|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
What do conservative policy intellectuals think about climatechange?
On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 6:45:13 PM UTC+1, Sam Wormley wrote:
It is the cooling that is reduced by greenhouse gasses. http://edu-observatory.org/olli/Climate/Week1.html The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the atmosphere cause a "greenhouse effect" which affects the planet's temperature. These scientists were interested chiefly in the possibility that a lower level of carbon dioxide gas might explain the ice ages of the distant past. At the turn of the century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that emissions from human industry might someday bring a global warming. Other scientists dismissed his idea as faulty. In 1938, G.S. Callendar argued that the level of carbon dioxide was climbing and raising global temperature, but most scientists found his arguments implausible. It was almost by chance that a few researchers in the 1950s discovered that global warming truly was possible. In the early 1960s, C.D. Keeling measured the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphe it was rising fast. Researchers began to take an interest, struggling to understand how the level of carbon dioxide had changed in the past, and how the level was influenced by chemical and biological forces. They found that the gas plays a crucial role in climate change, so that the rising level could gravely affect our future. (This essay covers only developments relating directly to carbon dioxide, with a separate essay for Other Greenhouse Gases. The History of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide on Earth http://www.planetforlife.com/co2history/index.html On 4/7/15 12:59 PM, oriel36 wrote: Every era has a chance to make its presence felt for future generations and the recovery of astronomy falls on our generation at this juncture where even the planet's daily temperature fluctuation comes into play in the most fundamental way in response to a single rotation each 24 hours. You insist the proportion of rotations to an orbital cycle is 366 1/4 rotations to 1 and contrary to every known experience of a rotation each 24 hours and extended on to February 29th which draws attention to the parent observation which determines the fractional proportion as 365 1/4 rotations to 1 orbital cycle. I am a supporter of funding even though I don't require it myself but for genuine researchers who see the big picture inherent in undoing the damage created by the 'scientific method' . The Earth is not a greenhouse and it warms and cools in two ways over the course of a annual circuit corresponding to two separate surface rotations to the central Sun. This is the foundation of planetary climate, period !. Jerald, you are not mentally able to stay on subject. Bye |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
What do conservative policy intellectuals think about climate change?
On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 8:08:16 PM UTC+1, Sam Wormley wrote:
On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 6:45:13 PM UTC+1, Sam Wormley wrote: It is the cooling that is reduced by greenhouse gasses. http://edu-observatory.org/olli/Climate/Week1.html The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the atmosphere cause a "greenhouse effect" which affects the planet's temperature. These scientists were interested chiefly in the possibility that a lower level of carbon dioxide gas might explain the ice ages of the distant past. At the turn of the century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that emissions from human industry might someday bring a global warming. Other scientists dismissed his idea as faulty. In 1938, G.S. Callendar argued that the level of carbon dioxide was climbing and raising global temperature, but most scientists found his arguments implausible. It was almost by chance that a few researchers in the 1950s discovered that global warming truly was possible. In the early 1960s, C.D. Keeling measured the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphe it was rising fast. Researchers began to take an interest, struggling to understand how the level of carbon dioxide had changed in the past, and how the level was influenced by chemical and biological forces. They found that the gas plays a crucial role in climate change, so that the rising level could gravely affect our future. (This essay covers only developments relating directly to carbon dioxide, with a separate essay for Other Greenhouse Gases. The History of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide on Earth http://www.planetforlife.com/co2history/index.html On 4/7/15 12:59 PM, oriel36 wrote: Every era has a chance to make its presence felt for future generations and the recovery of astronomy falls on our generation at this juncture where even the planet's daily temperature fluctuation comes into play in the most fundamental way in response to a single rotation each 24 hours. You insist the proportion of rotations to an orbital cycle is 366 1/4 rotations to 1 and contrary to every known experience of a rotation each 24 hours and extended on to February 29th which draws attention to the parent observation which determines the fractional proportion as 365 1/4 rotations to 1 orbital cycle. I am a supporter of funding even though I don't require it myself but for genuine researchers who see the big picture inherent in undoing the damage created by the 'scientific method' . The Earth is not a greenhouse and it warms and cools in two ways over the course of a annual circuit corresponding to two separate surface rotations to the central Sun. This is the foundation of planetary climate, period !. Jerald, you are not mentally able to stay on subject. Bye The subject is how a civilization assigns the wrong proportion of rotations per orbital cycle based on trying to model planetary dynamics using timekeeping averages including the calendar framework. People who argue against 'global warming/climate change' are far worse than those who have convictions that the Earth is a static greenhouse and ignore the fact that the planet warms and cools each day as different locations turn towards and away from the central Sun. Here is the most stupid conviction ever to enter the human mind by way of astronomy and one you all share here - http://www.clarkfoundation.org/astro.../Extraday.html When you lose the ability to interpret a basic temperature graph and eventually put the extra rotation at the end of the 4th cycle of 365 rotations then forget 'climate change', this is about human intellectual survival. Tell your family and friends, sing it out from every classroom and observatory - the Earth turns once each 24 hours and every day. Then you will be back in a sane world where creation is loved once more instead of a doom laden junkyard of you miserable people. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
What do conservative policy intellectuals think about climate change?
On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 5:54:20 AM UTC-6, wrote:
(Hint, your two Chevy Volts don't count.) How do you know he doesn't live in an area where the electricity comes from a nuclear power plant or a hydroelectric dam? John Savard |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
What do conservative policy intellectuals think about climate change?
On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 11:45:13 AM UTC-6, Sam Wormley wrote:
At the turn of the century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that emissions from human industry might someday bring a global warming. Other scientists dismissed his idea as faulty. Well, there you are then. Panspermia has been discredited, so *obviously* global warming must be a crackpot idea too. Or at least this kind of "logic" will be attempted. John Savard |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
What do conservative policy intellectuals think about climate change?
On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 3:59:57 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 5:54:20 AM UTC-6, wrote: (Hint, your two Chevy Volts don't count.) How do you know he doesn't live in an area where the electricity comes from a nuclear power plant or a hydroelectric dam? John Savard I get my power guaranteed from Byron nuclear plant as well as local wind turbines. People in this area get to choose. The Byron plant is very reliable, has been running for more than 30 years. I have friends that work there. I wish they would build more, with latest technology of course. Right now NatGas plants are cheaper to build and run, which is unfortunate, but economics rules. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
What do conservative policy intellectuals think about climate change?
On Monday, April 6, 2015 at 12:19:31 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:
Take a look: http://grist.org/politics/what-do-co...limate-change/ The interesting thing is that the insurance industry cannot afford to deny climate change. Tiresome. Things cost more, insurance is required to cover more than decades ago, they can't get out of things like before.. Also, population densities are much higher in areas prone to problems. That is all that is driving increased insurance costs, and NOT global warming. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
What do conservative policy intellectuals think about climate change?
On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 7:25:53 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:
On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 3:59:57 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote: On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 5:54:20 AM UTC-6, wrote: (Hint, your two Chevy Volts don't count.) How do you know he doesn't live in an area where the electricity comes from a nuclear power plant or a hydroelectric dam? John Savard I get my power guaranteed from Byron nuclear plant as well as local wind turbines. Your power comes from the grid, which is largely powered by fossil fuels regardless of whatever "guarantee" your utility company is claiming. Right now NatGas plants are cheaper to build and run, which is unfortunate, but economics rules. Those nat gas plants are backing up the windmills that you seem to be claiming for yourself. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
What do conservative policy intellectuals think about climate change?
On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 4:59:57 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 5:54:20 AM UTC-6, wsne... wrote: (Hint, your two Chevy Volts don't count.) How do you know he doesn't live in an area where the electricity comes from a nuclear power plant or a hydroelectric dam? A large portion of the energy on the grid is still generated by fossil fuels and will continue to be almost indefinitely. Any electricity he uses for his plugin cars is electricity unavailable for others to use. The utility companies must burn fossil fuels to make up for that. His plugin cars are not carbon free. There is embedded carbon in their construction and maintenance, and in the power plants/windmills that power them, and in the roads and other infrastructure that they use. The money he uses to buy the plugin cars came from an economy that is still dependent on fossil fuels, and if one has enough money to afford a plugin car, and to pay some premium for "green" electricity, then that additional income represents unnecessary carbon emissions that occurred elsewhere. Using a plugin car as atonement for flying around in jets is a bit like a dieter adding a low-cal salad to her high-cal meal and still expecting to lose weight. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
What do conservative policy intellectuals think about climate change?
wrote:
On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 4:59:57 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote: On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 5:54:20 AM UTC-6, wsne... wrote: (Hint, your two Chevy Volts don't count.) How do you know he doesn't live in an area where the electricity comes from a nuclear power plant or a hydroelectric dam? A large portion of the energy on the grid is still generated by fossil fuels and will continue to be almost indefinitely. Any electricity he uses for his plugin cars is electricity unavailable for others to use. The utility companies must burn fossil fuels to make up for that. His plugin cars are not carbon free. There is embedded carbon in their construction and maintenance, and in the power plants/windmills that power them, and in the roads and other infrastructure that they use. The money he uses to buy the plugin cars came from an economy that is still dependent on fossil fuels, and if one has enough money to afford a plugin car, and to pay some premium for "green" electricity, then that additional income represents unnecessary carbon emissions that occurred elsewhere. Using a plugin car as atonement for flying around in jets is a bit like a dieter adding a low-cal salad to her high-cal meal and still expecting to lose weight. 75% of french electricity is nuclear. There no reason why other countries can't achieve the same. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
What do conservative policy intellectuals think about climate change?
On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 6:16:10 AM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
wsnell01 wrote: Using a plugin car as atonement for flying around in jets is a bit like a dieter adding a low-cal salad to her high-cal meal and still expecting to lose weight. 75% of french electricity is nuclear. There no reason why other countries can't achieve the same. France, with less than 1% of the World's population, consumes more than 9% of the World's uranium. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Climate change will change thing, not for the better | Uncarollo2 | Amateur Astronomy | 89 | May 8th 14 03:04 PM |
Koch funded climate scientist reverses thinking - climate change IS REAL! | Uncarollo2 | Amateur Astronomy | 21 | August 8th 12 10:43 PM |
Conservative Change | Foul Weather Patriot | Astronomy Misc | 1 | September 9th 08 03:59 PM |
- IDA policy Change | RMOLLISE | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | April 1st 06 05:40 PM |
- IDA policy Change | Matthew Ota | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | April 1st 06 05:39 PM |