Free Thinkr
Muse
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2006
- Messages
- 738
LOL, seconded.
Global Warming Conspiracy LOL
- Thread starter TOHMS
- Start date
-
- Tags
- conspiracy global warming
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
I'm not sure what you are claiming about "they can't go there". But a lot of the reasons for why global warming is real and anthropogenic have been discussed and picked apart many times.
Demands for evidence have been numerous, and I and others have come up with it every time. There are several people with more than a layman's knowledge of the topic who have contributed over the years, and are doing so currently. The area involves research and modelling that is cutting edge, so it is hard for people like me to go into the specific science, but I can understand relate the basics of it, and refer to links about the actual hard science if anyone can understand them.
What I can't believe is the number of people who laugh at CTers, but seem to think there is a conspiracy theory about the topic by the IPCC, UN and others.
OK, I think you misunderstood my point, or maybe I didn't make it well. I'm simply pointing out what I perceive to be a dilemma of sorts for the conspiracy guys. Like most people, they believe in global warming, but the only way they or anyone can possibly support that belief is to cite experts. This is the opposite of what they do to support their nutty notions about 9/11. They're not too bright, but I think they see this obvious disconnect coming and avoid going there.
If they were consistent, they would be staunch g/w deniers. They would trumpet the view of a few on the fringe, and neglect the majority of scientific opinion.
Personally, I tend to believe that humans are somewhere between 1/2 and 3/4 responsible for the warming, but I'm certainly no authority on the subject. I do hold out the possibility that this is incorrect, as the whole subject is vastly more complicated and amorphous than say....a building collapse or a plane crash.
Peephole
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2006
- Messages
- 2,584
The UN's list? And does Gore even debate anyone?
Because Gore has little to do with the actual science and the "other side" gets paid to reach certain conclusions?
I don't think scientists can't make mistakes or be influenced by their sponsors but I think that "scientists will promote whatever scientific theory is most popular" is pretty much CT logic.
Sure, but the level of CO2 at the moment deviates from the normal cycle that has occurred over the past hundreds of thousand years.
Last edited:
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
Or maybe I missed a few crucial words in your post.
Maybe you got scared of his username?
How old are you again?
Perry Logan Truth Squad Makes Inevitable Appearance
Uh, uh, Perry. You're lying again. The problem is that little word "always." I can think I can show easily enough that my posts concerning you are usually responses to your posts.
In this instance, it wasn't even a response. I was commenting on Al Gore's refusal to debate one of the most prominent opponents of the controversial views he promotes. You, most of us have noticed, had not yet joined the discussion. That would explain why your first post has a higher number than my first post (ain't logic grand?). It's fascinating that I could pick a fight with someone who wasn't there. Today's word is, egomania.
I am quite ignorant of climatology. Probably, I don't know much more about the subject than you do. To many of us, it's disturbing that the same people who were insisting in the seventies that a new Ice Age was just around the corner have made a 180 degree turn and are now ramming their latest revelation down our throats.
All of the left's most endearing traits are on display: Their opponents can't merely be reading the same data and coming to a different conclusion. No, they have to be scoundrels who are in the pockets of the oil industry. Of course, the side that wants to cripple capitalist economies, while ignoring third-world polluters, can't possibly have any political agendas. And honest debate must be avoided at all costs--there's no sense seeking the truth when one side is always in possession of Da Twoof.
The notion that only a few crackpots deny the Gospel According to St. Al is demonstrably false. We should encourage debates between qualified representatives of the competing views. Eventually, we should be able to get a sense of where the truth lies.
Uh, uh, Perry. You're lying again. The problem is that little word "always." I can think I can show easily enough that my posts concerning you are usually responses to your posts.
In this instance, it wasn't even a response. I was commenting on Al Gore's refusal to debate one of the most prominent opponents of the controversial views he promotes. You, most of us have noticed, had not yet joined the discussion. That would explain why your first post has a higher number than my first post (ain't logic grand?). It's fascinating that I could pick a fight with someone who wasn't there. Today's word is, egomania.
I am quite ignorant of climatology. Probably, I don't know much more about the subject than you do. To many of us, it's disturbing that the same people who were insisting in the seventies that a new Ice Age was just around the corner have made a 180 degree turn and are now ramming their latest revelation down our throats.
All of the left's most endearing traits are on display: Their opponents can't merely be reading the same data and coming to a different conclusion. No, they have to be scoundrels who are in the pockets of the oil industry. Of course, the side that wants to cripple capitalist economies, while ignoring third-world polluters, can't possibly have any political agendas. And honest debate must be avoided at all costs--there's no sense seeking the truth when one side is always in possession of Da Twoof.
The notion that only a few crackpots deny the Gospel According to St. Al is demonstrably false. We should encourage debates between qualified representatives of the competing views. Eventually, we should be able to get a sense of where the truth lies.
Come on folks. We all know that "Global Warming" is just another Zionist conspiracy to conquer the globe. They want us all to stop buying German made gas guzzlers and instead by fuel efficient cars which have Israeli made parts. And if we reduce industrial carbon emitions it will hurt the gentile economies in favor of the Chosen People. Don't you see it???....
How old are you again?
Moral Equivalence
I'm too damn old. Perry, incidentally, is lying again. He's pretending that I started a fight with him before I knew that he intended to join the thread.
Let me take a wild guess: We're both wrong. As I've written, if I say that 2+2=4 and he says 2+2=139, the truth must lie somewhere in-between.
I'm too damn old. Perry, incidentally, is lying again. He's pretending that I started a fight with him before I knew that he intended to join the thread.
Let me take a wild guess: We're both wrong. As I've written, if I say that 2+2=4 and he says 2+2=139, the truth must lie somewhere in-between.
Last edited:
A W Smith
Philosopher
I don't know where i stand on this because i never really looked into it too deeply. a question I have is that during the early industrial era. when unfiltered smokestacks belched nothing but soot and coal smoke unfettered. the steel mills. open burning of forestation and crop clearing. what happened then? why is it so worse now with stringent air pollution controls? what went wrong? is it simply the population? How can we control it if simple structure heat escaping building envelops can possibly contribute to a rise in temperature? what about reflective heat off man made surfaces?
AZCat
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 1,672
Population is significant.
Population is an important factor, but remember that we have seen an increase in per capity energy use since the beginning of the industrial revolution. In some ways, the development of electrical grids influenced energy use the same way the development of currency influenced spending - if you can introduce a fungible intermediate element into a market, it makes it that much easier for people to supply and use the resources for sale in that market. We no longer have to have the energy sources at our homes and businesses (as was necessary even during the industrial revolution) - we can burn those sources at a remote location and transport the converted energy where--ever we want. This freedom has enabled us to use energy in many ways that just weren't feasible back then. Can you imagine - if cell phones had been around then, how much coal you would have had to carry on your person to generate the electricity necessary to run it?
Regarding your other points, I don't know how much heat is "added" from the conditioning of buildings. Air conditioning is more of an energy transport mechanism than anything - an A/C unit takes energy from the air inside a space and moves it outside the space. There is some heat added because the process takes energy, but the heat moved outside isn't so much "added" as displaced.
Reflective surfaces are quite a problem. Several large cities are promoting "green roof" programs to reduce this, where roofs are covered with plants - either gardens or lawns.
Remember also that pollution controls are important but don't address the key issue in global warming - carbon emissions. Even a perfectly tuned natural gas plant (which produces significantly less yukky stuff than a coal power plant) will produce carbon dioxide as part of the combustion process.
Population is an important factor, but remember that we have seen an increase in per capity energy use since the beginning of the industrial revolution. In some ways, the development of electrical grids influenced energy use the same way the development of currency influenced spending - if you can introduce a fungible intermediate element into a market, it makes it that much easier for people to supply and use the resources for sale in that market. We no longer have to have the energy sources at our homes and businesses (as was necessary even during the industrial revolution) - we can burn those sources at a remote location and transport the converted energy where--ever we want. This freedom has enabled us to use energy in many ways that just weren't feasible back then. Can you imagine - if cell phones had been around then, how much coal you would have had to carry on your person to generate the electricity necessary to run it?
Regarding your other points, I don't know how much heat is "added" from the conditioning of buildings. Air conditioning is more of an energy transport mechanism than anything - an A/C unit takes energy from the air inside a space and moves it outside the space. There is some heat added because the process takes energy, but the heat moved outside isn't so much "added" as displaced.
Reflective surfaces are quite a problem. Several large cities are promoting "green roof" programs to reduce this, where roofs are covered with plants - either gardens or lawns.
Remember also that pollution controls are important but don't address the key issue in global warming - carbon emissions. Even a perfectly tuned natural gas plant (which produces significantly less yukky stuff than a coal power plant) will produce carbon dioxide as part of the combustion process.
Free Thinkr
Muse
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2006
- Messages
- 738
Wait, you lost me here; wouldn't reflective surfaces be good?
In regards to Gore, I think he'd be much better served to use his celebrity and fund raising capabilities to implement alternative energy research. There's no reason this needs to be so political. In the end, all the carbon credits in the world aren't going to make a damn bit of difference; alternative energy is the only thing that's going to reduce carbon emissions.
AZCat
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 1,672
Reflective surfaces are good when considering the heat load for a building - they can reduce the demand for air conditioning which cuts down on the energy used - but bad for air temperatures. When the solar radiation hits our atmosphere, some of it is absorbed by the atmosphere (depending on the particular constitution of the atmosphere). This energy absorbed heats up the air. If that solar radiation then hits a reflective surface on the surface of the earth, some of the radiation is then sent back through the atmosphere where more energy is absorbed, heating up the air even more. This can have a major effect on weather systems (Atlanta, Georgia is an example that was studied by the NOAA) but I'm not sure of the effects on global warming (other than increased amounts of energy absorbed in the atmosphere).
Alternative energy isn't our only choice; we can choose to reduce our per capita energy consumption, but I don't think that is the choice Americans want to make. We are far too reliant on our comforts to give them up willingly, IMO.
Free Thinkr
Muse
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2006
- Messages
- 738
Isn't it the case that energy absorbed by darker areas on the ground is simply radiated into the air? I always thought it was the case that reflective surfaces would lower air temperatures due to more of the total energy being reflected back into space. For example, the air is colder when there's snow cover.
Well, 'reduce' is an awfully relative term. To be sure, there are some luxuries we could easily do without; but what is deemed a luxury, and just how much we're to do without is a contentious topic to be sure. I don't think to many of us JREFers are going to be doing without their computers to surf the internet with, despite the fact that we certainly could.
Oliver
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 17,396
First of all there is nothing "dark". The Human brain (information submitted by Rod cells) enables us to distinguish between low and high reflections or low and high irradiance in general. Colors and contrasts are some kind of illusion, produced in our brains to process this information.
A dark area absorbs irradiance, but the energy of the absorbed light rays is heating up this dark surface while absorbing the light energy.
While the sun rays are passing the earths atmosphere, they are heating up particles withing the air - particles absorbing parts of the sunrays, the effect is doubled if something reflects the sunrays and sends them thru the atmosphere again.
Plants use this sun energy in a similar way like humans use food to gain energy. Most cities that don't have much green space are up to 2 degrees celsius hotter than the green environment surrounding the city. The causes are materials like concrete and tar, absorbing light energy but heating up in the same time - while plants use ("eat") most of the energy and therefore don't heat up.
Snow is a different issue. In wintertime the angle to the sun is tilted. The hemisphere having wintertime does'nt face the sun as directly as in summertime. That's why winter in europe means summer in australia. The reflectivity of snow is responsible for low earth temperatures and this effect is also cooling the air in lower regions in a much higher scale than in higher regions of the atmosphere.
But to get back to your question and to sum up the info above:
Reflecting surfaces don't heat up the lower atmosphere but the higher regions of the atmosphere - while dark surfaces heat up the lower atmosphere.
A light bulb is no luxury but if everyone would replace the regular light bulbs with Compact fluorescent lamps (for example), it would save hundreds, probably thousands tons of carbon dioxide per year. Another thing would be a higher efficiency of burning fuels and oil. We do have the technology to realize such goals, but many governments does'nt subsidy such technologies, in america probably because the huge oil-/coal- and petroleum lobbies ... sponsoring the (Uhm...democratic???) Government.
Then there are alternative energies like hydrogen based motors or renewable fuels like vegetable oils or other bio gases. Here in germany, politics is already following this trend since several years and i hope that american politics will follow some day in a near future.
ETA: My english is cruel if i have to explain scientific stuff ... i apologize ...
Last edited:
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
I didn't really phrase that properly. Not scientific theory. Scientific "topic".
What I mean is, this sort of high-resource research requires a lot of funding. I'm saying there's no such thing as money without an agenda. Doesn't matter what side of the fence you're on, there's always an agenda.
Now, having an agenda, or being political doesn't equate to "wrong" (something that I notice Americans especially seem to assume - perhaps because "political" is used so often as a slur). Scientists researching a particular topic could be funded by people with a political agenda, heck even the scientists might have an agenda, but they still could be 100% right.
-Gumboot
-Gumboot
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
Er... snow plays a pretty small part in lower winter temperatures. The main reason is because you're further from the sun, and more sunlight is reflected off the atmosphere.
Lots of places don't get any snow in winter, but still get frikken cold.
(Antarctica, for example... )-Gumboot