^ This is fact. However, it is a nice theory. Emphasis on theory.

Well, I'm out for the night to Charlotte, NC. Driving my catless Audi A4, exhaling deeply, and farting the whole way there. You guys have fun and play nice while I'm gone. :makeout:

Why wouldn't it? If you make a surface more reflective, you are reflecting more energy than you absorb. Meaning less of the suns energy gets to the surface of the planet. Of course this would indicate an overall temperature drop... like I said, it's too complex for us to currently fully understand.

?

I like this thread. A good conversation that requires a little brain usage. We don't have enough of these around here.

Word. Funny, that is almost the same exact thing my physics professor said

It doesn't have to do with reflection... It is how the energy 'excites' the molecules. When they are hit with energy they vibrate sending energy out of the molecule. This is how Fourier Transfer-IR's work. This is their theory behind why they do not allow heat to escape. Well... One of them. Maybe I should have said hypothesis instead of theory. :dunno:

I'll just continue the debate with this:

Why are global temperature beacons suggesting a normal pattern (which is not an overall increase, however) as opposed to the drastic (used relative to time-frame and historic readings) increase in temperature like the Greenhouse Theory suggests?

Hum, I learn something new every day, ha ha.

How large of a scale of time are you talking about? Not saying you are doing this, but a lot of people look at a 100 year record and say they don't see anything. "It's all bullshit", but you have to look at a much larger scale to see any kind of pattern. Or maybe that isn't what you are asking. I'm still half asleep, just crawled my lazy ass out of bed. Need a little time to get my brain working.

Holy, must be nice. I'm almost off work, ha. And I'm going by the last 300-310 years where accurate readings could be established.

Lucky about just getting out of bed... I'm just now getting off work. UBER-WEAK! Later guys.

In any case, what I was asking is why temperature beacons aren't supporting the Greenhouse Theory, rather challenging it instead.

You sure? I guess that does make more sense though now that I think about it. The albedo on the surface does play a part though, if the atmosphere doesn't. At least in a sense of allowing a warming or cooling trend to accelerate exponentially. Imagine as ice starts to melt, you have less white reflective surfaces, meaning even less is reflected, and temps rise further, and more melts, ect.

Honestly, I don't know much about any of the "formal" theories than many people support. Anything I have said is just stuff I'm kind of coming up with off the top of my head that makes sense to me. I prefer to learn the smaller things and connect it all myself to make the overall broad idea. On something like this, I don't think anyone really knows what they are talking about anyway. Like I said, I think it's too complex to just make a simple thing of it.

Back to your question, don't scientists also use things like ice cores to get temperature data over much longer periods? The actual ice would only be a local record, but I would imagine they get other markers from atmospheric conditions that allow them to make pretty accurate guesses at less local climate conditions.

This debate is giving me a headache. Good debate. Until tomorrow, gentlemen.

Very complex indeed. And yes, they use them for certain things, like sedimentary deposits, nutrients and other stuff that isn't related. Temperature beacons are essentially everywhere and scientists pull data from your local weather balloon as well. Even still, with all of the compiled data, the Greenhouse Theory (or hypothesis, or whatever we're calling it now) still doesn't have any weight to it.

And done. No more until tomorrow, k bai!

Sweet. I have not posted because I have been away from the comp for awhile, and frankly I have been too busy reading to want to actually write anything.

Where it seems to come out is this:

We really dont know exactly whats happening in the atmosphere, and beyond that we dont really know how much of what is happening or not happening is due to us.

However, for a number of non-global warming reasons, controlling emmisions is a good idea. Probably not too smart to risk economic ruin over it or subsidize hybrids, but a basically good idea.

Nukular powar (could resist, it annoys the shit out of me too) is obviously the best source of emmisionless tech, but due to ignorant backward assed people who probably wear tinfoil hats, it has a lot of obstacles to overcome. This must be changed. The electric cars might actually make some sense, provided battery tech is up to it and we dont wreck whole areas of the planet mining rare-earth elements needed for them.

The electric-powered car is older than the ICE-powered car. Stupid corporations charging everyone out the ass for technology that is over 100 years old. Stupid tree-huggers that buy into that crap, stupid economy that jumped on the bandwagon and shit all over itself... :facepalm:

As for the nuclear (ha ha ha) subject, do you think some people might have a different outlook on reactors if they knew the underlying issue regarding the Chernobyl melt-down? Or would that not have any sort if weight in one's argument?

I think it would matter. Honestly (I am a optimist no matter how hard I try to beat that down) it seems to me that people are begining to really question the specifics of things a lot more in recent years as a general trend. More to the point, they are not nearly as willing to accept someone screaming about waste storage and 3 mile island as a expert with an informed opinion. Most people I talk to are shaking their heads and asking why we dont have more nuclear power.

IIRC Chernobyl failed due to a coolant pump issue that basically meant no fresh water through the system and also a absolutely stupid beurocratic reluctance to shut down the reactor due to the need to keep the ting going and the hassle of of getting it warmed up again. Bad mix. And totaly 100% avoidable.

^^They might have been a little bit of Vodka in that mix too ;)