Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sabre on April 10, 2006, 12:59:28 PM
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html
I found especially meaningful the two points the author makes as to why many scientist likely don't speak out against the prevailing paradygm. President Bush has been roundly criticized for having his head in the sand about the impending danger of man-induced global warming. Yet, it seems rather more likely he's one of the few in the US government who's managed to see through the smokescreen of the global warming doomsayers.
-
This should be good.
Thanks for posting that.
-
nice article. ripsnort-n-paste for myself to read more later:
For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).
Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate.
Does something not strike you as odd here? That industrial carbon dioxide is not the primary cause of earth's recent decadal-scale temperature changes doesn't seem at all odd to many thousands of independent scientists. They have long appreciated - ever since the early 1990s, when the global warming bandwagon first started to roll behind the gravy train of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - that such short-term climate fluctuations are chiefly of natural origin. Yet the public appears to be largely convinced otherwise. How is this possible?
Since the early 1990s, the columns of many leading newspapers and magazines, worldwide, have carried an increasing stream of alarmist letters and articles on hypothetical, human-caused climate change. Each such alarmist article is larded with words such as "if", "might", "could", "probably", "perhaps", "expected", "projected" or "modelled" - and many involve such deep dreaming, or ignorance of scientific facts and principles, that they are akin to nonsense.
The problem here is not that of climate change per se, but rather that of the sophisticated scientific brainwashing that has been inflicted on the public, bureaucrats and politicians alike. Governments generally choose not to receive policy advice on climate from independent scientists. Rather, they seek guidance from their own self-interested science bureaucracies and senior advisers, or from the IPCC itself. No matter how accurate it may be, cautious and politically non-correct science advice is not welcomed in Westminster, and nor is it widely reported.
Marketed under the imprimatur of the IPCC, the bladder-trembling and now infamous hockey-stick diagram that shows accelerating warming during the 20th century - a statistical construct by scientist Michael Mann and co-workers from mostly tree ring records - has been a seminal image of the climate scaremongering campaign. Thanks to the work of a Canadian statistician, Stephen McIntyre, and others, this graph is now known to be deeply flawed.
There are other reasons, too, why the public hears so little in detail from those scientists who approach climate change issues rationally, the so-called climate sceptics. Most are to do with intimidation against speaking out, which operates intensely on several parallel fronts.
First, most government scientists are gagged from making public comment on contentious issues, their employing organisations instead making use of public relations experts to craft carefully tailored, frisbee-science press releases. Second, scientists are under intense pressure to conform with the prevailing paradigm of climate alarmism if they wish to receive funding for their research. Third, members of the Establishment have spoken declamatory words on the issue, and the kingdom's subjects are expected to listen.
On the alarmist campaign trail, the UK's Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir David King, is thus reported as saying that global warming is so bad that Antarctica is likely to be the world's only habitable continent by the end of this century. Warming devotee and former Chairman of Shell, Lord [Ron] Oxburgh, reportedly agrees with another rash statement of King's, that climate change is a bigger threat than terrorism. And goodly Archbishop Rowan Williams, who self-evidently understands little about the science, has warned of "millions, billions" of deaths as a result of global warming and threatened Mr Blair with the wrath of the climate God unless he acts. By betraying the public's trust in their positions of influence, so do the great and good become the small and silly.
Two simple graphs provide needed context, and exemplify the dynamic, fluctuating nature of climate change. The first is a temperature curve for the last six million years, which shows a three-million year period when it was several degrees warmer than today, followed by a three-million year cooling trend which was accompanied by an increase in the magnitude of the pervasive, higher frequency, cold and warm climate cycles. During the last three such warm (interglacial) periods, temperatures at high latitudes were as much as 5 degrees warmer than today's. The second graph shows the average global temperature over the last eight years, which has proved to be a period of stasis.
The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown. We are fortunate that our modern societies have developed during the last 10,000 years of benignly warm, interglacial climate. But for more than 90 per cent of the last two million years, the climate has been colder, and generally much colder, than today. The reality of the climate record is that a sudden natural cooling is far more to be feared, and will do infinitely more social and economic damage, than the late 20th century phase of gentle warming.
-
That's one opinion in the 'nay' camp. The balance of scientific is heading for the 'aye' door. I suppose it depends on your risk tolerance as to which how you form your opinion, but being an accountant and a trained scientist I think I'll be prudent and support reduction in reliance on fossil fuels.
Besides, it coincides quite nicely with my views on geo-politics.
As for the article, much of that editorial is unsubstanciated opinion. He quotes one source but provides no link to the primary data. His opinions on 'gagging' orders are interesting, but add nothing to the discussion.
As for the CRU:
"The result has been that proxy records correspond closely to instrumental ones and the clear message is that the temperatures currently being experienced are higher than at any time over the last 1000 years, with 1998 being the hottest single year on record. [/b]
Source (http://www.shef.ac.uk/architecture/eei/infopack/gentext/global.doc[/url)
So 1998 appears to be a high, which the Telegraph article says was followed by a decrease or static levels. Hmmm...
The researchers, from the UK Met Office and the University of East Anglia, say this is more evidence for the reality of human-induced global warming.
Their data show that the average temperature during 2005 in the Northern Hemisphere is 0.65C above the average for 1961-1990, a conventional baseline against which scientists compare temperatures.
The global increase is 0.48C, making 2005 the second warmest year on record behind 1998, though the 1998 figure was inflated by strong El Nino conditions.
Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4532344.stm)
Seems there is a mixed message or picture, which pretty much sums up the scientific opinion regarding global warming.
Perhaps Bush isn't as incisive or in possession of a scientifically profound mind as you make out?
-
5 points for the author's use of the word "Tosh" in his arguement.
-
Dowding said:
Seems there is a mixed message or picture, which pretty much sums up the scientific opinion regarding global warming.
Perhaps Bush isn't as incisive or in possession of a scientifically profound mind as you make out?
Now you're putting words in my mouth, Dowding. Scientifically profound? Debatable. I will give him points however for use of common sense (a most uncommon commodity in a politician). My point is he at least appears to have recognized that there is a mixed message, and that it would be imprudent to wreck the national or world economies based on controvertible evidence.
The other point I'd like to respond to is your comment about "the scientific opinion regarding global warming." That is, that dissent within the scientific community is often quashed in favor of the "consensus view." The mainstream media is of course complicit in this, as they seem incapable of presenting a balanced view. That is why a majority of people when asked say global warming is a problem.
-
Oh good... so the whole global warming thing was a big hoax like we all thought all along?
that's a relief... can we get back to our lifes now?
lazs
-
By most accounts, global warming will only improve the climate in my region.
Sorry to you guys living in Florida or whatnot, but you've had it too nice for too long anyway.
J_A_B
-
You'll never get rich betting on favorites
-
Originally posted by Dowding
That's one opinion in the 'nay' camp. The balance of scientific is heading for the 'aye' door.
Only one exception needs to be shown by experiment before the inverse square law of gravitational attraction is discarded. Scientific fact is not decided upon by election.
Newton and Einstein did not consult polls.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Only one exception needs to be shown by experiment before the inverse square law of gravitational attraction is discarded. Scientific fact is not decided upon by election.
Newton and Einstein did not consult polls.
Yep. Science by committee is not science.
-
Deja vu.
:lol
-
Well they are going to need another thing to fear since global warming seems to be a farce...
Prolly guns again.
:D
-
Holden - strange you should mention Newton and Einstein in relation to your 'exception rule'. It was Einstein that proved Newtonian physics to be flawed in reference to light propagation in a gravitational field. Yet Newtonian physics has not been discarded?
It looks like science isn't abiding by your particular ruleset.
Or maybe this has more to do with your perception of scientific 'fact'. There is patently no such thing, merely a best available understanding, in the context of a set of initial variables. This understanding should stand up to scientific scrutiny, and this process leads to debate. Given the magnitude of the issue of global warming, both in timescale and physical manifestation, there is surely bound to be a great deal of this.
As of yet, no-one claims to fully understand the phenomena, but in terms of an impact versus likelihood analysis, some see the evidence as reason enough to change the way we conduct ourselves.
Sabre - you didn't answer a single point in my original post concerning your source, in particular the Climate Research Unit.
As for wrecking the world economy, that's precisely the kind of 'doomsday' scenario you accuse many scientists of pushing. Alternative fuel sources would be found, and it would be the Western and developed world providing them.
-
If global warming means chicks wear less I'm all for it :aok
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
If global warming means chicks wear less I'm all for it :aok
Godamn man, most of the time your just a worthless sheep molester, but sometimes you make a point! :D
-
My father-in-law says that the weather cycles warm and cold every 30 years. He’s 86, old enough to see a pattern.
-
Warming and cooling (freezing) cycles are far bigger than that. We're at the upside of a warming trend. The Earth has it's natural cycles which stretch thousands to tens of thousands of years.
-
If man is responsible for global warming, who is responsible for the multiple cycles of ice ages and global warming that happened before the arrival of large populations of indistrialized man?
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Holden - strange you should mention Newton and Einstein in relation to your 'exception rule'. It was Einstein that proved Newtonian physics to be flawed in reference to light propagation in a gravitational field. Yet Newtonian physics has not been discarded?
It looks like science isn't abiding by your particular ruleset.
It isn't strange at all, it is by design.
That general relativity found that Newtons gravity theory needed tweaking for the circumstances that relativity considers is one of the great leaps of science. That such a trusted and accepted fact was flawed and that a relatively (pun intended) unknown Swiss patent clerk could upset the great Issac Newton's ideas shows that we all hold veto power over the scientific consensus.
In the Newton - Einstein example consensus lost to an idea of a single individual.
-
Straight up, Holden. No equivocation.
Global warming - do you buy it or not?
-
That there is warming?
For the last 12,000 years there has been warming. Your house would have been under 1000 m of ice if it were in existance 10,000 years ago.
That we have caused a runaway warming trend, or we are about to?
The amount of the current warming trend that is anthropormorphic is up for debate. Computer models show a great amount of flexibility in what the climate might be like 100 years from now. The design of the model seems to be up to what the model designer wants the outcome to be.
The climate is way to chaotically driven to be absolute on predictions.
The Kyoto treaty was written with the proviso that, "Hey it sure looks like it's warming and it looks we may be the cause and we better start doing something about it now in case we are right."
The consensus sure seems to be sure on roughly the same evidence that we were unsure of just 5 years ago.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Sabre - you didn't answer a single point in my original post concerning your source, in particular the Climate Research Unit.
As for wrecking the world economy, that's precisely the kind of 'doomsday' scenario you accuse many scientists of pushing. Alternative fuel sources would be found, and it would be the Western and developed world providing them.
And you addressed neither of my responses to yours. I didn't bother to address your "point" about the author not providing the nicety of a link because it is irrelevant; the author quotes a source, one that is easily verified or refuted by a quick google search; that is the minimum required. It seems a poor debating tactic to dismiss the author on the grounds that you can't be bothered to check the quoted source. Still, for the google-challenged, here you go... http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
You have to do a bit of correllating of the data, which is probably why he didn't link to a nice graphic for your benefit.
Again, however, I believe you're missing the point of the article, which is that the global warming crisis has been manufactured, and that the reason more scientists haven't spoken up about their doubts is due in part to group-think and academic intimidation. You're right about one thing; this is an opinion piece, and neither the author nor the publication denies it. The scientific facts included are easy enough to verify; their interpretation is exactly what is at issue.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
If man is responsible for global warming, who is responsible for the multiple cycles of ice ages and global warming that happened before the arrival of large populations of indistrialized man?
George W Bush, retroactively of course.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
That there is warming?
For the last 12,000 years there has been warming. Your house would have been under 1000 m of ice if it were in existance 10,000 years ago.
That we have caused a runaway warming trend, or we are about to?
The amount of the current warming trend that is anthropormorphic is up for debate. Computer models show a great amount of flexibility in what the climate might be like 100 years from now. The design of the model seems to be up to what the model designer wants the outcome to be.
The climate is way to chaotically driven to be absolute on predictions.
The Kyoto treaty was written with the proviso that, "Hey it sure looks like it's warming and it looks we may be the cause and we better start doing something about it now in case we are right."
The consensus sure seems to be sure on roughly the same evidence that we were unsure of just 5 years ago.
I wasn't really asking about Kyoto.
I was asking about what you answered here:
The amount of the current warming trend that is anthropormorphic is up for debate. Computer models show a great amount of flexibility in what the climate might be like 100 years from now. The design of the model seems to be up to what the model designer wants the outcome to be.
Great.
Have scientists formed some kind of political block that I'm unaware of?
They're converging upon a consensus, no?
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Besides, it coincides quite nicely with my views on geo-politics.
Pretty much says it all.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
If man is responsible for global warming, who is responsible for the multiple cycles of ice ages and global warming that happened before the arrival of large populations of indistrialized man?
Those damn neanderthals that invented fire. :mad:
-
Originally posted by NattyIced
Warming and cooling (freezing) cycles are far bigger than that. We're at the upside of a warming trend. The Earth has it's natural cycles which stretch thousands to tens of thousands of years.
There are also minicycles inbetween.
Caught a show on some channel I forget which a couple weeks ago about the mini ice age that occured during the middle ages. And lasted several hundred years
Which gave examples and a potential explaination as to why, Greenalnd was named as such and why the Vikings eventually abandoned it.
Basically saying that when they first got there Greenland was indeed very green. But the colding trend combined with their refusal to adapt to the native populations ways of securing food when the weather grew consistantly colder caused them to abandon the settlement.
was really a very interesting show
-
I suppose the world needs gullible people like dowding and beet.... glad they are concentrated on one tiny little insignificant island tho.
lazs
-
Looking on the wweb to see if I can find something on that specific show I saw.
Failing to do that yet. I did find this. which is close tot he same thing.
"From around 800 A.D. to 1200 or 1300, the globe warmed again considerably and civilization prospered. This warm era displays, although less distinctly, many of the same characteristics as the earlier period of clement weather. Virtually all of northern Europe, the British Isles, Scandinavia, Greenland, and Iceland were considerably warmer than at present. The Mediterranean, the Near East, and North Africa, including the Sahara, received more rainfall than they do today. During this period of the High Middle Ages, most of North America also enjoyed better weather. In the early centuries of the epoch, China experienced higher temperatures and a more clement climate. From Western Europe to China, East Asia, India, and the Americas, mankind flourished as never before.
This prosperous period collapsed at the end of the thirteenth century with the advent of the "Mini Ice Age" which, at its most frigid, produced temperatures in central England for January about 4.5deg.F colder than today. Although the climate fluctuated, periods of cold damp weather lasted until the early part of the nineteenth century. During the chilliest decades, 5 to 15 percent less rain fell in Europe than does normally today; but, due to less evaporation because of the low temperatures, swampy conditions were more prevalent. As a result, in the fourteenth century the population explosion came to an abrupt halt; economic activity slowed; lives shortened as disease spread and diets deteriorated"
http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/history_health.html (http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/history_health.html)
-
Originally posted by Nash
Have scientists formed some kind of political block that I'm unaware of?
They're converging upon a consensus, no?
It can be argued very successfully that the environmentalist movement was hijacked for anti-capitalism and anti-globalization ideals.
Go to a protest or rally, walk around and ask questions. Make sure you're armed with statistics and alittle bit of a clue. Very, very few actually know anything about what they're protesting. Count how many times you hear "the corporations". Bring a petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide and see how many people you can get to sign it. Talk to the local head of say.. The Rainforest Action Network.. see how much they actually know about logging. Always ask for specific numbers. When they start stammering and hit you with 7 "ya know" in a row (followed by "evil corporations"), then they don't, move on to the next.
This is one of those things that if you don't believe, you really need to go see for yourself.
-
There is no hard core scientific proof for global warming.
What data exists is either taken out of context, warped, twisted, or out & out fabricated. There is no repeatable, scientific method reproducable proof.
So what you are left with is a HUGE mass of opinion.
We won't let people take drugs that have not been proven safe.
Scientific double blind studys. Processes that weed out opinion, personal bias & give hard core scientific data. Yet we have seen NOTHING like this applied to the Global Warming issue.
Why? Because they know it would fail. They already know global warming is a pile of BS.
Its a non issue.
Like your car & Aair Conditioning refridgerant causing the hole in the ozone. So we'll get everyone to switch to a better one.
Emm folks, one "minor" burp from any volcano in the world destroys more ozone than all the freon ever made. True, proveable fact.
But it made money for the right people in the know.
Pumped a LOT of training dollars, conversion dollars etc into the economy.
But this time its the WORLD they are messing with.
Just say no to global warming.
-
Originally posted by indy007
It can be argued very successfully that the environmentalist movement was hijacked for anti-capitalism and anti-globalization ideals.
Go to a protest or rally, walk around and ask questions. Make sure you're armed with statistics and alittle bit of a clue. Very, very few actually know anything about what they're protesting. Count how many times you hear "the corporations". Bring a petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide and see how many people you can get to sign it. Talk to the local head of say.. The Rainforest Action Network.. see how much they actually know about logging. Always ask for specific numbers. When they start stammering and hit you with 7 "ya know" in a row (followed by "evil corporations"), then they don't, move on to the next.
This is one of those things that if you don't believe, you really need to go see for yourself.
Except the failure of your education system I don't see what else it will show.
-
Originally posted by Ghosth
There is no hard core scientific proof for global warming.
What data exists is either taken out of context, warped, twisted, or out & out fabricated. There is no repeatable, scientific method reproducable proof.
So what you are left with is a HUGE mass of opinion.
We won't let people take drugs that have not been proven safe.
Scientific double blind studys. Processes that weed out opinion, personal bias & give hard core scientific data. Yet we have seen NOTHING like this applied to the Global Warming issue.
Why? Because they know it would fail. They already know global warming is a pile of BS.
Its a non issue.
Like your car & Aair Conditioning refridgerant causing the hole in the ozone. So we'll get everyone to switch to a better one.
Emm folks, one "minor" burp from any volcano in the world destroys more ozone than all the freon ever made. True, proveable fact.
But it made money for the right people in the know.
Pumped a LOT of training dollars, conversion dollars etc into the economy.
But this time its the WORLD they are messing with.
Just say no to global warming.
Actually I think global warming is pretty much a fact.
But thats not the real issue.
The real issue is how much of it is part of a natural recurring cycle and if and if so how much mans activities are responcable for it.
The Earth is a self correcting system.
Think of it like The USA. The country tends to go from one side to the other and back again.
For 8 years the country headed socially left, having gotten too liberal, the country is spending another 8 years socially heading right.
Next election having gotten to conservative it will in all probability head left again
Dispite the howls from one side or the other. this is a good thing. Maintains balance.
Same thing with the earth. It would abe a very bad thing should it continue forever to head in one direction or the other
-
Originally posted by straffo
Except the failure of your education system I don't see what else it will show.
It'll teach you how to manipulate public opinion and secure funding for studies that will later be disproven. I mean, it's not like we haven't already been through other wonderful junk science like the Dioxin scare, cell phone brain cancer, power line cancer, chemical pesticides disrupting hormonal processess, the EPA's secret soot science (as in, refusal to disclose public funded scientific data used to pass a $10/bil annual law), obesity statistics adjusted down 93% by the CDC, chips causing cancer (would take 62.5 lbs of per day for life), and weren't we supposed to be in an ice age by now? It's not like wonderful environmental scientists like Jim Hansen have a track record of being wrong... his 1990s estimate of warming was only off 200%.
...and all this comes from our educated elite? Your right. Our education system is a failure.
edit: The chip scare came from Sweden. Cost a few million, was disproved for a few thousand. Not our idiots this time!
-
Originally posted by Nash
I wasn't really asking about Kyoto.
I was asking about what you answered here:
Great.
Have scientists formed some kind of political block that I'm unaware of?
They're converging upon a consensus, no?
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Scientific fact is not decided upon by election.
Climate is dependant on many things. CO2, continental shift, orbital pertubations, wobbles of our spin axis, solar activity, etc.
It is a strong theory that the rise of the Panama isthumus changed ocean currents and caused the desertification of northern Africa.
We have 100,000 years of climate data from Greenland Ice cores that show Earth's climate has not been very stable at all. The climate actually has been unusually stable during the development of civilization.
At the end of the ice age of 12,000 years ago the climate dramatically warmed then went back into another cold spell for 1,000 years. At the end of this 1,000 year period, known as the Younger Dryas, the temperature rose sharply, as much as 7 degrees in only 20 years.
7 degrees in 20 years without man's interference.
It seems reasonable to be unsure of models which confidently show anywhere from 0.5 to 10 degrees in the next century: A potential swing much slower than a natural swing just 12 millenia ago, and blame this much less dramatic swing on anthropogenic reasons.
-
I wish this kind of information were discussed when talking about global warming, then maybe not so many people would associate and react to global warming being caused by man. Then an intelligent thought process could be developed rather than reactionary comments and quips.
Such as we know global warming happens, as does global cooling. Even areas of the globe have changed from hospitable to dry and arrid, or frozen over the course of our known history. One day the climate will dramatically shift again, and we may be at the apex of it, or closer to the end or beginning of it. We don't know, and it seems that, regardless of that limitation, we presume we have an effect on the climate and that the climate would be stable without us.
We may have an effect, either through slowing down the earth's global climate changes or speeding up. We don't know either way, and we will never find out until reactionary garbage, politics, and clamoring for fame/funds gets removed from the equation.
Global warming is real. How much we factor into it, if at all, that's the mystery.
-
Only one exception needs to be shown by experiment before the inverse square law of gravitational attraction is discarded.
Holden, you wrote the above did you not? Given that Einstein proved Newtonian physics breaks down in relativistic circumstances, you must agree that Newtonian physics is rendered useless based on your above contention?
Clearly it is not. On the macro-world level and at earthly speeds it holds up pretty well and is still extensively applied. Your contention is unfounded. QED.
That general relativity found that Newtons gravity theory needed tweaking for the circumstances that relativity considers is one of the great leaps of science.[/b]
Patently untrue. Newtonian physics cannot be 'tweaked' to explain relativistic phenomena. In falls down and is incapable of providing any understanding.
Seems to me you were saying that as soon as a theory is disproved in a singular instance, it is thrown away. I have demonstrated that is not the case.
In the Newton - Einstein example consensus lost to an idea of a single individual.
So you agree science involves consensus. Seems to me Global Warming is happening, but a consensus is still in development as to the reasons why.
-
Sabre - just looking around the links within your new source, you find this sentence:
"The year 2005 was the second warmest on record, exceeded by 1998. This time series is being compiled jointly by the Climatic Research Unit and the UK Met. Office Hadley Centre."[/b]
(http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/gat2005-600x283.gif)
1998 was El Nino, by the way, and is thought to explain that particular high. This is quickly followed by:
"Increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to human activities are most likely the underlying cause of warming in the 20th century."[/b]
The CRU is the underpinning source for your article and your opinion, but they seem to be taking the opposite position...
Now I don't know if they are right, but let's assume they understand their own data. Why would they so explicitly compromise their scientific objectivity and so readily jump on the 'fossil fuel' band wagon, as you would probably call it? Surely it would have been less hassle to just present the data. Failing that, they didn't even think to include a contrasting statement, a 'OTOH' alternative.
-
wow dowding... we are talking allmost a degree in 100 years!!! I didn't even know they were that accurate in the 1800's..
the scale would look even more dramatic if you made it in thousandths of a degree.....
can yu just see someone in 1800's looking at a thermometer and saying "yep 57.678 degrees today... "
lazs
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Holden, you wrote the above did you not? Given that Einstein proved Newtonian physics breaks down in relativistic circumstances, you must agree that Newtonian physics is rendered useless based on your above contention?
Clearly it is not. On the macro-world level and at earthly speeds it holds up pretty well and is still extensively applied. Your contention is unfounded. QED.
Patently untrue. Newtonian physics cannot be 'tweaked' to explain relativistic phenomena. In falls down and is incapable of providing any understanding.
Seems to me you were saying that as soon as a theory is disproved in a singular instance, it is thrown away. I have demonstrated that is not the case.
So you agree science involves consensus. Seems to me Global Warming is happening, but a consensus is still in development as to the reasons why.
You have read many things into my statements that I did not write. Newton's theory of gravitation is still useful as an approximation, but is only as an approximation.
Einstein's theory of gravitation is better, and was proven so in 1919 when observations of Mercury showed that gravitational lensing occured.
There are consensuses (consensii?) in the scientific community but any consensus is meaningless if one person can show it to be wrong. If consensus was the end all, we would still have a pre-Copernican theory of plantary movement.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
wow dowding... we are talking allmost a degree in 100 years!!! I didn't even know they were that accurate in the 1800's..
the scale would look even more dramatic if you made it in thousandths of a degree.....
can yu just see someone in 1800's looking at a thermometer and saying "yep 57.678 degrees today... "
lazs
Lazs made a funnay :rofl :lol :aok
-
You don't need any need proof of global warming existence or not
As the cure is to use more efficiently the ressources and so making economy it's just an evidence to make sure to not waste ressources .
The problem with the USA as today is not the fact the American use energy ,lot of people in other country (like India or China) would kill to have access to the American way of life.
But more actual the inefficiency and waste of ressources of this way of life.
When you use your car to do less than a mile to go to Wallmart with a gazoline sucker it's so plain wrong at so many level that I can describe how it's wrong !
I know it's caricatural and full of cliché :)
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
You have read many things into my statements that I did not write. Newton's theory of gravitation is still useful as an approximation, but is only as an approximation.
Einstein's theory of gravitation is better, and was proven so in 1919 when observations of Mercury showed that gravitational lensing occured.
There are consensuses (consensii?) in the scientific community but any consensus is meaningless if one person can show it to be wrong. If consensus was the end all, we would still have a pre-Copernican theory of plantary movement.
It depend,if the discrepancy is inside the average measurement error it's usable practicly.
-
Originally posted by straffo
You don't need any need proof of global warming existence or not
As the cure is to use more efficiently the ressources and so making economy it's just an evidence to make sure to not waste ressources .
"Doctor! Doctor! Don't you want to x-ray my leg to see if its broken?"
"I don't need to do that, we all know that the cure for a broken leg is to put in in a cast. Let's wrap you up!"
"But what if it's not broken?"
"You want to take that chance?"
>and it must have been the observation of stars during the eclipse, I'm sure they didn't have the good luck to have Mercury popping out during the few minutes available...
-
See Rule #5
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
"Doctor! Doctor! Don't you want to x-ray my leg to see if its broken?"
"I don't need to do that, we all know that the cure for a broken leg is to put in in a cast. Let's wrap you up!"
"But what if it's not broken?"
"You want to take that chance?"
>and it must have been the observation of stars during the eclipse, I'm sure they didn't have the good luck to have Mercury popping out during the few minutes available...
uh ?
how is it related to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle ?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
straffo... if you use a car to go a mile to get to wallmart so that you have the time you would have spent walking to be productive then it is not wastefull on any level
if I follow your reasoning it's ok to waste ressource to be able to waste more ressources later ...
See Rule #5[/B]
Except the "not so hiden" frenhc bashing I don't see how it's related to the current discution.
PS: I'm not the one having to much vacation,you're the one not having enought.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Sabre - just looking around the links within your new source, you find this sentence:
"The year 2005 was the second warmest on record, exceeded by 1998. This time series is being compiled jointly by the Climatic Research Unit and the UK Met. Office Hadley Centre."
1998 was El Nino, by the way, and is thought to explain that particular high. This is quickly followed by:
"Increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to human activities are most likely the underlying cause of warming in the 20th century."[/b]
The CRU is the underpinning source for your article and your opinion, but they seem to be taking the opposite position...
Now I don't know if they are right, but let's assume they understand their own data. Why would they so explicitly compromise their scientific objectivity and so readily jump on the 'fossil fuel' band wagon, as you would probably call it? Surely it would have been less hassle to just present the data. Failing that, they didn't even think to include a contrasting statement, a 'OTOH' alternative. [/B]
Couple of counter-points again. First, it's not "my" article, though I happen to find the general arguments compelling. Next, let's make clear that the CRU info contains two basic types of information: data and interpretation/opinion. The info displayed on the graph is data. The quote about "Increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere" is opinion. One of the points the author was making is that scientists feel pressured to cow-tow to the politically popular view, as the funding tends to flow from those views.
In the end, the question is not "Have global temperatures changed?" (they do, and in cycles). The question is, has the significance of the data been misrepresented to the general public (and to politicians, it would seem) to support a political agenda? Also, please remember you don't shed your human motivations and failings when you put on a lab coat. Scientists are people too. They want to secure funding and make a living and be well known and "important," just like everyone else. I suspect (my opinion only), that weather researchers feel compelled to give a nod to global warming (as a human-induced phenomenon) in the same way that biologists must envoke Darwin in every research paper (whether Darwin's concepts were actually relevant to the particular research or not). Taking the minority view is always the tougher row to hoe, and who wants to risk being branded a quook for bucking the consensus view?
-
Originally posted by straffo
uh ?
how is it related to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle ?
You said, "You don't need any need proof of global warming existence or not ... as the cure is to..."
I was pointing out that if one does not understand the problem, a proper solution is difficult.
If CO2 is the problem, then using fossil fuels more efficiently only delays the inevitable. We must instead pull CO2 out of the carbon cycle somehow and sequester it, while virtually abandoning all burning of fossil hydrocarbons.
If CO2 is not the overriding driver of warming and the primary driver is increased solar activity or orbital changes, or axis wobble, then we are wasting a lot of effort in trying to change things we cannot possibly change.
-
Cure was perhaps not the proper word ... in English
I'm myself not sure of the reality of global warming, I just wanted to point that "laissez faire" was not the proper attitude.
Personnaly I avoid using my car to buy my "baguette"* as walking 1 km with a car is not economicly efficient (a cold car suck fuel horribly) plus as an added benefit it's one of the little things that keep you fit/in good shape.
* it's not a joke :)
-
Well, from X-rays, the leg seems to be broken:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/ice_melt_010117.html
So, another x-ray:
(http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/images/fcons5.jpg)
Link here:
http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/qthinice.asp
Better use the cast I guess....
-
straffo... I walk to the store all the time. I do it for the exercise not to save money or resources.
If a country has long vacations then they are wasting resources too..
My point is that every one likes to point fingers... that is the chief thing about the whole global warming thing...
It allows everyone the chance to point at the other guy and try to tell him how to live. in france you produce very little per capita and the energy you produce creates nuclear waste.
I got no problem with that but don't be telling me that my car is the problem.... if there even is a "problem".
We use what we have and when or if it runs out or gets near to.... we find something else that is better. If oil is evil then we need to use it up and get on with the process of finding a better alternative.
lazs
-
Another article, this one from the WSJ...
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220
And Angus, changes in ice coverage are a symptom, the significance of which is the primary point of contention here. It's like the a pain in your leg, whose cause is unknown. A leg cast is used when you know for certain the pain in your leg is the result of a broken bone. To offer an analogy, my young son was complaining about leg pains at night. My wife (bless her heart) finally broke down and took him to the doctor. "Growing pains," was his diagnosis. Perfectly normal, no cast, no surgury, and no medication needed; just massage the legs for a few minutes every night.
To repeat one more time, global temperatures fluctuate over time. No one is disputing that. There have been hotter periods in Earth's history, and cooler ones. What is in dispute is whether mankind is responsible in some way for the current fluctuation, and whether drastic and costly measures are necessary to counter it. I have no problem with working to reduce polution output, but don't see the need for a costly and ultimately unworkable Kyoto-type solution (a deeply flawed concept, and one that is rife with the opportunity for such corruption as to make the Oil-for-Food debacle look vituous in comparison). The primary reasons to reduce fossil fuel dependency are economic and geo-politcal, not environmental as far as I'm concerned.
-
Wobble about it as you like. The polar caps are melting.
It is because it is getting warmer.
The Ocean rise won't be that much. Most of the ice is on Antarctica, and it would take hundreds of years (or so) at the current speed to melt that block Melting the Northern Pole doesn't add much water since it isn't much ice on solid land - the volume of the ice is already in the ocean.
So, there will be a rise in sea level, but nothing so big. Well if everything melts we're talking some 200 feet which actually will flood every major capital on the planet....but most of the higher inlands will stay just nice.
A good day to move to Siberia.
Anyway Oil is going to get used up one day....we'll see how to go from there.
If global warming was not happening would we still consider?
-
Originally posted by Dowding
That's one opinion in the 'nay' camp. The balance of scientific is heading for the 'aye' door. I suppose it depends on your risk tolerance as to which how you form your opinion, but being an accountant and a trained scientist I think I'll be prudent and support reduction in reliance on fossil fuels.
Besides, it coincides quite nicely with my views on geo-politics.
As for the article, much of that editorial is unsubstanciated opinion. He quotes one source but provides no link to the primary data. His opinions on 'gagging' orders are interesting, but add nothing to the discussion.
Yeah, it's primarily a political bash wrapped around very little, if any, evidence. He says that the climate change is natural, but even natural, there is a root cause and he doesn't cite that.
He cites one University's studies. I'm sure if you search long enough, you'll find a study that says the excess CO2 is caused by too many critters alive at one time (there are more humans alive today than the summation of history).
And this line: "Governments generally choose not to receive policy advice on climate from independent scientists. Rather, they seek guidance from their own self-interested science bureaucracies and senior advisers, or from the IPCC itself. No matter how accurate it may be, cautious and politically non-correct science advice is not welcomed in Westminster, and nor is it widely reported."
Yeah, they receive the info they want to hear from cronies hired through the system establish by the current administration. So, Bush saw through the smokescreen? Perhaps he has someone who shares his view telling him what he wants to hear.
Never accept any one's word at face value. They all have an agenda.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Anyway Oil is going to get used up one day....we'll see how to go from there.
[/B]
The current figure I'm hearing, taking into account China's increases oil usage, 50 years.
It will be interesting indeed, since 90% of everything we produce uses oil in some form or another.
-
And thereforth we have a max amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. For we have then pumped out what used to be CO2 or just charbon all the way back to Jurassic times.
Water is also in the form of steam, a greenhouse gas.
Well, my country is too cold anyway :D
-
Oh, dear. One of the UK government scientists actually belives that we're at fault for actual warming.....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3381425.stm
-
cynic.... you accept that these scientists know where all the oil is and that they know how much the demand will be in the future and can predict when we will run out?
don't really live up to your name eh?
Then you go on to say that all the other climate changes were caused by too many animals on the planet? and that the evil boooosh is somehow cooking the books? did you read the wall street journal article sabre linked?
Angus... what would you like us to do? You say it is happening and that we are causing it... what do you think we should do?
I think that we could fix it or at least delay it if I could get a study grant for a couple of million.... not promising anything mind you but....
THINK OF THE CHILDREN.... WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING... ANYTHING IS BETTER THAN DOING NOTHING IF YOU WON'T SEEND ME THE MONEY THEN YOU HATE CHILDREN AND GLACIERS AND ARE JUST A MEAN PERSON OVERALL.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Angus... what would you like us to do? You say it is happening and that we are causing it... what do you think we should do?
Cue the Ancient Egyptians. :aok
Sorry Angus, couldn`t resist it.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
cynic.... you accept that these scientists know where all the oil is and that they know how much the demand will be in the future and can predict when we will run out?
don't really live up to your name eh?
Now that is funny stuff right there. :D
-
Well, look into the article:
"UK was responsible for only about 2% of the world's emissions while the US, with just 4% of the world's population, produced more than 20%. "
In rough terms, if every earthling was the equal of the American, CO2 emission would go to....500% of what it is now. That also would mean that the oil drained 500% faster.
But, us earthlings won't stop anyway, so what's the fuss....
BTW, a theoretical question Lazs2:
If the gasoline would cost you 1.7$ pro LITER, would you think people would consider saving it a tad?
-
Originally posted by Angus
Oh, dear. One of the UK government scientists actually belives that we're at fault for actual warming.....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3381425.stm
Does it automatically make it correct if a government announces it to be so?
The British government also believed in Iraqs WMD's and Niger yellowcake.
-
Yes, except they never got anything on the Geiger counter while they did get something on their termometer :D
-
The thermometer just tells you the temperature. It does not tell you why the temperature is what it is.
-
I have noticed today that the temp change from around 6:00 AM until 2:00 PM has been around 15 degrees. Is this global warming?
-
Perhaps, - if it used to be less before :D
I just remembered we had no snow this winter. Maybbe global warming...
(64 degs north you see)
-
Originally posted by Angus
Perhaps, - if it used to be less before :D
That`s just it. It should be more than this.
I`m fearing an Ice Age. :)
-
Maybe an ice age in your area only?
-
Originally posted by Angus
Perhaps, - if it used to be less before :D
I just remembered we had no snow this winter. Maybe global warming...
(64 degs north you see)
Iceland is on the SI measurement system isn't it? Why 64 deg north and not 1.117 Radians north? Why are we still on this antiquated latitude and longitude degrees-minutes-seconds way of navigation?
And don't say its because we measure longitude with a clock because if that were so it would be hours-minutes-seconds.
-
angus.... I take it your solution is to raise the price of gasoline so that people will buy more economical cars so that there is more for the chinesse to use?
exactly how many minutes would that take off the estimate for end of the world as we know it?
How much would raising the price of gas reduce global warming?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Sabre
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html
I found especially meaningful the two points the author makes as to why many scientist likely don't speak out against the prevailing paradygm. President Bush has been roundly criticized for having his head in the sand about the impending danger of man-induced global warming. Yet, it seems rather more likely he's one of the few in the US government who's managed to see through the smokescreen of the global warming doomsayers.
Back in February there was a TORRENTIAL DOWNPOUR in MICHIGAN. To say "nothing wrong" is ignorant, and ignorant at best. If you've EVER been to Michigan in Feb., what I witnessed, SHOULDN'T BE HAPPENING, nor did it ever.
-
We could always nuke a volcano; it would kick up a gazillion tons of ash which would prevent all of the sun’s radiation from making it to earth and cool it back down. I’m not worried. If an idiot like me can come up with such a brilliant plan, I’m sure there are many alternatives.
-
yep eskimo... it may be just a tad early to don our hairshirts and self flaggulate in public just yet....
unless it rains again in michigan of course.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Angus
Maybe an ice age in your area only?
Cool! That would mean that beer cooling costs would be reduced significantly. Less fuel burned.
It would also mean less trips to the beer store would have to be made because you could pretty well stock up and not have to worry about storage/spoilage issues. Less fuel burned.
I thinkwe have found a cure here. :)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
cynic.... you accept that these scientists know where all the oil is and that they know how much the demand will be in the future and can predict when we will run out?
don't really live up to your name eh?
Then you go on to say that all the other climate changes were caused by too many animals on the planet? and that the evil boooosh is somehow cooking the books? did you read the wall street journal article sabre linked?
Yes i did read it. Did you read what I wrote? Between the lines, basically I'm saying if you look hard enough, you'll find a report you need to expound your sociopolitical viewpoint. Pretty much all the 'journalist' that wrote the piece said was that opposing views were hogwash, not really shoring up his view with hard facts. That there was a warming in such and such time frame and a cooling in such and such time frame, without citing a research document that explains it doesn't swing well.
I want more detail. I simply will not accept someone telling me 'the truth.' He said numbers pulled from the official log University. Did he cite the title? The document number? The lead researchers? Give a link? I'm supposed to believe him because he says so?
When my online friends at a fitness site post reasearch or a claim by research, they include all the indentifying information, to include the name of the study, the case number, the title, the conditions under which the research was conducted, etc. When I see this kind of info, then I'm a bit more accepting, however I have called foul on one article one guy posted because the conditions under which the research was done. He had no acceptable answer.
-
Yeah Jackal, and in my place it's getting warmer, so our heating costs also go down.
Dang, it doesn't matter much we don't burn fuel for heating.
-
ok cynic... then where is your "research" that proves that we will run out of oil in 50 years?
lazs
-
Well, if we all start using less, and new wells are found, we might last a bit longer :D
-
Originally posted by Angus
Dang, it doesn't matter much we don't burn fuel for heating.
What do you heat with Angus?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
ok cynic... then where is your "research" that proves that we will run out of oil in 50 years?
lazs
As I said in my origininal post, it's what I'm hearing, not what I've seen proved. But give me a few weeks (this is not a small task), I'll see what I can come up with. The number may be different, but it's not that far off. Remember though, we use oil in anywhere from 90-95% of consumer goods in some form: manufacturing in both running machines and as a component to the good, transportation, cosmetics, etc.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Well, from X-rays, the leg seems to be broken:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/ice_melt_010117.html
So, another x-ray:
(http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/images/fcons5.jpg)
Link here:
http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/qthinice.asp
Better use the cast I guess....
Yanno from looking at that picture the Ice cap isnt any smaller.
Its just moved from the left side to the right
-
That looks like cloud cover to the right.
-
That white thing on the right is Greenland. It is probably the vast majority of the Northern ice cap.
-
lololol
upper left, looks liek someone blew their nose on the lens...no, sorry thats asia, lolololololol
i pwnd asia!!!!
-
Originally posted by Angus
Well, from X-rays, the leg seems to be broken:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/ice_melt_010117.html
So, another x-ray:
(http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/images/fcons5.jpg)
Link here:
http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/qthinice.asp
Better use the cast I guess....
Used completely without permission:
Mar's Polar Ice Caps Melting
by News Wire (September 22, 2005)
From a Space.com news item on NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) spacecraft:
NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) spacecraft has spotted new gullies and a fresh crater – in astronomical terms – etched into the red planet’s surface, mission scientists said Tuesday. Now in its eighth year in orbit around Mars, the MGS spacecraft found the new gullies cutting through a sand dune, as well as numerous other signs that the planet is far from a static, unchanging world. “[The gullies] are probably not the result of water action on the sand dune,” said Michael Malin, principal investigator for the Mars Orbiter Camera aboard MGS, during teleconference with reporters. “What we think is going on here is that carbon dioxide snow has been incorporated into the sand dune.” As the snow melts and evaporates into gas, it allows the sand around it to fluidize and run down the dune slope, Malin added.
[..] The spacecraft also observed a gradual evaporation of carbon dioxide ice in one of Mars’ polar caps, pointing to a slowly changing Mars climate. “They way these polar pits are retreating is absolutely astounding,” Mustard said. But like the rockfalls, researchers were unable to account for the gradual climate change. “Why is Mars warmer today that it was in the past, we really have no way of knowing why,” Malin said. ["Mars Probe Finds New Gullies, Crater at Red Planet"]
The last quote is kind of puzzling given the next article.
Also from Science.com:
Sun's Output Increasing in Possible Trend Fueling Global Warming
By Robert Roy Britt
Senior Science Writer
posted: 02:30 pm ET
20 March 2003
In what could be the simplest explanation for one component of global warming, a new study shows the Sun's radiation has increased by .05 percent per decade since the late 1970s.
The increase would only be significant to Earth's climate if it has been going on for a century or more, said study leader Richard Willson, a Columbia University researcher also affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
The Sun's increasing output has only been monitored with precision since satellite technology allowed necessary observations. Willson is not sure if the trend extends further back in time, but other studies suggest it does.
"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," Willson said.
In a NASA-funded study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters, Willson and his colleagues speculate on the possible history of the trend based on data collected in the pre-satellite era.
"Solar activity has apparently been going upward for a century or more," Willson told SPACE.com today. . . . .
The new study shows that the TSI has increased by about 0.1 percent over 24 years. That is not enough to cause notable climate change, Willson and his colleagues say, unless the rate of change were maintained for a century or more.
On time scales as short as several days, the TSI can vary by 0.2 percent due to the number and size of sunspots crossing the face of the Sun. That shift, said to be insignificant to weather, is however equal to the total amount of energy used by humans, globally, for a year, the researchers estimate.
The study analyzed data from six satellites orbiting Earth at different times over the 24 years. Willson ferreted out errors in one of the datasets that had prevented previous studies from discovering the trend.
A separate recent study of Sun-induced magnetic activity near Earth, going back to 1868, provides compelling evidence that the Sun's current increase in output goes back more than a century, Willson said.
Sun is hotter. Planets (note the PLURAL) are hotter. What a Co-Ink-E-Dink.
-
angus.... why do you want the oil to last a bit longer?
cynic... so now you believe predictions that are 50 years in the future (name one that ever came true) about a supply of a natural resource that we have no idea of the initial quantity of nor of the demand?
are you simply saying that if their guess is right about supply and that we keep up with current demands... it will last so long?
worthless figures. You should change your handle to "gullible"
lazs
-
If the oil lasts a bit longer, we get hit by the "NO OIL" status later :D
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
What do you heat with Angus?
Iceland uses geothermal to a great extent.
Reykjavik used to have some of the dirtiest air around, then the government decided that they would develop the geothermal resource and stop importing coal. Reykjavik has a municipal steam (or hot water) heating district. You just hook up to the hot stuff under the sidewalk and heat your house.
Now Reykjavik's air may be the cleanest of any national capitol.
The flip side of geothermal however is that sulfur dioxide, CO2, and many other volcanic related gasses are purged to the atmosphere. Geothermal can let out as much or more CO2 as a fossil plant of the same output.
-
How do we even know how much there is tho? How do we know that making it last longer is a good thing? are we not a complacent people? if we think that it will last longer wont that just make us work that much less on finding a substitute?
Seems that the sooner we get on with bringing things to a crisis point the sooner we get something done alternative fuel wise.
lazs
-
so holden.... you are saying that angus and his countrymen are causeing as much or more of the problem per capita as anyone? and that the alternative is for them to go back to an even dirtier source of fuel?
If they didn't use the geothermal wouldn't it just build up and vent naturally tho?
Maybe they can build plants that would clean it.... say at a couple hundred k a person price tag per year... sure... it's a lot of money but.... it's got to be worth it right?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Iceland uses geothermal to a great extent.
Reykjavik used to have some of the dirtiest air around, then the government decided that they would develop the geothermal resource and stop importing coal. Reykjavik has a municipal steam (or hot water) heating district. You just hook up to the hot stuff under the sidewalk and heat your house.
Now Reykjavik's air may be the cleanest of any national capitol.
The flip side of geothermal however is that sulfur dioxide, CO2, and many other volcanic related gasses are purged to the atmosphere. Geothermal can let out as much or more CO2 as a fossil plant of the same output.
Thanks. I don`t think Angus likes to answer when I ask a question. :)
That`s some pretty interesting stuff. I was just reading some about it.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/22_1145207970_heat.gif)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
so holden.... you are saying that angus and his countrymen are causeing as much or more of the problem per capita as anyone? and that the alternative is for them to go back to an even dirtier source of fuel?
If they didn't use the geothermal wouldn't it just build up and vent naturally tho?
Maybe they can build plants that would clean it.... say at a couple hundred k a person price tag per year... sure... it's a lot of money but.... it's got to be worth it right?
lazs
I have two buddies who worked in the Geothermal industry. One worked for Calpine at Geysers north of the Bay Area and one worked on the east slope of the Sierras near China Lake NAS.
At both places the equipment was constantly crusting up with crud from the netherworld and the one at China Lake had a big pile of sulfer they "harvested" from the process. Both places offgas hydrogen sulfide, sulfer dioxide, surprisingly huge amounts of CO2: geothermal is far from pristine.
-
off topic... most wastewater treatment plants use co generation for some of their power needs..... EPA regs and junk science has driven power needs for facilities into the ruinous category...
The co gen is using methane produced in the treatment process to run generators but.... most are shut down now because of CARB (air quality) regs and the stuff is so dirty it is killing the engines.... the hippies are stepping on each others toes here in kalifornia.
everyone and their buerocrtic brother wants a piece of the junk science environmental pie here.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
The co gen is using methane produced in the treatment process to run generators but.... most are shut down now because of CARB (air quality) regs and the stuff is so dirty it is killing the engines....
So... we let the landfills and waste water treatment plants off gas the methane, which is several times greater of a greenhouse gas than is the CO2 which would have been produced had that methane been burned.
Sounds like the same idiocy as California vehicle emissions. Had they originally written that law by limiting the amount of pollutant per mile rather than limiting the concentration of pollutant in the exhaust, the law would have driven both cleanliness and fuel economy.
But instead we get a Califorina emission vehicle burns clean by being less efficient.
-
Originally posted by E25280
Used completely without permission:
Mar's Polar Ice Caps Melting
Also from Science.com:
Sun's Output Increasing in Possible Trend Fueling Global Warming
I Blame Bush
-
I know I got my foil hat on:noid
It's natural cycles of the earth. It's happened before, it'll happen again. Do I think humans could be speeding it up, yes. But do I think it's happening because of humans, no. It happens regardless. Really guys, some of you give humans to much credit:lol
-
holden you are correct... an emmissions per mile was considered originaly but it would have meant that V8's of the 70's and the American car companies would have bellied up... there were no computers or electronic fuel injection for them to run.... The only cars that would meet such standards all came from other countries and were tiny little gutless 4 bangers....
The "solution" was for them to saddle automakers with junk science laws that actually increased pollution till the 80's and computers and fuel injection tech caught up.... they couldn't be seen to "just do nothing" so... for political reasons they made things worse. If they would have just waited it would have all worked out.
and yes... the methane produced at waste facilities is very dirty... it is mostly just burned off in large furnaces... some is converted to heat (50 year old tech) to help the process but for the most part.... it is wasted and/or just pollution.
lazs
-
Originally posted by SuperDud
I know I got my foil hat on:noid
It's natural cycles of the earth. It's happened before, it'll happen again. Do I think humans could be speeding it up, yes. But do I think it's happening because of humans, no. It happens regardless. Really guys, some of you give humans to much credit:lol
Son, I'd say you about hit the nail right on the head.
Missed your thumb and everything;)
-
OMG I have to agree with superdud.
Can it possibly be he's growing up, or something?
I mean like, in the last 2 weeks like, he's matured like or something.
It looks good on you super, keep it up!
-
Here is the proof of global warming!!! :D
(http://www.dyrariki.is/gallery/gallerymyndir/m0103785.jpg)
-
:aok :rofl
-
I r TeH Sramt!:D
-
angus... that is as much proof of man made global warming as anything else I have read.
I can't get over the fact that in a year the earth produces (naturaly) 600 trillion tons or more of co2 and that since the first much headed liberal fell out of a tree at the dawn of time..... man has only produced like 6 million tons of co2...
It just seems really really arrogant to think we are the cause or even have more than a couple of minutes worth of eternity to do with it.
lazs
-
Humans are arrogant and stupid as we prove again and again.
People actually think we now control the climate and have actually warmed up the earth's temperature and even believe we can stop it warming. Pure stupid arrogance. You can virtually guarantee that if a cooling period happens soon. The eco-idiots will claim it was thanks to all their efforts.
Hopefully I'll still be alive when all this foolishness is proved wrong so I can laugh and say 'Told you it was all BS'.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The flip side of geothermal however is that sulfur dioxide, CO2, and many other volcanic related gasses are purged to the atmosphere. Geothermal can let out as much or more CO2 as a fossil plant of the same output.
Correction: The above statement was based on coffee table conversation with buddies who worked at Geysers and Coso.
While SO2, H-S, and other gasses are outgassed, CO2 is about 10% of a fossil plant at good geo-feilds.
Some Geothermals, if a binary system is used, the offgassing is much less.
-
Well, ponder on this.
The globe is warming, and it's not afterwards that our effect is linked to the warming.
And as for the quantity, a single volcano can cool down an area as big as a contenent for many years.
The earth is....very balanced as it is.
-
Back these puppies up to a camp fire. Now that`s some global warming I can live with. :)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/22_1145727432_global.jpg)
-
Letter to the Canadian PM (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605)
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Letter to the Canadian PM (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605)
That sort of knocks the statements out of the saddle made to the effect of "all of the experts agree" BS that`s been posted on the subject here.
-
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=042106D
The film ends with an acknowledgment that China and India and other countries must become part of the solution, but most importantly, Washington cannot continue to be the final holdout in the push to solve the global warming crisis. Wind turbines, solar panels, and nuclear power hit the screen toward to end, and a burning earth is seen as the film ends.
If we adopted every suggestion in the film, concentration of carbon dioxide will still double this century. The reality avoided in the film is that China is currently building over 500 coal-fired power plants; they intend to build one new coal fired plant every week for decades to come, and no matter what we do in the US, emissions from throughout the world will drive atmospheric carbon dioxide levels steadily upward.
Dr. Robert Balling, Jr. is Director of the Office of Climatology at Arizona State University
-
Its well known in AZ that state is for felons & 'tards.
All the clever types go to U of A.
-
Originally posted by Debonair
Its well known in AZ that state is for felons & 'tards.
All the clever types go to U of A.
Let me clarify this statement. He is referring to Arizona state university, in other words, scum devils. The folks with accademics and smarts go to University of Arizona or Wildcats.