# global warming, an interesting perspective



## mrhnau (Feb 19, 2007)

I heard something interesting on the radio the other day, thought I'd bounce it around a bit. I wish I could remember who said it.

It was an interesting perspective I've not heard before on things. Who says that the temperature we now have on Earth is ideal? Temperatures in the past have flucuated dramatically, long before man made his grand appearance. Things like solar cycles, volcanic activity have led to dramatic temperature ranges. Ice ages, long periods of warmer temperatures, etc.. Sea levels have not been static either. Why are we trying to halt the rise or fall of global temperatures?


I can understand our desire to slow down polution. That only makes sense. But even with no polution, we don't live in a world with static temperatures. Should that be our motivation to try and clean things up? Also, why should we see ourselves as the ultimate judges of what the "correct" temperature is? If we enter a new ice age in 50 years, should we start producing more green house gasses?


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 19, 2007)

George Will made this argument in his article recently. 

The big difference is that in the past, changes in temperature we created by natural causes. Today, the levels of carbon being added to the atmosphere are being placed there by *our* activity. The advent of the internal combustion engine, and burning of fossil fuels for power are altering the ecosystem of the planet in a way by our hands. 

The reason why it is a very good idea to stop doing this, is because we do not have omniscient understanding of the effects generated by our action. 

You are correct ... the planet has gone along just fine for a couple of billion years ... fluctuating temperatures and atmospheric composition and everything.

Man, however, has inhabited the planet for a very short time, caparatively. It might be that just a slight alteration in cause by increase carbon levels in the atmosphere reduce the habitat for our species to survive. 


As one last demostration point ... Look to Venus. The atmosphere in Venus contains a significantly higher quantity of greenhouse gases than does Earth. Average Tempurature --- 900 degrees farenheit.


EDIT - and, for the record ... I think making synonyms of the words 'pollution' and 'greenhouse gas' is a bad choice for language. Pollution, is something else entirely. - END EDIT


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 19, 2007)

In general terms, throughout the broadsweep of geologic time, I think that the consensus has been that the prescence of living organisms does quite a bit to shake up the climate.

I also seem to remember that there is some support for the idea that the 'natural' state of the Earth is ice-age but that life manipulates the conditions, especially the atmosphere, and holds off that fate from occurring.

However, one thing to bear in mind that these changes and influences tend to be gradual, whereas what 'we' are doing now is reversing several million years of carbon-locking in a century or so.  So all that carbon is getting back out into the environment in what amounts to one big limp - who knows what that is going to do!

Which is why when this topic comes up, I always advocate a 'do the least harm' policy until we know/can figure out what on earth (deliberate punnage ) is going to be the consequence of our actions.


----------



## Kacey (Feb 19, 2007)

Another theory I heard from a friend of mine - which made sense to me once he said it - is that one reason why the weather has changed so much in the last couple of hundred years is deforestation.  We see it now in South America, but much of the change was caused by deforestation in North America in the 1700s and forward to today, as (predominately) Europeans moved west across the continent, cutting down forests to create farms - a significant source of greenhouse gases, as the trees that once fixed carbon dioxide from the atmosphere were replaced with cereal grains that are much less effective at removing carbon dioxide than the trees were.  Add the Industrial Revolution, and the mass quantities of pollutants spewed forth during that time, and it's easy to follow some of the changes in weather reported over the last 200-300 years.

While I agree that weather changes over the last couple of hundred years are cause for concern, as records are set and broken in both directions, how much of that is due to actual change, and how much is due to more accurate record keeping?  The time for which we have reasonably exact statistics on temperature, atmospheric composition, and precipitation is small compared to the history of the planet.  I thoroughly agree with significant reduction of pollutants for the health of the ecosphere - but I do think there are other factors here.  The main thing I see is that humanity is causing these changes much more quickly than they occurred in geological time (slow change over hundreds, thousands, or tens of thousands of years), yet more slowly than cataclysms such as volcanic eruptions.


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 19, 2007)

Micheal Edwards explained it well as I understand it and from what I read.

Temperatures and sea levels have fluctuated, but not at the current rate, which is more rapid and directly corrilated with carbon dioxide levels in the air.

This, btw, is the new neocon/con "talking head" strategy. Years ago, it was to argue that global warming was a myth, and that there was no proof, etc. When that was proven wrong, during the 90's and into 2000 the strategy was to say, "O.K., it's warming, but how do we know it is our fault, and not just the natural fluctuation of the climate?" Within the last few years, that notion has been disregarded by most credible scientests, and there is enough evidence to say that not only is the globe warming, but it is our fault. So now, the most recent strategy is to say, "So, it is warming, and maybe it is due to our presence here on earth, but how do we know this is a bad thing?" They are saying, and will say, that it might be a good thing that the globe is warming, and that we will adapt and overcome and that sure a few species will die but this could be good in the long run as other species will survive and adapt, and so on.

I see it all as an unwillingness to want to take personal responsibility for our individual, organizational, and global error, and as an unwillingness to seek positive change in regards to how we treat the environment.

So I would say to everyone don't fall into the new hype, and use newly irrelevant arguements as an excuse to not take these factors into consideration when voting. There is a time when people need to put the babbling aside, look at the evidence, logically accept what is true regardless of what others on your political spectrum are doing to obtusify the issue.

This issue, in fact, has been crossing the bounds of party lines, and many conservatives have decided that Global Warming is a problem despite the few who say loudly that it is not. Example, here in Michigan our current Governor's ultra conservative republican opponent (Dick Devos) in the last election was very pro environment, and had a lot of plans on the table to build an infastructure to use less polluting energy sources (alternative fuels, solar, wind, etc.). So, this isn't nessecarily a "one party/one sided" issue anymore with "liberals" in one corner and "conservatives" in the other.

Many people of all sides of the political spectrum are taking up this issue, which I see as a good thing.


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 19, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> As one last demostration point ... Look to Venus. The atmosphere in Venus contains a significantly higher quantity of greenhouse gases than does Earth. Average Tempurature --- 900 degrees farenheit.



Welll... Venus... that planet that is almost 30 million miles closer to the sun than us, and maintains a "same side to the star" rotation for the better part of a year giving it no ability to cool in the dark of space?

Hmm, although a quick google search says The tempature on venus sits around 726k and Mercury fluctuates between 400k - 700k ... whats the quantity of greenhouse gases on Mercury?  Mercury is closer, so I'd assume it would be hotter, but IIRC Mercury does a full rotation on it axis like once a month as opposed to a year... i'd say tho... temps are similar enough that if Mercury has significantly lower quantities of Greenhouse gasses to Venus, that it MIGHT not be those gasses making mercury so hot.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 19, 2007)

There are multiple reasons for climate changes on the planet earth that are natural some of which that were not mentioned are changes in orbit from elliptical as it is now to more circular as it was during much of the age of dinosaurs and of course changes in the axis as well. There can also be changes in the oceanic conveyor belt system based on the influx of melt waters form melting ice caps. And as mentioned volcanic activity, rather large volcanic activity actually (think Pinatubo) 

But technically speaking if we are in the natural geological cycle of climactic changes we should be heading towards an ice age not global warming. And the speed with which this is happening is rather alarming. And the pollution is killing off various animal and plant life as well. Not that natural climate changes do not but generally not at this speed. 

And as a note you cannot stop an ice age by pollution if it is coming and if you try basically you achieve poisoning the atmosphere and ecosystems, which could potentially kill many on the planet. And then it comes anyway

We are affecting the planet in rather negative ways not as drastically as some believe but we certainly are doing a good job at messing things up and we really need to face that fact and do something about it.... Now, not make excuses as to why this might be a good thing 

Melt the Antarctic ice cap and you flood Florida and reverse flow on the Hudson River and this is just to mention a couple, and that is not a good thing. Growing population and shrinking land mass is not generally a good thing to have, just to name one of the side effects. It is however a good thing for starvation and epidemics.  

Also there are volcanoes under Antarctica that with the pressure release due to the melting ice caps could become active again. So it could all change in a flash. Hey Yellowstone is a super volcano that is over due for an eruption so what the heck let the planet warm up and if Yellowstone blows it will kill a lot of people and likely cause global cooling.

And there are some that believe the planet is self-correcting, heat it up, it wants to cool down, volcanoes are good for that in the long run, short term however they can make things incredibly uncomfortable.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 19, 2007)

Pretty cold outside today.


----------



## exile (Feb 19, 2007)

Kacey said:


> Another theory I heard from a friend of mine - which made sense to me once he said it - is that one reason why the weather has changed so much in the last couple of hundred years is deforestation.  We see it now in South America, but much of the change was caused by deforestation in North America in the 1700s and forward to today, as (predominately) Europeans moved west across the continent, cutting down forests to create farms - a significant source of greenhouse gases, as the trees that once fixed carbon dioxide from the atmosphere were replaced with cereal grains that are much less effective at removing carbon dioxide than the trees were.  Add the Industrial Revolution, and the mass quantities of pollutants spewed forth during that time, and it's easy to follow some of the changes in weather reported over the last 200-300 years.



The Sahara, in its current enormous, expanding form, is apparently a result of deforestation, which began to get really bad as a result of the Roman colonization of North Africa. The Romans managed to eliminate tens of thousands of acres of forest, opening up large tracts of land to both damanging windstorms, promoting large-scale erosion and allowing the soil to be leached of nutrients, making it more likely to become desert, a process that then feeds on itself because the loss of the tree root networks that help keep moisture in the soil of a given area. Once the process starts, you get a positive feedback loop going and the desert keeps growing. In a few thousand years, in some models, central Africa will be almost entirely desert...


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 19, 2007)

Cryozombie said:


> Welll... Venus... that planet that is almost 30 million miles closer to the sun than us, and maintains a "same side to the star" rotation for the better part of a year giving it no ability to cool in the dark of space?
> 
> Hmm, although a quick google search says The tempature on venus sits around 726k and Mercury fluctuates between 400k - 700k ... whats the quantity of greenhouse gases on Mercury? Mercury is closer, so I'd assume it would be hotter, but IIRC Mercury does a full rotation on it axis like once a month as opposed to a year... i'd say tho... temps are similar enough that if Mercury has significantly lower quantities of Greenhouse gasses to Venus, that it MIGHT not be those gasses making mercury so hot.


 
As I recall, Mercury has little or no atmosphere. If an atmosphere ever existed the solar winds have long since blown it away. 

And, even with the day / night cycle on Venus, check the temperatures on the night side of the planet. The atmosphere does a tremondous job of retaining heat.

Compare the day / night on Venus with the day / night on the moon, which has no atmosphere to retain heat. 


WBUR radio recently had a broadcast on Carl Sagan's legacy. It has been 10 years since he died. Mr. Sagan would talk about the effects of climate by comparing and contrasting Venus, Earth, and Mars. Since then, so have others. 

http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2007/02/20070215_b_main.asp


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 19, 2007)

I really do not want to upset anyone here but comparing Mercury and Venus to Earth is not really a good comparison. Neither Mercury nor Venus can support life as we know it and neither have any external variables that could cause issues from said life forms. And although I cannot tell you without looking it up what the atmosphere of either is I am fairly certain it is not an oxygen-based atmosphere such as we have on earth. And finally neither have water, and if Earth were that close to the sun we would not be here to have any discussion. 

The temperature of Pluto doesn&#8217;t change much either but it really cannot be compared either. First the poor little guy just got demoted and is no longer a planet but it cannot support life as we know it either. 

Mars would be the best comparison


----------



## Kacey (Feb 19, 2007)

I think the key is that this problem (human impact on the ecosphere) has been going on much longer than most people originally realized - more than most people realize today.  Some societies lived in harmony with nature, but many ohters did not, and all of those had their effect on the environment.  The awareness of the problem is much more recent, however - and too many people think that the problem has only existed for as long as we've been aware of it - and therefore consider climate change a short-term problem with a short-term answer - and it's not a short-term anything.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 19, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> I really do not want to upset anyone here but comparing Mercury and Venus to Earth is not really a good comparison. Neither Mercury nor Venus can support life as we know it and neither have any external variables that could cause issues from said life forms. And although I cannot tell you without looking it up what the atmosphere of either is I am fairly certain it is not an oxygen-based atmosphere such as we have on earth. And finally neither have water, and if Earth were that close to the sun we would not be here to have any discussion.
> 
> The temperature of Pluto doesnt change much either but it really cannot be compared either. First the poor little guy just got demoted and is no longer a planet but it cannot support life as we know it either.
> 
> Mars would be the best comparison


 
For what purpose are we comparing planets? 

If we are comparing the planets for content in the atmosphere, then Venus is the best choice. It is similar mass to Earth, thus exerting a similiar gravitational pull. As gravity is what enables a planet to have an atmosphere, it is a good choice. 

The effects of greenhouse gases on the temperature in an ecosystem does not require either water, or life. So this further makes the comparison a valid choice. 

Mars, by contrast, is significantly less massive from Earth, resulting in less gravity and thus a thinner atmosphere. Incidently, the atmosphere on Mars is probably more like that of Earths, than is Venus in content. 

And, if we are looking for other places to live in the Solar System, I would choose one of the Moons of Jupiter. It is believed there are vast liquid water oceans beneath the frozen surface of Europa. Nice place for a blind fish, I think.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 19, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> For what purpose are we comparing planets?
> 
> If we are comparing the planets for content in the atmosphere, then Venus is the best choice. It is similar mass to Earth, thus exerting a similiar gravitational pull. As gravity is what enables a planet to have an atmosphere, it is a good choice.


 
Gravitation of Venus and the effects of gravity on it are VERY different form Earth. And if you move Venuse away from the sun its mass would be a bit less compact due to the gravutational effects of the sun. If it is mass you are interested in then compare it to a large asteriod 



michaeledward said:


> The effects of greenhouse gases on the temperature in an ecosystem does not require either water, or life. So this further makes the comparison a valid choice.


 
The effects of a green house gas on an oxygen-based atmosphere are considerably different than the atmosphere of Venus. Ramp up earths atmosphere to match Venus and we all die. 



michaeledward said:


> Mars, by contrast, is significantly less massive from Earth, resulting in less gravity and thus a thinner atmosphere. Incidently, the atmosphere on Mars is probably more like that of Earths, than is Venus in content.


 
I think I kind of said that, that is why it is a better comparison than Venus. And part of the plan suggested to make mars inhabitable is increasing green house gases. 



michaeledward said:


> And, if we are looking for other places to live in the Solar System, I would choose one of the Moons of Jupiter. It is believed there are vast liquid water oceans beneath the frozen surface of Europa. Nice place for a blind fish, I think.


 
Thanks, but I wasn't, never even mentioned looking for other places to support life. I was talking about looking to planets that possibly could for comparison as apposed to planets that cannot


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 19, 2007)

Kacey said:


> I think the key is that this problem (human impact on the ecosphere) has been going on much longer than most people originally realized - more than most people realize today. Some societies lived in harmony with nature, but many ohters did not, and all of those had their effect on the environment. The awareness of the problem is much more recent, however - and too many people think that the problem has only existed for as long as we've been aware of it - and therefore consider climate change a short-term problem with a short-term answer - and it's not a short-term anything.


 

It is true that humans have been contributing to the content of the atmosphere during the entire time they have existed. There are two items that make this particular data point less relevant in this discussion than might initially be assumed. 

1 - Population. While the human record goes back a few million years, agro-communities have been around for approximately 11 thousand years. And agriculture is what allowed the human species to increase its population. As hunter-gatherers, our population was limited.

Population growth in the last century has been dramatically different than what is has been in the ten millenia preceeding it. The population of the globe today is twice what it was sixty years ago. 

If we assume the same impact per individual, population growth alone doubles the impact on the ecosystem. 

2 - Stored carbon. As Sukerkin pointed out, those materials we refer to as Fossil Fuels contain millions of years worth of carbon. And until the mid nineteeth century, man did not know how to convert that stored energy to useful purposes. In the past, man may have contributed greenhouse gases to the atmosphere by burning some materials, but never did we access the geologic storage of oil, natural gas, and coal.

When living things die, and decompose, the greenhouse gases are released naturually. Burning whale blubber may create greenhouse gases, but the naturally decomposing whale carcess released much of that carbon in a similar time period. The process may alter content in the atmopshere by a decade sooner, give or take, but the carbon would be released naturally. 

Oil, Coal, and Gas are the exception of those natural decomposition cycles, aren't they? The materials somehow cheat mother nature, to store carbon. And in the last millenia, humans have capitalized on that storage. 

So, item 2 - stored carbon - affects item 1 - population. In the last century, if we could measure it, I would be that we find the per capita creation of greenhouse gasses has increased. In tandem with the population increase, this is a dangerous combination. 


The planet will go on. To the insects we leave our world.


----------



## Kacey (Feb 19, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> So, item 2 - stored carbon - affects item 1 - population. In the last century, if we could measure it, I would be that we find the per capita creation of greenhouse gasses has increased. In tandem with the population increase, this is a dangerous combination.



I don't disagree - and the deforestation I mentioned earlier is also a part, as fewer trees combined with greater population serves to further accelerate the problem - although I stated it differently, that is the point I was trying to make:  that this a longer-term problem than most people realize, and will need more than the "quick fixes" proposed by so many.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 19, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> Gravitation of Venus and the effects of gravity on it are VERY different form Earth. And if you move Venuse away from the sun its mass would be a bit less compact due to the gravutational effects of the sun. If it is mass you are interested in then compare it to a large asteriod
> 
> The effects of a green house gas on an oxygen-based atmosphere are considerably different than the atmosphere of Venus. Ramp up earths atmosphere to match Venus and we all die.
> 
> ...


 
Xue Sheng,

The mass of an object does not change because of its relative position to another object. If Venus was anywhere else in the universe, it would have exactly the same mass as it has in orbit around the Sun.


The effects of a green-house gas in any atmosphere are exactly the same. Greenhouse gasses store heat. Carbon Dioxide does not need a 'nitrogen/oxygen' atmosphere to retain heat energy. 


These are basic principles of science. And it seems that your understanding of them is incomplete. This could be having a unintended effect on your understanding of the discussion at hand, and the impact of global climate change / global warming in general.

Michael


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 19, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Xue Sheng,
> The mass of an object does not change because of its relative position to another object. If Venus was anywhere else in the universe, it would have exactly the same mass as it has in orbit around the Sun.



Never said it changed its mass now did I. I did said less dense, that is not the same thing. Less dense meaning not as compact therefore it would possibly be larger. A pound of iron and pound of feathers is still a pound but they do not take up the same area in there natural state



michaeledward said:


> The effects of a green-house gas in any atmosphere are exactly the same. Greenhouse gasses store heat. Carbon Dioxide does not need a 'nitrogen/oxygen' atmosphere to retain heat energy.


Again true but as I said there are no oceans on Venus and I missed this response of yours the first time around


michaeledward said:


> The effects of greenhouse gases on the temperature in an ecosystem does not require either water, or life. So this further makes the comparison a valid choice.



True the effects do not but the causes are a different story. As you said Carbon Dioxide is a factor and pollution that is responsible causes acid rains also contributes to the raising of levels of acidity in the Ocean and adversely effects CO2 absorption thereby releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere. Venus and Mercury have no comparable Ecosystems. I am worried about the causes here not the effects, I am also worried about how to reverse it not what happens after it is to late.



michaeledward said:


> These are basic principles of science. And it seems that your understanding of them is incomplete. This could be having a unintended effect on your understanding of the discussion at hand, and the impact of global climate change / global warming in general.
> Michael



Ahhh your typical tactic of not being able to refute confidently so you resort to insults, I was wondering when that would pop up.

But in response, actually I have a pretty good understanding of the basic concepts and some rather advanced ones as well, you need to read what is posted more carefully before you respond actually.

Sadly I do feel we agree on Global warming and my initial response to Venus and Mercury was in reality more in support of what you were saying about Global warming but it appears there can be no discussion between us so I will leave this post to half truths and your usual tactics. And Al Gore is not the best source by the way.

But one last thing before I go this is the original post



mrhnau said:


> I heard something interesting on the radio the other day, thought I'd bounce it around a bit. I wish I could remember who said it.
> 
> It was an interesting perspective I've not heard before on things. Who says that the temperature we now have on Earth is ideal? Temperatures in the past have flucuated dramatically, long before man made his grand appearance. Things like solar cycles, volcanic activity have led to dramatic temperature ranges. Ice ages, long periods of warmer temperatures, etc.. Sea levels have not been static either. Why are we trying to halt the rise or fall of global temperatures?
> 
> ...



Where do comparing Earth and Venus enter into it?


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 19, 2007)

What was intended as a gentle correction of an error results in an accusation and insult. OK then ... so here is the language. 



			
				Xue Sheng Post 18 said:
			
		

> Never said it changed its mass now did I. I did said less dense, that is not the same thing. Less dense meaning not as compact therefore it would possibly be larger. A pound of iron and pound of feathers is still a pound but they do not take up the same area in there natural state


 


			
				Xue Sheng Post 14 said:
			
		

> Gravitation of Venus and the effects of gravity on it are VERY different form Earth. *And if you move Venuse away from the sun its mass would be a bit less compact due to the gravutational effects of the sun.* If it is mass you are interested in then compare it to a large asteriod


 
I will point out in post 14 you distinctly say ... "mass would be less". This is a gross error. The mass would not change at all. While there may be a slight variation in the shape of matter, it would not effect the quantity of matter. The gravitational forces of the Sun do very little to effect the shape of the planet Venus. Rather, the gravitational pull of the Sun affects the orbit of Venus. We rarely consider the planet Earth being a different shape because of High Tide. And most of those tidal changes are caused by the Moon; a massive object much closer to us than the Sun. 

Further you confuse the issue by talking about a 'pound of iron and a pound of feathers'. The unit of weight requires a specifc gravitational force to measure. Weight and mass are not synonomous. 

Whether we agree or not, is pretty irrelevant at this point, isn't it? When you seem to wish to paint me with the radical right code word 'Al Gore'. The only reference in this thread to Al Gore is *your *post.


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 19, 2007)

I am not "taking sides" between two individuals obviously feuding for some reason, just providing data.

Here is a good article: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Venus.htm

As it turns out, it appears that despite their differences, both Mars and Venus provide good models for what could occur in a greenhouse chain reaction here on earth.


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 19, 2007)

In fact, here is the home page of a very interesting website on the subject:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html


----------



## Ray (Feb 20, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> The mass of an object does not change because of its relative position to another object. If Venus was anywhere else in the universe, it would have exactly the same mass as it has in orbit around the Sun.


The "where" of an object might not change its mass relative to another object but the relative speed of the object to another may change its mass.  Of course, it would have to be moving along at a high velocity and its "where" would be constantly changing.

On the subject of global warming: How come the doomsaying scientists and political leaders don't ride their bikes to their conventions?  How come Al Gore doesn't jog to his "events?"


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 20, 2007)

Ray said:


> The "where" of an object might not change its mass relative to another object but the relative speed of the object to another may change its mass. Of course, it would have to be moving along at a high velocity and its "where" would be constantly changing.


 
Mass is not relative to any other thing, so I don't quite understand what you are arguing. 

The mass of Venus is the equal to itself. It would be equal to itself where ever it is in the universe and no regardless of what objects it is near, away from, moving toward or moving away. Mass is the measure of how much 'stuff' makes up the planet Venus. 

So, if you can shed some light on more specifically what you are referencing, I am interested. 




			
				Ray said:
			
		

> On the subject of global warming: How come the doomsaying scientists and political leaders don't ride their bikes to their conventions? How come Al Gore doesn't jog to his "events?"


 
And this does not seem to be a serious question, just an attempt to slur the conversation. I could be wrong though. Please tell me which 'doomsaying scientist' you are refering to? Because most scientists that I am familiar with are not sayers of doom. Usually, they leave that to religious types. Doom is a concept outside of science.


----------



## crushing (Feb 20, 2007)

Climate change and its effects has even become one of the factors for at what time a group of scientists set their Dooms-day clock.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6270871.stm


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 20, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> What was intended as a gentle correction of an error results in an accusation and insult. OK then ... so here is the language.....
> 
> Whether we agree or not, is pretty irrelevant at this point, isn't it? When you seem to wish to paint me with the radical right code word 'Al Gore'. The only reference in this thread to Al Gore is your post.



In an effort to not hijack the thread I will post my reply to you here, since this thread was dedicated to you it is the best place to respond to you. 

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=38148&page=2

I will ask this again though, since you like to pick and choose what you answer and not answer direct questions.

This is the original post.



mrhnau said:


> I heard something interesting on the radio the other day, thought I'd bounce it around a bit. I wish I could remember who said it.
> 
> It was an interesting perspective I've not heard before on things. Who says that the temperature we now have on Earth is ideal? Temperatures in the past have flucuated dramatically, long before man made his grand appearance. Things like solar cycles, volcanic activity have led to dramatic temperature ranges. Ice ages, long periods of warmer temperatures, etc.. Sea levels have not been static either. Why are we trying to halt the rise or fall of global temperatures?
> 
> ...



How does comparing Earth to Venus apply to that post?


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 20, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> How does comparing Earth to Venus apply to that post?


 

Xue,

If you are honestly looking for an answer to this question, I linked a pretty nice article that discusses how comparing earth to planets like Venus and Mars does apply to this post.

If you are only looking to feud with Micheal Edward, then...eh...sorry for interupting? :idunno:


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 20, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> How does comparing Earth to Venus apply to that post?


 
I thought this had been addressed clearly and concisely. As I understand the argument put forth in the initial post, the question is...

So what if human impact is adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere of planet Earth?
What's to say that human impact that results in planet Earth to retain more heat energy is bad?
What's so bad about increase the amount of human caused greenhouse gases to the atmosphere?
I believe I answered that question in the second post on this thread. As a demonstration point, I suggested we look to what happens to a planet in which the atmosphere contains high levels of greenhouse gases. Venus has more greenhouse gases in its atmosphere than does Earth. By comparing the two atmospheres, we can draw insight to the impact of our involvement here on our planet. 

I believe the quantity of greenhouse gases in an atmosphere is directly relevant to this discussion. 

Do you think it is not? 

If so, why is it not relevant?


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 20, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Mass is not relative to any other thing, so I don't quite understand what you are arguing.
> 
> The mass of Venus is the equal to itself. It would be equal to itself where ever it is in the universe and no regardless of what objects it is near, away from, moving toward or moving away. Mass is the measure of how much 'stuff' makes up the planet Venus.
> 
> So, if you can shed some light on more specifically what you are referencing, I am interested.


Here's one quick reference: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/mass.html

And another: http://psi.phys.wits.ac.za/teaching/Connell/phys284/2005/lecture-01/lecture_01/node14.html

Length is relative to velocity as well.  

Regarding mass, it's most precisely described as a measure of inertia, from F = m a ; m = F/a, which is to say that 1 kilogram is equal to 1 newton metre per second per second.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 20, 2007)

Thank you.

I am unfamiliar with the term 'relativistic mass'. I assume when Ray mentioned high velocities, he was refering to velocities approaching the speed of light. Of course, at relativistic speeds, in general all hell breaks loose. 

From the first post 



> Of the two, the definition of invariant mass is much preferred over the definition of relativistic mass.  These days, when physicists talk about mass in their research, they always mean invariant mass.  The symbol _m_ for invariant mass is used without the subscript 0.  Although the idea of relativistic mass is not wrong, it often leads to confusion, and is less useful in advanced applications such as quantum field theory and general relativity.  Using the word "mass" unqualified to mean relativistic mass _is_ wrong because the word on its own will usually be taken to mean invariant mass.  For example, when physicists quote a value for "the mass of the electron" they mean its invariant mass.


 
So, I hope I don't overstep my case when I say, again, that mass is mass. The mass of an object is the same, no matter where the object is in relation to other objects. 

Mass does not equal volume. Mass does not equal weight. Mass does not equal density. Although mass does contain each of these attributes; volume, weight (in a gravitational field) and density. I will grant that at the speed of light, these statements are subject to some variation. 

This fact does not require taking sides. It is not, in any way, a philosophic discussion.

Thank you, Flatlander. I learned something new today. It is a good day.


----------



## mrhnau (Feb 21, 2007)

Until you get somewhat close to the speed of light, the effects of relativity are not too significant. Say around 1/10th or so... Still, even at slower speeds, the effects are there, but I'd not expect to see them play all that much of an important role.


----------

