Posts: 66329
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
160
RE: Global Warming denial an article of religious faith | BBC
July 10, 2011 at 5:54 pm
(This post was last modified: July 10, 2011 at 5:59 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
LOL, no no no welsh. I'm simply trying to help you understand that we can have an impact on our climate. Not saying that it's good or bad, or neutral. The general idea behind ACC, is that our combined activities, the combined effect of those many small changes in local environment can have a profound effect on the global environment. If the US, say, were dumping a bunch of stuff into the atmosphere, maybe it would be smoggy over the US, but no worries in Iceland. If the US and China were dumping.......keep adding countries, get the idea now?
I'm completely with you RE climate apocalypse. Thing is, step up quietly and say "We may have an issue, nothing serious today, but maybe it could get out of hand" and you won't get near the attention as the guy who yells fire in a theater, so to speak.
Maybe we're not actually disagreeing here. Are you suggesting that the earth has limitless capacity for self correction, or that you don't feel that we have enough evidence to say that we've reached the tipping point?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 6191
Threads: 124
Joined: November 13, 2009
Reputation:
70
RE: Global Warming denial an article of religious faith | BBC
July 10, 2011 at 6:45 pm
(July 10, 2011 at 5:10 pm)Welsh cake Wrote: The anticyclone settled over a windless London, causing a temperature inversion, this collected the airborne pollutants already present in the air over the city to form a *thicker layer of smog* over the city.
Had there not been a collection of airborne pollutants generated by humans in the location, would that anticyclone have been as bad?
(July 10, 2011 at 5:10 pm)Welsh cake Wrote: The airborne pollutants did NOT induce the anticyclone. The air pollution did NOT influence the weather. The weather influenced the airborne pollutants to form the thicker than usual layer of smog. As soon as the weather changed the smog dispersed quickly. To imply otherwise is to make a horribly invalid causal connection.
Yet the air pollution did contribute to making thicker fog through their concentration, as you pointed out. So air pollution did influence the local micro-climate after all.
(July 10, 2011 at 5:10 pm)Welsh cake Wrote: And WTF Moros? Why kudos Rhythm's response if you're asking me for clarification because you supposedly didn't understand my previous post? Are you being serious with me? 0_o
Let's look at Rhythm's post:
(July 10, 2011 at 1:57 pm)Rhythm Wrote: So, the fog that became synonymous with London had nothing to do with the amount of soot in the air...nothing at all? It's not an example of ACC, even on a small scale?
It appears to me to be a good question, if not well within similar bounds to what I asked -- so I kudos'ed it as an I agree with that question. I do not see why you are upset.
Posts: 2254
Threads: 85
Joined: January 24, 2010
Reputation:
29
RE: Global Warming denial an article of religious faith | BBC
July 12, 2011 at 4:29 pm
(This post was last modified: July 12, 2011 at 4:31 pm by Welsh cake.)
(July 10, 2011 at 5:54 pm)Rhythm Wrote: LOL, no no no welsh. I'm simply trying to help you understand that we can have an impact on our climate. Our environment, and by that you mean our ecosystem or biosphere yes I agree, that is indisputable fact, but no one has demonstrated how we can puny humans can actually alter the prevailing weather systems yet.
(July 10, 2011 at 6:45 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: Had there not been a collection of airborne pollutants generated by humans in the location, would that anticyclone have been as bad? The winter of '52 was not influenced by whatever crap we put into it, for all our "efforts" all we bothered the human respiratory tract, not the weather.
Quote:Yet the air pollution did contribute to making thicker fog through their concentration, as you pointed out. So air pollution did influence the local micro-climate after all.
The air pollution was already present, when the anticyclone settled it trapped the pollutants under a layer caused by a temperature inversion this is what made the fog thicker.
Quote:It appears to me to be a good question, if not well within similar bounds to what I asked -- so I kudos'ed it as an I agree with that question. I do not see why you are upset.
I'm not upset I'm simply confused by the response that was in agreement with a statement that needed clarification.
Posts: 6191
Threads: 124
Joined: November 13, 2009
Reputation:
70
RE: Global Warming denial an article of religious faith | BBC
July 12, 2011 at 6:41 pm
(July 10, 2011 at 5:10 pm)Welsh cake Wrote: The anticyclone settled over a windless London, causing a temperature inversion, this collected the airborne pollutants already present in the air over the city to form a *thicker layer of smog* over the city.
(July 12, 2011 at 4:29 pm)Welsh cake Wrote: The air pollution was already present, when the anticyclone settled it trapped the pollutants under a layer caused by a temperature inversion this is what made the fog thicker.
The fog/smog was thicker, no? And thicker fog has a greater effect on the local weather (not climate). I don't understand, but you seem to be claiming it is and simultaneously isn't affecting the weather.
(July 12, 2011 at 4:29 pm)Welsh cake Wrote: Our environment, and by that you mean our ecosystem or biosphere yes I agree, that is indisputable fact, but no one has demonstrated how we can puny humans can actually alter the prevailing weather systems yet.
The Great Oxygenation Event changed life as they (the anaerobes) knew it. And those were stupid little aerobes outputting oxygen as they saw fit. What makes you think humans can possess any less of an effect? Especially when concentrations of certain gases trap IR energy better.
I am so getting close to simply pasting slides from my Atmospheric modeling class... someone stop me.
(July 12, 2011 at 4:29 pm)Welsh cake Wrote: The winter of '52 was not influenced by whatever crap we put into it, for all our "efforts" all we bothered the human respiratory tract, not the weather.
Now I am confused again. So a thicker smog/fog has absolutely no effect on the local weather of an area?
(July 12, 2011 at 4:29 pm)Welsh cake Wrote: I'm not upset I'm simply confused by the response that was in agreement with a statement that needed clarification.
Shouting 'WTF Moros' seems to be awfully upset, at least to me. Can I not agree with people asking questions while asking my own?
You know, asking for you to clarify your position doesn't mean I am not familiar with the area of science you are discussing -- it is me drawing out your position so we all can see more of your reasoning.
|
