That is cool. I like how it'll melt snow and also provide feedback. Can't wait to see how this project ends up developing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Printable View
That is cool. I like how it'll melt snow and also provide feedback. Can't wait to see how this project ends up developing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Neil DeGrasse Tyson - "Yeah, as I've said before, the good thing about science, when a consensus of an experiment emerges, the good thing about science is that it's true, whether or not you believe in it, and climate change has taken on political dimensions, has taken on cultural, social dimensions, and it's odd, because I don't see people choosing sides over E equals MC squared, or other fundamental facts of science, but the experimental consensus is there, that human beings, by virtue of our conduct, burning sources of carbon, fossil fuels among them that have been buried for millions of years, we burn them, carbon previously underground is now in the atmosphere, and that source of carbon makes carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, is warming the earth. We are warming, and that comes with consequences.
By the way, earth will survive this. People say, "Save the earth." No, don't worry about earth. Earth will be here long after we render ourselves extinct. What happens is we're changing the climate faster than our culture may be able to respond. One of the consequences is, you melt ice caps, than water levels rise. Not inches, not feet, but tens of feet, and that will begin to flood coastlines. Some of the most important cities of the world were built on coastlines for the very reason that that's how you accomplish trade. It's what made those ports successful.
So, the very foundation of our civilization requires coastlines that existed at a time when there was not global climate change, the kind that would be warming the earth. So, get ready for that. It's going to redraw the maps of the world, unless we do something about it. Venus suffers from a runaway greenhouse effect. It's 900 degrees on Venus, not simply because it's closer to the sun than us, it's not that much closer. It's a little bit closer. It's got nearly 100 percent CO2 in its atmosphere, and that atmosphere is a hundred times as dense as ours, so heat comes in, it does not come out, and the temperature rises. I don't want earth to look like Venus."
This guy acts like sea levels claiming our liberal coasts would be a bad thing. Gonna do my part and go burn a tire. Back in a bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Venus is 33% closer to the Sun then we are. Roughly 30 million miles. That's pretty much really.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
I do hate quoting wikipedia really BUT...
Damn Magnetic field. It's stopping us from becoming JUST like Venus.Quote:
"Unlike Earth, Venus lacks a magnetic field. Its ionosphere separates the atmosphere from outer space and the solar wind. This ionised layer excludes the solar magnetic field, giving Venus a distinct magnetic environment. This is considered Venus's induced magnetosphere. Lighter gases, including water vapour, are continuously blown away by the solar wind through the induced magnetotail.[3] It is speculated that the atmosphere of Venus up to around 4 billion years ago was more like that of the Earth with liquid water on the surface. A runaway greenhouse effect may have been caused by the evaporation of the surface water and subsequent rise of the levels of other greenhouse gases.[7][8]"
Oh well. Guess we will just have to go on having surface water and not having nearly 100% CO2 atmosphere. (96.5%)
The lack of magnetic field would only account for higher temperatures during the day, not at night.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
Furthermore, Mercury... which is much closer to the sun than Venus, is -173 degree Celsius at night, whereas Venus is 460 degrees Celsius at night.
There are three tiers of arguments.
Denial that global warming is occurring is stupid
Denial that man-made global warming is debatable.
Claiming that the government's actions on global warming are stupid is agreeable.
I think the new GOP strategy agrees with you:Quote:
Originally Posted by Whirlin
Quote:
House Speaker John Boehner became the latest top Republican to try that tack Thursday, seeking to deflect an issue that has given Democrats an opening to brand the GOP as “anti-science.”
“Listen, I’m not qualified to debate the science over climate change,” Boehner told reporters when asked about the science behind climate change. “But I am astute to understand that every proposal that has come out of this administration to deal with climate change involves hurting our economy and killing American jobs.”
Similarly, Republican Florida Gov. Rick Scott has offered the response “I am not a scientist” on multiple occasions when the topic has come up lately. Even the conservative billionaires Charles and David Koch, who have put big money into fighting President Barack Obama’s energy and climate policies, disclaimed any pretense at scientific know-how when wealthy climate activist Tom Steyer challenged them to a debate on climate change.
“We are not experts on climate change,” Koch spokeswoman Melissa Cohlmia said in an email to The Wichita Eagle this month. She added, “The debate should take place among the scientific community, examining all points of view and void of politics, personal attacks and partisan agendas.”
It’s a new twist on a strategy some Republican leaders adopted last year, in which they sought to make jobs and the economy their main staging ground for attacking Obama’s climate agenda.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/0...#ixzz33WogAtBC
Mercury has almost no atmosphere.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whirlin
Actually global warming isn't happening.. and hasn't been happening for over 12 years.. which is why the left has been scrambling to repackage the phrase into "climate change".Quote:
There are three tiers of arguments.
Denial that global warming is occurring is stupid
Denial that man-made global warming is debatable.
Claiming that the government's actions on global warming are stupid is agreeable.
And who is arguing that there isn't any climate change at all?
If you read that part from Wiki, the lack of the Magnetic field caused the planet to lose it's lighter gases, and lose it's surface water, which helped cause the 95.6% CO2 atmosphere.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whirlin
So yes, lack of a field would cause higher temperatures at night as well as day.
Mercury's atmosphere is also almost non existent. It's 10−14 bar, Earth is 1 bar. Lack of a real atmosphere likely has something to do with it loosing so much heat at night I would think.
You must have not gotten the memo where the Left changed it to Climate Change cause of this...Quote:
Originally Posted by Whirlin
https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/ho...last-100-years
Granted.. there is also this...Quote:
"The full Working Group 1 report, to be finalized in early 2014, is addressing in detail the slowdown observed in the rate of warming since the late 1990s."
To sum it up.. Scientists don't really know why the last decade was not warmer then it was.. but damned if they don't KNOW that it was just a fluke.Quote:
"Thanks in large part to the record-setting El Niño of 1997–98, the year 1998 was the warmest year, globally, in the 20th century. Since 2001 the global trend has been relatively flat (see graph). However, temperatures continue to run warmer than in previous decades. The global average from 2000–09 exceeds the average for 1990–99, which in turn was warmer than 1980–89. And the average for 2010–12 topped the 2000–09 average.
Although scientists are confident that global temperatures will rise further in the coming decades, there could still be occasional "pauses" in warming that last a few years, like the one we've been seeing since the late 1990s. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) devoted a section of its 2013 physical science assessment to analysis of the 1998–2012 warming hiatus. Among the possible factors involved:
A series of small volcanoes since 2000 that have spewed sunlight-blocking ash skyward
The natural 11-year solar cycle, whose declining phase lasted longer than usual: from 2000 to 2009
Variations in the exchange of heat between the ocean and atmosphere (one aspect of internal climate variability). Simulations by NCAR researchers suggest that periods when more heat gets stored deep in the ocean could be an important factor in slowing down atmospheric warming for a decade or more.
Two of the main vehicles for ocean-atmosphere heat exchange are El Niño (which tends to warm the global atmosphere) and La Niña (which tends to cool it). La Niña events have predominated over El Niños since 2006, which helps explain the lack of a new global record in the decade thus far.
As the IPCC notes, natural variations can either amplify or mute longer-term warming trends over periods of 10 to 15 years. This is one reason why 30 years is the typical reference period in determining climate. In your local weather forecast, for example, the average daily temperatures and precipitation posted alongside today's measurements were calculated based on the period from 1981 to 2010. This was a warmer period for most U.S. cities than the previous 30-year range, from 1971 to 2000.
Meanwhile, decision makers and planners often need guidance on shorter time scales than three decades. Researchers are responding by experimenting with outlooks for global temperature in the 10- to 15-year range. The most recent decadal outlook from the UK Met Office calls for a good chance that the upcoming five years (2013–17) will average slightly warmer globally than the record year of 1998. The IPCC expects that, for periods without a major volcanic eruption, most future 15-year periods will show a stronger warming trend than 1998–2012."
--Side note-- I do love how the sun's cycle is taken into account for why the earth didn't heat up as much as they expected, but it never taken into account as to why the Earth may be hotter then they think it should be.