Tweet
I find it interesting that he can write an article on climate change relative to the sun's brightness and mention neither carbon dioxide levels (the number one greenhouse gas) nor particulate matter (the number one cause of global dimming). 
-
-
Yay, let's rephrase things. It's always fun.Originally posted by BlackCat
Though it may be an inconvenience, could you please tell about the other major natural sources that pours energy into the earth climate besides the sun ?
But anyway, how many eco-systems are influenced by geothermal sources of energy?One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.Comment
-
Where did that originally come from, do you think?...people like to cry a lot... - Pekka
...we just argue without evidence, secure in our own superiority. - SnottyComment
-
Geothermal? Not the sun.One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.Comment
-
Unless of course you want to be ridiculous and claim that we are all stardust, which kind of makes the whole argument of all energy coming from the sun and stars rather silly....may as well say we all come from the big bang originally.One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.Comment
-
Originally posted by Dauphin
Yay, let's rephrase things. It's always fun.
But anyway, how many eco-systems are influenced by geothermal sources of energy?
It is often quite refreshing to reprase things.
Without search I can come up with a spot or two on Icleand, ditto in US and New Zealand - there are a number of volcanoes that are more or less active and then there are deep sea "black smokers" (i'm quite sure that I have forgotten some - think that there are one on the northern japanese islands too), and you are quite right - they influence the local ecosystems, but neither of them has any impact as a source of energy on global scale wich is what he claims - I guess that most high school kids are aware of this.With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Steven WeinbergComment
-
The guy is talking about cosmic rays... yep, that's going to provide more energy than things that create entire eco-systems.
But then that isn't my point. It's the energy balance. Non-solar sources have huge effects on it.One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.Comment
-
Uhmm, I reall don't think that he means that you get heated up by "starlight" - when he refers to cosmic radiation, it's about the effect this might have on the earths cloud production - hence the reference to Svensgaard.Originally posted by Dauphin
The guy is talking about cosmic rays... yep, that's going to provide more energy than things that create entire eco-systems.
That really doesn't change the fact that the prime source of energy still is the sun.But then that isn't my point. It's the energy balance. Non-solar sources have huge effects on it.With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Steven WeinbergComment
-
Originally posted by EyesOfNight
There's no need to elaborate, this is clearly junk science created by the vast right wing conspiracy. You have to be stupid not to believe in man made climate change, especially after Al Gore proved once and for all that it is real. Get with the program.
Yup, I remember this. It was right after Gore invented the internet and right before he became president.
Long time member @ Apolyton
Civilization player since the dawn of timeComment
-
Have you picked up the point I'm making about rephrasing? He says stars provide changes to the energy equation and I rephrase it to say it provides little energy to the global climate. You say it's silly, and I agree; it's also why your rephrasing is silly.Originally posted by BlackCat
Uhmm, I reall don't think that he means that you get heated up by "starlight" - when he refers to cosmic radiation, it's about the effect this might have on the earths cloud production - hence the reference to Svensgaard.
It doesn't change the price of fish, but I never said it did.Originally posted by BlackCat
That really doesn't change the fact that the prime source of energy still is the sun.One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.Comment
-
Except neither he nor me says that stars directly adds energy. I didn't refer to him when I said it was a silly assumption - that was directed to you for claiming that it was what he claimedOriginally posted by Dauphin
Have you picked up the point I'm making about rephrasing? He says stars provide changes to the energy equation and I rephrase it to say it provides little energy to the global climate. You say it's silly, and I agree; it's also why your rephrasing is silly.
.
It doesn't change the price of fish, but I never said it did. Even MOBIUS can do that better. You did after all claim geothermal energy as a such.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Steven WeinbergComment
-
The sun and the stars are the ultimate source of all energy on the planet.
So he only meant the sun? I of course agree with that comment when refering to prime source of energy but you seem to be applying it differently in your understanding of what I am saying.
I was also unaware that prime does in fact mean all. I should get a new dictionary it seems. The fact I could name an alternate source (and one that powers a great deal of our energy usage) shows all is not the correct term in either case.One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.Comment
-
I guess that you thought the OP as a tldr except for some parts.Originally posted by Dauphin
The sun and the stars are the ultimate source of all energy on the planet.
So he only meant the sun? I of course agree with that comment when refering to prime source of energy but you seem to be applying it differently in your understanding of what I am saying.
Just stick to your dictionary - it's quite reliable. Though, you seems to miss the point of significant and insignificant.I was also unaware that prime does in fact mean all. I should get a new dictionary it seems. The fact I could name an alternate source (and one that powers a great deal of our energy usage) shows all is not the correct term in either case.With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Steven WeinbergComment
-
These new findings suggest that changes in the output of the sun caused the most recent climate change. By comparison, CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales.
It's amazing that he could write so much bull**** without providing a cursory substantiation of his major point.
Google Scholar is your friend:
We examine the results linking cosmic ray flux (CRF) variations to global climate change. We then proceed to study various periods over which there are estimates for the radiative forcing, temperature change and CRF variations relative to today. These include the Phanerozoic as a whole, the Cretaceous, the Eocene, the Last Glacial Maximum, the 20th century, as well as the 11-yr solar cycle. This enables us to place quantitative limits on climate sensitivity to both changes in the CRF, Phi_CR, and the radiative budget, F, under equilibrium. Under the assumption that the CRF is indeed a climate driver, we find that the sensitivity to CRF variations is consistently fitted with mu := -Phi_0 (dT_global/ d Phi_CR) = 6.5 +/- 2.5 K (where Phi_0 is the CR energy flux today). Additionally, the sensitivity to radiative forcing changes is lambda := dT_global/ dF_0 = 0.35 +/- 0.09 K/(W/m^2), at the current temperature, while its temperature derivative is negligible with d lambda / dT_0 = 0.01 +/- 0.03 1/(W/m^2). If the observed CRF/climate link is ignored, the best sensitivity obtained is lambda = 0.54 +/- 0.12 K/(W/m^2) and d lambda / dT_0 = -0.02 +/- 0.05 1/(W/m^2). The CRF/climate link therefore implies that the increased solar luminosity and reduced CRF over the previous century should have contributed a warming of 0.37+/-0.13 K, while the rest should be mainly attributed to anthropogenic causes. Without any effect of cosmic rays, the increase in solar luminosity would correspond to an increased temperature of 0.16+/-0.04 K.
Over the past 30 years, the Earth has warmed by 0.6° C or 1.08° F. Over the past 100 years, it has warmed by 0.8° C or 1.44° F.
n.b. 0.8 > 0.37"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
No offense Ramo, but one of the things he says is that he thinks that what you refers may not be as reliable as they state they are.
Edit : Danish negations is somehow different from english.Last edited by BlackCat; June 21, 2007, 20:03.With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Steven WeinbergComment
Comment