Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: maceng2 who wrote (22479)	7/25/2008 11:13:32 AM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

Equilibrium is a concept yes. But it's definition as to the Equilibrium temperature of the Earth is fooling. That is to say it is meaningless to one's experience today or tomorrow. The equator will be hot and wet of dry depending on where you are. The poles will be frigid to cool cold depending on season. What are the time constants? What does it matter? Well there are an infinite number of time constants as one goes to smaller and smaller geometries. And because the Earth has billion and billions of swirling fluid systems the time constants of each geometry is changing by the nanosecond. Nature has done nothing in changing any belief in Creationism. One believes there is a higher being or not or does not care. And each person who believes or does not care has an idea of what a higher being is. I have no idea how mass and interacting electric fields jointed to form self replicating structures of organized chemistry that we call life. And there is nothing in Darwin that explains it. I also do not believe the literal story of genesis as the explanation. You define terms very poorly and then make very poor arguments. As "Common sense also tells me no unusual idea would get accepted in mainstream scientific thought" The question to ask is this. What is mainstream scientific thought and what is mainstream consensus? Is mainstream consensus often confused as mainstream scientific thought by those who do not really possess the ability to think scientific thought? Are all those Scientists, 30,000 really scientists or not? As Mike Cummings says: Most scientists willing to go on the record do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth’s climate. More than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying, in part, “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” (Go to oism.org for the complete petition and names of signers.) Surveys of climatologists show similar skepticism.

To: maceng2 who wrote (22479)	7/25/2008 4:15:17 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

Pearly, as you know, even in the desert, where there are no clouds or trees to keep things a bit warmer, it is still not frozen in the morning, but it's quite a bit cooler. During the day, the air heats up a LOT. So for the average incoming photon to have its heat dissipated back to space is a matter of days rather than microseconds, minutes or hours. But, as you know, some light is reflected right back out the instant it lands, especially for photons reflected by clouds and snow. There, the cooling delay effect is much slower. But heat which is already in the air is held under clouds, which is why it's warmer on cloudy nights than cloudless. Common sense tells us those things because common sense can feel those things in person. But don't depend on common sense for much at all or you would "know" that house prices always go up and buying great big houses, using loads of borrowed money, was a good idea in 2005 and 2006. You seem to be a fan of common sense though simultaneously a common sense denier. <Common sense also tells me no unusual idea would get accepted in mainstream scientific thought unless some convincing data had been presented. > Well, the scientists used to say it was a bad idea to eat eggs, because of cholesterol. But I never believed that and ate eggs com gusto, maintaining low cholesterol levels as expected. Eggs had been eaten for eons, as a very desirable food source for many animals. That's why animals work hard to hide their eggs. Women take it so seriously that they don't even lay them, but keep them inside and the bloke has to go to the trouble of fertilizing them way up inside, where the baby also grows where it can be carefully looked after. Turtles just lay eggs in a hole and leave them to it. Fish just squirt eggs around and there are often diners waiting for dinner. So, the cooling delay effect is a matter of hours rather than minutes or weeks. It's about a day, which is understandable. You can feel the delay by starting at sea level and floating up in a balloon basket to 40 km high. Take insulation and oxygen, because it gets cold and breathing becomes difficult. Here's a handy graph showing the temperatures versus altitude. See how it gets colder as altitude increases. If the atmosphere was thicker, the loss would be slower. If there was more water vapour in the air the loss would be slower. Mqurice