http://www.physorg.com/news81450582.html
Wake up ... the average global temperature hasn"t risen since 1998.
Danger.
Our funding will be cut off!!
The global temperature hasn't risen very much just recently because the ozone layer is incredibly thin right now. Ozone is a major greenhouse gas and without it, the stratosphere is cooling. Unfortunetly, we also need ozone for protection from UV radiation, so it's really a lose-lose situation. Once the ozone layer regenerates - and pray that it does - global temperatures will rise greatly, and particularly over the Antarctic, which will cause further melting... You can see where all of this will eventually go...
Yeah ManBearPig is in hibernation right now, hence the global cooling. But when he wakes up....we all know what that means!!
Which computer model predicted 8 years of no warming?
Give that guy a grant.
Everyone else is a charlatan.
Give that guy a grant.
Everyone else is a charlatan.
QUOTE (Axemaster+Oct 31 2006, 02:35 AM)
The global temperature hasn't risen very much just recently because the ozone layer is incredibly thin right now. Ozone is a major greenhouse gas and without it, the stratosphere is cooling. Unfortunately, we also need ozone for protection from UV radiation, so it's really a lose-lose situation. Once the ozone layer regenerates - and pray that it does - global temperatures will rise greatly, and particularly over the Antarctic, which will cause further melting... You can see where all of this will eventually go...
We (as a planet) are not able to completely explain, or even come to a consensus what are all the causes of global warming (for reference see Ice Core samples, explain those periods of warming, cooling, and ice ages and what causes them? Pachyderm flatulence?), but, somehow we now KNOW why the earth is NOT in the "killer global warming" state a great many "scientists" warned us WOULD HAPPEN AND IT WAS TO LATE TO STOP IT.
If these folks were not so funny they would be really annoying, have you noticed each "prediction" seems to be worse than that last? we are killing our planet? sound familiar? why? it's all about funding, and politics.. You ever noticed how many of the "scientists" who were on the tube telling us of the unstoppable and impending Ice Age during the 70s are now, still on the public pad telling us about "global warming"..
If you were a fish, you have been hooked, and are in the net!
We (as a planet) are not able to completely explain, or even come to a consensus what are all the causes of global warming (for reference see Ice Core samples, explain those periods of warming, cooling, and ice ages and what causes them? Pachyderm flatulence?), but, somehow we now KNOW why the earth is NOT in the "killer global warming" state a great many "scientists" warned us WOULD HAPPEN AND IT WAS TO LATE TO STOP IT.
If these folks were not so funny they would be really annoying, have you noticed each "prediction" seems to be worse than that last? we are killing our planet? sound familiar? why? it's all about funding, and politics.. You ever noticed how many of the "scientists" who were on the tube telling us of the unstoppable and impending Ice Age during the 70s are now, still on the public pad telling us about "global warming"..
If you were a fish, you have been hooked, and are in the net!
Well if you said it it must be true, and yet still no supposed change in 8 years? That's like forever and certainly things like, oh i dunno, volcanoes can't cool the earth, and then there is all that melting ice, (or did you not do the calorimetry experiment?)
I almost can't believe the responses I am seeing on this forum. I have so much to say, but I am not going to type it all out. Instead, please go see An Inconvenient Truth. If you don't believe that, read some scientific literature, and if you don't believe that look at the newspaper. If you still think it is false, then post your comments. As for now, this uneducated babbling is ridiculous.
As humans, we don't have any idea whether things are true or not. But as scientists, we see patterns. We experiment and look at trends to find causation. CO2 is considered a greenhouse gas. This means it absorbs the earths counter radiation and sends it back to the earth. More CO2 means a greater return of heat. It is that simple. Yes, water vapour is also an issue, but as much of it would not be present in the atmosphere if temperatures had not risen through increased amounts of CO2.
Scientists see a problem. Politics did not, but are now. I personally can't understand how you can even think Global Warming is not a problem. Temperature fluctuates. However, it seems like we should naturally be going into a colder period. Indeed the Northern Hemisphere will be if Greenland melts and screws up the ocean currents. Otherwise, we will see increased disease and storms. Why do you even want to take the risk? We may have to cut down on consumption a bit, but who would that hurt?
Lastly Archer that is one computer model out of hundreds. And don't worry about him getting a grant, as he that man probably already had a grant...from Exxon.
As humans, we don't have any idea whether things are true or not. But as scientists, we see patterns. We experiment and look at trends to find causation. CO2 is considered a greenhouse gas. This means it absorbs the earths counter radiation and sends it back to the earth. More CO2 means a greater return of heat. It is that simple. Yes, water vapour is also an issue, but as much of it would not be present in the atmosphere if temperatures had not risen through increased amounts of CO2.
Scientists see a problem. Politics did not, but are now. I personally can't understand how you can even think Global Warming is not a problem. Temperature fluctuates. However, it seems like we should naturally be going into a colder period. Indeed the Northern Hemisphere will be if Greenland melts and screws up the ocean currents. Otherwise, we will see increased disease and storms. Why do you even want to take the risk? We may have to cut down on consumption a bit, but who would that hurt?
Lastly Archer that is one computer model out of hundreds. And don't worry about him getting a grant, as he that man probably already had a grant...from Exxon.
QUOTE (In Disbelief.+)
Scientists see a problem. Politics did not, but are now.
I believe it's the other way around. Political pressures are trying to promote a global crisis, so they can try to justify an intrusion into global energy markets using force, while most scientists are having a hard time showing the hype is real.
I believe it's the other way around. Political pressures are trying to promote a global crisis, so they can try to justify an intrusion into global energy markets using force, while most scientists are having a hard time showing the hype is real.
A few more thoughts ...
I don't doubt we can have some influences on temperatures but the more doomsday claims made over CO2 are entirely unfounded as far as I can tell. We already had an atmosphere with hundreds of thousands of times more CO2 than humanity could ever imagine getting into the atmosphere and the Earth never locked up in any form of heat death simply because the Earth is much further from the Sun than Venus is.
CO2 levels are estimated to have only increased by ~25% over the last 100 years or so, but along with this assumed additional carbon is an increased growth rate for plants. And ignoring natural production (or extraction) of CO2 and assume this increase is solely a human action then it's a transient that's dependent upon the extraction of carbon and the long term levels are dependent upon the rate that we extract carbon from the Earth, and not dependent upon the total mass extracted. The higher the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, the faster its absorbed and you can even see from plots of CO2 levels that there's been a slowing in growth as higher levels of CO2 create more natural pressures to reduce it, including more vegitation and life on Earth (not an entirely bad thing).
And of course CO2 is still only a trace gas at ~1/3000th of the atmosphere (of which the more worst case claims would be that ~1/10,000th of the atmosphere is humanly attributed CO2, so approximately 99.99% of the atmosphere is NOT a part of this, nor are solar variations, variations in cloud cover and surface absorbtion considered much) and if temperature changes became truly significant enough to need addressing, there are very likely more efficient and less costly ways of addressing temperature directly that would avoid the many side effects of trying to limit carbon extraction.
In my opinion, the sometimes rather hysterical doomsday claims pressuring for immediately restricting global oil production because the Earth may have warmed by half a degree celsius over the last century are either ignorant victims of propoganda and environmental hype or have ulterior motives with regard to the oil industries. If oil production is restricted there will be a lot of costs to a lot of people, and if this is done unnecessarily then it's a rather destructive decision with few winners (except possibly for a few people controlling how these restrictions are enforced) ... and again, in my opinion, there's plenty of time to watch events unfold and find better ways of addressing potential global temperature issues if they become significant enough (I admit it's hard to say exactly what's signifcant enough to warrant this intervention).
But here are a couple ways to start addressing this issue for people truly concerned over CO2 production:
1) Stop the Environmental Protection Agency from fining people trying to sell biodiesel fuel! I went to one website where some people were using biodiesel and wanted to start producing it on larger scales and their largest obstacle was the EPA itself! (How typical is that for a government agency ... and we're subsidizing likely billions for ethanol production, so that's a hypocritical power play IMO)
2) I've got numerous gripes over the intellectual property system and this affects the ability of people to compete in alternative energy sources as well. If we have some lawyers and judges hand rather monopolistic rights to limited interests for various fields, including alternative energies then we're needlessly restricting the ability of people to freely compete in these markets. The idea that only one person thought of some new invention is rather foolish, IMO, as technology is pursued in parallel by many people and incremental. If someone has a great idea they want to sell to others, then sell the idea, and don't try to claim an envisioned right to the entire chain of production, including marketting, production and distribution etc. (The true inventor of something has a defacto monopoly on the idea that doesn't require a judge to agree with and the inventor, without patents and I.P. already has the ability to sell their idea to whoever they want for whatever they desire and no government intervention is necessary for this ... if you're a good engineer, designer or artist, etc. you don't need anyone to prop you up and you can ask for most whatever you want in compensation for your work. The mistake is made when people assume teh best way for an inventor to earn money is to do their own production ... instead creators should sell their ideas to entire industries and let others compete over production - that's a free market, without mercantilism and doesn't require government getting involved either, nor does it allow for technology to be truly stolen by handing a patent to one person and denying everyone else with similar interests from being able to pursue them).
Basically, as long as the "system" continues to act schitzophrenic and power hungry, I wouldn't consider trying to legitimize claims that it can intrude into a large part of the global energy markets as it seems obvious this will be yet another source of grief for many people.
I don't doubt we can have some influences on temperatures but the more doomsday claims made over CO2 are entirely unfounded as far as I can tell. We already had an atmosphere with hundreds of thousands of times more CO2 than humanity could ever imagine getting into the atmosphere and the Earth never locked up in any form of heat death simply because the Earth is much further from the Sun than Venus is.
CO2 levels are estimated to have only increased by ~25% over the last 100 years or so, but along with this assumed additional carbon is an increased growth rate for plants. And ignoring natural production (or extraction) of CO2 and assume this increase is solely a human action then it's a transient that's dependent upon the extraction of carbon and the long term levels are dependent upon the rate that we extract carbon from the Earth, and not dependent upon the total mass extracted. The higher the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, the faster its absorbed and you can even see from plots of CO2 levels that there's been a slowing in growth as higher levels of CO2 create more natural pressures to reduce it, including more vegitation and life on Earth (not an entirely bad thing).
And of course CO2 is still only a trace gas at ~1/3000th of the atmosphere (of which the more worst case claims would be that ~1/10,000th of the atmosphere is humanly attributed CO2, so approximately 99.99% of the atmosphere is NOT a part of this, nor are solar variations, variations in cloud cover and surface absorbtion considered much) and if temperature changes became truly significant enough to need addressing, there are very likely more efficient and less costly ways of addressing temperature directly that would avoid the many side effects of trying to limit carbon extraction.
In my opinion, the sometimes rather hysterical doomsday claims pressuring for immediately restricting global oil production because the Earth may have warmed by half a degree celsius over the last century are either ignorant victims of propoganda and environmental hype or have ulterior motives with regard to the oil industries. If oil production is restricted there will be a lot of costs to a lot of people, and if this is done unnecessarily then it's a rather destructive decision with few winners (except possibly for a few people controlling how these restrictions are enforced) ... and again, in my opinion, there's plenty of time to watch events unfold and find better ways of addressing potential global temperature issues if they become significant enough (I admit it's hard to say exactly what's signifcant enough to warrant this intervention).
But here are a couple ways to start addressing this issue for people truly concerned over CO2 production:
1) Stop the Environmental Protection Agency from fining people trying to sell biodiesel fuel! I went to one website where some people were using biodiesel and wanted to start producing it on larger scales and their largest obstacle was the EPA itself! (How typical is that for a government agency ... and we're subsidizing likely billions for ethanol production, so that's a hypocritical power play IMO)
2) I've got numerous gripes over the intellectual property system and this affects the ability of people to compete in alternative energy sources as well. If we have some lawyers and judges hand rather monopolistic rights to limited interests for various fields, including alternative energies then we're needlessly restricting the ability of people to freely compete in these markets. The idea that only one person thought of some new invention is rather foolish, IMO, as technology is pursued in parallel by many people and incremental. If someone has a great idea they want to sell to others, then sell the idea, and don't try to claim an envisioned right to the entire chain of production, including marketting, production and distribution etc. (The true inventor of something has a defacto monopoly on the idea that doesn't require a judge to agree with and the inventor, without patents and I.P. already has the ability to sell their idea to whoever they want for whatever they desire and no government intervention is necessary for this ... if you're a good engineer, designer or artist, etc. you don't need anyone to prop you up and you can ask for most whatever you want in compensation for your work. The mistake is made when people assume teh best way for an inventor to earn money is to do their own production ... instead creators should sell their ideas to entire industries and let others compete over production - that's a free market, without mercantilism and doesn't require government getting involved either, nor does it allow for technology to be truly stolen by handing a patent to one person and denying everyone else with similar interests from being able to pursue them).
Basically, as long as the "system" continues to act schitzophrenic and power hungry, I wouldn't consider trying to legitimize claims that it can intrude into a large part of the global energy markets as it seems obvious this will be yet another source of grief for many people.
Well, the facts remain that the global population is on an unstoppable and exponential increase and the supply our resources is steadily decreasing. Global warming is definitely one of the most benign of our looming problems, though. The strain of many more mouths per year will far outweigh the amount resources that can be redeemed from drastic global environmental action. If we knew what was good for us, we would dismount the moral high-horse and start a global screening program to determine the best 75% of females, from all races (through the gene mapping project), then sterilize the rest (but not irreversibly, in case of apocalypse), this would be done with the consent of those females, though. Incentive plans, adoption programs (which could further stabilize the world) and child limits could make it possible for population control to be carried out peacefully on grand enough scale to make a difference in the time required. This project could be taken on in force if 0.5% of the global GDP were dedicated to this cause (and 0.5% to environmental causes). Forgoing the gift of birthing one's own child is intense but with that kind of money (and adoption programs) it could be done. This reduction in population would simultaneously deal with the problems of war and poverty while inadvertently reducing our environmental impact to a level that the current visions, which involve technology and other such high hopes, cannot compare to--Its the only realistic approach. There is no other factor in the global "we're screwed" scenario that is as malleable as our population. Population control will happen, either by war/famine/disease or through forethought. Would you kill 1 to save 100?
I almost can't believe the responses I am seeing on this forum. I had come to believe that everyone was duped. But here I find a community of thinking individuals who see through the farce being played out - now at the highest political levels. It really gives me hope.
What is going on? What are these people thinking? Climate models have error bars of the same magnitude as their signal. We don't even know if warming will raise or lower the oceans (see _Mass Balance of the Cryosphere_ "uncertain even as to the sign"). We have nowhere near enough data to justify massive expenditures. For this sort of money we could give every person on Earth clean water, basic health care and high-school education. To deliberately cripple world growth without good evidence is irrational and, frankly, sinister. It condemns billions to poverty and despair.
Are they really victims of their own hype? Opinion polls? Do they just want another tax? I can't believe even politicians would be that cynical.
What is going on? What are these people thinking? Climate models have error bars of the same magnitude as their signal. We don't even know if warming will raise or lower the oceans (see _Mass Balance of the Cryosphere_ "uncertain even as to the sign"). We have nowhere near enough data to justify massive expenditures. For this sort of money we could give every person on Earth clean water, basic health care and high-school education. To deliberately cripple world growth without good evidence is irrational and, frankly, sinister. It condemns billions to poverty and despair.
Are they really victims of their own hype? Opinion polls? Do they just want another tax? I can't believe even politicians would be that cynical.
I live in Northern Europe........... am sunburnt
Climate change exists!
QUOTE (In Disbelief.+Oct 31 2006, 08:13 AM)
I almost can't believe the responses I am seeing on this forum. I have so much to say, but I am not going to type it all out. Instead, please go see An Inconvenient Truth. If you don't believe that, read some scientific literature, and if you don't believe that look at the newspaper. If you still think it is false, then post your comments. As for now, this uneducated babbling is ridiculous.
A lot of wishfull / hopefull babbling, for sure.
One point re- the "George Bush" objection to Kyoto, (Kyoto penalizes US more than others because US uses more coal-fired electrical generation than other countries). This is nonsense. It would be a LOT easier for a country generating 60% of it's electricity with coal to reduce CO2 emissions by eg. "5% below 1990 levels" than a country using all hydro and nuclear, eg. no emissions prior to 1990, for electrical generation.
Kyoto gives USA a huge break relative many other countries (Canda, France etc.)
A lot of wishfull / hopefull babbling, for sure.
One point re- the "George Bush" objection to Kyoto, (Kyoto penalizes US more than others because US uses more coal-fired electrical generation than other countries). This is nonsense. It would be a LOT easier for a country generating 60% of it's electricity with coal to reduce CO2 emissions by eg. "5% below 1990 levels" than a country using all hydro and nuclear, eg. no emissions prior to 1990, for electrical generation.
Kyoto gives USA a huge break relative many other countries (Canda, France etc.)
QUOTE (lengould+Oct 31 2006, 03:10 PM)
A lot of wishfull / hopefull babbling, for sure.
One point re- the "George Bush" objection to Kyoto, (Kyoto penalizes US more than others because US uses more coal-fired electrical generation than other countries). This is nonsense. It would be a LOT easier for a country generating 60% of it's electricity with coal to reduce CO2 emissions by eg. "5% below 1990 levels" than a country using all hydro and nuclear, eg. no emissions prior to 1990, for electrical generation.
Kyoto gives USA a huge break relative many other countries (Canda, France etc.)
Two comments about Kyoto:
Even Japan is failing its Kyoto targets. More so than the USA. And Japan signed Kyoto.
Europe has decided to meet Kyoto by focussing on diesel cars which are more fuel efficient. Unfortunately, they produce a lot more black soot.
Black soot absorbs sunlight and generates more heat on Earth. Dumb move.
One point re- the "George Bush" objection to Kyoto, (Kyoto penalizes US more than others because US uses more coal-fired electrical generation than other countries). This is nonsense. It would be a LOT easier for a country generating 60% of it's electricity with coal to reduce CO2 emissions by eg. "5% below 1990 levels" than a country using all hydro and nuclear, eg. no emissions prior to 1990, for electrical generation.
Kyoto gives USA a huge break relative many other countries (Canda, France etc.)
Two comments about Kyoto:
Even Japan is failing its Kyoto targets. More so than the USA. And Japan signed Kyoto.
Europe has decided to meet Kyoto by focussing on diesel cars which are more fuel efficient. Unfortunately, they produce a lot more black soot.
Black soot absorbs sunlight and generates more heat on Earth. Dumb move.
I love all you guys!!!! See you at the shelter.....
Meanwhile deforestation continues like a juggernaut, unnumbered species of flora and fauna saying bye bye every day, but all we worry about is an atmosphere that is orders of magnitude more resilient than a surface that is comparatively thinner than an apple's skin. Take a look at a Landsat of Madagascar from 20 years ago. Take a look at one now. Talk about waking up...
Here's one of many....http://www.cipec.org/research/madagascar.html
And that's just Madagascar.
Here's one of many....http://www.cipec.org/research/madagascar.html
And that's just Madagascar.
QUOTE (NotParker+Oct 31 2006, 04:55 PM)
Two comments about Kyoto:
Even Japan is failing its Kyoto targets. More so than the USA. And Japan signed Kyoto.
Europe has decided to meet Kyoto by focussing on diesel cars which are more fuel efficient. Unfortunately, they produce a lot more black soot.
Black soot absorbs sunlight and generates more heat on Earth. Dumb move.
Will you at least "keep up" a bit? particulate filters, advanced electronic injection, ... Even the North American 2007 heavy truck diesel designs produce only a tiny fraction of the emissions of those old soot belchers you refer to.
Buy some cred.
Even Japan is failing its Kyoto targets. More so than the USA. And Japan signed Kyoto.
Europe has decided to meet Kyoto by focussing on diesel cars which are more fuel efficient. Unfortunately, they produce a lot more black soot.
Black soot absorbs sunlight and generates more heat on Earth. Dumb move.
Will you at least "keep up" a bit? particulate filters, advanced electronic injection, ... Even the North American 2007 heavy truck diesel designs produce only a tiny fraction of the emissions of those old soot belchers you refer to.
Buy some cred.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.