31,000 Scientist Say No To Global Warming

[Lugnut]

Greenhouse gases have a greater effect on earth's temperature than the sun, because the power emitted by the sun is essentially a constant (to be completely accurate, it varies by 1/10 of 1% on a reoccurring 11 year cycle). Consequently, the amount of power projected from the sun to the earth is also essentially constant: 1/2 the earth is always illuminated, 1/2 is always shadowed.

How much of the sun's power is actually absorbed on earth, and how much of the earth's heat is shed back into space - are largely governed by the composition of our atmosphere, which is much more variable than the sun's power. In that regard, more water vapor in the atmosphere means more of the sun's energy is reflected back into space (more cooling); more GHG mean less of the earth's heat is radiated back into space (less cooling). But the output of the sun remains essentially constant, and has little effect on the heat balance of the earth as a whole.

:edited for clarity

That's pretty scary.... I mean, the sun is how many miles away? And it can knock out whole power grids with a little'ole solar cough. Those green house gas's are right here in our back yard! Can you imagine the potential for disaster?!?!

So uh, how many watts/ergs/joules do those green house gas's produce?

 

[The Oyster Guy]

Wrong.

NASA - Top Story - SATELLITE FINDS WARMING "RELATIVE" TO HUMIDITY - March 15, 2004


If you were correct, more heat = more water vapor = more cooling. That would be a self regulating system that would result in no net temperature increase. But since you are not correct, that doesn't matter.

Since when did the GW deniers begin citing NASA? NASA are the folks that say anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is real... OK, so I should have been more specific and said "cloud vapor", rather than just water vapor - but it all goes back to how the content of earth's atmosphere governs the flow of heat energy to/from the surface of the earth.
Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. Research Group News » Tropical Water Vapor and Cloud Feedbacks in Climate Models: A Further Assessment Using Coupled Simulations by De-Zheng Sun, Yongqiang Yu, and Tao Zhang

And the earth (on the whole, evaluated as a system) maintains a heat equilibrium precisely because it IS a self regulating system. That's what GW is all about, fer crying out loud - the question of whether the equilibrium is shifting to a higher average temperature because the variables that influence the rates of heat transfer to/from the planet surface are changing. Go take a course in thermodynamics and heat transfer, and maybe then you'll be able to debate GW more intelligently.

 

[Lugnut]

OK, so I should have been more specific and said "cloud vapor", rather than just water vapor

What's the difference?

 

[The Oyster Guy]

I think the original remarks were addressing the fact that were it not for the sun, the earth would be a stone cold lifeless rock in space, and virtually all heat on earth derives from it. Without it AT ALL, the effect of greenhouse gases would be irrelevant.

...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.

 

[MMDad]

Since when did the GW deniers begin citing NASA? NASA are the folks that say anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is real... OK, so I should have been more specific and said "cloud vapor", rather than just water vapor - but it all goes back to how the content of earth's atmosphere governs the flow of heat energy to/from the surface of the earth.
Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. Research Group News » Tropical Water Vapor and Cloud Feedbacks in Climate Models: A Further Assessment Using Coupled Simulations by De-Zheng Sun, Yongqiang Yu, and Tao Zhang

And the earth (on the whole, evaluated as a system) maintains a heat equilibrium precisely because it IS a self regulating system. That's what GW is all about, fer crying out loud - the question of whether the equilibrium is shifting to a higher average temperature because the variables that influence the rates of heat transfer to/from the planet surface are changing. Go take a course in thermodynamics and heat transfer, and maybe then you'll be able to debate GW more intelligently.

My, my, you are rather testy. You don't like being wrong, do you?

That was a nice back pedal, by the way. "I should have been more specific." No, you were plenty specific. You were just wrong, and you changed your argument when it was pointed out to you.

I can use NASA for data because I am not biased. I am not a GW denier, I am someone who cares to actually look at the facts instead of blindly choosing a side and ignoring all information that disagrees. You should try that sometime. Look at all sides of an argument, and try to find the truth. Of course, it takes a little more effort than just watching Al Gore's movie, so I don't really expect you to do it.

It appears that I understand far more about thermodynamics and heat transfer than you do. Clouds actually absorb/trap more heat than they reflect back into space.

Please try to use a coherent argument based on actual science. Your emotional ramblings make you look sort of dumb.

 

[MMDad]

What's the difference?

Water vapor is humidity. You can have a very humid day without clouds.

 

[MMDad]

...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.

You delight in being wrong, don't you?

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0310/0310823v1.pdf

The current high level of solar activity may also have
an impact on the terrestrial climate. We note a general
similarity between our long-term SN reconstruction and
different reconstructions of temperature [28, 29]: (1) both
SN and temperature show a slow decreasing trend just
prior to 1900, followed by a steep rise that is unprecedented
during the last millenium;

 

[Lugnut]

...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.

You're not very clear. Are you trying to say the sun is NOT the primary energy source behind weather?

You can have a very humid day without clouds.

Ah but can you have clouds without humidity?!

His post suggests that there is a difference between water vapor and cloud vapor. I want to know what he thinks the difference is.

 

[The Oyster Guy]

My, my, you are rather testy. You don't like being wrong, do you?

That was a nice back pedal, by the way. "I should have been more specific." No, you were plenty specific. You were just wrong, and you changed your argument when it was pointed out to you.

I can use NASA for data because I am not biased. I am not a GW denier, I am someone who cares to actually look at the facts instead of blindly choosing a side and ignoring all information that disagrees. You should try that sometime. Look at all sides of an argument, and try to find the truth. Of course, it takes a little more effort than just watching Al Gore's movie, so I don't really expect you to do it.

It appears that I understand far more about thermodynamics and heat transfer than you do. Clouds actually absorb/trap more heat than they reflect back into space.

Please try to use a coherent argument based on actual science. Your emotional ramblings make you look sort of dumb.

...then tell me the forms/modes of heat transfer in thermodynamics. And don't google.

As far as clouds and their effect on heat transfer, there's more than one analysis of their effect (stabilizing influence or positive feedback function). If you're willing to cite NASA, I'm willing to cite the Heartland Institute: clouds reflect more energy than they trap. Clouds Mitigate Global Warming, New Evidence Shows - by Steven Milloy - The Heartland Institute

 

[Lugnut]

...then tell me the forms/modes of heat transfer in thermodynamics. And don't google.

Well that's not fair! This is the internet, it's not about right and wrong, it's about who can use Google the best!

 

[MMDad]

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]

...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]

I tip my hat

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.

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]

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]

fun

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.

 

[RadioPatrol]

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]

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]

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]

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.