Global Warming - Yes/No - Causes?
05-07-2010, 03:52 PM
#42
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Birmingham Alabama
Posts: 7,930
Total Cats: 45
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.
Reply
0
0
05-07-2010, 03:53 PM
#44
Cardriverx:
The problem with nuclear energy is the same reason we call an MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imagery) an MRI. When in fact that is not what it's true origin name is. In our Analytical Lab we have an instrument called an NMR (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance). This does the exact same thing an MRI does at the hospital only the MRI is a little larger. If you were to call an MRI an NMR people would lose their ******* mind... Seriously, they would. Could you imagine someone suing a hospital because they were exposed to something with the word "nuclear" in it. However, the same person would most likely say, "Hell yeah doc. Let's take an X-Ray of this."
Ignorance is bliss...
The problem with nuclear energy is the same reason we call an MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imagery) an MRI. When in fact that is not what it's true origin name is. In our Analytical Lab we have an instrument called an NMR (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance). This does the exact same thing an MRI does at the hospital only the MRI is a little larger. If you were to call an MRI an NMR people would lose their ******* mind... Seriously, they would. Could you imagine someone suing a hospital because they were exposed to something with the word "nuclear" in it. However, the same person would most likely say, "Hell yeah doc. Let's take an X-Ray of this."
Ignorance is bliss...
Reply
0
0
05-07-2010, 03:55 PM
#45
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. 
Reply
0
0
05-07-2010, 03:55 PM
#46
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.
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?
Reply
0
0
05-07-2010, 03:56 PM
#47
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.
Reply
0
0
05-07-2010, 03:58 PM
#48
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Birmingham Alabama
Posts: 7,930
Total Cats: 45
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?
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?
Reply
0
0
05-07-2010, 03:59 PM
#49
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 *** out of bed. Need a little time to get my brain working.
Reply
0
0
05-07-2010, 04:01 PM
#52
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Birmingham Alabama
Posts: 7,930
Total Cats: 45
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.
Reply
0
0
05-07-2010, 04:07 PM
#53
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Birmingham Alabama
Posts: 7,930
Total Cats: 45
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.
Reply
0
0
05-07-2010, 04:11 PM
#55
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.
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.
Reply
0
0
05-08-2010, 06:29 PM
#57
Elite Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,642
Total Cats: 36
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 **** 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.
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 **** 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.
Reply
0
0
05-10-2010, 08:41 AM
#58
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?
Reply
0
0
05-10-2010, 09:01 AM
#59
Elite Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,642
Total Cats: 36
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.
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.
Reply
0
0
