Reply With Quote
Shut up, Frankie and eat your peas.
Alot of people make claims
Shut up, Frankie and eat your peas.
It's a ing theory you asshat! Of course if people knew for sure we wouldn't be having this debate. There is evidence we are causing all of this and the change is negatively effecting the planet. "Show me the evidence" you'll say. I say blow me. Nothing will ever be good enough.
I guess I'm an idiot. What does this even mean, "the sun changes by 0.25%"? The sun changes what? 0.25% of what?
If it's just a theory, Kyoto and the IPCC are shams. But we already knew that.
MMMMMM Peas!!!
Here, Shastafarian...learn something:
You act as if you can't possibly be wrong.
No, I act as though I'm not willing to see the Country spend trillions in an effort to comply with Kyoto -- and whatever fool protocol the idiots come up with -- on the basis of a very, very, very flawed theory.
A theory, that the proponents won't even admit to having had some of it's core underpinnings (such as CO2 rises preceding temperature rises) soundly disproven.
Do you have any earthly idea what the Kyoto protocol would cost this country...and, what the proponents admit would be the benefits -- if we enacted every single item?
The intensity of its solar output. It's simple. The earth's change in heat is proportion with the sun's heat. It is nearly linear in small changes like under 1%.
It's simple math. First of all, the solar output has increase by at least 0.2% since 1900, and probably by 0.25% since the industrial revolution. This is verified by the science of paleoclimatology.
The global average temperature is about 288 K.
The earth would be near absolute zero if there was no external heat, that our sun provides. Since we have gravitational forces keeping the molten core, the earths temperature would be about 55 K with no external heat source.
288 - 55 = 233
0.25% of 233 = 0.58825 k
The Kelvin scale and Celcius scale share the same slope. Just subtract 273.15 from kelvin to get celcius. 288 - 273.15 = 14.85 C, the approximate global average.
The alarmists say we have increased between by 0.6 to 0.7 C during the industrial revolution. I will say that with the possible errors in science, we can count on the suns output changing buy at least 0.2%. This number means a 0.466 C change rather than 0.588 C.
0.7 - 0.466 = 0.234 C would be the maximum warming caused by mankind. Using 0.25% and 0.6 C would mean only a 0.012C change. I would say that the range of temperature change by mankind is somewhere between 0.012 C and 0.234 C. That's a rather minimal impact. I personally agree it is between 0.1 and 0.2 C.
I know. Learn how to write the question better next time. You gave no indication of what the last part of the question (0.25%) was.
I don't know if anyone's seen the Global Warming debate videos with Michael Chrichton et. al., but they are pretty good.
Here's one. This guy is hilarious.
You didn't understand that?How are your math skills? Consider that the earths average temperature is about 288 degrees kelvin. What is the temperature change in celcius if the earth would be 55 kelvin with no solar heat, and the sun changes by 0.25%
OK.
I was speaking of heat. Did you suddenly think I changed to poodles, or something else?
Nice try avoiding the subject.
Do you agree that the sun cause more heat changes than mankind?
If the earth would be? Again learn how to write a questionWhat is the temperature change in celcius if the earth would be 55 kelvin with no solar heat
You left out a direct object in this part of the sentence.and the sun changes by 0.25%
Stop the nit-picking, you twitt.
I guess you cannot answer my last question. Does your partisanship and belief in the global warming dogma prevent you from speaking like a heratic?
I'm answering your dumb math question
NoDo you agree that the sun cause more heat changes than mankind?
BBC investigated after peer says climate change programme was biased 'one-sided polemic'
Oh, pish posh, that could never happen.
A pretty good exchange between John Stossel and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. starting at about 4:55 in this video.
By the way, RFK Jr.'s voice sounds like Catherine Hepburn _OR_ like he's trying to hold in a hit from a joint (Mouse can confirm).
Speaking of Kennedy...should an environmentalist ski?
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. wrote a column that the Capital Times in Wisconsin published. It began: “I was water-skiing with my children in a light drizzle off Hyannis, Mass., last month when a sudden, fierce storm plunged us into a melee of towering waves, raking rain, painful hail and midday darkness broken by blinding flashes of lightning.”
Then he went on to declare that a sudden thunderstorm in the summer along the coast of Massachusetts is a new phenomenon that proves global warming.
Seriously.
The man is that stupid.
He wrote: “Those odd climatological phenomena led me to reflect on the rapidly changing weather patterns that are altering the way we live.”
He goes on and on.
His purpose is not to promote environmentalist but to bash Republican Sarah Palin as a pawn of Exxon, even though she raised taxes on Big Oil to the point where Alaska eliminated its state gas tax and gave everyone a rebate of $1,200.
But back to my question, if the planet is in such poor shape that the carbon dioxide from my next exhalation will cause storms off the coast of Hyannis in the summer, why is RFK Jr. out there burning up fossil fuel for sport?
The column is here.
Is our sun the proverbial 'Elephant in the livingroom'.... you don't say....
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has a medical condition of his vocal cords. I don't recall what it is called. It used to be on the wiki link about him, but my scan of it missed it, or it was edited out.
I haven't lisened to Air America for a few weeks now, but I used to hear him regularly on his show "Ring of Fire". I have a hard time listening though with that wierd voice.
Instead of Faux News try Science news:
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/gene...e_clues_in_ice
Even if scientists never find ice more than 800,000 years old, the new findings confirm that Earth’s atmosphere today is unusual, Brook says. “Modern levels of greenhouse gases have no natural analogue in the ice record,” he notes.
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feat...Feverish_World
The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been climbing to where today it is 30 percent greater than 650,000 years ago. That rise in carbon dioxide “is essentially entirely due to the burning of fuels,” Susan Solomon says. She’s a senior scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, in Boulder, Colo., and studies factors that affect climate.
Go and do a little reading for yourself. The jury is not out, and the question is not whether or not the earth has cycles. The issue is whether human activity is having an impact on the cycles and there is general consensus among scientists that is the case.
wake me up when they discover a carbon footprint.
This has always been my personal view on the matter, but it is difficult for me to believe that you can burn a crap load of material, cut down a crap load of trees, and pave over a crap load of land without it having any affect on the climate.
New York City (and most urban areas) are 1-2 degrees warmer than the surrounding areas. So obviously human activity does do something to the planet.
However, as I have said many times, this entire "Debate" is just something to waste your breath on. No matter what you view is, we are going to cut down every tree, burn every drop of oil, make every species extinct, and pave over every square inch of land eventually. If an affluent country DOES somehow implement a way to preserve these things, then poorer countries are going to do them for you and get rich from it.
Humanity is on its course and nothing our opinions say can change it. Our laws mean nothing to china and rural africa. They will use every last resource they have, and then when they run out, import it from those who have it left.
So yeah, the whole "debate" is moot. The real debate are the economic impacts of laws that are passed in relation to these things. That is what most people argue but just dont say they argue it.
Yes, these heat islands do have an effect on the area. However, these areas affected are very small compared to the size of the earth. There is no doubt, a small effect. The question is how much is the global effect. I would say it's insignificant. However, it does effect the monitoring stations used to measure temperatures!
There are problems with this assessment. Primarily that CO2 and other gas levels really aren't accurate in deep ice cores. The actual CO2 levels are likely higher because of out gassing when the samples are released from the pressures of the deep. I think they attempt to compensate for this effect, but they just make educated guesses in that regard. Their mathematical model, like others, puts their perception of what should be into the equation.
Yes, according to the data if we trust it. It is still important to note that in the past, CO2 levels follow temperature. Not temperature following CO2. Then if you look at long term data, we also see there is no long term average increase in global temperature once the CO2 reaches about 265 ppm.
True, but the alarmists claim far more than possible for the human equation. Consider this article, and one graph from it:
I didn't read the article in full yet. I copied and saved it in Word. Anyway, three experts different opinions of the doubling of CO2 from before the industrial revolution. The highest of the three values is still less than the IPCC estimates of 1.5 to 4.5 C. I see the lowest of the three to be an accurate representation for several reasons. First of all, the greenhouse effect is about 33 C and the CO2 aspect of it is maybe 12% from my studies. That's really hard to pinpoint though because it changed with humidity and la ude. You see values as high as 36% and as low as 9% or lower. I think if you look around, but that is where it is already really cold with almost no greenhouse warming in the polar regions. It is so cold that water vapor is less prevalent making CO2 a higher part of the little warming effect that exists. The shift of the black-body radiation makes the spectra different too. You cannot simply take the 9% and average with the 36% for 22.5% because of the total heat values differing at each la ude. That's why I settle for 12%, but I will agree to as much as 16%. According to the clear sky lower graph, the CO2 effect is about 15.7%. I think putting in average clouds gives us about the 12% number I like, but there are experts out there that say it's only 10% too!
According to the lower graph, it starts at about 5.2 C for the CO2 effect at pre industrial levels and about 5.8 C for today. That 0.6 C is about what scientists claim our warming effect is today, but these are clear sky charts. There is always a large amount of cloud cover someplace. The alarmists like to mix facts together and use linear calculations rather than logarithmic to instill fear, then they completely leave out the sun's aspect of warming.
I threw this chart in to show the varying measured solar intensity by satellites. It changes about 3 watts from an average just below 1367 watts. Notice that the lows in the 90's was about 0.3 watts higher than the lows in the 80's Mathematically:
Global average in Kelvin: 288
Global average with no solar radiation: 55 K
Solar Warming in K: 233
3 watts is 0.22% (change between high and low average)
0.3 watts is 0.022% (change in 80's low to change in 90's low)
0.22% of 233 is 0.51 K, warming potential from low to high solar radiation. Change in K is equal to change in Celsius)
0.022% of 233 is 0.05 Celsius. This is a measurable change from the 80's to the 90's, and can be attributed to changes in solar activity.
Here is another graph, and it's from NASA, on irradiance from the sun:
There is a clear 1.5 watt average increase from 1900 and earlier to 1950 to present. That is a clear 0.11% increase, or 0.26 C increase just provable from 1900 to 1950 in global warming by the solar intensity. The alarmists like to take a low point to a high point rather than a rolling average to claim global warming is higher than it is too.
I will automatically dismiss any claims from alarmists that do not recognize solar forcing properly. Any reputable scientist cannot dismiss the effects of the output of our sun.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 04-16-2009 at 10:20 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
