Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
surely if i'm the only one so stupid not to believe in global warming, there must be someone here willing to have an intelligent debate on the subject.
there is scientific evidence on both sides...and that evidence (on both sides) seems equally disputable. basically, i'm not a scientist so i can't say whether i believe in global warming or not. i do know that humans pollute the air and water...and we shoud cut down on that. we also cut down a lot of trees and screw up ancient ancient ecosystems in order to pad, already revoltingly-wealthy, corporate ceo's wallets...we should cut back on that too. we do treat this planet poorly...is it causing global warming?---i don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me.
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by sik-m-boi
there is scientific evidence on both sides...and that evidence (on both sides) seems equally disputable. basically, i'm not a scientist so i can't say whether i believe in global warming or not. i do know that humans pollute the air and water...and we shoud cut down on that. we also cut down a lot of trees and screw up ancient ancient ecosystems in order to pad, already revoltingly-wealthy, corporate ceo's wallets...we should cut back on that too. we do treat this planet poorly...is it causing global warming?---i don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me.
that is an extremely broad statement that is hard to dispute. are you saying that because people are greedy, we must be doing harm?
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
that is an extremely broad statement that is hard to dispute. are you saying that because people are greedy, we must be doing harm?
no, i'm saying that the general greed of a few very powerful people causes harm to the earth...cutting down the rainforests...dragging of the feet on the development of hydrogen-powered vehicles. but, it is not all their fault...the apathy of the general public is why they can continue to do this. my statement was not that greed is (indirectly) what is causing global warming...just that i don't know if it is...it just wouldn't surprise me if we are causing causing some damage that we are incapable of repairing. you're not going to be able to get much more out of me than that...sorry.
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
yeah, salty, i didn't think you had a response. you know, if you would admit that you have no case instead of ridiculing anyone who disagrees with you, maybe you wouldn't have all that red next to your name.
Bob, I posted a very good article about the tilt of the Earth's axis (and its wobble) affecting the Earth's climate and your response is to call it ridiculous. Ditto for the fact that increasing levels of CO2 increases the global average temperature.
If you want to discuss global warming try to support your assertions with more than your dismissive opinions.
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Bob, I posted a very good article about the tilt of the Earth's axis (and its wobble) affecting the Earth's climate and your response is to call it ridiculous. Ditto for the fact that increasing levels of CO2 increases the global average temperature.
If you want to discuss global warming try to support your assertions with more than your dismissive opinions.
you are the one being dismissive. i did not call your article rediculous. i agree that it is a very good article. it just doesn't show what you claim it shows, nor does it claim to. it explains how the earth's tilt and wobble affect the glacial cycle, which is only a small part of historical global warming/cooling. no scientist will support you assertion that all (or even a good portion of) historical changes in global climate can be explained by the earth's tilt.
as for co2, i will write a long post about the shortcomings of greenhouse theory as soon as i have time.
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
you are the one being dismissive. i did not call your article rediculous. i agree that it is a very good article. it just doesn't show what you claim it shows, nor does it claim to. it explains how the earth's tilt and wobble affect the glacial cycle, which is only a small part of historical global warming/cooling. no scientist will support you assertion that all (or even a good portion of) historical changes in global climate can be explained by the earth's tilt.
as for co2, i will write a long post about the shortcomings of greenhouse theory as soon as i have time.
What are you talking about???? The historical global warming/cooling cycle consists totally of going into ice ages and then coming out of them.
While the output of the Sun is important influence of our climate, I believe that over the last 500,000 years it has been relatively stable. Similarly, the levels of CO2 in our atmosphere have gone up and down but this has been shown to be the result of tilt and wobble of the Earth's axis.
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
What are you talking about???? The historical global warming/cooling cycle consists totally of going into ice ages and then coming out of them.
While the output of the Sun is important influence of our climate, I believe that over the last 500,000 years it has been relatively stable. Similarly, the levels of CO2 in our atmosphere have gone up and down but this has been shown to be the result of tilt and wobble of the Earth's axis.
if glaciation is explained entirely by the earth's tilt, then it has nothing to do with rise and fall of global temperatures. you see, if the arctic zones are receiving more sunlight than usual because of an increase in the earth's tilt, then that means that they also recieve less sunlight in the winter months. tropical zones would get less sunlight altogether. and if all natural climate variation can be explained by this 10,000 year cycle, then how do you explain the medievial hot period, followed shortly by the mini ice age? the scientists who published the study you linked to are not claiming that their study shows anything about global climate variation -- that is your assertion and it is wrong.
many many studies have been done to try to determine the nature of pre-historic climate trends. scientists have studied evidence of temperature changes from arctic, temperate, and tropical zones. while i believe that they cannot measure the timing and magnitude of these changes quite as accurately as they think they can, it is clear that global climate has fluctuated significantly over the years. and it is a very complex cycle.
as for your last statement, you're just making things up. co2 cycles because of the tilt and wobble of the earth? please explain how that happens.
Re: Global Warming Cont...
"if glaciation is explained entirely by the earth's tilt, then it has nothing to do with rise and fall of global temperatures."
Bob, the tilt and wobble of the Earth's axis lower and raises the Earth's global temperature thereby causing massive ice sheets to cover large parts of the Earth's surface area. During the periods of glaciation, CO2 levels go down and when the ice retreats CO2 levels go up.
How about posting some links about the relationship of the tilt of the Earth's axis to climate?
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
"if glaciation is explained entirely by the earth's tilt, then it has nothing to do with rise and fall of global temperatures."
Bob, the tilt and wobble of the Earth's axis lower and raises the Earth's global temperature thereby causing massive ice sheets to cover large parts of the Earth's surface area. During the periods of glaciation, CO2 levels go down and when the ice retreats CO2 levels go up.
How about posting some links about the relationship of the tilt of the Earth's axis to climate?
think about it salty. that doesn't make any sense. the same amount of sunlight will always fall on the earth no matter what. the tilt of the earth will not have an effect on the global mean temperature. and what is it about ice formation that causes co2 levels to change? none of that makes any sense at all. :rolleyes4
and finally, i just told you that the earth's tilt would have no effect on global mean temperatures, so why should i have to post a link explaining a relationship that doesn't exist?
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
think about it salty. that doesn't make any sense. the same amount of sunlight will always fall on the earth no matter what. the tilt of the earth will not have an effect on the global mean temperature. and what is it about ice formation that causes co2 levels to change? none of that makes any sense at all. :rolleyes4
and finally, i just told you that the earth's tilt would have no effect on global mean temperatures, so why should i have to post a link explaining a relationship that doesn't exist?
1. When the planet tilts more, the poles receive more sunlight, and the ice on the poles reflects more sunlight (heat) back into space thereby reducing mean global temperatures.
2. When ice covers land which previously had growing vegetation, CO2 is reduced since ice does not produce CO2 and plants do. And vice versa.
I was thinking that if you did any research on the topic you would soon find out that there is no link to support your position.
Here is another link that backs up what I said.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/milankovitch.html
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
1. When the planet tilts more, the poles receive more sunlight, and the ice on the poles reflects more sunlight (heat) back into space thereby reducing mean global temperatures.
2. When ice covers land which previously had growing vegetation, CO2 is reduced since ice does not produce CO2 and plants do. And vice versa.
I was thinking that if you did any research on the topic you would soon find out that there is no link to support your position.
Here is another link that backs up what I said.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/milankovitch.html
A change in tilt would result in much more than reflecting sunlight. Mainly, the caps would be more likely to melt, not reflect. Secondly, the temperatures around the equator and up to the topics and even beyond would also be greatly reduced. I haven't read anything that suggests that the earth's tilt is changing. However, this sounds like it will result in an even more interesting explanation of how our evil President caused the earth to tilt...so Salty, keep chasing this rabbit. I'll read just so I can hear how it's ultimately GW's fault.
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
A change in tilt would result in much more than reflecting sunlight. Mainly, the caps would be more likely to melt, not reflect. Secondly, the temperatures around the equator and up to the topics and even beyond would also be greatly reduced. I haven't read anything that suggests that the earth's tilt is changing. However, this sounds like it will result in an even more interesting explanation of how our evil President caused the earth to tilt...so Salty, keep chasing this rabbit. I'll read just so I can hear how it's ultimately GW's fault.
Johnny, no way is GWB responsible for AGW, but I do fault him for not doing more to control CO2 emissions.
The climate changes brought about by the movements of the Earth's axis are not directly related to our current discussion on AGW. However, it is important in terms of understanding why many people accept the reality of AGW. More on that later.
The ice on the poles reflects both sunlight and the heat so the net result is lower global temperatures. The fact that summer ice on the North Pole will be totally gone by the end of this century means that more solar heat will be transferred to the oceans and atmosphere.
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
1. When the planet tilts more, the poles receive more sunlight, and the ice on the poles reflects more sunlight (heat) back into space thereby reducing mean global temperatures.
2. When ice covers land which previously had growing vegetation, CO2 is reduced since ice does not produce CO2 and plants do. And vice versa.
I was thinking that if you did any research on the topic you would soon find out that there is no link to support your position.
Here is another link that backs up what I said.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/milankovitch.html
i'm very disapointed to find something like this on the noaa website. it is clearly not thought through very well.
1. ice does reflect more sunlight, but it also absorbs a good bit of it and melts, leaving less ice to reflect the sunlight, compensating for the increased reflection.
2. if anything, the co2 argument would be just the opposite. plants absorb co2 and procuce oxygen. therefore, if there is more ice, there is more co2 (by their logic) which would keep the earth warmer.
but this is really irrelevent. even if the earth's tilt does affect global climate the way they say it does, it only accounts for a small portion of historical climate change. we know that climate has changed very significantly in recorded history (exact global temperatures are not recorded, of course) which only goes back a couple thousand years. you can't explain this away with a 41,000 year cycle.
Re: Global Warming Cont...
i don't have much time to look up sources, but the main point i want to make is that man-made global warming is NOT a scientific consensus. there are many reputable scientists in academia and in industry that strongly disagree with the global warming hypothesis. saying that there is no debate and that all reputable scientists agree is not only false, it is done in order to squash debate. and when one side tries to end a debate rather than answer the other side's objections, that is a good sign that they aren't as secure in their position as they would have you think.
Re: Global Warming Cont...
Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
i'm very disapointed to find something like this on the noaa website. it is clearly not thought through very well.
1. ice does reflect more sunlight, but it also absorbs a good bit of it and melts, leaving less ice to reflect the sunlight, compensating for the increased reflection.
2. if anything, the co2 argument would be just the opposite. plants absorb co2 and procuce oxygen. therefore, if there is more ice, there is more co2 (by their logic) which would keep the earth warmer.
but this is really irrelevent. even if the earth's tilt does affect global climate the way they say it does, it only accounts for a small portion of historical climate change. we know that climate has changed very significantly in recorded history (exact global temperatures are not recorded, of course) which only goes back a couple thousand years. you can't explain this away with a 41,000 year cycle.
Bob, sunsilght doesn't melt ice if the air temperature is below 32F because it would immediately re-freeze.
Your point about plants absorbing CO2 is well taken, and I will review why the swings in CO2 levels coincide with the ice ages.
Don't know where you are getting your imformation but recent (500k years) climate is determined by the tilt and wobble of the Earth's axis. Heat waves n the 12th century or a mini-ice age in the 14th century are just localized weather events that doesn't reflect the global average temperature. Ice ages lasts for tens of thousands of years. Was not that long ago that New York City was covered by a mile thick ice sheet.
