Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Still Waters

Water vapour a 'major cause of global warming

41 posts in this topic

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

:lol:

:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :P

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

Edited by Resonance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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..... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.com/news148751093.html

BR Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

This is pretty well known already. It is not new stuff. :P

It is just not relevant to present change as there has been no major shift in atmospheric water vapour in the past 150 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.