By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - They myth that is man made global warming.

TheRealMafoo said:
Squilliam said:

From what I understand I would have to say you're wrong here. The sheer quantity of thermal energy held in water is massive compared to the atmosphere above it. There simply isn't enough energy for the storm to be powered from the atmosphere or the sun.

We don't know for sure that it does not contribute. Several years back the northern east coast of the US and Canada lost power. Millions of people.

The reason was a massive solar flair hit the earth at that time, and the ground could not absorb enough energy, so it went into the lines and overloaded the system.

If you had asked a scientist before that happened if it was possible, almost all of them would have said no.

This is just a small example of why I hate this legislation. We know far less then we think we know. Trying to change the world on something as unproven as man made global warming is just crazy.

We don't know for sure that the solar flare that you spoke off did do that, as it could have just been a power outage by a power company and they blamed soemthing else. Solar Flares are huge and for it to strike just the small region of NE america seems odd.

But in the case of tropical storms, Squilliam is right, there is a good reason why they usually storm when they hit land, the sea and the energy contained within it, is not longer powering it.

 

I can see you are against this legislation but I can't work out if you are generally against making this world a better place? Whether or not you believe man's influence on climate change is real, surely any change to reduce pollution around the world (or at least in one of the most polluting countries of the world) is something that is only good, wether or not it changes anything.



Hmm, pie.

Around the Network

Wow. We're arguing if the solar flare knocked out the electrical equipment, all the while promoting climate change legislation? Way to get it backward.

It was documented that the solar flare killed the electrical system. We know that flares can do that. The flare knocked out THOUSANDS of square kilometers of Canada's electrical grid. It was in a remote area. If it had hit....The eastern US seaboard, there would have been ~50,000,000 without power. Fortunately, we got very lucky.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Oh, if your wondering what solar flares are capable of:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11456-solar-superflare-shredded-earths-ozone.html


The largest solar flare in the last 500 years may have shredded Earth's ozone layer to a greater extent than human-made chemicals have in recent decades, new research suggests, but the effect was only temporary. If such a flare occurred today, it would likely be even more damaging to the ozone and could increase the rate of skin cancer around the world.

On 1 September 1859, the Sun expelled huge quantities of high-energy protons in a 'superflare'. The event was seen on Earth by an observer who noticed a white spot on the Sun suddenly brighten for about five minutes.

When the magnetic storm struck Earth, fires started in telegraph stations due to electrical arcing in the telegraph wires. The northern lights, or aurorae borealis, were reportedly seen as far south as Florida in the US.

This flare released 6.5 times more energy than the largest solar flare of the satellite era, which occurred in 1989. That flare was strong enough to cause a power blackout in Quebec, Canada.

Now, scientists have calculated the ozone depletion from the 1859 solar flare for the first time by studying chemical deposits in Greenland ice cores.
Acid rain

The deposits were laid down after the flare set off a series of reactions in Earth's atmosphere. For roughly two days after the flare, high-energy protons entered the atmosphere through the polar regions, channelled there by the planet's magnetic field lines.

The protons ionised nitrogen and oxygen molecules in the atmosphere, which then formed nitrogen oxides. The nitrogen oxides in turn reacted with ozone - a molecule made up of three oxygen atoms, breaking it into oxygen molecules and atomic oxygen.

This breakdown caused global atmospheric ozone levels to drop by 5%. In comparison, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and other chemicals have depleted the levels by about 3% in recent years, says team member Adrian Melott, a physicist at the University of Kansas in Lawrence, US.

However, unlike CFCs and other ozone-depleting chemicals, which can persist in the atmosphere for some time, the flare-induced ozone thinning probably lasted for just four years, the researchers report. That is because the nitrogen oxides that cause the depletion eventually rain down with water or ice. Indeed, it was this acid rain that was eventually recorded in the ice cores.
Skin cancer

If such a superflare occurred today, it would likely have an even greater effect on the atmosphere, since the ozone layer is already depleted due to CFCs and other human-made chemicals.

"It certainly wouldn't be helped any," says team leader Brian Thomas, an atmospheric modeller at Washburn University in Topeka, Kansas, US.

Since the ozone layer normally blocks some of the Sun's dangerous ultraviolet radiation, a superflare would probably mean an increase in skin cancer due to the higher levels of UV light reaching the ground. The magnetic storm could also fry the electronics on many satellites and cause power outages on Earth.
Radiation sickness

Previously, another team used the ice core data to calculate that the radiation from a flare like the one in 1859 could cause acute radiation sickness - or even death - in astronauts shielded by the hull of an average spacecraft (see Superflares could kill unprotected astronauts).

The researchers say their work could have implications for hunting for life on other planets, since other Sun-like stars have been shown to have superflares. "It could be bad for critters that live there," Thomas told New Scientist.

It is not clear what causes the superflares on those stars. But if a planet larger than Jupiter is circling close to the star and causing the star's magnetic field to get twisted up, the resulting tension could be released in a massive solar flare (see Crisis, what crisis?).

Journal reference: Geophysical Research Letters (doi: 10.1029/2006GL029174, 2007)



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Avinash_Tyagi said:
TheRealMafoo said:

Glad to see that what I have been saying for years is now going mainstream.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html

 


Wall Street Journal is mainstream...yeah right...its a right wing rag

This really is true, and I hate it because the Wall Street Journal used to be a badass source of information.  It didn't change much when Rupert Murdoch bought it, at least as first, but within a few years it became so blatantly conservative that I no longer even read it.  It presents extremely conservative ideas as if they are mainstream on all kinds of fronts.  And I like a good editorial, but the people who write their editorials are ridiculously far to the right.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

elprincipe said:
Final-Fan said:
^ That's interesting stuff. The Arctic ice is shrinking while the Antarctic ice is increasing (and seems to be much more volatile).

As for hurricanes, I thought the problem was that they were fewer in number, but they ones that we got were more damaging. It's better to have lots of weak ones than several monsters, right?

The ice is fascinating to watch.  It should tell you that you're not getting the full picture if you consider that, as all the media was hyping the "lowest-ever" ice extent for the Arctic in 2007 (remember, this has only been measured accurately since 1979), you saw no articles even mention that the Antarctic ice extent was the highest ever recorded that very same year.  The Arctic ice last year increased 9% and the Antarctic ice decreased slightly from its record high.  But again, we have been measuring these things for such a short period of time it's extemely difficult to draw meaningful conclusions.  Thirty years is nothing at all on a geologic time scale, not even a blink.

I'm not as familiar with hurricanes other than the raw numbers.  There has been more damage in recent years from them, but remember that more people are living on the coasts now so there is more and more to destroy.  Hurricanes are highly variable in terms of numbers and intensity, so it's also something where it's very difficult to derive a pattern.  I've heard that ocean current patterns cause a 20- or 30-year cycle for hurricanes.  Also heard that global warming would increase their intensity.  However, 3,000 buoys launched in 2003 have shown a decrease in ocean heat content, so I'm having a hard time seeing how this fits into that theory:

It would depend on where the buoys were, I should think.  3,000 sounds like a lot, but for the whole damn world ocean?  Not so much, as Jon would say.  Also it would depend on where the heat is (hurricanes aren't globally random). 



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

Around the Network

lol global warming.....

I can't believe people are still following Al Gore these days.



mrstickball said:
Oh, if your wondering what solar flares are capable of:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11456-solar-superflare-shredded-earths-ozone.html

I am sure if that happened again, Al Gore would find a way to blame SUV's



Final-Fan said:
elprincipe said:
Final-Fan said:
^ That's interesting stuff. The Arctic ice is shrinking while the Antarctic ice is increasing (and seems to be much more volatile).

As for hurricanes, I thought the problem was that they were fewer in number, but they ones that we got were more damaging. It's better to have lots of weak ones than several monsters, right?

The ice is fascinating to watch.  It should tell you that you're not getting the full picture if you consider that, as all the media was hyping the "lowest-ever" ice extent for the Arctic in 2007 (remember, this has only been measured accurately since 1979), you saw no articles even mention that the Antarctic ice extent was the highest ever recorded that very same year.  The Arctic ice last year increased 9% and the Antarctic ice decreased slightly from its record high.  But again, we have been measuring these things for such a short period of time it's extemely difficult to draw meaningful conclusions.  Thirty years is nothing at all on a geologic time scale, not even a blink.

I'm not as familiar with hurricanes other than the raw numbers.  There has been more damage in recent years from them, but remember that more people are living on the coasts now so there is more and more to destroy.  Hurricanes are highly variable in terms of numbers and intensity, so it's also something where it's very difficult to derive a pattern.  I've heard that ocean current patterns cause a 20- or 30-year cycle for hurricanes.  Also heard that global warming would increase their intensity.  However, 3,000 buoys launched in 2003 have shown a decrease in ocean heat content, so I'm having a hard time seeing how this fits into that theory:

It would depend on where the buoys were, I should think.  3,000 sounds like a lot, but for the whole damn world ocean?  Not so much, as Jon would say.  Also it would depend on where the heat is (hurricanes aren't globally random). 

So let me see if I got this right. 3000 buoys were released into the ocean and show a cooling, but you disagree with those finding why?

If I had to guess, it's because you don't like that answer.

If those 3000 buoys showed the oceans were warming, you would call it indispensable evidence. Funny how that works.



The Fury said:
 

I can see you are against this legislation but I can't work out if you are generally against making this world a better place? Whether or not you believe man's influence on climate change is real, surely any change to reduce pollution around the world (or at least in one of the most polluting countries of the world) is something that is only good, wether or not it changes anything.

Except we are not talking about pollution, we are talking about carbon dioxide.  You know, the stuff you breathe out, the stuff plants use for food?  That fact is not going to change no matter how many times Obama prattles on in an unbelievably ignorant or disingenuous manner about "dangerous carbon emissions" (that's a direct quote).  Did you know it's been estimated that our crop yields are 17% greater due to increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere?  Fascinating, no?  Ever wonder why they pump concentrated CO2 into greenhouses?

Also, what you write about "what harm could it do to reduce CO2 emissions?" is something many people mistakenly fall for.  The answer is "a lot of harm will be done."  Why?  How many people do you think die from cold or no A/C around the world in a year?  How many would die when electricity is twice as expensive, do you think?  How many people can't afford food now?  How many won't be able to afford food when the price doubles because the energy it takes to produce the food and transport it is twice as expensive?  Believe it, people will DIE if we do things like Waxman-Markey.  And they won't be that Wall Street investment banker that just got a $100,000 bonus because the government bailed out his company so it's still in business, it'll be the poor person who can't afford heating, medicine and food on a meager paycheck in future winters.



In Memoriam RVW Jr.

SSBB Friend Code = 5455-9050-8670 (PM me if you add so I can add you!) 

Tetris Party Friend Code = 116129046416 (ditto)

TheRealMafoo said:
Final-Fan said:
elprincipe said:
Final-Fan said:
^ That's interesting stuff. The Arctic ice is shrinking while the Antarctic ice is increasing (and seems to be much more volatile).

As for hurricanes, I thought the problem was that they were fewer in number, but they ones that we got were more damaging. It's better to have lots of weak ones than several monsters, right?

The ice is fascinating to watch.  It should tell you that you're not getting the full picture if you consider that, as all the media was hyping the "lowest-ever" ice extent for the Arctic in 2007 (remember, this has only been measured accurately since 1979), you saw no articles even mention that the Antarctic ice extent was the highest ever recorded that very same year.  The Arctic ice last year increased 9% and the Antarctic ice decreased slightly from its record high.  But again, we have been measuring these things for such a short period of time it's extemely difficult to draw meaningful conclusions.  Thirty years is nothing at all on a geologic time scale, not even a blink.

I'm not as familiar with hurricanes other than the raw numbers.  There has been more damage in recent years from them, but remember that more people are living on the coasts now so there is more and more to destroy.  Hurricanes are highly variable in terms of numbers and intensity, so it's also something where it's very difficult to derive a pattern.  I've heard that ocean current patterns cause a 20- or 30-year cycle for hurricanes.  Also heard that global warming would increase their intensity.  However, 3,000 buoys launched in 2003 have shown a decrease in ocean heat content, so I'm having a hard time seeing how this fits into that theory:

It would depend on where the buoys were, I should think.  3,000 sounds like a lot, but for the whole damn world ocean?  Not so much, as Jon would say.  Also it would depend on where the heat is (hurricanes aren't globally random). 

So let me see if I got this right. 3000 buoys were released into the ocean and show a cooling, but you disagree with those finding why?

If I had to guess, it's because you don't like that answer.

If those 3000 buoys showed the oceans were warming, you would call it indispensable evidence. Funny how that works.

I'm disappointed, Mafoo.  He practically asked me for a reason to question those findings, which I produced.  Then you ask me why I would question it right after I said why.  You're not even trying.  Have a bad day? 

If they said it was warming, I would still wonder how representative the buoy spread was.  Like I said, 3000 sounds like a lot until you remember how incredibly huge the oceans are. 



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom!