scientist has argued that burning fossil fuels has had far less of an impact on rising CO2 levels than deforestation and other land use changes, and that if we hadn't cut down so many forests, plowed up or overgrazed so many grasslands, drained so many wetlands, and paved over so much in general, we could burn fossil fuels to our hearts' content and still stay well under the "safe" level of 350ppm.

            1. 61
              C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              That was my point. There is all this focus on a single component. The idea that there is a single cause for such a complex issue is flawed. That's one of my problems with how GW is being addressed. It's not the main one though. All of this is being based on 90% of scientist stating that after reviewing the data. They believe there is a problem. Just how much of a problem has not been nailed down. Greenhouse gasses are targeted because they can be observed and measured easily.

              1. kerryg profile image87
                kerrygposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Well, it all comes back to the same thing: rising levels of greenhouse gases.

                Burning fossil fuels releases CO2 that has been locked up for millions of years, while cutting down forests or plowing up virgin grasslands releases CO2 that has been locked up for mere thousands, but land use changes double the effect in a way, because they make it harder for the Earth to suck the released CO2 back up and store it away again.

                1. 61
                  C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  You saying it comes back to rising GHG's. However you have stated that it's not all coming from a single source. That's my point. Going after a single component wont solve the problem. The component everyone seems to be so eager to go after is "BIG OIL" While that seems easy. I don't think people realize that they may just be killing the goose that layed the golden egg. I'd keep that goose alive. At least until I had a better plan. So far....NOTHING.

                  1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
                    Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Not just Big Oil. Big Coal as well. However, we aren't going after only one source. Excessive use of energy in homes and motor vehicles is being targeted. I don't think anyone is saying that the problem will be solved by a single method.

          2. ediggity profile image61
            ediggityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            It would also be based on selective absorption of light.  An object wont absorb light unless it has a matching frequency, and thus not transferring to heat.

          3. Misha profile image75
            Mishaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Yep, obviously black surfaces absorb more heat, no question about it. As for the light nature, I would try to avoid having this discussion here, cause it is quite a complicated stuff and will put us way off topic. I totally agree with Kerry that for the purposes of this discussion we need to talk about light as waves. smile

            1. 61
              C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Too bad, I would have found it interesting to hear the question being addressed from a particle physics perspective.

  38. barryrutherford profile image34
    barryrutherfordposted 5 years ago

    Misha with all due respect to both you and KerryG.  KerryG is not a Meterologist nor a Climatelogist.

    Your most recent questions are quite loaded and appear as an attempt to find holes in the scientific phenomena of Climate change.  Just as you and I would not go to a GP for detailed advice on Brain Sugery. So it is with your detailed questions on statistical infomation on climate change. Experts in the field would better explain your questions.

    1. Misha profile image75
      Mishaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Come on Barry, are you serious? You don't have opinions on brain surgery that you publicly promote on these forums, do you? I certainly don't. So far we are talking pretty basic school level physics and chemistry, no need for a climatologist. And what is wrong with actually trying to understand what your opponent is talking about? smile

      1. Pcunix profile image91
        Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Interesting choice of a word, "opponent".

        I don't think I'd use that word when I'm honestly trying to understand an issue. That may have been simple carelessness and mean nothing, but it does imply a mind already made up and someone just searching for chinks in the armor and holes in the argument.

        As I said earlier, 90% political. I don't exempt my liberal companions from that either, of course, though of course I find their arguments much more intelligent and compelling, and quite seriously have to caution myself not to agree automatically.

        1. Misha profile image75
          Mishaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Looks like yet another mistranslation on my side, sorry. In Russian the word opponent has two main meanings - discussion partner holding an opposite opinion, and officially appointed critic to dissertation presentation. It does not have an "enemy" connotation that it appears to have in English. Thanks for pointing it out.

      2. barryrutherford profile image34
        barryrutherfordposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Mischa

        Well if you are really talking basic School Physics and Chemistry you should start a thread on that.  Not Climate Change

        1. Misha profile image75
          Mishaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I guess I was not clear enough. Let me spell it out as best as I can. Kerry and myself are discussing greenhouse effect on the level of basic physics and chemistry. Instead of bickering around it, for a change. smile

          1. barryrutherford profile image34
            barryrutherfordposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Good luck with that!  smile

  39. Barbara Kay profile image86
    Barbara Kayposted 5 years ago

    I read some old Organic Gardening Magazines and there was an article about danger of the ice age returning. That was from the late 70's.

    1. kerryg profile image87
      kerrygposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Organic Gardening Magazine is not a scientific journal. Neither is Newsweek, the usual source cited for the claim that scientists were claiming an imminent ice age in the 70's.

      Actually, reviews of the relevant peer-reviewed scientific literature published at the time have found that about 10% predicted cooling, 28% made no predictions, and 62% predicted warming. The Ice Age stuff was almost entirely a bunch of non-scientific publications latching on to a controversial idea and using it to increase sales.

      The theory that burning of fossil fuels might warm the climate due to increases in the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere was first proposed in 1906.

  40. Sneha Sunny profile image88
    Sneha Sunnyposted 5 years ago

    i don't think that ice age is coming.... the lands will go under water.......soon........untill the changes suddenly occurs which resulted in ice age million years ago....

    1. Castlepaloma profile image24
      Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Ice age ended just 10,000 years ago, still a few people survive. Less will survive if there is; an all out nuclear war and or a total earth melt down.
      I built snow playgrounds and ice hotel at 65-C and sand sculpture in 52 C. Believe me; it’s much harder to work in 52 C

  41. LeeWalls profile image59
    LeeWallsposted 5 years ago

    Tell a polar bear there's no such thing as global warming. If he could talk I wonder what he would say? Humans have a lot of nerve to come up with things like that when what you see with your eyes is evident. That's like telling someone on a 100 degree day it's not warm outside. Or maybe not that warm, or maybe... Do you realize how foolish you sound? If it doesn't affect you what do you care. Is that your motto?

    1. ediggity profile image61
      ediggityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      He would probably say this is like the climate change stories my ancestors told me about from hundreds and thousands of years ago.

  42. livelonger profile image90
    livelongerposted 5 years ago

    I am personally more persuaded by the opinion of scientists not funded by or tied to petroleum companies, and all but a few kooks among them, they agree that global warming is a very real phenomenon.

    That said, what can we do about it? I don't believe there is much we can do in terms of reducing greenhouse gases. Even if we could pass some sort of legislation here in the US (very unlikely; the petroleum lobby is far more powerful than the health insurance lobby...), where would that get us? We'd use less carbon-rich hydrocarbons...and the developing world would use more, through the Jevons Paradox phenomenon.

    I don't believe any good will, government action, or international treaty will solve this. The Kyoto Protocol was a way for the developed world to absolve itself of responsibility when several island nations go underwater, developing world farmlands turn into deserts, etc.

    Is there a solution? I think it will have to be one of geoengineering, something that will simply cool the world down. There have been some interesting proposals (seeding the ocean to grow plankton that will sequester carbon, seeding the atmosphere with sulfur dioxide in order to increase the albedo effect, etc.) - who knows which will pan out? I hope some do, because otherwise our descendants will be dealing with some serious problems. hmm

    1. Castlepaloma profile image24
      Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      There are two super powers in the world, Military complex and global public opinion. The Government is not doing their soul job well enough, in which is to protect us.

      I trust by far, the people.
      The true change and true leaders of the world is the people. It's always end up with some natural abuse happens, and then 80% of the consciousness of the people change it.

  43. Misha profile image75
    Mishaposted 5 years ago

    Kerry, you better delete this answer and think a bit more. There is no rush. If you do, I will delete this post, too. smile

    1. kerryg profile image87
      kerrygposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      No, no, go ahead and pounce. I should be working, not arguing with you, so I don't have time to examine it from every possible angle to figure out which one you're going to attack from.

      Your flashlight "experiment" is silly, by the way. Incandescent bulbs produce more IR than visible light so you could just as easily use it as "proof" that IR doesn't heat water.

      1. Misha profile image75
        Mishaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        LOL I know about flashlight, I used a LED one tongue Though it is certainly silly and needs several modification to be able to actually prove the point. But sunlight with optical filters is good enough. smile

        Well, I have to leave now to pick the kids from school, and then will have some family time, etc. - so I will take my time to pounce. One of your character traits I admire is bravery. See you in the evening smile

        1. kerryg profile image87
          kerrygposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Fair enough.

          By the way, I am curious to hear your alternative explanation for why the Earth isn't ~33 C/91 F degrees colder, and also why Venus is hotter than Mercury despite receiving just 25% of the solar irradiance.

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image81
            Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            It's impossible to deny that the greenhouse effect exists.

            It is also impossible to deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

            But Venus's temperature is around 500 F and that's with a 97% CO2 atmosphere AND being closer to the sun (and getting more solar radiation).

            http://www.daviddarling.info/encycloped … atmos.html

            Right now, there Earth's atmospheric CO2 is minuscule compared to other chemicals -  about 78% N2, 21% O2, and the rest merely traces (CO2 = 0.04%). Our average temperature is around 60 F.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth
            http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2005/JudyTang.shtml

            It would be a very difficult task to use Venus as an example of the dangers of a CO2 greenhouse effect.

            Water, on the other hand, is a MUCH stronger greenhouse gas, and in our atmosphere it averages about 0.4% (10x the CO2 level), but at the SURFACE it's around ~2.5%.

            Methane is also a much better Greenhouse gas than CO2, but it only makes up around 0.00018% of the atmosphere.

            ==============

            These are the some of the biggest reasons why people are so skeptical of MAN-MADE global warming. Venus has a 97% composition of CO2, and is 67 Million miles from the sun (whereas the earth is about 93 Million miles). This translates to, on average, Venus getting about twice as much solar energy than the earth -- (Energy is proportional to distance squared; double the distance, quadruple the energy).

            An alternative explanation for Venus' temperature? Well, that could easily be solved by arguing that Venus has more radioactive metals in it's core than the Earth does. The reason we have magma in our planet is NOT because of Solar radiation, it is because of radioactive metals heating things up. But this is wild speculation on my part.

            The core of Venus has NOT been thoroughly studied. It has a similar density to Earth, but that isn't a definitive study by any means.

            http://www.universetoday.com/36155/comp … -of-venus/

            These are the arguments for taking a skeptical stance on global warming when discussing other planets. And, ultimately, using Venus as an argument for global warming is not the best route.

            I would like to argue that I can only agree that the Earth has been warming, but there has yet to be a definitive consensus by scientists that the warming is because of man. (No, Al Gore is not definitive! I kid, I kid.)

            1. kerryg profile image87
              kerrygposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Misha is claiming the greenhouse effect doesn't exist, so I was wondering what his explanation for Venus is. I did not and never have claimed that Venus is some sort of "warning" about what might happen to Earth if we don't reduce our CO2 emissions. We'd have to kill every single green thing on the planet to even make a dent, and I have never heard even the most strident of doomers suggest that we are capable of such a thing.

            2. Misha profile image75
              Mishaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              LOL Evan, you might want to read a few last pages, and than return here. Nobody denies that Earth has some kind of heat retaining mechanism. However, Kerry presented the model with greenhouse gases, and it did not withstand the peer review (at least I think so big_smile). This does not even mean that greenhouse gases do not take part in the Earth heat retaining mechanism, it just means that this particular model does not describe this mechanism properly. smile

              However, since no other model was presented for review, one can reasonably suspect that Global Worming scare was built on this faulty model, and therefore is a scam. I would have called it a hoax if no money were involved, but there are huge money here, so this is a scam. smile

  44. Misha profile image75
    Mishaposted 5 years ago

    Oh yeah, I am back to you Kerry, sorry for delay. I managed to upload a few glasses of red already, so bear with me please big_smile

    *pouncing on*
    I was going to go through your post and step by step illustrate with examples in detail where and how you seriously deviated from your original model in an intellectually dishonest (tongue) attempt to save your face, but then I thought - WTF? it is not fun, seriously. We both understand that your initial model did not withstand the scrutiny of the peer review, why don't we just accept it and move on? Though if you still insist, I will go through this heap of boring work as a sign of appreciation for your courage. smile
    *pouncing off*

    Much more interesting seem to speculate about the right model, whatever it could be. Cause we certainly cannot deny that atmosphere plays a key role in keeping our planet from temp extremes on both sides of the spectrum. The results of direct measurements on the Moon and spacecrafts prove the point quite conclusively. Frankly I have no idea where you dug those 33C/91F numbers so I just gonna leave them alone until you elaborate on them. Your last question is interesting though.

    Let's see what I can come up with. First I would venture to assume Mercury does not have atmosphere or just has a marginal one, based on what you said. Then I think I read several times that Venus is completely covered with clouds, is this right? Also, I personally observed, and folk wisdom agrees to it, that on Earth nights are much warmer when the sky is covered with clouds vs clear skies, other things being equal, and days are cooler.

    So I would suggest as a hypothesis to consider the greenhouse effect to be working much closer to a real greenhouse, with clouds acting both as a reflector of a part of IR radiation back to whichever way it came from, and an obstacle to convection. How is that for a rough model? smile

    1. kerryg profile image87
      kerrygposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I'm going to do more research on the visible light vs infrared question, because now I'm curious. Everything I'm reading says that sunlight warms the surface when it gets absorbed but nothing specifies which part of the spectrum is responsible for it. Additionally, several of the (only moderately reliable) sources I've seen have mentioned that the infrared that manages to make it down through the atmosphere can only account for about 49% of the observed heating. The Earth demonstrably emits infrared radiation, so it has to be getting it from somewhere. So. I think some trips to the library and/or consultations with my physicist brother-in-law are in order. smile

      The current calculation is that the average temperature of the Earth would be "more than 30 degrees C" cooler without the greenhouse effect. (Source) Wikipedia says 33 degrees cooler, or about -18 C. (It's actually a difference of about 60 degrees F - I converted the 33 instead of the 15 and -18 yesterday. *facepalm*)

      Mercury has almost no atmosphere but Venus has a very dense one (more than 90 times the mass of Earth's) that's over 95% CO2. It's also covered completely in clouds of sulfur dioxide and sulfuric acid, which reflect about 60% of the sun's radiation but presumably also trap heat in.

      NASA has some interesting stuff about the effects of clouds on Earth. The clouds+atmosphere reflect about 23% of incoming solar radiation on Earth but do also act as a warming blanket, and which role dominates apparently depends on what type of clouds they are! Hadn't known that and thought it was interesting.

      The role of water vapor on the greenhouse effect in general is one of the biggest uncertainties of global warming science as I understand it. Water vapor is a very powerful greenhouse gas, but thanks to its role in forming clouds it has the potential to have a net cooling effect and you have to wonder if Gaia is hitting some emergency switches.

      BTW, Mars also has has an atmosphere of about 95% CO2 but it is so thin (less than 1/100th the mass of Earth's) that it only warms the planet by a few degrees. (You kind of feel like Goldilocks reading some of this stuff. Too hot, too cold, just right. smile )

      1. kerryg profile image87
        kerrygposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Okay, I managed to get in touch with my brother-in-law the nuclear physicist. smile

        Please bear in mind that I am in so far over my head here that it's not even funny, and also my eyes are crossing from some of the equations, but I THINK what he said on the question of visible spectrum light being absorbed by the Earth and re-emitted as infrared is the following:

        The wavelength emitted by any given body does not depend on the wavelength absorbed. Instead, it's a function of temperature (Planck's law). Higher temperatures produce shorter wavelengths, thus the Sun radiates mainly in the shortwave spectrum. Lower temperatures produce longer wavelengths, hence the Earth radiates mainly in the infrared. So that would explain how visible light gets "converted" to infrared by soil, water, plants, etc. on the surface.

        Elsewhere (not from my b-i-l) I found this graph demonstrating the principle with a comparison between solar radiation (the 5780K curve) and terrestrial radiation at temps ranging from 260K (-13°C) to 300K (27°C) at 45' zenith and typical albedo:

        http://i52.tinypic.com/24zlv1t.png

        (It's hard to tell, but the wavelength measurements are in μm, not um.)

        The peak value of radiation for the earth is ~10μm, while for the sun it is ~0.5μm.

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
          Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Works for me!

        2. Misha profile image75
          Mishaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Cool. smile I did not have any doubt that sun and earth emit in different wavelengths intervals, because of their different temps. So what? It does not prove conversion. smile

          PS I am not sure exactly what questions you asked him, may be you better just forward to him a link to this thread? smile

          1. kerryg profile image87
            kerrygposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Do you agree that objects on the surface absorb light in the visible spectrum?

            1. Misha profile image75
              Mishaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Absolutely. Reflect part and absorb part. smile

              1. kerryg profile image87
                kerrygposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                So what are you suggesting gets done with the absorbed parts of the visible light spectrum? It's still energy, so the Earth can't just keep sucking it up forever without releasing it, and if you don't think it gets re-radiated as IR or released as heat that leaves what, photosynthesis?

                1. Misha profile image75
                  Mishaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I don't know what gets done to it. Electron orbit changes? Isotopes creation? This is irrelevant. It does not get converted into any noticeable amounts of heat, that is clear, and that is all what is relevant to this case. All heat that comes to the Earth surface from the Sun comes with IR. And the part of heat that gets later emitted by Earth comes exclusively from that IR that came from the Sun - well, if we leave Earth internal heat aside. smile

                  1. kerryg profile image87
                    kerrygposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Electron orbit changes are what cause absorption and emission of electromagnetic radiation, though, so either way something is getting emitted as a result of the absorption of visible light and at Earth's ambient temperatures that something is likely to be infrared.

  45. kerryg profile image87
    kerrygposted 5 years ago

    I don't have optical filters, although I'd love to experiment around with them if I did. I feel like we're both missing something here, because it does seem plausible to me that on a small scale you'd be correct, but on a planetary scale you're obviously not because you can't just keep dumping energy into a system without it either being released or causing the system to warm up. That violates the laws of thermodynamics. And by definition, any radiation being released by the Earth would have to be concentrated in the IR region of the spectrum regardless of what wavelength it came in on, so. I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree. smile

    1. Misha profile image75
      Mishaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Oops, sorry, somehow I missed this one.

      Well, it is certainly up to you to perform this experiment or not. Based on our life experience we both know the outcome even without doing it. Unless of course you boil yourself coffee with a help of a LED flashlight LOL. I personally don't think I am missing anything here. I never said this energy just gets lost, so no violation of conservation laws. Yes, I don't know where this energy goes, and it does not bother me a tiny bit - there are literally millions of things I don't know, so what? What I do know - visible light coming from the Sun does not get converted into IR by soil and water, and this is enough to conclude that your model does not work.

      Since you obviously don't want to admit it and prefer to hold to your beliefs despite of the evidence that they do not match the reality, I am perfectly OK to agree to disagree with you - as long as you stop telling me I have to change my lifestyle based on your irrational beliefs. Yes Kerry, if you cannot prove it, it is an irrational belief. Global Worming belongs to Religion forums. smile

 
working