Notices
Results 1 to 27 of 27

Thread: A Solution to Global Warming

  1. #1 A Solution to Global Warming 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    100
    Plankton are one celled plant and animal organisms in the ocean.
    Stock the oceans with more plant plankton. This would use up more of the sun's energy in photosynthesis preventing the ocean water from getting as hot. It would decrease the amount of carbon dioxide in the air and decrease the green house effect, slowing down or stopping global warming. It would increase the amount of oxygen and increase the number of fish in the ocean by providing them with more food.
    Plant plankton is the main source of oxygen on the earth and the photosynthesis in plant plankton is the main mechanism of getting rid of carbon dioxide.
    Just like fish hatcheries are used to stock ponds with fish, efforts could be made to grow more plant plankton and release it into the ocean. There it should increase further by its own growth and development.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Dublin, Ireland
    Posts
    945
    but wouldn't it cause a knock on affect? i think the reason we are in the mess, is because of us humans interveneing in nature... it could have a bad effect on the biggest eco system?

    but it dose seem like a good idea!!!


    Stumble on through life.
    Feel free to correct any false information, which unknown to me, may be included in my posts. (also - let this be a disclaimer)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Him
    Him is offline
    Forum Sophomore Him's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    181
    I’m not an ecologist but plankton being at the bottom of the food chain, I think we will be feeding the fish (which is also usefull nowadays; however you won't find many to sponser). All the carbon dioxide which have been but into organic carbon molecules (by our friend plankton) are almost directly burned to CO2 again by the fish and the rest of the food chain.

    It’s the emission of CO2 which is stoked up million of years ago we need to get rid of (or better put- leave where they are; or yet better put use for more meaningfull polymer creation instead of just burning them). So unless you can invent a car that drives on plankton; I do not directly see them solving the problem.

    Perhaps my answer is a miss interpretation; and don't you do see the solution of plankton in reducing CO2; but actually by reducing heat by using the sunlight.
    In this case I am wondering there every chemical reaction produces heat (certainly the fishes which grow larger in number after the plankton boost), and the sea being quite reflective. Putting plankton into the water which more effectively traps the suns energy makes the sea even hotter.

    Global warming is not a consequence of too few plants/and others using the sunlight, it is a consequence of produced heat being less able to leave our planet, because heat absorbing molecule are getting more concentrated in the atmosphere. However you know this and much remains debatable.
    he who forgets...will be destined to remember (Nothing Man - Pearl Jam)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    177
    Fertilizing the ocean with ferric ions will cause the plankton growth rate to bloom. This has been studied experimentally by intentionally speading ferric chloride on the ocean surface, and then measuring the plankton growth rates and O2 emmisions. The test results have varied from spectacular to mixed, depending on ocean conditions such as temperature, insolation, and currents.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Him
    I’m not an ecologist but plankton being at the bottom of the food chain, I think we will be feeding the fish (which is also usefull nowadays; however you won't find many to sponser). All the carbon dioxide which have been but into organic carbon molecules (by our friend plankton) are almost directly burned to CO2 again by the fish and the rest of the food chain.

    It’s the emission of CO2 which is stoked up million of years ago we need to get rid of (or better put- leave where they are; or yet better put use for more meaningfull polymer creation instead of just burning them). So unless you can invent a car that drives on plankton; I do not directly see them solving the problem.

    Perhaps my answer is a miss interpretation; and don't you do see the solution of plankton in reducing CO2; but actually by reducing heat by using the sunlight.
    In this case I am wondering there every chemical reaction produces heat (certainly the fishes which grow larger in number after the plankton boost), and the sea being quite reflective. Putting plankton into the water which more effectively traps the suns energy makes the sea even hotter.
    I disagree with you. Having more plankton doing more photosynthesis is going to cool the water off, and not make it hotter.
    Here is the reason why:
    The sun radiates light and heat. Energy cannot be created or destroyed it only changes from one form to another. - Conservation of energy principle.
    The chemical potential energy that is locked up in the sugars and carbohydrates that are produced by photosynthesis comes from the sun's radiation. That means that the sun's radiation has less energy left in it to warm the waters. That means that photosynthesis is taking some of the sun's energy and locking it up in the form of sugar and carbohydrates, so the sun radiation has less energy in it to warm the water. Increased photosynthesis in the sea will make the water cooler on that basis.

    Simply increase the fishing boats and take more fish. This will feed more poeple, and allow the plankton population to stay high. If Plankton produces more fish, then catch more fish and feed more people.
    Any plankton that is not eaten will lock up the sun's energy in the form of sugars and carbohydrates and it will stay locked up that way, possibly in bottom silt. That would be taking heat energy out of the loop permanently, or for a very long time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman Yevaud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    87
    Radiative transfer to the Oceans is perfectly valid, but I think you're overestimating the amount of Plankton by a huge factor. The Global Energy Balance equation would hardly be affected.
    *Welcome, my friends, to the show that never ends*
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Yevaud
    Radiative transfer to the Oceans is perfectly valid, but I think you're overestimating the amount of Plankton by a huge factor. The Global Energy Balance equation would hardly be affected.
    Don't underestimate it. photosynthesis from the phyto plankton provide most of the world's oxygen and is the main mechanism for getting rid of carbon dioxide. More photosynthesis happens in the sea than on land.
    The idea is to increase photosynthesis world wide on the land and sea.
    This would get rid of the excess carbon dioxide caused by the burning of fossil fuels and greatly reduce the green house effect that is causing most of the global warming.
    Since only about 1/5 of the surface is land, the phytoplankton would be most important in increasing the photosynthesis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman Yevaud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    87
    Oh, I'm not slamming any possible benefit as far as Photosynthesis goes. But the part about cooling the water is, I think, way off.
    *Welcome, my friends, to the show that never ends*
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Him
    Perhaps my answer is a miss interpretation; and don't you do see the solution of plankton in reducing CO2; but actually by reducing heat by using the sunlight.
    In this case I am wondering there every chemical reaction produces heat (certainly the fishes which grow larger in number after the plankton boost), and the sea being quite reflective. Putting plankton into the water which more effectively traps the suns energy makes the sea even hotter.

    Global warming is not a consequence of too few plants/and others using the sunlight, it is a consequence of produced heat being less able to leave our planet, because heat absorbing molecule are getting more concentrated in the atmosphere. However you know this and much remains debatable.

    Photosynthesis is the mechanism that gets rid of CO2, and getting rid of more CO2 will slow down the green house effect. Simply increase photosynthisis on the land and sea, to get rid of more CO2 and stop this green house effect and stop global warming.
    Plant plankton would be most important because only about 1/5 of the surface is land. [On the land people could plant more things and make the land greener, to increase photosynthesis. The general population could be called upon to plant more things, --grass or anything green.]

    Heat radiation is infrared. The infrared is probably not reflected much by the sea water, but goes right through the surface. Ocean reflectivity is not an issue here. {Blue light is scattered by the sky and ocean; small particles scatter the shorter wave lengths. Red and infrared pass through.}
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman Yevaud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by ghost7584
    Heat radiation is infrared. The infrared is probably not reflected much by the sea water, but goes right through the surface. Ocean reflectivity is not an issue here. {Blue light is scattered by the sky and ocean; small particles scatter the shorter wave lengths. Red and infrared pass through.}
    Ahhh, that's not how it works (I majored in these sorts of things). You get incoming solar insolation, but the bulk of it isn't Thermal or IR at all. And the incoming transmission path involves scattering, absortion, emission, what have you.

    Only a percentage of that will actually be absorbed by the Oceans, which are a pretty damned good reflector. And a large percentage of that will be reemitted as Thermal and IR, but not retained.

    Not to mention the Specific Heat of sea water, which isn't inconsiderable. It requires a lot of energy to heat one Cm^3 of it, Plankton or no.

    Overall, while you may well be correct as to the Photosynthetic abilities of increased Plankton densities (the Mother of all Plankton blooms!), I believe the heat-retention capabilities you state are not correct.
    *Welcome, my friends, to the show that never ends*
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Yevaud
    Oh, I'm not slamming any possible benefit as far as Photosynthesis goes. But the part about cooling the water is, I think, way off.
    Photosynthesis locks up calories (heat energy) in the form of sugar. Those calories come from the sun's radiation. That means less calories are available in the sun's radiation to warm the water.
    If the plankton is not eaten, those heat calories stay locked up in the form of chemical potential energy and cannot contribute to ocean warming.
    Catch more fish and prevent them from eating the increased number of plankton. If the plankton would die without being eaten, and become bottom silt, those heat energy calories will stay locked up and can't warm the water.
    But the main cause of the global warming is the green house effect due to increased CO2. It is the reduction of CO2 that is the main thing you want to happen. It is the photosynthesis that causes that.
    The cooling of the water might be small from photosynthesis directly. But it would get cooler from less green house effect. But even a few degrees cooler would help prevent hurricaines from getting so strong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman Yevaud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    87
    This, ahhh, opens another kettle of fish (sorry. Couldn't resist).

    For example, the sheer amount of Photoplankton required to be able to absorb the amount of received solar insolation you say is just off the scale.

    Also, consider that as we increase fishing, one of two possibilities come to mind (and we have evidence for some of this already):

    Fishing stocks would crash, possibly eliminating piscine species altogether. Not a good thing.

    As we used them - given that this is in the presence of increased food sources for the lower level fish - they would increase their reproduction rate, effectively making no difference. E.g., increased space and readily available food = they grow right into the circumstances.

    So in the first event, we screw the oceans, eliminating a large amount of the population of sea-life. What sort of unpleasant synergy would occur from there is anyone's guess, except it won't be good.

    In the second, there is no difference. Increased Plankton = increased fish stocks to consume it.
    *Welcome, my friends, to the show that never ends*
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Yevaud
    Quote Originally Posted by ghost7584
    Heat radiation is infrared. The infrared is probably not reflected much by the sea water, but goes right through the surface. Ocean reflectivity is not an issue here. {Blue light is scattered by the sky and ocean; small particles scatter the shorter wave lengths. Red and infrared pass through.}
    Ahhh, that's not how it works (I majored in these sorts of things). You get incoming solar insolation, but the bulk of it isn't Thermal or IR at all. And the incoming transmission path involves scattering, absortion, emission, what have you.

    Only a percentage of that will actually be absorbed by the Oceans, which are a pretty damned good reflector. And a large percentage of that will be reemitted as Thermal and IR, but not retained.

    Not to mention the Specific Heat of sea water, which isn't inconsiderable. It requires a lot of energy to heat one Cm^3 of it, Plankton or no.

    Overall, while you may well be correct as to the Photosynthetic abilities of increased Plankton densities (the Mother of all Plankton blooms!), I believe the heat-retention capabilities you state are not correct.
    I was responding to his comment about ocean reflectivity. He seemed to be suggesting that having more plankton is going to reduce the reflectivity and cause the water to get hotter. I was saying a smaller percentage of the IR is going to be reflected, plankton or not, so that should not be a problem. It is the IR that is responsible for the heat radiation. The ocean and the sky are blue because small particles (such as air and water molecules scatter blue light.(the shorter wavelengths). The longer wavelengths like red and infrared tend to pass through. That's why break lights on cars are red. You can see them through fog. Blue would not be seen. Some IR scopes can see body heat of a person through a house wall.
    I have a bachelor's degree in physics. I studied that too.
    Like you said the specific heat of water is considerable, plankton or no.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Yevaud
    This, ahhh, opens another kettle of fish (sorry. Couldn't resist).

    For example, the sheer amount of Photoplankton required to be able to absorb the amount of received solar insolation you say is just off the scale.

    Also, consider that as we increase fishing, one of two possibilities come to mind (and we have evidence for some of this already):

    Fishing stocks would crash, possibly eliminating piscine species altogether. Not a good thing.

    As we used them - given that this is in the presence of increased food sources for the lower level fish - they would increase their reproduction rate, effectively making no difference. E.g., increased space and readily available food = they grow right into the circumstances.

    So in the first event, we screw the oceans, eliminating a large amount of the population of sea-life. What sort of unpleasant synergy would occur from there is anyone's guess, except it won't be good.

    In the second, there is no difference. Increased Plankton = increased fish stocks to consume it.

    I was not the one saying the increased plankton would cause the water to get hotter, the other guy was. I was trying to show it would not make a difference in water temperature from sunlight absorption.
    The world's fishing of the oceans has already been over done, effecting the ocean ecology. Giving the fish more food to eat would help restore fish stocks that are already over fished, and could also provide people with more food.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman Yevaud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    87
    Oh, sorry. I didn't go way back in thread, just picked up a page or so ago. It seemed as if *you* were the one proposing this. My mistake.

    Well, then you see what I mean, I think. The increased Photosynthetic benefit would be good, if it actually worked out that way, but I just can't see it having any great benefit as far as Net Energy Balance. Probably more like a fraction of a degree C, if that, and it would require an obscene and likely impossible amount of Plankton to occur.

    Child, tugging at Daddy's pants leg: "Why is the sky blue?"

    Daddy, peevishly: "Rayleigh scattering. Now shut up."

    :-D
    *Welcome, my friends, to the show that never ends*
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    j
    j is offline
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    431
    Quote Originally Posted by ghost7584
    The general population could be called upon to plant more things, --grass or anything green.]
    [Aside]
    No, not anything green; particularly not grass. A beautiful lawn [and people who plant grass want a beautiful lawn] takes either large amounts of fertilizer, herbicides, pesticides, and fresh water or three hundred years and a climate like Ireland's.
    [/Aside]
    Why do they want us to believe Conspiracy Theories?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17 Re: A Solution to Global Warming 
    Him
    Him is offline
    Forum Sophomore Him's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    181
    Quote Originally Posted by ghost7584
    I disagree with you. Having more plankton doing more photosynthesis is going to cool the water off, and not make it hotter.
    Here is the reason why:
    The sun radiates light and heat. Energy cannot be created or destroyed it only changes from one form to another. - Conservation of energy principle.
    The chemical potential energy that is locked up in the sugars and carbohydrates that are produced by photosynthesis comes from the sun's radiation. That means that the sun's radiation has less energy left in it to warm the waters. That means that photosynthesis is taking some of the sun's energy and locking it up in the form of sugar and carbohydrates, so the sun radiation has less energy in it to warm the water. Increased photosynthesis in the sea will make the water cooler on that basis.
    Indeed light energy is stored into carbon by photosynthesis but are burned again by us if we fish the fish. I am not very educated in physics but knowing photosynthesis it has developed the means to absorb light very efficiently and effectively, thereby extracting more energy then solely water can. That this mechanism would increase temperature is just a guess, and a bit provoking.

    If al the sun light is transmitted into heat when hitting the ocean, then I am indeed terribly wrong. But many sunlight is reflected and not turned into IR (I think this is the case).
    So when we have only sea the light energy is converted to IR. When we have sea with plantkton we have light converted to IR + extra light converted in chemical energy (of which a large fraction is later on metabolized into heat energy).

    I always try to look at science in simple way – my assumption is based on the next example.

    It’s a bright day a normal roof will be hotter then a roof with solar power glasses (can’t find the correct English term right now) however using the generated electricity for light, housewarming etc. will result in a warmer house.

    A normal sea can be hotter then a sea with much plankton however using the generated sugars for body temperatures, muscles contraction and etc will result in a higher global temperature.

    Quote Originally Posted by ghost7584
    Simply increase the fishing boats and take more fish. This will feed more poeple, and allow the plankton population to stay high. If Plankton produces more fish, then catch more fish and feed more people.
    Any plankton that is not eaten will lock up the sun's energy in the form of sugars and carbohydrates and it will stay locked up that way, possibly in bottom silt. That would be taking heat energy out of the loop permanently, or for a very long
    Furthermore to avoid misunderstandings; Boosting up Photosynthesis seems like a good idea to me, not only to help low fish amount in our sea but overall reforesting would also help. And I follow you on the point more CO2 extraction from the environment is needed. However the extra CO2 must be kept in sugars and other compounds, so the extra fish can’t be eaten.

    I do not directly see how this extra plankton can stock this CO2, except if we take the fish and and put them deep into the ground. But I am not suggesting this, so generaly if ecologist believe feeding oceans with Iron to help plankton is a benefit for sea-life, why not, it shall help to take more CO2.
    But I do not believe it stocking abilities are high enough to compensate modern CO2 emission.
    he who forgets...will be destined to remember (Nothing Man - Pearl Jam)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman Jessieh04's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Potomac, Maryland, US
    Posts
    9
    Did anyone catch that article in popluar science about suggestions to end global warming? LIke t issues ago? There were things like build a giant mirror to deflect rays and robot trees? I thought it was funny lol::
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman cs-comm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    42
    Why stop global warming?

    Higher temperature are associated with greater crop yields and would thus benefit almost every country in the world. Sounds like global warming could be the solution to the mass starvation in many developing countries.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    130
    True. The warmer the earth gets, an estimate is about for every 1 degree F. increase, the food growing limit moves 100 miles further north. This will create more food growing where there are resources to do it. The last year or so have been record harvests which some attribute to global warming and increased CO2 levels. That is one possibility.

    The down side is that global warming is likely to increase the size of deserts and droughts in various regions, thus creating food shortages. When the medieval warm period occurred in the 9-12th C. CE, Greenland for a few hundred years in places, WAS green and could support northern Euro crops, as the Viking communities showed.

    At the same time there was likely a very serious drought in the Mayan regions of central America, which may have contributed to the collapse of Mayan civilization at that time.

    It might be true tho, that increased global warming would increase water evaporation and thus total rainfall. Given how complicated this can be, no one can really say for sure.

    What one CAN be sure of, is that we are in an Ice Age interglacial, for about the last 12K years. Earth is not out of the Ice Age, just in a warm period, which usually last 8-12K years, before the plunge back into a full Ice Age. Yeah, 1-2 mile high glaciers over the Midwest & Manhattan for a graphic idea of what is coming.

    Just when this could occur, is not entirely clear, but the current interglacial is by average data very mature, and over the next several centuries could indeed end. Fluctuations of earth temps, from warm (9th -12th C.) to cooler (little Ice Age about 1350-1700) to warm again, about 1850 to present, seem to take a number of centuries to cycle. Perhaps a similar cooling trend contributed to the fall of Roman civilization, too. Adding perhaps another cooling cycle, which lasted until the earth once again warmed up, stimulating the High Middle Ages, and the development of Euro civilization.

    What this is due to is NOT human driven. Nor do we know the basic temperature background fluctuations from which we can subtract current global warming. Pojections of increased global warming this century are simply NOT confirmed hypotheses.

    Clearly, it coudl take centuries or longer to figure out how the earth cyclcially warms and cools. Esp. since we have NO idea why we are in an Ice Age in the first place.

    One might suggest that as we do not know what cools off the earth, nor warms it, we do not really know much. Rather than jumping on the global warming bandwagon as being human caused, one is rather content to wait, secure in the knowledge that we will eventually find out. But for more observations than a century and a half, one would bet.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Him
    Him is offline
    Forum Sophomore Him's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    181
    Quote Originally Posted by Jessieh04
    Did anyone catch that article in popluar science about suggestions to end global warming? LIke t issues ago? There were things like build a giant mirror to deflect rays and robot trees? I thought it was funny lol::
    Last summer the government of Switzerland has tested some reflecting folies to prevent their glaciers from extensive melting.


    Quote Originally Posted by steve
    Just when this could occur, is not entirely clear, but the current interglacial is by average data very mature, and over the next several centuries could indeed end. Fluctuations of earth temps, from warm (9th -12th C.) to cooler (little Ice Age about 1350-1700) to warm again, about 1850 to present, seem to take a number of centuries to cycle. Perhaps a similar cooling trend contributed to the fall of Roman civilization, too. Adding perhaps another cooling cycle, which lasted until the earth once again warmed up, stimulating the High Middle Ages, and the development of Euro civilization.

    What this is due to is NOT human driven. Nor do we know the basic temperature background fluctuations from which we can subtract current global warming. Pojections of increased global warming this century are simply NOT confirmed hypotheses.
    100% proof of global warming caused human activity does not exist, for the simple reason you can not create an experiment were world A without human CO2 emission is compared to the same world B with human CO2 (and other housewarming gasses of course).
    So not being a climatologist makes I have to rely on the scientific literature.

    Stott PA, Tett SF, Jones GS, Allen MR, Mitchell JF, Jenkins GJ.
    External control of 20th century temperature by natural and anthropogenic forcings.
    Science. 2000 Dec 15;290(5499):2133-7.

    Barnett TP, Pierce DW, Schnur R.
    Detection of anthropogenic climate change in the world's oceans.
    Science. 2001 Apr 13;292(5515):270-4.

    Levitus S, Antonov JI, Wang J, Delworth TL, Dixon KW, Broccoli AJ.
    Anthropogenic warming of Earth's climate system.
    Science. 2001 Apr 13;292(5515):267-70.

    Quote Originally Posted by steve
    Rather than jumping on the global warming bandwagon as being human caused, one is rather content to wait, secure in the knowledge that we will eventually find out. But for more observations than a century and a half, one would bet.
    Keeping the finding of authors published in one of the most respected journals in mind I find it useful to jump on the global warming bandwagon.
    Furthermore the world economy is expanding to Asia and to whole the world as we hope for them. Since we western countries keep pushing the world into capitalism and global consumption; our top priority must be clean energy and health friendly industry. And if the boogieman of global warming helps to achieve this, thank the bandwagon.
    he who forgets...will be destined to remember (Nothing Man - Pearl Jam)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman cs-comm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Him
    Furthermore the world economy is expanding to Asia and to whole the world as we hope for them. Since we western countries keep pushing the world into capitalism and global consumption; our top priority must be clean energy and health friendly industry. And if the boogieman of global warming helps to achieve this, thank the bandwagon.
    There are perfectly valid reasons for moving to renewable energy sources without the threat of global warming or imminent resource scarcity. Within the next hundred years, industries will gradually move to those technologies. We don't need a "boogieman" to scare us into using clean energy especially when it will hurt our economy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Him
    Him is offline
    Forum Sophomore Him's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    181
    Quote Originally Posted by cs-comm
    There are perfectly valid reasons for moving to renewable energy sources without the threat of global warming or imminent resource scarcity.
    Within the next hundred years, industries will gradually move to those technologies. We don't need a "boogieman" to scare us into using clean energy especially when it will hurt our economy.
    Oh I agree the benefits of renewable energy speaks for itself; however especially the politics work very sluggish and sometimes needs doom scenario’s to wake them up. So I believe you, when say you don’t need a boogieman; but part of the world does.
    But to prevent any misunderstanding, I do not favour the overestimation and mayor disaster predictions (worst case scenerio’s) which have been spread in the soft media. On the other hand I believe (see links above) there is something going on.
    So saying there is no problem is incorrect (not that you do). And blindly counting on the industry that they will solve the problems on their own; lets say I do not believe it.
    The step to a cleaner economy is costly, so everybody needs to jump in, industry, government and we ourselves. Giving money, needs convincing, and at this point I follow you It needs to be done with correct statements and not with false or dramatically exaggerated predictions.

    Quote Originally Posted by cs-comm
    We don't need a "boogieman" to scare us into using clean energy especially when it will hurt our economy.
    Maybe one extra thought about hurting the economy, if all economies shifted toward environmental friendly industry we wouldn’t hurt the economy it would create a new one.
    If other economies keep running behind in health standards they should billed for it. I am keeping this as short as possible because this discussion is already going on in the section Business & Economics with the topic Modern Protectionism (excuses for the advertisement).
    he who forgets...will be destined to remember (Nothing Man - Pearl Jam)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    130
    ..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    130
    Well, that is an interesting belief, that all or most global warming is human caused. Given the facts of earth warming and cooling cycles independent of humans, clearly, no one can claim that the issue has been settled.

    Certainly, simply citing articles does not establish it as the case. There are plenty of scientists, who are well respected & are not convinced and for good reasons. They took out a large ad in the NYT late last year to point out these reasonable dissents. Appeals to authority are not logical. Appeals to clear facts, and a comprehensive, fuller picture of climate is more to the point.

    It's no surprise that those who promote global warming as being human caused NEVER deal with the Little Ice Age, the Med. warm period, NOR the current Ice Age interglacial. Nor the current Ice Age. Nor the Maunder sun spot minimum, nor the current 8000 year solar maximum(as pointed by the Max Planck INstitute last year!), and other major climatological facts/events.

    IN fact, we don't what what causes such major climatological events. There are hypotheses being thrown about, but to consider the issue to be settled beyond reasonable doubt is quite premature. It's quite clear that if we do not understand global cooling and major climate changes, we cannot reasonably believe that we understand global warming, which is only part of the climate equation.

    We do not even know how the global oxygen levels are being maintained, either. No one does. This does not contribute to confidence in the changes and whys and wherefors of CO2 level changes. And it ignores the huge input of tundral CO2 sources, which have just been found across most of the northerly latitudes of the northern hemisphere. No one can reasonably ignore Siberia and Canada.

    This issue is NOT settled. For the simple reasons of global cooling episodes and the facts of Greenland being inhabitable 1000 years ago. Facts the global warming as 'human caused' folks like to ignore because those are VERY serious, weighty objections to their conclusions and hypothesis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Him
    Him is offline
    Forum Sophomore Him's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    181
    Quote Originally Posted by steve
    Well, that is an interesting belief, that all or most global warming is human caused. Given the facts of earth warming and cooling cycles independent of humans, clearly, no one can claim that the issue has been settled.
    First things first I never said global warming is purely a consequence of human activity, I cited some articles that say that the current temperature rise can not be explained with natural CO2 emmission on its own. They only could estimate the temperatures schema if they accounted for human activity and natural CO2 emission.
    Quote Originally Posted by steve
    Certianly, simply citing articles does not establish it as the case. There are plenty of scientists, who are well respected who are not convinced and for good reasons. They took out a large ad in the NYT late last year to point out these reasonable dissents. Appeals to authority are not logical. Appeals to clear facts, and a comprehensive, fuller picture of climate is more to the point.
    Citing your opinions is something that is mostly overlooked in forums, one can come and claim something poured over in a scientific sauce and together with some fine English he has a point. Indeed some respected scientist claime(d) it’s all a fraud (the global warming). Some respected scientists even publish false results; it’s a big world out there with many opinions.
    However and not saying you may not questions paradigms, but constantly questioning of good published results is not the way scientific progress works; and again blindly believing everything you read either, certainly if it isn’t cited or reviewed by an authority.
    Quote Originally Posted by steve
    It's no surprise that those who promote global warming as being human caused NEVER deal with the Little Ice Age, the Med. warm period, NOR the current Ice Age interglacial. Nor the current Ice Age.
    The little Ice caused temperature abnormalities of less then 1°C in 600 years. Current warming has managed this in 80 years.
    Quote Originally Posted by steve
    IN fact, we don't what what causes such major climatological events. There are hypotheses being thrown about ,but to consider the issue to be settled beyond reasonable doubt is quite premature. It's quite clear that if we do not understand global cooling and major climate changes, we cannot believe that we understand global warming, which is only part of the climate.
    I agree that climate changes are not (yet) well understood, however certain links have proven their success. Think of gravity, although wrongly described leaded to correct predictions.
    I mean indeed the case is not settled, of course more data, and certainly a finer insight how major climatological events happen are necessary.
    The scientific debate must go on, but action on what is known is needed. Especially since it has a good cause (and I know this last sentence is a personal argument).
    he who forgets...will be destined to remember (Nothing Man - Pearl Jam)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    130
    well, that is more reasonable. But still omits the facts of the present Ice Age interglacial, the inhabitability of Greenland in the past in certain areas, the temperature fluctuations, very likely global and a centuries long cycles of warming and cooling of which 3 are now identifiable, and possible a cooling period from the 4th C. CE to about the 9th C. CE.

    And the Maunder sun spot minimum, the current solar max, etc., etc., etc.
    When the global warming as "human caused" movement deals successfully with the whole, comprehensive climate problem, rather than just fixing on Global warming, while ignoring global cooling (the Ice Ages), then their hypotheses will not only be more credible, but more scientific and appealing as well.

    The planet can warm up, & it can also cool off. Cooling off will limit and decrease marekedly or even reverse global warming estimates. One must know the cooling cycles in order to predict the warming cycles' limits.

    Science is comprehensive. One cannot treat just the hot forms of water, but the cold as well in order to fully understand H2O. The same is true of climate, which is a multifactorial and thus chaotic, complex system.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •