dwh wrote: »
One is - the other isn't:
niel wrote: »
what this boils down to is what difference would it make to you dwh if you are right or wrong? i don't see the relevance as to what this really has to do with anything this forum addresses and i can only assume that you are just obsessing over an issue that is unprovable by most of us, including myself and you, one way or another until everybody will agree with you. you can still bring it up and you can still discuss it if you want to, but why? is it going to boost people buying pvs or conserving or is it everybody can just do whatever anybody wants to until the damages prove that wasn't a good idea to do if such damages occur? many have an opinion or some just don't know.
dwh wrote: »
It's not about me "being right".
Perhaps, as has been said, an RE forum is not the place to voice skepticism about this particular subject. I disagree. I think it *is* appropriate - after all, who is is that is taking advantage of the tax breaks, credits and rebates? We are. The people in THIS forum.
russ wrote: »
What is missing are scientists to dıscuss/argue the points. I have yet to read anything except repeated points and buzz words.
Everyone wants to discuss what they have exceedingly little knowledge of and most of that was gained from other blogs.
In the event someone here is really qualified as a climate scientist by education and work experience, then my apologies to them. I don't think I am going to need to be apologizing.
drees wrote: »
Except for your claim that Antarctic sea ice extent is growing (which just about everyone has confirmed), I'm having a hard time finding actual references to any of your other claims.
Others seem to indicate that the Antarctic is losing land ice overall.http://skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htmhttp://www.skepticalscience.com/An-overview-of-Antarctic-ice-trends.html
Both of those links include links to the actual studies from which the data was obtained.
icarus wrote: »
Second, there has been what I believe to be an orchestrated, organized well funded climate change denial cabal that has tried to plant any seed of doubt so as to be able to under mine the basic science.
Cariboocoot wrote: »
Since you admit there is corruption to the "facts" on both sides of the issue, why do you choose to support the nay-sayers?
dwh wrote: »
That's not quite accurate.
I don't "support the nay-sayers". I "oppose the certitude of the proponents", which is a different thing altogether.
Though I'm not above quoting the nay-sayers if helps to point out that the science is dodgy (and it really is), but that's a far cry from supporting them.
Cariboocoot wrote: »
Oh, many of us on this forum think it's quite accurate. Especially since you played agent provocateur by starting this thread with the alarmist topic "Professor says Global Warming a Scam".
Could you split that hair any thinner? I doubt you'll find many others here who agree with that either.
The science supporting climate change/global warming is basic physics and far from "dodgy".
Furthermore, the studies supporting it are funded largely by Government rather than some business which stands to gain by the results (not that no business will).
On the other hand, if you trace back the funding for the nay-sayers how long does it take before you find someone in the oil industry - which has everything to gain by shooting down climate change/global warming?
BTW, what sort of solar power system do you have? Just curious.
The question becomes why, if all these terrible things are happening, we have more such forest now than 200 years ago.
bryanl wrote: »
As for behavior - consider how the 'PC talking points' are being tossed out with authority but no basis. That is the essence of a hubris that, I think, should be of primary concern because it limits exploring the assumptions, presumptions, and measures behind them in an honest fashion.
THERE appears to be a widespread belief that the comparatively high temperature produced within a closed space covered with glass, and exposed to solar radiation, results from a transformation of wave-length, that is, that the heat waves from the sun, which are able to penetrate the glass, fall upon the walls of the enclosure and raise its temperature: the heat energy is re-emitted by the walls in the form of much longer waves, which are unable to penetrate the glass, the greenhouse acting as a radiation trap. I have always felt some doubt as to whether this action played any very large part in the elevation of temperature. It appeared much more probable that the part played by the glass was the prevention of the escape of the warm air heated by the ground within the enclosure. If we open the doors of a greenhouse on a cold and windy day, the trapping of radiation appears to lose much of its efficacy. As a matter of fact I am of the opinion that a greenhouse made of a glass transparent to waves of every possible length would show a temperature nearly, if not quite, as high as that observed in a glass house. The transparent screen allows the solar radiation to warm the ground, and the ground in turn warms the air, but only the limited amount within the enclosure. In the "open," the ground is continually brought into contact with cold air by convection currents.
To test the matter I constructed two enclosures of dead black cardboard, one covered with a glass plate, the other with a plate of rock-salt of equal thickness. The bulb of a thermometer was inserted in each enclosure and the whole packed in cotton, with the exception of the transparent plates which were exposed. When exposed to sunlight the temperature rose gradually to 65 oC., the enclosure covered with the salt plate keeping a little ahead of the other, owing to the fact that it transmitted the longer waves from the sun, which were stopped by the glass. In order to eliminate this action the sunlight was first passed through a glass plate.
There was now scarcely a difference of one degree between the temperatures of the two enclosures. The maximum temperature reached was about 55 oC. From what we know about the distribution of energy in the spectrum of the radiation emitted by a body at 55 o, it is clear that the rock-salt plate is capable of transmitting practically all of it, while the glass plate stops it entirely. This shows us that the loss of temperature of the ground by radiation is very small in comparison to the loss by convection, in other words that we gain very little from the circumstance that the radiation is trapped.
icarus wrote: »
See why I didn't want to go here? Opinions and passions are strong when informed/uninformed/right/wrong/political/apolitical etc.
If you accept any notion that there is a real issue, the causes and solutions become very political both locally and internationally.
One final note. Nearly every environmental regulation has been met with nay sayers who have said it would bankrupt the country, it would be too expensive, would cost more to solve the problem than the solution was worth. I challenge anyone to look at the real record. Nearly every major environmental regulation and the technology to implement it has cost way less than predicted, and had a much higher benefit. The perfect example is Catalytic converters on cars. It was said it would cost $1000s per car and not have any appreciable benefit. The cost turned out (economy of scale) to be a few $ per car, and the benefits were huge. It is estimated that the public health savings alone exceed the cost of Cat cons by a factor of ~10. (Sometime I will post a link, but the sat is too slow right now!) The same is true of SO2 scrubbers of coal plants. Much cheaper, much better benefit.