| Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
..
10 |
DaliDali
Super Nomad
Posts: 1132
Registered: 4-21-2010
Location: BCS
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by rts551
| Quote: | Originally posted by DaliDali
Wouldn't it make sense if the air temps were rising (global warming) due to increased and more intense sunshine as claimed, that there would be more
evaporation of the sea water?
Enough to mitigate any ice cap melting that is reported to be the culprit in rising sea levels?
More sunshine and higher temps.....higher rates of evaporation?
More evaporation leads to more moisture in the air and more rainfall as a result? Which ends up in the sea either by way of runoff and directly
falling into the sea.
(and I am not even a white robed Bunsen burner geek)
In the end, I believe Mother Nature will figure it all out and make any corrections as need be.....all without any transfer of wealth to poorer
countries or Al's LearJet
It's been that way since Adam and Eve stalked the forbidden fruit....when it comes to warmth, cold, rainfall or any other atmospheric
phenomena.....Mother Nature rules the world.
Death and taxes is a constant......the rest is shear speculation based on models and driven by the almight buck. |
I don't think Adam and Eve were given a car or provided with electricity. They did not have aerosol cans, nor did they spill a lot of oil in the
ocean. Mother nature might not be happy with what we are doing to her! |
But your reading comprehension is not well it seems.
Re-read it and tell me where it says Adam and Eve were using hair spray please.
Point being, is that over time, the scars humans leave on earth are renewed without "mandating" the immense amount of wealth to be transferred to
other continents as the UN wishes.
To wit:.....forests renew, radiation dissipates, gasses dissipate, fisheries come back, sands shift and replenish, reefs recede and renew, lakes rise
and fall, rivers overflow and recede, it rains buckets or none at all..snow pack is deep in some years...others skiers are crying....all natural
forces of nature.
This earth might have a finite life....I don't know, but if the UN is in charge of making the call, count me out.
|
|
|
Skipjack Joe
Elite Nomad
Posts: 8084
Registered: 7-12-2004
Location: Bahia Asuncion
Member Is Offline
|
|
Hair grows and recedes. I'm with you Dali. You da man.
|
|
|
DaliDali
Super Nomad
Posts: 1132
Registered: 4-21-2010
Location: BCS
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by mtgoat666
A c-cktail party debate about climate change is best way to gage a person's basic reasoning abilities in STEM. The denialists stick out like a sore
thumb, when they ramble on about scientists lieing and Al Gore flying in a private jet and fleecing the populace,... get them to discuss something
scientific and non-climate related, the conversation will leave you shocked at how far the decline of western civilization has progressed.
p.s. you don't want to trust any of the denialists to be your MD, dentist, engineer, etc. Watch out for the loopy ones! Their poor reasoning skills
pervade all aspects of their being! |
Your the LAST person I would ever believe on ANYTHING. Period.
You have shown over and over again to be an extremist radical who thrives on discontent and breeding hostilities.
Kindly keep your posterior OFF these general discussion pages and stay on the other side where you belong!!
|
|
|
DaliDali
Super Nomad
Posts: 1132
Registered: 4-21-2010
Location: BCS
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
Hair grows and recedes. I'm with you Dali. You da man. |
Ha....no global calamity where I am.....I have a full head of the stuff.
|
|
|
Pompano
Elite Nomad
Posts: 8194
Registered: 11-14-2004
Location: Bay of Conception and Up North
Member Is Offline
Mood: Optimistic
|
|
In those immortal words of that renowned consultant and 'idea man', J. Colossal McGenius who, aided by none other than his most efficient
secretary, Miss Pennypacker....
"We each have our own SPECIAL causes."
I do what the voices in my tackle box tell me.
|
|
|
rts551
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6699
Registered: 9-5-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by DaliDali
| Quote: | Originally posted by rts551
| Quote: | Originally posted by DaliDali
Wouldn't it make sense if the air temps were rising (global warming) due to increased and more intense sunshine as claimed, that there would be more
evaporation of the sea water?
Enough to mitigate any ice cap melting that is reported to be the culprit in rising sea levels?
More sunshine and higher temps.....higher rates of evaporation?
More evaporation leads to more moisture in the air and more rainfall as a result? Which ends up in the sea either by way of runoff and directly
falling into the sea.
(and I am not even a white robed Bunsen burner geek)
In the end, I believe Mother Nature will figure it all out and make any corrections as need be.....all without any transfer of wealth to poorer
countries or Al's LearJet
It's been that way since Adam and Eve stalked the forbidden fruit....when it comes to warmth, cold, rainfall or any other atmospheric
phenomena.....Mother Nature rules the world.
Death and taxes is a constant......the rest is shear speculation based on models and driven by the almight buck. |
I don't think Adam and Eve were given a car or provided with electricity. They did not have aerosol cans, nor did they spill a lot of oil in the
ocean. Mother nature might not be happy with what we are doing to her! |
But your reading comprehension is not well it seems.
Re-read it and tell me where it says Adam and Eve were using hair spray please.
Point being, is that over time, the scars humans leave on earth are renewed without "mandating" the immense amount of wealth to be transferred to
other continents as the UN wishes.
To wit:.....forests renew, radiation dissipates, gasses dissipate, fisheries come back, sands shift and replenish, reefs recede and renew, lakes rise
and fall, rivers overflow and recede, it rains buckets or none at all..snow pack is deep in some years...others skiers are crying....all natural
forces of nature.
This earth might have a finite life....I don't know, but if the UN is in charge of making the call, count me out. |
Oh well. guess we will disagree. I don't think any rain forests will be returning soon. And as I look at some of the air now in SOCAL I think we
can do something about it (ughh I lived in Riverside and LA in the mid-late 60's)....but I am with you on one thing, I don't think the answer is to
just throw money at it.
|
|
|
Skipjack Joe
Elite Nomad
Posts: 8084
Registered: 7-12-2004
Location: Bahia Asuncion
Member Is Offline
|
|
The elections
Well, I guess now we can put it to rest. There is no global warming.
|
|
|
BajaGringo
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3922
Registered: 8-24-2006
Location: La Chorera
Member Is Offline
Mood: Let's have a BBQ!
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
Well, I guess now we can put it to rest. There is no global warming.
|
If it truly were only that simple...
|
|
|
MitchMan
Super Nomad
Posts: 1856
Registered: 3-9-2009
Member Is Offline
|
|
BajaGringo, glad to see that you brought your avatar back. Love that photo. Don't know if that is you or not, but the photo reflects the fun
Baja/Jimmy Buffet-type spirit to me.
A really key and pivotal point was made by Pompano:
“When trying to understand the world, we should consider theories. Really, it's the facts that matter; and if the facts change, our theories should
too.”
With that in mind, I have to ask the deniers a question or two.
But first, you all know about the basics of thermodynamics that all of us were taught in high school, don't you? You know, matter is neither created
nor destroyed, etc.? Right? One of the tenets is that there is a direct 1 to 1 relationship between stuff (matter) and energy. It is what Einstein
talked about and is reflected in E=MC2. One of the things it means is that stuff (matter) can be converted to energy and vice versa. And, that there
is only so much stuff and only so much energy because, well, it is neither created nor destroyed.
OK, this is where I am going with this. To you deniers, when petroleum products are converted to heat energy, where does that heat energy go? I
mean, since we humans have been burning fuels that were essentially room temperature before being burned and thereby providing heat that didn't exist
before such burning; where did it go? And, what do you think is the cumulative affect today?
I mean, do you deny that burning a room temperature fuel creates more heat than existed before such burning?
|
|
|
larryC
Super Nomad
Posts: 1493
Registered: 8-11-2008
Location: BoLA
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by MitchMan
BajaGringo, glad to see that you brought your avatar back. Love that photo. Don't know if that is you or not, but the photo reflects the fun
Baja/Jimmy Buffet-type spirit to me.
A really key and pivotal point was made by Pompano:
“When trying to understand the world, we should consider theories. Really, it's the facts that matter; and if the facts change, our theories should
too.”
With that in mind, I have to ask the deniers a question or two.
But first, you all know about the basics of thermodynamics that all of us were taught in high school, don't you? You know, matter is neither created
nor destroyed, etc.? Right? One of the tenets is that there is a direct 1 to 1 relationship between stuff (matter) and energy. It is what Einstein
talked about and is reflected in E=MC2. One of the things it means is that stuff (matter) can be converted to energy and vice versa. And, that there
is only so much stuff and only so much energy because, well, it is neither created nor destroyed.
OK, this is where I am going with this. To you deniers, when petroleum products are converted to heat energy, where does that heat energy go? I
mean, since we humans have been burning fuels that were essentially room temperature before being burned and thereby providing heat that didn't exist
before such burning; where did it go? And, what do you think is the cumulative affect today?
I mean, do you deny that burning a room temperature fuel creates more heat than existed before such burning? |
Just to be sure I understand what you are try to say. are you proposing that as we burn fossil fuels and anything else for that matter, the heat
produced stays here and that is what is responsible for global warming?
Larry
Off grid, 12-190 watt evergreen solar panels on solar trackers, 2-3648 stacked Outback inverters, 610ah LiFePo4 48v battery bank, FM 60 and MX60
Outback charge controllers, X-240 Outback transformer for 240v from inverters, 6500 watt Kubota diesel generator.
|
|
|
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4411
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
Mitch,
You are making a good point but need to follow through. The earth is constantly producing matter from energy, and energy from matter, there is a
proven cycle of creation of coal/oil, turned into energy and returned to coal/oil. Oil is both biotic and abiotic, it is found in both rocks and in
organic matter and is constantly produced in a cyclical nature. The earth and it's atmosphere is a living thing. Plants and animals have a homeostatic
co-exstence that support each other. There is not a set amount of oil, coal that once turned into heat or energy are never to return to oil/coal. As
you have seen, there are oil wells which may become dry and later replenish and provide oil again, oil is constantly being discovered and
rediscovered. Today it understood that Hubbert's Peak oil theory is a myth and is reflected by lower prices due to high reserves and increased
efficiency.
You drive your truck and burn oil, the truck outputs CO2 and other elements. Plants and algaes use the CO2, trees grow, the atmosphere recycles CO2.
Animals eat the vegetables and fruits and use the trees and produce CO2 which feeds the cycle of life in flux, at times there is undergrowth or
overgrowth of plants and animals. Carbon is the key to life not a pollutant, nor static.
Images of walrus on southern beaches are a sign of high population. Certainly waste and pollution should be managed, industrial waste, military waste
and proliferation of weapons, depleted uranium, nuclear waste, over production of fishing resources, heavy poisons in agriculture, and certainly
genetic modification of organisms, non organic food products, and geo engineering are something to be aware of and manage more closely.
Keep in mind the earth is tiny compared to the sun which is the greatest source of energy for the earth, the sun is more than 1 million times larger
than the earth. The slightest change in sun spots are a huge influence on the earths eco-system, the earth has little if any exhibited effect on the
sun and the solar system.
To understand global climate cycles, consider looking at Solar Cycles affect on Co2, temperature and glaciation.
Maunder Minimum
Milankovitch Cycles
|
|
|
woody with a view
PITA Nomad
Posts: 15939
Registered: 11-8-2004
Location: Looking at the Coronado Islands
Member Is Offline
Mood: Everchangin'
|
|
doesn't heat rise? when it reaches a certain altitude, what does it do then?
equilibrium, my friend!
|
|
|
Skipjack Joe
Elite Nomad
Posts: 8084
Registered: 7-12-2004
Location: Bahia Asuncion
Member Is Offline
|
|
Al Gore had it right when he called it an inconvenient truth. If it had been an convenient truth there would be acceptance and no further discussion.
We would all make money from this new discovery and go home with our pockets full.
Unfortunately truth has no heart. It makes no difference what impact it has on our lives. Facts are .... well, just facts. Information. You cab spin
them, twist them, ignore them, deny them, hate them, repudiate them. They just remain unaffected.
That's what's great about our universe. It's consistent. Reliable. Psychology plays no role.
|
|
|
MitchMan
Super Nomad
Posts: 1856
Registered: 3-9-2009
Member Is Offline
|
|
If I was proposing something, I would have done just that.
What I am doing is ASKING DENIERS how they handle certain facts that I believe are absolutely fundamental/pivotal to the question of climate
change/global warming.
What do you think has happened to/with all that heat since inception of burning fossil fuels to now and is there a cumulative affect at this time?
|
|
|
MitchMan
Super Nomad
Posts: 1856
Registered: 3-9-2009
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Pompano
I feel the cooling affects from all the wings fleeing from Obama. |
I feel the heat of more economy-destroying inequitable lopsided disparity of wealth and income, more un-American voter restriction, and more disregard
for women's reproductive rights on its way to our country from the hot air of the incoming Senate majority.
|
|
|
woody with a view
PITA Nomad
Posts: 15939
Registered: 11-8-2004
Location: Looking at the Coronado Islands
Member Is Offline
Mood: Everchangin'
|
|
break out the sunscreen!
|
|
|
MitchMan
Super Nomad
Posts: 1856
Registered: 3-9-2009
Member Is Offline
|
|
Good point, gnukid, but the question is also quantitative. While the earth is a living thing and while the earth is constantly producing matter from
energy, and energy from matter, and coal/oil, turned into energy and returned to coal/oil, the question is at what differing rates? Are these rates
in balance at all times and in the long run? Are they in balance now? What is the short term affect of a rate imbalance?
It seems to me that since there is an acceleration of global temperatures, that would signal an imbalance and a vector going in a certain direction
instead. I, in no way, believe for a minute that the earth's eco system is capable at all times and under all circumstances will and can always
remain in balance. I think there are limits...quantitative limits.
Even septic tanks need to be emptied from time to time.
|
|
|
larryC
Super Nomad
Posts: 1493
Registered: 8-11-2008
Location: BoLA
Member Is Offline
|
|
One of the best presentations about global warming that I have seen is the last episode of "Cosmos, a space time odyssey" an 8 or 9 part tv series. In
the last episode Neil deGrasse Tyson lays out the evidence and explains in laymans terms the causes and future effects of global warming. Worth
watching.
Larry
Off grid, 12-190 watt evergreen solar panels on solar trackers, 2-3648 stacked Outback inverters, 610ah LiFePo4 48v battery bank, FM 60 and MX60
Outback charge controllers, X-240 Outback transformer for 240v from inverters, 6500 watt Kubota diesel generator.
|
|
|
wessongroup
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21152
Registered: 8-9-2009
Location: Mission Viejo
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suicide Hot line ... please hold
|
|
Mother Nature is a serial killer … with out compassion for living and non living things
And Mitch ... spot on
There is a big difference
In the "case" of the "Greenhouse Effect" ... there are TWO concepts in discussion at the same time: Quantitive research and Qualitative research
Additionally this concern, isn't new ... "The existence of the greenhouse effect was argued for by Joseph Fourier in 1824"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
Qualitative
"Qualitative research is a method of inquiry employed in many different academic disciplines, traditionally in the social sciences, but also in market
research and further contexts.[1] Qualitative researchers aim to gather an in-depth understanding of human behavior and the reasons that govern such
behavior. The qualitative method investigates the why and how of decision making,what, where, when. Hence, smaller but focused samples are more often
used than large samples."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualitative_research
Quantitive
"In natural sciences and social sciences such as sociology, economics, anthropology, psychology and others, quantitative research is the systematic
empirical investigation of observable phenomena via statistical, mathematical or numerical data or computational techniques.[1]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_research
There is a difference, and each must be separated to discuss each as individual and separate entities of "data" in order to draw fact based
conclusions on which a prudent courses of action can be adopted
[Edited on 11-5-2014 by wessongroup]
|
|
|
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4411
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
It's quite an offense to call people with differing yet valid thoughts deniers. This tactic is among many faulty methods used by promoters of
anthropogenic warming. One should not rely on name calling as a method to theorize, in fact skepticism is a trait of science, to discount skepticism
is to discount science.
Keep in mind, throughout this topic, the great proponents, Gore, Mann, etc... have profited greatly while embellishing.
Over 17 years now the global temperature is stable, yet that is hardly the point.
Focus on the great polluter=military industrial war machine.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
..
10 |
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
