Global warming !!!! Global warming !!!! - Page 2

Does it matter? Regardless of cause we need to understand how to manage the problem.

Brought to PO by whom might I ask?

All you AAGW people do is present ad hominems without discussing the factual science!

Its true that human CO2 emissions are small compared with most natural sources. By far a bigger release of CO2 comes from the ocean, by a factor of nearly 5 over the current level of human emissions. BUT that misses the point entirely. Natural sources are balanced by natural removal, (carbon sinks). The ocean sucks up the massive amount of CO2 it releases. Its evolved into a finely balanced equilibrium. If it hadnt, we wouldn't be here to talk about it!. However if the temperature keeps rising the ocean will be a net contributor to CO2 levels too, and then we really will be fucked, because warm water can hold less CO2 than cold water. And there is a whole hurt of CO2 and methane in the oceans ready to be released if the temperature keeps rising.

The preceeding half a million years have had an atmospheric co2 level of between 180 and 300 parts per million. But today they are at 380ppm and rising, this has occurred since the industrial revolution, ie the last 150 years. That is about a 30% rise that never occurred during the preceeding half a million years, that has occured in the last 150 years. There is no explanation for this other than human activity. Only a complete fool would deny that everything humans consume releases CO2 in one way or another.

So the problem is not whether human Co2 emissions are a small percentage of total natural emissions, the problem is that human Co2 emissions, have no natural balance to soak them up, and that is what has caused a 30% increase in atmospheric Co2 in about 150 years.

Since when has evidence of falsity affected anything a politician says or does?

That being said, I bet 15 years after that quote was made, those numbers are different and I would be willing to bet that most scientists today believe in global warming and that humans are at least partly at fault.

educate yourself.

Other older surveys of scientists


George Swill, Fartland Institute, Financial Puke, et. al. D'oh, are they scientists?

In a 100 year old poll, NO scientists believed Global warming was happening!

Global Warming Hysteria -----> Global Socialism. That's the goal. Since Day One.

You might start here;

The Physical Basis of Climate Change

At least try reading the FAQ (4th link on that page) for quick answers.

There is limited capability in the natural sinks to remove some of the CO2 we are using, about 40% of it goes into natural sinks, the rest into the atmosphere.

1. Why not? There is nuclear, renewables, ie solar, hydro, wind, and ofcourse there is the possibility that even if petroleum like products are still used, they need not be sourced from fossil fuels. 90% of petrochemicals can either be synthesized from Bio sources or new biochemicals made to have similar properties or uses as the oil based equivalent. Infact only about 4% of the oil that comes out of the ground ever gets used in petrochemicals, 70% apx is just burned as fuel. Interestingly, that 4% is worth about the same as a finished product as is the 70% that is burned. In the US last year, both bio and fuel derived from oil was worth about $380 billion each. BioTech is a rapidly expanding industry.

Nuclear is the best bet at the moment. The enviro-lobby is completely ignorant if it campaigns against it. Its safe enough and frankly all we have at the moment.

As i've said, Solar is now hitting 60% efficiency over just 15% a few yers ago. My point would be, that if we can spend trillions blowing shit up, we can spend the same installing solar on every house in the country.

Hydro-Wind etc are useful if the conditions are right and in the right application, but frankly wont ever be mass scale.

Alot of NIMBYs moan about everything. Fine. Turn off their electricity supply at 5pm because there is no capacity and see how long it takes them to change their mind and stop moaning.

2. That is precisely why we need to stop spending trillions blowing shit up and get the R&D done on alternative fuels. Your car can run from water. Infact everything can be run off water. There is a lot of it, and it doesn't have the dangerous environmental impact of fossil fuels.

I read that China is completing 2 coal powered powerstations every MONTH!!

Just because they are polluting doesn't give me or you a licence to pollute. We have the technology and the money to R&D hydrogen, water, solar, fusion etc. FFS lets get on with it! Then we can sell it back to them and we are all winners. I dont begrudge China, India et al making better lives for themselves if thats what their people want, and perhaps this is how they do it, but if we are in a position to do better, we should be doing it.

Lets be honest, by the end of the century, the US, Europe etc, is going to playing second fiddle to China, Russia, India wether we like it or not. Our only advantage at the moment is that we have a technological and economic advantage. Kiss this goodbye in 50 years. If we dont get on with it, we will be buying that technology from them and we will all be working in sweat shops to supply their citizens with Nike's for $5 an hour.

Put it this way, do you want your tax dollars being spent on maiming innocent defenseless children and adults in countries that have unfortunately got a questionable government or dictatorship OR spent on developing safe power - so that we dont have to kill children to get their countries oil, in which their dictatorship will rapidly crumble if we were not inadvertantly financing their terrorism, their corrupt state or the like???

IMHO? No and no.

But it sure would be nice to see where this AGW "experiment" we humans are conducting might lead to and over what timeframes! \

Hysteria


Somatization disorder

hehe! I made some edits while you were typing!

btw, your link, interesting isn't it?, I had a good poke around that site at the start of the year while I was researching sun-spots and flare radiation. There is some cool stuff over there!

well, they are experiencing a massive economic boom the same as we did generations ago. If it had been the other way around, none of us would have listened while we were pulling ourselves into the modern world. Im afraid that while there is massive disparity in the world between the richest and the poorest, then we cannot simply deny them the same basic rights to life as we expect. They will industrialize up to the point we are at, and then they will experience all the same issues we are facing today.

When China et al reaches the same general level of wealth as we have, they will be putting out the scientists and technology that we are, and they will be concerned at their levels of pollution and will seek to reduce it. As will every other nation that reaches our modern world state.

Our task is to develop the technology so that we dont pollute and as we could be leaders in this field, we will naturally want to sell this tech to them so that when they are ready, they will not pollute either. Putting out fingers in our ears and doing nothing, because 'its not fair' is pathetic. Its not fair that your average Chinaman earns $10 a week. He is more concerned about a bowl of rice to feed his family, and rightly so, than worrying that his country is contributing to the sea-level flooding New Orleans in 50 years.

He has no choice, infact he does not know that he even has a choice or that there is an issue, but we do, and we should be doing something about it, and not acting like a bunch of 5 year olds complaining its not fair that Johnny got an extra scoop of ice-cream for tea.

I sure would like to see his theory and the relative magnitude of his 2040 "prediction."

Huh? What matters is that we make the changes that we can make to address the problem. We don't have to be the cause to be the fix. No clue where your pinhead popculture take came from.

The solar irradiance didn't begin to drop in the 1990's. It has been the same, within fractions of a percent since direct measurements began, which you might be suprised to hear was not that long ago. IIRC 1978.

What is predicted is that from the level of solar-flare activity at the moment is that the next 11 year cycle of solar flares will be recordbreakingly strong (2011) followed by a rapid decrease for the following cycle in 2022, because it is possible to predict the next batch of flare activity by the current batch. Of course there are many periodic cycles of the sun, your link expressed one of them, and the data batch doesn't go back long enough to say for absolute certainty.

Lack of solar activity means that we will be bombarded from space with more highly energetic cosmic particles,(as high solar activity blocks this)- which back in 1990 a dutch team suggested 'might' lead to increased cloud coverage. But as solar activity only accounts for about 0.1% of the energy reaching the earth from the sun, the effect from this on temperatures will be pretty insignificant.

Infact there is a sunspot developing at the moment, ill try to find the photo, but in essense the spot is the size of one of the large gasseous planets, when you see it, its just a pin-prick compared to the size of the solar disc, which is why in the grand scheme of things, sunspot activity does not have an effect on the amount of solar energy reaching us.

Now! the lack of, or increase of solar/extrasolar particles reaching us might have an effect on weather, but that is another story for another time!

you can see the 'neptune sized' sun spot here
http://www.spaceweather.com/

here is a graph of total solar irradiance , note that what the russian guy said is simply not true -in context. Note the Y axis scale.


ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DA...MPOSITE.v2.GIF

which comes from here

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/f...rradiance.html

well in all the time I have been reading space stuff, I've not come across the idea that we are not part of the milky way, so I cant really comment.

It sounds intreguing, so I'll take a look, but I really had to contain my laughter when one of the points made is that the mystery of why the milky way is viewed at an angle to us has never been resolved quite amusing!!

Besides, if we weren't originally part of the milky way, and we are merging with it - how does that hold up in the creation theory 6000 year timelime???

you chose the worst time! Im strangely a night creature, If you want to get one over me, you need to try at 10am. I dont really 'wake up' till about 6pm most days. My collegees dispair!

Still, its a shame that if you say its BS, I get quite excited when science gets a radical overhaul. I just read the other day, that Loop Quantum Gravity predicts that the universe didn't ever have the big-bang as we know it and there was 'time' before what we would call zero time, ie it might be possible to determine what was hapenning before the big-bang!! How cool!!!

And what EXACTLY does that have to do with our Sun being the primary source of incoming energy? You do realize that the entire EM spectrum is being measured in these observations?



Once again;



And finally;

Changes in Solar Brightness Too Weak to Explain Global Warming


Next up, "Quasars found to be source of Earth's climate changes."

Fellows, you can't possibly be serious about all the stuff you've posted in this thread.

Anyway, a post more pointedly saying the same thing as franksargent about the supposed 1992 poll

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?t=75010

I noticed that on my second read through! Alas I think Fellows was having a laugh, or its a very strange coincidence

http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2...another-galaxy

You must have been paying attention at some point! I'd like to play the mayan rapture/cosmic particles game, but I know hardeharhar will rip me a new one.

Think yourself lucky that I didn't bite

Its the FSM!!! Damn, he was a sun god too???