Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all.
Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage") |
|
Post Reply 
|
Page <1 45678 9> |
| Author | ||||
Kid-A 
Forum Senior Member 
Joined: October 02 2005 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 613 |
 Posted: June 19 2007 at 16:43 |
|||
|
^Erm, hell yes I need more.
I hate people linking loads of internet links and acting like that is fact, there is a lot of sh*t on the internet, it is not regulated. And half of those articles are 10 years old, or at least based on things from 3-4 years ago. So yeah I'm not totally convinced by your quick google search
 . And most news sites I do not trust anyway, I do not know their partiality, and something based on 50 scientists claims to the US government in the top link have to be viewed with some scepticism. 2000 gloabal scientists agreed it was rapidly increased by humans.It would be nice if you keep that patronizing 'above it all' attitude to yourself.
|
||||
|
||||
 |
||||
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005 Location: Philly Status: Offline Points: 15784 |
Posted: June 19 2007 at 16:59 |
|||
|
^ I suppose your posting no evidence besides your immaculate word was sufficient for me to believe your claim? Your not trusting the sites is not relevent here. They have nothing to do with it. They are quoting scientists. I don't see how your approval of the site would have any bearing on the validity of independent scientists' claims. Since I'm going to assume you're not a member of the scientific community, you can't claim to know anything personally about the mentioned scientist, so you have no grounds to not believe them. 2000 scientist agreeing does not mean there's not a widespread disagreement, nor is scientific agreement truth, but nonetheless there is no agreement here.
My above it all attitude only comes out when people exhibit that attitude themselves and attack me. I'm not going to bother posting more links for you if you're just going to dismiss them arbitrarily. If anyone else would like more I'd be happy to post plenty. Edited by Equality 7-2521 - June 19 2007 at 17:02 |
||||
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
||||
|
||||
|
Kid-A
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 02 2005 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 613 |
Posted: June 19 2007 at 17:18 |
|||
|
Lets talk about scientists working for the US government. What affect would going 'green' have on the US economy? Huge. Would scientists working for the US government twist data try and twist data to try and make it seem like there is not a problem? I wouldn't bet against it, especially seeing as what they say seems to contradict what is said by many scientists across the world. I'm not just going to take any findings they find as a given fact. Otherwise both ends of this argument would be a given fact, global warming both wouldn't be due to humans, and would be due to humans. But that's not possible is it?
And things have moved on a lot since 10 years ago haven't they? A lot of research has been done into this topic as it is such a highly charged political issue. So 10 year old sources are really useless in this.
But OK, if you're willing to just take things at face value because 'you don't know the scientists personally' (what difference does that make anyway?) here are some links for you, just from the BBC web site.
But look there's argument going the other way too.
Oh, that 2000 scientists thing was on the news a few months ago, can't be bothered to find a link.
Look I found links of findings made by scientists!
Well some of them must be wrong, so we can ANALYSE THE SOURCE. And don't criticise people for not accepting sources you find on the internet at face value.  . I saw something on the internet once saying the difference between a whale and a dolphin is no whales have teeth .Edited by Kid-A - June 19 2007 at 17:28 |
||||
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006 Location: USA Status: Offline Points: 1191 |
Posted: June 19 2007 at 20:24 |
|||
|
||||
|
||||
|
rileydog22
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 24 2005 Location: New Jersey Status: Offline Points: 8844 |
Posted: June 19 2007 at 20:43 |
|||
Do we have hundreds of thousands of years of data? How the hell does anybody know what longterm trends are? About the hurricane issue, we've had accurate hurricane data for all of about 40 years; before satalites, nobody had any clue how many hurricanes there were at sea, so that data is utterly irrelevant. "Hurricanes have doubled in the last 30 years!" people shout. Well, how was the trend in the previous 30 years? What about the 30 years before that? Nobody knows. How the hell can you say that we are experiencing an unatural increase in hurricanes when nobody knows what a NATURAL change is? |
||||
  |
||||
|
||||
|
Kid-A
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 02 2005 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 613 |
Posted: June 20 2007 at 07:41 |
|||
|
^I don't know about hundreds of thousands, but certainly we do have data for tens of thousands of years from ice sheets in Greenland.
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
StyLaZyn
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 22 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 4079 |
Posted: June 20 2007 at 08:18 |
|||
I agree wholeheartedly with that logic. The existence of smog is an indicator showing that ability of the atmosphere to trap and not readily release emissions on a very small (comparitively) scale. Imagine the effects globally. Edited by StyLaZyn - June 20 2007 at 12:03 |
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
bhikkhu
Special Collaborator 
Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 06 2006 Location: AČ Michigan Status: Offline Points: 5109 |
Posted: June 20 2007 at 11:29 |
|||
|
What amazes me is the fervor to disprove global warming statistics. Isn't it a good thing that more people care about the environment now?
|
||||
|
||||
|
StyLaZyn
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 22 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 4079 |
Posted: June 20 2007 at 12:06 |
|||
Disproving global warming tends to have a conservative bend to it. Nothing like politicking science.
It is a very good thing the awareness is moving towards preservation of our children and our children's children. Unfortunately, when it stands in the way of profit, it becomes the enemy of industry and all those who have a vested interest in industry.
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
rileydog22
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 24 2005 Location: New Jersey Status: Offline Points: 8844 |
Posted: June 20 2007 at 17:29 |
|||
|
I'm not conservative at all. I just get really, really annoyed (to say the least!) when I see people present something as fact when there is no conclusive data either way.
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005 Location: NE Indiana Status: Offline Points: 28057 |
Posted: June 20 2007 at 17:42 |
|||
|
Equality:
there are ample amounts of scientists that support both sides of the issue. To look at the issue and deny that global warming could absolutely not be caused by the burning of fossil fuels displays ignorance of the nature of the issue. People know the earth is warming but I don't think anyone knows exactly why. |
||||
|
||||
|
rileydog22
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 24 2005 Location: New Jersey Status: Offline Points: 8844 |
Posted: June 20 2007 at 17:51 |
|||
|
The Earth's temperature is cyclic. If we happened to be going into an ice age right now, everybody would be freaking out that fossil fuels were causing Global Cooling.
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005 Location: Philly Status: Offline Points: 15784 |
Posted: June 21 2007 at 11:02 |
|||
And it's equally ignorant to look at the issue and deny that humans could have no effect on climate change. However, I have never stated either of those opinions; I've only said that there's no scientific consensus so we cannot try to pass one side off as fact.
|
||||
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
||||
|
||||
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005 Location: Philly Status: Offline Points: 15784 |
Posted: June 21 2007 at 11:03 |
|||
What does that have to do with those emissions trapping heat?
|
||||
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
||||
|
||||
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005 Location: Philly Status: Offline Points: 15784 |
Posted: June 21 2007 at 11:11 |
|||
|
||||
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
||||
|
||||
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005 Location: Philly Status: Offline Points: 15784 |
Posted: June 21 2007 at 11:15 |
|||
What have you done above except prove there's arguement on both sides? Which is my entire arguement.
Also, there's a remarkable difference between providing random internet sources for you and respectable news agencies I have done.
You're not analyzing the source. You're making judgement because you don't trust the messanger bringing your the data from the source. If you had reasonable speculations about the scientists or instituion's credentials doing the research I can understand, but since you know nothing about them I don't see how you can make an objection.
|
||||
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
||||
|
||||
|
darksinger
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 29 2006 Location: Durham, NC Status: Offline Points: 1091 |
Posted: June 21 2007 at 11:29 |
|||
|
when the rest of the world can make burgers in 3000 different ways that will drive other nations to want them served in their borders, then we will stop ruling the world. until then, just enjoy your big mac before i tell bush to lay the smackdown on ya...
Edited by darksinger - June 21 2007 at 11:29 |
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
StyLaZyn
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 22 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 4079 |
Posted: June 21 2007 at 11:43 |
|||
If I understand correctly, CO2 emissions trap heat like a blanket covering the earth. CO2 emissions are more prevalent than smog. Use smog as a better visual for the behavoir of CO2. It takes quite a while for the smog to disperse but it can because it travels from higher concentration to lesser concentration. CO2 behaves similarly. The global concentration rises because it has no place to further dilute. Like people urinating in the drinking water resevoir, at first, the toxicity is minimal, but over time becomes hazardous.
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005 Location: Philly Status: Offline Points: 15784 |
Posted: June 21 2007 at 11:51 |
|||
|
^
"Water vapour was responsible for 95 per cent of the greenhouse effect, an effect which was vital to keep the world warm, he explained.
"If we didn't have the greenhouse effect the planet would be at minus 18 deg C but because we do have the greenhouse effect it is plus 15 deg C, all the time." The other greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, and various others including CFCs, contributed only five per cent of the effect, carbon dioxide being by far the greatest contributor at 3.6 per cent. However, carbon dioxide as a result of man's activities was only 3.2 per cent of that, hence only 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gases in total. Human-related methane, nitrogen dioxide and CFCs etc made similarly minuscule contributions to the effect: 0.066, 0.047 and 0.046 per cent respectively. " -http://www.stuff.co.nz/timaruherald/4064691a6571.html |
||||
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
||||
|
||||
|
StyLaZyn
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 22 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 4079 |
Posted: June 21 2007 at 12:19 |
|||
OK, I'm no meterologist, and have no idea who this Augie guy is, but I found this interesting when I googled his name.
Let us look at the situation a bit more carefully: It is true that by comparison of quantity there is a hell of a lot more water vapour in the atmosphere than CO2. Water vapour is a perfect absorber of infrared radiation and thus the main contributor to the so called 'greenhouse' effect. So far Augie is right. And he is also right, that the Earth would be covered in ice, if it was not for the warming blanket of that water vapour. However Augie omits to say this: Water vapour is not absorbing (shielding against radiation heat loss) in the entire infrared spectrum. In fact there are, thankfully, a few relatively clear 'open windows' in the absorption spectrum of water vapour because of the physical properties of the water molecule. If it was not for these 'windows' in the absorption spectrum of water vapour, our earth would find it more difficult to radiate heat away to space. And radiating in the infrared spectrum, a bit like the glow from your hot potbelly stove in winter, is the only way that Earth can loose thermal energy to space! If these remaining open windows in the infrared spectrum between the various bands in which water vapour absorbs were not there, then Earth would a much warmer place, and probably not very conducive to the current forms of life. |
||||
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1 45678 9> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Is the USA a big bully these days?
Topic Options
Equality 7-2521 wrote: