Global "Warning"

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Someone please explain to me -- if man causes global warming, how come Mars is experiencing global warming as well?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...s-warming.html

While this may very well be true, I don't think the sun is the main cause of Earth's global warming. Mars may be going through a slight climate change, but Mars is cold, dry and dead. The average surface temperature is below -50C, and often times it can get down below -150C. The atmosphere on Mars is mainly carbon dioxide and is less than 1% as thick as Earth's. Two different planets with two different weather and climate patterns. As I said in an earlier post, and let me add, with the atmosphere being as thick as it is on Earth, I believe the waste matter from the fossil fuels used to power new machinery and create electricity helped trap heat in Earth's atmosphere, which adds to global warming. Also in regards to the southern polar cap on Mars melting, this can't happen with a Martian temperature and thin atmosphere. It's surface would have to be warmed in order for this to happen.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by ISUKappa

I honestly don't think corn-based ethanol is the answer, and I live in the Midwest and have felt the direct benefit of the current ethanol boom. It is a highly inefficient way to create ethanol and the toll it takes on the natural resources (especially the water table) isn't worth it, IMO. We'd be better off focusing on switchgrass or other forms of cellulose.

I never said it was the answer. I just said it was an alternative. Plus we wouldn't be able to survive on corn based ethanol alone, because even if we were to convert the entire U.S. corn crop to fuel, it would only offset about 10% of America's gasoline consumption, which is why I also mentioned hydrogen power as another alternative. This we have PLENTY of.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by bluefish81

I agree. I think that there has to be a better resource available besides corn-based ethanol, perhaps one that our society isn't so dependent upon for a food resource? The price of corn on a bushel basis has gone up significantly over the past few years, great for farmers selling the corn, not so good for consumer looking to buy a product that uses corn as its base. There's also a lot of farmers that are opting to plant corn instead of what they probably should be planting in their respective areas. So the quality of the product may not be as good because the soil where it's being planted may not be right for corn. Like trying to grow peaches in Nebraska, you'd probably just end up with crappy peaches.

Cheerfulgreek as far as your hurricane analogy regarding the present day intesity vs. the 70s. I think your comparison is both a frequency and severity concern. You're seeing stronger storms (severity) more often (frequency). Do I think that they're happening stronger and more often? Yes. Did we luck out in 2006 due to a weather system that was parked over FL and pushed everything back out to sea? Yes. And I'm very thankful for it. As far as last year I didn't watch the hurricane season as closely so I have no idea why there wasn't much activity.

Local events like this are not the same as global climate change, but they do appear to be apart of a larger trend. Since the 70s, ocean surface temperatures worlwide have risen about +1F. Those numbers have moved in sequence with global air temperatures, which have also risen up a degree. I think the warmest year ever recorded may have been in 2006, followed by 2005, with a few previous years close behind. Does this mean more hurricanes? Perhaps. Maybe not, which is why it's so hard to pin down these trends. Infact the past 10 stormy years in the North Atlantic were preceded by many quiet ones. This all happened the same time global temperatures were rising. I'll explain it this way. Worldwide, there's like an equilibrium. When the number of storms in the North Atlantic increases, there's usually a corresponding fall in the number of storms in other regions, but frequency is not the same as intensity. Also, I think I said earlier in a previous post that there have been two recent studies that demonstrate the difference and prove my point.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

While this may very well be true, I don't think the sun is the main cause of Earth's global warming. Mars may be going through a slight climate change, but Mars is cold, dry and dead. The average surface temperature is below -50C, and often times it can get down below -150C. The atmosphere on Mars is mainly carbon dioxide and is less than 1% as thick as Earth's. Two different planets with two different weather and climate patterns. As I said in an earlier post, and let me add, with the atmosphere being as thick as it is on Earth, I believe the waste matter from the fossil fuels used to power new machinery and create electricity helped trap heat in Earth's atmosphere, which adds to global warming. Also in regards to the southern polar cap on Mars melting, this can't happen with a Martian temperature and thin atmosphere. It's surface would have to be warmed in order for this to happen.

That doesn't make sense. Is the sun pointed more directly at Mars? I'm no astrophysicist, but your explanation sounds like a load of crap. If there's planetary warming on one planet due to the sun, it's going to at least happen on planets which are closer to the sun.

It seems like you're trying to jam the square peg of human activity causing global warming into a round hole.

Another explanation for GW is that in '79, we switched the paint used on monitoring stations. See the following transcript:

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/art...icle/196/6727/

Also, the linked blog, presents a general study of temperature monitoring stations. It shows (quite convincingly) that when many were originally placed, they were nowhere near human activity. Now, those same stations are located in parking lots, near air conditioning units and other sources of heat which interfere with their accurate readings. Here are quite a few documented cases.

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I'm no astrophysicist

I know, I can tell.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by Kevin

That doesn't make sense. Is the sun pointed more directly at Mars? I'm no astrophysicist, but your explanation sounds like a load of crap. If there's planetary warming on one planet due to the sun, it's going to at least happen on planets which are closer to the sun.

Just because a planet is closer to the sun does not necessarily make it warmer.

[Coramoor]

I think that any issue as highly politicized as Global Warming should be suspect.

For the record, I think it is just a gimmick to keep chicken littles occupied.

[srmom]

Just because a planet is closer to the sun does not necessarily make it warmer

Actually, this is incorrect, according to astrophysicists, Mercury (the closest planet to the sun) and Venus (2nd closest) are the hottest planets and it is because of their proximity to the sun.

Venus is thought to be the hottest planet, and one theory espoused by many scientists is that Venus, being closer to the sun, was subjected to a so-called runaway greenhouse effect, which caused any oceans to evaporate into the atmosphere.

Many scientists hold that:

only small changes in the atmospheric levels of water, in the form of vapour and ice crystals can contribute to significant changes to the temperature of the earth's surface, which far outweighs the effects of carbon dioxide and other gases released by human activities. Just a rise of 1% of water vapour could raise the global average temperature of Earth's surface more then 4 degrees Celsius.

The role of water vapour in controlling our planet's temperature was hinted at almost 150 years ago by Irish scientist John Tyndall. Tyndall, who also provided an explanation as to why the sky is blue, explained the problem: "The strongest radiant heat absorber, is the most important gas controlling Earth's temperature. Without water vapour, he wrote, the Earth's surface would be 'held fast in the iron grip of frost'." Thin clouds at high altitude allow sunlight to reach the earth's surface, but reflect back radiated heat, acting as an insulating greenhouse layer.

Water vapour levels are even less within our control than CO2 levels. According to Andrew E. Dessler of the Texas A & M University writing in 'The Science and Politics of Global Climate Change', "Human activities do not control all greenhouse gases, however. The most powerful greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is water vapour, he says, "Human activities have little direct control over its atmospheric abundance, which is controlled instead by the worldwide balance between evaporation from the oceans and precipitation."

[RACooper]

Originally Posted by Kevin

That doesn't make sense. Is the sun pointed more directly at Mars? I'm no astrophysicist, but your explanation sounds like a load of crap. If there's planetary warming on one planet due to the sun, it's going to at least happen on planets which are closer to the sun.

Not really, depends on atmospheric protection and retention of solar radiation - proximity to the Sun is only one factor. So to point at Mars being warmer and saying "it's the Sun stupid!" is faulty science and logic (particularly since the study dates and times tend to compare 'summer' and 'winter' orbits of Mars).

It seems like you're trying to jam the square peg of human activity causing global warming into a round hole.

Actually I'd argue that it's the dogmatic naysayers that are trying to make hole round so the peg don't fit

Another explanation for GW is that in '79, we switched the paint used on monitoring stations. See the following transcript:
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/art...icle/196/6727/
Also, the linked blog, presents a general study of temperature monitoring stations. It shows (quite convincingly) that when many were originally placed, they were nowhere near human activity. Now, those same stations are located in parking lots, near air conditioning units and other sources of heat which interfere with their accurate readings. Here are quite a few documented cases.
http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/

Talk about useless arguments based on wildly faulty logic

Kevin I'm sure you'd even have to logically admit that A) one, two, or a hundred stations affected this way means squat given the thousands out there; B) there are far, far more stations that just those set-up or monitored by or in America.

It seems to me like Glenn Beck and the blog twit are trying to cite individual regional stations within the thousands of global stations to try and paint a picture discrediting the thousands that only the ardent anti-Climate Change or Global Warming skeptic believes.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by SECdomination

Thank you for posting this Kevin. I'm a fan of Glenn Beck's but somehow missed this interesting piece.


To add on to this- these VOLUNTEERS have not been able to check on every single temperature station yet because they don't have the resources to. Some of you can't possibly believe that the ones they've found so far with are the only stations with problems. Can you?

No problem. As far as I can tell, GW is a myth perpetrated by people who are guilty for living good lives in industrialized nations. They apparently seem to feel that by enjoying ourselves, we must be doing harm.

They're not so different from the flagellant monastic orders of old. It would be nice if they'd stick to the horsehair coats rather than suck us into their fantasies, however.

All they have is a documented (perhaps faultily so) increase in temperature over a century or so of a degree, maybe two? From that, they have one hypothesis -- that man's activities are responsible from this. Without proving that hypothesis, they're onto the next step -- peddling guilt (green offsets).

[bluefish81]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

Local events like this are not the same as global climate change, but they do appear to be apart of a larger trend. Since the 70s, ocean surface temperatures worlwide have risen about +1F. Those numbers have moved in sequence with global air temperatures, which have also risen up a degree. I think the warmest year ever recorded may have been in 2006, followed by 2005, with a few previous years close behind. Does this mean more hurricanes? Perhaps. Maybe not, which is why it's so hard to pin down these trends. Infact the past 10 stormy years in the North Atlantic were preceded by many quiet ones. This all happened the same time global temperatures were rising. I'll explain it this way. Worldwide, there's like an equilibrium. When the number of storms in the North Atlantic increases, there's usually a corresponding fall in the number of storms in other regions, but frequency is not the same as intensity. Also, I think I said earlier in a previous post that there have been two recent studies that demonstrate the difference and prove my point.

I understand the difference between frequency and intensity. I wasn't correlating the two to mean the same thing. I was stating that the storms that occured in the early 2000s were stronger (severe) and there were more of them (frequency). That's why I used the word and to include both words. Many people in the industry that I work in find that hurricane patterns operate in ten year cycles - i.e. ten years of active storm years, ten years of quiet, ten years active, ten years quiet. They also still think that we're only about halfway through the current ten year cycle of active storms.

[RACooper]

Originally Posted by Kevin

No problem. As far as I can tell, GW is a myth perpetrated by people who are guilty for living good lives in industrialized nations. They apparently seem to feel that by enjoying ourselves, we must be doing harm.

If thats how you need to justify your skepticism in the face of evidence fine - like I said earlier it makes you no different than those who cling to Creationism or ID in the face of evidence... basically letting blind-belief overrule critical or rational examination of any evidence to draw conclusions (and again I'm still fascinated by the correlation of those opposed to GW and Evolution)

All they have is a documented (perhaps faultily so) increase in temperature over a century or so of a degree, maybe two?

Three centuries for some actually - the Royal Navy and French Navy took reams of atmospheric, oceanic, and weather readings over the centuries all over the globe.

From that, they have one hypothesis -- that man's activities are responsible from this. Without proving that hypothesis, they're onto the next step -- peddling guilt (green offsets).

Like I said what ever you need to keep telling yourself...

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by srmom

Actually, this is incorrect, according to astrophysicists, Mercury (the closest planet to the sun) and Venus (2nd closest) are the hottest planets and it is because of their proximity to the sun.

Venus is thought to be the hottest planet, and one theory espoused by many scientists is that Venus, being closer to the sun, was subjected to a so-called runaway greenhouse effect, which caused any oceans to evaporate into the atmosphere.

Uhmm... o.k. Let me get this straight. My previous post said that planets closer to the sun don't necessarily mean they're warmer. You said that was incorrect, but yet you post that Venus is the 2nd closest planet to the sun, but it's the hottest. That was my point (duh). Mercury is the closest to the sun but it is not the hottest.

The sun does have a major effect on the surface of the planets, but there are other factors involved. Mercury orbits around the sun every 88 days within about 29 million miles away from the sun, which causes 700 degree surface temperatures hot enough to melt lead. At one time it was believed that Mercury had an identical day and year rotating once every time it completed an orbit around the sun so that it kept one side permanently facing the sun, somewhat like our moon as it orbits Earth. This is called synchronous rotation. Actually it's sort of strange, but Mercury's day is about two thirds of it's year which is about 50-60 Earth days (I think) so it actually rotates three times for every two trips around its orbit. This has an effect on the surface temperature because for the most parts of Mercury, the sun rises across it's sky once every two years, about 170-180 Earth days.

Venus's surface is hotter than Mercury's at over 850 degrees but yet it's further away from the sun than Mercury is (like you said). The reason why, is because Venus actually rotates once every 243 Earth days while it orbits the sun in 225 Earth days, so it's day is longer than it's year. Venus's slow rotation is also done in the opposite direction to almost every other planet in our solar system, it's also technically upside down on it's axis. All of this has an effect on sunrise to sunrise which effects it's surface temperature, and makes it warmer than Mercury.

Now, the information you posted about Venus having water at one time, is incorrect. Scientists thought this because there's about a 26 million mile difference between Venus and Earth's orbits. The 1st space probes to fly past Venus found that the atmosphere was pretty much carbon dioxide with clouds made of sulphuric acid. The probes also provided accurate information that the surface was made up of volcanic rock. Hardly a planet that could have had water running across its surface.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by bluefish81

I understand the difference between frequency and intensity. I wasn't correlating the two to mean the same thing. I was stating that the storms that occured in the early 2000s were stronger (severe) and there were more of them (frequency). That's why I used the word and to include both words. Many people in the industry that I work in find that hurricane patterns operate in ten year cycles - i.e. ten years of active storm years, ten years of quiet, ten years active, ten years quiet. They also still think that we're only about halfway through the current ten year cycle of active storms.

ok