39 replies to this topic

[Br Cornelius]

OverSword, on 04 February 2010 - 05:06 PM, said:

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.

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.

Nuclear winter requires all the explosions to happen at the same time. I am not aware that has happened yet.
Of course I could have been asleep at the time.

Br Cornelius

[OverSword]

Br Cornelius, on 04 February 2010 - 07:47 PM, said:

Nuclear winter requires all the explosions to happen at the same time. I am not aware that has happened yet.
Of course I could have been asleep at the time.

Br Cornelius

Quite so, I was just pointing out that until that occurs it is just a theory, and it's rare that MattShark has any weak points in his arguments so spotting one I decided to tease him is all.

Now stop trying to prove you're smart talking monkey. LOL!

[Mattshark]

OverSword, on 04 February 2010 - 08:15 PM, said:

Quite so, I was just pointing out that until that occurs it is just a theory, and it's rare that MattShark has any weak points in his arguments so spotting one I decided to tease him is all.

[Resonance]

Br Cornelius, on 04 February 2010 - 07:47 PM, said:

Nuclear winter requires all the explosions to happen at the same time. I am not aware that has happened yet.
Of course I could have been asleep at the time.

Br Cornelius

Uhm.... Wait a second there.... Please specify what you're meaning by 'all of the nuclear explosions'.......

It doesn't take 'every single nuclear explosion' to cause a nuclear winter, just a large enough one..... Enough debris in the atmosphere to block the sun.... travel throughout the atmosphere to all parts of the world..... That gives you a nuclear winter... eh?

Hehe, if you couldn't tell, I literally just jumped into the thread.

Please disregard this message if you've already made sense of that.

Edited by Resonance, 05 February 2010 - 12:45 AM.

[MOONSHADOWXIII]

In the history of the Earth there have been a number of Ice Ages (large and small), followed by "global warming", the majority of them long before man ever dragged his knuckles. So then, I must ask the obvious: What caused (causes) the Earth to warm and cool over and over again when man was (is) not a factor?

I have little doubt that man's actions have "contributed" to the warming trend. However, it seems more a "drop in the bucket"  rather than a major driving force. In my opinion, man is (as usual) giving himself far more credit the he (we) deserve.....

[J.B.]

One of the theories I picked up from the cosmic rays idea, it comes from a novel so bear with me if the author came out with that one all on his own, is that when the sun goes into a low, cosmic rays hit us more often and this heats up water faster, causing more clouds and global cooling. Any evidence whatsoever for any of that?

[Br Cornelius]

J.B., on 05 February 2010 - 07:51 PM, said:

One of the theories I picked up from the cosmic rays idea, it comes from a novel so bear with me if the author came out with that one all on his own, is that when the sun goes into a low, cosmic rays hit us more often and this heats up water faster, causing more clouds and global cooling. Any evidence whatsoever for any of that?

Here is a discussion of that idea. It is worth following the link to the actual paper.

http://www.physorg.c...s148751093.html

BR Cornelius

[J.B.]

I read the article and am reading the paper. It seems to back up your claims, but I'm a bit hesitant to agree 100% when they only hit one region of the world.

[Florida Ed]

Portable sensors (i.e. radiosonde) capable of accurately measuring upper atmosphere water vapor didn't even exist until the late 1920s.  So there is absolutely no possible way to justify saying that there "has been no major shift in atmospheric water vapour in the past 150 years."

http://hdl.handle.net/10088/2453

Mattshark, on 29 January 2010 - 06:31 PM, said:

This is pretty well known already. It is not new stuff.
It is just not relevant to present change as there has been no major shift in atmospheric water vapour in the past 150 years.

[Br Cornelius]

Florida Ed, on 13 February 2010 - 12:56 AM, said:

Portable sensors (i.e. radiosonde) capable of accurately measuring upper atmosphere water vapor didn't even exist until the late 1920s.  So there is absolutely no possible way to justify saying that there "has been no major shift in atmospheric water vapour in the past 150 years."

http://hdl.handle.net/10088/2453

There was the original experiment on CO2 effects over 120yrs ago. It used spectroscopy of incoming moonlight as a proxy for outgoing earth light and measured the absorbtion by both CO2 and H2O. So they had an accurate dataset for water vs co2 absorbtion over 120yrs ago and this would be the basis of Matts statement.

Br Cornelius

[Florida Ed]

I'll read up on that experiment.  I would think however that to categorize it as creating an accurate dataset that could be used against modern observations, they would've needed many such experiments performed over many geographical locations and they would have needed to do them each year since the original experiment to make sure there were no geographical variances at play and to make sure the year in which they did it was not itself an anomaly.

Br Cornelius, on 13 February 2010 - 08:37 AM, said:

There was the original experiment on CO2 effects over 120yrs ago. It used spectroscopy of incoming moonlight as a proxy for outgoing earth light and measured the absorbtion by both CO2 and H2O. So they had an accurate dataset for water vs co2 absorbtion over 120yrs ago and this would be the basis of Matts statement.

Br Cornelius