Scientific Forums


Pages: (22) [1] 2 3 ... Last »  ( Go to first unread post )

Add reply Start new topic Start new poll


> Greenhouse theory smashed by biggest stone, Full story at http://www.physorg.com/news11710.html
snelson5871
Posted: Mar 14 2006, 08:30 AM


Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 57
Joined: 14-November 05

Positive Feedback: 100%
Feedback Score: 1


http://www.physorg.com/news11710.html

If anything rather than disproving global warming it acts as a sister to global warming. It states that water vapor is the best greenhouse gas well the increase in temprature from CO2 and other greenhouse gasses causes a small increase in temprature which in turn causes more water to evaporate from the ocean.Also though the Tunguska Event stirred up the upper atmosphere as the article states it released lots of dust into the atmosphere which blocks solar radiation so if the Tunguska meteor did that much to the atmosphere then the year it happened and for a couple after that would have been extremely cold years. So while it all sounds good the fact is it is most likely a sister to global warming rather than its killer.


--------------------
[IMG]http://marsdrive.com/files/images/mdc-astronaut-167x61.jpg[/IMG]
Top
Guest_neurohacker
Posted: Mar 14 2006, 12:52 PM


Unregistered









Hum sounds like it came from?????


The Bush administration well they forgot the M.D. this time.
HeHeHe

neurohacker


Top
Guest
  Posted: Mar 14 2006, 02:45 PM


Unregistered









Just another exposure of the pseudoscience that human kind is the sole cause of changes on the planet. Hate to break it to you, Chicken Littles, but humans aren't the center of the universe, the earth is round and nature changes itself more without human influence than with.
Top
OdinsAcolyte
Posted: Mar 14 2006, 03:31 PM


Member
**

Group: Power Member
Posts: 124
Joined: 19-October 05

Positive Feedback: 66.67%
Feedback Score: 2


rolleyes.gif
I keep hearing the term "fighting climate change". It reminds me of the story of a tiger cub who tried to fight the wind. LOL


--------------------
"You can all go to Hell. I am going to Texas.", Davey Crockett (Leaving the U.S. Congress)
Top
Kevin
  Posted: Mar 14 2006, 03:33 PM


Unregistered









The earth is a oblate spheroid. The effect of global warming is complex and controversial. It is important the science is objective. All ideas are valid but not all ideas are equally valid. What is critical is that we find out why CO2 is rising because this could be the herald of something very, very bad. Just look at Venus!
Top
Wyndol Morrow
  Posted: Mar 14 2006, 04:37 PM


Unregistered









But, what of the drop of 2 or 3 degrees temperature when all U.S. aircraft were grounded after 9/11? Surely, here the water vapor played a huge role, without et explanations!
Top
Guest
Posted: Mar 14 2006, 07:41 PM


Unregistered









Note that the article is being "considered" for publication. It has yet to go through the review process and could very well be declined.

Also note that the journal Science First Hand is a Siberian multi-disciplinary journal that does not focus on climatology.

http://www.sibsciencenews.org

Top
Simon
Posted: Mar 14 2006, 08:27 PM


Unregistered









if this is an american report, i dont believe it for one seccond... from previous experience I have found their results to be biased in more than one case sad.gif
Top
JoulesBeef
Posted: Mar 14 2006, 08:47 PM


Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 115
Joined: 4-December 05

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


interesting this comes ouit right after nasa compreshensive report stating that humans are definately the cause of most of the global warming. (there are some natural causes but we are exasterbating the problem).

There seems to be a tendancy that when ever a report on global warming comes out, the industrialist have to release there own reports saying there is nothing wrong and we dont need to change anything.

These are the same people that say we will never ever run out of oil as the planet natural reproduces it faster than we could ever extract it.

I bet the also will say it is nature that put teflon in our blood and not dupont.

I do not doubt for a second that water vapour is a huge problem and that natural events can have great effects on our climate but i think the conclusions of this article is complete fabrication.
Top
Clarence Darrow
Posted: Mar 14 2006, 09:05 PM


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 22
Joined: 30-August 05

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


Anything to refute the idea that climate change is caused by the burning of fossil fuels. Looks like those "scientists' from the Tobacco Research Institute must have gotten laid off because the cigarette makers have had to pay off all those lawsuits.

How convienent, blaming an Act of God for climate change, and letting Big Energy off the hook.

I might also add that the CEOs of Big Oil and other carbon pirates might be concerned about the possibility of a rash of lawsuits blaming them for the damage caused by climate change. An obscure thesis by an otherwise unknown author hits every Science Web Page like it was the Second coming of the Messiah?

Is it a coincidence that this Tsunga meteor meme juggernaut has spread across cyberspace at something close to the speed of light?

Perhaps a well co-ordinated operation in the cyber boiler rooms of the hydrocarbon crooks?

Next, they'll blame climate change on Aliens trying to terraform the Earth.
Top
TheoryMan
Posted: Mar 14 2006, 09:26 PM


Unregistered









Please.. commenters be realistic. "Oh, let's say it's politics and therefore everyone will disregard any plausible science behind it." Get a clue.

First things first, the whole aspect of global warming and the "greenhouse effect" are T H E O R I E S, not fact. Go back to high school to learn the differences between a theory and true fact. No one has yet to prove any direct relationship between said gasses and the ambient temperature of the planet. Hence, it is a theory.

Man, people. Don't believe blindly EVERYTHING you read. Sheesh.

To flatly say that there is just one thing that is having an impact upon the earth's temperature is foolish. Come on, does it take just one thing to start your car in the morning? Does it just take one thing to allow you to breathe each breath? No.

More than anything, there is a combination of things that might be causing any temperature change, if there even is one. Think about it.. records dating back to the early 1900's? How accurate are those records? How accurate are those readings? As our technology has increased, the number and accuracy of those temperature readings has also increased. Sure, you can state a margin of error for readings generated today, but that margin of error is different (and in some cases, MUCH different) for past readings. The information is only as good as its accuracy, and I, for one, am not all that convinced about past accuracy (hey, politics already got in to the previous comments!).

Now, for argument's sake, let's say the temperature is going up. Is it fossil fuels? Is it CO2? Could it be that, oh, major cyclical change in or pending invert of the Earth's magnetic field? Could it be that the population of the planet has exploded over the past 100yrs (what are we at now, 4 billion or something?)?

More than likely, it is a combination of ALL of those things. The Earth is a living breathing piece of life made up of all of these little things; and we humans make up just one of them.
Top
Guest
  Posted: Mar 14 2006, 09:28 PM


Unregistered









QUOTE
Just look at Venus!

Sure! I'm also sure that in the next fifty years or so, scientists will find evidence that the Flying Spaghetti Monster's burning of fossil fuels on Venus was significantly responsible for the conditions observed there today.
Top
carchiba
Posted: Mar 14 2006, 09:44 PM


Unregistered









QUOTE (TheoryMan @ Mar 14 2006, 09:26 PM)

More than likely, it is a combination of ALL of those things. The Earth is a living breathing piece of life made up of all of these little things; and we humans make up just one of them.

the earth is a living thing ? laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif
Top
Big Backer
Posted: Mar 14 2006, 10:04 PM


Unregistered









I agree with the main story. I can see how ice crystals could reflect more energy since it is more abundant then other airborne chemical in our atmosphere. I think it has been shown under magnification, when ice forms it will try to form flat surfaces and more ridges which would make a better reflecting surface then the standard round form of water drops and water vapor. I think the main author of the story is right on the mark when he was essentially explaining two separate theories.

Not only is the amount of suspended water more important then the amounts of trace gases in our atmosphere; it is equally important to look at the temperature and the amount of frozen reflective particles that are responsible for reflecting more energy back down to the surface.

In his point about a meteor stirring the atmosphere and changing the upper climate I think the heat would cause more damage and could drive a type of weather chaos.
The heat alone from the explosion would immediately reach for the sky in an enormous super heated updraft. Which would in turn melt more ice into vapor. The change could stimulate a massive stirring of the upper weather system and disrupt the once calm area into something globally worse. Perhaps the crystals when quickly formed or changed could in fact turn to a type of non-translucent snow which in turn would prevent more radiation from returning to us in the first place.

Without studying such and event as it happens we can only continue to speculate.

If the meteor was large enough, the heat and additional water vapor released would quickly rise and it could melt and re-freeze with more suspended water vapor then existed before. A dense cloud like this could be responsible for long lasting cold events such as the dark ages.

An ocean impact leaves no impact crater, nothing to study and date. Is it that hard to see this when the Earth is 75% water?

I think too much of information we receive is just a lot of fear terrorism.
However, I feel the explanation of the previous upper atmospheric change might be valid and it deserves more study.

I think this is one of the times we be able to learn from the past and apply it to our future in a way to understand and possibly prevent or change what could be in store for our future.
Top
Astrophysics Kid
Posted: Mar 14 2006, 10:07 PM


Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 50
Joined: 12-December 04

Positive Feedback: 100%
Feedback Score: 1


I also feel that this article goes to show us that we're not at the center of everything concerning global warming.

I'm sure this planet has sustained its own climate for billions of years, despite what has happened to it. To say that because we have been burning gasoline and coal, and that because of this we're altering our clime altogether... I think it's just a bit nearsighted of ourselves. While I'm sure that we're not doing our planet a favor by throwing excess carbon, CFC's, methane, and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, I'm still not convinced we're the sole cause of "global warming."

But, we're Joe Public - what does the opinion of millions matter to a hundred scientists?

=P


--------------------
Knowledge is a powerful tool, a mighty sword to wield in the battle against the beast of uncertainty.
Top

Topic Options Pages: (22) [1] 2 3 ... Last »

Add reply Start new topic Start new poll


 

Terms of use