|
|
| Re: Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes (327097) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > OTChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Jun 13 19:56:34 2008, in response to Re: Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes, posted by JPC on Fri Jun 13 16:36:49 2008. The scientific claims made here are junk, absolute junkYou mean carbon dioxide does not affect increases in global temperatures? Absolutely right. Ambient global temperature is more dependent on water vapor concentration. during human history the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased enormously, from about 250 ppm before civilization to 380 ppm today. That's a significant difference It's not significant nor enormous (consider the lack of difference between 2.5 × 10–4 and 3.8 × 10–4), and it's certainly not a fact—it's an estimate, and a poor one at that, never mind thoroughly unscientific. Global temperatures today are somewhat higher (0.5-1 degree C) than they were in previous centuries (while the range of natural variation in temperature is significantly larger than this change, the rate at which this change has occurred, i.e. number of degrees shift per year) is alarming). Nobody disputes this fact, either You're mis-stating the facts. The estimate is that average global temperatures have risen by that infinitesimal amount over about two centuries' time. And nobody was able to measure global temperatures until the 20th century, unless you're relying on Ye Olde Imperialle Sattellyte launched during the Elizabethan era? Remember the old adage, "All measurements are wrong"—for NIST compliance, you have to live by that maxim. Now, the author is correct to point out that there is a difference between a correlation and a direct causation between the above two FACTS, he also makes it sound as if connecting the two were some great mystery, as if Al Gore just pulled two random facts out of his ass and said they were related. This is absolutely not the case. Simply put, there are a number of gases (the most important of which in the earth's case are water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane) which are largely transparent to the visible light received from the sun but less so to the infrared rays which are emitted back into space by the earth. It doesn't take an Einstein to realize that it is entirely plausible that an increase in atmospheric concentration of any of these gases makes it more difficult for the earth to radiate received solar energy back into space Ridiculous. The "warming" is not failure to reflect radiated heat back into space (which is mostly due to the magnetic field, more so than cloud cover—imagine how fast we'd heat up if all the charged particles the sun emits were to reach the surface of the planet). Besides, there is no warming. (Remember, clouds have the effect of reflecting heat radiated from the earth's surface back down to the earth.) Again: carbon dioxide is not a significant "greenhouse gas" at all. Do you think the heat effect of a real greenhouse is due to carbon dioxide, which the many plants in there inhale to exhale oxygen? No! It's due to water vapor—that's the only significant gas, not that it has caused any so-called "global warming" or the unrelated "climate change". Al Gore didn't pull anything out of his (posterior). He cited the same false arguments promoted by the EU via the UN. most of the models currently indicate that at least some of the currently observed temperature increase is due to manmade factors They do no such thing. Putting labels on graphs do not make certain claims true. The problem is NOT that nobody understands this mechanism, or that any serious scientist doubts that it occurs. It does; the planet Venus is living (or nonliving) proof of this Um, what? Are you claiming that there was a civilization of carbon-based sentient beings on Venus that destroyed the planet due to increasing carbon dioxide output? because that's the only way that Venus will be proof of such an assertion. Long story short, even the most skeptical point of view is essentially this: ''We just don't know. There are too many variables to sort out. Maybe carbon emissions significantly affect our climate, perhaps they do not. There is a very plausible mechanism by which they can, although our data is not good enough to accurately determine whether it does or not.'' Please cite this quote. And frankly, that is not the view of so-called skeptics. That is grounds, at the very least, for great caution. Even if we don't go the most radical extremes to curb carbon emissions, it should certainly give us great pause, and at least try to prevent future growth in emissions, and try to reasonably roll back emissions while researching alternatives. Imagine getting in your car, putting the key in the ignition, and then thinking that you may or may not have secured the seatbelt on the car seat for your baby. Nobody in their right mind would drive off and think, ''Well, I probably secured the seat, so it's okay for me to drive off.'' You would stop whatever you're doing, and make sure the baby is safely secured. That's what any sane person would do Your last two paragraphs have no relation to the subject matter whatsoever. It's mere equivocation. Someone needs to read this and stop listening to EU propaganda, I think. The EU is pushing this so they can get their "carbon trading" scam going. Look deeper into that. |
|
|
|