It may *not* be possible to ever tell. That's the whole point. Do we want to wreck our economy and move back to horse-and-buggy technology based on something that may never have an effect strong enough to prove its own existence?
Don't get me wrong, I think it makes sense (on many levels) to reduce the things that theoretically might raise atmospheric carbon levels, and might increase global warming. But its a question of EXTENT. And what price has to be paid. I argue that a slower less invasive approach to gradually transitioning away from fossil fuels makes sense. Mandating fuel economy standards, artificially boosting energy costs, and rushing headlong into an ethanol boondoggle DON'T make sense.
Yes, but higher water content also traps even more heat. They're called feedbacks. Neither of which makes any difference to the fact that CO2 traps heat (which you appear to concede).
When CFCs were banned, that same argument was made. When asbestos was banned. When PCBs were banned. When DDT was banned. When lead in gasoline was banned.
Every time, new technologies were developed that led to even greater strides forward.
But not all theories, no matter how broadly supported by consensus, are correct in the end. Scientific method is a PROCESS that moves away from consensus toward rigorous proof or disproof as time goes by. Sometimes it takes a LOT of time, sometimes it doesn't. Consensus is the earliest least reliable step of the process.
In the first place, the statement was made about MS-DOS, not Apple IIs. In the second place, chemistry, biology, Apple IIs, Dodge Vipers, and Kia minivans are all just niche applications of physics anyway.
That is an excellent example. Millions have died needlessly from malaria since the banning of DDT, which was based on false science - based on conclusions that proved totally incorrect. Once again - thanks for proving the point of false science being dangerous - no, not just dangerous - outright deadly - to millions.
Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
"CO2 traps heat" is a boneheaded statement made in a vacuum. There's a fire extinguisher full of CO2 outside my office door. If "CO2 traps heat," that fire extinguisher should reach the temperature of molten lead in a few days, right? :-p
I don't doubt that variations in the content of certain gasses in the atmosphere change the amount of infrared radiation the atmosphere reflects. Oxygen affects this too. So does nitrogen. CO2 may trap more than those. Water vapor may trap more than those. Atmospheric methane traps heat too. What about cow farts? *EVERY* gas has an effect on IR absorption/reflection. The question is whether any of it can possibly de-stabilize the planetary heat balance. Give the fact that the planet has survived millions of years, through periods of far higher and lower atmospheric water and atmospheric C02, not to mention dust from everything between volcanoes and asteroid impacts, and has always remained stable... I don't buy the fact that man's puny contributions can move the equilibrium point significantly one way or the other at all.
As usual, you are overlooking the fact that "feedbacks" as you simplistically call them, can be negative or positive. A negative feedback (ie, planetary albedo increasing due to an increase in atmospheric water vapor, thus increasing solar energy reflected away to space) tends to COUNTER the intitial effect. Just like negative feedback stabilizes gain in an amplifier.
No, those were all banned after adequate replacements were already availble. And, except for DDT, they were all PHASED out of use on a reasonable and practical timetable.
By the way- Asbestos isn't banned any more than dirt is banned. It still occurs naturally, just like it always has. We just don't use it the same ways we once did.
In this case it worked. They ate food in the 18th century too. Does that mean that eating food is no good and that we should stop it.
I believe in what works, I don't believe something or not believe something just because it was used in the past. That would be stupid wouldn't it. For example - some herbal medicines work very well. So I use them. Yet I do not believe that the earth is flat. Nor do I believe in *modern* superstition. The point is to believe in and use what's right not to base things on superstition. That's why I don't believe the GW hype.
Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
True but tell me, when, say in the last 50 years, when has any explanation gotten to the point where it really IS a theory been proven wrong? Cold fusion was proven wrong long before it advanced. Can you come up with any?
Well, first, you cannot prove a theory. A theory is an explanation which inherently is not provable. The theory of gravity cannot be proven. The existence (fact) of gravity can. The law of gravity can. But not the theory -- the explanation.
You know, just reading and parroting right-wing propaganda may make you feel good, and it might make you look smart to the nonscientists here, but you know what -- it really just makes you look dumb.
First, DDT was banned only for large-scale agricultural use. It remains legal to use for localized, directed mosquito control.
Second, DDT was proven to be the cause of the decline in bald eagles.
Yeah, sure. And smoking doesn't cause cancer either.
False. O2 and N2 are IR inactive. Jesus, do you ever bother to check the facts?
Wrong.
Bet you doubt CFCs damage the ozone layer too. Suspect you don't believe in evolution either. Hey, do you maintain the earth is 6000 years old?
Yes, but all the scientific evidence shows a net positive feedback.
Do you really believe EVERY scientific agency and group in the world is wrong about this? And that only you, guided by a few right-wing web sites, are right?
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.