I'd be willing to put money on the atmosphere being more transparent than glass...
Exactly how do you think light being able to pass through glass is different to light being able to pass through the atmosphere? You seem to know very little about basic physics for someone that knows for a fact that global warming is a lie.
iirc with bog standard glass the length a fibre for laser communication will still work is somewhere at around a few metres... certainly a lot less than the thicknss of the atmospheres
So why then, can warmth reflected off the Earth not be able to get out, hence causing global warming?
If you so brilliant, why dont you tell me?
So the theory says that radiated heat is being trapped in the atmosphere and cant escape and so warming our planet, rather like a greenhouse, but if the atmosphere is completely 100% transparent, then that would mean that refelected warmth would be able to escape easily yes? So that would mean that global warming is not possible?
BAHAHA That is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever read on this forum. "Air" is a gas. You can see through the air, therefor it is transparent. Wow! Science!
For the record, nothing (absolutely _nothing_) on our planet is 100% transparent. Water, air, glass, nothing.
I suggest you look up how a greenhouse works. I'm not going to waste my time explaining it to you. If you still can't figure it out, then...
Gasses as in greenhouse gasses, if gasses are so transparent, then why can you see smoke? Why is chlorine gas yellow coloured?
Greenhouses are not the same as our Earth's atmosphere, are we surrounded by a layer of glass? Were talking about radiation from the sun here, not heated air, greenhouses get warm because the layer of glass stops the warmed air escaping, it also stops the heat energy escaping so it acts as an insulator, with the earth's atmosphere, reflected infrared radiation can escape because gas isnt effective enough at stopping it, and so global warming is a lie.
Greenhouses cant be used as an example of global warming, because glass has very different properties to anything in our atmosphere, so quit banging on about bloody greenhouses.
Wow! Sarcasm! aren't you f**king hilarious.
I bet you think your so brilliant, why don't you shut up and take your sarcasm to someone who cares about what you have to say?
You can see smoke because its an aerosol (solid particles with gasses). You learn this in your first year of chemistry in school. basically at the first day you have chemistry.
Man you dont know the basics of physic, chemistry and mineralogy.
Actually perfect glass is a liquid and not solid as it has no regular structure (ever seen windows in a very old house? They flow, even though they are not perfect glass). Liquids and gasses are also grouped together as "fluids" as they have similar properties.
Inform yourself about heat flux. Then search in google for absorbtion and reflection of certain wave length in molecules (for example CH4, CO2, H20, O³...) and you find the answer why the earth heats up with more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
And if gasses are not good enough to absorb certain wave length why do you think there is such a big fuss about the O³ layer? Or why do you think that we in europe dont need the sun milk they use in australia? because basically gasses are not good enough to block certain wave length! lol!
lets see you know next to nothing about physics (even less than lerts which is quite an achievement) and yet you still feel able to make a claim as bold as this?
Makes me laugh how you completely ignore when I ask why chlorine gas is a yellow colour, is that becasue I'm right on that one?
Its all very easy to say 'oh you know nothing about physics', but I dont see you providing any more evidence to back up your claims than me, which makes you a hypocrite.
Hah the number of times I've heard someone say '0MG you know nothing about physics' to someone on this forum, wayy too many smartasses.
Please prove global warming to me then, seeing as your all top level physicists.
Plus ozone depletion has nothing to do with global warming (in that its actually real).
I can no longer be bothered to give you sarcastic smartasses a reason to take the piss, perhaps you should try going out and making some real friends instead of taking your frustration out by ridiculing people you dont know over the internet.
I still beleive that humans have little impact on the Earths temperature, regardless of what a few vain idiots tell me over one fo the most unfriendly forums on the internet.
Lets see you know next to nothing about me, and yet you still feel able to make a claim as bold as this.
I don't talk about everything being an illusion, so I doubt that, so, tell me what you know about physics, professor his F**king highness Shotglass?
Out of you lot, Nobo is the only one who has right to critiscize, Shotglass, what do you know about such things, apart from that you think you are brilliant?
But yea, this thread has derailed epically. No-one here really knows what they're talking about and so everyone should take a step back and stop acting like you're competeing for a nobel peace prize.
no because that would require a working knowledge of what a spectrum is and how absorption reemission and in fact colour works which i rather doubt you do given that you clearly dont understand how global warming or greenhouses work
feel free to look through my post history and take a lott at the tons of physics threads ive contributed to... also i have a degree in engineering which is generally thought of to require some idea of what physics is all about... you?
nah just way too many engineers physicists and other people who do know about physics being frustrated by all the uneducated people here who somehow feel they have something of value to say about contriversal topics of which they dont even understand the basics behind
the relevant physics with repsect to transparency and opaqueness in certain bands is the same so unless you understand what the ozone layer is about you dont have any chance of ever understanding gw
too bad that what you feel is completely irrelevant to the question of whether we do or not
i do know that you dont know
1) what smoke is
2) how greenhouses work
3) how colours work
all 3 of which are extremely basic physics which anybody should pick up in school... so yes i do feel im in a position to make this claim
yeah shottie graphs seem to look vertical when you plot them over a 1 degree change in average temp. Am i worried about a less than 1 degree change?
In the early 1970's there were many scientists and physicists who truly believed and had studied the climate to conclude that we were all going to die from the impending ice age. Notice how the graph shoots down? That is the power of statistics used as propaganda for BS science.
Does this sound familiar? It is the exact same thing we hear today from all the media outlets.
Scientists were not looking objectively at the evidence. They rode the tide of the "Global Cooling" fad to gain notoriety and research grants, just like they are today in regards to global warming. Today and in 1975, meteorologists are keeping up with the hype of climate change instead of the actual science. notice how they link natural disasters to the cooling trend. very familiar except we attribute the same disasters to the warming trend. We are making the exact same mistakes we made 30 years ago and no one seems to give a shit that we're all being scared into driving Pruises that do nothing to help the environment but make a lot of money for fear-based companies
Whether global warming is real or not, I don't mind if I will be able to swim or go cycling 1 month/year more ...and if the open-air ice-skating and skiing will still be possible through the winter ('cause I don't want a wet winter at all).
flymike91 curious information, thanks for finding this!
Oh lets just let people like you make all the posts then, this forum would be an incredibly boring place.
The fact that you constantly call me stupid, but decline from actually explaining things that you supposedly know to me makes me think you don't know either, prove me wrong?
Surely if something reflects waves, then it isnt completely transparent?
No chance of ever understanding?? Maybe I could learn if you stopped comparing me to Lerts and actually came up with some evidence to show why you bother to post here.
You haven't shown any knowledge at all in this thread, all you have done is insulted people you don't even know, when I ask you to explain things, you simply fob me off with excuses, which suggests that your only here to undermine and insult people, its all very easy to say you have qualifications in this and that, but why should I believe you when at best the only thing you have done is repeat what Nobo said.
Do people pick on you in real life, does that explain why people have to be such prats here?
rather the opposite... the threads that crop up every physics incompatible patch here are full of well educated people and are an amzing read
what exactly do you expect me to do? retype the wiki pages for greenhouse effect and venus in my own words?
its not like this is another one of these petrol company conspiracies and that there is no available info out there
but since using wiki or google seems like too much work... enjoy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus#Atmosphere http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus
especially read this bit:
Studies have suggested that several billion years ago Venus's atmosphere was much more like Earth's than it is now, and that there were probably substantial quantities of liquid water on the surface, but a runaway greenhouse effect was caused by the evaporation of that original water, which generated a critical level of greenhouse gases in its atmosphere.
yes but whats relevant is the transparency over frequency particularly in bands which you _cant_ see
who also thinks you have an alarming degree of ignorance of anything scientific
you of course realise that for you to be in a position to complain about insults you shouldnt go around insulting others yourself
I know next to nothing about the science behind global warming.
In a wierd twist of fade that makes me about as equally qualified to discuss it as any scientist.
It's all guesswork and opinion, proving or denying global warming is about as fruitful as doing the same for any given diety. That's one reason why I consider this new found environmentalist movement to be something of a religion itself, in a way.
The fact is nobody knows for sure what is happening, and it seems 'reasonable' to assume that humans do have an impact on our environment - so that's what we go on believing because it sounds logical.
If there's one thing i've concluded, logically, is that the world is far from logical.
...As is this forums members ability to keep a topic on-topic.
I've a major pain in my arse atm, first a mod comes in like a headless turkey waving a stick, now what we have left is a thread which was supposed to contain discussion of future technology possibility's for transport turned into another bs argument about how little most know about planetary evolution.
Forum posts are like cats, they live in the now. If you want a post to go back on topic post on the original topic and raise points people feel like discussing - and they will discuss them.
Pick somebody out who didnt drag the topic off, and had nowt to do with your objection, and raise discussion with them on it - and you get this reply.
The global warming lobby is all scaremongery based on very poor science indeed. Unfortunately for the green movement this tactic, that has worked on the masses so well in the past, hasn't stuck this time. I think it's all come too closely on the heel of the diet science craze and the millennium bug frenzy, and it's being tempered by that great big leveller, the internet.
The worldly population at large has experienced a massive injection of qualified alter-viewpoint with the advent of the internet, and people no longer have to depend solely on the old and very ineffective pub talk as their discussion forum to counter mainstream media hype. It does have its down side, too, with the proliferation of silly conspiracy theories, but they at least temper the officialdom by raising the median level of cynicism and suspicion in the population.
All that said, I still personally support some of the objectives in the green movement. I just don't appreciate the scaremongery they're depending on. I don't believe that the volcano god is going to smite our village unless we make lots of green sacrificial offerings, but that doesn't mean I think it's a good idea to piss in the river, up-stream of the village. We DO need to clean up our act.
I don't understand your logic...
...and if the open-air ice-skating and skiing will still be possible through the winter ('cause I don't want a wet winter at all).
