NationStates Jolt Archive

Recently, a calculation by the German Klimarechenzentrum (Climate Calculation Center) at behest of the May Planck Institute for Meteorology came to the conclusion that global warming is taking place faster than ever before.
Nach Berechnungen der Wissenschaftler am Hamburger Max-Planck-Institut für Meteorologie (MPI-M) wird sich das Klima in den kommenden hundert Jahren so schnell ändern wie noch nie. Das haben die neuesten Klimamodellrechnungen für unterschiedliche Szenarien bis zum Jahr 2100 ergeben. En anglais:
According to calculations by scientists of the Hamburg Max-Planck-Institute for Meteorology (MPI-M), the climate of the next hundred years will change faster than ever before. These are the results of the most recent climate model calculation for various scenarios until the year 2100.

Auf dem Höchstleistungsrechnersystem des Deutschen Klimarechenzentrums haben die Klimaforscher des MPI-M mit ihrem komplexen Klimamodell berechnet, dass die globale Temperatur bis zum Ende des Jahrhunderts um vier Grad steigen und der Meeresspiegel durchschnittlich um bis zu 30 Zentimeter ansteigen könnte. Im Sommer rechnen die Wissenschaftler unter bestimmten Bedingungen mit dem vollständigen Abschmelzen des Meereises in der Arktis. Für Europa wird eine Zunahme von trockeneren und wärmeren Sommern erwartet, aber auch mehr extreme Hochwasserereignisse durch Starkniederschläge. Using the powerful processors of the German Klimarechenzentrum, the climate researchers of the MPI-M calculated with their complex climate model that global temperatures could rise by 4 degrees [celsius] and the sea level could rise an average of 30 cm. In Summer, the scientists count on that under certain conditions the entire ice of the Arctic will melt. An increase of dryer and hotter Summers is expected for Europe, as well as more extreme flooding due to heavier rainfall.

Mit aufwändigen Modellen konnten die Klimaforscher die Vermutungen der vergangenen Jahre bestätigen, dass der Mensch einen großen und bislang nie da gewesenen Einfluss auf unser Klimageschehen hat und die globale Erwärmung fortschreitet. Zur Überprüfung der eigenen Klimamodellrechnungen haben die Forscher zunächst das Klima der vergangenen Jahrhunderte simuliert und die Ergebnisse mit dem realen Klimageschehen verglichen.With intense models, climate researchers were able to confirm the suspicion of the past years that humans have a great and unprecedented influence on the development of our climate and that global warming progresses. To double-check their own climate model calculations, the researchers simulated the the climate of the past centuries and compared the results with real developments of the climate.

Now run "But it's cyclic!" by me again.

Source (http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/de/web/news/newsdetail.php?id=76&suchwort=): Max-Planck-Institute for Meteorology
Additional documentation (http://www.tagesschau.de/aktuell/meldungen/0,1185,OID4806210,00.html): Tagesschau.de

The meteorologists can't accurately predict the weather in my area three days from now and you expect me to believe they know what will happen to the global climate 40 years from now? You do realize that 20-30 years ago they were predicting a slide into the next mini ice-age.

The meteorologists can't accurately predict the weather in my area three days from now and you expect me to believe they know what will happen to the global climate 40 years from now? You do realize that 20-30 years ago they were predicting a slide into the next mini ice-age.So basically:
"They were wrong before so they're wrong now."
Bad arguement. Times change and modern technology wasn't available 20-30 years ago.

The current "prediction" has been calculated for about a year by an extremely powerful computer and it's not just one prediction. It also takes into account all sorts of other factors and new developments.

I heartily doubt your weathermen use the Klimarechenzentrum for results for their weather. Besides, weather is not the same as climate.

The area covered by sea ice in the Arctic has shrunk for a fourth consecutive year, according to new data released by US scientists.

They say that this month sees the lowest extent of ice cover for more than a century. The Arctic climate varies naturally, but the researchers conclude that human-induced global warming is at least partially responsible.

They warn the shrinkage could lead to even faster melting in coming years.

"September 2005 will set a new record minimum in the amount of Arctic sea ice cover," said Mark Serreze, of the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), Boulder, Colorado.

"It's the least sea ice we've seen in the satellite record, and continues a pattern of extreme low extents of sea ice which we've now seen for the last four years," he told BBC News.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4290340.stm

You do realize that 20-30 years ago they were predicting a slide into the next mini ice-age.

The next ice age is ALWAYS next year or never. That's what scientists say. Can anyone explain that?

Anyway...The planet Venus (that's the planet one step closer to the Sun than Earth) is actually 'suffering' from global warming. Now that means one of two things:

1. Global warming is a natural occurance and there is nothing we can do to completely prevent it. All we can do is delay the inevitable (therefore conservation is actually for ourselves and NOT for our children).

OR

2. There is or at least WAS sentient life on Venus.

There is or at least WAS sentient life on Venus.

Then the Women came to Earth...men eventually joined them from Mars after going in circles for a while, refusing to ask directions...

And verily, all was well.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4290340.stmProponents of the cyclic theory tend to argue that there were times when there was no ice in the polar ice caps before and that we are heading towards that. The MPI-M study shows that the world is warming up faster than ever before and I'm still waiting for someone telling me how that fits with the cyclic theory.

The next ice age is ALWAYS next year or never. That's what scientists say. Can anyone explain that?

Anyway...The planet Venus (that's the planet one step closer to the Sun than Earth) is actually 'suffering' from global warming. Now that means one of two things:

1. Global warming is a natural occurance and there is nothing we can do to completely prevent it. All we can do is delay the inevitable (therefore conservation is actually for ourselves and NOT for our children).

OR

2. There is or at least WAS sentient life on Venus.

I don't why you are comparing Earth to Venus. We do not live on a planet which rains sulphuric acid as normal. Our global warming is not comparable to a place where you'd melt on the surface.

The meteorologists can't accurately predict the weather in my area three days from now and you expect me to believe they know what will happen to the global climate 40 years from now? You do realize that 20-30 years ago they were predicting a slide into the next mini ice-age.

That's still possible, believe it or not. If you've seen The Day After Tomorrow, most of the science in that is accurate - it just wouldn't happen quite that fast.

Then the Women came to Earth...men eventually joined them from Mars after going in circles for a while, refusing to ask directions...

And verily, all was well.

SO! It's the fault of women that we are getting global warming! (jokes...obviously...)

I don't why you are comparing Earth to Venus. We do not live on a planet which rains sulphuric acid as normal. Our global warming is not comparable to a place where you'd melt on the surface.

Could the sulfuric rain not be caused by the level of global warming on that planet? Now I don't actually believe in science, but since global warming is a scientific issue...Stars (the Sun is a Star) expand during their life cycle, meaning that the level of heat extends further/increases at distance over time. Mercury has already been completely ravaged by the heat, Venus is in the process...we're next. Interestingly enough sulfuric acid DOES actually occasionally rain down on Earth in some areas - usually around volcanoes and areas of heavy pollution.

Could the sulfuric rain not be caused by the level of global warming on that planet? Now I don't actually believe in science, but since global warming is a scientific issue...Stars (the Sun is a Star) expand during their life cycle, meaning that the level of heat extends further/increases at distance over time. Mercury has already been completely ravaged by the heat, Venus is in the process...we're next. Interestingly enough sulfuric acid DOES actually occasionally rain down on Earth in some areas - usually around volcanoes and areas of heavy pollution.Where'd you read the bit about stars expanding and their heat going further?

P.S.: And how does it explain global warming being faster than ever before?

Could the sulfuric rain not be caused by the level of global warming on that planet? Now I don't actually believe in science, but since global warming is a scientific issue...Stars (the Sun is a Star) expand during their life cycle, meaning that the level of heat extends further/increases at distance over time. Mercury has already been completely ravaged by the heat, Venus is in the process...we're next. Interestingly enough sulfuric acid DOES actually occasionally rain down on Earth in some areas - usually around volcanoes and areas of heavy pollution.

The point is we don't live on Venus (or you're an idiot unless you want perfect suntan). Earth is unique and doing nothing to stop ourselves from turning Earth into a Venus is going to be historically damning.

If the sun does finally expand (that's in 4 billion years), we (as a species) should be off this little rock called Earth by then.

Of course global warming is accelerating. As the sea ice in the Artic melts, the amout of sunlight reflected back into space drops, because water is darker than ice and absorbs more of the sunlight striking it. This causes the temperature to rise, causing the ice to melt further. Past a certain point, this nice little feedback loop outweighs all of the factors that have caused the Artic to stay cold for so long, and you get runaway warming.

The unfortunate part of all this is that we passed that "certain point" sometime in the 1990s. We can't stop the Artic ice cap from melting now; it's already inevitable. All we can hope to do is minimize the damage it causes.

Of course global warming is accelerating. As the sea ice in the Artic melts, the amout of sunlight reflected back into space drops, because water is darker than ice and absorbs more of the sunlight striking it. This causes the temperature to rise, causing the ice to melt further. Past a certain point, this nice little feedback loop outweighs all of the factors that have caused the Artic to stay cold for so long, and you get runaway warming.

The unfortunate part of all this is that we passed that "certain point" sometime in the 1990s. We can't stop the Artic ice cap from melting now; it's already inevitable. All we can hope to do is minimize the damage it causes.I would like to see a source for that...

I would like to see a source for that...
Laerod, I remember an episode of Talk of the Nation Science Friday on NPR where climate experts said that even if we stopped all production of greenhouse gases right now - reduced emissions to zero - the planet would continue to warm for the next thousand years or so.

This was evidently a conclusion drawn at an international conference the experts attended.

I'll look around to see which one, and try to post a link.

Laerod, I remember an episode of Talk of the Nation Science Friday on NPR where climate experts said that even if we stopped all production of greenhouse gases right now - reduced emissions to zero - the planet would continue to warm for the next thousand years or so.

This was evidently a conclusion drawn at an international conference the experts attended.

I'll look around to see which one, and try to post a link.The current calculations of scenarios that I've started this discussion about comes to the conclusion that temperatures will rise, at worst 4 degrees if there's nothing done against it.
(Likewise, global warming isn't the only problem emissions are causing. The ocean absorbs a hefty amount, and it's been so much that signs of acidification are showing.)

The current calculations of scenarios that I've started this discussion about comes to the conclusion that temperatures will rise, at worst 4 degrees if there's nothing done against it.
(Likewise, global warming isn't the only problem emissions are causing. The ocean absorbs a hefty amount, and it's been so much that signs of acidification are showing.)

My personal assumption is that there is already an excess of greenhouse gases in the air. So, even if we add no more - even if we stop adding more now - the current excess will still allow for warming to continue.

Of course, adding more means more warming, too.

Have you seen the interesting data from sulfur dioxide emission patterns over the US and Europe?

Acid rain is one thing. But the SO2 in the air radically lowers air temps in certain areas of the world (downwind plumes from coal fired plants for thousands of miles). So you have an interesting localized countereffect.

My personal assumption is that there is already an excess of greenhouse gases in the air. So, even if we add no more - even if we stop adding more now - the current excess will still allow for warming to continue.

Of course, adding more means more warming, too.

Have you seen the interesting data from sulfur dioxide emission patterns over the US and Europe?

Acid rain is one thing. But the SO2 in the air radically lowers air temps in certain areas of the world (downwind plumes from coal fired plants for thousands of miles). So you have an interesting localized countereffect.Well, as the study concluded, if things go worst case (China, India, US not curbing anything) then we'll probably have 2-4 degrees more to live with, which technically isn't much. One of the big conclusions of the study was that it's not too late yet.

Nah, I haven't seen that data.

What scares me most about the emissions is the possibility that our oceans could be devoid of life due to the acidification... :(

Well, as the study concluded, if things go worst case (China, India, US not curbing anything) then we'll probably have 2-4 degrees more to live with, which technically isn't much. One of the big conclusions of the study was that it's not too late yet.

Nah, I haven't seen that data.

What scares me most about the emissions is the possibility that our oceans could be devoid of life due to the acidification... :(

I honestly believe that nature has its way of working these things out. The bird flu might just do it.

I honestly believe that nature has its way of working these things out. The bird flu might just do it.That's not too rosy a picture either...
Anyway, I gotta go eat something, so don't be surprised when I don't respond anymore ;)

I'm not that pessimistic. The Earth was much warmer during the Neolithic (you can't blame industrialization for that) and we did well. More carbonic gas actually means better conditions for plant life and agriculture :D

Climate is constantly changing, so I don't see what's the point of being so alarmist.

"We can't assess the future, nor can we predict it. These are euphemisms. We can only guess. An informed guess is just a guess."

"Banning DDT killed more people than Hitler.."

-Michael Crichton, from his novel "State of Fear."

"Energy sources that can produce 100 to 300% of present world power consumption without greenhouse emmissions do not exist."

-Martin Hoffert, et al. Science 298

Global warming started around 1850. Wake up folks and go get educated. If you get your information from the media, politicians, or enviromentalists then you are horribly misled.

:sniper:

The Earth was much warmer during the Neolithic

no, not so much

If you get your information from the media, politicians, or enviromentalists then you are horribly misled.

:sniper:

which is why we should get our information from michael "psychic spoon-bending" crichton

"We can't assess the future, nor can we predict it. These are euphemisms. We can only guess. An informed guess is just a guess."

"Banning DDT killed more people than Hitler.."

-Michael Crichton, from his novel "State of Fear."

"Energy sources that can produce 100 to 300% of present world power consumption without greenhouse emmissions do not exist."

-Martin Hoffert, et al. Science 298

Global warming started around 1850. :sniper:

Interesting. Industrialization and thus large-scale greenhouse gas emissions started when, roughly? 1850. Yeah.

So, you've got on one hand Michael Crichton, whose book has been discredited by...well, just about any serious scientist (I know, there are exceptions. That's why I say "just about any") in related fields. (There's a reason it's called science fiction) On the other hand, you've got a guy saying that we don't currently have a green energy source that can meet our power needs. How does that have anything to do with the debate about whether climate change is occurring? To me, all that implies is that we need to work harder at developing clean energy.

That's still possible, believe it or not. If you've seen The Day After Tomorrow, most of the science in that is accurate - it just wouldn't happen quite that fast.

Actually, most scientists have denounced that movie as scientifically inaccurate. Even Meteorologists didn't buy into that scenerio.

I'm not that pessimistic. The Earth was much warmer during the Neolithic (you can't blame industrialization for that) and we did well. More carbonic gas actually means better conditions for plant life and agriculture :D

Climate is constantly changing, so I don't see what's the point of being so alarmist.

It gives them something to yell about. Fortunately for the world, the more rational people aren't buying their crap.

no, not so much

6000 years ago it was 2.5ºC warmer than today. And 2.5ºC is a lot.

6000 years ago it was 2.5ºC warmer than today. And 2.5ºC is a lot.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/holocene.html

"there is no evidence to show that the average annual mid-Holocene temperature was warmer than today's temperatures... the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today, but only in summer and only in the northern hemisphere."

Actually, most scientists have denounced that movie as scientifically inaccurate. Even Meteorologists didn't buy into that scenerio.
Actually, most scientists denounce that movie as scientifically inaccurate in its time scale but perfectly feasible over a longer period.

Anyone who isn't concerned about the current state of the environment, including climate change is a niave fool who needs to stop listening to the US government and media, and start listening to everyone else in the world who is worried about the damage human beings have done to our planet. All independent research and most credible scientists are in agreement on this issue, to ignore them and listen only to the "results" turned up by groups funded by Exon Mobil is rediculous!

Like it or not, the climate is changing at a rate like never before due to our interference. Yes there is a natural process, anyone who denies that is an idiot, but because it is happening so rapidly we are in real danger of seeing serious damage to the world in the next 100 years. Humans will probably be fine, apart from homes being destroyed by increasingly damaging storms and floods and the potential for an ice age over much of Europe. But what about marine life that can't cope with the oceans heating up by 4 degrees over a such a short period? Evolution is a gradual process, most life on this planet cannot evolve quickly enough to survive what could potentially happen.

For those who don't give a damn about other species, only ours (or more likely, only their own life), what about the serious health risks? Increased amounts of asthma and allergy sufferers due to pollution, many cancers are thought to be caused by chemicals and pollutants. The devastation caused by severe weather conditions is ruining lives (the frequency of hurricanes has increased by 56% since 1990, coincidence?).

Anyway, that's my tuppence worth.

Actually, most scientists denounce that movie as scientifically inaccurate in its time scale but perfectly feasible over a longer period.

Anyone who isn't concerned about the current state of the environment, including climate change is a niave fool who needs to stop listening to the US government and media, and start listening to everyone else in the world who is worried about the damage human beings have done to our planet. All independent research and most credible scientists are in agreement on this issue, to ignore them and listen only to the "results" turned up by groups funded by Exon Mobil is rediculous!

Like it or not, the climate is changing at a rate like never before due to our interference. Yes there is a natural process, anyone who denies that is an idiot, but because it is happening so rapidly we are in real danger of seeing serious damage to the world in the next 100 years. Humans will probably be fine, apart from homes being destroyed by increasingly damaging storms and floods and the potential for an ice age over much of Europe. But what about marine life that can't cope with the oceans heating up by 4 degrees over a such a short period? Evolution is a gradual process, most life on this planet cannot evolve quickly enough to survive what could potentially happen.

For those who don't give a damn about other species, only ours (or more likely, only their own life), what about the serious health risks? Increased amounts of asthma and allergy sufferers due to pollution, many cancers are thought to be caused by chemicals and pollutants. The devastation caused by severe weather conditions is ruining lives (the frequency of hurricanes has increased by 56% since 1990, coincidence?).

Anyway, that's my tuppence worth.


Is anyone out there pro-pollution?

Why would anyone be pro-pollution? Let's see--corporations are pro-pollution because fewer living customers=more profits? Politicians are pro-pollution because fewer living voters=political success?

OK, so we are all in favor of clean water and air to breathe.

Now, how can we affect global climate change? And are we so certain of our theory that we are willing to risk the entire planet to see if it is correct? What if whatever solutions are proposed to mitigate the damages actually increase the rate of warming?

Is this going to be like a sci-fi movie where the vast majority of scientists are wrong, and the lone maverick has it right? And in real life, the lone maverick dies alone, lonely, with everyone laughing at his ideas, even if they are correct... :(

I personally think global warming is a hoax concocted by radical doom-crying worryworts.

Is anyone out there pro-pollution?

Why would anyone be pro-pollution? Let's see--corporations are pro-pollution because fewer living customers=more profits? Politicians are pro-pollution because fewer living voters=political success?

OK, so we are all in favor of clean water and air to breathe.

actually, corporations are interested in profit. and in the short term, without some sort of overarching system, one of the better ways to maintain or increase profits is to not increase costs by installing cleaner technologies or properly disposing of waste. as for the politicians, a good percent of them in america are of the "don't bother, jeebus is coming" school of 'thought'. and elsewhere, they are tied in with the short term interests of the corporations.

Now, how can we affect global climate change?

by pumping out far more greenhouse gasses than can be taken up by natural carbon sinks (other than the atmosphere itself) in a given year, and doing it year after year at an accelerating pace.

And are we so certain of our theory that we are willing to risk the entire planet to see if it is correct? What if whatever solutions are proposed to mitigate the damages actually increase the rate of warming?

Is this going to be like a sci-fi movie where the vast majority of scientists are wrong, and the lone maverick has it right? And in real life, the lone maverick dies alone, lonely, with everyone laughing at his ideas, even if they are correct... :(

my god, you're right! we'd better not reduce our impact on the environment at all. instead we should pump out even more of this crap and hope for the best. that'll show those scientists and their damned peer-reviewed research and facts and knowledge.

I personally think global warming is a hoax concocted by radical doom-crying worryworts

...who have infiltrated every aspect of the scientific community, except for the segment that is paid by the polluters and hasn't published any relevant research in peer-reviewed science journals in over a decade.

Is this going to be like a sci-fi movie where the vast majority of scientists are wrong, and the lone maverick has it right? And in real life, the lone maverick dies alone, lonely, with everyone laughing at his ideas, even if they are correct... :(

Ruloah makes a good point. We should all be doing our best not to romanticise the situation.

...who have infiltrated every aspect of the scientific community, except for the segment that is paid by the polluters and hasn't published any relevant research in peer-reviewed science journals in over a decade.

Reality is biased in favour of the Scientific community. Without their research they haven't got a leg to stand on.

Reality is biased in favour of the Scientific community. Without their research they haven't got a leg to stand on.

i tell you man, the whole fucking universe has got a liberal bias.



which is why it must be destroyed

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/holocene.html

"there is no evidence to show that the average annual mid-Holocene temperature was warmer than today's temperatures... the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today, but only in summer and only in the northern hemisphere."

That's not the point. Before that period the earth was much colder, so don't tell me that warming was caused by industrialization... :p

I'm not that pessimistic. The Earth was much warmer during the Neolithic (you can't blame industrialization for that) and we did well. More carbonic gas actually means better conditions for plant life and agriculture :D

Climate is constantly changing, so I don't see what's the point of being so alarmist.

A warming or cooling of 2C or so is not uncommon over a period of 10,000 years or so. A warming of 4C or more over 100 years is extremely uncommon and just happens to coincide with the tripling of CO2 levels in the atmosphere. hmm i wonder......

That's not the point. Before that period the earth was much colder, so don't tell me that warming was caused by industrialization... :p

not all climate change has the same cause. so what? if we look at the various natural agents of climate forcing, then we should be seeing an slight decrease in global temperature. add in the anthropogenic forcing and the models fit with the observed increase.

Is anyone out there pro-pollution?

Why would anyone be pro-pollution? Let's see--corporations are pro-pollution because fewer living customers=more profits? Politicians are pro-pollution because fewer living voters=political success?
No, I doubt anyone is pro-pollution, even huge corporations aren't doing damage on purpose because it's just so damn fun, it is just an unfortunate side-effect of making their huge profits (which come way before environmental concerns).

But I never implied that anyone is pro-pollution, maybe you misread my original post. I suggested that people who don't believe the research on climate change, who stick their heads in the sand thinking it's all natural so why should anyone care, are niave and silly! And don't try to tell me there is no one in the world with that attitude, I've seen a fair few posts on this forum to that effect for starters, never mind all the muppets I spoke to while working as a fundraiser for Greenpeace!

interesting fact about the ice age (were still in one :eek: )

look at the "ice age" and "choke!" scenarios for some weird facts (also give booom! A look because its quite scary)

http://www.exitmundi.nl/exitmundi.htm

A warming or cooling of 2C or so is not uncommon over a period of 10,000 years or so. A warming of 4C or more over 100 years is extremely uncommon and just happens to coincide with the tripling of CO2 levels in the atmosphere. hmm i wonder......

In the last 100 years the global temperature did NOT increase 4ºC! From 1850 until 1990 there was an increase of 0.6ºC (P. D. Jones).

I must add that for the 1960-1990 period it was predicted that the temperature would raise between +0.5ºC and +1.7ºC. It turned out to be an increase of only 0.1ºC...

It's not scientifically proven that the planet is getting warmer. It may be, but right now what we have are signs, not irrefutable evidence.

not all climate change has the same cause. so what? if we look at the various natural agents of climate forcing, then we should be seeing an slight decrease in global temperature. add in the anthropogenic forcing and the models fit with the observed increase.

If there is an actual global change, it is likely that mankind has had some influence on it, but we should go further in the study of that issue so that we can say exactly how much of it is our responsability. To make premature alarmist statements is no good for mankind.

Can anyone explain to me why I should give a shit about this? I only have about 50-60 years left to live tops, so why is this my problem?

Fuck it I say.

Can anyone explain to me why I should give a shit about this? I only have about 50-60 years left to live tops, so why is this my problem?

Fuck it I say.

Why do you feel that you shouldn't give a shit? It may be your problem too (and everyone else's btw). The world isn't over after you die...

Why do you feel that you shouldn't give a shit? It may be your problem too (and everyone else's btw). The world isn't over after you die...

It's over for me. Frankly, this is just not my problem.

If there is an actual global change, it is likely that mankind has had some influence on it, but we should go further in the study of that issue so that we can say exactly how much of it is our responsability. To make premature alarmist statements is no good for mankind.

so did you like just find out about anthropogenic climate change? because you appear to be several excuses behind the pack. i'll save us some time.

i show evidence from the ipcc and from a survey of peer-reviewed journal articles that shows that there is an solid consensus between climatologists who actually publish research that a significant amount of climate change is anthropogenic and that natural forcing is actually cooling things down currently.

you say, "ok, but human-caused global warming will be a good thing."

i show evidence saying showing that, no, no it won't be.

you say "ok, but fixing it will cost too much."

i show you the papers that say that really, it won't, and that it would be good to change a number of things anyway, even without the climate change factor.

and you say "ok, but it's too late now so we'll just have to deal and hope that science will save us."

and i'll say "arrrgh, that's what science has been trying to do for over a decade while you were wasting time."

and that brings us up to the debate at present.

so did you like just find out about anthropogenic climate change? because you appear to be several excuses behind the pack. i'll save us some time.

i show evidence from the ipcc and from a survey of peer-reviewed journal articles that shows that there is an solid consensus between climatologists who actually publish research that a significant amount of climate change is anthropogenic and that natural forcing is actually cooling things down currently.

you say, "ok, but human-caused global warming will be a good thing."

i show evidence saying showing that, no, no it won't be.

you say "ok, but fixing it will cost too much."

i show you the papers that say that really, it won't, and that it would be good to change a number of things anyway, even without the climate change factor.

and you say "ok, but it's too late now so we'll just have to deal and hope that science will save us."

and i'll say "arrrgh, that's what science has been trying to do for over a decade while you were wasting time."

and that brings us up to the debate at present.

You show me no evidence. All you show me is studies.

I know firsthand that there is not a consensus around that matter as I study in that field myself. All I'm saying is that nowadays we don't have enough technical rigour to make any clear prediction about climate change.

Unlike you, i don't pretend to hold the absolute truth. More research and technical improvement needs to be done in that field. One day we'll get there :D

I also find it very amusing that you put a lot of words in my mouth (e.g. "ok, but fixing it will cost too much."). Did you really need to do that? Besides, all I'm trying to have here is a heatlhy talk about an interesting and controversial issue, and not the "my sources are more valuable than yours" kind of talk. ;)

It's over for me. Frankly, this is just not my problem.
What exacly makes you think that it's not your problem?

I also find it very amusing that you put a lot of words in my mouth (e.g. "ok, but fixing it will cost too much."). Did you really need to do that? Besides, all I'm trying to have here is a heatlhy talk about an interesting and controversial issue, and not the "my sources are more valuable than yours" kind of talk. ;)

That's asking alot from Free Soviets. He loves to play my sources are better than yours game.

As for Global Warming, its a natural occurance. Then it'll switch and the world will start hollering about Global Cooling.

Frankly, I'm not buying the alarmist theories till more research is done and we have investigated it more thoroughly.

That's asking alot from Free Soviets. He loves to play my sources are better than yours game.

As for Global Warming, its a natural occurance. Then it'll switch and the world will start hollering about Global Cooling.

Frankly, I'm not buying the alarmist theories till more research is done and we have investigated it more thoroughly.

It's too early to say that it's just a natural occurence as well. Humans do produce some gases that may be having an effect on climate change, although not to the extent advocated by environmentalists. As a matter of fact, I'd like to see them worrying more about the people for a change (e.g. poverty, the outrageous violations of human rights, and so on). But they are mostly whining about climate change and trees. Of course that's important too, but they should look to their fellow humans first.

What exacly makes you think that it's not your problem?

Because all the really bad stuff is going to happen after I am dead. Thus it is not a problem for me, and therefore it is not my problem. Simple really.

So you tell me, why should I care.

Because all the really bad stuff is going to happen after I am dead. Thus it is not a problem for me, and therefore it is not my problem. Simple really.

So you tell me, why should I care.

Because, some people will still be living here after you die... Because, you don't live alone... Because, you can't be truly indifferent to the opportunities and threats of the future... and so on. Everyone has their impact on the world, so why not make it a positive one?

Well, why am I writing this anyway? Can't force you to care for others.

Because, some people will still be living here after you die... Because, you don't live alone... Because, you can't be truly indifferent to the opportunities and threats of the future... and so on. Everyone has their impact on the world, so why not make it a positive one?

Well, why am I writing this anyway? Can't force you to care for others.

Check this out. Inevitably, the earth, and all life as we know it will end. Yet I am also remarkably indifferent about that too.

Look, you want to go "save the future" I am not going to stop you. But at the moment, all the plans I see, somehow involve me as well, and that is just bang out of order.

In the last 100 years the global temperature did NOT increase 4ºC! From 1850 until 1990 there was an increase of 0.6ºC (P. D. Jones).

I must add that for the 1960-1990 period it was predicted that the temperature would raise between +0.5ºC and +1.7ºC. It turned out to be an increase of only 0.1ºC...

It's not scientifically proven that the planet is getting warmer. It may be, but right now what we have are signs, not irrefutable evidence.

No no....I am talking about 2000-2100

I doubt if anyone predicted a 0.5 to 1.7C raise between 60-90. No one even thought about it until the 80's if that.

Oh, it makes me laugh.

I mean, saying "Hey, look! The Earth was warmer and colder before, therefore all climate change is natural." is just plain stupid. Sorry, can't put it any other way.

Just because global warming and a runaway greenhouse effect happened naturally on Venus does not mean that every occurence of global warming is natural. That's akin to saying that since men die naturally, all deaths are natural. Gee, I guess murder doesn't exist, huh?

Okay, yes, the Earth seems to be in a natural warming phase. Also, though, we know that man produces greenhouse gasses, soot, and toxins. The fact that we are in a natural warming stage makes us even more vulnerable to anything that can add to that warming. Therefore, pollution in a natural warming stage is even more dangerous.

No no....I am talking about 2000-2100

I doubt if anyone predicted a 0.5 to 1.7C raise between 60-90. No one even thought about it until the 80's if that.

You're wrong :rolleyes: Scholars and investigators did think about it back then. Just because it wasn't on the media you can't say there was no-one thinking about it.

You're wrong :rolleyes: Scholars and investigators did think about it back then. Just because it wasn't on the media you can't say there was no-one thinking about it.

Lets see the article then....

Lets see the article then....
I'd show you all my university books if could. I've been studying on that area for years, so don't turn this into an "article talk", unless you want to show YOUR article proving that there was no investigation back then... :p Let's see it :D

Once again, I'm not trying to say that global warming is a hoax. I'm just saying it's not as bad as most environmentalists and the media portray it.

I am studying to be a meterologist and maybe after that I will be a climatologist

I am studying to be a meterologist and maybe after that I will be a climatologist

I was studying to be a meteorologist and several of my friends are studying and one of them is a meteorologist.

I love meteorology. To bad I really can't do the math that well :(

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/669DA83D-AA88-4426-BB8B-76D0928B0A51.htm

Global warming, yeah.

I was studying to be a meteorologist and several of my friends are studying and one of them is a meteorologist.

I love meteorology. To bad I really can't do the math that well :(
haha, same here. I haven't actually done any offical meterology courses, but the calculus and physics is already a killer. Oh well :)

haha, same here. I haven't actually done any offical meterology courses, but the calculus and physics is already a killer. Oh well :)

HAHA! It gets most people. There is a high drop out rate for students studying Meteorology.

I am studying to be a meterologist and maybe after that I will be a climatologist

Climatology is great. Maybe we'll be colleagues :)

HAHA! It gets most people. There is a high drop out rate for students studying Meteorology.
It has'nt got to me yet....but after another year or two I could so frustrated i'll end up in easy History classes!

Climatology is great. Maybe we'll be colleagues Who knows? Maybe! :) If I get that far, maybe i will stop at meterology for a bit and pay some of my student debt( which will be astronomical by the time i graduate!)

It has'nt got to me yet....but after another year or two I could so frustrated i'll end up in easy History classes!

HAHA! Because I dropped Meteorology, I'm now getting a duel major in Political Science and in History.

HAHA! Because I dropped Meteorology, I'm now getting a duel major in Political Science and in History.
Both of those majors would be interesting to me!

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/669DA83D-AA88-4426-BB8B-76D0928B0A51.htm

Global warming, yeah.
Crazy isn't it? Snow in Dubai, what next? The Arctic and Siberian ice sheets have already melted/begun melting. When people choose to ignore the radical weather, when they say there won't be any damage until after they die so it isn't their problem, I have to just sit back and roll my eyes. It'll be interesting to see their faces when it's their region of the world being hit by freak weather conditions, or being submerged by rising sea levels (hello, the Maldives will be completely submerged within 50 years, for the locals it is a very real problem within their lifetime, but loosers who don't give a damn about anyone but themselves aren't going to care about the Maldivians anyway, they probably had a good old chuckle over the tsunami last year.)

I know most people know this, but just a reminder of what the melting of the polar ice cap means for Europe (again though, if you don't live in Europe and don't care about the millions of people who do, this won't bother you): http://www.bbc.co.uk/climate/impact/gulf_stream.shtml

Not everyone realises that Global Warming is a confusing title, which is why I prefer to say Climate Change.

Okay, I’m an Undergraduate studying Earth Science at Glasgow University, which has major interests in global climate variations, now I have a few things to say on this subject.

In regards to Global Warming occurring faster than before, what a load of pants, he is basing his calculations over a short term model, which, of course has basis in human terms, however it means absolutely squat in Geological terms which needs to base its data over thousands of years, often in millions.

The planet warming by four degrees is highly unlikely within the next few decades. I do not deny that human influence can, and may be altering the climate, however the only main evidence for it, is overwhelming public opinion, in truth, scientists have absolutely no solid foundations. Only observations on events over the past fifty years at most.

In truth our climate varies naturally, here is a graph from the Ocean and Climate Change Institute, that has compiled a climate change line chart, over the past Seventeen Thousand Years.

http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/images/occi_abrclimate_wef_en4.gif

This graph is, of course a slight generalisation, however it shows very large alterations in the climate over Greenland.

Our planet, is and I cannot emphasise this enough, a dynamic world, with a climate at current too cold. The real danger is, that the planet falls into runaway icing, like the past few Ice Ages, but anyway back onto my main point.

The graph above, shows, that this planets climate varies naturally, and can vary quite significantly. Now this can be due to the Earths orbit, tilt and precession in regards to the sun, as well as carbon dioxide amounts in the atmosphere, which can easily be changed by large geological events.

However, the Earths orbit would demand that climate change takes place at specific intervals, which it does not, shown by the labelled mini Ice Age. In truth, the scientific community has contrasting and contesting theories each one going for the current changes in climate and against.

As for the Arctic Ice shrinking, this theory is one of the most short ranging ones I’ve ever seen. The Arctic Ice is shrinking in surface area, but it has only done so over the past four years significantly, which is nothing to base a doomsday scenario off of. We do not know, the thickness of the Arctic Ice, which could easily compensate for the loss in surface area, nor has anyone referenced the record build up of Ice around the Canadian Arctic peninsula.

In truth people, ice is disappearing and growing all around our planet, shown in the retreat of some European Glaciers, and the record growth in American ones.

To sum up, this theory, I have to say its conclusions are unlikely and have a large magnitude for error.

The meteorologists can't accurately predict the weather in my area three days from now and you expect me to believe they know what will happen to the global climate 40 years from now? You do realize that 20-30 years ago they were predicting a slide into the next mini ice-age.
Too True!!!!!!!!! I would like to see exactly what they are using for data! Most of these models have continually ignored the hundred year trends and often even the ten year trends.

No climate change eh?

Arctic ice shrinking
Large ice sheets breaking off the Antarctic
Increasing El Nino events
Record size Ozone layers
Higher rate of iceberg formations
Pacific islands disappearing from rising water levels
Increased melt-off in the Himalayas

Okay, I’m an Undergraduate studying Earth Science at Glasgow University, which has major interests in global climate variations, now I have a few things to say on this subject.

In regards to Global Warming occurring faster than before, what a load of pants, he is basing his calculations over a short term model, which, of course has basis in human terms, however it means absolutely squat in Geological terms which needs to base its data over thousands of years, often in millions.

The planet warming by four degrees is highly unlikely within the next few decades. I do not deny that human influence can, and may be altering the climate, however the only main evidence for it, is overwhelming public opinion, in truth, scientists have absolutely no solid foundations. Only observations on events over the past fifty years at most.

In truth our climate varies naturally, here is a graph from the Ocean and Climate Change Institute, that has compiled a climate change line chart, over the past Seventeen Thousand Years.

http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/images/occi_abrclimate_wef_en4.gif

This graph is, of course a slight generalisation, however it shows very large alterations in the climate over Greenland.

Our planet, is and I cannot emphasise this enough, a dynamic world, with a climate at current too cold. The real danger is, that the planet falls into runaway icing, like the past few Ice Ages, but anyway back onto my main point.

The graph above, shows, that this planets climate varies naturally, and can vary quite significantly. Now this can be due to the Earths orbit, tilt and precession in regards to the sun, as well as carbon dioxide amounts in the atmosphere, which can easily be changed by large geological events.

However, the Earths orbit would demand that climate change takes place at specific intervals, which it does not, shown by the labelled mini Ice Age. In truth, the scientific community has contrasting and contesting theories each one going for the current changes in climate and against.

As for the Arctic Ice shrinking, this theory is one of the most short ranging ones I’ve ever seen. The Arctic Ice is shrinking in surface area, but it has only done so over the past four years significantly, which is nothing to base a doomsday scenario off of. We do not know, the thickness of the Arctic Ice, which could easily compensate for the loss in surface area, nor has anyone referenced the record build up of Ice around the Canadian Arctic peninsula.

In truth people, ice is disappearing and growing all around our planet, shown in the retreat of some European Glaciers, and the record growth in American ones.

To sum up, this theory, I have to say its conclusions are unlikely and have a large magnitude for error.

Well said Unified Sith. To bad people on here will ignore it because it doesn't match their doom and gloom approach.

Thanks.

It's not just the Arctic melting faster than normal

http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=4098&method=full

Himalayan glaciers are going too.

Personally i must agree with Jeruselem, and add the the list with hurricane Catarina which struck southern brazil in March 2004, the first and only hurricane recorded in the south atalntic where they are suppost to not be able to form. Something to do with us, or natural process? i prefere natural process accelerated by us.

I'll just poke my head in and say that it would have been cool if this thread had been incorporated into the "Global Warming" thread of just this past week.
I may or may not post articles on it.

"Banning DDT killed more people than Hitler.."

-Michael Crichton, from his novel "State of Fear."


Global warming started around 1850. Wake up folks and go get educated. If you get your information from the media, politicians, or enviromentalists then you are horribly misled.

:sniper:
Yes, but getting your information from NOVELISTS is the right way to go - especially ones who are publicly "Intelligent-Design" proponents.
:rolleyes:

which is why we should get our information from michael "psychic spoon-bending" crichton
Seconded, and thirded, apparently.

Is anyone out there pro-pollution?


Bush apparently is - see Rolling Stone's article "Polluter's Feast"
Or, I'll reprint it. Y'all's choice.

<snip>
So, what's your point? All of our problems will be solved once the US signs the Kyoto Protocol? Let's face it, honey: humanity would need to be wiped off the face of the planet before a dent is made in climate. What damage humans have done is done, and it is irreversable. My advice is to adapt. Buy an air conditioning unit if you're so concerned about it.

So, what's your point? All of our problems will be solved once the US signs the Kyoto Protocol? Let's face it, honey: humanity would need to be wiped off the face of the planet before a dent is made in climate. What damage humans have done is done, and it is irreversable. My advice is to adapt. Buy an air conditioning unit if you're so concerned about it.

what's done is done, but we can still change what we're doing so that we DON'T KEEP DOING THE SAME DUMB CRAP!

Otherwise our children's AC will turn into our grandchildren's radiation suit and our great grandchildren's exodus from this planet.

what's done is done, but we can still change what we're doing so that we DON'T KEEP DOING THE SAME DUMB CRAP!

Otherwise our children's AC will turn into our grandchildren's radiation suit and our great grandchildren's exodus from this planet.
Even if that horror story you painted did happen, well, at least they have another planet to go to. But it won't, for humanity can adapt. Global warming, for example, doesn't sound bad to a Siberian peasant who can't grow food under layers of permafrost. Besides, if there is a genuine backlash against this little episode, there's always climate modification people can adopt.

Even if that horror story you painted did happen, well, at least they have another planet to go to. But it won't, for humanity can adapt. Global warming, for example, doesn't sound bad to a Siberian peasant who can't grow food under layers of permafrost. Besides, if there is a genuine backlash against this little episode, there's always climate modification people can adopt.

Global Warming really doesnt mean that everything is going to get warmer. just that climates are going to get more extreme.

Bad news for Buffalo. :(

So, what's your point? All of our problems will be solved once the US signs the Kyoto Protocol? Let's face it, honey: humanity would need to be wiped off the face of the planet before a dent is made in climate. What damage humans have done is done, and it is irreversable. My advice is to adapt. Buy an air conditioning unit if you're so concerned about it.

Air conditioners are heat engines. Their net effect is to warm things up. So that wouldn't exactly help things. :p

Global Warming really doesnt mean that everything is going to get warmer. just that climates are going to get more extreme.

Bad news for Buffalo. :(

Buffalo always has extreme weather so nothing will really change :p

That's what happens when you live on the lake.

Anyway, Lotus? The US DID sign the Kyoto Protocal! It was never ratified by the US Senate! :D

Global Warming really doesnt mean that everything is going to get warmer. just that climates are going to get more extreme.

Bad news for Buffalo. :(
Not really. Buffalo (if we're talking about the same Buffalo) can get its snow in divided doses, and not all at once.

It's over for me. Frankly, this is just not my problem.
Heard of Katrina and Rita?
Pay house insurance?
It's your problem.

You know what would be the best poetic justice? Imagine 50 years from now when oceans have risen and climate change is killing millions of people a year. Enormous habitation capsules big enough to house half the world's population are built.

Then suddenly the past 50 years' media archives emerge exposing the people who had argued that climate change wasn't happening, was nothing to worry about, was something we'd adapt to, blahblah. And guess what: the public is so pissed off at these people's supreme idiocy that they get left outside the capsules.

That would be awesome.

Anyway, Lotus? The US DID sign the Kyoto Protocal! It was never ratified by the US Senate! :D
I thought the Bush Admin. recinded its signature.

Even if that horror story you painted did happen, well, at least they have another planet to go to. But it won't, for humanity can adapt. Global warming, for example, doesn't sound bad to a Siberian peasant who can't grow food under layers of permafrost. Besides, if there is a genuine backlash against this little episode, there's always climate modification people can adopt.

Cleanup is more expensive than prevention. Also, no one is gonna want to be near Siberia when the permafrost melts. Sure, man can adapt. Sure, we can pipe water to places that become deserts. Sure we can build greater and greater protections against weather's fury...but will we in time? Probably not, as recent eventa show all too clearly. Stupid sheeple will continue to look blankly at the evidence before them and still proclaim that the world is flat.

I'm sorry. There are far too many people in the world saying "it's not my problem," or "it can't happen." Cold-hearted fools, all of them.

I mean the whole argument that because the world is going through a natural warming cycle we aren't doing anything to contribute is stupid. How hard is it to realize that natural warming + man's contribution = twice as bad??

I bet you that most of the people who argue against global warming don't even know that air conditioning and refrigerators actually create a net increase in heat.

Cleanup is more expensive than prevention. Also, no one is gonna want to be near Siberia when the permafrost melts. Sure, man can adapt. Sure, we can pipe water to places that become deserts. Sure we can build greater and greater protections against weather's fury...but will we in time? Probably not, as recent eventa show all too clearly. Stupid sheeple will continue to look blankly at the evidence before them and still proclaim that the world is flat.

I'm sorry. There are far too many people in the world saying "it's not my problem," or "it can't happen." Cold-hearted fools, all of them.

I mean the whole argument that because the world is going through a natural warming cycle we aren't doing anything to contribute is stupid. How hard is it to realize that natural warming + man's contribution = twice as bad??

I bet you that most of the people who argue against global warming don't even know that air conditioning and refrigerators actually create a net increase in heat.

And you argue in favour of global warming without even realising that a slight rise in temperature in certain not all, areas of the globe is a natural phenomenon and it does not constitute a doomsday scenario.

People, I just can’t emphasise this enough, you are all being taken on by a mass media hysteria. The planet is in no danger of hitting runaway global warming and the ice caps, especially the Northern polar regions will not melt entirely.

Hell, it even has the Gulf stream salinisaiton point to save it, and oh yes, its own elliptical orbit around the sun. The planet is not about to crash and burn, hell the amount of Carbon Dioxide humans have released is absolutely nothing compared to the Decan Traps volcanic eruption in India.

The planet is contributing to global warming and cooling people, and let us not forget that Carbon Dioxide is one of the most soluble gasses we have, hell most of it is being absorbed by the oceans, which is why the Greenhouse theory is well so debatable. No one honestly knows if the Carbon Dioxide band is growing or shrinking, and because we have some melting of ice over a decade, which is absolutely nothing compared to previous geological events, the media jumps on a band wagon and manipulates public opinion.

Global Warming Facts.

Is Ice Over the planet shrinking :~ No, Ice around the planet is shrinking and growing.

Is the Greenhouse Gas theory functioning today? :~ Well, it depends if you refer to human induced version, if so, then I would have to say that no one honestly knows.

Is the North Pole Melting? :~ The surface area of the North Pole has indeed reduced in size, however we have not taking into account the Ice thickness of the Ice sheet, for all we know it’s grown.

Will the North Pole disappear? :~ In truth, no one truly knows, it could, but then I can safely say that it would come back.

Is man responsible for Global Warming? :~ No one knows. Global Warming happens all the time on Earth, for all we know this could be natural, we just don’t know.

<snip>Have you even bothered reading the Original Post?

The next ice age is ALWAYS next year or never. That's what scientists say. Can anyone explain that?

Anyway...The planet Venus (that's the planet one step closer to the Sun than Earth) is actually 'suffering' from global warming. Now that means one of two things:

1. Global warming is a natural occurance and there is nothing we can do to completely prevent it. All we can do is delay the inevitable (therefore conservation is actually for ourselves and NOT for our children).

OR

2. There is or at least WAS sentient life on Venus.

You forgot option 3:

3. Kelikstadt is incapable of scientific thought.

The fact that Venus has global warming does not mean either 1 or 2 indicates that 3 might be the correct answer.

Heard of Katrina and Rita?
Pay house insurance?
It's your problem.

And neither Hurricane was the result of Global Warming!

I thought the Bush Admin. recinded its signature.

I think that was to the ICC that he did that.

Have you even bothered reading the Original Post?

Have you even bothered to listen to the facts he presented?

Cleanup is more expensive than prevention. Also, no one is gonna want to be near Siberia when the permafrost melts. Sure, man can adapt. Sure, we can pipe water to places that become deserts. Sure we can build greater and greater protections against weather's fury...but will we in time? Probably not, as recent eventa show all too clearly. Stupid sheeple will continue to look blankly at the evidence before them and still proclaim that the world is flat.

I'm sorry. There are far too many people in the world saying "it's not my problem," or "it can't happen." Cold-hearted fools, all of them.

I mean the whole argument that because the world is going through a natural warming cycle we aren't doing anything to contribute is stupid. How hard is it to realize that natural warming + man's contribution = twice as bad??

I bet you that most of the people who argue against global warming don't even know that air conditioning and refrigerators actually create a net increase in heat.
You're a real pessimist on human nature, aren't you? That's why you want to have people take on these global warming countermeasures, because you see it as a release of your desire to see humanity punished.

You're a real pessimist on human nature, aren't you? That's why you want to have people take on these global warming countermeasures, because you see it as a release of your desire to see humanity punished.

No, it's my desire that man NOT BE PUNISHED that makes me want mankind to wake up and smell the climate change. As far as my pessimism about man's nature...well, how often do you see people rise up against something unless it's an immediate and obvious concern? Individuals often do, but it's nearly impossible to get a whole group moving.

I say this again, because NOT A SINGLE PERSON RESPONDED IN THE OTHER GLOBAL WARMING THREAD:

Is there a single peer-reviewed scientific paper attacking man-influenced climate change that wasn't funded by people (big oil) whose short term self-interest lies with not paying the cost of getting their pollution under control?

I'm waiting.

With the current data available, basically you have to put your faith in the fact that big-oil purchased studies are looking out for you, but that environmentalists and the gross majority of the scientific community are purely people who hate man and business for no good reason.

No, it's my desire that man NOT BE PUNISHED that makes me want mankind to wake up and smell the climate change. As far as my pessimism about man's nature...well, how often do you see people rise up against something unless it's an immediate and obvious concern? Individuals often do, but it's nearly impossible to get a whole group moving.
Humans as a whole don't need to respond to respond. Individuals do, and that's the beauty of the society we've built: individuals have power. These constant checks and balances is why I am optimistic humans can adapt, and maybe even make money off "slowing" climate change. I put that in quotation marks to reflect my belief that it can't be stopped, anyhow.

Is there a single peer-reviewed scientific paper attacking man-influenced climate change that wasn't funded by people (big oil) whose short term self-interest lies with not paying the cost of getting their pollution under control?

This probably isn't directed at me, but I'll reply. It doesn't matter either way. Scientists offer raw data, not interpret it. It's up to individuals to make of it what they wish. And that's why I fear for meteorologists and climate scientists for these next few decades, because the field is so politicized that it is compromising their integrety. Then again, it has been like that for every environmental issue since the first anti-Earth day.

And you argue in favour of global warming without even realising that a slight rise in temperature in certain not all, areas of the globe is a natural phenomenon and it does not constitute a doomsday scenario.

doomsday is a little extreme, and I admit that I ventured into hyperbole. The thing is that if the gross majority of the scientific community are right, then climate change will merely make us uncomfortable, less safe, and in need of spending countless amounts of money merely to maintain what we have where we have it.

People, I just can’t emphasise this enough, you are all being taken on by a mass media hysteria. The planet is in no danger of hitting runaway global warming and the ice caps, especially the Northern polar regions will not melt entirely.

The mass media is trying to scare you about global warming! eeeeeeek! Their plabn is simple. 1. scare the people. 2. ? 3. Profit. Simple, really. Nothing to see here, people.

Hell, it even has the Gulf stream salinisaiton point to save it, and oh yes, its own elliptical orbit around the sun. The planet is not about to crash and burn, hell the amount of Carbon Dioxide humans have released is absolutely nothing compared to the Decan Traps volcanic eruption in India.

Imagine, if you will, a giant scale with a ton on each side. It only takes a pound to tip it one way or another. Due to natural warming, the scale is already tipped. Man adding just a bit makes it worse and accelerates it.

The planet is contributing to global warming and cooling people, and let us not forget that Carbon Dioxide is one of the most soluble gasses we have, hell most of it is being absorbed by the oceans, which is why the Greenhouse theory is well so debatable. No one honestly knows if the Carbon Dioxide band is growing or shrinking, and because we have some melting of ice over a decade, which is absolutely nothing compared to previous geological events, the media jumps on a band wagon and manipulates public opinion.

Previous geological events took place in geological time. Change is happening much faster now.

Global Warming Facts.

Is Ice Over the planet shrinking :~ No, Ice around the planet is shrinking and growing.

True, but overall, the ice is shrinking in both the north and the south.

Is the Greenhouse Gas theory functioning today? :~ Well, it depends if you refer to human induced version, if so, then I would have to say that no one honestly knows.

No one knows. Except, of course, the gross majority of the scientific community.

Is the North Pole Melting? :~ The surface area of the North Pole has indeed reduced in size, however we have not taking into account the Ice thickness of the Ice sheet, for all we know it’s grown.

Translation: We don't know, so taking precautions is stupid.

Will the North Pole disappear? :~ In truth, no one truly knows, it could, but then I can safely say that it would come back.

No one knows...or at least this guy doesn't. Nothing to see here people. Move along.

Is man responsible for Global Warming? :~ No one knows. Global Warming happens all the time on Earth, for all we know this could be natural, we just don’t know.

No one knows...so it isn't happening...so there. Nyah. The thing is, the gross majority of the scientific community does know. Yes, global warming and cooling does takes place naturally. Let me ask you this, though. Does natural warming make the world impervious to additional warming, or since the balance is already tipped does natural warming actually make the world less likely to be able to stabilize the additional warming man is causing?

This probably isn't directed at me, but I'll reply. It doesn't matter either way. Scientists offer raw data, not interpret it. It's up to individuals to make of it what they wish. And that's why I fear for meteorologists and climate scientists for these next few decades, because the field is so politicized that it is compromising their integrety. Then again, it has been like that for every environmental issue since the first anti-Earth day.

It's been politicized by people on one side (environmentalists and the gross majority of the scientific community,) being sick and tired of man crapping where he eats, and the other side (big business concerns, mostly,) spending exhorbitant sums to fund scientifically questionable studies and fill the coffers of political candidates who will side with them instead of spending that money responsibly in cutting their own emissions.

Do you like mercury in your fish? Do you like more energetic climate patterns? Due you like massive amounts spent on cleanup that comes out of our (taxpayers) pockets instead of much more modest amounts spent on prevention?

Do you like mercury in your fish? Do you like more energetic climate patterns? Due you like massive amounts spent on cleanup that comes out of our (taxpayers) pockets instead of much more modest amounts spent on prevention?
You illustrate the danger of such a contrived solution on a society-wide scale for a long term and intagible event. I believe it to be far more productive to wait and see what happens, and let individuals develop independent solutions. Your ideas would lead to no room for innovation at the grass roots level, and what innovation there is right now would be stiffled by compromises and group think. For instance, what if climate modification works better than your rosy treaties that the anti-life Greenpeace drafted?

You illustrate the danger of such a contrived solution on a society-wide scale for a long term and intagible event. I believe it to be far more productive to wait and see what happens, and let individuals develop independent solutions. Your ideas would lead to no room for innovation at the grass roots level, and what innovation there is right now would be stiffled by compromises and group think. For instance, what if climate modification works better than your rosy treaties that the anti-life Greenpeace drafted?
Oh my. Wow. That says it all, it really does. You think it is more productive to do nothing than something? Ok, so let's say that the likely scenarios theorised by many scientists are accurate... We follow your plan and continue to increase our dependence on fossil fuels (as is the direction we are heading atm, so do nothing = continue on that path), we make no effort to reduce emissions or plan for any negative events.

Because that's such a great plan. It's a bit like the fifteen year old attitude of "I'm invincible, smoking can't hurt me!" or "I'll never catch an STI, so I won't use condoms." Do you see where I'm going with this? The phrase better safe than sorry springs to mind.

Besides, even if nothing bad will happen to us as a result of our polluting habit, we have a responsibility to other living things on the planet and we ARE harming them with our actions. I understand the mentality that humans come first to other humans, but I have to question anyone who puts the added comfort of an air conditioner or a big car over the possible extinction of a species. We also have a responsibility to future generations (despite the incredibly selfish attitudes of some people) and who is to say that increasing our emissions never will put the human race at risk? Are you willing to bet in favour of pumping as much junk into the atmosphere and seas as possible? If so... well, I leave it to your imagination to guess my response.

As a matter of fact, I'd like to see them worrying more about the people for a change (e.g. poverty, the outrageous violations of human rights, and so on). But they are mostly whining about climate change and trees. Of course that's important too, but they should look to their fellow humans first.
Most people who care about the environment do care about those issues, myself included. Most people who are passionate and generous (i.e. think about other beings rather than just themselves) tend to extend their passion to all life, not just humans, but include all humans in their generosity. And if you truely believe that "they are mostly whining about climate change and trees", well you've never actually spoken to an environmentalist :)

For the record, the causes I care about can all be found in the content of New Internationalist Magazine, I consider this publication, while primarily a human rights magazine, to cover all my areas of interest, including the environment: http://www.newint.org/

A lot of climate change deniers who point to cyclical warming/cooling in the past are missing a couple of points.

One, the sheer range of stuff going on now really has no precedent. The rate of change, atmospheric CO2 content, acidity of oceans, we really are screwing with a lot of stuff in combinations that nature has not done before.

Two, the fact that the climate was in a certain state before, does not grant the following:

- Our civilisation can survive that state
- Our civilisation can survive the discontinuities on the way to that state

As an example, a man can survive being stationary, and being in a state of freefall. That says nothing about his ability to survive the transition. How rate-sensitive is the man? What acceleration or deceleration can he survive? What damage will be inflicted at the dangerous end of the survivable range?

These are the questions that the climate change deniers (only US neo-cons these days) refuse to acknowledge. For practical purposes, it should not matter, except to an ideologue, how much of climate change is attributable to natural processes, and how much is human inputs to the system.

We are falling, we should be trying to determine whether we can survive the impact, and how we can maximise our chances. Political bitching about people who are actually studying the situation only highlights ignorance.

Oh my. Wow. That says it all, it really does. You think it is more productive to do nothing than something? Ok, so let's say that the likely scenarios theorised by many scientists are accurate... We follow your plan and continue to increase our dependence on fossil fuels (as is the direction we are heading atm, so do nothing = continue on that path), we make no effort to reduce emissions or plan for any negative events.

Because that's such a great plan. It's a bit like the fifteen year old attitude of "I'm invincible, smoking can't hurt me!" or "I'll never catch an STI, so I won't use condoms." Do you see where I'm going with this? The phrase better safe than sorry springs to mind.
I am for no action only on a societal level, preffering that individuals do this. That is far more productive for everyone in the long run.
Besides, even if nothing bad will happen to us as a result of our polluting habit, we have a responsibility to other living things on the planet and we ARE harming them with our actions. I understand the mentality that humans come first to other humans, but I have to question anyone who puts the added comfort of an air conditioner or a big car over the possible extinction of a species. We also have a responsibility to future generations (despite the incredibly selfish attitudes of some people) and who is to say that increasing our emissions never will put the human race at risk? Are you willing to bet in favour of pumping as much junk into the atmosphere and seas as possible? If so... well, I leave it to your imagination to guess my response.

On a personal level, I share your concern. I am not keen on pollution, and I'm somewhat of a conservationist. That does not mean that I should support some lobby for the government to allocate land rights, or punish utility firms for a crime they didn't do by slapping on regulations. I prefer the individualist approach that has made things cleaner over the past century.

Have you even bothered to listen to the facts he presented?
Is the Greenhouse Gas theory functioning today? :~ Well, it depends if you refer to human induced version, if so, then I would have to say that no one honestly knows.

Is the North Pole Melting? :~ The surface area of the North Pole has indeed reduced in size, however we have not taking into account the Ice thickness of the Ice sheet, for all we know it’s grown.

Will the North Pole disappear? :~ In truth, no one truly knows, it could, but then I can safely say that it would come back.

Is man responsible for Global Warming? :~ No one knows. Global Warming happens all the time on Earth, for all we know this could be natural, we just don’t know.
Well, Corny, so far, you don't understand the difference between the word "fact" and "ignorance".
The bolded text obviously is not fact. It's ignorance and/or assumption based on the poster's limited access or knowledge of the issue.
Go ahead and challenge again, some of us DO have answers to this.
*poke*

I say this again, because NOT A SINGLE PERSON RESPONDED IN THE OTHER GLOBAL WARMING THREAD:

Is there a single peer-reviewed scientific paper attacking man-influenced climate change that wasn't funded by people (big oil) whose short term self-interest lies with not paying the cost of getting their pollution under control?

I'm waiting.


Seconded.

*bows*
If nothing else, for people who aren't already afiliated with the subject matter (OTHER than political blather), punch up the last Global Warming thread in the Forum Archives. This subject has been covered somewhat extensively.

Have you even bothered to listen to the facts he presented?Bothered listening to mine?
If the head of the MPI-M project that has Europe's most powerful weather computer calculating different scenarios based on a highly complex model that has proven accurate for calculating the climate of the past centuries says that temperatures are rising faster than in the past millions of years, it means global warming is influenced by something that is around today and not back then: Humans.

It is not cyclic.

Bothered listening to mine?
If the head of the MPI-M project that has Europe's most powerful weather computer calculating different scenarios based on a highly complex model that has proven accurate for calculating the climate of the past centuries says that temperatures are rising faster than in the past millions of years, it means global warming is influenced by something that is around today and not back then: Humans.

It is not cyclic.

1. It is cyclic.
2. You're right, it's rising faster than it has in the past - it's just accelerating the cycle.
3. It was far warmer during the Cretaceous Period than it will be 100 years from now. It then got cooler.

These things have a way of working themselves out. Just wait for the next pandemic or world war.

These things have a way of working themselves out. Just wait for the next pandemic or world war.Ever the optimist, eh? :p
Maybe I should add a "purely" to avoid misconceptions...

Bothered listening to mine?
If the head of the MPI-M project that has Europe's most powerful weather computer calculating different scenarios based on a highly complex model that has proven accurate for calculating the climate of the past centuries says that temperatures are rising faster than in the past millions of years, it means global warming is influenced by something that is around today and not back then: Humans.

It is not cyclic.

Notice the bold? That is your problem with your arguement. Its based on Computer models. Even Meteorologists use computer models and they are mostly wrong!

Notice the bold? That is your problem with your arguement. Its based on Computer models. Even Meteorologists use computer models and they are mostly wrong!


You are confusing computer modeling of global trends with computer modeling predicting the exact weather on an exact day. If you can't tell the difference between these entirely different processes, then you have no business arguing in this thread.

You are confusing computer modeling of global trends with computer modeling predicting the exact weather on an exact day. If you can't tell the difference between these entirely different processes, then you have no business arguing in this thread.

Anything based on Computer models is suspect. It doesn't matter the subject the matter.

If you can't figure that out, then you have no business arguing in this thread.

Anything based on Computer models is suspect. It doesn't matter the subject the matter.

If you can't figure that out, then you have no business arguing in this thread.
The infamous hockey stick graph was based on a computer model. That model has also been shown to generate hockey stick shaped graphs with just about any data put into it.

They just don't want to believe that, because it would make something they care very deeply about into something that doesn't need to be too worried about in the first place.

No one likes to admit when they are mistaken.

Anything based on Computer models is suspect. It doesn't matter the subject the matter.

If you can't figure that out, then you have no business arguing in this thread.

Support this.

The infamous hockey stick graph was based on a computer model. That model has also been shown to generate hockey stick shaped graphs with just about any data put into it.

They just don't want to believe that, because it would make something they care very deeply about into something that doesn't need to be too worried about in the first place.

No one likes to admit when they are mistaken.

F**k the hockey stick. Get rid of it. Thow it out like it's last week's fish entrails. Shove it up Gretzky's orifice of choice. No one is using this particular graph to support anything, so bringing it up is a strawman.

:sniper:
Yes, but getting your information from NOVELISTS is the right way to go - especially ones who are publicly "Intelligent-Design" proponents.
:rolleyes:
Actually, he's quite correct in his assertion that the banning of DDT has killed more people than Hitler. Maybe not more people than Stalin, but certainly Hitler.

Actually, he's quite correct in his assertion that the banning of DDT has killed more people than Hitler. Maybe not more people than Stalin, but certainly Hitler.

Do you have anything, other than the words of said author, to support the words of said author?

Support this.

Hurricane Computer Model Forcasts for one!
Any type of Computer Forcast Model is usually wrong

Come over to Campus Weather for a few days and watch as things are always changing.

Here though, you have to go very long term and we just don't have that ability.

Hurricane Computer Model Forcasts for one!
Any type of Computer Forcast Model is usually wrong

Come over to Campus Weather for a few days and watch as things are always changing.

Here though, you have to go very long term and we just don't have that ability.


Sigh. Is this thing on? Hello. Testing. One. Two. Three.

Sigh. Is this thing on? Hello. Testing. One. Two. Three.

So much for proving it to ya!

Is your hearing aide actually turned on because apparently it isn't.

So much for proving it to ya!

Is your hearing aide actually turned on because apparently it isn't.

What? What have you proven? Where? Answer my direct request. The one that Straugn seconded. How come no one can do that one little thing? No support. No studies. Nothing. Oh wait. We have the article that proves that the "hockey stick" is incorrect. As we all know, that cancels out everything else. :rolleyes: Yes, we have articles that show the Earth is going through a natural warming cycle...but nothing that in any way, shape or form disproves that man-made global warming is working in conjunction with natural warming.

Then you want to say that because computer modeling is incorrect in one thing, it's incorrect in all things. Then you want to say that day to day weather predictions rely on the same data and processes as long-term modeling. Still, you make assertions without support.

Due to the disparity of source material between environmental-minded people and climate change deniers, plus the fact that the great majority of the scientific community accept Man Made Global Warming as likely, I can only conclude that MMGW is an actual phenomenon.

Now. Prove me wrong.

Do you have anything, other than the words of said author, to support the words of said author?
http://www.malaria.org/attarannaturemed.html
Malaria kills over one million people, mainly children, in the tropics each year, and DDT remains one of the few affordable, effective tools against the mosquitoes that transmit the disease. Attaran et al. explain that the scientific literature on the need to withdraw DDT is unpersuasive, and the benefits of DDT in saving lives from malaria are well worth the risks.
http://www.uhurugroup.com/news/041904.htm
South Africa's leading malaria control experts, researchers and doctors support and endorse the use of the insecticide DDT to control malaria. Their statement, featured below, was released in light of recent claims that DDT is harmful to human health and should be removed from South Africa's malaria control programme.

In the statement, researchers from, among others, South Africa's Medical Research Council, National Health Laboratory Services and the World Health Organisation assert that since its introduction to disease control, DDT has been associated with improved human health and population growth, not the reverse.
http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsID.442/healthissue_detail.asp
Now, thirty years later, it is vividly apparent that DDT was not hazardous to human health and that the banning of its domestic use led to its diminished production in the United States — and less availability of DDT for the developing world. The results were disastrous: at least 1-2 million people continue to die from malaria each year, 30-60 million or more lives needlessly lost since the ban took effect. This is especially tragic since there was hope of eradicating the disease altogether when DDT was first introduced and its potential was recognized.

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020820southseaice.html

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020820southseaice.html

and yet, from the very same source:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2004/0923westglaciers.html

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2004/0913larsen.html

oh, and their new site:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2005/arcticice_decline.html

Researchers from NASA, the National Snow and Ice Data Center and others using satellite data have detected a significant loss in Arctic sea ice this year.

On Sept. 21, 2005, sea ice extent dropped to 2.05 million sq. miles, the lowest extent yet recorded in the satellite record. Incorporating the 2005 minimum using satellite data going back to 1978, with a projection for ice growth in the last few days of this September, brings the estimated decline in Arctic sea ice to 8.5 percent per decade over the 27 year satellite record.

and here:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2004/0315skintemp.html

"Although an increasing trend has been observed from the global average, the regional changes can be very different," Jin said. "While many regions were warming, central continental regions in North America and Asia were actually cooling."

more

http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a010000/a010000/a010031/index.html

here

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/icecover.html

and here

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/aura_first.html

The ozone hole is really a region of atmosphere where ozone levels have been dramatically depleted by destructive interactions with other chemicals. This depleted zone forms each spring in the Southern Hemisphere, centered roughly over the south pole. The British Antarctic Survey discovered it in 1985, and since then it has become a major area of atmospheric research. Subsequent missions established that the ozone hole was caused by the introduction of human produced chlorofluorocarbons emitted into the atmosphere. The first measurements that established cause of the Antarctic ozone hole was from an instrumented NASA airplane. The size of the ozone hole grew steadily in the 1990s. NASA satellites monitor the growth size and evolution of the ozone hole. NASA's UARS satellite further developed the chemistry.

need more?

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2004/0426pollutiontrain.html

no! no! stop!

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/brown_cloud.html

oh, the humanity!

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2005/deforest_rainfall.html

Today, scientists estimate that between one-third and one-half of our planet's land surfaces have been transformed by human development.

Their research found that deforestation in different areas of the globe affects rainfall patterns over a considerable region.

NASA is part of the liberal conspiracy folks!!!!one!

So, uh...way to cherry pick a single article dude.

http://www.malaria.org/attarannaturemed.html

http://www.uhurugroup.com/news/041904.htm

http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsID.442/healthissue_detail.asp

Heh. You should see what wiki has to say about ACSH.

I am willing to concede that DDT was perhaps demonized a touch too much, that still doesn't make Crichton a valid source, nor does it have anything to do with anything outside the scope of DDT itself.

Heh. You should see what wiki has to say about ACSH.

I am willing to concede that DDT was perhaps demonized a touch too much, that still doesn't make Crichton a valid source, nor does it have anything to do with anything outside the scope of DDT itself.
You asked if there was any other source for what the author said, I provided them. And the statement still stands, the ban on DDT has killed more people than Hitler.

This is what the "global warming deniers" (we aren't deniers btw) are arguing against. Actions, well meaning as they are, based on bad science or with bad conclusions, can lead to unforseen horrible consequences.

Right now, you "accusers" want to cripple world economies based on questionable science, or at the very least questionable conclusions.

Be honest with yourself. Why do you believe that I, Corneliu, Hawkintom and all the other "deniers" argue against global warming alarmism?

NASA is part of the liberal conspiracy folks!!!!one!

So, uh...way to cherry pick a single article dude.
You asked for a single peer reviewed article. I honestly can't tell an article that has or hasn't been peer reviewed online. So I figured at the very least the NASA site would be above recrimination for being in the oil industries employ.

So when I post an article, I get accused of cherry picking. :rolleyes:

I've posted other articles... but they are all either biased because the "evil oil industry" backed them or are simply dismissed out of hand.

You asked for a single peer reviewed article. I honestly can't tell an article that has or hasn't been peer reviewed online. So I figured at the very least the NASA site would be above recrimination for being in the oil industries employ.

So when I post an article, I get accused of cherry picking. :rolleyes:

I've posted other articles... but they are all either biased because the "evil oil industry" backed them or are simply dismissed out of hand.

You realize that the article you posted had nothing to do with assessing man's impact on the environment, right? It doesn't even mention anything positive or negative about man's effect on the environment, in fact.

Not to mention that this article is from 2002 while other, more recent, articles from the same people directly make references to man's impact on the environment and/or global warming/climate change. Note that several of these articles point to recent improvements (i.e. more recent than 2002,) in data because of new satellite imagery available.

The fact that you posted this single outdated article from a site that has more recent, more detailed and more accurate articles makes me think you were directed there by someone else who doesn't believe man has an impact on global weather and then you were too lazy or disinterested to poke around on the rest of the site.

You asked if there was any other source for what the author said, I provided them. And the statement still stands, the ban on DDT has killed more people than Hitler.

This is what the "global warming deniers" (we aren't deniers btw) are arguing against. Actions, well meaning as they are, based on bad science or with bad conclusions, can lead to unforseen horrible consequences.

Right now, you "accusers" want to cripple world economies based on questionable science, or at the very least questionable conclusions.

Be honest with yourself. Why do you believe that I, Corneliu, Hawkintom and all the other "deniers" argue against global warming alarmism?

Because you insist on using single instances, such as DDT or the "hockey stick" to discount the gross majority of other, independent data out there. It's like using the piltdown man to argue against evolution. For every example of "bad science" leading to rash actions, there are multitudes of instances where man failed to listen those possessing "good science" until it was too late. For a recent example, I point to the many studies concerning the levees in New Orleans.

Now, before you jump to the "but the environmentalists!" argument, may I remind you that the levees environmentalists blocked the upgrade of were not the ones that failed.

Also realize that had more wetlands been restored, as the environmentalists wanted, they would have helped to mitigate the effects of the hurricane...as nature intended them to do.

Bump.

Bump.
You can't change closed minds until the sea rises and they end up sitting in their own excrement in a sports stadium. According to legend, one God figured this out millennia ago.

Notice the bold? That is your problem with your arguement. Its based on Computer models. Even Meteorologists use computer models and they are mostly wrong!Even meteorologists? Did you read the original post? These guys are meteorologists.
This is perhaps the most complex computer model ever used, considering it took a year in Europe's most powerful weather computer to calculate. The same model has proven to be accurate when calculating the climate of the past centuries when compared to the real results. This model has proven to be "mostly" correct.
This isn't some weather channel putting on a show.

Even meteorologists? Did you read the original post? These guys are meteorologists.

I did. Meteorologists are wrong too! You can't rely on Computer models for accurate forcasts.

This is perhaps the most complex computer model ever used, considering it took a year in Europe's most powerful weather computer to calculate.

Just because it is complex doesn't make it any more accurate.

The same model has proven to be accurate when calculating the climate of the past centuries when compared to the real results. This model has proven to be "mostly" correct.
This isn't some weather channel putting on a show.

Sorry dude but I don't trust computer models.

Sorry dude but I don't trust computer models.
:rolleyes:

Do you drive much? Do you know how much processing power is dedicated to crunching the numbers for oil reservoir mechanics?

Do you use electricity much? Do you know that load flow and transient stability calculations run on desktops are what ensure the stable functioning of electricity grids?

I won't even go into aircraft, any direct or indirect investments you have in the electronic markets (extensive use of computer models there, your pension fund will not escape them).

And of all the ironies, the doping boundaries in the silicon of your CPU would at one time have been investigated by . . .

. . . you guessed it.

A model is only as accurate and precise as the data used to create it. The data being gathered now on the climate, is really good. You insult a very large number of high-tech industries with your unsubstantiated assertions.

Just because it is complex doesn't make it any more accurate.

no, for that we'd need to check it against known situations. such as, for example, the global climate of centuries past. which, amazingly, it accurately models.

Sorry dude but I don't trust computer models.

unfortunately, reality doesn't care whether you trust it or not.

What? What have you proven? Where? Answer my direct request. The one that Straugn seconded. How come no one can do that one little thing? No support. No studies. Nothing. Oh wait. We have the article that proves that the "hockey stick" is incorrect. As we all know, that cancels out everything else. :rolleyes: Yes, we have articles that show the Earth is going through a natural warming cycle...but nothing that in any way, shape or form disproves that man-made global warming is working in conjunction with natural warming.

Then you want to say that because computer modeling is incorrect in one thing, it's incorrect in all things. Then you want to say that day to day weather predictions rely on the same data and processes as long-term modeling. Still, you make assertions without support.

Due to the disparity of source material between environmental-minded people and climate change deniers, plus the fact that the great majority of the scientific community accept Man Made Global Warming as likely, I can only conclude that MMGW is an actual phenomenon.

Now. Prove me wrong.
Seconded. WHOLE-heartedly!
*bows*

Bump.
You f*cking ROCK.

*bows*

Sorry dude but I don't trust computer models.
This very statement calls the integrity of your arguments into question.
You're not quite old enough to have only paper-based texts to be the sources of the information you attest to having gleaned about meterology.
You know, how you *studied* it and all, but all these experts and people who deal with it AND their technology are all somehow beneath you?

:rolleyes:

Do you drive much? Do you know how much processing power is dedicated to crunching the numbers for oil reservoir mechanics?

Do you use electricity much? Do you know that load flow and transient stability calculations run on desktops are what ensure the stable functioning of electricity grids?

I won't even go into aircraft, any direct or indirect investments you have in the electronic markets (extensive use of computer models there, your pension fund will not escape them).

And of all the ironies, the doping boundaries in the silicon of your CPU would at one time have been investigated by . . .

. . . you guessed it.

A model is only as accurate and precise as the data used to create it. The data being gathered now on the climate, is really good. You insult a very large number of high-tech industries with your unsubstantiated assertions.
Seconded.
I'm much the bystander in this thread. You folks are pretty impressive.

Well, thought i'd punch up a local ref ...

*ahem*

Warmer temperatures have Kenai drying up
VEGETATION: Results include more fire potential and loss of nesting area.

By DOUG O'HARRA
Anchorage Daily News

Published: October 4, 2005
Last Modified: October 4, 2005 at 06:27 AM
-

Warming temperatures over the past half-century have been slowly drying out
the Kenai Peninsula, transforming wetlands into forests and shrinking ponds,
according to a study that analyzed vegetation change at more than 1,100
locations.


The loss of wetlands could reduce bird nesting habitat, and the expansion of
woody growth into wet areas could increase the danger from wildfires, said
biologist Eric Klein, lead author of a paper published this August in the
Canadian Journal of Forest Research.

"You're getting rid of these natural breaks," Klein said. "It becomes
quicker and easier for wildfires to spread."

The study found that wooded areas in the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge had
grown dramatically since 1950, expanding from 57 percent to 73 percent of
the land. Wetlands shrank, from covering about 5 percent to less than 1
percent.

Many lakes lost volume too, especially small, isolated "kettle lakes" that
have existed since the ice age ended 8,000 to 12,000 years ago.

"It seems like that there is an environmental shift taking place," said
Klein, who conducted the research for his master's degree in environmental
science at Alaska Pacific University. "This is just one more piece of the
puzzle."

Global air temperature has risen at least 1 degree Fahrenheit over the past
century, but some areas of the Arctic have warmed much faster. Many
scientists believe that increases in human-produced greenhouse gases have
helped drive the warming, in addition to complex natural cycles.

Whatever the causes, the impacts have been accelerating. Every decade has
brought spring green-up about 2.3 days sooner and pulled the ranges of
animals and plants about four miles farther north. Recent scientific papers
have documented the invasion of shrubs into North Slope tundra, while spruce
forests in the Interior have declined because of summer droughts. Last
year's Arctic Climate Impact Assessment cited forest fires and the Kenai's
beetle epidemic as further evidence of climate in motion.

On the Kenai, average air temperatures have risen about 1.2 degrees
Fahrenheit over the past 30 years, allowing dwarf birch, blueberries and
black spruce to colonize bogs that existed intact since glaciers retreated
up to 12,000 years ago, according to co-author Ed Berg, an ecologist with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

"When you dig down into the peat, you don't see any stems or shrubs," Berg
said in a statement about the research. "Had they grown there in the past,
they would have been preserved."

Klein, now a staff biologist for an Anchorage environmental engineering
firm, launched the study in 2003 with help from Berg in the field and help
with the analysis from APU biology professor Roman Dial. The three
scientists completed "Wetland drying and succession across the Kenai
Peninsula Lowlands" last fall.

Using aerial photographs taken in 1950, Klein examined 1,113 locations
chosen at random across about 546,000 acres in three broad areas of the
Kenai wildlife refuge. At the time, more than half were forested, with 31
percent open land, 5 percent swampy and 7 percent ponds or small lakes.

When Klein located the same spots on photos taken in 1996, he discovered
that a remarkable shift had taken place. Forest had grown, while open land
and lakes had shrunk. The area covered by swamps and bogs had almost
disappeared. Burned and unburned areas changed about the same.

Klein also visited 84 sites in the field with Berg and several technicians,
spending much of the summer of 2003 thrashing through Kenai backcountry,
examining firsthand how the land had changed.

"The bugs were horrible," he said. "There were some places where you could
only write if you had a head net on, and that was after you covered yourself
in Deet."

Klein documented many lakes and ponds with expanding aprons of vegetation,
with new bushes and trees lurking at the fringes. One pond off Swan Lake
Road was especially dramatic, completely swallowed by successive bands of
invading plants.

On the 1950 aerial photo, it had stretched 100 feet across.

"When we got to the site, and there was no water left at all," Klein said,
"you could see these very distinct bands (of vegetation), almost like a
bull's-eye on a dart board, extending from the center out."

As well as ... a little surprise.

*ahem*


New fuel to clean the air on Slope
DIESEL: Low-sulfur product will drastically cut unhealthy emissions.

By WESLEY LOY
Anchorage Daily News

Published: October 4, 2005
Last Modified: October 4, 2005 at 01:20 AM
-

North Slope air will get cleaner under an agreement between the state and
oil companies to make and use ultra low-sulfur diesel.

Lots of equipment -- from pickups to turbine generators to drilling rigs --
run on diesel fuel in the vast North Slope oil fields, including Prudhoe Bay
and Kuparuk.

Under an agreement inked this summer between the state Department of
Environmental Conservation and BP and Conoco Phillips, the oil companies and
their contractors will begin using clean-burning, low-sulfur diesel in 2008.


The agreement lets the state and the oil companies comply with U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency rules requiring highway vehicles and
off-road equipment such as earthmovers to use clean diesel in rural areas by
2010. But the pact goes beyond the federal rules by committing the oil
companies to use low-sulfur diesel in other gear such as generators, heaters
and drilling rigs.

"The state's plan will dramatically decrease sulfur dioxide emissions on the
North Slope from about 400 tons per year to less than 10 tons per year,"
Gov. Frank Murkowski said in a written statement.

The governor added that if new North Slope regions such as the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge are to be developed, "the state and the industry
must be leaders in environmental protection."

Marge Larson, chief executive of the American Lung Association of Alaska,
said Monday the agreement is a model for cleaning up air pollution in rural
Alaska, especially emissions produced by diesel-fired village electric power
plants.

"The majority of the pollution from diesel emissions isn't coming from
trucks and buses on the Slope, it's coming from the other diesel-powered
equipment," Larson said in a written statement. "Clearly BP and Conoco
Phillips understand that and are taking steps to save Alaskans from the risk
of cancer, birth defects, asthma, bronchitis and other respiratory
illnesses."

Currently, the oil companies make diesel for their local needs from a sliver
of the roughly 900,000 barrels of crude oil they produce daily and send down
the trans-Alaska oil pipeline.

The oil companies run two simple refineries, known as topping plants, one in
the Prudhoe Bay field and the other in Kuparuk.

Spokesmen for the oil companies said Monday they are doing engineering
studies that could result in one of the plants, most likely the Kuparuk
unit, being upgraded or replaced to make low-sulfur diesel.

The fuel would be available not only for oil field operations, but also for
use by local communities such as Nuiqsut and Deadhorse.

Tom Chapple, the DEC's air quality director, said an average of more than
125,000 gallons of diesel per day is used across the North Slope oil fields.

According to DEC documents, sulfur dioxide emissions should drop from 396
tons per year to four tons by 2009, under the state-industry agreement.

By making low-sulfur diesel on the Slope, oil companies can avoid the risk
and cost of hauling or barging in fuel from Fairbanks or elsewhere, Chapple
said.

Andrew Van Chau, spokesman for BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc., which runs
Prudhoe and many other fields, said the agreement calls for the oil
companies to begin cutting air pollution sooner than the federal rules
require, and to cover a greater range of diesel-burning equipment.

"It's a good solution for a really complex regulatory issue," added Dawn
Patience, spokeswoman for Conoco, which runs the Kuparuk and Alpine fields.
---------

The planet is not about to crash and burn, hell the amount of Carbon Dioxide humans have released is absolutely nothing compared to the Decan Traps volcanic eruption in India.

While on the topic, can anyone direct me to an objective analysis of the following statements?

Volcanic eruptions can enhance global warming by adding CO2 to the atmosphere. However, a far greater amount of CO2 is contributed to the atmosphere by human activities each year than by volcanic eruptions. Volcanoes contribute about 110 million tons/year, whereas other sources contribute about 10 billion tons/year. The small amount of global warming caused by eruption-generated greenhouse gases is offset by the far greater amount of global cooling caused by eruption-generated particles in the stratosphere (the haze effect). Greenhouse warming of the earth has been particularly evident since 1980. Without the cooling influence of such eruptions as El Chichon (1982) and Mt. Pinatubo (1991), described below, greenhouse warming would have been more pronounced.

(http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/climate_effects.html)

Global warming, for example, doesn't sound bad to a Siberian peasant who can't grow food under layers of permafrost.

Do you mean to deny the existence of stable, non-agricultural economies and traditional subsistence lifestyles in said segments of Siberia, or, furthermore, presume the projected consequences of climate change irrelevant to such modes of life?

Climate computer models, are by their nature flawed fundamentally, at best we can only get a short term projection, but a long term projection is totally out of the question. This would require a greater understanding of the planets atmospheric interactions, with oceanic, stellar and Geological processes than we currently posses. These computer models would also require a data input which far exceeds our current knowledge.

However, I don’t deny that computer models, can, on occasion be useful for localised and small scale events, but for something that is as complex as global climate change, then I hardly doubt that we’re ever going to have the needed data in which to compose a proper and accurate projection.

The Deccan Traps is located in west-central India and is one of the largest volcanic features on Earth. It consists of multiple layers of solidified basalt that together are more than 2,000 m thick and covers an area of 500,000 km².
The Deccan Traps formed between 60 and 65 million years ago, at the end of the Cretaceous period. The gasses released in the process may have played a role in the extinction of the dinosaurs. Before it was reduced to its current size by erosion and continental drift, it is estimated that the original area covered by the lava flows was as large as 1.5 million km². The volume of basalt is estimated to have been 512,000 km.³ (stolen from a website, will compare the data with some books when I get home)

But as for this taking place over Geological time, scientists are still debating on the length of the Decan eruption. There is evidence to suggest that it took place over thousands of years, or it took place over a few centuries, but in either case, a natural eruption of the size still has profound implications for natural climate variation.

Now, I’ve gone on a side road and lost my original point ?!?!?!?! But I’m going to continue ^_^

doomsday is a little extreme, and I admit that I ventured into hyperbole. The thing is that if the gross majority of the scientific community are right, then climate change will merely make us uncomfortable, less safe, and in need of spending countless amounts of money merely to maintain what we have where we have it.

I agree, however whether man is inducing this climate change is still up for debate.


The mass media is trying to scare you about global warming! eeeeeeek! Their plabn is simple. 1. scare the people. 2. ? 3. Profit. Simple, really. Nothing to see here, people.

It is in the medias interest to 1) Raise public awareness and fears over global warming by distorting the facts, why? Well because when a normal passer by sees a headline entitled Global Warming their obviously going to pick it up. Climate change is a subject which interests many people, and most people are unaware of the contesting theories, only the distorted one sided view. So I would have to say that it is in the Newspaper interest to distort the facts which in turns induces profit.


Imagine, if you will, a giant scale with a ton on each side. It only takes a pound to tip it one way or another. Due to natural warming, the scale is already tipped. Man adding just a bit makes it worse and accelerates it.
But when you have a scale where the weights are constantly changing and when the scale is never balanced, which is why our climate varies naturally, how can we say that mans Co2 output is actually having a detrimental effect?



Previous geological events took place in geological time. Change is happening much faster now.

Take a closer look, climate change, shown in the sedimentary record happened pretty much overnight for some unknown and rare reasons. I’ll give you more information when I get home.

True, but overall, the ice is shrinking in both the north and the south.

Agreed. Ice is shrinking in surface area in the North Poles. Can’t deny it.


No one knows. Except, of course, the gross majority of the scientific community.

Then why do we have conflicting theories, if it was a certainty, the theory would not be up for debate.

Translation: We don't know, so taking precautions is stupid.

Taking precautions may be unnecessary and result in a lot of wasted money and resources which could better serve health care and other front line services. Surely you can understand the governments of the worlds reluctance to spend vast sums of money on a prevention system that they may or may not need?



No one knows...or at least this guy doesn't. Nothing to see here people. Move along.

I do believe that’s sarcasm, which is utterly unnecessary in a debate like this. How do you know that the North Pole will disappear or not? Can you safely say without a doubt that it won’t grow once more this decade?


No one knows...so it isn't happening...so there. Nyah. The thing is, the gross majority of the scientific community does know. Yes, global warming and cooling does takes place naturally. Let me ask you this, though. Does natural warming make the world impervious to additional warming, or since the balance is already tipped does natural warming actually make the world less likely to be able to stabilize the additional warming man is causing?

The planet is however, if you look through the Geological record in a state of natural cooling at the moment. If you ignore the short term variations and look at the much larger picture. For all we know this is just one of those little blips that is present all over the global climate record.

While on the topic, can anyone direct me to an objective analysis of the following statements?



(http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/climate_effects.html)
Since i was rereading some of my sciam online stuff ...

*ahem*

How do volcanoes affect world climate?
B. McDonnell
Dublin, Ireland
Karen Harpp, an assistant professor of geology at Colgate University, provides this explanation:

In 1784, Benjamin Franklin made what may have been the first connection between volcanoes and global climate while stationed in Paris as the first diplomatic representative of the United States of America. He observed that during the summer of 1783, the climate was abnormally cold, both in Europe and back in the U.S. The ground froze early, the first snow stayed on the ground without melting, the winter was more severe than usual, and there seemed to be "a constant fog over all Europe, and [a] great part of North America."
What Benjamin Franklin observed was indeed the result of volcanic activity. An enormous eruption of the Laki fissure system (a chain of volcanoes in which the lava erupts through a crack in the ground instead of from a single point) in Iceland caused the disruptions. The Laki eruptions produced about 14 cubic kilometers of basalt (thin, black, fluid lava) during more than eight months of activity. More importantly in terms of global climate, however, the Laki event also produced an ash cloud that may have reached up into the stratosphere. This cloud caused a dense haze across Europe that dimmed the sun, perhaps as far west as Siberia. In addition to ash, the eruptive cloud consisted primarily of vast quantities of sulfur dioxide (SO2), hydrogen chloride (HCl), and hydrogen fluoride gases (HF). The gases combined with water in the atmosphere to produce acid rain, destroying crops and killing livestock. The effects, of course, were most severe in Iceland; ultimately, more than 75 percent of Iceland’s livestock and 25 percent of its human population died from famine or the toxic impact of the Laki eruption clouds. Consequences were also felt far beyond Iceland. Temperature data from the U.S. indicate that record lows occurred during the winter of 1783-1784. In fact, the temperature decreased about one degree Celsius in the Northern Hemisphere overall. That may not sound like much, but it had enormous effects in terms of food supplies and the survival of people across the Northern Hemisphere. For comparison, the global temperature of the most recent Ice Age was only about five degrees C below the current average.

There are many reasons that large volcanic eruptions have such far-reaching effects on global climate. First, volcanic eruptions produce major quantities of carbon dioxide (CO2), a gas known to contribute to the greenhouse effect. Such greenhouse gases trap heat radiated off of the surface of the earth forming a type of insulation around the planet. The greenhouse effect is essential for our survival because it maintains the temperature of our planet within a habitable range. Nevertheless, there is growing concern that our production of gases such as CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels may be pushing the system a little too far, resulting in excessive warming on a global scale. There is no doubt that volcanic eruptions add CO2 to the atmosphere, but compared to the quantity produced by human activities, their impact is virtually trivial: volcanic eruptions produce about 110 million tons of CO2 each year, whereas human activities contribute almost 10,000 times that quantity. By far the more substantive climatic effect from volcanoes results from the production of atmospheric haze. Large eruption columns inject ash particles and sulfur-rich gases into the troposphere and stratosphere and these clouds can circle the globe within weeks of the volcanic activity. The small ash particles decrease the amount of sunlight reaching the surface of the earth and lower average global temperatures. The sulfurous gases combine with water in the atmosphere to form acidic aerosols that also absorb incoming solar radiation and scatter it back out into space.
The ash and aerosol clouds from large volcanic eruptions spread quickly through the atmosphere. On August 26 and 27, 1883, the volcano Krakatau erupted in a catastrophic event that ejected about 20 cubic kilometers of material in an eruption column almost 40 kilometers high. Darkness immediately enveloped the neighboring Indonesian islands of Java and Sumatra. Fine particles, however, rode atmospheric currents westward. By the afternoon of August 28th, haze from the Krakatau eruption had reached South Africa and by September 9th it had circled the globe, only to do so several more times before settling out of the atmosphere.
Initially, scientists believed that it was volcanoes' stratospheric ash clouds that had the dominant effect on global temperatures. The 1982 eruption of El Chichón in Mexico, however, altered that view. Only two years earlier, the major Mt. St. Helens eruption had lowered global temperatures by about 0.1 degree C. The much smaller eruption of El Chichón, in contrast, had three to five times the global cooling effect worldwide. Despite its smaller ash cloud, El Chichón emitted more than 40 times the volume of sulfur-rich gases produced by Mt. St. Helens, which revealed that the formation of atmospheric sulfur aerosols has a more substantial effect on global temperatures than simply the volume of ash produced during an eruption. Sulfate aerosols appear to take several years to settle out of the atmosphere, which is one of the reasons their effects are so widespread and long lasting.

The atmospheric effects of volcanic eruptions were confirmed by the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo, in the Philippines. Pinatubo’s eruption cloud reached over 40 kilometers into the atmosphere and ejected about 17 million tons of SO2, just over two times that of El Chichón in 1982. The sulfur-rich aerosols circled the globe within three weeks and produced a global cooling effect approximately twice that of El Chichón. The Northern Hemisphere cooled by up to 0.6 degrees C during 1992 and 1993. Moreover, the aerosol particles may have contributed to an accelerated rate of ozone depletion during that same period. Interestingly, some scientists argue that without the cooling effect of major volcanic eruptions such as El Chichón and Mount Pinatubo, global warming effects caused by human activities would have been far more substantial.
Major volcanic eruptions have additional climatic effects beyond global temperature decreases and acid rain. Ash and aerosol particles suspended in the atmosphere scatter light of red wavelengths, often resulting in brilliantly colored sunsets and sunrises around the world. The spectacular optical effects of the 1883 Krakatau eruption cloud were observed across the globe, and may have inspired numerous artists and writers in their work. The luminous, vibrant renderings of the fiery late day skyline above the Thames River in London by the British painter William Ascroft, for instance, may be the result of the distant Krakatau eruption. In 1815, the Indonesian volcano Tambora propelled more ash and volcanic gases into the atmosphere than any other eruption in history and resulted in significant atmospheric cooling on a global scale, much like Krakatau a few decades later. New England and Europe were particularly hard hit, with snowfalls as late as August and massive crop failures. The cold, wet, and unpleasant climatic effects of the eruption led 1816 to be known as "the year without a summer," and inspired Lord Byron to write: "The bright Sun was extinguish’d, and the stars Did wander darkling in the eternal space Rayless and pathless, and the icy earth Swung blind and blackening in the moonless air; Morn came and went—and came, And brought no day…" --Lord Byron, "Darkness"There is a story that Byron invited some of his friends to his home in Switzerland that summer to relax by the shores of Lake Geneva. The lack of sun and warm summer weather led the group to hold a competition writing ghost stories to keep themselves entertained. One of the guests, Mary Shelley, wrote the famous novel Frankenstein for this contest, revealing that in addition to major climatic effects, volcanic eruptions can have some unexpectedly far-reaching results.
Answer originally published April 15, 2002.

...and news you mightn't have ever thought you'd see ....

*ahem*

Alchemy in the Desert?
Technology to Recover Water
From Vehicle Exhaust Fumes
Would Aid Frontline Troops

By J. LYNN LUNSFORD
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
October 4, 2005; Page A17

Keeping an army provisioned in the desert is a ballet of logistics, particularly when it comes to supplying two vital liquids: diesel fuel and water.
Now, using technologies developed for the space program, the U.S. Army is conducting an experiment that could convert the exhaust pipes of military vehicles into water fountains.
Later this month, United Technologies Corp.'s Hamilton Sundstrand unit will deliver two military Humvees to the Army for three months of testing at the Aberdeen Proving Ground outside Baltimore. Built into each vehicle's truck bed is a complex system that can recover water from engine exhaust, purifying as much as half the liquid volume from a tank of fuel.
"This is one of those things where, when you first hear about it, you think the scientists have gone out of their minds," says Robert Leduc, president of Hamilton Sundstrand's flight systems business, which includes the water-recovery program. "But once you taste the water, you realize the potential."
The military calculates that a soldier in the desert needs about 20 gallons of water a day, five of which must be pure enough to drink, prepare food and use for medical needs. (The other 15 gallons are for bathing, washing clothes and the like.) Water gets to the front in vulnerable, slow-moving truck convoys that require armed escorts, or it is pumped from local rivers, lakes or ponds and purified by heavy-duty filters.
For the Army, the logistics of moving water limits how it can use troops. When soldiers are deployed in the field, it can easily take 40% of them to move water and other materials, often placing them in vulnerable positions, says Jay Dusenbury, science and technology team leader for the Army's Tank-Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center, or TARDEC, in Warren, Mich. "Anything that can cut down on that vulnerability and enable troops to fight -- even if they have been cut off from traditional water supplies -- could be huge," he says.

Hamilton Sundstrand, based in Windsor Locks, Conn., has a $2 million contract to provide the Army with the first two water-generating Humvees. It also is completing a $1 million contract for a high-powered dehumidifier the size of a dorm-room refrigerator that can extract water vapor from the air, even in the desert. The Army plans to display the water-from-air box this week in Washington, D.C., at the annual convention of the Association of the U.S. Army, a lobbying and support group for active and retired personnel.
Converting diesel exhaust into drinking water is an idea that has been around for a while. It continues a field of research aimed at squeezing the most out of valuable resources in areas such as space travel. "When it costs $10,000 a pound to bring water to the space station, you start getting creative," says Ed Francis, vice president of land and sea systems at Hamilton Sundstrand. "We try to take waste products and turn them back into usable products again."
In motor vehicles, among the byproducts of fuel combustion are unburned hyrdrocarbons and water. Scientists have long known that those waste products, along with much of the heat, are expelled out the exhaust pipe and into the atmosphere. Laboratory scientists at the University of Kentucky's Center for Applied Energy Research, in Lexington, discovered a way to filter out usable water vapor.

Scientists Marit Jagtoyen, Geoff Kimber and the late Frank Derbyshire patented the filter technology, and Dr. Jagtoyen co-founded Lexington Carbon Co. in 1994. She installed the first prototype of a water-recovery system in a commercial Humvee in 2001, as part of an Army-funded small-business research grant. LexCarb later teamed with Hamilton Sundstrand to develop a unit that could withstand the rigors of military use.
The Humvees in the the demonstration program are, from the outside, indistinguishable from other military vehicles, except for a small water spigot behind the right rear wheel. Beneath the metal panels of the truck bed is a system of pipes and filters, which can collect water whenever the engine is running, at a rate of one gallon of water for every two gallons of fuel burned.
In the combustion process, the oxygen in the air combines with the hydrogen in the fuel, producing water vapor and exhaust gases. Rather than going out the tailpipe, the gases are vented through a catalytic converter to bake off as many impurities as possible, then run through two heat exchangers, which extract heat and cause the water vapor to condense into the collection tank. "At this point, the water is -- at best -- gray in color," says Gregg Newbold, general manager of Hamilton Sundstrand's Army and Marine programs.
From there, the decidedly unappetizing-looking water moves to a series of six "treatment beds," which consist of proprietary carbon filters developed by LexCarb. The first four filters strain out black gunk so that the water becomes amber. The final two filters remove remaining impurities, resulting in water that is as clean, or cleaner, than the tap water of many U.S. cities.
From there, the system adds a chlorine solution to kill bacteria and algae that might form post-purification and then deposits the water in a five-gallon tank. A spigot inside the cab of the vehicle dispenses water chilled by the air conditioner. "It has a slight chlorinated taste, but compared to how it started out, it's quite good," says Hamilton Sunstrand's Mr.
Newbold. In theory, the tank could function as a source of drinking water for a crew of, say, four people over the course of a day. (It isn't intended to be the sole water source for an extended period.)
The filtration system, like many other fledgling processes, has tough hurdles to clear before ever making it into regular use, and many such technologies never survive the testing process. The water-recovery systems will have to get much cheaper before they can widely used. The goal would be to have the system cost no more than 20% of a military vehicle's price tag.
Weight and efficiency present the biggest drawbacks. The system on the Humvee weighs just under 500 pounds and can filter only between 75 and 200 gallons of water before the filters must be replaced. And of course it produces water only as long as the vehicle is burning fuel. The water-from-air system makes about 600 gallons of water a day, compared with 600 gallons an hour for a traditional machine that purifies water from a river or pond.
"But the potential of this technology really fires up the imagination," says the Army's Mr. Dusenbury. "We have proven that it can be done, so now it's a matter of proving that it can be more robust and practical."
For Hamilton Sundstrand, the potential upside could be huge. As part of the Army's plans to transform its fighters into more nimble, self-sufficient forces under the ongoing multibillion-dollar Future Combat Systems program, contractors have been asked to develop systems that will enable soldiers to fight for 72 hours without any logistical support.
In coming years, the military plans to procure thousands of vehicles, ranging from an estimated 5,000 souped-up fighting vehicles to 60,000 Humvee replacements to 30,000 large trucks for hauling heavy loads. "Any and all of these vehicles could be candidates for a water-recovery system," says Mr. Newbold.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9595718/

That's science I like to see.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9595718/

That's science I like to see.
Amen to that.
*hi-five*

Who cares if the Polar Ice caps melt? In the earths history it has happened time and time again. the climate changes...oh well...thats life

Who cares if the Polar Ice caps melt? In the earths history it has happened time and time again. the climate changes...oh well...thats life

Polar Ice caps melt + a hurricane = 100's of Katrinas (New York would mostly be under sea level.) Areas of heavy density become more arid, causing famine. Siberian permafrost melts, releasing a mega-dose of methane into the atmosphere. Atlantic Conveyor shuts down. Oceans becomes less fertile to life because of this. Northern Europe gets colder and dryer. London experiences winters of incredible length and severity. Much hotter equatorial regions. Loss of albedo due to ice melting causes accellerated heating. Unknown effects on global weather patterns. Some islands disappearing completely.

Who cares if the Polar Ice caps melt? In the earths history it has happened time and time again. the climate changes...oh well...thats life

That's just way too foolish a thing to believe. There weren't billions of people living within sight of water the last time sea levels rose. Even global warming's anatagonists acknowledge that this would be a bad thing.

Again, the last time the polar ice caps fully melted the human population was probably under 500 000 people world-wide, most of whom lived in landlocked areas of Africa and Eurasia.

Sincerely,

Number III

Mars is also suffering global warming along with Venus as someone said earlier. So with that evidence it points to a solar reason for the heat up. Now not saying that humans dont add to the problem. But to lay the whole blame is truly wrong in my opinion. I also dont see a problem with the Earth warming up. Some areas will be covered by water and other areas of land will be freed from ice. Now I would gather that the total usable land probably will increase not decrease by what I hear.


Mars stories:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age_031208.html

Mars is also suffering global warming along with Venus as someone said earlier. So with that evidence it points to a solar reason for the heat up. Now not saying that humans dont add to the problem. But to lay the whole blame is truly wrong in my opinion. I also dont see a problem with the Earth warming up. Some areas will be covered by water and other areas of land will be freed from ice. Now I would gather that the total usable land probably will increase not decrease by what I hear.


Mars stories:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age_031208.html
That's a pretty much stupendous display of ignorance regarding the whole nature of weather patterns and consequences.
You just kind of let me down. *pout*

Mars is also suffering global warming along with Venus as someone said earlier. So with that evidence it points to a solar reason for the heat up. Now not saying that humans dont add to the problem. But to lay the whole blame is truly wrong in my opinion. I also dont see a problem with the Earth warming up. Some areas will be covered by water and other areas of land will be freed from ice. Now I would gather that the total usable land probably will increase not decrease by what I hear.


Mars stories:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age_031208.html

The thing is, people who know what they're talking about know that the question of global warming/climate change is an extremely complex and multi-variabled one. We do know that identifying a single causative factor does not automatically cancel out other factors. What it does do, though, is make it even more vitally important that we get the one causitive factor we can affect under control. That factor being our own contributions to the overall casserole of causative factors.

Now, generally, we know that a warming trend leading to climate change is not a good thing. While the overall world may not be a worse place to live, some places where we do live now are going to get more inhospitable. I don't think anyone can disagree with that. Correct?

Now, let's say that there is a solar-induced warming trend and a climate cycle warming trend and a man-affected warming trend. For $64 and the win, name the single factor we can do anything about? Therein lies why those of us arguing that global warming is indeed happening focus on man's part in it. Everything else is out of our hands.

here it is:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9603260/

The thing is, people who know what they're talking about know that the question of global warming/climate change is an extremely complex and multi-variabled one. We do know that identifying a single causative factor does not automatically cancel out other factors. What it does do, though, is make it even more vitally important that we get the one causitive factor we can affect under control. That factor being our own contributions to the overall casserole of causative factors.

Now, generally, we know that a warming trend leading to climate change is not a good thing. While the overall world may not be a worse place to live, some places where we do live now are going to get more inhospitable. I don't think anyone can disagree with that. Correct?

Now, let's say that there is a solar-induced warming trend and a climate cycle warming trend and a man-affected warming trend. For $64 and the win, name the single factor we can do anything about? Therein lies why those of us arguing that global warming is indeed happening focus on man's part in it. Everything else is out of our hands.

here it is:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9603260/
Most excellent post. *bows*
You really are on top of this one, Gymoor.

That's a pretty much stupendous display of ignorance regarding the whole nature of weather patterns and consequences.
You just kind of let me down. *pout*


At what point is there ignorance in my statement?

From what you have posted on this whole thread leads me to believe your a mule account to ass kiss your original account. Doesnt take to much to see who is your other account. Now in order to stoop that low to make yourself look smart or special lets me down. Sorry to blow your cover.

Heard of Katrina and Rita?
Pay house insurance?
It's your problem.

Not my problem. You can have all the hurricanes you want. Not going to effect me.

If anything I am annoyed that I have to pander to idiots that build there homes a foot above sea level. Lazy fuckers, haven't they ever heard of stairs.

Not my problem. You can have all the hurricanes you want. Not going to effect me.

If anything I am annoyed that I have to pander to idiots that build there homes a foot above sea level. Lazy fuckers, haven't they ever heard of stairs.


Exactly, another thing is why keep building wood structures? Use cement for god sakes. If you dont think you can build a nice looking home with cement. Take a trip to desert nations. They are all over and can look very nice. Hurricane can blow right through your house. Leave 10ft of water in it for weeks on end and all you would have to replace is your paint, windows and your furniture. Alot cheaper than the whole damn thing. Another idea would be not to rebuild and declare it a flood zone.

Exactly, another thing is why keep building wood structures? Use cement for god sakes. If you dont think you can build a nice looking home with cement. Take a trip to desert nations. They are all over and can look very nice. Hurricane can blow right through your house. Leave 10ft of water in it for weeks on end and all you would have to replace is your paint, windows and your furniture. Alot cheaper than the whole damn thing. Another idea would be not to rebuild and declare it a flood zone.

I am totally with you there. The attraction of wood structures is simply ease of construction, the fact that they need far less in the way of foundation systems (not having the overburden), so you can throw them up with little or no thought. I suppose they are easier to modify and extend too. Reinforced concrete is a hands down superior system though - if it is done properly.

Basically it just comes down to laziness, and badly educated consumers.

Also, you are bang on about the flood zone. But I am always amazed that people even buy houses in flood zones. In the US at least, the information is publically available (FEMA publishes 1-5-10-50-100yr flood maps). You would think people would bother to check before spending all that coin. So my sympathy is, again, limited.

Check this out. Inevitably, the earth, and all life as we know it will end. Yet I am also remarkably indifferent about that too.

Look, you want to go "save the future" I am not going to stop you. But at the moment, all the plans I see, somehow involve me as well, and that is just bang out of order.

Have you always been this steadfastly against everything? I mean everything in general, because that's pretty much what you're talking about here. Does this mean that you really have a thing against leaving the world in a better state than when you found it? Why do you hate the world that much. What would it take for you to begin caring about it again? If you ever did in the first place...

Edit: Or is it pure lack of motivation/human compassion that makes you say these obvious one liners that lead me to believe that you're secretly yearning to be a wash out stand-up comedian.

Have you always been this steadfastly against everything? I mean everything in general, because that's pretty much what you're talking about here. Does this mean that you really have a thing against leaving the world in a better state than when you found it? Why do you hate the world that much. What would it take for you to begin caring about it again? If you ever did in the first place...

Where did I say I hated the world? I quite like it, for what it is. So stop putting words into my mouth.

stop putting words into my mouth.

Sorry, but that's what's called "reading subtext". Everything you've said in this thread has lead me to only one conclusion, and that is that you don't really care about the world... at all.

If you did then you wouldn't say shit like

Can anyone explain to me why I should give a shit about this? I only have about 50-60 years left to live tops, so why is this my problem?

Fuck it I say.

And...

this is just not my problem.

And...

Because all the really bad stuff is going to happen after I am dead. Thus it is not a problem for me, and therefore it is not my problem. Simple really.

So you tell me, why should I care.

And on, and on. So, is that "putting words in your mouth" considering you already typed them? And, as a followup question, do you plan on having children, or do you have siblings who plan on having children? If so, do you want to leave the world a better place for them? Or, do you just think...

this is just not my problem.

Sorry, but that's what's called "reading subtext". Everything you've said in this thread has lead me to only one conclusion, and that is that you don't really care about the world... at all.

If you did then you wouldn't say shit like



And...



And...



And on, and on. So, is that "putting words in your mouth" considering you already typed them? And, as a followup question, do you plan on having children, or do you have siblings who plan on having children? If so, do you want to leave the world a better place for them? Or, do you just think...

There is a world of difference between not caring about global warming and hating the world. I suggest you work on your "subtext skills."

Also, yes, it doesn't effect me. It has nothing to do with me. I really am not concerned with what may or may not happen fifty years in the future because of things that may or may not be under our control. Plus, I am not so arrogant to think that I can either save or destroy the world. The world will go on. Civilization may not. But the world will pull through regardless. In fact, given the state of society, I think it is far more likely that groups of borg collective, true believer crusaders who are always "trying to build a better world" in order to compensate for their own inadaquacies are more likely to fuck it up than actual global warming.

Anyway, you all should at least have the decency to win your war on racism/poverty/class-structure/capitalism/whatever before picking up yet another cause to get all preachy with.

At what point is there ignorance in my statement?

From what you have posted on this whole thread leads me to believe your a mule account to ass kiss your original account. Doesnt take to much to see who is your other account. Now in order to stoop that low to make yourself look smart or special lets me down. Sorry to blow your cover.

Since Straughn has been especially complimentary to me in this thread, I can only assume that you are trying to shrug off your completely weak argument by making false accusations...in other words insinuating that Straughn and I are in fact the same person. A quick check with the mods will give you all the information you need in order to realize that you have been caught being a complete ass. Thanks anyway, and thank you for playing. Next!

There is a world of difference between not caring about global warming and hating the world. I suggest you work on your "subtext skills."

Also, yes, it doesn't effect me. It has nothing to do with me. I really am not concerned with what may or may not happen fifty years in the future because of things that may or may not be under our control. Plus, I am not so arrogant to think that I can either save or destroy the world. The world will go on. Civilization may not. But the world will pull through regardless. In fact, given the state of society, I think it is far more likely that groups of borg collective, true believer crusaders who are always "trying to build a better world" in order to compensate for their own inadaquacies are more likely to fuck it up than actual global warming.

Anyway, you all should at least have the decency to win your war on racism/poverty/class-structure/capitalism/whatever before picking up yet another cause to get all preachy with.

It's telling that you consider people who are trying to improve things to be merely compensating for their own shortcomings. Perhaps there's a bit of projection there? Just because you don't have a philanthropic instinct doesn't mean that everyone is so self-centered as you. Perhaps if you tried seeing other people's point of view, you might not be so self- and others-loathing.

Since Straughn has been especially complimentary to me in this thread, I can only assume that you are trying to shrug off your completely weak argument by making false accusations...in other words insinuating that Straughn and I are in fact the same person. A quick check with the mods will give you all the information you need in order to realize that you have been caught being a complete ass. Thanks anyway, and thank you for playing. Next!

Yep, using your main account to try and add validation to your mule account Again, from what I have posted your above post is complete nonsense. Read through all your posts again and start over.

Yep, using your main account to try and add validation to your mule account Again, from what I have posted your above post is complete nonsense. Read through all your posts again and start over.

Feel free to keep saying my posts are nonsense. In the meantime, I will continue to keep provingthat your posts are factually and logically deficient. Oh, and keep the tinfoil accusations to a minimum, okay?

I'm sorry. There are far too many people in the world saying "it's not my problem," or "it can't happen." Cold-hearted fools, all of them.
Yeah, the problem is that only one side of the view can afford to be wrong.

btw. Siberian Permafrost is already showing signs of melting. You really don't want that to happen...especially if you've heard of thing called 'methane'. :P

May I add that I still have not seen a single peer-reviewed article that supports the conclusion that man is not altering the climate. Not one. One was offered, but unfortunately the submitter didn't bother to read their own article.

At what point is there ignorance in my statement?

From what you have posted on this whole thread leads me to believe your a mule account to ass kiss your original account. Doesnt take to much to see who is your other account. Now in order to stoop that low to make yourself look smart or special lets me down. Sorry to blow your cover.
That is so awesome!
What incredible sleuthing!
...OR, you might ask *any* of the mods if i have *any* puppets.
What sweet, sweet bullsh*t, my cover!
One could conclude that jumping to such quick conclusions might leave one prey to ... say, blaring out ignorant statements/posts.
Keep up the good work!

Note: the ignorance i was mentioning was your gross misconception of the interdependencies of the factors you mentioned.
But hey, first, or .... well, however many glances you've had of my posts .... can be misleading indeed!

EDIT:
[/I]Sorry to blow your cover.[/I]

Hey, don't feel sorry about blowing anything! ;)

Yep, using your main account to try and add validation to your mule account Again, from what I have posted your above post is complete nonsense. Read through all your posts again and start over.
Gosh, i hope this doesn't come across too harsh or inflammatory, but it would appear that a poster sometimes only needs one account to look like a complete moron.
Even moreso a *CONSISTENT*ly complete moron.
Must be a conservative or something like it. :rolleyes:

Well, Marrakech II hasn't taken up the *challenge* of asking the mods if Gymoor and i are the same entity, so i guess that i can count on that kind of integrity in further discourse.
So, what other puppets am i? Corneliu, perhaps? ;)

Well, puppet or not, i'm gonna post something else on this subject, since i've neglected to for a few days now.

*ahem*

Warmer Warming
One of the world's foremost research centers for climate prediction warned that global warming will change the Earth's climate more rapidly than ever before in recent history. Researchers from the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, Germany, predict the global temperature could rise by up to 7 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century, causing sea level to rise by almost a foot. The new model used to create the latest projections included new findings about the effects of aerosols and the influence of Earth's carbon cycle. The center says the results confirm decades of speculations that humans are fueling global warming through their unprecedented influence on the environment.
-
Parched Amazon
Vast stretches of the Amazon rain forest are at their driest in living memory, and Brazilian scientists say it is the direct result of the severe hurricane season in North America. "There is no rain here because the air is descending, which prevents the formation of clouds," said Ricardo Dellarosa, of the Amazon Protection Organization in Manaus. He added that the air over his country is descending because air is rising with great intensity in the North Atlantic basin, creating the recent storms and hurricanes. Rivers and lakes across the Amazon basin are drying up, isolating many communities that are accessible only by boat.


-----
www.earthgate.ucsb.edu/weekly_news/

Well, Marrakech II hasn't taken up the *challenge* of asking the mods if Gymoor and i are the same entity, so i guess that i can count on that kind of integrity in further discourse.
So, what other puppets am i? Corneliu, perhaps? ;)

It's a standard ploy. If you can't assail the argument, attack the person. The fact that that strategy so often works, even in the absence of ANY proof, makes me sad.

It's a standard ploy. If you can't assail the argument, attack the person. The fact that that strategy so often works, even in the absence of ANY proof, makes me sad.
IMHO, that's what makes this kind of forum format so useful for dealing with people like that - a point doesn't just disappear into the aether (unless people don't *bump* or make addition to discourse)
...and even then there's exhumation from archives.
Also, people with already short attention spans tend to weed themselves out well enough.
As for exhumation, I haven't even done that yet for others' posts on this topic, just yet.
But then, in two days, i'm getting a connection that will allow me a LOT more time to spend/kill here! Yay! And faster, too!
Just think of what a puppet can accomplish! ;)

It's telling that you consider people who are trying to improve things to be merely compensating for their own shortcomings. Perhaps there's a bit of projection there? Just because you don't have a philanthropic instinct doesn't mean that everyone is so self-centered as you. Perhaps if you tried seeing other people's point of view, you might not be so self- and others-loathing.

It's not telling at all. Mostly because I don't think that every effort to improve things are merely people compensating for their own shortcomings. I do however consider people who run around screaming about climate change to be a bunch of preachy chicken littles with too much time on their hands and who are need of a quick ego boost. Doubly so since they have nothing whatsoever to offer in the way of solutions except platitudes. (Alternative energy :rolleyes: ).

And I am certainly not self-loathing, though there are plenty of others I am not sure about.

Now run along, and help the genocide in Iran Jaya with your hybrid vehicles.

It's not telling at all. Mostly because I don't think that every effort to improve things are merely people compensating for their own shortcomings. I do however consider people who run around screaming about climate change to be a bunch of preachy chicken littles with too much time on their hands and who are need of a quick ego boost. Doubly so since they have nothing whatsoever to offer in the way of solutions except platitudes. (Alternative energy :rolleyes: ).

And I am certainly not self-loathing, though there are plenty of others I am not sure about.

Now run along, and help the genocide in Iran Jaya with your hybrid vehicles.

Nothing to offer in the way of solutions? Are you f-ing kidding me? That's comedy gold, dude. Ignorance of environmental issues/solutions is not something to be proud of. Do your homework before saying something so patently false.

Nothing to offer in the way of solutions? Are you f-ing kidding me? That's comedy gold, dude. Ignorance of environmental issues/solutions is not something to be proud of. Do your homework before saying something so patently false.

What are the solutions? I am curious. I've never actually heard any either. (Well except for magic cars, and "cut back on fossil fuel consumption", neither of which are ever explained.)

What are the solutions? I am curious. I've never actually heard any either. (Well except for magic cars, and "cut back on fossil fuel consumption", neither of which are ever explained.)

Sigh. Let's see. How about renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, and geothermal? How about bio-diesel? How about reduced consumption lightbulbs that also last longer (which are now on the market.) How about lowering mercury emissions so that our water and seafood doesn't poison us? Recycling is an environmental idea that works as well. How about renewable agricultural techniques that not only reduce toxic runoff but also makes for a better tasting/more nutritious product?

There are hundreds or thousands of environmental ideas that not only work, but end up saving money/resources. You just have to look at them wothout automatically knee-jerk dismissing them.

Lets look at Katrina too. In the aftermath, some conservatives tried to blame environmentalists for the failure of the levees. There are 2 problems with that. First, the levees involved in the environmental suit WERE NOT THE LEVEES THAT FAILED. Secondly, the proposed restoration of wetlands that environmentalists proposed would have mitigated the storm surge and created a natural buffer that filters chemical and other pollutants out of the water.

For every "crackpot" environmental idea, and don't get me wrong I admit they exist, there are countless other good solid ideas. Your assertion that there are no environmental ideas exposes a frightful ignorance on your part, and an unwillingness to even consider things outside your tiny enclosed box of ideas. Argue against/with the merits of environmental ideas all you want. To deny their existance is just plain stupid. I can't stess this strongly enough.

Might I also add that sewage treatment plants are environmental ideas. Higher efficiency water heaters/refrigerators/appliances. Heck, you can barely watch an episode of This Old House without the contractors suggesting/using environmentally friendly materials and practices.

In the long run, renewable things always save money and resources. The problem is that businesses primarily worry about quarterly reports and their stockholders.

No one argues that prevention is much cheaper than cleanup/repair...until it get's the "environmental" tag. Then common sense goes out the door, and people have to get all huffy about "tree huggers."

What are the solutions? I am curious. I've never actually heard any either. (Well except for magic cars, and "cut back on fossil fuel consumption", neither of which are ever explained.)
MAGIC CARS!!!
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/alternative-fuel-channel.htm
(A fairy whispered that in my ear)

What? No pithy response about there being no such thing as Environmental ideas?

That's still possible, believe it or not. If you've seen The Day After Tomorrow, most of the science in that is accurate - it just wouldn't happen quite that fast.

Note to you: Hollywood does not use science correctly.

The Day After Tomorrow is quite bogus.... especially when it comes to science.

Why hello people.. I'm glad to be back.. but I really won't be posting all that much. I have had some family problems..

Note to you: Hollywood does not use science correctly.


Note to you: The Bush Administration does not use science correctly.

Note to you: The Bush Administration does not use science correctly.

Note to you: Leftists do not use science correctly.

Come on.. you people are nothing more then fear mongers.. no wonder I stopped posting. It just wasn't the family issues I cleared up.. but you people are nutty. Let alone factless. And then you quote "A day after tomorrow".. a movie riddled with errors.. man.. why can some be so braindead? It is just like you quoted that movie "Volcano" about LA... oh please...

Note to you: Hollywood does not use science correctly.

The Day After Tomorrow is quite bogus.... especially when it comes to science.

Why hello people.. I'm glad to be back.. but I really won't be posting all that much. I have had some family problems..

Actually, there is quite a lot of evidence to show that “The Day After Tomorrow” situation will never occur. Most scientists believe that the Atlantic current will move Southwards and probably resettle at the top part of Spain, rather that shut down altogether.

The huge cells are pure fiction, they will not happen, not with the closure of the North Atlantic current. It is important to our climate yes, but to the entire Northern Hemisphere.

Most scientists believe that the Atlantic current will move Southwards and probably resettle at the top part of Spain, rather that shut down altogether.

Really? You got a source for that? Sounds like an interesting read. The currents and the great conveyor fascinate me.

Why hello people.. I'm glad to be back.. but I really won't be posting all that much. I have had some family problems..

Your not the only one

Actually, there is quite a lot of evidence to show that “The Day After Tomorrow” situation will never occur. Most scientists believe that the Atlantic current will move Southwards and probably resettle at the top part of Spain, rather that shut down altogether.

The huge cells are pure fiction, they will not happen, not with the closure of the North Atlantic current. It is important to our climate yes, but to the entire Northern Hemisphere.

*applauds Unified Sith*

Well said dude. Well said indeed. To bad the leftists on here won't believe it because it counters everything they spout but well said anyway :)

*applauds Unified Sith*

Well said dude. Well said indeed. To bad the leftists on here won't believe it because it counters everything they spout but well said anyway :)
I believe, with all my Leftist heart, that Dennis Quaid and Jake Gyllenhaal are going to save us from impending disaster.

Note to you: Leftists do not use science correctly.

Come on.. you people are nothing more then fear mongers.. no wonder I stopped posting. It just wasn't the family issues I cleared up.. but you people are nutty. Let alone factless. And then you quote "A day after tomorrow".. a movie riddled with errors.. man.. why can some be so braindead? It is just like you quoted that movie "Volcano" about LA... oh please...

I'm not talking about the Day after Tomorrow. I am talking about that every single peer reviewed bit of research points to man's influence on Global warming. If you deny it at this point, with all the excellent new data we have now, then you simply have your head buried in the sand. The scientific community isn't split 50-50 here. Those that deny man-made global warming in the scientific community are in such the minority that it's laughable to even think there's a controversy.

*applauds Unified Sith*

Well said dude. Well said indeed. To bad the leftists on here won't believe it because it counters everything they spout but well said anyway :)

It has nothing to do with left vs right. It has everything to do with being halfway knowledgeable on the subject or not. There is no scientific controversy here. Global warming is happening and man is affecting it. Pure and simple.

It has nothing to do with left vs right. It has everything to do with being halfway knowledgeable on the subject or not. There is no scientific controversy here. Global warming is happening and man is affecting it. Pure and simple.

Its not as simple as you make it out to believe. I do know a thing or two about how weather works. I have spent half my life studying it. However, we really have only been looking at the atmosphere closely since the advent of satellites. We have only cracked the surface of what our atmosphere is capable of.

I'm not going to jump to conclusions because there still so much we don't know.

Its not as simple as you make it out to believe. I do know a thing or two about how weather works. I have spent half my life studying it. However, we really have only been looking at the atmosphere closely since the advent of satellites. We have only cracked the surface of what our atmosphere is capable of.

I'm not going to jump to conclusions because there still so much we don't know.

Dude. In the last 5 years, the evidence has piled up so high that it simply can't be ignored. Do you work for a lobbying firm or something?

Please Corneliu, post one, just one, peer-reviewed article/study/experiment within the last five years that makes a case against man made global warming. That's all I ask. In the utter absence of such an article, how can you honestly come to your conclusion?

Is this not a reasonable request? If it's not, tell me why?

Evidence for man made global warming = mountainous

Evidence that rules it out = ?

Help me out here Cornie. If I'm wrong, give me the tools to help me out.

Sigh. Let's see. How about renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, and geothermal? How about bio-diesel? How about reduced consumption lightbulbs that also last longer (which are now on the market.) How about lowering mercury emissions so that our water and seafood doesn't poison us? Recycling is an environmental idea that works as well. How about renewable agricultural techniques that not only reduce toxic runoff but also makes for a better tasting/more nutritious product?


Renewable energy doesn't work. It can't supply our energy needs. (In fact solar panels may actually consume more energy in their manufacture that they produce during their life sometimes).

Bio-diesel still produces greenhouse emissions.

Mercury has nothing to do with the so-called greenhouse effect.

You clearly know little or nothing about environmental science, and obviously only care about it is inasmuch as you can use it for politicking. I am willing to bet that if the democrats said that there was nothing wrong with greenhouse gasses tommorow, you would be on these boards telling the rest of us how beneficial they are.

Renewable energy doesn't work. It can't supply our energy needs. (In fact solar panels may actually consume more energy in their manufacture that they produce during their life sometimes).Hm. Renewable energy works quite well, just not as efficiently as needed to supply all our energy needs. Failing to invest in it will keep it at that level until the moment oil does run out.

You clearly know little or nothing about environmental science, and obviously only care about it is inasmuch as you can use it for politicking. I am willing to bet that if the democrats said that there was nothing wrong with greenhouse gasses tommorow, you would be on these boards telling the rest of us how beneficial they are.This seriously sounds like an ad hominem attack to me. Just because Gymoor II asked rhetorical questions doesn't mean that they know little or nothing about environmental science.

Something everyone should consider:
Emissions are that much lower in Europe because there's been a large amount of incentives and sanctions to increase fuel and filter efficiency. The two main polluters, the USA and soon the PRC don't give these mechanisms much attention for different reasons.

CO2 is highly likely the cause for the rapid increase of speed in the Global Warming cycles. It is definetly the cause of the acidification of the world's oceans, and if we continue as we do, we might live in warmer climates, but we will lack oceanic life.

Renewable energy doesn't work. It can't supply our energy needs. (In fact solar panels may actually consume more energy in their manufacture that they produce during their life sometimes).

Bio-diesel still produces greenhouse emissions.

Mercury has nothing to do with the so-called greenhouse effect.

You clearly know little or nothing about environmental science, and obviously only care about it is inasmuch as you can use it for politicking. I am willing to bet that if the democrats said that there was nothing wrong with greenhouse gasses tommorow, you would be on these boards telling the rest of us how beneficial they are.

Renewable energy doesn't work...that's why the hillsides are dotted with windmills not too far from where I live. Solar doesn't work...and yet people who instal solar panels often are able to sell energy back to the utility companies. Renewable energy doesn't work, and yet dams produce incredible amounts of energy. We've only begun to tap geothermal energy (which you are apparently ignorant of,) and yet you still sit there and say renewable energy doesn;'t work. Where's your support for your solar panel argument, or is it just something "you just heard somewhere"? An Exxon CEO perhaps? Get out of here with that crap.

Bullshit with regards to the Democrats stance on Global warming. If they came out against the fact, I would consider them as deluded as you. This isn't a left-right-liberal-conservative matter at all, and to think it is is just plain ignorant. It's a science vs. ignorance issue. Period.

When do you ever support your ideas? You know nothing, apparently. You don't even seem to know where to look.

Global warming is a fact, and everyone in the scientific community who isn't on the payroll of the oil industry agrees....which you'd know if you actually read something instead of putting your fingers in your ears.

Post a persuasive and unbiased article against global warming please. Post any good information. I'd love to see it. But I know you won't because it doesn't exist. You argue against fact from a complete absense of any data whatsoever and it's pathetic. Your feeble attempt to make this a Republican/Democrat issue is the sorriest thing I've seen yet. Especially since Bush himself thinks man-made Global Warming is real (he just doesn't think we should pay for it.)

Do you work for big oil, perhaps?

The meteorologists can't accurately predict the weather in my area three days from now and you expect me to believe they know what will happen to the global climate 40 years from now? You do realize that 20-30 years ago they were predicting a slide into the next mini ice-age.


There is still some truth to that. If the polar ice caps melted, than the ocean's would stop circulating and they would freeze. Certain parts of the world (mainly England) would definitely freeze over.

Renewable energy doesn't work. It can't supply our energy needs. (In fact solar panels may actually consume more energy in their manufacture that they produce during their life sometimes).

Bio-diesel still produces greenhouse emissions.

Mercury has nothing to do with the so-called greenhouse effect.

You clearly know little or nothing about environmental science, and obviously only care about it is inasmuch as you can use it for politicking. I am willing to bet that if the democrats said that there was nothing wrong with greenhouse gasses tommorow, you would be on these boards telling the rest of us how beneficial they are.


It's ok fellas, we have to be used to the conservatives and libertarians sticking their foot in their mouths if their dogma is threatened. Carry on and pat Lacadaemon on the back for being so good at learning how to type! Atta boy Lacadaemon, good boy. Here's your biscuit treat! Jump for your treat! Good boy!

Mesa, Cornie, Raven, Laca, etc...

Please read the article I posted here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=449675

and get back to me with the specific problems you have with the data contained therein, and problems with the methodology, and any indicators of bias you find.

Then we can have an adult conversation, perhaps.

Its not as simple as you make it out to believe. I do know a thing or two about how weather works. I have spent half my life studying it. However, we really have only been looking at the atmosphere closely since the advent of satellites. We have only cracked the surface of what our atmosphere is capable of.

I'm not going to jump to conclusions because there still so much we don't know.


Knowing what we know thus far, since the advent of satellites, global warming seems to be a reality. The temperature increase matches graph for graph the increase in greenhouse gasses that we have been able to find looking at ice-cores from the Antarctic. Even the United States government has finally admitted to the existence of Global Warming, and to most conservatives, everything the US does is infallible. Any doubt you are currently holding Corneliu is a small candle held against a 1000 watt HPS light. Just admit it!

Renewable energy doesn't work...that's why the hillsides are dotted with windmills not too far from where I live. Solar doesn't work...and yet people who instal solar panels often are able to sell energy back to the utility companies. Renewable energy doesn't work, and yet dams produce incredible amounts of energy. We've only begun to tap geothermal energy (which you are apparently ignorant of,) and yet you still sit there and say renewable energy doesn;'t work. Where's your support for your solar panel argument, or is it just something "you just heard somewhere"? An Exxon CEO perhaps? Get out of here with that crap.

I said it doesn't work, because it can't meet our energy needs. Which it can't.
My support for the solar panel argument is what I learned in thermodynamics when I did my engineering degree. You wouldn't understand it anyway.

Geothermal energy is not something we have "just begun to tap" either. The problem is that there are very few locations where it can be done succesfully. (i.e, actually produce net energy).

Anyway, you are obviously a complete scientific illterate, because you argue about it like you are crtiquing a literary work. It's also fairly evident that you have no actual idea what global warming is, or the mechanisms that produce it.

And like I said, your so-called solutions are nothing but fantasy and platitudes. You obviously haven't spent a single second tryin to think of how best to tackle climate problems.

Bullshit with regards to the Democrats stance on Global warming. If they came out against the fact, I would consider them as deluded as you. This isn't a left-right-liberal-conservative matter at all, and to think it is is just plain ignorant. It's a science vs. ignorance issue. Period. When do you ever support your ideas? You know nothing, apparently. You don't even seem to know where to look.

Global warming is a fact, and everyone in the scientific community who isn't on the payroll of the oil industry agrees....which you'd know if you actually read something instead of putting your fingers in your ears.

When did I ever say it wasn't a fact? I just said that no-one had ever actually offered any constructive soloutions. You included. Doubly so since you apparently think that mecury levels in the sea and biodiesel are part of the answer. And it's completely a political issue for you, because everything is. You are one of those sad people who sees life as the world v. the democrat party.

Post a persuasive and unbiased article against global warming please. Post any good information. I'd love to see it. But I know you won't because it doesn't exist. You argue against fact from a complete absense of any data whatsoever and it's pathetic. Your feeble attempt to make this a Republican/Democrat issue is the sorriest thing I've seen yet.

Do you work for big oil, perhaps?

Why should I post an article? I've yet to see you post a credible article about it. (The Seatle times doesn't count.) And what the fuck is "big oil" is that like little oil, only taller.

Now run along and keep on supporting the genocide in Iran Jaya.

Mesa, Cornie, Raven, Laca, etc...

Please read the article I posted here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=449675

and get back to me with the specific problems you have with the data contained therein, and problems with the methodology, and any indicators of bias you find.

Then we can have an adult conversation, perhaps.

Post something from a peer reviewed journal, then I will coment. Not some journalism piece. In respect of science issues, you might as well post something from the weekly world news.

Note to you: Leftists do not use science correctly.

Come on.. you people are nothing more then fear mongers.. no wonder I stopped posting. It just wasn't the family issues I cleared up.. but you people are nutty. Let alone factless. And then you quote "A day after tomorrow".. a movie riddled with errors.. man.. why can some be so braindead? It is just like you quoted that movie "Volcano" about LA... oh please...


Yeah, that movie was bunk, but most leftists (ever gotten in an argument with Cat-Tribe? Don't, you will never, ever win. If you ever wanted to be spanked raw over the internet, he's the man to do it for you.) use many more sources in their arguments than rightists or moderates. You'll notice this if you look around enough. We actually win our arguments. Some remain unsettled (mostly in economics) but the rest are usually handed to us.

http://www.realclimate.org/

Doesn't seem to be a politically affiliated site. It's only a blog, but the first column deals with the Seattle Times article.

Hm. Renewable energy works quite well, just not as efficiently as needed to supply all our energy needs. Failing to invest in it will keep it at that level until the moment oil does run out.

This seriously sounds like an ad hominem attack to me. Just because Gymoor II asked rhetorical questions doesn't mean that they know little or nothing about environmental science.

Something everyone should consider:
Emissions are that much lower in Europe because there's been a large amount of incentives and sanctions to increase fuel and filter efficiency. The two main polluters, the USA and soon the PRC don't give these mechanisms much attention for different reasons.

CO2 is highly likely the cause for the rapid increase of speed in the Global Warming cycles. It is definetly the cause of the acidification of the world's oceans, and if we continue as we do, we might live in warmer climates, but we will lack oceanic life.

Europes emissions are lower for several reasons, not least of which is climate and size.

Canada's (per capita) are far higher than the US for the same reason.

I said it doesn't work, because it can't meet our energy needs. Which it can't.
My support for the solar panel argument is what I learned in thermodynamics when I did my engineering degree. You wouldn't understand it anyway.

Try me

Geothermal energy is not something we have "just begun to tap" either. The problem is that there are very few locations where it can be done succesfully. (i.e, actually produce net energy).

Yet with more funding and research we could tap those places where it can be used. Every little bit helps.

Anyway, you are obviously a complete scientific illterate, because you argue about it like you are crtiquing a literary work. It's also fairly evident that you have no actual idea what global warming is, or the mechanisms that produce it.

Yes, dismiss what I say without bringing anything to the table yourself. Brilliant. You argue like a 5-year old.

And like I said, your so-called solutions are nothing but fantasy and platitudes. You obviously haven't spent a single second tryin to think of how best to tackle climate problems.

Right. I bow before your uber-knowledge. Still, you have yet to bring anything to the table.


When did I ever say it wasn't a fact? I just said that no-one had ever actually offered any constructive soloutions. You included. Doubly so since you apparently think that mecury levels in the sea and biodiesel are part of the answer. And it's completely a political issue for you, because everything is. You are one of those sad people who sees life as the world v. the democrat party.

I could give 2 shits about the Democratic party on this issue. I hold my own beliefs, and they're backed up by fact.

Why should I post an article? I've yet to see you post a credible article about it. (The Seatle times doesn't count.) And what the fuck is "big oil" is that like little oil, only taller.

You realize the Seattle Times article contains data from government reports and peer-reviewed articles, don't you? A quick jaunt over to google would allow you to verify much of what's said. I also point you to Nasa's website as well as Scientific American. It's not hard to inform yourself. Give it a try.

Now run along and keep on supporting the genocide in Iran Jaya.

And the award for least pertinent argument in this thread goes to...

Here's another one, I'll find the article in a minute.
http://scrippsnews.ucsd.edu/article_detail.cfm?article_num=684

Post something from a peer reviewed journal, then I will coment. Not some journalism piece. In respect of science issues, you might as well post something from the weekly world news.

Yes. Attack the messenger without realizing that the article contains references to peer-reviewed data and government reports. Again, your brilliance is awe-inspiring.

Google. Clicky clicky. Typie typie. Clicky clicky.

http://scrippsnews.ucsd.edu/article_detail.cfm?article_num=666

And here, anything else you want to debate Lacadaemon? How about Nuclear Weapons deflecting hurricanes? Do you want to take the pro-side to that argument? I figured you might want it.

Try me


Yet with more funding and research we could tap those places where it can be used. Every little bit helps.


Yes, dismiss what I say without bringing anything to the table yourself. Brilliant. You argue like a 5-year old.



Right. I bow before your uber-knowledge. Still, you have yet to bring anything to the table.



I could give 2 shits about the Democratic party on this issue. I hold my own beliefs, and they're backed up by fact.


You realize the Seattle Times article contains data from government reports and peer-reviewed articles, don't you? A quick jaunt over to google would allow you to verify much of what's said. I also point you to Nasa's website as well as Scientific American. It's not hard to inform yourself. Give it a try.



And the award for least pertinent argument in this thread goes to...


He has no alternative now. I've posted three different sources, the last being about a peer-reviewed journal piece released by Scripps Institution of Oceanography.

And the EPA itself:

http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwarming.nsf/content/ClimateScienceFAQ.html

Europes emissions are lower for several reasons, not least of which is climate and size.

Canada's (per capita) are far higher than the US for the same reason.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is considered the main greenhouse gas as it is responsible for over half the enhancement of the greenhouse effect. The United States is by far the biggest polluter of CO2 emissions in the ECE region. The combined CO2 emissions of the European Union, other western Europe, central and eastern Europe and the Russian Federation are approximately equal to that of the United States (Table 10.3). Canada, Luxembourg and the United States are the only countries in the region with more than 15 tonnes of CO2 emissions per capita, with the United States recording the highest figure at 20.6 tonnes per capita (Table 10.4 and country pages). The biggest source of CO2 emissions is from electricity and heat production, often between 30-40%, but in several countries over 50% of the total emissions. Another substantial contributor in western Europe and North America is the transport sector. The transport sector’s contribution is largest in Luxembourg with close to 60 percent, whereas it is smallest in the Netherlands and Turkey at around 17-18 percent (Table 10.5). SOURCE (http://www.unece.org/stats/trend/ch10.htm)
Considering that your presumption that Canada has a higher per capita pollution than the US was wrong, I call into question your statement that the climate plays so vital a role in deciding how much CO2 is pumped out.

And the EPA itself:

http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwarming.nsf/content/ClimateScienceFAQ.html

And from a PH. D. with over 100 peer reviewed articles:

http://www.actionbioscience.org/environment/chanton.html

Wiki too, which contains many many many links to peer-reviewed reports:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Another page of links to review at your own leasure:

http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/references.html

Googles own link page on it:

http://www.google.com/Top/Science/Environment/Global_Change/

A page of links about the danger of Climate Change. Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP) is a monthly journal of peer-reviewed research and news on the impact of the environment on human health. EHP is published by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and its content is free online. Print issues are available by paid subscription.
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/topic/global/toc.html

That should do for now.

Notice how Lacadaemon hasn't responded yet? It's because he lost. Yes! Another victory for truth and reason!

http://vivisimo.aaas.org/vivisimo/cgi-bin/query-meta?input-form=simple&query=global+warming&v%3Asources=AAAS-Google&v%3Aproject=query-meta&search.x=0&search.y=0&search=Go

And a link to a search on the website of The American Association for the Advancement of Science, just in case everything else isn't enough.

Notice how Lacadaemon hasn't responded yet? It's because he lost. Yes! Another victory for truth and reason!Don't declare premature victories (http://newmexiken.com/images/2004/05/Accomplished.jpg).

Don't declare premature victories (http://newmexiken.com/images/2004/05/Accomplished.jpg).


Only Bush, only Bush. It's just that no, he has nothing he can bring up. We dreged up about 10 sources in a short period of time, and he probably couldn't bring up one that dismissed the claims. All skeptic scientists can say is, "it's too early to tell"

I said it doesn't work, because it can't meet our energy needs. Which it can't.
My support for the solar panel argument is what I learned in thermodynamics when I did my engineering degree. You wouldn't understand it anyway.



I wonder how long ago those classes were. Did they address silicon technology only? What what the efficiency of the solar cells cited? Also, new organic solar cells are advancing daily. This technology is cheaper and the cells are flexible. Admittedly, the efficiency on these is low, but improving almost daily, and could even allow solar cells to be painted onto a surface.

Also, solar panels are not the end-all be-all of solar energy. You fail to address focused solar energy utilizing mirrors, solar water heating, and proposed solar energy satellites (likely only a few years away.)

There are also other renewable energy sources that are being investigated as we speak, such as using ocean wave action to produce energy (the amount of energy stored in an ocean wave is enormous.)

So...who is it that doesn't have any idea what they're talking about?

Typical.

Before you leftist ego wank goes on any further, you do realize that solar panels cause global warming as well, don't you?

Before you leftist ego wank goes on any further, you do realize that solar panels cause global warming as well, don't you?

No, I didn't realize that, but I'm open to proof. What are the figures you have on that? What percentage of man's effect on the climate is caused by the manufacture of solar panels and how much is saved by their use? Do you have any figures on that, or are you just talking out of your ass? Is this new technology you're talking about, or early 90's era solar panels? And again, solar panels are not the only source of solar energy, nor are they a static technology.

Look, I respond to your specific posts. I provided loads upon loads of references. I don't even resort to calling you a stupid conservative...because the environment doesn't have anything to do with partisan wanking. It has to do with science vs ignorance.

If you're of the opinion that man isn't contributing to global warming, or that we can't do anything about it, either now or in the future, then I criticize you for that specific failing rather than resorting to partisan hackery.

I wonder how long ago those classes were. Did they address silicon technology only? What what the efficiency of the solar cells cited? Also, new organic solar cells are advancing daily. This technology is cheaper and the cells are flexible. Admittedly, the efficiency on these is low, but improving almost daily, and could even allow solar cells to be painted onto a surface.

Also, solar panels are not the end-all be-all of solar energy. You fail to address focused solar energy utilizing mirrors, solar water heating, and proposed solar energy satellites (likely only a few years away.)

There are also other renewable energy sources that are being investigated as we speak, such as using ocean wave action to produce energy (the amount of energy stored in an ocean wave is enormous.)

So...who is it that doesn't have any idea what they're talking about?

You apparently, again. Organic solar cells are not suitable only for extremely low power applications, producing only 2-3% efficiencies. One day, with a lot of research, they may even get to 5%. There intended use is for low power devices, like RFID tags. Also, organic doesn't mean organic like the overpriced vegetables, but rather organic like the chemistry. There is a fair to middling chance that they will be carcinogenic if ingested.

Current theory indicates that the maximum theoretical power efficiency (as opposed to the quantum efficiency) of a solar cell is limited to 29-30% for GaAs cells. Given your opposition to arsenic in the water supply, I am suprised you are suddenly an advocate for this type of technology.

Even if this were not the case, and efficiencies of 100% could be achieved, there is just not enough sunlight. The US consumes 3.6 trillion KWh of electricity a year. The average sunlight falling on the continetal US is 4-6 KWh/m^2/day, or 1825 KWh/m^2/year. Thus even at a theoritical maximum almost 2 billion square meters of solar panels would need to be installed. (At current efficiencies this number is nearer 13 billion). And this in no way addresses the transmission losses &c. Even then, this would only replace current electricity consumption. And in no way address transportation or other sources of energy consuption. It's not feasible. Not to mention that adding 2 billion square meters of solar panels would significantly alter local climate and weather panels.

Harnessing waves is another cute idea. Apart from the environmental damage it causes to the foreshore (like hydro-electric power, it has significant environmental impact), the problem is designing a system that is sensitive enough to generate electricty but withstand ocean storms.

Before you continue to rage about all these alternative technologies, I suggest you consider this, that the japanese have been trying to reduce their dependence on oil since the 60s, and really haven't managed to come up with anything other than nuclear power. Now I am not saying that they are smarter than us, but they obviously are, just look at their consumer electronics.

Give it up, you haven't suggested a single viable solution. Just like I said you wouldn't be able to.

No, I didn't realize that, but I'm open to proof. What are the figures you have on that? What percentage of man's effect on the climate is caused by the manufacture of solar panels and how much is saved by their use? Do you have any figures on that, or are you just talking out of your ass? Is this new technology you're talking about, or early 90's era solar panels? And again, solar panels are not the only source of solar energy, nor are they a static technology.

How do you think the so-called greenhouse effect works, and what do you think that solar panels do?

I am agnostic on climate change. Without doubt, man's activities have altered the climate, the percentage of that which has been caused by greenhouse gas emissions and the percentage which has been cause by other activities (industrialization, urban sprawl &c), is open to debate in my opinion. I also think that climate change has other causes in addition to man's activities.

In any case, if the peak oil thing is true, then it is a self correcting problem (in so far as the greenhouse gas emissions are concerned).

How do you think the so-called greenhouse effect works, and what do you think that solar panels do?

I am agnostic on climate change. Without doubt, man's activities have altered the climate, the percentage of that which has been caused by greenhouse gas emissions and the percentage which has been cause by other activities (industrialization, urban sprawl &c), is open to debate in my opinion. I also think that climate change has other causes in addition to man's activities.

In any case, if the peak oil thing is true, then it is a self correcting problem (in so far as the greenhouse gas emissions are concerned).

The greenhouse effect works in a few different ways. Greenhouse gasses, such as CO2, allow normal sunlight to pass downward relatively unmolested. When such heat/light energy is reflected back upwards at different wavelengths or absorbed and then radiated outwards as heat energy, the CO2 traps and absorbs some of the energy. Some greenhouse effect is nesessary, otherwise the Earth would be uninhabitable.

Also, the Earth has what's called an albedo, which is the reflectivity of the surface. As heat rises, the albedo lowers as there is less ice to reflect the sun energy away. Pavement also has a very low albedo. Therefore more heat is absorbed by the Earth itself, rather than being bounced back out into space.

Now, as far as how solar cells work: http://science.howstuffworks.com/solar-cell.htm

As you can see, in a solar cell, photons are absorbed, but instead of converting to heat energy, a percentage of it is converted to electricity. Therefore your contention that solar cells increase the greenhouse effect is patently absurd.

Knowing what we know thus far, since the advent of satellites, global warming seems to be a reality.

And knowing our past also proves this. We have had decades of warming followed by decades of coolling. Not to mention an occassional warming or cooling during these periods.

The temperature increase matches graph for graph the increase in greenhouse gasses that we have been able to find looking at ice-cores from the Antarctic. Even the United States government has finally admitted to the existence of Global Warming, and to most conservatives, everything the US does is infallible. Any doubt you are currently holding Corneliu is a small candle held against a 1000 watt HPS light. Just admit it!

Admit what? I already know that Global Warming is natural. I also already know that the atmosphere sorts itself out. I also know that weather extremes occur at random. I also know that there is a cycle puncuated with severe weather. Your not going to convince me of anything else.

Thus even at a theoritical maximum almost 2 billion square meters of solar panels would need to be installed. (At current efficiencies this number is nearer 13 billion).

2 billion square meters?

Wow, that's almost twice the size of New York City!

No way we could do that!

And knowing our past also proves this. We have had decades of warming followed by decades of coolling. Not to mention an occassional warming or cooling during these periods.



Admit what? I already know that Global Warming is natural. I also already know that the atmosphere sorts itself out. I also know that weather extremes occur at random. I also know that there is a cycle puncuated with severe weather. Your not going to convince me of anything else.

Did you even read all the links? I ask again. What kind of data do you need to conclude that man is indeed altering the climate? Are you saying that no amount of research will do that? Scientists have eliminated everything else besides man as the cause of the current spike in temperature. Cycles are true, but they all have causes. This particular cycle is caused by us.

Unless, of course, you could provide some proof for your stance? If you have a good, solid basis for your belief I would absolutley love to see it. Please. I support myself every time it's requested. I would like the same courtesy. Please.

Did you even read all the links? I ask again. What kind of data do you need to conclude that man is indeed altering the climate?

Many more years of research actually. We only been at this for the last 40 or so years. We only begin to unlock the atmosphere as well as climate. I'll wait and see so that I don't become an alarmist like most people.

Are you saying that no amount of research will do that?

Nope!

Scientists have eliminated everything else besides man as the cause of the current spike in temperature. Cycles are true, but they all have causes. This particular cycle is caused by us.

*yawns* Again. We only been studying our atmosphere for a few decades. We don't know enough about it yet to render ANY type of verdict.

Unless, of course, you could provide some proof for your stance? If you have a good, solid basis for your belief I would absolutley love to see it. Please. I support myself every time it's requested. I would like the same courtesy. Please.

Seems to me that no matter what type of proof is offered, you denounce it so why bother.

Many more years of research actually. We only been at this for the last 40 or so years. We only begin to unlock the atmosphere as well as climate. I'll wait and see so that I don't become an alarmist like most people.

It's not being an alarmist when you take the data and make a valid conclusion...as the overwhelming majority of the scientific community has already done.

*yawns* Again. We only been studying our atmosphere for a few decades. We don't know enough about it yet to render ANY type of verdict.


Yes we do, and the overwhelming majority of the scientists...even the skeptics...have already done so. If you are privvy to information that supports your point, provide it, and I will address it specifically and support my position.


Seems to me that no matter what type of proof is offered, you denounce it so why bother.

Name one bit of proof I've dimissed without good reason. Where is it?

Show me the mistakes I'm making. Make your case. What are my specific errors?

You have to admit, reading through this thread, that I have supported my position with more data, articles, links and sources than anyone else...with the possible exception of those that also support the same side of the argument as me. Do me a favor and present just one peer reviewed report or article that references such a report that supports your contention that the data presented by the gross majority of today's scientists is faulty or based on incomplete data. If I've missed such a source, please point it out to me again. If you have something that shows that today's scientists are indeed divided on the subject in a meaningful manner, let me see it.

Nope!
I'm wondering if your dismissal of the evidence has something to do with your religious beliefs, assuming you have such?

If that's the case, would you mind letting the rest of us know? It's slightly aggrivating to see mountains of evidence being dismissed out of hand for no obvious reason.

Thank you :)

I'm wondering if your dismissal of the evidence has something to do with your religious beliefs, assuming you have such?

I am a religious person but the answer to this comment is a resounding NO!

The greenhouse effect works in a few different ways. Greenhouse gasses, such as CO2, allow normal sunlight to pass downward relatively unmolested. When such heat/light energy is reflected back upwards at different wavelengths or absorbed and then radiated outwards as heat energy, the CO2 traps and absorbs some of the energy. Some greenhouse effect is nesessary, otherwise the Earth would be uninhabitable.

Also, the Earth has what's called an albedo, which is the reflectivity of the surface. As heat rises, the albedo lowers as there is less ice to reflect the sun energy away. Pavement also has a very low albedo. Therefore more heat is absorbed by the Earth itself, rather than being bounced back out into space.

Now, as far as how solar cells work: http://science.howstuffworks.com/solar-cell.htm

As you can see, in a solar cell, photons are absorbed, but instead of converting to heat energy, a percentage of it is converted to electricity. Therefore your contention that solar cells increase the greenhouse effect is patently absurd.

Heat and electricity. It changes the albedo. :rolleyes: Very efficiently in fact.

Heat and electricity. It changes the albedo. :rolleyes: Very efficiently in fact.

Well, of course it changes the albedo, but what is the albedo of an average rooftop compared to a solar cell? Do you know? How much energy that would normally be converted to heat is converted into electricity instead? Do you know? Why has environmental technology apparently come down to a single issue with you? Do you have any facts and figures to back up your argument, or are you just going to sit there smugly with your brilliant "nuh uh!" strategy?

You have yet to argue the effectiveness of wind power. You have yet to address anything having to do with renewable energy other than solar cells, which you in turn have failed to support.

I am a religious person but the answer to this comment is a resounding NO!
Ok. Just checking is all. But since that's the case, I feel like repeating Gymoor II The Return's questions.

What exactly is the problem with all the evidence you've been presented?

What evidence do you have to back your claims?

What will it take for you to reconsider your position?

- I haven't bothered posting in this thread untill now, as I've debated this with you previously, and withdrew as I felt I was talking to a wall. However, I have followed this & other threads, and I seriously don't understand your position on this - No offence implied, I'm just curious & confused.

You apparently, again. Organic solar cells are not suitable only for extremely low power applications, producing only 2-3% efficiencies. One day, with a lot of research, they may even get to 5%. There intended use is for low power devices, like RFID tags. Also, organic doesn't mean organic like the overpriced vegetables, but rather organic like the chemistry. There is a fair to middling chance that they will be carcinogenic if ingested.

Actually, organic cells have already achieved efficiencies of 5.2 percent, as you can confirm by typing 5.2% and organic solar cell. The technology is in it's infancy, though. Also, no one is advocating eating organic cells. I'm also fully aware that organic cell in this context does not mean biological.

Current theory indicates that the maximum theoretical power efficiency (as opposed to the quantum efficiency) of a solar cell is limited to 29-30% for GaAs cells. Given your opposition to arsenic in the water supply, I am suprised you are suddenly an advocate for this type of technology.

Not all processes involve arsenic. In addition, using arsenic =/= equal dumping the arsenic in the water supply. Responsible use of dangerous materials is fine by me. Also, no one is saying solar cells is the single solution. A cumulative effect is the idea, combining ALL renewable technologies

Even if this were not the case, and efficiencies of 100% could be achieved, there is just not enough sunlight. The US consumes 3.6 trillion KWh of electricity a year. The average sunlight falling on the continetal US is 4-6 KWh/m^2/day, or 1825 KWh/m^2/year. Thus even at a theoritical maximum almost 2 billion square meters of solar panels would need to be installed. (At current efficiencies this number is nearer 13 billion). And this in no way addresses the transmission losses &c. Even then, this would only replace current electricity consumption. And in no way address transportation or other sources of energy consuption. It's not feasible. Not to mention that adding 2 billion square meters of solar panels would significantly alter local climate and weather panels.

Again, no one is suggesting that solar cells are the end-all be-all.

Harnessing waves is another cute idea. Apart from the environmental damage it causes to the foreshore (like hydro-electric power, it has significant environmental impact), the problem is designing a system that is sensitive enough to generate electricty but withstand ocean storms.


I'm sure people thought harnessing the power of the atom was a cute idea. I'm glad that scientists push the bounds of what's possible daily. With responsible disposal of waste, in fact, I'm in favor of nuclear energy. In fact I hope nuclear technologies progress to the poit where we can harness fusion energy, which would have no radioactive waste.

Before you continue to rage about all these alternative technologies, I suggest you consider this, that the japanese have been trying to reduce their dependence on oil since the 60s, and really haven't managed to come up with anything other than nuclear power. Now I am not saying that they are smarter than us, but they obviously are, just look at their consumer electronics.

Give it up, you haven't suggested a single viable solution. Just like I said you wouldn't be able to.

I haven't tried to suggest a single viable solution. I'm suggesting using all the renewable energy sources together. I'm suggesting harnessing technologies as they become practical. I'm suggesting that we reduce our depenence on fossil fuels as quickly and comprehensively as we can. Your strawman isn't going to work here.

Are you suggesting that we stop researching new power technologies just because you think they're cute? Boy, am I glad you're not in charge.

Not all processes involve arsenic. In addition, using arsenic =/= equal dumping the arsenic in the water supply. Responsible use of dangerous materials is fine by me. Also, no one is saying solar cells is the single solution. A cumulative effect is the idea, combining ALL renewable technologies

Well, silicon cells are never going to get the type of efficiency over their entire lifespan to be cost effective in most parts of the northern hemisphere. Which sort of makes GaAs the cell of choice. And you can't seriously suggest that putting down hundreds of thousands if not millions of square meters of thin film arsenic is not a potential environmental nightmare.

Again, no one is suggesting that solar cells are the end-all be-all.

They are not even the begining all, for most of the country. I wished they worked, I really fucking do. It would be awesome to have tonnes of cheap enerfy from the sun (believe me, I live in NYC and have con-edison, the most expensve in the country). But they don't, and don't even come close except in a few geographic locations. It's pie in the sjy stuff.


I'm sure people thought harnessing the power of the atom was a cute idea. I'm glad that scientists push the bounds of what's possible daily. With responsible disposal of waste, in fact, I'm in favor of nuclear energy. In fact I hope nuclear technologies progress to the poit where we can harness fusion energy, which would have no radioactive waste.

Funnily enough, from the research done in WWII to develop the bomb, the engineering considerations for harnessing were actually quite trivial compared to effectively harnessing these so called "renewable" energy sources. It was simply a matter of switching out the heat source in an already well understood generation technology (well more or less).Which is why the brits were able to construct caulder hall and have it running within a matter of years after the war. It didn't require paradigm shifts in material science a theoretical physics.


I haven't tried to suggest a single viable solution. I'm suggesting using all the renewable energy sources together. I'm suggesting harnessing technologies as they become practical. I'm suggesting that we reduce our depenence on fossil fuels as quickly and comprehensively as we can. Your strawman isn't going to work here.

Well, none of these renewable technologies even combined can come close to providing the type of energy supply we currently need. And they all have their own environmental costs as well. Tide power ruins the beaches and habitat, as does development of hyrdro-electric. And I wish to god that people would stop saying strawman and ad hominem on this board. No-one ever uses the terms appropriately.

As to fossil fuel dependence, it is going to take care of itself. And if anything you should encourage the west to use it, because if we don't the developing world will, and they have even poorer emission controls than we do.

Are you suggesting that we stop researching new power technologies just because you think they're cute? Boy, am I glad you're not in charge.

No, I am suggesting that we face facts. Either modify our lifestyles massively, accept a hydrocarbon economy or get back to work with the nuclear power. And stop pissing about with pipe dreams that have been promised since the mid-seventies.

http://www.nrel.gov/

National Renewable Energy Lab.

Tell it to them, Laca. No one's talking about suddenly swithcing completely to renewable energy, and everything man does has an impact. The key is balancing things, using the available technology and moving forward with it. There's no "magic" solution and I'm not suggesting that.

Nah there's an easy solution. Nukes.

Just as a reminder: No one has yet complied with a nice relevant peer-reviewed article or a news story that sites such articles, preferrably from the last 5 years, that gives evidence against man-influenced climate change/global warming.

And no, unsupported proclamations don't count.

Just a friendly reminder.

Just as a reminder: No one has yet complied with a nice relevant peer-reviewed article or a news story that sites such articles, preferrably from the last 5 years, that gives evidence against man-influenced climate change/global warming.

And no, unsupported proclamations don't count.

Just a friendly reminder.

you're so demanding. besides, i don't trust peer-reviewed journals and their 'articles'. they're elitist for constantly telling us what is or isn't true, what did or didn't happen.

you're so demanding. besides, i don't trust peer-reviewed journals and their 'articles'. they're elitist for constantly telling us what is or isn't true, what did or didn't happen.

Yes, I know. My pages and pages of citations and logical argument simply can't stand up to the devastating assault of wild proclamations, subject changes and protestations that "we don't know."

Come on guys. You aren't even trying. I want a good debate here, but no one is willing to even try. Where is the cutting-edge science that dispells the "vast left wing global warming myth?"

No one has posted anything on topic to my request.

No one has shown that there is even an active scientific debate on the subject.

I'm trying to be reasonable here, but no one is even willing to play ball.

Why is this so hard? If the debate is as robust as the global warming deniers claim, there should be a wealth of information to post, but I'm not seeing it. If I've missed something, I welcome someone to point out where so that I can be "put in my place."

I'm sure there are people on this forum who dislike me or dislike my ideas. Well, here's your chance to shame me.

In the words of George W. Bush, bring 'em on.

Come on guys. You aren't even trying. I want a good debate here, but no one is willing to even try. Where is the cutting-edge science that dispells the "vast left wing global warming myth?"

No one has posted anything on topic to my request.

No one has shown that there is even an active scientific debate on the subject.

I'm trying to be reasonable here, but no one is even willing to play ball.

Why is this so hard? If the debate is as robust as the global warming deniers claim, there should be a wealth of information to post, but I'm not seeing it. If I've missed something, I welcome someone to point out where so that I can be "put in my place."

I'm sure there are people on this forum who dislike me or dislike my ideas. Well, here's your chance to shame me.

In the words of George W. Bush, bring 'em on.

Well, I can't say that global warming is a myth. I could add that a neat and obvious way of cooling the planet is something I learned from some people at the EPA's Acid Rain unit. Coal-fired plants emit sulfur dioxide - that we try to limit through technological improvements to those plants.

BUT...

If you ever want to see a winter that is 20 degrees F cooler on average than it should be given the other weather patterns around...

it's the area under the plumes from those plants - most of the Northeast US.

I know sulfur dioxide is bad for us, but it makes me think that there's a technical solution out there.

-snip-

I'll address this seriously, just in case. :D

What you're referring to is the sometimes called "global dimming." While it would mitigate the effects of global warming it has a few problems:

1. More unhealthy pollutants in the air/acid rain. Obviously this can increase health risks. It also inceases erosion and contributes to other ecological problems.

2. Global dimming also reduces agricultural production. Less light energy getting through.

Sunsets would be beautiful, though.

Look at this as well, from Scientific American. Kinda gloomy predictions of American Weather patterns.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=000525AD-1223-1354-922383414B7F0000

I did not read all of this thread so if it as been said just say so and I will shut up.

4 degrees is amazingly high temperature world wide. In the perminan era the temperature rose 10 degrees and killed 98% of ALL life on Earth. Not just on the surface but in the oceans as well.

4 degrees is enough to cause plant and animal life to die. At 5 degrees you can expect a 60% extinction rate in plants and animals. The earth as gone through this before and will continue to do so. We are just continuing to speed up this cycle. But in time it will be as if we where never here. The planet will go on and it will be all hunky dorey.

And sulfuric rain is very common especially in Mexico City where they where face masks to breath and it is not recommended to go outside without some kind of protection. We are approaching the next cycle and humanity is only increasing it.