Man Made Global Warming Accepted As Fact

[Alaska Darin]

Hats off to all the people getting paid to declare their total knowledge about the whys for and the causes of global warming. People have to feed their families.

 

Now...basic science types like myself believe in things like "control groups"...I'm not a highly paid phD who chicken littles governments and foundations into mega grants, but there is a control group, it's called Mars, and here you go.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sola...w_011206-1.html

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars...age_031208.html

 

The atmosphere on Mars is a thin layer of CO2, completely dissimilar to Earth's atmosphere, and is not capable of trapping any heat. Greenhouse gas theories about earth global warming have everything to do with the trapping of heat. So if Martian surface temperature is rising, it is because of direct solar radiation, without the ricochet effect of bouncing of the surface and being trapped by the atmosphere.

 

It is generally agreed that solar radiation is measurable higher today than it was 30 years ago. How does that effect global temperatures? Nobody knows. It is generally agreed that solar sunspot activity is higher today, and recently, than it has been in previous generations.

 

The thing about the sun is we can't control it, and for that reason, I think researchers are loathe to nominate the sun as the prime culprit for global warming. Because if it is, there is *nothing* we can do about it. That and the money.

 

-Woolley

Thank you very much.

[RuntheDamnBall]

Hats off to all the people getting paid to declare their total knowledge about the whys for and the causes of global warming. People have to feed their families.

 

Now...basic science types like myself believe in things like "control groups"...I'm not a highly paid phD who chicken littles governments and foundations into mega grants, but there is a control group, it's called Mars, and here you go.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sola...w_011206-1.html

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars...age_031208.html

 

The atmosphere on Mars is a thin layer of CO2, completely dissimilar to Earth's atmosphere, and is not capable of trapping any heat. Greenhouse gas theories about earth global warming have everything to do with the trapping of heat. So if Martian surface temperature is rising, it is because of direct solar radiation, without the ricochet effect of bouncing of the surface and being trapped by the atmosphere.

 

It is generally agreed that solar radiation is measurable higher today than it was 30 years ago. How does that effect global temperatures? Nobody knows. It is generally agreed that solar sunspot activity is higher today, and recently, than it has been in previous generations.

 

The thing about the sun is we can't control it, and for that reason, I think researchers are loathe to nominate the sun as the prime culprit for global warming. Because if it is, there is *nothing* we can do about it. That and the money.

 

-Woolley

I appreciate the honest insight and scientific perspective, but doesn't it rate as possible that it could be both: that there is natural change that we can do nothing about, and also that we are affecting it and we're in the midst of major, man-made change? To me, even if all you've said is true, this still doesn't absolve us of the responsiblity of not ruining the planet. You and I may disagree with the science behind global warming, but I think it's hard to argue that we're not doing immeasurable damage and creating dangerously large and fast changes in the environment. Perhaps we don't see it as readily here, but it's quite evident in countries like India and China.

[/dev/null]

It is generally agreed that solar radiation is measurable higher today than it was 30 years ago.

 

Which opens the door for someone to blame solar radiation on Reagan

[chicot]

Hats off to all the people getting paid to declare their total knowledge about the whys for and the causes of global warming. People have to feed their families.

 

Now...basic science types like myself believe in things like "control groups"...I'm not a highly paid phD who chicken littles governments and foundations into mega grants, but there is a control group, it's called Mars, and here you go.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sola...w_011206-1.html

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars...age_031208.html

 

The atmosphere on Mars is a thin layer of CO2, completely dissimilar to Earth's atmosphere, and is not capable of trapping any heat. Greenhouse gas theories about earth global warming have everything to do with the trapping of heat. So if Martian surface temperature is rising, it is because of direct solar radiation, without the ricochet effect of bouncing of the surface and being trapped by the atmosphere.

 

It is generally agreed that solar radiation is measurable higher today than it was 30 years ago. How does that effect global temperatures? Nobody knows. It is generally agreed that solar sunspot activity is higher today, and recently, than it has been in previous generations.

 

The thing about the sun is we can't control it, and for that reason, I think researchers are loathe to nominate the sun as the prime culprit for global warming. Because if it is, there is *nothing* we can do about it. That and the money.

 

-Woolley

 

I have an alternative "control group" for you - it's called Venus, and it's a damn sight closer to the earth in terms of mass, size and composition than Mars is. The conditions on Venus are pretty much accepted to be the result of a runaway greenhouse effect and they're not exactly pleasant.

[erynthered]

Another Jew hater, great.

[bobblehead]

The atmosphere on Mars is a thin layer of CO2, completely dissimilar to Earth's atmosphere,

 

I'm sorry, I'm just another hack douchebag on the internet and not a 'science type', but how does this make Mars a good "control group" when atmosphere is the main problem with Earth?

 

I admit I don't know squat about solar radiation(nor care to), but I get that it's rising, that's not exactly a shocker, right? I would think that is 'common knowledge', too. I mean, If someone like me has heard that before, then it has to be out there, right?

 

Well, anywhoo, Isn't the rational point of all this is that man is not helping the situation by polluting the planet?

[RuntheDamnBall]

Another Jew hater, great.

[molson_golden2002]

I appreciate the honest insight and scientific perspective, but doesn't it rate as possible that it could be both: that there is natural change that we can do nothing about, and also that we are affecting it and we're in the midst of major, man-made change? To me, even if all you've said is true, this still doesn't absolve us of the responsiblity of not ruining the planet. You and I may disagree with the science behind global warming, but I think it's hard to argue that we're not doing immeasurable damage and creating dangerously large and fast changes in the environment. Perhaps we don't see it as readily here, but it's quite evident in countries like India and China.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977

 

here is another article on Mars and warming which argues the sun is a factor but man is having a bigger factor.

[woolley]

I appreciate the honest insight and scientific perspective, but doesn't it rate as possible that it could be both: that there is natural change that we can do nothing about, and also that we are affecting it and we're in the midst of major, man-made change?

 

That's my opinion. I'm not saying that so-called greenhouse gases aren't causing global warming, and I think it reasonable, rational, and yes even scientifically-valid to nominate it as a cause.

 

I don't know what percentage any one thing is to blame for the totality of the problem. I don't know how much of temperature fluctuation is cyclical. I don't know if cow farts are as guilty as auto emissions. Nobody knows. I'm just advocating skepticism, and am buggered by people preaching a gospel of fear and demonizing various individuals and making a fortune while doing it. Hell, if they're right I guess it's good to get the money while we still can.

 

To me, even if all you've said is true, this still doesn't absolve us of the responsiblity of not ruining the planet. You and I may disagree with the science behind global warming, but I think it's hard to argue that we're not doing immeasurable damage and creating dangerously large and fast changes in the environment. Perhaps we don't see it as readily here, but it's quite evident in countries like India and China.

 

Good points, I didn't mean to come off as a environment hating oaf. Big ups to clean air and clean water.

 

-Woolley

[woolley]

I have an alternative "control group" for you - it's called Venus, and it's a damn sight closer to the earth in terms of mass, size and composition than Mars is. The conditions on Venus are pretty much accepted to be the result of a runaway greenhouse effect and they're not exactly pleasant.

 

Venus's essential atmospheric problem is an almost total absence of water vapor, and it's inability to recycle carbon. I have yet to hear a single scientist proclaim that these are two issues we should be worrying about.

 

http://filer.case.edu/~sjr16/venus.html

 

No, we certainly don't want to achieve the atmospheric dynamic and composition of Venus (they don't have an ozone layer), but I don't think we're ever going to have that problem, at least not for millions of years.

 

Is it a good idea to be responsible when it comes to gas emissions? Absolutely. I can appreciate that with out scare tactics and apocayptic prophecies. No difference between that and Christian apocalytics who keep telling Christ is just a few years away from returning.

 

-Elliot

[RuntheDamnBall]

That's my opinion. I'm not saying that so-called greenhouse gases aren't causing global warming, and I think it reasonable, rational, and yes even scientifically-valid to nominate it as a cause.

 

I don't know what percentage any one thing is to blame for the totality of the problem. I don't know how much of temperature fluctuation is cyclical. I don't know if cow farts are as guilty as auto emissions. Nobody knows. I'm just advocating skepticism, and am buggered by people preaching a gospel of fear and demonizing various individuals and making a fortune while doing it. Hell, if they're right I guess it's good to get the money while we still can.

Good points, I didn't mean to come off as a environment hating oaf. Big ups to clean air and clean water.

 

-Woolley

Again, thanks for a thoughtful response.

[DC Tom]

Venus's essential atmospheric problem is an almost total absence of water vapor, and it's inability to recycle carbon. I have yet to hear a single scientist proclaim that these are two issues we should be worrying about.

 

That, and the small fact that it's CO2 content is measured in percent (95%, roughly), and not parts per million. And that little issue that the surface pressure is about 100 times what it is on Earth. But other than that, it's a perfect analogue.

 

Is it a good idea to be responsible when it comes to gas emissions? Absolutely. I can appreciate that with out scare tactics and apocayptic prophecies. No difference between that and Christian apocalytics who keep telling Christ is just a few years away from returning.

 

It's simply common sense to not dump your garbage in your backyard. Problem is, too few people think of the planet as a whole as their backyard.

[woolley]

I'm sorry, I'm just another hack douchebag on the internet and not a 'science type', but how does this make Mars a good "control group" when atmosphere is the main problem with Earth?

 

No, the atmosphere is *not* a problem with Earth. It is the reason there is life on our planet! That and a thousand other things. No atmosphere, no earth.

 

If heat radiation is a constant, then measurable heat increases would be reasonably blamed on a failure of heat, bouncing off the surface, returning into space. If less heat is radiated by the earth back into space, it is sensible that the atmosphere would be keeping more heat within its confines (again, assuming constant heat radiation from the sun).

 

Mars doesn't have the atmosphere issue. If the surface temp on Mars is rising...the question is why? Not the atmosphere. Increased solar heat radiation? Sure, and solar scientists say that this increase in heat radiation is measureable and real. They call it slight, and we don't know what a slight increase in solar radiation will mean in real temperature increase on planets. But that's as reasonable a cause for global warming as any, I think.

 

The variable, then, is not solar heat radiation, because that is constant...the Earth and Mars each receives it, relative to distance from the sun. The variable is the atmosphere, and the lack thereof makes Mars the control group, which is defined by the essential difference between the two groups being compared. That's the whole point, that makes Mars a control group in this particular thought exercise. You limit the variable to as few as possible...in this case, one.

 

I admit I don't know squat about solar radiation(nor care to), but I get that it's rising, that's not exactly a shocker, right? I would think that is 'common knowledge', too. I mean, If someone like me has heard that before, then it has to be out there, right?

Have you ever heard a scientist on TV/radio/newspaper demanding millions or billions of dollars, UN global initiatives to send probes into space to get to the bottom of what the real effects of fluctuating sun activity would have on global temperature? Go to the source...what's more reasonable than that? And why the hell should we assume that the sun is a constant...when we know that it isn't? I think it's analagous to studying asteroids that may hit the Earth. Not comfortable to think about, but let's get to this stuff.

 

It's simpler, I think, to say that we are to blame for everything that changes on the planet, in spite of the fact that if there's one reality in the life of the universe it is *constant* change.

 

And even global warming is temporary, we're all going to be a degree above absolute zero eventually. Enjoy it while we can.

 

Well, anywhoo, Isn't the rational point of all this is that man is not helping the situation by polluting the planet?

 

I don't know how much man is affecting the situation, and I'm also against pollution.

 

Maybe we should figure out ways to *cool* global temperatures in a real way. You never know when that may come in handy. I think such efforts would be futile, but at least it's thinking about action and how to solve problems, instead of more mathematical models and doom and gloom scenarios which never go past speculation and are just goalposts to be moved as time passes. I remember reading Erlich's Population Bomb. I think...15 years after he wrote the book he wrote an article responding to criticism...he admitted to lots of absolute wrong statements, but the point of his article that he wasn't actually wrong, he was just wrong in his timeframes, things would just take a lot longer to happen. It's Malthusian thinking, and I don't see how it's productive. Let's *do* stuff and cut out the *in thirty years we're DOOOOOOOOOMED* crap.

 

-Woolley

[woolley]

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977

 

here is another article on Mars and warming which argues the sun is a factor but man is having a bigger factor.

 

Maybe. I don't know. I don't know how anybody really knows.

 

The heartland.org article is quite good. I think the "several reasons for global warming" is the way to go, the one guy says that there just isn't enough to proclaim one cause for the primary reason, and some other guy says that years from now we may be saying thank God for global warming.

 

For decades, the fear was the next Ice Age. Many geologists think of time as the span between Ice Ages. When's the next magnetic pole reversal due? -Woolley

[chicot]

That, and the small fact that it's CO2 content is measured in percent (95%, roughly), and not parts per million. And that little issue that the surface pressure is about 100 times what it is on Earth. But other than that, it's a perfect analogue.

It's simply common sense to not dumb your garbage in your backyard. Problem is, too few people think of the planet as a whole as their backyard.

 

Venus is not a great comparison, but then neither is Mars (which was given as the original "control group"). There are so many other differences between our two nearest neighbours and the Earth that I don't think you can really draw many conclusions about the Earth from comparisons with either.

[Alaska Darin]

Venus is not a great comparison, but then neither is Mars (which was given as the original "control group"). There are so many other differences between our two nearest neighbours and the Earth that I don't think you can really draw many conclusions about the Earth from comparisons with either.

For what he was explaining, his use of Mars fits. Your doesn't. In ANY way.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Is it a good idea to be responsible when it comes to gas emissions? Absolutely. I can appreciate that with out scare tactics and apocayptic prophecies. No difference between that and Christian apocalytics who keep telling Christ is just a few years away from returning.

 

-Elliot

 

You're my new hero. I wish we had an applause smiley.

 

The same people that are global-warming freaks also rail on GMO, nano, AI, and other technologies.

 

There's a name for such people. Luddites.