Isn't science great?

POSTED BY: Khyron
UPDATED: Monday, March 9, 2009 04:27
VIEWED: 11561
PAGE 8 of 8

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

JASONZZZ

Monday, March 19, 2007 7:44 AM

hmmm... so you mean indisputable as in the pre-Galileo (well, as mostly how history has written it to be anyways) geocentric view? I am not sure what that is. These are just categories and definitions, they aren't exactly facts. I mean, if you tell me that indisputable fact on the atomic weight of hydrogen - that would be pretty solid grounds for indisputable fact - very much arguably so... Even greenhouse gases don't simply behave in just one way as you describe it. Atmospheric science is very complex - we do not know all of the behaviors in the atmostphere, of the ones that we do know, we don't know how everything interplays & how everything behaves, we don't know how the reaction chains drives each other, and we don't know to what extend they play the most important role.

Greenhouse gases don't "trap heat", they insulate and adds additional resistance in the heat re-radiation; makes no difference in a passing layman's explanation, but it makes a difference conceptually in understanding how these processes work. The heat doesn't simply accumulate ad-infinitem, we'd all be cooked to a crisp and Earth would have turned into Venus by now if it were so.

CO2 levels - seems there are a lot more, more people in the world with ever increasing demand for absolutely new "Ikea" furnitures and burning more fossil fuels - we are leveling more forests. It never ends, but where would we get if we couple that together with Peak Oil? maybe it will self stablize (I won't count on it). But the thing is, the remainder of these "facts" really depend on the false belief and supposedly forgone conclusion that CO2 is the principal cause and the most major contributor to any indication of increased heat accumulation within the atmosphere *and* more importantly, that reducing CO2 level will reduce this said increased heat accumulation - neither has been shown.

More to the point, the models on these are still being worked on (not refined) and argued over (in the scientific sense) on what/which components have the more prevalent effect in insulating heat.

Couple of things that are getting worked on that are interesting are water vapor, even higher concentrations in the atmosphere than CO2 and higher insulating factor, but water vapors captured in clouds also play a role in reflecting sun light and radiation back out. The models are not quite there in getting just these 2 factors worked out yet - amongst the other unknown factors that they play.

There are other things too, are the current issues being caused by the highest concentration components or are there other smaller/lesser components playing a bigger role and kicking off a cascading set of effects - not knowing this will throw us off on a completely wrong track on reducing the wrong components and just not seeing the reduction work.

Then there the problem with the assumption that these trending are assuming linear behavior in the heat insulating/"absorption" levels. Pretty sure that it doesn't extrapolate in a linear sense, but there's a disconnect between the climate modelers and the programmers - must be, because it's not a problem being looked at.

Prudence is absolutely the wisest choice if it's pretty much free and you don't have to divert much attention or resources away from other things *and* that you are pretty sure that it won't cause another stupid human-engineered cascading set of irrepairable damages - which is what our entire premise on fixing the CO2 problem to begin with.

I am not advocating that we sit and do nothing. I am not even advocating that the human engineered problem doesn't exist - but the scientist don't have a good understanding of what is going on and how to fix it - the models all absolutely rubbish in doing what they are suppose to do (sure it's the best we've got, but it ain't no where near usable in predicting the kind of thing where we want to point the entire planet in one direction to fix things). Give me some good data and show me that it is going to shit and that doing this and this will have some real measura

RUE

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 5:57 PM

"These are just categories and definitions, they aren't exactly facts. Even greenhouse gases don't simply behave in just one way as you describe it."
Yes they do. If you take a cell containing CO2 and try to pass broad-spectrum IR through it, certain wavelengths will be absorbed. It's an indisputable fact. Here is the link to the IR (heat) absorption spectrum of CO2. http://science.widener.edu/svb/ftir/ir_co2.html
Now, you may argue about secondary effects and feedback, but greenhouse gases do indeed indisputably absorb IR (heat). They then reradiate that heat at a different IR wavelength, and eventually that heat might find a wavelength window to radiate out into space, but it will be at a new atmospheric heat content equilibrium.

"The heat doesn't simply accumulate ad-infinitum, we'd all be cooked to a crisp and Earth would have turned into Venus by now if it were so."
And indeed that is the scenario some scientists have drawn, assuming no negative feedback loops exist.

"water vapors captured in clouds also play a role in reflecting sun light and radiation back out"
Upper level clouds of a certain droplet size and density block sunlight. That's why Pinatubo - which ejected tonnes of sulfur oxides into the stratosphere - had a slight cooling effect for a couple of years. But all clouds don't act that way. Lower level clouds of small droplet size trap heat instead.

"the false belief and supposedly forgone conclusion that CO2 is the principal cause and the most major contributor to any indication of increased heat accumulation"
Atmospheric CO2 does indisputably absorb heat AND its level has indisputably gone up 19.4% since 1959. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-mlo.htm CO2 does therefore play a major role in greenhouse gas effects.

" the scientist don't have a good understanding of what is going on"
They estimate a 90% probability.

HOLLISGREEN

Sunday, March 8, 2009 5:22 PM

wow!

ASARIAN

Sunday, March 8, 2009 5:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by piratenews:
So Einstein (the homosexual plagerist) was wrong, ...

You're losing the high ground here, sweet-cakes. Oh wait, I think you never had it to begin with.

--
"Mei-mei, everything I have is right here." -- Simon Tam

ASARIAN

Sunday, March 8, 2009 5:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by piratenews:
Einstein was a non-Semitic Jewish deadbeat dad, a liar and plagerist who liked it up the tailpipe at Jewish Bohemian Grove, whose thefts helped genocide 200,000 Christians in Japan. That's history.

Shouldn't you be out on a ledge somewhere?

As for your delusions, this is paranoid schizophrenia. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, though, thinkin' you just weren't burdened with an overabundance of schooling. You're a stitch, though, in that you give a whole fresh meaning to the term "moon-brained." :)

--
"Mei-mei, everything I have is right here." -- Simon Tam

ASARIAN

Sunday, March 8, 2009 5:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Piratenews,

I'm still waiting for you to admit that your lightspeed/frequency shift/kodak argument is craptastically wrong.

You know, the one where all visible light that reaches the moon is upshifted into becoming invisible light.

And thus would be invisible to the human eye, as well. :) So, that makes two dark sides of the Moon.

--
"Mei-mei, everything I have is right here." -- Simon Tam

CITIZEN

Sunday, March 8, 2009 6:48 PM

Hmm, Necroposting.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

ASARIAN

Sunday, March 8, 2009 6:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Hmm, Necroposting.

LOL, you're right. :) Didn't even realize it.

--
"Mei-mei, everything I have is right here." -- Simon Tam

DREAMTROVE

Monday, March 9, 2009 4:27 AM

Necroposting, nice word. I do it intentionally sometimes, but only to resurrect interesting topics.

The fake moonlanding topic is dumb.

Here's the failproof logic: The Soviets could see every little dot of us in space, and would have totally called us out on a fake moonlanding. I've watched the videos, and I suspect that there is one shred of truth to the fake moonlanding story:

One of the videos, a color video of a dramatic US flag planting has all the markings of a staged photo op. Odd that no one was bothered by all the other transmissions being in B/W, correct me if I'm wrong, but the problems come from the flag, which harks back to an ealier fraudulent photo op.

The planting of the flag on Iwo Jima. The picture is actually of men planting a flag atop Iwo Jima, but when the reporters arrived to take the picture, the soldiers first had to take the American Flag down, and then plant it again, for the picture.

If you want to find American fraud, look for patriotism, and then don't look very far from it. Sinking of the Maine, 9-11, etc.

The flag planting video itself I'm more skeptical of. It was a televised event, and the communications technology was very sketchy. My guess, worst case, nothing was working right at the time, and the studio had probably considered the possibility, already filmed a mock up, and played it instead.

So, the moon landing, it had to be real, or the USSR would have known, and though the US might have silenced their analysis, we would've been the laughing stock of the world. This was such a big risk that no one would have ever attempted it. Imagine the field day China might have with us today if we presented a deflector shield, and faked a test of it. Everyone wants a missile defense system right now, just like they wanted a spaceship then, but no one knows how to build one. We can shoot missiles at missiles, but that's only a % chance. Russia is probably way ahead of us at this, even N. Ireland is doing well. Our last system that was battle tested came out with 1% efficiency. Assume we're doing much better today, we still have no deflector shield, and there would be no way to fake it without being mocked internationally.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8