This -- if it proves out -- should throw the environmentalists into a tizzy.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-32 next last
To: VadeRetro; Junior; longshadow; RadioAstronomer; Doctor Stochastic; js1138; Shryke; RightWhale; ...
SciencePing |
An elite subset of the Evolution list. See the list's explanation at my freeper homepage. Then FReepmail to be added or dropped. |
|
|
|
2 posted on
03/13/2006 8:14:00 AM PST by
PatrickHenry
(Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
To: PatrickHenry
3 posted on
03/13/2006 8:15:21 AM PST by
cvq3842
To: PatrickHenry
So, in other words, "It's not the heat, it's the humidity."
5 posted on
03/13/2006 8:16:31 AM PST by
The_Victor
(If all I want is a warm feeling, I should just wet my pants.)
To: PatrickHenry
I don't have an opinion on whether or not the greenhouse effect is contributing to global warming - the evidence is not clear enough for me as a physicist who does not specialize in the area.
But I am convinced that greenhouse is not the whole story because it doesn't explain global warming stopping between 1945 and 1976 nor does it explain global cooling in the 1800's.
That said, this headline is terribly misleading. The introduction of a new theory does not smash the old one.
6 posted on
03/13/2006 8:17:45 AM PST by
gondramB
(Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's.)
To: PatrickHenry
If we just closed all the Taco Bells down we could fix this "human emissions" problem.
9 posted on
03/13/2006 8:19:39 AM PST by
isthisnickcool
(Jack Bauer: "By the time I'm finished with you you're going to wish you felt this good again".)
To: PatrickHenry
Al Gore must be spinning in his grave.
Oh, wait...
11 posted on
03/13/2006 8:23:00 AM PST by
Izzy Dunne
(Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
To: PatrickHenry
It would only serve to encourage them as the argument could be then made that, since the water vapor is all but impossible to control that mankind's efforts to control the remaining gases need be increased to buy a few more generations a little more time.
13 posted on
03/13/2006 8:28:30 AM PST by
Old Professer
(The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
To: PatrickHenry
Which reminds me - whatever happened to the "small comets" hypothesis? I thought there was an argument over whether or not it was due to sensor noise - but I haven't found anything more
recent than this. If true, it would also have to be considered in climate models - which is yet again one more variable that environmentalists could be overlooking.
To: PatrickHenry
Nonsense... It would only give junk science a new avenue to explore -- It is really all the contrails of high alititude airliners injecting water vapor at a critical altitude, where it accumulates and retains more heat for the earth...
17 posted on
03/13/2006 8:35:25 AM PST by
Sundog
(cheers)
To: PatrickHenry
This -- if it proves out -- should throw the environmentalists into a tizzy.
Maybe, though, they'll just switch to advocating even tighter controls over water.
20 posted on
03/13/2006 8:38:17 AM PST by
aruanan
To: PatrickHenry
The event released as much energy as fifteen one-megaton atomic bombs. Um, didn't we intentionally denotate at least that much in the 1950s?
Between China, The USSR, and the US, I would think that we easily blew up 100 MT of stuff in a 20 year period.
21 posted on
03/13/2006 8:39:02 AM PST by
ko_kyi
To: PatrickHenry
Doesn't matter.
It is still Bush's fault.
22 posted on
03/13/2006 8:39:17 AM PST by
COEXERJ145
(Real Leaders Base Their Decisions on Their Convictions. Wannabes Base Decisions on the Latest Poll.)
To: PatrickHenry
Not to throw cold water on this but I fail to see how an event in 08 effected temperatures in 06. Other than that, I like it.
23 posted on
03/13/2006 8:41:31 AM PST by
FOG724
(Arnold is not a Republican)
To: PatrickHenry
Environmentalism has nothing to do with science. It is all about politics.
To: PatrickHenry
No it won't, because global warming is a faith issue with them. Essentially secular religion. You can not argue faith. Presented with the evidence they will just chop off your head for being an infidel. rhetorically speaking.
To: PatrickHenry
So, if we nuke iran, we will also solve the global warming problem. Cool.
To: PatrickHenry
Sounds immediately wrong to me. Particulates from volcanoes demonstrably decrease global temperatures. Moreover, they settle out of the atmosphere within a very few years and the effect goes away. Ninety-eight years afterwards, the Tunguska event is still causing temperatures to rise? Not bloody likely.
To: PatrickHenry
It makes lots of sense. After Krakatoa blew, weather patterns were disrupted for quite some time, so there's precedent for it. I'd love to see what the environmentalists do with this one, besides ignore it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krakatoa
The eruption produced erratic weather and spectacular sunsets throughout the world for many months afterwards, as a result of sunlight reflected from suspended dust particles ejected by the volcano high into Earth's atmosphere. This worldwide volcanic dust veil acted as a solar radiation filter, reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the surface of the earth. In the year following the eruption, global temperatures were lowered by as much as 1.2 degrees Celsius on average. Weather patterns continued to be chaotic for years, and temperatures did not return to normal until 1888.
32 posted on
03/13/2006 9:16:32 AM PST by
metmom
(Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
To: PatrickHenry
34 posted on
03/13/2006 9:20:35 AM PST by
King Prout
(DOWN with the class-enemies at Google! LONG LIVE THE PEOPLE'S CUBE!)
To: GreenFreeper
36 posted on
03/13/2006 9:41:49 AM PST by
RightWingAtheist
(Creationism Is Not Conservative!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-32 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson