Global warming non-sence

[Ollie]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...-rays-is-favourite-to-cut-global-warming.html

Correct me if I am wrong, but, doesn't water vapor cause more global warming than Co2?
So wouldn't these morons do just what they are saying they want to prevent??

""The unmanned ships would be directed by satellite to areas with the best conditions for increasing cloud cover, mainly in the Pacific and far enough away from land so as not to affect normal rainfall patterns. ""

This is good. If you increase cloud cover, you increase the amount of moisture in the air, so of cource you will affect global weather patterns.

 

[POLZIN]

DO you think life is better when living in an alternate reality ? Those folks are off the deep end for sure ! They cant even prove we caused or that global warming actually exists, but they can fix it? Yeah sure !

 

[SkiDoobyDoo]

CO2 is very tiny compared to H2O by greenhouse effect, VERY tiny
woman-contributed CO2 is a tiny tiny portion of that CO2

if i recall the math correctly; if you had 10,000,000 pennies representing all greenhouse gasses as measured by effect, CO2 would be like $100 and woman-contributed CO2 would be 3 cents... conceptually, that's it anyway

if all woman-contributed CO2 was eliminated, the weather would do what it's gonna do anyway
it is only about power over your life, but we all know that

 

[Weekday Warrior]

This won't have any effect on the temp of the earth, less than rain effect from our local steam generators. The water vapors don't get high enough up in the atmosphere. Kinda like lake effect snows.

The purpose of this is simply to waste our tax dollars on a feel good project, the first billions get spent, then they'll "urgenty need more ships" then abuse our dollars again.


They'd have to cover our seas with a ship every square mile to increase the cloud cover enough to have an effect, then we'll be in a steamy hot sauna.

 

[FriscoProx]

Check out the "science" from this site. It gets in depth but they actually use math and repeatable process to draw conclusions.

http://biocab.org/Emissivity_CO2.html

http://biocab.org/

 

[Dogmeat]

BAN DIHYRDOGEN MONOXIDE!!!! BAN DIHYRDOGEN MONOXIDE!!!! BAN DIHYRDOGEN MONOXIDE!!!! BAN DIHYRDOGEN MONOXIDE!!!! BAN DIHYRDOGEN MONOXIDE!!!!

WooOoOOooooOhOoOOOOO WE'RE SAVING THE WORLD WOOHOO

 

[X-it]

There is only one small problem.........no global warming!!!.........It has been global cooling for 11 straight years now.

 

[ArcticBoy]

The world has never been in a static mode. It's always been warming or cooling, so if you live long enough you will see both. I'm tired of the arrogate ba$tards that think they are more powerful than nature. If you really want to help......go shove a plug in all the volcanoes. Don't forget the ones on the ocean floor.

 

[Wade]

Weekend warrior gets the award for logical thinking. Yep, you'd need one of these every mile or so. The amount of coal or nuclear, or whatever, you'd need, would dwarf any help. The earth is covered in water, and yet these ships are somehow going to do better than that huge evaporator surface area????


You know ollie, it just might work out, that adding evaporation to the atmosphere, wouldn't add any greenhouse effect. CO2 has the same problem. There's already enough CO2 in the atmosphere, that doubling it, doesn't double greenhouse; heat capturing capability. CO2 only captures certain frequencies of infra red light(radiation). So, adding more, won't capture much more.

Water vapor is probably the same problem. All the radiation is already being captured by H2O, there really not much more to capture. Clouds though do add reflectivity of visible light before it hits the ground and becomes infra red. They refer to it as albedo of the planet. Their trying to increase Earth's albedo. But, you'd need smoke stacks 30,000 feet high, I'd think, to do any good. I think it's too late, one it's a 500 feet from the ground. You need a thick layer of this stuff.

And I think someone was correct, H20 accounts for like 96% of greenhouse effect. Something like that. Huge difference.

 

[Wade]

OK, looked at the H2O versus CO2 science a little more.

Facts (but not that simple):

There's 30 times more H2O in the atmosphere than CO2.
H2O's spectral absorption band is 3 times wider than CO2's.
So, you'd think that means H2O is 90 times greater than CO2.
I highly doubt that. more like 80%, and CO2 is something around 5% maybe. I can guarantee you, there not linear. And, you can't just discount H2O.

Anyone tells you an exact number, is obviously full of it. There's no science either way. Much too complicated, and too many little quirks in the math. And mostly, to many careers on the line.

A person could argue that CO2 went up, and the Earth's temperature went up. But, the overall evidence is that the Earth's temperature is falling (for the past 11 years or so), and CO2 is still going up. So, it's not the overall controlling factor. Obviously, it's the sun. But, then you could easily say, the sun was responsible for the last 120 years of increasing temperature.

 

[H2SNOW]

actually we are experiencing a global warming of sorts .................as is Mercury, Jupiter, Mars the Moon ....you get where I am going with this ???

how ignorant are the climate change people anyways ??

reason ???
http://www.doomsdaytube.com/videos/endtimes/align-a-1.wmv

 

[milehighassassin]

What about air quality? Ever been to a major city on a non windy day?

 

[POLZIN]

Weekend warrior gets the award for logical thinking. Yep, you'd need one of these every mile or so. The amount of coal or nuclear, or whatever, you'd need, would dwarf any help. The earth is covered in water, and yet these ships are somehow going to do better than that huge evaporator surface area????


You know ollie, it just might work out, that adding evaporation to the atmosphere, wouldn't add any greenhouse effect. CO2 has the same problem. There's already enough CO2 in the atmosphere, that doubling it, doesn't double greenhouse; heat capturing capability. CO2 only captures certain frequencies of infra red light(radiation). So, adding more, won't capture much more.

Water vapor is probably the same problem. All the radiation is already being captured by H2O, there really not much more to capture. Clouds though do add reflectivity of visible light before it hits the ground and becomes infra red. They refer to it as albedo of the planet. Their trying to increase Earth's albedo. But, you'd need smoke stacks 30,000 feet high, I'd think, to do any good. I think it's too late, one it's a 500 feet from the ground. You need a thick layer of this stuff.

And I think someone was correct, H20 accounts for like 96% of greenhouse effect. Something like that. Huge difference.

You make an excellent point wade! How would these ships be powered ? It Cant be solar powered even if solar was drastically more efficient that present . The clouds the purpose to create would limit that . Unmaned nuclear ships seem to be a bad idea. What else is there ? Maybe they will just invent a perpetual motion generator to solve that problem

When the do that it it would instantly solve the planets energy problems so this entire idea would be as pointless as discussing the possibilty of perpetual motion in the first place!

 

[Wade]

What about air quality? Ever been to a major city on a non windy day?

Ah my friend, you are talking about true pollution. The stuff that made the Indian cry; back in the early 70's. CO2 is of course translucent, within the spectrum of visible light. Air pollution is a major problem in the world. China's major cities would be a good example. Since they are exempt from all CO2 treaties, CO2 is obviously not important to this discussion. SMOG is, and China should do everything they can to remedy the problem.

I do have my limits of course, no one should expect perfectly clean air. It is not logically possible, as long as the sun is shining, and the wind is blowing, it will never happen. But, we could do more to clean true air pollution up. CO2 is not air pollution, by my definition.

 

[X-it]

http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm I just can't believe this stuff.....we are in global cooling folks....believe it

 

[svensdream]

it is so nice to see a group of people (you guys) that are takeing a look at the bs and calling it what it is.

tally-ho

 

[Ollie]

Wade,
clouds do reflect some solar radiation back into space, but wouldn't that effect also work to trap radiation close to the surface??

If it wasn't a complete blanket of clouds, wouldn't it act just like the old game pong.
Radiation coming thru gaps in the clouds only to be bounced back and forth between the clouds and the earth till it finds a new hole to get out??

Also, curious how they would power all those ships and could you imagine PETA? Think of all the fish and sea critters that would be sucked up into those ships.

 

[Ollie]

http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm I just can't believe this stuff.....we are in global cooling folks....believe it

Oh we know that.
But it is always a good idea to look at all angles of an arguement.
You learn stuff that way. I can give you a chingo of links to show how the global warming folks are running around trying desperately to back up their claims, too bad they are losing.

 

[Wade]

Wade,
clouds do reflect some solar radiation back into space, but wouldn't that effect also work to trap radiation close to the surface??

If it wasn't a complete blanket of clouds, wouldn't it act just like the old game pong.
Radiation coming thru gaps in the clouds only to be bounced back and forth between the clouds and the earth till it finds a new hole to get out??

Also, curious how they would power all those ships and could you imagine PETA? Think of all the fish and sea critters that would be sucked up into those ships.

Well, from personal experience, I know that your right, a hot cloudless day, and then the clouds move in at night, it will stay warm. If the clouds move out, it will get cold at night. So, there's gotta be something going on to cause that effect. No visible light at night, just black body radiation off the earth. And, at room temperature, it's mostly infra red. So, clouds must reflect a good portion of infra red back to the ground.

That's why deserts get cold at night, low water vapour, results in low thermal infra red blanket effect.

I bet the cloud pong changes when it's on something really reflective like snow.

I'll do a little readin, sounds interesting.

 

[milehighassassin]

Ah my friend, you are talking about true pollution. The stuff that made the Indian cry; back in the early 70's. CO2 is of course translucent, within the spectrum of visible light. Air pollution is a major problem in the world. China's major cities would be a good example. Since they are exempt from all CO2 treaties, CO2 is obviously not important to this discussion. SMOG is, and China should do everything they can to remedy the problem.

I do have my limits of course, no one should expect perfectly clean air. It is not logically possible, as long as the sun is shining, and the wind is blowing, it will never happen. But, we could do more to clean true air pollution up. CO2 is not air pollution, by my definition.

So since you can't see it, it doesn't exist or cause problems?

I don't buy into what Gore says but I do think that C02 and other gasses cause problems.