Remember, global warming is a theory.

runningart2004 wrote:

Create a biodome. Take the temperature of the biodome. Now pump CO2, water vapor, and methane into the dome. Wait. Take temp again. Guess what? It will increase. CO2 and water vapor (steam) are the major byproducts of burning fossil fuels which contribute to global warming.

The question is does it matter? If we reduced industry output of these gases to zero what would happen. Also what is the alternative? The only viable alternative is nuclear. All others require too much infrastructure (wind, solar). We still have no frickin clue what to do with nuclear waste in the long term.

Alan

This is a false choice. We don't have to reduce industry output to zero.

We can greatly reduce greenhouse gases AND heal our planet without giving up on modern society. There are plenty of sound proposals to do that.

And while it is problematic that a few delusional people believe in a global scientific conspiracy, the real issue is that most people just don't care.

runningart2004 wrote:

Create a biodome. Take the temperature of the biodome. Now pump CO2, water vapor, and methane into the dome. Wait. Take temp again. Guess what? It will increase. CO2 and water vapor (steam) are the major byproducts of burning fossil fuels which contribute to global warming.

The question is does it matter? If we reduced industry output of these gases to zero what would happen. Also what is the alternative? The only viable alternative is nuclear. All others require too much infrastructure (wind, solar). We still have no frickin clue what to do with nuclear waste in the long term.

Alan

This (bold) is not really true. Managing nuclear waste in the long term is almost trivially easy from a technology/cost perspective. The only issue is political will.

It's not obvious to me that this experiment works out that way unless the dome is large enough to have a meaningful temperature gradient and probably other conditions.

Water vapor from combustion isn't a significant direct factor in global warming because it tends to condense out quickly. It is relevant in that warm air holds more water mass at constant humidity so water vapor is positive feedback from warming, whatever the cause.

Business as usual is no less a choice than making energy infrastructure changes. It has consequences and it's not clear that they are ultimately less severe than a large scale switch to nuclear for example.

runningart2004 wrote:

Create a biodome. Take the temperature of the biodome. Now pump CO2, water vapor, and methane into the dome. Wait. Take temp again. Guess what? It will increase. CO2 and water vapor (steam) are the major byproducts of burning fossil fuels which contribute to global warming.

Alan

Just put a herd of cows in there. They'll produce so much methane they'll have asphyxiated themselves within a month.

Cows are responsible for global warming, not humans.

The 'theory' may have had some problems, so they no call it 'climate change'.

Global warming is consensus dictated to us by the authorities who do science.

LiberalThink wrote:

Global warming is consensus dictated to us by the authorities who do science.

Which authorities are those?

Yeah, it would suck if we acted on the theory of global warming. We'd end up with sustainable energy sources, a new entrepreneurial economy and a clean environment for our children and theirs, and we would have done it for NOTHING.

You Are What You Is wrote:

Yeah, it would suck if we acted on the theory of global warming. We'd end up with sustainable energy sources, a new entrepreneurial economy and a clean environment for our children and theirs, and we would have done it for NOTHING.

Actually we pretty much would have done it for nothing. Because China won't going to be enacting anything similar. India won't be enacting anything similar. Venezuela won't be enacting anything similar. Neither will countless other countries. So big bad America will spend trillions on it and it will be all for naught. Not that Global Warming is happening anyway.

My work here is done.

Sally V wrote:

You Are What You Is wrote:

Yeah, it would suck if we acted on the theory of global warming. We'd end up with sustainable energy sources, a new entrepreneurial economy and a clean environment for our children and theirs, and we would have done it for NOTHING.

Actually we pretty much would have done it for nothing. Because China won't going to be enacting anything similar. India won't be enacting anything similar. Venezuela won't be enacting anything similar. Neither will countless other countries. So big bad America will spend trillions on it and it will be all for naught. Not that Global Warming is happening anyway.

Your ability to predict the future is impressive. Could we get a superbowl score while you're at it?

You Are What You Is wrote:

Sally V wrote:

Actually we pretty much would have done it for nothing. Because China won't going to be enacting anything similar. India won't be enacting anything similar. Venezuela won't be enacting anything similar. Neither will countless other countries. So big bad America will spend trillions on it and it will be all for naught. Not that Global Warming is happening anyway.

Your ability to predict the future is impressive. Could we get a superbowl score while you're at it?

Sure - put me down for Pats 27 Hawks 16

No Way wrote:

LiberalThink wrote:

Global warming is consensus dictated to us by the authorities who do science.

Which authorities are those?

Ben Franklin, Al Gore, Karl Marx, Albert Einstein, CP Snow, Theodore Roosevelt, Chaim Weisman, Stephen Hawking, Blofeld and The Elders of Zion, who hatched the evil plan on a secret island in 1973.

I'm still waiting on what is the exact temperature the earth should be to make it healed. Is it a .02 degrees C reduction? Would that heal it? Maybe if rich countries gave trillions of dollars to poor countries, that would get the earth's temperature to the required level.

Can't we send an airplane up to drop cash into a hurricane? That will make the hurricane go away, yes?

This is by far the best thread I have seen on global warming.

Why was name changed from Global Warming to Climate Change? Everyone had been fine with Global Warming. 97% of scientists had been fine with it.

Tim Bits wrote:

Mundus Vult wrote:

Remember, so is gravity.

Actually, gravity is a law. Laws describe WHAT happens and theories describe HOW they happen. A theory will never be a law, and laws were never theories. They describe different things.

Now, there are theories to explain gravity, but the phenomenon itself is a law.

It's an observation.

Polly P wrote:

Deadman Running wrote:

A scientific fraudulent hoax, huh ? Hmm.... Scientific fraud and scientific hoax are two completely different things, and "fraudulent hoax" makes absolutely no sense for obvious reasons. So, it leads me to wonder. How does a person who does not grasp the basic English language begin to understand the scientific complexities of Global Climate Change Theory ?

A scientific fraud and scientific hoax are not dissimilar, clueless.

A scientific fraud involves criminal intent, a scientific hoax involves satirical or humorous intent. Look it up. Other than that you pretty much nailed it.