Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7245|Nårvei

superfly_cox wrote:

Didn't you know that 80% of statistics are made up?
Your list of arguments are running thin Gemi

Just a thought out of the blue:

1.Lets say you are wrong!
2.Lets say Bertster, Purefodder and I are wrong!

Witch would you rather have ?


And about water vapour, as far as i know it does not count as a true greenhouse gas - not yet anyway, it could however change when/if the landbased ice caps are gone and the water level reaches a critical high and the water will absorb and fail to reflect even more of the suns beams - that will really spark the GW to new levels or a kind of domino effect if you will.

The balance of nature is delicate and we as it`s protector is walking an decreasingly thinner line day by day.

I`ll go for nr.2 and hope for Gods sake that i am wrong but I fear i`m not
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7017|SE London

Varegg wrote:

And about water vapour, as far as i know it does not count as a true greenhouse gas - not yet anyway, it could however change when/if the landbased ice caps are gone and the water level reaches a critical high and the water will absorb and fail to reflect even more of the suns beams - that will really spark the GW to new levels or a kind of domino effect if you will.
Water vapour will not become a greenhouse gas. Though by some standards it is considered to be a greenhouse gas, since it amplifies the global warming effect.

Read the link in my last post for more info.

*DOH! - LOL*

Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-05-16 11:49:56)

182|dunc
Member
+4|6715|manchester UK
does anyone know why mars is currently warming up
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7017|SE London

182|dunc wrote:

does anyone know why mars is currently warming up
Well, a quick Google search reveals that:

New research has shown that dusty tornadoes called dust devils and gusty winds have helped the surface of Mars become darker, allowing it to absorb more of the sun's rays.
superfly_cox
soup fly mod
+717|7217

Stop with the googling. I can probably google you guys an article about how saddam hussein is responsible for global warming!  i know i do it too but i hate myself for it afterwards.

regarding greenhouse gases, wiki says: The major natural greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36-70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth (not including clouds). 

If this is not the case then go change it on wiki!  till then i'll assume it is a greenhouse gas.

Varegg wrote:

superfly_cox wrote:

Didn't you know that 80% of statistics are made up?
Your list of arguments are running thin Gemi

Just a thought out of the blue:

1.Lets say you are wrong!
2.Lets say Bertster, Purefodder and I are wrong!

Witch would you rather have ?


And about water vapour, as far as i know it does not count as a true greenhouse gas - not yet anyway, it could however change when/if the landbased ice caps are gone and the water level reaches a critical high and the water will absorb and fail to reflect even more of the suns beams - that will really spark the GW to new levels or a kind of domino effect if you will.

The balance of nature is delicate and we as it`s protector is walking an decreasingly thinner line day by day.

I`ll go for nr.2 and hope for Gods sake that i am wrong but I fear i`m not
my arguments have not run thin yet.  i still have some fight left in me!  however, fodder and bertster made some good posts and i'm not about to lower this level of scientific debate to google science.  i do want to take a closer look at what proof exists for global warming and see if its convincing.  i have no agenda here.  i don't mind admitting i am wrong.  but i won't accept it until i feel that sufficiently good arguments have been made.  i will investigate their posts (when i find some free time...this shit is really time consuming) and see what i come up with.
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7017|SE London

superfly_cox wrote:

Stop with the googling. I can probably google you guys an article about how saddam hussein is responsible for global warming!  i know i do it too but i hate myself for it afterwards.

regarding greenhouse gases, wiki says: The major natural greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36-70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth (not including clouds). 

If this is not the case then go change it on wiki!  till then i'll assume it is a greenhouse gas.
There's nothing wrong with Google as a start point to investigations. Find an article, get the names of the scientists, check their backgrounds, read their papers. It's a perfectly good way to research stuff.

If you read the link I posted for you, you can see that it is a feedback mechanism, not a true greenhouse gas (or at least not considered to be a true greenhouse gas by most scientists). It's only one chapter.

On Wiki it is already, pretty much, acknowledged as not being a true greenhouse gas.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-05-16 14:12:33)

PureFodder
Member
+225|6721
Whereas water does contribute towards the greenhouse effect, it partly absolves itself by making clouds which handily reflect the suns radiation back into space helping to cool the Earth. If I recall correctly it's absorbtion is not as strong as CO2 in the typical IR spectrum that is emitted by the Earth, so it has a lesser effect to the greenhouse effect per molecule.
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7245|Nårvei

I challenge you to study the Climate report Gemi, interesting reading
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
182|dunc
Member
+4|6715|manchester UK
New research has shown that dusty tornadoes called dust devils and gusty winds have helped the surface of Mars become darker, allowing it to absorb more of the sun's rays.



so why more dusty tornadoes than before and why is it windier
PureFodder
Member
+225|6721

182|dunc wrote:

New research has shown that dusty tornadoes called dust devils and gusty winds have helped the surface of Mars become darker, allowing it to absorb more of the sun's rays.



so why more dusty tornadoes than before and why is it windier
We all know the real reason. The Mars rover scientists got bored and now they're just getting it to do burnouts and doughnuts all day.
182|dunc
Member
+4|6715|manchester UK
lol.....My point is that a tottaly natural phenomenom on a planet not too far away,that is deffinately not caused by humans or CO2,triggered by "noone knows ",has caused a temprature increase over the last 20 years simmilar to that recorded on the earth..


coincidence????       
well yes maybe so


but then maybe the CO2 correlation with climate change is coincedence too,it is only the scientist best quess (performing a lab experiment using a dynamic earth model is impossible),and maybe they are correct in there quesswork ,or maybe there is some other reason that hasnt been explored yet.


As our collective goverments seem reluctant to forge ahead with nuclear/hydroelectric/wind/solar/hydrogen alternatives to coal/gas/oil for us and the developing world,perhaps they dont really believe the doom scenario they give out when they raise our taxes in the name of saving the planet.


no doubt we will find out who is wrong and who is right in due course
topal63
. . .
+533|7153

182|dunc wrote:

lol.....My point is that a tottaly natural phenomenom on a planet not too far away,that is deffinately not caused by humans or CO2,triggered by "noone knows ",has caused a temprature increase over the last 20 years simmilar to that recorded on the earth..


coincidence????       
well yes maybe so


but then maybe the CO2 correlation with climate change is coincedence too,it is only the scientist best quess (performing a lab experiment using a dynamic earth model is impossible),and maybe they are correct in there quesswork ,or maybe there is some other reason that hasnt been explored yet.


As our collective goverments seem reluctant to forge ahead with nuclear/hydroelectric/wind/solar/hydrogen alternatives to coal/gas/oil for us and the developing world,perhaps they dont really believe the doom scenario they give out when they raise our taxes in the name of saving the planet.


no doubt we will find out who is wrong and who is right in due course
Not true.

There is no science period - regarding Mars warming up & correlation disproving the anthropogenic effect on Global Climate Change (Global Warming), there is only the sensational headlines that appear in Science Magazines to get you interested in an article about observed events.

National Geographic News: February 28, 2007
Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news … rming.html
Ooooh, sensational - no?
"In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row."
But read the article, and therein you will find this direct contradiction:
Planets' Wobbles

The conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun.

"Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era," Oxford's Wilson explained. (Related: "Don't Blame Sun for Global Warming, Study Says" [September 13, 2006].)

All planets experience a few wobbles as they make their journey around the sun. Earth's wobbles are known as Milankovitch cycles and occur on time scales of between 20,000 and 100,000 years.

These fluctuations change the tilt of Earth's axis and its distance from the sun and are thought to be responsible for the waxing and waning of ice ages on Earth.

Mars and Earth wobble in different ways, and most scientists think it is pure coincidence that both planets are between ice ages right now. "Mars has no [large] moon, which makes its wobbles much larger, and hence the swings in climate are greater too," Wilson said.
Mars is melting
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003 … thpole.htm
The south polar cap is vaporizing now, which means CO2  is rushing back into the atmosphere. "Remember, though," adds Smith, "there are two polar caps on Mars--north and south. While the south polar cap is vaporizing the north polar cap is growing. It's a balancing act. Overall air pressure will be greatest when there's the least amount of CO2 on the ground." The next such peak is due in early October--that is, early southern summer on Mars.
From:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar … g-on-mars/
Globally, the mean temperature of the Martian atmosphere is particularly sensitive to the strength and duration of hemispheric dust storms, (... ). Large scale dust storms change the atmospheric opacity and convection; as always when comparing mean temperatures, the altitude at which the measurement is made matters, but to the extent it is sensible to speak of a mean temperature for Mars, the evidence is for significant cooling from the 1970's, when Viking made measurements, compared to current temperatures. However, this is essentially due to large scale dust storms that were common back then, compared to a lower level of storminess now. The mean temperature on Mars, averaged over the Martian year can change by many degrees from year to year, depending on how active large scale dust storms are.
In short you have a different cycle; different event causes. Mars is about 2 earth years long as a cycle with some of the South polar cap being seasonally absorbed by the North & vice versa, and sensitivity to strength and duration of hemispheric dust storms. There is no correlation of Mars seasonal changes with that of the Earth. Nor is this evidence that suggests a contrary proof - to the very well established correlation of anthropogenic additions of CO2 into the atmosphere (are driving an increase in the warming trend) here on Earth.

Last edited by topal63 (2007-05-17 12:51:44)

182|dunc
Member
+4|6715|manchester UK
hmmm........well writen ,but i see the words "THEORY" ,"CORRELATION"and"SENSATIONAL HEADLINES". It all sound very familliar.
If you have lived through the 1970s like me,you would have heard all the talk of global catastropthy before and would find yourself reluctant to believe it all again.^The crash of 79^by Paul Erdman and ^Silent Spring^by Rachel Carson frightened a generation.Both were based on dodgy science,popular thoeries and statistical correlations extrapolated into the future.It was all bollocks

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard