Global Warming

Started by MrBogosity, October 16, 2008, 05:03:52 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
I thought it was getting a bit... toasty.

Quote2:30: Okay, so why hasn't the sun warmed Mercury, Venus, and Uranus?

Well, I noticed he never said it didn't so it's possible we just don't have data to confirm yet.

I'm not an expert but you may be oversimplifying that calculation a bit.
I recently heard that the word heretic is derived from the greek work heriticos which means "able to choose"
The more you know...

Really? If the sun is warming freakin' PLUTO, then how would it NOT be the case that our oceans would boil away? Do you have ANY idea how much closer we are to the sun than Pluto?

Imagine you're sitting at a table at a candlelight dinner. You're 2 feet away from the candle. You hardly feel any heat from it at all. If you're Pluto AT ITS CLOSEST, then Earth is about 3/4ths of an inch from the flame. If you're at Pluto's average orbit, then it's more like half an inch. Just TRY holding your hand at that distance for long!

By what degree does the sun warm Pluto again? I mean, how high above absolute zero is it?

The temperature above absolute zero doesn't matter. The total warming on Pluto is 3.5 degrees. I assumed with my calculation that only .1 degrees was due to the sun, and I STILL got Earth's oceans boiling.

I'm uncertain what exactly it is what you are trying to tell us here.

If you have two objects, A and B, and A is twice as far a way from the sun as B, and the sun increases in intensity, it will warm B four times as much as it will A. Inverse square.

And this is proof that the earth is 6000 years old?

Huh? This has nothing to do with YECism.

Oh sorry, that was episode 2 was'nt?

Speaking of Stefan Molyneux, ever since I read his book, "Everyday Anarchy"'s  section on academia (page 51 onward), I've really been wondering about Climate Change.
When I first met Shane, me and him argued over whether Keynesian Economics was bogus.  I said it wasn't because it was taught in colleges and was pretty the consensus (or something like that).  After seeing a video of Ron Paul and others predict the current crisis via Austrian Economics, I knew that they were right, and Keynesianism was bogus, despite being the norm in terms of economics.
With Shane noting because it lets the politicians hear what they want to hear.

So how do we know that Climate Change isn't the Keynesianism of natural sciences then?
What predictive style tests can someone like me do (e.g. seeing a video of someone predicting something that shows the theory true) that would verify or falsify Climate Change?
I don't know what to think...
"When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world—'No. You move.'"
-Captain America, Amazing Spider-Man 537

Because the actual evidence backs up climate change. Did you watch the Muller lecture? I think I linked to it early in the thread. He goes into it.

June 14, 2010, 04:05:30 PM #102 Last Edit: June 14, 2010, 05:37:10 PM by surhotchaperchlorome
I looked through the whole thread, and didn't find it. :(
Please post it! :)

If I could get what I got for Austrian economics though, e.g. independent, non post facto prediction that verifies it (esp, not from the state), I would be far more confident about it.

Man, as if I needed another reason to want science out of the hands of the state...
"When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world—'No. You move.'"
-Captain America, Amazing Spider-Man 537


Thanks. :)

Neither for nor against, but still very good:  [yt]xfebD3pAS4A[/yt]

Nothing like a free market perspective on Climate Change. :)
"When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world—'No. You move.'"
-Captain America, Amazing Spider-Man 537