Quote:
Originally Posted by Troels
I google'd and got this:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Venus.htm
AIP is a reliable source or biased?
Anyway, main points are that Venus's atmosphere is causing the extremely high temperature? Right?
An atmosphere that mainly consists of CO2 and prevents any heat of leaving the atmosphere.
"Perhaps Venus had once enjoyed a climate of the sort hospitable to life, but as water had gradually evaporated into the warming atmosphere, followed by CO2, the planet had fallen into its present hellish state? In a 1971 paper, James Pollack argued that Venus might once have had oceans like Earth's It seemed that such a "runaway greenhouse" could have turned the Earth too into a furnace, if the starting conditions had been only a little different.(8*)"
But then I read this:
"Hart's calculations were riddled with untested assumptions, and many scientists denied that our situation was so extremely precarious. (Later calculations showed they were right — a Venus-type runaway on our planet is scarcely possible, even if we burn all available fossil fuels.)"
What the docu was saying was that human caused emission of CO2's part of the greenhouse effect was miniscule on earth. So is that incorrect? |
I'm not really sure who AIP is, to be honest... but you can get the same information from over a thousand different sources I'm sure.
The point is that Venus receives about 1/4 of the radiated energy from the Sun when compared to Mercury (due to distance, mostly) , but is a lot hotter... approximately 400 degrees F more hot than it should be otherwise, because the CO2 (and water vapor) in the atmosphere work to keep that heat trapped in like a blanket. Lead would melt on the surface of Venus. No surface water can come close to existing there. All because of CO2 trapped in the atmosphere... the same gas that we're debating whether or not contributes to the of Global Warming on the Earth.. the same gas that we shovel by the megaton annually from our own crust into our atmosphere.
I'm not using Venus as a case study for what will happen to the Earth here - merely as a pointer to the effects of atmospheric CO2.
Of course, it's all still debatable but when you take into account apt analogies such as this, I think it's easy to begin to connect the dots.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stickyfingerz
|
First off, I'm not sure who you mean by "they."
The scientific community has been using the conditions on Venus as analogous to our own for quite some time. It's been the epitome of the "greenhouse effect" in our solar system for well over 20 years, at least, and the fact that you're saying "So they are now using Venus as an example" pretty much convinces me that, for you, this is a political argument and not a scientific one... because it's not "so now" - it's an analogy drawn regularly in works on the subject for the last 20 years.
All it tells me is you're not very well-read on the subject you now speak on.
The fact that it wasn't brought up in Mr. Gore's film (or maybe it was? I dunno - I still haven't watched it) doesn't mean it's not a valid point. There's no political platform with the issue - it just is. Science has many roads to walk down... many avenues by which to attempt to discover "truth."
The thing about science is you can't do what a lot of people now seem to - pick and choose the points you argue and the evidence you use. The job of science is to take it _all_ in, and provide an explanation that best fits all observed data.
And an overwhelming number of scientists in our time - people that spend 40+ hours a week running tests, and compiling unique research data on the subject - have come to the conclusion that what we're doing is affecting our environment.
I'm not here to debate politics, so, instead, I'd encourage you to forget that Al Gore is a supporter of this whole ball of wax for a moment, and do some independent study.
Otherwise, believe what you want - because I could care less who's championing what cause.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyMischief
People make me giggle. Anyone who buys into this "man caused global warming" thing really hasn't looked into the history of the cycles, they've just bought into the propeganda.
|
I've studied a bit on cycles... the oceanic conveyor, tree rings as climatic records, ice records, and all that jazz... the whole idea of global warming has interested me since the first time I saw that issue of Discover Magazine in the 80's with New York under water on the cover.
I don't think that man _caused_ global warming... but I do feel we're giving it a helpful nudge that the whole system probably works a bit better off without.
I'm not saying I'm right, but I will say that to dismiss the idea that it's possible is to blind yourself to the science, and to the opinions of countless peer-reviewed scientists. There's plenty of propaganda on both sides of the fence on this one... and to shut yourself out either way is to give in to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troels
It's EXACTLY as mentioned in the documentary..
Express doubt about global warming and co2 and people will call you names and whatnot.
Show us WHY you think co2 emissions is the culprit, instead of the name calling.
It can't be that difficult.
|
I think that people get sensitive about the issue because of a sense of guilt. Whether they know the science of the issue or not, the majority of people are being told by people a lot smarter than them (on the subject, at least), that "YOU are responsible for global warming."
If that's accepted by the individual, guilt could easily set in.
And if people have a feeling of responsibility over the issue, those that deny the possibility may seem irresponsible.
And irresponsibility over something that someone is taking what they feel is a shared responsibility over has a tendency to piss people off.
And pissed off people call other people names.
At least, that's how I figure these things devolve from time to time.
But anyways, giving you what you asked for - Venus. It's relatively the same size as Earth, and I still think it's the best pointer that CO2 in an atmosphere on a large scale increases the temperature significantly... and if can happen to such a degree there - why can't it happen on a smaller scale here?
I'm sorry I might not be able to continually debate this topic today... it's a weekday, after all... hope this discussion can continue without name-calling, etc.
But there you have my
