Posted on 05/17/2009 6:11:58 AM PDT by steelyourfaith
|
|
|||
Gods |
To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. |
||
|
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google · · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
|||
OTOH, I find it disturbing when he repeats various sophisms, such as "the emitter is warmer than the absorber" on pg. 91, as part of an argument denying the central premise of the greenhouse effect. This must be true if there is to be a net transfer of heat from the emitter to the absorber, but in fact any two radiative bodies will exchange radiation, and both are emitting and absorbing radiation. The greenhouse effect says that the atmosphere mitigates, or reduces, the radiative loss from the surface into space, and the cited categorical dismissal is not to the point.
It was only about 350 - 400 million years ago that cyanobacteria evolved to the point they began creating oxygen, and fixing iron and CO2 into compounds that were deposited in the oceans.
In doing so, they created the oxygen rich atmosphere we have today.
One of those organisms was called the Stromatolites, an ancient ancestor of today's corals.
Cyanobacteria are still operating the same way today, creating oxygen in the oceans.
It is a refutation of nothing, and the author barely knows what he is talking any more than you understand what he is taking about. He is using much longer words than he understands.
The physics problem is really quite simply stated. What is the long term trend in accumulation of gases which decrease the reradiation of infrared from the earth into outher space? How do those gases affect the earth's heat balance, on a sufficiently fine grained scale to address the problem? How does that heat balance affect global climate, answered on a sufficiently fine grained to understand local and regional impacts of that climate change?
Despite the idiots on both sides (the right wing idiots are as dumb as the left wing idiots) it is an open scientific question. By open I mean it is not closed, not answered. It is not answered positively or negatively. That is what an open scientific question means.
For those who pay some attention to what the more sophisticated researchers on the subject are doing, increasingly sophisticated computer models based on fundamental physics show some alarming long term trends, but even they are not conclusive because even with the largest computers in the world, the one's used to design nuclear weapons, the models are insufficiently detailed to lead one to conclude that the answer is correct.
You have no facts, despite your bigoted prejudice on what is an open scientific question. I am so depressed every time I log on to FR and read idiots like you spouting off. The Republican party is so so dead, and fools like you will not stop digging the grave. The fact of the matter is that no one actually know whether human activity induced climate change is a major concern or not. No one knows. Especially not a mental lightweight like you.
What are these models? Can you give a description of them? Do they include "weather", for example?
These are "physics based" models. You divide the oceans and atmosphere into now billions of little cubes and try to write the physics that governs the behavior of the cube. You have physics models for aerodhynamic or hydrodynamic movements based on denisity, pressure gradients, gravity, etc. You track salinity and temperature effects on density of ocean water. Etc.
The problem is that even as large as computers are these days, the cubes are too still too large to have the kind of detail needed to resolve local weather. Moreover, some effects, such as cloud behavior are not as well modeled as one could hope.
Many of the guys who do this used to write computer codes to design nuclear weapons (not exactly left wing kooks, ok) or to design supersonic aircraft or jet turbines or some such. Despite the snide snearing of a bunch of right wing troglodytes these are pretty smart folks doing pretty sophisticated stuff.
Like I said, it is a hard scientific problem, and the question is still far from being resolved. But it is a scientific problem that will be solved through good research and not through right wing nut cases banging political heads with left wing nutcases.
There are not even supposed to be right wing nut cases. Conservatives are supposed to be the party of reason. We are supposed to make decisions based on evidence and logic.
What about the clouds themselves? Do these models predict the formation of clouds, ab initio ?
Did I say anything about global warming? No. I don’t believe all the sudden hype.
Wine was grown in northern England around 100 BC. Then a few hundred years later the earth cooled and wine could not be produced due to a cooling climate until around 900 AD. Several hundred years later the earth became too cool for wine grapes to be grown in the region.
The little ice age started around 1600. We are, possibly just coming out of it.
“...bigoted prejudice...”
“...idiots like you spouting off”
Back at ‘ca, babe.
“...no one actually know whether human activity induced climate change is a major concern or not...” Perhaps, but we do know the earth has been through several ice ages and many smaller warming periods without mankind's influence AT ALL. To think we can regulate the climate is idiotic to be sure.
“...No one knows. Especially not a mental lightweight like you.”
At least I have facts to cling to. You have as your argument: “...fools like you...”
Let's continue this dialog when you have matured sufficiently to inject facts into your writing.
Yep, you mentioned global warmning by stating that “it hasn’t been long enough” or words to that affect, implying that if we waited longer we might see proof that global warming was real. Then you mentioned the temp at your area. You are now in full weasel mode.
No the longer we wait we might see an answer either way to satisfy freepers either way. If I’m a weasel your a rat. You know, the boneheads here are always the first to start the insults. Go shot a turkey or something.
I just stated that man does create around 0.6 Deg C on the earth. Why do you keep repeating that freepers believe that man creates no effect on the earth?
I am stating that anyone that believes in this catastrophic warming in effect is like chicken little screaming the sky is falling, because the theory has been proven false.
How has it been proven false? Very simply, if it is a catastrophic positive feedback effect as there own theory suggests the positive feedbacks MUST be continues.
It has gotten cooler since 1998 thus their theory has been proven false.
Positive feedback theory is very simple, please don’t let people confuses you on this. If you take a bowl turn it over put a small ball on the top so now the ball is resting on the bowl.
Positive feedback means if you give the ball a very slight push the ball will pick up energy as it travels down the side of the bowl. The ball will not stop until it finds the bottom.
As we know sinse 1998 the earth has gotten cooler thus the catastrophic positive feedback has been PROVEN false.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.