Global Warming - Yes/No - Causes? - Page 3 - Miata Turbo Forum - Boost cars, acquire cats.

Welcome to Miataturbo.net   Members
 


Current Events, News, Politics Keep the politics here.

Reply
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-07-2010, 04:46 PM   #41
Elite Member
iTrader: (5)
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Wellford, SC
Posts: 1,704
Total Cats: 1
Default

^ 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.
thagr81 us is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2010, 04:52 PM   #42
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
 
NA6C-Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Birmingham Alabama
Posts: 8,038
Total Cats: 43
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by E-NA6CE View Post
Sure, but there is still no scientific proof that Greenhouse gases contribute to any sort of temperature fluctuation.
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.
NA6C-Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2010, 04:53 PM   #43
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
 
NA6C-Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Birmingham Alabama
Posts: 8,038
Total Cats: 43
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thagr81 us View Post
^ This is fact. However, it is a nice theory. Emphasis on theory.
?

I like this thread. A good conversation that requires a little brain usage. We don't have enough of these around here.
NA6C-Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2010, 04:53 PM   #44
Elite Member
iTrader: (9)
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Bloomfield, Michigan
Posts: 5,682
Total Cats: 10
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thagr81 us View Post
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...
Word. Funny, that is almost the same exact thing my physics professor said
buffon01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2010, 04:55 PM   #45
Elite Member
iTrader: (5)
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Wellford, SC
Posts: 1,704
Total Cats: 1
Default

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.
thagr81 us is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2010, 04:55 PM   #46
Junior Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 411
Total Cats: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NA6C-Guy View Post
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'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?
E-NA6CE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2010, 04:56 PM   #47
Junior Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 411
Total Cats: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thagr81 us View Post
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.
Hum, I learn something new every day, ha ha.
E-NA6CE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2010, 04:58 PM   #48
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
 
NA6C-Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Birmingham Alabama
Posts: 8,038
Total Cats: 43
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by E-NA6CE View Post
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?
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.
NA6C-Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2010, 04:59 PM   #49
Junior Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 411
Total Cats: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NA6C-Guy View Post
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.
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.
E-NA6CE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2010, 04:59 PM   #50
Elite Member
iTrader: (5)
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Wellford, SC
Posts: 1,704
Total Cats: 1
Default

Lucky about just getting out of bed... I'm just now getting off work. UBER-WEAK! Later guys.
thagr81 us is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2010, 05:00 PM   #51
Junior Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 411
Total Cats: 0
Default

In any case, what I was asking is why temperature beacons aren't supporting the Greenhouse Theory, rather challenging it instead.
E-NA6CE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2010, 05:01 PM   #52
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
 
NA6C-Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Birmingham Alabama
Posts: 8,038
Total Cats: 43
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thagr81 us View Post
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.
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.
NA6C-Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2010, 05:07 PM   #53
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
 
NA6C-Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Birmingham Alabama
Posts: 8,038
Total Cats: 43
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by E-NA6CE View Post
In any case, what I was asking is why temperature beacons aren't supporting the Greenhouse Theory, rather challenging it instead.
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.
NA6C-Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2010, 05:07 PM   #54
Junior Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 411
Total Cats: 0
Default

This debate is giving me a headache. Good debate. Until tomorrow, gentlemen.
E-NA6CE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2010, 05:11 PM   #55
Junior Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 411
Total Cats: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NA6C-Guy View Post
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.
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.
E-NA6CE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2010, 05:11 PM   #56
Junior Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 411
Total Cats: 0
Default

And done. No more until tomorrow, k bai!
E-NA6CE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2010, 07:29 PM   #57
Elite Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,669
Total Cats: 36
Default

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.
Sparetire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2010, 09:41 AM   #58
Junior Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 411
Total Cats: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparetire View Post
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 *** for technology that is over 100 years old. Stupid tree-huggers that buy into that crap, stupid economy that jumped on the bandwagon and **** all over itself...

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?
E-NA6CE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2010, 10:01 AM   #59
Elite Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,669
Total Cats: 36
Default

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.
Sparetire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2010, 10:12 AM   #60
Elite Member
iTrader: (9)
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Bloomfield, Michigan
Posts: 5,682
Total Cats: 10
Default

^^They might have been a little bit of Vodka in that mix too
buffon01 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Low oil pressure after 1.8 swap and new turbo setup JesseTheNoob DIY Turbo Discussion 15 09-30-2015 03:44 PM
Now shipping NC MX-5 (2006-15) Precision Sliding Seat Mounts FAB Fab9 Tuning - Miata Performance Parts 0 09-11-2015 01:02 PM
Problems (Still) with the MSNS running very rough. Marc D MEGAsquirt 9 01-22-2008 03:36 PM
I need help with C++ miataspeed1point6 Insert BS here 28 08-12-2007 12:52 AM
My car hates the cold... Braineack General Miata Chat 10 12-09-2006 02:47 PM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:48 AM.