Moon proves the green house effect is b*llocks

On Jun 14, 3:21 am, "Lord Turkey Cough" wrote:
Thanks for that R, I was about to mention that but I just thought I would
allow
them to make that mistake ;O)

(honestly....)

And you could well imaging how cold it would get on the other side of the
earth if it
took a month to rotate. Close to absolute zero no doubt.

Utter, utter, utter ********.

Venus' "day" is about 100 days (its sidereal day is slightly longer
than its year - both around 250 days) There is no "cold" side on
Venus.
Surface temperature 700K all the time.


Mercury's day is about 200 days (three times its sidereal day and
twice its year). There is both a hot and cold side to Mercury

90 K (night)
250 K (midmorning)
700 K (noon)


The surface temperature of Venus after about 50 days of continuous
darkness is about the same as the surface temperature of Mercury after
about 50 days of continuous sunlight.


Even on Earth the poles have 100+ days of continuous darkness and they
don't get anything like as cold as the surface of Mercury at night.

Tim.

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 21:25:32 +0100, "Pyriform"
wrote:

There is no such thing as proof in any empirical science, dimbulb. That is
found only in mathematics, and not always there, either. So in science, all
we can ever have is supporting evidence. I believe the "likely" quote was
from the IPCC third assessment. In the fourth assessment, that is
strengthened to "very likely", meaning that the level of confidence is
between 90 and 95%. That means it is time to act.

So what actions do you propose should be taken? Stop generating CO2
and return to the stone age? Quickly invest our entire GNP in wind
farms?

I have two big problems with the idea that we "must act now". The
first is that I am not at all convinced that *any* action we could
possibly take (short of a worldwide return to the stone-age) would
have any significant effect whatsoever. When I hear ideas such as
switching off TV sets instead of leaving them to consume standby
current, I start thinking of trying to empty the ocean using a
teaspoon and having the delusion that it is making a difference.

The second problem I have is that I have not so far heard anything
that suggests to me that the consequences of global warming are likely
to be particularly damaging to us at all - and in fact may well end up
being beneficial. Sure, some areas will become uninhabitable - but
other areas will become habitable. The process is plenty slow enough
to allow mankind to adapt as the changes occur. It appears to me that
the cures being proposed are *far* worse than the disease, and
unlikely to actually make much difference anyway.

ISTM that after a few hundred years the World will reach a new
equilibrium without causing any significant problems for mankind.

--
Cynic

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:17:26 +0100, Doh wrote:

The same as the dark side of the earth if it did not rotate so fast!!

Ah-ha - proved your ignorance - there is no dark side of the moon!

Yes, of course there is, just as there is a light and a dark side of
the Earth.

But not permenently dark, as OP seems to think

The OP certainly did not indicate that he thinks any such thing.

He is definitely not as stupid as he makes himself out to be. His
posts are half trolling, half TIC and half entertainment. And yes, I
am perfectly aware that that does not add up.

He certainly succeeds in provoking a lot of responses in most of the
threads he starts. Seemingly naive questions and observations can
sometimes be quite revealing - such as when the small child made the
observation that the emperor was not wearing any clothes.

Do not underestimate the amount of politics that is tied up in
scientific research, nor the ego and predjudices of scientists.

--
Cynic

Cynic wrote:

The second problem I have is that I have not so far heard anything
that suggests to me that the consequences of global warming are
likely to be particularly damaging to us at all - and in fact may
well end up being beneficial. Sure, some areas will become
uninhabitable - but other areas will become habitable. The process
is plenty slow enough to allow mankind to adapt as the changes
occur. It appears to me that the cures being proposed are *far*
worse than the disease, and unlikely to actually make much
difference anyway.

Two points here (at least):

1) *Mankind* may be able to adapt - in a purely ecological sense - but
very many animal and plant species won't be able to; the likely
changes are far faster than 'normal' evolution can cope with. Does
this matter? That's partly a matter of taste/philosophy, but one of
the most fundamental changes in our view of the world in recent
decades has been the realisation - though we're very far from anything
like a complete understanding - that just about everything on this
planet - including its geology - is an interconnected system.

2) The purely 'ecological' adaptation of mankind as a species says
nothing about the effect of climate change on human civilisation. You
rightly say that some areas will become uninhabitable and some others
habitable. The problem is that many of those 'soon to be
uninhabitable' areas contain thousands of millions of people, many of
them dirt poor. Are they to be left to die? Are they to be made
welcome in the remaining areas (like the U.K.)? Are they to be
forcibly settled in 'starting to become habitable' areas?

I share *some* of your scepticism about the ineffectiveness and
vapidity of *some* of the proposed cures, but the disease is pretty
damn serious.

André Coutanche

"bugbear" wrote in message
...
Lord Turkey Cough wrote:
Err.......We are talkng about the surface tremperature
You can measure it with a themometer (heat meter)

Heat is not the same as temperature, idiot boy.

You know what I mean. Your not that that arre you ? Surely?

BugBear

"André Coutanche" wrote in message
...
Cynic wrote:

The second problem I have is that I have not so far heard anything
that suggests to me that the consequences of global warming are
likely to be particularly damaging to us at all - and in fact may well
end up being beneficial. Sure, some areas will become uninhabitable -
but other areas will become habitable. The process is plenty slow enough
to allow mankind to adapt as the changes occur. It appears to me that
the cures being proposed are *far* worse than the disease, and unlikely
to actually make much difference anyway.

Two points here (at least):

1) *Mankind* may be able to adapt - in a purely ecological sense - but
very many animal and plant species won't be able to; the likely
changes are far faster than 'normal' evolution can cope with. Does
this matter? That's partly a matter of taste/philosophy, but one of
the most fundamental changes in our view of the world in recent
decades has been the realisation - though we're very far from anything
like a complete understanding - that just about everything on this
planet - including its geology - is an interconnected system.

2) The purely 'ecological' adaptation of mankind as a species says
nothing about the effect of climate change on human civilisation. You
rightly say that some areas will become uninhabitable and some others
habitable. The problem is that many of those 'soon to be
uninhabitable' areas contain thousands of millions of people, many of
them dirt poor. Are they to be left to die? Are they to be made
welcome in the remaining areas (like the U.K.)? Are they to be
forcibly settled in 'starting to become habitable' areas?

I share *some* of your scepticism about the ineffectiveness and
vapidity of *some* of the proposed cures, but the disease is pretty
damn serious.


No it's no its not a disease it's a cure. I am looking forwaard to
global warming with great anticipation.
The weather is going to be cracking.



André Coutanche

wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jun 14, 3:21 am, "Lord Turkey Cough" wrote:
Thanks for that R, I was about to mention that but I just thought I
would
allow
them to make that mistake ;O)

(honestly....)

And you could well imaging how cold it would get on the other side of the
earth if it
took a month to rotate. Close to absolute zero no doubt.

Utter, utter, utter ********.

Yes thats what you talk


Venus' "day" is about 100 days (its sidereal day is slightly longer
than its year - both around 250 days) There is no "cold" side on
Venus.
Surface temperature 700K all the time.


Ahso now you have disproved greenhouse effect, which predicts
the side facing the sun must be hotter.

Wow!! How thick are you then?



Mercury's day is about 200 days (three times its sidereal day and
twice its year). There is both a hot and cold side to Mercury

90 K (night)
250 K (midmorning)
700 K (noon)


The surface temperature of Venus after about 50 days of continuous
darkness is about the same as the surface temperature of Mercury after
about 50 days of continuous sunlight.


Even on Earth the poles have 100+ days of continuous darkness and they
don't get anything like as cold as the surface of Mercury at night.

Cos the are not completely dark and they get down not nearly -100C anyway.



Tim.

On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:47:36 +0100, "André Coutanche"
wrote:

Cynic wrote:

The second problem I have is that I have not so far heard anything
that suggests to me that the consequences of global warming are
likely to be particularly damaging to us at all - and in fact may
well end up being beneficial. Sure, some areas will become
uninhabitable - but other areas will become habitable. The process
is plenty slow enough to allow mankind to adapt as the changes
occur. It appears to me that the cures being proposed are *far*
worse than the disease, and unlikely to actually make much
difference anyway.

Two points here (at least):

1) *Mankind* may be able to adapt - in a purely ecological sense - but
very many animal and plant species won't be able to; the likely
changes are far faster than 'normal' evolution can cope with. Does
this matter? That's partly a matter of taste/philosophy, but one of
the most fundamental changes in our view of the world in recent
decades has been the realisation - though we're very far from anything
like a complete understanding - that just about everything on this
planet - including its geology - is an interconnected system.

Which has survived the coming and going of many species with ease.
The *only* species of concern to me is mankind - and the probability
that the predicted global warming will significantly affect that
species is close to zero. Sorry that I don't get particularly
emotional about the extinction of the lesser-spotted toad, or even the
leopard. I remain distinctly sanguine about the passing of the Dodo
bird. There is not a single species that has become extinct that has
adversely affected my lifestyle or that of anyone I have heard about.

2) The purely 'ecological' adaptation of mankind as a species says
nothing about the effect of climate change on human civilisation. You
rightly say that some areas will become uninhabitable and some others
habitable. The problem is that many of those 'soon to be
uninhabitable' areas contain thousands of millions of people, many of
them dirt poor. Are they to be left to die? Are they to be made
welcome in the remaining areas (like the U.K.)? Are they to be
forcibly settled in 'starting to become habitable' areas?

Many areas have become unsustainable for the population, with famine
and widespread deaths occuring as a result. The effects of global
warming will be far slower than the effects of a poor crop season or
even rapid overpopulation of an area. There will be a few Ethiopia
and Bangladesh (and probably Rwanda) type tradgedies that the majority
of people in the World will "tut tut" over when they see the news
footage before deciding what to have for breakfast.

I share *some* of your scepticism about the ineffectiveness and
vapidity of *some* of the proposed cures, but the disease is pretty
damn serious.

I disagree that it is at all serious for mankind. If you had absolute
control of the World, and could enforce any measures you like, what
measure would you impose on the World's population that would (a)
prevent global warming rather than only delaying it for a few decades,
and (b) not cause us a huge drop in the general standard of living?

--
Cynic

Lord Turkey Cough wrote:

wrote in message
Surface temperature 700K all the time.

Ahso now you have disproved greenhouse effect, which predicts
the side facing the sun must be hotter.
Wow!! How thick are you then?

Poor half_wit. Psychologically damaged by all those nasty people that
called you "thick" to your face when you were younger. Now you try to "get
even" with the world by calling random people "thick" on Usenet, which is
about as desperately sad as it is possible to get. Poor poor half_wit.

Cynic wrote:
The *only* species of concern to me is mankind - and the probability
that the predicted global warming will significantly affect that
species is close to zero.

You appear to be an idiot. No wonder you think Lord Turkey ******** is
brighter than he seems.