Welcome to Laser Pointer Forums - discuss green laser pointers, blue laser pointers, and all types of lasers

LPF Donation via Stripe | LPF Donation - Other Methods

Links below open in new window

ArcticMyst Security by Avery

Global Warming - Real Science?

Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
2,738
Points
63
It is believed that excessive landfill gas has caused a significant decline in sunspots and solar flares.

Your contributions to the Save Our Sun (A.K.A. SOS) foundation are greatly appreciated.
 





D

Deleted member 8382

Guest
Ok, there might not be absolutes, but when I read thins like:

The film begins by highlighting what its makers assert are a number of contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence supporting the theory of man-made global warming.
Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and temperature change since 1940. The film asserts that records of atmospheric CO2 levels since 1940 show a continuing increase, but during this period, global temperature decreased until 1975, and has increased since then.
Variations in warming rate. The programme states that all models of greenhouse effect-derived temperature increase predict that the warming will be at its greatest for a given location in the troposphere and at its lowest near the surface of the earth. The programme asserts that current satellite and weather balloon data do not support this model, and instead show that the surface warming rate is greater than or equal to the rate in the lower troposphere.

Increases in CO2 and temperatures following the end of ice ages. According to the film, increases in CO2 levels lagged behind temperature increases during glacial terminations.
EPICA and Vostok ice cores display the relationship between temperature and level of CO2 for the last 650,000 years.
Relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and temperature change. The film asserts that carbon dioxide levels increase or decrease as a result of temperatures increasing or decreasing rather than temperatures following carbon dioxide levels, because as the global climate cools the Earth's oceans absorb carbon dioxide, and as the climate warms the oceans release carbon dioxide.
Influence of oceanic mass on temperature changes. The programme argues that due to the very large mass of the world's oceans, it takes hundreds of years for global temperature changes to register in oceanic mass, which is why analysis of the Vostok Station and other ice cores shows that changes in the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide follow changes in global temperature by 800 years.
Influence of water vapour on climate change. According to the film, water vapour makes up 95% of all greenhouse gases and has the largest impact on the planet's temperature. Water particles in the form of clouds act to reflect incoming solar heat, but the film argues that the effects of clouds cannot be accurately simulated by scientists attempting to predict future weather patterns and their effects on global warming.
Influence of carbon dioxide on climate change. The film states that carbon dioxide comprises only a very minuscule amount - just 0.054% of the Earth's atmosphere. According to the film, human activity contributes much less than 1% of that, while volcanoes produce significantly more CO2 per year than humans, while plants and animals produce 150 gigatons of CO2 each year. Dying leaves produce even more CO2, and the oceans are "the biggest source of CO2 by far." Human activity produces a mere 6.5 gigatons of CO2 each year. The film concludes that man-made CO2 emissions alone cannot be causing global warming. (Durkin subsequently acknowledged that the claim about volcanic CO2 emissions was wrong, and removed the claim from later versions.[19]))
Influence of the sun on climate change. The film highlights the solar variation theory of global warming, asserting that solar activity is currently at an extremely high level, and that this is directly linked to changes in global temperature. The posited mechanism involves cosmic rays as well as heat from the sun aiding cloud formation.[20] The film argues that the activity of the sun is far more influential on global warming and cooling than any other man-made or natural activity on Earth.
Previous episodes of warming. The programme asserts that the current episode of global warming is nothing unusual and temperatures were even more extreme during the Medieval Warm Period, a time of great prosperity in western Europe.

I start to doubt... xD
 
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
9,399
Points
113
I think you've fallen into a bit of a fallacy with regards to "things we should be doing"

You're right. There is certainly a large area from do nothing to stop all fires everywhere. But most of the hippies I know advocate the latter anyway.
I think the "green" approach is a good idea.

I agree. But only if it is economically viable. The squirly light bulbs have seen market success because they are economically viable. Solar panels for example have NOT yet seen market success because they are not yet economically viable. It takes 15-30 years to pay for itself, that that is with NO inflation accounted for, and it is under the assumption that they last 30 years.

Nuclear and fusion ftw! We can already achieve fusion, but it won't be readily available for another 20-30 years by the last estimate I heard... here it is:

 

daguin

0
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
15,989
Points
113
It is believed that excessive landfill gas has caused a significant decline in sunspots and solar flares.

How does it make it through the virtual vacuum of inter-planetary space? :thinking:

Peace,
dave
 
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
2,738
Points
63
How does it make it through the virtual vacuum of inter-planetary space? :thinking:

Peace,
dave

I'm sorry if that post was not perceived as the utter nonsensical sarcasm that it was intended to be.
 

Raybo

0
Joined
Oct 30, 2008
Messages
537
Points
18
Murudai ---

Notice that questions posted here exceed answers available. Clouds are unpredictable but do provide shade during the day but at night can hold heat down.
On a clear night, temps drop fast. Sometime, try pointing an IR temp meter into the clear night sky. It will bottom out!
This happens at random all over the planet.

HMike


I did this when I first recieved my IR thermometer and my jaw dropped! :wtf:
 
Joined
Jan 7, 2007
Messages
6,309
Points
83
It's really cold out there in the darkness of space. It took my IR meter several minutes to recover! We are lucky to have our blanket.

HMike
 

Raybo

0
Joined
Oct 30, 2008
Messages
537
Points
18
Mike,

Can you explain to an idiot (me) how the IR thermometer is able to get such readings? I'm guessing those readings have to be comming from tens of thousands of feet above us and I can't grip how this little device is able to achive it.

Thanks in advance,
Ray
 
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
2,235
Points
0
Actually the scientific definition of 'cold' and 'heat' is the vibration of molecules. Faster vibrating molecules, it's warmer, the less vibrations the cooler the material is. However in space there is an almost perfect vacuum. Thus space is not actually 'cold' at all, you can't define a vacuum in terms of temperature really. What numbers you see about the 'temperature' of space is the background radiation from the big bang.

When our bodies lose heat, say, in cold water, it's because that cold water is absorbing the heat from our bodies in the process of conduction and that's the second law of thermodynamics in action. But in space since it is a vacuum there is nothing for the heat of our bodies to transfer too. The only heat you'll lose from your body is from radiation. I couldn't say how fast you'd lose the heat in your body from radiation, but it wouldn't be as fast as the heat loss effect from conduction of cold water.

Physical Chemistry, not as exciting a subject as organic or biochemistry, but still very interesting :)
 
Joined
Jan 7, 2007
Messages
6,309
Points
83
Raybo --

Murudai has provided a good scientific description of space and the ~ 3 Degree above absolute zero left from the big bang.

The IR meters have an "eyeball" which converts heat (IR) into voltage similar to a solar cell. Those meters are designed to function in a human environment where most everything emits heat. As said, the vacuum of space is not our living environment and with few atoms vibrating there, the little eyeball sees nothing --- it is confused and dispalys the lowest number it can make.
Do this on a night with clouds or haze and you will read something higher.

HMike
 

Raybo

0
Joined
Oct 30, 2008
Messages
537
Points
18
Mike,

I pretty much understand the concept of the IR, but why wouldn't it take temperature readings from a closer range, like 20 ft. from the sensor?
I'm a bit confussed about the range of these devices and what they focus on.

Thanks again,
Ray
 
Joined
Jan 7, 2007
Messages
6,309
Points
83
They take temperature readings from close to far. They have a scale on them showing the area measured at specific distance. The temp displayed is the average of the area scanned.

HMike
 
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
9,399
Points
113
I'm sorry if that post was not perceived as the utter nonsensical sarcasm that it was intended to be.

Ha! I had a response to your first post all written up yesterday. Then I re-read everything and decided you were too ridiculous to be serious. :beer:

how [is] the IR thermometer is able to get such readings? I'm guessing those readings have to be comming from tens of thousands of feet above us and I can't grip how this little device is able to achive it.

To understand IR thermometers, you need to understand black body radiation. The thermometer ascertains from the spectrum it receives what temperature the substance is. They take into account everything they receive in a certain angle. Mine is about 30 degrees.

Now, I know anecdotal evidence doesn't hold much water, but it's still strange: Florida's cold snap disaster for tropical wildlife
 
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
2,738
Points
63
Ha! I had a response to your first post all written up yesterday. Then I re-read everything and decided you were too ridiculous to be serious. :beer:

If I say anything that defies logic, reasoning and the laws of physics, it's sarcasm ;)
 
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
294
Points
0
I live in Russia and it's been the warmest autumn in a VERY long time.
I don't remember the exact number for my city, but *** removed text ***
EDIT: Sorry, got it wrong. It's been one of the five Moscow's most warmest autumns in 130 years. Last year's autumn was Russia's 3-rd warmest since 1891.

I also recommend this TED video for those of you who have any doubts:
James Balog: Time-lapse proof of extreme ice loss | Video on TED.com
 
Last edited:




Top