Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sea Demon
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by VipertheSniper
The solar activity in the last 30 years has also changed less than one percent, and yet it should contribute more to global warming than the 3% of the 3% of the greenhouse gases? Don't make me laugh. That the sun contributes as much to global warming like you make it out to be has already been disproven this year.
|
Here's a question for you. What do you think will have more impact from an energy standpoint? 1 cubic meters worth of superheated, highly energetic solar plasma, or 1 cubic meters worth of a static atmospheric gas in a planetary system such as Earth's(ie from energy absorbtion)? Think energy propagation per volume, not just volume here. It's pretty easy to see solar output would be much greater using this simple example.
I'm hoping you don't mind the question Viper. According to bradclark, we're not allowed to use our own knowledge of science or mathematics to gain any insight. Independant research is not allowed. Especially if it goes against IPCC "scientists" theories. We have to sit and wait for an opinion to be created for us. And it has to come from those making projections based on many assumptions, even if forecasts they make don't turn out to be true. We simply have to sit and wait for some political hack at IPCC to form an opinion for us. Well, I post this to you because I'm at least hoping you can think and analyze for yourself Viper. Feel free to question the premise. This post is not intended for sheep like Mr. google up there. |
You know it's funny, I've read a paper which claimed that the sun plays a major role in global warming, yet it said, that even if the CO2 content of the atmosphere was doubled 1% more cloud coverage would cancel out the warming effect... I don't doubt that, more clouds means less sun and thus cooler temps... BUT more solar activity and more energy coming from the sun would mean more clouds... very contradicting IMHO.