Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Water vapour a 'major cause of global warming


  • Please log in to reply
39 replies to this topic

#16    Mattshark

Mattshark

    stuff

  • Member
  • 16,985 posts
  • Joined:29 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, UK

  • Sea Shepherd, making conservation harder.

    If you care about wildlife, do not support these pirates.......

Posted 30 January 2010 - 11:49 AM

View PostIamsSon, on 30 January 2010 - 03:10 AM, said:

But you're not a climate scientist, therefore, you can't really know what you're talking about.  I mean that's your criteria for dismissing the AGW skeptics.
Actually, no it isn't.

Algae : Protists not Plants!

YNWA

#17    J.B.

J.B.

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,427 posts
  • Joined:23 Sep 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United States

  • Deadpan snarker in your midst: Jokers beware. I eat jokes for fun and spit out seriousness just because that's how I roll. :P

Posted 31 January 2010 - 07:14 PM

The skeptics are as politically motivated as they're claiming the IPCC to be.
Don't know that they're right about the IPCC, but they certainly are political. There really hasn't been a single AGW sceptic who was both loud enough to be a source in our UM arguments on the subject who wasn't in politics to some degree.


#18    Caesar

Caesar

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,623 posts
  • Joined:07 Jan 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Charlotte, NC

  • Semper Fidelis

Posted 01 February 2010 - 02:40 AM

View PostJ.B., on 31 January 2010 - 07:14 PM, said:

The skeptics are as politically motivated as they're claiming the IPCC to be.
Don't know that they're right about the IPCC, but they certainly are political. There really hasn't been a single AGW sceptic who was both loud enough to be a source in our UM arguments on the subject who wasn't in politics to some degree.
Both sides are political. its hard to believe the IPCC with all its claims only to be corrected down the road. its strange how most of the errors seem to help them.


#19    Mattshark

Mattshark

    stuff

  • Member
  • 16,985 posts
  • Joined:29 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, UK

  • Sea Shepherd, making conservation harder.

    If you care about wildlife, do not support these pirates.......

Posted 01 February 2010 - 03:59 AM

View PostCaesar, on 01 February 2010 - 02:40 AM, said:

Both sides are political. its hard to believe the IPCC with all its claims only to be corrected down the road. its strange how most of the errors seem to help them.
To be fair, that I feel is more a perception scenario as they are, unlike many sources used on here, genuinely in the media spotlight.

Algae : Protists not Plants!

YNWA

#20    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,957 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 01 February 2010 - 12:08 PM

View PostJ.B., on 31 January 2010 - 07:14 PM, said:

The skeptics are as politically motivated as they're claiming the IPCC to be.
Don't know that they're right about the IPCC, but they certainly are political. There really hasn't been a single AGW sceptic who was both loud enough to be a source in our UM arguments on the subject who wasn't in politics to some degree.

Well said.
The IPCC is a political pressure organisation - it is doing fairly much what it was set up to do. It is also an administrative organisation and not as such a body of scientific research. It has a valuable role because this is one area of science which can only be actioned through the political domain.
The same can be said of the vast majority of politically/business motivated sceptical mouthpieces which have proliferated on the internet. The major difference though is that almost none of them have a foundation in scientific papers to support their case (unlike the IPCC). They have a specific business motivated agenda to create disinformation in order to diminish pressure for action changes to policy which will effect their bottom line. They are almost all pure unsupported PR dressed up as science.

The one body which I feel cannot be accused of been politically motivated are the scientists doing the raw research, and this is why Mattshark always insists on refering to the unmediated scientific papers. In the science forum, at least, I feel this should be the yardstick by which we judge the issue.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 01 February 2010 - 12:12 PM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#21    cerberusxp

cerberusxp

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,055 posts
  • Joined:02 Jan 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Third Rock

  • We all look for truth, however when we find it, some times we wish we hadn't. R. Burch

Posted 02 February 2010 - 02:57 AM

AAAAAAAAhhhhhhhh lets see here, didn't I say that last year in here? OH YEA I did! Matty it is not CO2. The major driver for climate change is the SUN period. Man is Not causing climate change. Man has had little influence on climate. Sure in the steam engine era there was some change that was caused by man. and there have been localized areas of changes, but over all climate change world wide NO.

What we say and do unto others while here on earth are the vessels of our glory or undoing EXCUSE ME WHILE I KISS THE SKY
credentials http://www.unexplain...amp;pid=2291684

" I want the people of America to work less for the Government and more for themselves" Calvin Coolidge 1924
If one were to try and pidgin hole me I'd say I was a Jeffersonian liberal.

#22    Mattshark

Mattshark

    stuff

  • Member
  • 16,985 posts
  • Joined:29 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, UK

  • Sea Shepherd, making conservation harder.

    If you care about wildlife, do not support these pirates.......

Posted 02 February 2010 - 04:41 AM

View Postcerberusxp, on 02 February 2010 - 02:57 AM, said:

AAAAAAAAhhhhhhhh lets see here, didn't I say that last year in here? OH YEA I did! Matty it is not CO2. The major driver for climate change is the SUN period. Man is Not causing climate change. Man has had little influence on climate. Sure in the steam engine era there was some change that was caused by man. and there have been localized areas of changes, but over all climate change world wide NO.
Well yeah, if you ignore declining solar activity with increasing temperature!

But hey I have posted papers showing this, clearly though I should just accept your say so!  :rolleyes:


Oh and you wanna know how much effect we can have on climate? Look up nuclear winter.

Also, feel free to explain a 100ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 since the industrial revolution (and yes it is a proven greenhouse gas).

Edited by Mattshark, 02 February 2010 - 04:43 AM.

Algae : Protists not Plants!

YNWA

#23    Professor Buzzkill

Professor Buzzkill

    Integrity is all we have

  • Member
  • 2,583 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:White Cloud

Posted 02 February 2010 - 04:53 AM

View PostMattshark, on 02 February 2010 - 04:41 AM, said:

Well yeah, if you ignore declining solar activity with increasing temperature!

But hey I have posted papers showing this, clearly though I should just accept your say so!  :rolleyes:


Oh and you wanna know how much effect we can have on climate? Look up nuclear winter.

Also, feel free to explain a 100ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 since the industrial revolution (and yes it is a proven greenhouse gas).

All gases are "greenhouse gases", some better then others. But CO2 isn't a major driving force in climate change. As both of us know CO2 has been 20 times higher then they are today with no run away "venus-like" conditions. And although you have said the number of sunspots are down, I have a feeling that the radiation from space has actually increased. Here is a link. My link

Edited by Professor GlenBoy, 02 February 2010 - 04:54 AM.


#24    MichaelW

MichaelW

    Poltergeist

  • Banned
  • 2,523 posts
  • Joined:14 Nov 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nelson, New Zealand

  • Doctors are sadists who like to play God and watch lesser people scream.

Posted 02 February 2010 - 05:56 AM

I think he might have a point. Radiation doesn't always have to originate from our sun. There are plenty of bigger and much more active suns close to the solar system we are in. Radiation from a sun ten times bigger than our own millions of miles away can still have an effect on our climate.

On another note, why is is that people who believe that GW say that their opinion is fact based? I've never known an opinion to have facts. In my view, there is no fact based opinion but opinion based fact.

Signature removed - please see rule 3b.

#25    Mattshark

Mattshark

    stuff

  • Member
  • 16,985 posts
  • Joined:29 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, UK

  • Sea Shepherd, making conservation harder.

    If you care about wildlife, do not support these pirates.......

Posted 02 February 2010 - 11:46 AM

View PostProfessor GlenBoy, on 02 February 2010 - 04:53 AM, said:

All gases are "greenhouse gases", some better then others. But CO2 isn't a major driving force in climate change. As both of us know CO2 has been 20 times higher then they are today with no run away "venus-like" conditions. And although you have said the number of sunspots are down, I have a feeling that the radiation from space has actually increased. Here is a link. My link
That is because Venus has other factors. You think this planet will be the same with an average temperature of 22c? It wouldn't, most life on the planet would die and we would lose both ice caps and see a large rise in sea level. Your argument is only acknowledging one fact and ignoring all the others, nor does it off an actually explanation for the continued warming and that includes cosmic rays.

Algae : Protists not Plants!

YNWA

#26    Mattshark

Mattshark

    stuff

  • Member
  • 16,985 posts
  • Joined:29 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, UK

  • Sea Shepherd, making conservation harder.

    If you care about wildlife, do not support these pirates.......

Posted 02 February 2010 - 11:52 AM

View PostMichaelW, on 02 February 2010 - 05:56 AM, said:

I think he might have a point. Radiation doesn't always have to originate from our sun. There are plenty of bigger and much more active suns close to the solar system we are in. Radiation from a sun ten times bigger than our own millions of miles away can still have an effect on our climate.

On another note, why is is that people who believe that GW say that their opinion is fact based? I've never known an opinion to have facts. In my view, there is no fact based opinion but opinion based fact.
What, you mean the scientific papers that are fact based?
The fact that CO2 is rising as is temperature
The fact that CO2 is a known greenhouse gas
The fact that solar activity is declining as temperature increases
The fact that there is no evidence despite many tests that cosmic rays actually affect climate
The fact that temperatures have risen rapidly over the last century

That would be fact based.

Algae : Protists not Plants!

YNWA

#27    MichaelW

MichaelW

    Poltergeist

  • Banned
  • 2,523 posts
  • Joined:14 Nov 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nelson, New Zealand

  • Doctors are sadists who like to play God and watch lesser people scream.

Posted 02 February 2010 - 08:02 PM

The fact that you just maybe a bit paranoid? I said OPINION as in they all seem to have opinions based on facts. I played the words a bit.

Also, the reason why there may be no evidence that cosmic rays or radiation is the idea that we might be being subjected to this radiation or "rays" from a large star which has not yet been discovered.

I'm actually looking forward to higher temperatures. This means we will have the same highs in the summer as we used to. And higher water level means more waterfront properties, which mean more money for the tenants. ChaChing!

Signature removed - please see rule 3b.

#28    Mattshark

Mattshark

    stuff

  • Member
  • 16,985 posts
  • Joined:29 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, UK

  • Sea Shepherd, making conservation harder.

    If you care about wildlife, do not support these pirates.......

Posted 02 February 2010 - 08:11 PM

View PostMichaelW, on 02 February 2010 - 08:02 PM, said:

The fact that you just maybe a bit paranoid? I said OPINION as in they all seem to have opinions based on facts. I played the words a bit.

Also, the reason why there may be no evidence that cosmic rays or radiation is the idea that we might be being subjected to this radiation or "rays" from a large star which has not yet been discovered.

I'm actually looking forward to higher temperatures. This means we will have the same highs in the summer as we used to. And higher water level means more waterfront properties, which mean more money for the tenants. ChaChing!
No it is what the evidence suggests. That is not paranoia, that is addressing what is the most parsimonious scientific conclusion. That is how you do real science.

And you complain about my argument and use the logical fallacy of an argument of ignorance as a rebuttal? Seriously, that is pretty meaningless. We haven't discovered a giant pink unicorn that it maybe either, want to argue for that too?

Your last line is just silly.

Edited by Mattshark, 02 February 2010 - 08:12 PM.

Algae : Protists not Plants!

YNWA

#29    sepulchrave

sepulchrave

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,756 posts
  • Joined:19 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 03 February 2010 - 01:17 AM

View PostProfessor GlenBoy, on 02 February 2010 - 04:53 AM, said:

I have a feeling that the radiation from space has actually increased.

During periods of low sun-spot activity radiation from space does indeed increase. This is in the form of cosmic rays. There is plenty of evidence from tree rings, ice cores, etc. that more cosmic rays hit the Earth during periods when the Sun is not very magnetically active.

These cosmic rays, of course, have absolutely no impact on the temperature of the Earth.


#30    OverSword

OverSword

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 12,652 posts
  • Joined:16 Oct 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle WA USA

  • When the power of love overcomes the love of power then humanity can evolve

Posted 04 February 2010 - 05:06 PM

Matt, are you aware that there have been many nuclear explosions but no nuclear winter?  That would make it a theory wouldn't it?  Not fact based at all. :P

Sorry, just giving you a hard time.  Although I don't agree that man is the driving force behind climate change I admire your argumentative skills and give you props on your evidence finding abilities.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users