Article

2007-05-23 Science & Technology

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by anonymous5089 2007-05-23 14:45|| || Front Page|| [11131 views ] Top

#1 O.K., so we have to find the witches and give them a fair trial, then tie them up and throw them in the pond. With sufficient grant money to study the relationship of sinkers or floaters to the actual proof of witchcraft, of course.

Posted by Bobby 2007-05-23 15:15|| 2007-05-23 15:15|| Front Page Top

#2 The purchase of a sufficient number of my Carbon Credits will save the world from global warming.

Posted by Al Gore 2007-05-23 15:16|| 2007-05-23 15:16|| Front Page Top

#3 Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a naturaland not a human-inducedcause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.

In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Posted by John Frum 2007-05-23 15:51|| 2007-05-23 15:51|| Front Page Top

#4 Question: Are carbon credits an acceptable wedding or baby shower gift?

Posted by Seafarious">Seafarious 2007-05-23 15:58|| 2007-05-23 15:58|| Front Page Top

#5 What a marvelous idea, Seafarious!
Tipper, add it to your list...

Posted by Al Gore 2007-05-23 16:35|| 2007-05-23 16:35|| Front Page Top

#6 If Global Warning is "bunk" what does it mean to debunk Global Warming?

Posted by JohnQC 2007-05-23 17:04|| 2007-05-23 17:04|| Front Page Top

#7 #4 LOL.

Yes, they are perfectly acceptable and are available for reasonable prices at Fred's Discount House of Carbon Credits. Ask for Ethel in the Bridal Boutique.

Posted by Matt 2007-05-23 17:46|| 2007-05-23 17:46|| Front Page Top

#8 With considerable searching, I finally found out *why* it is said that a tiny amount of atmospheric carbon is a problem.

Auer is correct in point out that carbon makes up only 3.6% of greenhouse gases, and man-made carbon only 3.2% of that, for a grand total of man-made atmospheric carbon only accounting for .12% of all greenhouse gases.

So how can this tiny, marginal contribution matter? It has to do with radiation bandwidth.

That vast majority of the Sun's radiation that hits the Earth is reflected and radiated back into space. Only a portion of this *lost* energy is stopped by water vapor, however. It only stops a few, limited bands of radiation.

But carbon happens to stop *complementary* bandwidths of radiation to water. This means that a tiny amount of atmospheric carbon can stop a hell of a lot of heat from leaving Earth.

Yet this does not mean that the anti-carbon man-made global warming believers are right, yet.

This is because the carbon cycle *also* does not behave like the models suggest it should. Based on the existing models, there should be a hell of a lot more carbon in the atmosphere right now than there is.

So atmospheric carbon is being created, but it is also being absorbed somewhere.

So *that* is what decides who is right and wrong. If the atmospheric carbon *does* increase, then there will be global warming. If it *does not* increase, then there won't be global warming.

And finally, this also assumes that this is the critical factor in the heat cycle, as well.

So, Auer is mistaken on the point he was making, but there are two arguments he didn't make that actually determine things, one way or the other.

Posted by Anonymoose 2007-05-23 18:15|| 2007-05-23 18:15|| Front Page Top

#9 Isn't it possible that with all we know and all we can measure, the full formula for global heating is not known, and other factors or combinations of known factors have significant impact ? I read about el nino, sun spots, volcanos, variations in earth's orbit with relation to the sun, but there is no exact mathematics in this. Finally, what difference does it make if the earth warms a few degrees ? Shore flooding ?
Considering that every day thousands of muslim children are brainwashed to devote their lives to murder Hindus, Jews and Christians, global warming is a non issue.

Posted by wxjames 2007-05-23 18:32|| 2007-05-23 18:32|| Front Page Top

#10 The dhimmicrats are looking for an election issue--any issue--even an "invented" one.

Posted by JohnQC 2007-05-23 19:09|| 2007-05-23 19:09|| Front Page Top

#11 wxjames: the problem is both a scientific and a philosophical one. The scientific questions are threefold.

The first part is: Is global warming actually happening, and is it a short-term or long-term event? The general and realistic consensus is yes, at least as evidenced by a lot of icecap melt. However, nobody has a clue to the duration of the event.

The second part is: Is man's contribution to global warming significant enough to make an impact?

The third part is: Is there anything we can do to either alleviate or reverse our impact, or maybe more?

This leads in to the philosophical question, which is not being debated yet. On one side are those who want to use global warming to control others, and to diminish the power of the United States.

On the other side are those whose inclination is to use technology to transcend any contribution made by man to global warming, and even reverse global warming not by cutting back, but by cooling the world. And not as outrageous as it sounds.

This latter philosophy is in the realm of amazing invention, which uses existing science in novel ways.

Just as one potential example, years ago, a very air polluted city in a valley ringed by mountains, with a perpetual inversion layer, existed in the Soviet Union. Ingeniously, they floated large, black balloons over the city. The heat generated from sunlight hitting the balloons formed updrafts of hot air air that "punched holes" in the inversion layer, pumping warm polluted air out and allowing cool fresh air to come in.

Something like this could be done in the upper atmosphere, but with the idea of pumping hot air up into the cold stratosphere, where it would be much easier for it to radiate its heat into space.

While the scale of that sounds silly on the surface, it is important to remember that this is a marginal problem, so several different relatively small scale solutions might be all that is needed to balance the small contribution man makes to the problem in the first place.

Posted by Anonymoose 2007-05-23 21:09|| 2007-05-23 21:09|| Front Page Top

#12 There is no "Global Warming", only "Climate Change".

Posted by DMFD 2007-05-23 22:33|| 2007-05-23 22:33|| Front Page Top

23:50 trailing wife
23:49 Mark Espinola
23:48 Zenster
23:45 Mark Espinola
23:43 DMFD
23:43 WTF
23:42 Zenster
23:30 anonymous2u
23:26 DMFD
23:24 Danking70
22:50 Angie Schultz
22:49 Mac
22:47 Shieldwolf
22:45 Mac
22:44 Mac
22:36 DMFD
22:33 DMFD
22:32 DMFD
22:31 SR-71
22:21 George Orwell
22:19 George Orwell
22:08 ed
22:04 Anonymoose
22:00 George Orwell