Kevin O'Leary: Warming not a partisan issue - it's physics

Jan 17, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: The Wave

As Southern California shivers in record low temperatures, extreme weather ravages the globe.

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 20 of188
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Jan 17, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

However, I would not call the forum's deniers Kevorkianesque because if they knew any better they might behave much better.
PHD

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Jan 18, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

However, it doesn’t work for you. Your behavior is way out there.
Largelanguage

Wrexham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Jan 18, 2013
 

Judged:

4

3

3

Scientists should try to come up with methods to cool the earth rather than cutting back in electricity. Blame the democrats who can't even do their job right.
PHD

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Jan 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

News flash the GOP is in the same boat.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Jan 20, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Largelanguage wrote:
Scientists should try to come up with methods to cool the earth rather than cutting back in electricity. Blame the democrats who can't even do their job right.
If you read ANY science source, you'd know they are stumped.

The cooling effect of Aerosols has been known for decades and climatologists have long suggested it as a possible counter to increased global warming emissions.

However, this recent study showed there were problems with that solution:

<<Geoengineering can't please everyone
Adding aerosols to the atmosphere will not counter global warming in all regions.
Richard A. Lovett

Releasing sulphates from aeroplanes would not ward off the effects of global warming equally well for all regions of the world.iStockphoto

Attempting to offset global warming by injecting sunlight-reflecting gases into the upper atmosphere isn't the quick fix for global climate change that advocates believe it might be, a new study finds.

In a paper published today in Nature Geoscience1, Kate Ricke, a climate physicist at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and her colleagues show, by modelling, that not only could solar-radiation management lead to declines in rainfall in the long term, but its effects will also vary by region. Some places will be over-cooled by atmospheric changes that are too small to be effective for their neighbours.

The gases under consideration are sulphur compounds that would produce sulphate aerosols in the upper atmosphere. Geoengineering advocates have proposed injecting large quantities of these materials into the stratosphere, either by shooting them up in artillery shells or releasing them from high-flying aeroplanes. Once there, they would disperse into a thin, bright haze that would reflect enough sunlight back into space to partially or completely offset global warming.

"It confirms that it is not possible to control both temperature and precipitation using stratospheric geoengineering."

The goal would be to mimic the effects of volcanoes eruptions such as the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines, which blasted enough sulphates into the stratosphere to temporarily reduce the global temperature by nearly half a degree. Geoengineers propose mimicking this on ever-expanding scales, so that increasing levels of greenhouse gases are offset by ever-greater levels of sunlight reduction.
The new study found that it is fairly easy to design sulphate-injection scenarios that keep the temperature stable until 2080. But, unfortunately, the change in sunlight alters other weather patterns. "It changes the distribution of energy in the troposphere so that it becomes more convectively stable," Ricke says. The result: decreasing precipitation

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100718/full/n...

We need to protect the only planet we have.
Largelanguage

Wrexham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Jan 21, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
If you read ANY science source, you'd know they are stumped.
The cooling effect of Aerosols has been known for decades and climatologists have long suggested it as a possible counter to increased global warming emissions.
However, this recent study showed there were problems with that solution:
<<Geoengineering can't please everyone
Adding aerosols to the atmosphere will not counter global warming in all regions.
Richard A. Lovett
Releasing sulphates from aeroplanes would not ward off the effects of global warming equally well for all regions of the world.iStockphoto
Attempting to offset global warming by injecting sunlight-reflecting gases into the upper atmosphere isn't the quick fix for global climate change that advocates believe it might be, a new study finds.
In a paper published today in Nature Geoscience1, Kate Ricke, a climate physicist at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and her colleagues show, by modelling, that not only could solar-radiation management lead to declines in rainfall in the long term, but its effects will also vary by region. Some places will be over-cooled by atmospheric changes that are too small to be effective for their neighbours.
The gases under consideration are sulphur compounds that would produce sulphate aerosols in the upper atmosphere. Geoengineering advocates have proposed injecting large quantities of these materials into the stratosphere, either by shooting them up in artillery shells or releasing them from high-flying aeroplanes. Once there, they would disperse into a thin, bright haze that would reflect enough sunlight back into space to partially or completely offset global warming.
"It confirms that it is not possible to control both temperature and precipitation using stratospheric geoengineering."
The goal would be to mimic the effects of volcanoes eruptions such as the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines, which blasted enough sulphates into the stratosphere to temporarily reduce the global temperature by nearly half a degree. Geoengineers propose mimicking this on ever-expanding scales, so that increasing levels of greenhouse gases are offset by ever-greater levels of sunlight reduction.
The new study found that it is fairly easy to design sulphate-injection scenarios that keep the temperature stable until 2080. But, unfortunately, the change in sunlight alters other weather patterns. "It changes the distribution of energy in the troposphere so that it becomes more convectively stable," Ricke says. The result: decreasing precipitation
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100718/full/n...
We need to protect the only planet we have.
The sun gets weaker every time. Heat would be reduced as time goes by. And global warming is a future problem, not current, so their would be enough time for it to work.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Jan 21, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
The sun gets weaker every time. Heat would be reduced as time goes by. And global warming is a future problem, not current, so their would be enough time for it to work.
Got any reputable links to prove that.

Here are mine that says -- it isn't likely

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_...

Regards, Wallop
Largelanguage

Wrexham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Jan 21, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
Got any reputable links to prove that.
Here are mine that says -- it isn't likely
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_...
Regards, Wallop
Calculations? Ice age never happened either.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Jan 21, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
Calculations? Ice age never happened either.
Ah, that would be over 6000 years ago, before the Earth was created per Bishop Ussher. Did I get your views down right?

IF yes, that means: You don't even take the "days" in Genesis to mean "eons" then, is that right?

If yes, then all astronomy must be evil, since the Genesis clearly says the order of creation was the Earth was created first (on Day 1) along with Heaven; and the sun, moon, and stars were created on Day 4.

According to modern astronomy, it should take millions of years for the light from many of the stars to have REACHED earth, because of the vast distances involved. So the light from the stars in the sky must have been artifically created for us too.

So, do you think Joshua really stopped the sun? Lots of physics how the Earth would have been destroyed from the friction.

Maybe you think Earth is also the Center of the universe.

Makes sense if you take the above two verses LITERALLY, not figuratively and as moral stories-- the latter being how the majority of Christians view the stories of the Bible.
Largelanguage

Wrexham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Jan 21, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, that would be over 6000 years ago, before the Earth was created per Bishop Ussher. Did I get your views down right?
IF yes, that means: You don't even take the "days" in Genesis to mean "eons" then, is that right?
If yes, then all astronomy must be evil, since the Genesis clearly says the order of creation was the Earth was created first (on Day 1) along with Heaven; and the sun, moon, and stars were created on Day 4.
According to modern astronomy, it should take millions of years for the light from many of the stars to have REACHED earth, because of the vast distances involved. So the light from the stars in the sky must have been artifically created for us too.
So, do you think Joshua really stopped the sun? Lots of physics how the Earth would have been destroyed from the friction.
Maybe you think Earth is also the Center of the universe.
Makes sense if you take the above two verses LITERALLY, not figuratively and as moral stories-- the latter being how the majority of Christians view the stories of the Bible.
It could be artificial, how would you know? And God created the stars as well, alongside the moon and the sun. And God did it, miracles, God can do anything, outside natural law. The whole bible says the stories happened, it never given them contexts of stories. Where does it say eons then? And how would you know the amount of time it takes for stars light to reach the earth? Atheist exaggerations! Just like semination with rocks, exaggerated time it takes to fossilize!

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Jan 21, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
It could be artificial, how would you know?
Those "evil" astrologers have calculated the distance of the suns/stars and divided it by the speed of light. Voila, MUCH older than than 6000 years old.

They have calculated the universe is 13-14 BILLION years old; and the earth is about 4 billion years old.

It's probably in your kid/grandkid's science textbook, and you aren't aware of it.
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>

And God created the stars as well, alongside the moon and the sun. And God did it, miracles, God can do anything, outside natural law.
It hasn't been observed. Many people think God works through natural laws -- are you denying his power to do that?
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
The whole bible says the stories happened, it never given them contexts of stories. Where does it say eons then?.
That's how most religious folks reconcile science with their belief systems. I see you want none of it.
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>

And how would you know the amount of time it takes for stars light to reach the earth??.
I read science. You have already proven you want NONE of that.
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
Just like semination with rocks, exaggerated time it takes to fossilize
No doubt you view the science of geology must be "evil" too. The magic waters of the floods created the Grand Canyon, is that right?

I don't think we have anything in common. Enjoy your anti-science views.
PHD

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Jan 22, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, that would be over 6000 years ago, before the Earth was created per Bishop Ussher. Did I get your views down right?
IF yes, that means: You don't even take the "days" in Genesis to mean "eons" then, is that right?
If yes, then all astronomy must be evil, since the Genesis clearly says the order of creation was the Earth was created first (on Day 1) along with Heaven; and the sun, moon, and stars were created on Day 4.
According to modern astronomy, it should take millions of years for the light from many of the stars to have REACHED earth, because of the vast distances involved. So the light from the stars in the sky must have been artifically created for us too.
So, do you think Joshua really stopped the sun? Lots of physics how the Earth would have been destroyed from the friction.
Maybe you think Earth is also the Center of the universe.
Makes sense if you take the above two verses LITERALLY, not figuratively and as moral stories-- the latter being how the majority of Christians view the stories of the Bible.
Useless scientific science fiction.
Largelanguage

Wrexham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Jan 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
Those "evil" astrologers have calculated the distance of the suns/stars and divided it by the speed of light. Voila, MUCH older than than 6000 years old.
They have calculated the universe is 13-14 BILLION years old; and the earth is about 4 billion years old.
It's probably in your kid/grandkid's science textbook, and you aren't aware of it.
<quoted text>
It hasn't been observed. Many people think God works through natural laws -- are you denying his power to do that?
<quoted text>
That's how most religious folks reconcile science with their belief systems. I see you want none of it.
<quoted text>
I read science. You have already proven you want NONE of that.
<quoted text>
No doubt you view the science of geology must be "evil" too. The magic waters of the floods created the Grand Canyon, is that right?
I don't think we have anything in common. Enjoy your anti-science views.
Did they know the stars distance? Magic waters? Tell me about them.
PHD

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Jan 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
Did they know the stars distance? Magic waters? Tell me about them.
Get ready for more useless babble cut and paste scientific scienc fiction.
Largelanguage

Wrexham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Jan 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

PHD wrote:
<quoted text>Get ready for more useless babble cut and paste scientific scienc fiction.
Typical of most athiturds.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Jan 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Largelanguage wrote:
And how would you know the amount of time it takes for stars light to reach the earth? Atheist exaggerations!
I am Christian. The first careful astronomical method to see how far the stars are, is simple parallax..... like looking at your outstretched finger with one eye, then the other eye without moving your head. You can see that your finger shifts its position as compared to objects at a far distance, when switching from your left eye to your right eye. But in place of your eyes(just over an inch apart), astronomers use their telescopes & compare the stars, as they shifted position as the Earth orbited the sun, from one side of the sun in Earth's orbit to the other side of sun in Earth's orbit(about 185,000,000 million miles apart).

People thought it would be easy to find stars that shifted their positions. But the stars are so far away, the parallax shift is smaller than the sharpness of telescopes in use 3 or 4 hundred years ago. The first successful determination of a star's distance from its parallax occurred in 1838. The star 61 Cygni was estimated to be 10.4 light-years away(~60+ trillion miles away), pretty good, compared to the present determination by far more accurate methods which is 11.36 light years. A light-year is the distance light travels in a year(5,850,000,000,000 miles), about 6 trillion miles.

The Parallax method in the Hipparcos spacecraft determines star distances to the present day most accurate parallax position at distances as far as 1600 light-years. With accurate distances to thousands of near-by stars, the characteristics of those stars, such as brightness, temperature, color, types of stars are refined to a great extent. Using the knowledge gained by parallax, of the brightness, temperature, color & types of stars, distances to other same type of stars can be determined to millions, hundred millions & even billions of light-years away.

You know God does not fool us. God is helping us to know His Greatest Grandeur, the Grandeur of his Son, Jesus Christ. And to back up the grandeur of Jesus Christ, God gave us the ability to accurately (sometimes) know the glory of the heavens over our heads.
PHD

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Jan 22, 2013
 

Judged:

4

3

3

Now there you have it folks the "pinheadlitesout" said it is a Christian and acks like a devil. Must be that head injury from that terrible car crash it boasted about.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Jan 22, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

[QUOTE who="phud fiend
fetid feces face"].....acks(sic) like a devil.......[/QUOTE]

The devil fiend 'phud fetid feces face' has a devil of a time with spelling & generates a new name:

'phud fetid feces face fiend'. It loves that letter,'f'.
PHD

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Jan 22, 2013
 

Judged:

4

2

2

litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
The devil fiend 'phud fetid feces face' has a devil of a time with spelling & generates a new name:
'phud fetid feces face fiend'. It loves that letter,'f'.
Why don't you see a real doctor and get that check up from the neck up. You’re displaying bad behavior and you may hurt your---self. The devil has a strong hold on you.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Jan 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

PHD wrote:
<quoted text>Useless scientific science fiction.
I was talking about the Earth being older than 6000 years old.

You seem to only know a few phrases. lol.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 20 of188
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Other Recent Global Warming Discussions

Search the Global Warming Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 18 min litesong 42,928
Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 2 hr litesong 29,851
Warmer nights, cereal output may fall (Apr '10) 8 hr Jim the Hoax Denier 59
Odds that global warming is due to natural fact... 10 hr Fun Facts 2
World Reaches Global Warming Crossroads 10 hr dont drink the koolaid 1
Carbon destroys ocean life as well as our climate 10 hr dont drink the koolaid 1
Will it, won't it? Part 3 (Aug '12) 20 hr litesong 1,278
•••
•••
•••
•••