You need to be careful about "clear and unrefutable evidence". Most of you are probably too young to recall the, Chariot of the Gods book and movie of the '70s. In them, every piece of scientific evidence points, undeniably, to the fact that planet Earth was visited by space beings.

 

And what makes you think it wasn't?

But in any case, the evidence in those books (like so much other evidence) can be interpreted in different ways.

However, I don't think there's any doubt that the earth has previously gone through many periods of cooling and warming, there's evidence everywhere showing that - the English channel and North Sea (between England and the Continent) were once land, and thousands of human artifacts have been recovered from the bottom of the sea.

__________________
PIC programmer software, and PIC Tutorials at:
http://www.winpicprog.co.uk

 

We exist, we have space travel, and most likely will one day visit other planets. We have already done this with machines. Seems highly unlikely that we would be the only ones...

I'm surprised about a glacier forming on St. Helens, I was in High School when it erupted the first time, at work when it really blew up. I lived in Oregon, on the side of Mt. Hood, we had a great view of it. Kind of wondering if those ice core samples, that are claimed to be the proving facts that mankind is to blame for this 'Global Warming' trend, were taken from the sunny side or shaded? Also, was bore several samples, from different sites on the glacier. Like move the rig a few hundred yards, and match up the layers? How could they tell if there were very hot years, and several years of accumulation melted away? Maybe previous warming trends weren't that important, since mankind couldn't have been the cause of those...

 

We hear all sorts of things. Hard to figure out which are true. For example, the earth's magnetic field is supposed to reverse every 26 million years or so (and not sinusoidally). According to the orientation of the magnetism in the seabed rocks near plate boundaries, it's been claimed that the reversal itself only takes about a quarter of a million years.

Of course, these are the same scientistific "experts" that TV programmers seem to come up with to interview every time there's a new fad or fancy. And, no matter how whacky those yahoos are, they never seem to tire of being idiots on TV.

It's not just TV. When I was in about the 2nd or 3rd grade, there was a dire prediction in the, Weekly Reader that the world would run out of coal within the next 30 years. Uhm...I'm more than 37 or 38 yo and we now have more coal than we did then. But, that was my first identifiable encounter with "expert opinions". (although I think he may have meant to say, "partial" or, "that is impartial".)

But, as, Aloefundi so correctly points out, "The only science that is not impartial is experimental science (i.e. Repeatable and testable in a laboritary environment) and then that is even sometimes debatable."

But, the implication of that is that you gotta test and fail and test some more, based on your failure so you can fail again...but, learning a little more each time. And...just maybe...eventually succeed. There's no shortage of things to try.

 

Whether global warming is human caused or not, even if it isn't, that shouldn't be an excuse to keep dumping stuff into the atmosphere (or excesses of it) that shouldn't be there in the first place. I think that's the problem with the attitude that global warming is not an issue. It's just TOO easy to not do anything about it and the attitude that "X problem" is not being caused by us leads too many people to believe it is okay to keep doing "Y activity" even when said activity clearly isn't good to begin with.

 

Paleomagnetism is not merely a claim. There is sufficent solid test methods to validate this and support its suppositions.

 

Not actually a bad idea! It would keep the house cooler in the summer if nothing else. I don't know how much of the planet's surface area is roof tops, but I don't think it is enough to make much of a difference.
Exactly! I guess I'm not a gambler either.
You're probably right there. Most of the melt currently is uncovering water which also absorbs more solar radiation than ice.
They are already gaining financially. By running oil companies, car manufacturing, etc. Who do you think the global warming refuting scientists work for anyway? This whole issue is reminiscent of the tobacco companies "scientists" denying that inhaling smoke is bad for you.

__________________
--- The days of the digital watch are numbered. ---

 

In general the rooftops and pavement of large cities are better at absorbing energy then what they replaced. Because of this the temperature in a large city it typically warmer then the surrounding countryside.

maybe white roofs, sidewalks, and streets would help ?

__________________
search engine for electronic parts
Junebug USB PIC programmer kit., USB Bit Wacker, 3v0's Homepage
The 15 Minute Printed Circuit Board! (+drill time)

 

It would seem to me that if you had white sidewalks and streets, the sunlight would then reflect back to the atmosphere where it would then again reflect back to some other location, like the poles for example.

Which brings us back to the global gases problem, as it is these that redirect the light energy back to the planet instead of allowing the light to just travel out to space.

 

I agree fully that we've got to quite dumping crap into our environment, and that we could/should make more efficient use of our resources. All the 'single-use' and 'disposable' product should be banned. We should only just what we need, not hoard or stockpile until the price is right.

The part that offends me, is these eco-nuts seem to think I need to be trick and scammed into do what's right. I don't like being pushed or threatened. I have a lot of trusting the motive, if I have no faith in the crap their selling. Are they really interested in cleaning up the planet, or just cleaning out our bank accounts? The bulk of of most every price tag, is profits. There are very few cases, where somebody isn't stuffing money in their pockets. Businessmen don't like green products, it cuts into the easy money. Green products tend be more expensive, as they are a one time purchase, and meant to be reused, so the manufacturer needs to offset lost profits. A $20 pack of cloth diapers are good enough to last the whole time a baby needs them, not as convenient or as pleasant to deal with, but what would you spend on the disposables?

We've been living like this for hundreds of years, can't expect to change it in 20. The threat of what might happen, to people several generation after we're long dead, isn't going to have much effect, other than raise skeptism over motives. The drastic and immediate changes Al Gore is call for, will probably make things worse.

 

The polar snow and ice reflect some of the energy back into space. I would expect a white city to do the same.

How much energy gets back out depends on the concentration of greenhouse gases.

__________________
search engine for electronic parts
Junebug USB PIC programmer kit., USB Bit Wacker, 3v0's Homepage
The 15 Minute Printed Circuit Board! (+drill time)

 

The issue of global warming has been reflected across the atmosphere and into our television sets so much so, it is not a surprise that the patience of the masses has been melting at the very utterance of the words green friendly, environmental, and of course, global warming.

Indeed the media has had their fair share of this warm welcoming wagon in pursuit of a global story. I keep waiting for the next sky is falling story, but to the naysayer that refutes all scientific evidence that has been documented since teenage girls wore skirts with hand woven puppy dogs on them. I have to ask, what evidence do you know of that refutes the abundance of scientific data that supports this claim.

Why would a person like Al Gore who has enough money in his bank account to buy a small country have any ulterior motive to deceive the public? He has brought sound evidence to the table to support his claims. I would really like to see the evidence that show the other side of this heated topic.

Anyone who has had a basic geology course knows that the planet has cyclic climate changes, and this issue becomes a non argument as no one refutes this. The argument is; is human technology speeding up the process.

 

I always thought they were iron-ons. Poodles, by the way...

 

One obvious way to reduce the greenhouse gasses is to go nuclear. But, it's always seemed incomprehensible and ridiculous to me to put the nuclear waste into drums (that will surely eventually leak) and put it into caverns, where it needs to be constantly guarded, monitored and audited...for...essentially, forever..

Does anybody here know just how much nuclear waste the average plant produces? How often the waste is collected and how much is collected each time?

I think a better way to deal with the nuclear waste is to grind it up, loosely encapsulate it, load it onto ships and then dump it into the ocean. NO! Not just dump it overboard. Rather, sail along a geologic subduction zone and feed it out over 100's or 1000's of miles so it's very dilute. Then, time will allow the earth to swallow it into the molten core for the next couple of billion years (until that magma re-emerges somewhere...with the radioactive material both weaker and even more dilute).

Does that sound reasonable?

 

Well, the obvious solution to that is...do something...

If it's an incremental thing and it doesn't work, no big loss and you learn. If it does work, you refine it. Come on, Mr. Gore...this is NOT rocket surgery!