It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by melatonin
Nope, the point is that the earth is much closer. If the changes on pluto were due to changes is solar activity, we would sort of notice it.
Put your hand 60 inches from a light bulb. That's pluto.
Put your hand 2 inches from the light bulb. That's the earth.
It's must be magical cosmic rays or something, heh.
If the Earth were a ball of rock with no atmosphere, a simple calculation that equates the solar energy absorbed by the Earth to the heat emitted by the Earth would predict the global average Earth temperature to be 0 degrees Fahrenheit, or 255 Kelvin-very cold, and not the Earth as we know it (this scenario assumes that an average rock reflects 30 percent of all light that hits it).
Originally posted by Dae
Eek melatonin, come on! Youre a clever one and these statements about the sun are a tad wrong. Its only magical cosmic rays if you dont understand whats going on.
First off, do you think that heat travels through space and heats up our planet? Heat on our planet is generated by electromagnetic energy sent from the sun (x-rays, UV etc.), it turns to heat when it hits the atmosphere (heating some sections and not others) and warms the breathable air when it hits the ground. The sun doesnt passively heat up planets, the sun produces energy which interacts with a planets atmosphere and magnetic field.
So no atmosphere = freezing planet despite the distance from the sun.
Originally posted by AmoebaSized
It would be mentioned at one weblink that the Sun would only cause 25% of the changes in the weather, and that Global Warming is the other part of the effect upon the weather system of the Earth.
Originally posted by malcr
Planting trees is a good thing in the long term but in the short term would ironically make the CO2 situation worse! What we really need to do is to stop chopping down mature trees. Young trees are net CO2 contributors, mature tress are net CO2 absorbers, dead trees are net CO2 contributors.
Originally posted by willywagga
So that being the case, with sea levels rising more every year, a pretty much proven certainty, the nuclear option in NOT a runner, in that respect we're all ready in trouble as almost all our nuclear facilities are costal a 2 metre sea level rise would be catastrophic there would be multiple Chernobyl's major major crap.
[edit on 11-12-2007 by willywagga]
Originally posted by jimbo999
Many scientific departments are desperate for funding today. Some scientists of littlle repute are more than willing to warmly accept funding from dubious sources. Those sources are more often than not oil companies. They come with blank cheques in hand and pre-drawn conclusions for these 'scientists'.
Needless to say, oil industry PR people make damn sure these 'scientific papers' are published and WELL publicised - after all, that's the whole point in the first place.
This sort of behaviour is considered crass & non-scientific by more legitimate and reputable scientists - but they KNOW it goes on.
Originally posted by Dae
Originally posted by melatonin
Nope, the point is that the earth is much closer. If the changes on pluto were due to changes is solar activity, we would sort of notice it.
Put your hand 60 inches from a light bulb. That's pluto.
Put your hand 2 inches from the light bulb. That's the earth.
And
It's must be magical cosmic rays or something, heh.
Eek melatonin, come on! Youre a clever one and these statements about the sun are a tad wrong. Its only magical cosmic rays if you dont understand whats going on.
First off, do you think that heat travels through space and heats up our planet? Heat on our planet is generated by electromagnetic energy sent from the sun (x-rays, UV etc.), it turns to heat when it hits the atmosphere (heating some sections and not others) and warms the breathable air when it hits the ground. The sun doesnt passively heat up planets, the sun produces energy which interacts with a planets atmosphere and magnetic field.
earthobservatory.nasa.gov
If the Earth were a ball of rock with no atmosphere, a simple calculation that equates the solar energy absorbed by the Earth to the heat emitted by the Earth would predict the global average Earth temperature to be 0 degrees Fahrenheit, or 255 Kelvin-very cold, and not the Earth as we know it (this scenario assumes that an average rock reflects 30 percent of all light that hits it).
So no atmosphere = freezing planet despite the distance from the sun.
Originally posted by traderonwallst
let me pose somthing to you. The greenhouse effeect is one of the main reasons for life on this planet and we are trying to mess with it. Everyone keeps saying thats its our responsibility to save the planet.
Since the 1970's we have been taking steps to control the size of the hole in the ozone layer. HMMMM....Since the 1970's we have been concerned about the global warming. Are you beginning to see a patter, uh oh, another cycle. Maybe if we left the hole in the ozone layer (something that has been around since the birth of the planet), to itself...maybe the global warming story would go away? I know its just a theory, but so is global warming.
OK, let the shots begin....fire away at "MY" new theory!!!!!!! Maybe I should start a post about that???????
Originally posted by traderonwallst
OK, well since we are exiting an active period of solar activity, lets wait 15 years and see whether it cools over the coming slow activity. Give me some time and I will get ya the data.
For now, I was only putting something out there. Ya did not have to be so mean about. Never pretended to be a scientist, maybe a realist, but never a scientist.
Originally posted by melatonin
A theory is top stuff in science. It's not just an educated guess or hunch, that would be a hypothesis. Theories are internally consistent, logical explanations supported by evidence.
Originally posted by Darth Logan
I don't believe in global warming, but , for those who do, why don't you just start planting tree's? I think that would be cheaper than paying a carbon tax for no reason. And if you truly believe in global warming what actions have you taken to help prevent further damage to our mother earth?
Originally posted by melatonin
Originally posted by pc is here
Why does your govt. have to tell you the truth? Think they know?
Who knows, but the US government certainly know how to mislead the public:
The evidence before the Committee leads to one inescapable conclusion: the Bush Administration has engaged in a systematic effort to manipulate climate change science and mislead policymakers and the public about the dangers of global warming.
oversight.house.gov...
Originally posted by jimbo999
Why dispute what the world's most brilliant minds have already accertained is occurring?
Originally posted by traderonwallst
OK fine its a hypothesis. Got to start somewhere. Global Warming was a hypothesis one time too. So was evolution.
What do you think of the hypothesis? If given 15 years to collect data, I guess if I had time I could back test it, is it something you could find feasible?
What if the greenhouse effect works in conjunction with the hole in the ozone layer? have you ever thought about that? The greenhouse effect heats the planet to the right temperature and the hole in the ozone layer lets just enough heat out to keep the earth in balance. Since the 1970's we have been taking steps to control the size of the hole in the ozone layer.