|
MAN MADE* Global warming is a hoax. (pg. 9)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| gehzumteufel |
| quote: | Originally posted by _Nut_
Nonsense! Ang will be one of the hot Teachers that all of the boys will drool over.
Then we will read about her in the newspaper for sleeping with the students.:toothless |
lol but you cant get in trouble for that since the students will be legal! so no worries. ;) |
|
|
| _Nut_ |
| quote: | Originally posted by tubularbills
maybe i should go back to school then afterall, yes? :toothless |
My fantasy. You can have sloppy seconds. (or fourths after I'm done):stongue: |
|
|
| gehzumteufel |
| quote: | Originally posted by tubularbills
i think the biggest problem is that people see the weatherman on TV get a forecast wrong [even if its by like 2 F or something] and all of a sudden trust is gone.
out of all the professionals in the world out there, i think the meteorologist gets the most amount of crap [although i think relgion is a close 2nd, maybe] because of the TV weathermen.
so people think that some joe schmoe can biff up a forecast, that they can just weather.com or something and make their own forecast and all of a sudden, "BAM! I KNOW WEATHER!" |
so true. |
|
|
| BTG |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Solar irradiance, the amount of solar energy striking Earth, has been monitored accurately only since the late 1970s. However, indirect measures of solar activity suggest that there has been a positive trend of solar irradiance over the industrial era, providing a forcing estimated at about 0.3 W/m2. Numerous possible indirect forcings associated with solar variability have been suggested. However, only one of these, ozone changes induced by solar ultraviolet irradiance variations, has convincing observational support. Some studies have estimated this indirect effect to enhance the direct solar forcing by 0.1 W/m2, but this value remains highly uncertain. Although the net solar forcing appears small in comparison with the sum of all greenhouse gases, it is perhaps more appropriate to compare the solar forcing with the net anthropogenic forcing. Solar forcing is very uncertain, but almost certainly much smaller than the greenhouse gas forcing. It is not implausible that solar irradiance has been a significant driver of climate during part of the industrial era, as suggested by several modeling studies. However, solar forcing has been measured to be very small since 1980, and greenhouse gas forcing has certainly been much larger in the past two decades.
|
thank you for the educational post. i agree that calling clovis a fag was uncessessary and discrediting, but he was using caps.
still don't know much about solar this and that, but what i get from that still doesn't explain everything about the suns radiation levels.
cause if climate goes up and the suns radiation levels go up double in 100 years, and we've been on a steady incline of temperature increase for 100 years. it would seem that there's more investigation to be done on it, instead of just assuming its man made gasses, which from what I understand contribute less than 10% of CO2 in the air. |
|
|
| Ang ' ela_ie |
| quote: | Originally posted by BTG
it would seem that there's more investigation to be done on it, instead of just assuming its man made gasses, which from what I understand contribute less than 10% of CO2 in the air. |
Very small amounts have very large impacts. Thats the physical relationship I was talking about. Just because its there in relatively small quantities doesnt mean it doesnt have an effect. It does. You can do it yourself in experiments. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by BTG
thank you for the educational post. i agree that calling clovis a fag was uncessessary and discrediting, but he was using caps.
still don't know much about solar this and that, but what i get from that still doesn't explain everything about the suns radiation levels.
cause if climate goes up and the suns radiation levels go up double in 100 years, and we've been on a steady incline of temperature increase for 100 years. it would seem that there's more investigation to be done on it, instead of just assuming its man made gasses, which from what I understand contribute less than 10% of CO2 in the air. |
I didn't read the whole thing, but through skimming the entire text of the National Academy report, they do talk at some more length about solar irradiation and its effects on the environment. I think you're right in saying that it does have an impact on climate change. However, that report concludes that the natural impact is minimal in comparison with the effect of greenhouse gases, and that man-made causes are responsible for the majority of warming. And there is no denying that since the industrial revolution, much more carbon in the air is the product of man-made gasses. While it may not be the entirety of gases in the air, the increase has been enough to throw off natural equilibrium.
I'm glad you brought up the solar irradiance aspect though, because I had to do some homework before I could respond. It's an argument that seems to have merited some discussion, but I think science is starting to believe it is more of a supplement to warming and not a direct cause. |
|
|
| BTG |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ang ' ela_ie
Very small amounts have very large impacts. Thats the physical relationship I was talking about. Just because its there in relatively small quantities doesnt mean it doesnt have an effect. It does. You can do it yourself in experiments. |
but the earth is always undergoing climate change. how does the fact that its gone up .1% mean the end of the world when in 1974 everyone was afraid of global cooling? |
|
|
| _Nut_ |
| quote: | Originally posted by BTG
but the earth is always undergoing climate change. how does the fact that its gone up .1% mean the end of the world when in 1974 everyone was afraid of global cooling? |
Science as a whole has made vast improvements/advancements in remote sensing, modeling and found out much more though vigorous research.
That was over 30 years ago. Much more is known now than was back then. |
|
|
| BTG |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
I'm glad you brought up the solar irradiance aspect though, because I had to do some homework before I could respond. It's an argument that seems to have merited some discussion, but I think science is starting to believe it is more of a supplement to warming and not a direct cause. |
from what I know, if it was infact greenhouse gases, wouldn't the the first lair of atmosphere *what ever its called* have to be getting warmer? becasue the only thing getting warmer is earths surface. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by BTG
from what I know, if it was infact greenhouse gases, wouldn't the the first lair of atmosphere *what ever its called* have to be getting warmer? becasue the only thing getting warmer is earths surface. |
Explanation:
The 0 degrees Celsius mark is the tropospheric average as calculated by model. As you can see, as time goes on, tropospheric temperatures are significantly above average, whereas before 1974 or so, they were significantly below.
Source:
http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/msusci.html
This table is also interesting:
http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2 |
|
|
| Ang ' ela_ie |
| quote: | Originally posted by BTG
but the earth is always undergoing climate change. how does the fact that its gone up .1% mean the end of the world when in 1974 everyone was afraid of global cooling? |
Global cooling did result from the industrial revolution as well. Before the Clean Air Act there was a lot of sulfur being pumped into the air, and sulfur contributes to cooling because it *reflects* radiation back into space. Both global warming and global cooling would be big problems. We have solved one by eliminating sulfur from industry. Now we're working on the second. |
|
|
| BTG |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ang ' ela_ie
We have solved one by eliminating sulfur from industry. Now we're working on the second. |
why dont we solve both by creating an equal amount of pollution that would make everything sustainable?
black guy:that graph is correct? |
|
|
|
|
