• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Global Warming

a_unique_person said:
When you consider the range of weather that affects just one country, the US cops it all from wild fires (heat and drought) to hurricanes to blizzards to floods to tornadoes. According to Flannery, no other country gets quite that range.
Click to expand...
Is he claiming that this is a new phenomenon? Or is he simply using the US as an interesting study case, because of the variety of weather?

My post might seem argumentative, but it isn't meant to be. Just legitimately asking for info.
 
Freakshow said:
Is he claiming that this is a new phenomenon? Or is he simply using the US as an interesting study case, because of the variety of weather?

My post might seem argumentative, but it isn't meant to be. Just legitimately asking for info.
Click to expand...

He is not claiming it is new, just that it is the state of affairs, that it is the variety of weather experienced there.

PS. Do you still believe I expect all of Jewish Isrealis to pack up and leave?
 
Thanz said:
Bah. Global warming is a myth. It says so, in black and white, in the latest scientific article/novel by Crichton, State of Fear.

No reasonable person could possibly read that and think that global warming was anything other than media fueled hysteria.
Click to expand...

I assume this was sarcasm ?
 
a_unique_person said:
PS. Do you still believe I expect all of Jewish Isrealis to pack up and leave?
Click to expand...
To be perfectly honest, I don't really remember. I remember having the discussion, but don't remember the particulars of what each of us said.

I think that rather than digging through the old posts for me to figure that out, it would be better to just forget it, and we'll start fresh. That would be more constructive, I think. Sound good?
 
a_unique_person said:
When you consider the range of weather that affects just one country, the US cops it all from wild fires (heat and drought) to hurricanes to blizzards to floods to tornadoes. According to Flannery, no other country gets quite that range.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm sounds like the Bermuda Triangle effect.

Don't you think that if you took the USA footprint and plopped it anywhere else you would see something similar?
 
Freakshow said:
To be perfectly honest, I don't really remember. I remember having the discussion, but don't remember the particulars of what each of us said.

I think that rather than digging through the old posts for me to figure that out, it would be better to just forget it, and we'll start fresh. That would be more constructive, I think. Sound good?
Click to expand...
Sounds fine.
 
a_unique_person said:
Not just it's size. Australia is roughly the same size, but does not get that range of weather. The US has the size, but also the location, which has many influences, as well as the geography.
Click to expand...
And to top off all that weather, we get earthquakes, too! :)
 
Pauliesonne said:
With all the hash/hash on both sides of the argument, I wanted to know what the general point of view was here on th JREF.

So...
Click to expand...

I think the consensus view of the JREF fourm participants that have a view on this is that it is likely that there is significant global warming caused by human activity.

A few people, (diamond most notably but there are certainly others), disagree strongly with that view.
 
Pauliesonne said:
With all the hash/hash on both sides of the argument, I wanted to know what the general point of view was here on th JREF.

So...
Click to expand...

My observation is that the issue is not purely scientific. That is to say that I believe whatever the consensus of scientists think about it, becuause it is not my area of expertise. The point is that it keeps turning up in political discussion.

I don't think there is any way that the root cause of it is man-made, but I also realize that pollution etc. is probably hastening the process. The reason I don't think the root cause is humans is that in the Earth's past, there have been periods of higher average temperatures than man has ever experienced before man evolved.

Now to the politics. I think the issue makes an easy target of the U.S. for blame of the situation. The evidence of this assertion is that most of the measurement figures out there don't give a measure of how much a country pollutes, but the pollution per capita. In other words, you rich bastages use more energy per person, therefore you owe us.

Take the Kyoto protocol for example, the best I have heard anyone regard the expected "improvement" from the Kyoto treaty is that "well, at least it's a start." It is a very poor start, all it really does is create a bogus stock market that favors undeveloped countries and penalizes developed ones. It is a transfer of wealth scheme, not a global warming solution. Kyoto basically creates a global tax that takes from developed nations and gives to undeveloped nations. Some of the biggest polluters, such as China are completely exempt.

I think that the largest man-made contributor to global warming was the cutting of rain forests, but this doesn't even get a reach-around from the Kyoto advocates.
 
a_unique_person said:
Kyoto is about getting the most difficult part of the job done first, getting the many nations of the planet to agree to a plan of action. As history has shown, that task is indeed hugely difficult.
Click to expand...
That task might be so difficult that the plan of action will have to be changed. India and China are excluded, which makes me question its effectiveness. And some of us do have concerns about economic impact, as well.
 
Freakshow said:
That task might be so difficult that the plan of action will have to be changed. India and China are excluded, which makes me question its effectiveness. And some of us do have concerns about economic impact, as well.
Click to expand...

China and India also received special consideration for CFCs, but the plan is not to ignore them, but to bring them into consideration in the future.
 
a_unique_person said:
China and India also received special consideration for CFCs, but the plan is not to ignore them, but to bring them into consideration in the future.
Click to expand...
Not good enough for me. Until the other top emitters are also held to standards, I would not support the US participating. I'm not going to let it be used as an economic lever against the US. The treaty is fundamentally flawed, and is a non-starter.
 
Freakshow said:
Not good enough for me. Until the other top emitters are also held to standards, I would not support the US participating. I'm not going to let it be used as an economic lever against the US. The treaty is fundamentally flawed, and is a non-starter.
Click to expand...

You remind me of when I am trying to get my kids to empty the dish washer.

The procedure worked reasonably well in regards to CFCs, do you believe the US should now go back on the CFC agreement?
 
How does CO2 cause warming?

Scientists were at first puzzled about CO2. It only takes a surprisingly small amount of CO2 to absorb heat from light at the wavelengths it is active.

Increasing it's concentration, according to laboratory experiments, should make no difference.

Refer to this link, it is excellent for the whole history of investigation.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

So how did increased CO2 work?
 
What scientists discovered was that at low temperatures, that is, over the poles and high in the atmosphere, is where the action of CO2 is most effective. CO2 also acts as a trigger. By causing just that little bit of extra heating, it causes more water vapour. Water vapour is a very powerful greenhouse gas. This results in a positive feedback loop, that is, one that is not stable, but by increasing, causes itself to increase more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom