Faux science of global warming doesn't pass legal scrutiny.

#76
#76
I'm sure you think the definition of "theory" has been changed to "muddy the waters" of debate.

Scientific terminology is different than common language meanings.

Sheesh, everyone's their own doctor these days.
 
#77
#77
@gsvol,

Are you still drunk after the Ole Miss win?

Global heating (to emphasize we are heating the planet) is a generational problem greater than the human race has ever faced. It is WWII but bigger. Thinking and acting like adults regarding this issue, would bring out the absolute best in us as a people, a culture, a species endowed with the ability to act with reason and not with genes. The effects are real, measurable today, and with solid predictions on what will happen later. Anyone over the age of 35 has living memory enough to see the changes in our weather; they shouldn't need the scientists to tell them something is up. But when the scientists give you so thorough an explanation for everything happening outside your backdoor, only fools would disregard. To ignore this issue, to put stock in these laughably pathetic "errors" (called typos), and to run and hide from it, is to glorify our basest attributes; it is to be an intellectual debauch; it is to be ruinously ridiculous.
 
#78
#78
Let's see here... A law student with an obvious agenda has decided he knows science better than scientists. Sounds like a future lawyer to me.
 
#79
#79
utgibbs said:
@gsvol,

Are you still drunk after the Ole Miss win?

Global heating (to emphasize we are heating the planet) is a generational problem greater than the human race has ever faced. It is WWII but bigger. Thinking and acting like adults regarding this issue, would bring out the absolute best in us as a people, a culture, a species endowed with the ability to act with reason and not with genes. The effects are real, measurable today, and with solid predictions on what will happen later. Anyone over the age of 35 has living memory enough to see the changes in our weather; they shouldn't need the scientists to tell them something is up. But when the scientists give you so thorough an explanation for everything happening outside your backdoor, only fools would disregard. To ignore this issue, to put stock in these laughably pathetic "errors" (called typos), and to run and hide from it, is to glorify our basest attributes; it is to be an intellectual debauch; it is to be ruinously ridiculous.
Click to expand...

That has to be one of the most idiot rants I've ever read on this form.

Where weer you when the alarmists forty years ago warned us that we were faced with a new ice age?

Where were you a thousand years ago when the Earth was much warmer than it is today, with Vikings having vineyards in Greenland???

Predictions are far less solid than jello!!!!!!!
 
#80
#80
I think in terms of the alarmists, it was a warning that unless things changed, we could face a new ice age. Still very possible, as the earth heats and cools continuously.

The difference is normal heating and cooling vs non-normal heating and cooling.

Your refrigerator constantly adjusts temperature, turning the compressor on and off to regulate. If you put more pollutants in the fridge (ie: food... food is a refrigerator pollutant), then the overall temperature changes and the fridge has to work harder to re-establish that preset gradient. Ie, non-normal cooling cycle.

And, 40 years or so is but a drop in the bucket in time. Whether you believe the Earth is 6,000 yo or ~4.5 byo, 40 years isn't much. A thousand years isn't much.

If you strip the insulation out of your bedroom, your room will get colder in the winter and hotter in the summer. Disagree?

That is the purpose of the ozone in very simple terms; insulation. By increasing pollutants, we are stripping some of that insulation. If we strip too much, we won't have a well regulated temperature capable to sustain life.

In the end, though, it won't matter. The poles will shift before then, and that might prove way more interesting.
 
#81
#81
Ozone isn't related to tropospheric temperature, or the release of greenhouse gases.

Poles could shift any time between now and 20,000 years from now. Safe money is on climate mattering first by a long shot, even if there wasn't global warming.
 
#82
#82
IPorange said:
Ozone isn't related to tropospheric temperature, or the release of greenhouse gases.

Poles could shift any time between now and 20,000 years from now. Safe money is on climate mattering first by a long shot, even if there wasn't global warming.
Click to expand...

I thought the Ozone provided some general defense against solar radiation?

You are right, though, pole shift probably won't amount to much, but I still find it neat to ponder.

Seriously on the Ozone, though? Hm. Should have taken a climatology course in undergrad.
 
#83
#83
Ozone blocks ultraviolet radiation. That doesn't mean diddly as far as tropospheric temperature or global climate change.
 
#84
#84
IPorange said:
Ozone blocks ultraviolet radiation. That doesn't mean diddly as far as tropospheric temperature or global climate change.
Click to expand...

So no heat transfer from the radiation that breaks through holes in the ozone?
 
#85
#85
No more than the heat transfer that would have occurred in the stratosphere if a radiation wave interacted with a ozone molecule.

That input into the atmosphere was happening either way, either in the stratosphere or at the surface.

The source of global warming is the build up of greenhouse gases within the atmosphere that prevent escaping longwave radiation. That is how all energy put in to the Earth's atmosphere is eventually vented. Nothing particularly special about UV radiation in the respect.

The ozone issue and the climate change issue are separate problems. UV rays penetrating down to the surface is a problem for life forms, as UV rays damage cellular DNA causing cancer and other problems.
 
#86
#86
Yea, I understand the DNA damage. UV light creates dimers in DNA that aren't excised by normal repair mechanisms.

I thought, I guess wrongly, that there was correlation between increased radiation penetration and global climate change.

The global brightening vs global dimming view point. WIR states there is, at least maybe "was," some correlation.

Solar radiation and climate change | World Resources Institute

Are the effects just so small that they aren't the main issue, or has newer data been made available that suggests the original viewpoint on solar discharge isn't as substantial as might have been believed?
 
#87
#87
fl0at said:
Yea, I understand the DNA damage. UV light creates dimers in DNA that aren't excised by normal repair mechanisms.

I thought, I guess wrongly, that there was correlation between increased radiation penetration and global climate change.

The global brightening vs global dimming view point. WIR states there is, at least maybe "was," some correlation.

Solar radiation and climate change | World Resources Institute

Are the effects just so small that they aren't the main issue, or has newer data been made available that suggests the original viewpoint on solar discharge isn't as substantial as might have been believed?
Click to expand...

Changes in incoming solar radiation certainly plays a role-- but that, again, is a separate issue than the destruction of the ozone layer.

The solar radiation change is referring to increases in the entire electromagnetic spectrum coming from the Sun, of which UV radiation is a small part.

Whether the ozone layer was there and intact or not would not change the temperature effect of increased/decreased incoming solar radiation in the troposphere.




The reason why I keep specifically saying "the troposphere," is because that is where the "global climate change" phenomenon is taking place, and the troposphere is where all our weather and climate happens.

The ozone layer damage DOES effect temperature in the stratosphere, but that has no bearing on us in the troposphere. Stratospheric temperatures are cooler in areas of less ozone.

But again, this completely separate from global climate, and global climate change. And it's separate from the concept of global dimming/brightening.
 
#88
#88
Ahhh. I got ya. I always thought global climate change was due to more lateral atmospheric problems than medial.

Learning is occurring.
 
#89
#89
fl0at said:
Ahhh. I got ya. I always thought global climate change was due to more lateral atmospheric problems than medial.

Learning is occurring.
Click to expand...

It is due to changes in atmospheric composition, not structure.
 
#90
#90
Composition defines structure, though, right? If it was a homogeneous mixture, there would only be "the" layer.

But, I get your point. The specifics elude me, and probably always will. The field is a bit too complex for a Dummies crash course.
 
#91
#91
The change to the composition isn't enough to "change" the overlying structure. If you bake a cake, with a layer of frosting and sprinkles, the structure of the cake isn't different depending on whether you added 1 or 2 teaspoons of vanilla extract to the mix earlier.
 
#92
#92
Yea, I'm not disagreeing at all. Just saying that I always thought of climate change as resulting from issues more lateral (stratosphere) vs more medial (troposphere).

The composition of the two are different, right? And if so, doesn't the composition of each define the differing layers?

Or are they both composed similarly, but function differently?
 
#94
#94
gsvol said:
Where weer you when the alarmists forty years ago warned us that we were faced with a new ice age?

Where were you a thousand years ago when the Earth was much warmer than it is today, with Vikings having vineyards in Greenland???



Predictions are far less solid than jello!!!!!!!
Click to expand...
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#97
#97
Government calls key scientist/rapper to tell Congress "it's getting hot in here."
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top