I thought white surfaces caused the world to heat up whilst dark ones caused it to cool down, due to the heat in the atomosphere being the main thing that mattered. Least that was the impression I got from SimEarth's Daisyworld - and why the heating/cooling periods were in a cycle - ice caps recede and less heat is reflected into the atmosphere, causing the world to cool, which in turn causes the ice caps to grow etc.
Whilst we're on the topic of climate control theories from computer games, is there any reason a solar shade wouldn't work? Seem to remember a couple of years back there was some scheme to use a large space based mirror to heat up parts of Russia and make them more habitable. There anything wrong with the concept or is the engineering on an epic scale factor the main issue.
Other way around. Most of the reflected heat doesn't stay in the atmosphere. You can see this effect in cities, which have the double whammy: dark ground that is ALSO excellent at storing heat (black asphault). Its not uncommon for them to be 20 degrees warmer than the surrounding areas.
The conclusion from the climate model was that only planting tree's in the tropic will actually help prevent Global Warming. Planting trees in the USA would actually cause increased Global Warming. Because even though the trees will reduce carbon levels in the atmosphere they act as insulators holding heat on the planets surface that would otherwise be reflected back into space.
That would be true if the entirety of continental america was covered with a bright white icecap, and you replaced it with green trees. But that's not so, you're replacing green grassland with...green trees. People really do check their brains at the door when these debates open up
It is up to you Aussies to bioengineer some sort of tree capable of surviving in and taking over your poisonous back yard.
Meh. It'll adapt.
And by adapt I mean turn carnivorous and sprout poisonous Killvines.
That would be true if the entirety of continental america was covered with a bright white icecap, and you replaced it with green trees. But that's not so, you're replacing green grassland with...green trees. People really do check their brains at the door when these debates open up
I apologize for my stupidity, but I was wondering if you could help me out.
The assumption that I was making is that something that is darker is absorbing more light and heat from the sun then something that appears lighter. Is that correct?
Could you take a look at this picture and tell me what is darker the tree's or the grass?
How about this one?
Take a look outside if you would are the tree's darker or lighter than the grass?
From your observations what would you conclude is absorbing more heat and light?
Mr. Pokeylope: the trees also shade the ground, which would more than negate the difference in reflection. Its only noticable for LARGE differences in reflection (ice vs dirt, concrete vs dirt, black vs white) in general..
I assume Pokeylope was showing how trees are often darker - thus their extra shadow adds to the effect, not negates it. But yeah, a different shade of green isn't exactly going to change much.
I assume Pokeylope was showing how trees are often darker - thus their extra shadow adds to the effect, not negates it. But yeah, a different shade of green isn't exactly going to change much.
You wake up in the morning. There's a thick layer of clouds blocking the sun. Is it going to be warmer today, or colder?
I assume Pokeylope was showing how trees are often darker - thus their extra shadow adds to the effect, not negates it. But yeah, a different shade of green isn't exactly going to change much.
You wake up in the morning. There's a thick layer of clouds blocking the sun. Is it going to be warmer today, or colder?
Colder, but that's because they're between the sun and the ground. Trees are on the ground. Asphalt is on the ground - it's hotter on that, right?
I assume Pokeylope was showing how trees are often darker - thus their extra shadow adds to the effect, not negates it. But yeah, a different shade of green isn't exactly going to change much.
You wake up in the morning. There's a thick layer of clouds blocking the sun. Is it going to be warmer today, or colder?
Colder, but that's because they're between the sun and the ground. Trees are on the ground. Asphalt is on the ground - it's hotter on that, right?
The trees are between the ground and the sun as well. That's, uh, how the shadow gets there. The material on the ground isn't darker, its just getting less light.
I assume Pokeylope was showing how trees are often darker - thus their extra shadow adds to the effect, not negates it. But yeah, a different shade of green isn't exactly going to change much.
You wake up in the morning. There's a thick layer of clouds blocking the sun. Is it going to be warmer today, or colder?
Colder, but that's because they're between the sun and the ground. Trees are on the ground. Asphalt is on the ground - it's hotter on that, right?
The trees are between the ground and the sun as well. That's, uh, how the shadow gets there. The material on the ground isn't darker, its just getting less light.
Oh okay, you're just talking about the shadow part of what I said. Shadows really don't change the temperature in any way; save for the obvious fact that's it's cooler in the shade, which isn't really a part of climate. The main point was that darker ground makes warmer local weather - and trees aren't different enough to have any effect on that.
Is this true? I was under the impression it was a real bitch to refine plutonium or uranium to weapons-grade states. It seems like if the byproduct of breeder reactors was weapons-grade fissionable material the military would be all over incenting breeding reactors for power generation (under their close supervision).
Kind of. A light-water reactor produces useful Plutonium-239 (which is what you have to have for nukes), but in order to use it you have to shut down the reactor frequently and then send it to a refinement center to shake out the Uranium-235 or Uranium-238. Basically, plutonium-239 is a byproduct of nuclear reactors, and every four or six years (depending on the design) you have to shut down the reactor and replace the nuclear material because of buildup in the 239 of Plutonium-240, which is hella unstable and liable to blow up on its own. So you've got to clear and replace the nuclear fuel for the reactor every so often.
Anyway, for production purposes, you'd have to be doing this regularly- it takes years for 240 build up to be a problem, so civilian reactors can operate without interruption for long periods, but for a light-water reactor to be producing for weapons, you'd have to run it, shut it down, extract the plutonium, run it, shut it down, extract the plutonium...
For this reason the military typically uses reactors dedicated solely to the production of weapons-grade plutonium. Smaller designs not intended to provide power for long periods, just make useful waste. You can also put the refinement facility in the same place, making it easier to transport and handle the nuclear waste, instead of having to drive it across the interstate.
That being said, weapons-grade plutonium has been produced in a light-water reactor before. (It was a pretty low yield bomb, though)
Should I take it seriously? I mean, is this documentary factual? Can someone of the school of thought that assumes mankind is the cause of the warming of the earth refute its points? I'm curious; I took an environmental science course last semester and uh, the debates that occured were pretty divided, as to be expected, and I couldn't form my own opinion based on things I've read or the debate that sparked. I'm not asking for someone to form my opinion, I'm just curious.
Should I take it seriously? I mean, is this documentary factual? Can someone of the school of thought that assumes mankind is the cause of the warming of the earth refute its points? I'm curious; I took an environmental science course last semester and uh, the debates that occured were pretty divided, as to be expected, and I couldn't form my own opinion based on things I've read or the debate that sparked. I'm not asking for someone to form my opinion, I'm just curious.
Realclimate is pretty good. Not peer-reviewed studies, but then again there aren't going to be any peer-reviewed scientific responses to the TGGWS, because scientists, as a rule, have shit to do with their time and that's not what scientific journals are for.
Anyway, realclimate is run by actual climate scientists and sticks, for the most part, to the science. I consider it the Global Warming equivalent of the Talk.Origins archive- a great place to start if you want to see an argument debunked.
Should I take it seriously? I mean, is this documentary factual? Can someone of the school of thought that assumes mankind is the cause of the warming of the earth refute its points? I'm curious; I took an environmental science course last semester and uh, the debates that occured were pretty divided, as to be expected, and I couldn't form my own opinion based on things I've read or the debate that sparked. I'm not asking for someone to form my opinion, I'm just curious.
This particular documentary? No. Among other things the producers are famous for interviewing someone, then completely misrepresenting their point via selective editing.
That would be true if the entirety of continental america was covered with a bright white icecap, and you replaced it with green trees. But that's not so, you're replacing green grassland with...green trees. People really do check their brains at the door when these debates open up
I apologize for my stupidity, but I was wondering if you could help me out.
The assumption that I was making is that something that is darker is absorbing more light and heat from the sun then something that appears lighter. Is that correct?
Could you take a look at this picture and tell me what is darker the tree's or the grass?
How about this one?
Take a look outside if you would are the tree's darker or lighter than the grass?
From your observations what would you conclude is absorbing more heat and light?
Again I apologize for my stupidity.
Nice line in snide fake politeness, I mean Bravo, but there really isn't a difference worth talking about when you look at an area like that from a satellite or airphoto and analyse the spectrum coming off of it, which is what I was getting at. Certainly nothing next to ice v. tree or asphalt v tree. Also worth considering is the relative areas being covered - massive tracts of forest all over the place have been removed, and replacing them, far from creating some sort of magical icy fairyland, is just an attempt at restoring the balance. Lastly, you've shown me photos of maybe half a dozen species of plant from what looks like one climatic zone at best, and believe it or not, grasses and trees come in different shades! I know, crazy.
I do hope my explanation aided your understanding. I'd so hate for you to be confused.
Eh, I just like to put the onus on them to explain why, assuming that they're right and it's all one big hoax, a more polluted, expensive, energy dependent nation is the end goal we should be driving our public policy towards. In the end that is basically what the denial is promoting, and even when you ignore the IPCCC and everything it's still damn stupid. Now, if they're saying that we need to work on it, but not so drastically as Greenpeace wants it's basically just a conversation dealing with the details and laughing at Greenpeace.
Posts
Other way around. Most of the reflected heat doesn't stay in the atmosphere. You can see this effect in cities, which have the double whammy: dark ground that is ALSO excellent at storing heat (black asphault). Its not uncommon for them to be 20 degrees warmer than the surrounding areas.
And by adapt I mean turn carnivorous and sprout poisonous Killvines.
I apologize for my stupidity, but I was wondering if you could help me out.
The assumption that I was making is that something that is darker is absorbing more light and heat from the sun then something that appears lighter. Is that correct?
Could you take a look at this picture and tell me what is darker the tree's or the grass?
How about this one?
Take a look outside if you would are the tree's darker or lighter than the grass?
From your observations what would you conclude is absorbing more heat and light?
Again I apologize for my stupidity.
You wake up in the morning. There's a thick layer of clouds blocking the sun. Is it going to be warmer today, or colder?
Colder, but that's because they're between the sun and the ground. Trees are on the ground. Asphalt is on the ground - it's hotter on that, right?
The trees are between the ground and the sun as well. That's, uh, how the shadow gets there. The material on the ground isn't darker, its just getting less light.
Oh okay, you're just talking about the shadow part of what I said. Shadows really don't change the temperature in any way; save for the obvious fact that's it's cooler in the shade, which isn't really a part of climate. The main point was that darker ground makes warmer local weather - and trees aren't different enough to have any effect on that.
Let's agree to...agree
Kind of. A light-water reactor produces useful Plutonium-239 (which is what you have to have for nukes), but in order to use it you have to shut down the reactor frequently and then send it to a refinement center to shake out the Uranium-235 or Uranium-238. Basically, plutonium-239 is a byproduct of nuclear reactors, and every four or six years (depending on the design) you have to shut down the reactor and replace the nuclear material because of buildup in the 239 of Plutonium-240, which is hella unstable and liable to blow up on its own. So you've got to clear and replace the nuclear fuel for the reactor every so often.
Anyway, for production purposes, you'd have to be doing this regularly- it takes years for 240 build up to be a problem, so civilian reactors can operate without interruption for long periods, but for a light-water reactor to be producing for weapons, you'd have to run it, shut it down, extract the plutonium, run it, shut it down, extract the plutonium...
For this reason the military typically uses reactors dedicated solely to the production of weapons-grade plutonium. Smaller designs not intended to provide power for long periods, just make useful waste. You can also put the refinement facility in the same place, making it easier to transport and handle the nuclear waste, instead of having to drive it across the interstate.
That being said, weapons-grade plutonium has been produced in a light-water reactor before. (It was a pretty low yield bomb, though)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170&q=global+warming+swindle
Should I take it seriously? I mean, is this documentary factual? Can someone of the school of thought that assumes mankind is the cause of the warming of the earth refute its points? I'm curious; I took an environmental science course last semester and uh, the debates that occured were pretty divided, as to be expected, and I couldn't form my own opinion based on things I've read or the debate that sparked. I'm not asking for someone to form my opinion, I'm just curious.
Here, start with...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/
Realclimate is pretty good. Not peer-reviewed studies, but then again there aren't going to be any peer-reviewed scientific responses to the TGGWS, because scientists, as a rule, have shit to do with their time and that's not what scientific journals are for.
Anyway, realclimate is run by actual climate scientists and sticks, for the most part, to the science. I consider it the Global Warming equivalent of the Talk.Origins archive- a great place to start if you want to see an argument debunked.
This particular documentary? No. Among other things the producers are famous for interviewing someone, then completely misrepresenting their point via selective editing.
Nice line in snide fake politeness, I mean Bravo, but there really isn't a difference worth talking about when you look at an area like that from a satellite or airphoto and analyse the spectrum coming off of it, which is what I was getting at. Certainly nothing next to ice v. tree or asphalt v tree. Also worth considering is the relative areas being covered - massive tracts of forest all over the place have been removed, and replacing them, far from creating some sort of magical icy fairyland, is just an attempt at restoring the balance. Lastly, you've shown me photos of maybe half a dozen species of plant from what looks like one climatic zone at best, and believe it or not, grasses and trees come in different shades! I know, crazy.
I do hope my explanation aided your understanding. I'd so hate for you to be confused.
3DS: 1521-4165-5907
PS3: KayleSolo
Live: Kayle Solo
WiiU: KayleSolo
It is nice that he wants this to happen right before his eight years are up; it sort of gives you hope.
3DS: 1521-4165-5907
PS3: KayleSolo
Live: Kayle Solo
WiiU: KayleSolo
http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics
Eh, I just like to put the onus on them to explain why, assuming that they're right and it's all one big hoax, a more polluted, expensive, energy dependent nation is the end goal we should be driving our public policy towards. In the end that is basically what the denial is promoting, and even when you ignore the IPCCC and everything it's still damn stupid. Now, if they're saying that we need to work on it, but not so drastically as Greenpeace wants it's basically just a conversation dealing with the details and laughing at Greenpeace.