31,000 Scientist Say No To Global Warming

[MMDad (Premo)]

Originally Posted by The Oyster Guy

If you're willing to cite NASA, I'm willing to cite the Heartland Institute:

I call your "Heartland Institute" and raise you a "University Corporation for Atmospheric Research"

Global Warming, Clouds, and Albedo: Feedback Loops

[SamSpade]

Originally Posted by The Oyster Guy

...yes, the sun *does* heat the earth, that is a given - but it isn't responsible for GW because the sun's power output doesn't significantly change. The weather isn't cloudy one day and sunny the next because the sun decided to crank it up a notch: it's almost exclusively the atmosphere (its effect on the ability of heat to transfer to/from space and earth) that's responsible for establishing the temperature of earth.

Now you're talking in terms that global warming supporters DON'T like - local comparisons versus long term trends. Of course it is atmospheric changes that cause it to be cloudy one day and sunny the next. But it's not true that the sun's output is constant or that differences in its output pose no significant differences to temperature on earth. The sun goes through several different output cycles, some of them brief, some of them longer, and they do correlate to temperature changes here on earth - the little Ice age, the medieval warming period. (They also create other changes - periods of lesser and greater activity permit periods of greater and lesser cosmic ray activity).

We weren't pumping hydrocarbons in the atmosphere then, but these same changes could clearly be attributed to solar activity.

[wildsage]

to Thomas Gold (RIP) and your kung fu. Even though I studied geology, it was many years ago and that is a theory new to me.

Originally Posted by SamSpade

Even if oil is "renewable", it's not "renewing" at a pace with demand. So the point on a practical level is moot.

and we agree that g_t_g was out-to-lunch with his statement: "It is a continual source of energy and we will never run out of it."

[This_person]

Originally Posted by This_person

Yet, what is "short term"? Globally, regarding temperature? 1 year? 100 years? 1,000 years?

Show me long term, geologically speaking, man made global warming.

[greg_the_great]

Gotta love your theories... I have mine as well

I have not decided on evolution yet. One of the law of science is the law of conservation of energy. From that law alone put the universe in a box of controlled experiment. So maybe there is a "creator".

But regardless, the nuclear waste is easy, space is big, toss it out. As for oil, I see you are up on the talking points of GW, but not finding solutions. Solar and wind will never produce enough energy to continue the world in growth. I personally don't want to go without. I am all for new energy sources, but you offer nothing new. Wind mills were around long before oil. Flat out, does not do it. Reactor do. And they solve your little problem of carbon footprints, which is theory as well. And okay, I will try to be clear... you can possibly say that carbon footprints are real, but it is just theory on if they has anything to do with GW. Also, still waiting for you prove you claim the Gore's movie was accurate.

I just like the solar links. Mainly cause they are showing the activity of the Sun, which is the major cause of cooling and warming of the planet.

Massive oil field<br> found under Gulf
CRYING WOLF: Warnings about oil supply
Oil from a stone - Oct. 31, 2007

And for all the "big oil" statements, all your arguments are from people that will make large amount off of the hopes that we will kill ourselves.

See the real issue is not GW. The issue is profits. I have enough common sense to see through the GW crap. I am all for other sources of energy. I do not like spending 65.00 to fill up my mid-size sedan. I also do not fell like wasting money on a hybrid. Every time I do the math, I end up spending more over ten years owning one than not. But you religious GW types offer NOTHING reasonable to replace oil at this time. I have offered something. Reactors that produce hydrogen which in turn produces no footprint from vehicles driven. I cannot put a wind mill on my car or solar panels. You batteries for hybrids will outweigh any nuclear waste by far. And we have facilities in the US to dispose of waste.

So, all we have are theories that cannot be proved. We can believe they are true, but that does not make them so. Offer a reasonable solution that makes sense and the argument stops.

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

Nope nice try, but you should know from the Religion debates, that i do my own research.

Global Warming has Become its own Religion / Dogma .... if you do not believe in GW then your a Heretic that is not to be listened to ....

GW Fanatics Actions .... not my responses ... but you look @ how the Eco Freaks / GW Fanatics treat people who don't agree with their point of view ....

[SamSpade]

Originally Posted by greg_the_great

I have offered something. Reactors that produce hydrogen which in turn produces no footprint from vehicles driven.

I'm not convinced of the efficacy of a hydrogen economy. There's only two methods available to us to produce hydrogen, since you can't just pump it out of the ground - from fossil fuels (which defeats the point of using it as an alternative fuel source) and from electrolysis, which requires electricity to be consumed to create the hydrogen. So unless you're creating electricity by means of something other than coal, nuclear or hydroelectric, all you're doing is inefficiently transporting one form of energy to another.

Everything is dicey after that - there's transport, storage, and liquefaction or storage of hydrogen, because you can't just pour it in a barrel, and it's way too light to waste transport without compressing it.

Effectively, all hydrogen is, is a means of storing energy. We don't mine it, pump it, grow it or collect it - we create it via other means. So if those other means are nuclear, solar, fossil fuels etc. it's useless as a replacement for those sources.

[greg_the_great]

Agreed. But it is a solution to GW. Nothing is easy. And as of yet, there is nothing better to replace oil.

[SamSpade]

Originally Posted by greg_the_great

Agreed. But it is a solution to GW. Nothing is easy. And as of yet, there is nothing better to replace oil.

I'm guessing you're responding to me, even though there's no reference.

It doesn't "replace" oil at all. You have to use fossil fuels - or electricity - to make it. Thus, it isn't a source of energy, it's a storage medium.

[greg_the_great]

Originally Posted by SamSpade

I'm guessing you're responding to me, even though there's no reference.

It doesn't "replace" oil at all. You have to use fossil fuels - or electricity - to make it. Thus, it isn't a source of energy, it's a storage medium.

I agree with you. Every car company out there has a hydrogen fuel cell car. The technology is there to stop vehicles from leaving a carbon footprint. According to the GW group, this would be a start to ending the fear. of course it mean building nuke plants.