Notices
Results 1 to 49 of 49

Thread: Climate change

  1. #1 Climate change 
    sak
    sak is offline
    Forum Junior sak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Presently at ME
    Posts
    210
    What individuals can do to fight climate change?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day from the land of ozzz

    Climate change is part of a cycle affected by the Sun's cycles, Earths cycles and events and position of our solar system within the spiral arm of the Milkyway galaxy.

    Man's input to climate change is very small. The pollution problem is very high.


    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: Climate change 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,338
    Quote Originally Posted by sak
    What individuals can do to fight climate change?
    I think you mean as a consumer.

    You have to understand the products being consumed. Electricity, water, vinyl, avocados, paper airplanes, everything. These "contain" embodied energy or embodied costs - that is all that went into making the product and delivering it to you, and disposing of it.

    For example a recent forum post asked "Which is better ecologically - electric hand dryer or paper towels?" The snap answer would be paper towels, because the electric dryer plainly consumes energy. However the paper contains a large amount of embodied energy. It takes far more electricity, as well as truck diesel and chemicals, to manufacture and deliver one sheet of paper, than a few seconds of hot air. Yet, we forget the hand dryer unit itself, which certainly embodies more energy from mining, smelting, stamping steel, etc. than a load of paper towels. So we'd consider the life cycle and service of that machine, plus watts, vs. all the paper used over same period, say, 30 years. It's not so simple.

    Sometimes we can get a good enough answer just comparing like products. For example you can weigh all the plastic grocery bags accumulated in a year vs. a single plastic toy. Apparently the bags are just a small fraction of our plastic consumption. That's not the message we are given to believe.

    Some "green energy" products contain a very high embodied cost.

    Where human labour comes in (vs. machines) we need to figure the cost of fueling the body. You can drive so far on gasoline, or bicycle the same distance on fruit juice and candy bars. The embodied cost of gas is low. The embodied cost of packaged energy food, by volume, is absurdly high and it includes gasoline. Consuming the fruit juice effectively consumes oil and maybe a bit of tropical rainforest too. Not so simple.

    I think the sane way out of that house of mirrors is to ignore embodied costs of "healthy living". So don't mind buying a new set of skis, it's free.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Sophomore andre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    172
    There is nothing anybody can do to affect the climate.

    There is an awful lot what individuals can do to preserve the environment.

    There is also a lot one can do to reduce the energy consumption and the dependence on fossil fuels, migigating the effects when it become scarse.

    But these are three totally different issues with totally different approaches. Forget climate, there is nothing wrong with that, focus on the others.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: Climate change 
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,322
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    So we'd consider the life cycle and service of that machine, plus watts, vs. all the paper used over same period, say, 30 years. It's not so simple.
    I agree, when as a consumer try to evaluate the lifecycle energy cost of the item. Sometimes it's obvious, for example most people know that it far more energy efficient to recycle alumimum cans than make new ones from oars--so we should recycle; it's pretty obviuos that weather stripping is less cost than the energy you'll potentially save over a winter (or summer); driving a bit slower improves gas mileage; checking tire inflation once a month or so can save a few percent that addes up.

    Many things aren't this obvious though. Is it better to buy a hybrid which will cost enoumous about of energy to produce or keep the 4 four year old family sedan going a few more years until it becomes unreliable. Considering life cycle of energy, keeping the old car, or even a big truck if you don't pile up a lot of miles, is probably the better option.

    The other way individuals can mitigate climate change is simple exercising our "We the people" civic responsilities and letting our representatives know how we feel. There are almost unlimited opportunities for this just centered on the idea of getting the public more options so we can make better choices.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    sak
    sak is offline
    Forum Junior sak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Presently at ME
    Posts
    210
    Dear All,
    According to Wiki: “Current studies indicate that radiative forcing by greenhouse gases is the primary cause of global warming” If the radiation from greenhouse gas is the prime mover, then we have lot of thing to do.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Sophomore andre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    172
    But it's not, the most important vector for heat distibution in the atmosphere is convection.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,193
    what causes convection.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,322
    Quote Originally Posted by sak
    Dear All,
    According to Wiki: “Current studies indicate that radiative forcing by greenhouse gases is the primary cause of global warming” If the radiation from greenhouse gas is the prime mover, then we have lot of thing to do.
    It's not just wiki, but the overwhelming majority of atmospheric scientist agree based on lots of information and a century of science.

    Convection helps vertically distribute the temperature increases in the troposphere especially in the tropics where it's closest to the moist adiabatic lapse rates. It has negligible effect at high latitudes where the lower atmosphere is stable.

    Probably worth mentioning the the warming is predicted and only being observed at the lowest levels of the atmosphere--mostly in the troposphere. It's just called green house gases because we live in that lowest layer.

    Increased green house gases are predicted to cool the highest layers of the atmosphere, which is exactly what's happening at a rate of nearly 17 degrees C per decade. It's really one of the smoking guns of green house gas change which isn't getting enough coverage in the media. The cooling is consistent with increases in green house gases, is the only phenomena which can explain the effect. Interestingly, because of the cooling at the very upper levels, the atmospheric is more compact now with noticeable decrease in orbital drag by our satellites.

    Getting back more on point with the thread the kinds of options that come to mind for change and things like better mass transit, more public car pool lots that are also secure, bike paths, better mileage standards for new vehicles, building efficiency standards for new buildings etc.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    sak
    sak is offline
    Forum Junior sak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Presently at ME
    Posts
    210
    Can you elaborate this para.?
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    which is exactly what's happening at a rate of nearly 17 degrees C per decade.
    What is happening at 17 degrees C per decade?
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    It's really one of the smoking guns of green house gas change which isn't getting enough coverage in the media.
    Did you mean thermal plants?
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    The cooling is consistent with increases in green house gases, is the only phenomena which can explain the effect.
    This mean that green ghous gases increase cooling right?
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Interestingly, because of the cooling at the very upper levels, the atmospheric is more compact now with noticeable decrease in orbital drag by our satellites.
    can you explain orbital drag and its relation with atmosphere?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by sak
    Can you elaborate this para.?
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    which is exactly what's happening at a rate of nearly 17 degrees C per decade.
    What is happening at 17 degrees C per decade?
    The upper layers of the atmosphere is cooling at that rate as a result of the increase greenhouse gasses.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    It's really one of the smoking guns of green house gas change which isn't getting enough coverage in the media.
    Did you mean thermal plants?
    It is just an expression. He means that the cooling of the upper atmosphere is evidence of global warming.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    The cooling is consistent with increases in green house gases, is the only phenomena which can explain the effect.
    This mean that green ghous gases increase cooling right?
    Yes, but only the cooling of the upper atmosphere. If the upper atmosphere is cooler, it means that less heat is radiated into outer space, which means that more heat is trapped and that the average temperature of the entire atmosphere is increasing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Interestingly, because of the cooling at the very upper levels, the atmospheric is more compact now with noticeable decrease in orbital drag by our satellites.
    can you explain orbital drag and its relation with atmosphere?
    The orbiting satellites experience drag from the very sparse atmosphere at those altitudes. Now that the atmosphere has become more compact at those altitudes as a result of it cooling, less drag is experienced by the satellites.

    I hope I did a good enough job of answering you questions. Lynx Fox, please correct any mistakes I might have made.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,322
    I hope I did a good enough job of answering you questions. Lynx Fox, please correct any mistakes I might have made.
    Thanks Kalster. I was on the run and writing sloppy.


    Sak, hope we answered your questions at least a bit.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

    Lynx said

    sak wrote:
    Dear All,
    According to Wiki: “Current studies indicate that radiative forcing by greenhouse gases is the primary cause of global warming” If the radiation from greenhouse gas is the prime mover, then we have lot of thing to do.


    It's not just wiki, but the overwhelming majority of atmospheric scientist agree based on lots of information and a century of science.
    This is very interesting and is worth reading. Science applied to the problem.

    http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/publications.htm

    SOLAR ROTATION, IMPULSES OF THE TORQUE IN THE SUN'S MOTION, AND CLIMATIC VARIATION

    ABSTRACT. Running variance analysis and maximum entropy spectral analysis applied to Mount Wilson rotation data yield arguments in favor of a connection between variations in the Sun's rotation rate, energetic X-ray flares, and impulses of the torque (IOT) in the Sun's irregular motion about the barycenter of the planetary system. Such IOT, that have been shown to be related to the secular cycle of solar activity and excursions of the Maunder minimum type, also seem to be linked to outstanding peaks in geomagnetic activity, maxima in ozone concentration, incidence of blocking type circulation, as well as rainfall over Central Europe, England/Wales, eastern United States, and India. Statistical tests, that confirm these links, additionally point to IOT connection with temperature in Central Europe and the number of icebergs that pass south of latitude 48° N. IOT relationship with X-ray flares and strong geomagnetic storms was tested in successful long range forecasts.
    http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/cycles.htm
    http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/extrema.htm
    http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/swinging.htm
    http://www.john-daly.com/sun-enso/sun-enso.htm
    http://www.griffith.edu.au/conferenc...pdf/ICS176.pdf

    Climate change is important to all of us. Pollution is critical for clean air.

    What cause climatic changes is a different factor.
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,322
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Costas
    What cause climatic changes is a different factor.
    The consensus that man is the primary cause of global warming doesn't exclude other mechanisms also driving climate. Astronomical forcing, variation in solar forcing many other types are still happening, just as always--they just aren't dominant compared to suddenly adding lots of green house gas that have been locked up underground for hundreds of millions of years.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Sophomore andre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    what causes convection.
    Hi Mark, Long time no see, still in Helsinki?

    Convection is discussed in this thread: http://www.thescienceforum.com/Green...ing-13123t.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

    It does not matter if the total population of the world thought that Man created the climate change.

    Scientific evidence rules over.

    Look at the facts and not the Rumors that makes alot of people money.
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,322
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Costas
    G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

    It does not matter if the total population of the world thought that Man created the climate change.

    Scientific evidence rules over.

    Look at the facts and not the Rumors that makes alot of people money.
    I completely agree and that's exactly what scientist do their best to do. Most of them, including American atmospheric scientist work for the government and have no monitary incentives what-so-ever to bias their conclusions. If anything, there's been significant pressure on American scientist the past few years to silence them about the building scientific case that shows green-house gas driven climate changes. Only their objectivity, despite the hostile political environment, has kept them focused on keeping the science moving forward.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    sak
    sak is offline
    Forum Junior sak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Presently at ME
    Posts
    210
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Costas
    ... ... and position of our solar system within the spiral arm of the Milkyway galaxy... ...
    Can somebody explain this?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Better ask Harry to explain it.

    He might be referring to a flawed hypothesis that cosmic rays affect cloud formation, and that the motion of the Solar System through the home galaxy affects cosmic rays, hence the motion of the Sun relative to the galactic center affects climate. Perhaps it does, but the time scale would be hundreds of millions of years, and therefore totally irrelevant to the current experience of climate change within decades.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,322
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    Better ask Harry to explain it.

    He might be referring to a flawed hypothesis that cosmic rays affect cloud formation, and that the motion of the Solar System through the home galaxy affects cosmic rays, hence the motion of the Sun relative to the galactic center affects climate. Perhaps it does, but the time scale would be hundreds of millions of years, and therefore totally irrelevant to the current experience of climate change within decades.
    Was thinking that as well. Considering everything we can detect near the
    Sun is also rotating at about the same speed it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The comic ray connection to clouds never had a strong theoretical basis and the studies that have looked for the effect have pretty much debunked the idea.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

    History of the earth takes in short cycles and long cycles.


    Society for Interdisciplinary Studies
    http://www.sis-group.org.uk/


    Long cycles are related to the position of the solar system within the spiral of the Mily Way. Everyso often our solar system will go through a Nebulae and in so doing will have chaos for sometime.

    Short cycles are related to from a few years to a few hundred years are related to the Sun.

    The Earth contributes its cycles and volcanic activity that may cause Ice Ages and so on.

    There are plenty of info on a great variety

    Just google for it.
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,322
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Costas
    G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

    History of the earth takes in short cycles and long cycles.


    Society for Interdisciplinary Studies
    http://www.sis-group.org.uk/.
    Where is the paper that "Long cycles are related to the position of the solar system within the spiral of the Mily Way. Everyso often our solar system will go through a Nebulae and in so doing will have chaos for sometime. "

    Is there any evidence that the solar system has EVER been through a Nebulae. Our solar system remains relatively stationary within the arms of the Milky Way--it's doesn't rotate through it. There might be some stuff that doesn't rotate at the same rate as the arms, or has a different orbit within the Galaxy, but is there any proof for that? None that I'm aware of.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Here's something that might be related. How any of this affects short-term climate variations isn't at all clear to me.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...lactic-glitch/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    934
    Global average temperatures are rising much faster at night compared to the day. Wouldn't this suggest that what ever is responsible is here on earth and not our position in the galaxy.
    Eat Dolphin, save the Tuna!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day from the land of ozzzzz

    Lynx-fox as requested.

    Info on our solar system

    This is interesting
    Scientists Now Know: We're Not From Here!
    http://www.viewzone.com/milkyway.html


    Sun's Movement Through Milky Way Regularly Sends Comets Hurtling, Coinciding With Mass Life Extinctions
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0502092145.htm

    COPLANARITY SOLAR SYSTEM AND MILKY WAY
    http://biocab.org/Coplanarity_Solar_...nd_Galaxy.html



    Dinosaur Demise and Earth’s Movement in the Milky Way
    http://www.jyi.org/news/nb.php?id=1503


    New Discovery Evidencing Solar System Traveling Different Direction To Milky Way Substantiates Astounding New Theories -- Coming To Be Called The 3 Most Pivotal Discoveries Of Our Time...

    http://www.iirobotics.com/bot-news/r...--20070618946/



    Our Solar System in the Milky Way Galaxy and in the Universe
    http://facstaff.gpc.edu/~pgore/Earth.../galaxies.html


    Our solar sytem going around the spiral means that our solar system rotates around another gravity sink which also rorates around the centre of the MIlky Way.


    But! there's more!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    From your link with the "Three discoveries":
    DISCOVERY OF MAY 30th 2006: We are from another galaxy in the process of joining with the Milky Way. The Milky Way is actually not our parent galaxy. The mystery of why the Milky Way has always been sideways in the night sky has never been answered -- until now.
    That is just stupid. What is the big mystery? Nothing says that we should necessarily be facing the Milky Way straight on.

    DISCOVERY OF JULY 20th 2006: The overall biggest contributing cause to Global Warming, and the melting of the polar icecaps of -- both -- Earth and Mars is actually caused by our arrival down into the brighter, more energetic equator region of the Milky Way galactic disc as we are coming in from deeper space.
    Again. The light energy we receive from stellar sources other than the sun is entirely negligible.

    Oh, snap Harry! You have been caught out.
    discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/06/27/is-the-sun-from-another-galaxy/.
    A website called Viewzone recently posted an article claiming that scientists have determined the Sun is not native to the Milky Way Galaxy, but instead was absorbed by the Milky Way while eating a smaller dwarf galaxy.
    There’s just one eensy weensy problem with this: it’s totally wrong...
    ”... Etc.

    University of Virginia

    IF YOU ARE LOOKING AT THIS WEBPAGE BECAUSE YOU HAVE HEARD FALLACIOUS NEWS REPORTS ABOUT THE SUN BEING FROM THE SAGITTARIUS DWARF GALAXY:
    DO NOT BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU READ ON THE WEB!
    IF YOU ARE A JOURNALIST, PLEASE FOLLOW TRADITIONAL JOURNALISTIC STANDARDS AND DO PROPER SOURCE AND FACT CHECKING! (IF OTHER SUPPOSEDLY RELIABLE NEWS AGENCIES HAD SUBSCRIBED TO THESE BASIC PRINCIPLES, YOU PROBABLY WOULD NOT BE WASTING TIME RIGHT NOW CHASING DOWN THIS ILLEGITIMATE NEWS STORY!)
    THE WEBSITE http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2...another-galaxy DOES A REASONABLE JOB OF ADDRESSING THE MISINFORMATION BEING CIRCULATED.
    This web page contains the original press release text from 2003(!) that has been corrupted/misinterpreted to "support" the incorrect conclusion that the Sun did not originate in the Milky Way galaxy. Read carefully and you will see this press release only details the characteristics of the Sagittarius galaxy and nothing more. All astrophysical evidence points confidently and indisputably to the fact the Sun is now and has always been a part of the Milky Way.


    Did you think nobody would notice?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,338
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    You have been caught
    Nice work! :-D
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    sak
    sak is offline
    Forum Junior sak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Presently at ME
    Posts
    210
    Read the web “COPLANARITY SOLAR SYSTEM AND MILKY WAY
    http://biocab.org/Coplanarity_Solar_...d_Galaxy.html” it seams alarming if a cosmic cloud hit our solar system. Does this cloud include heavier debris enough to destroy/ damage mankind?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day from the land of ozzzzz

    KALSTER said

    Oh, snap Harry! You have been caught out.
    Have I Kalster?

    Think about it for a sec,,,,,,,,,,,,,,than read the other links.

    Or is it important for you to win brownies.


    I post links for info, it does not mean that I agree with them.

    The links have conflicting views, its not our job to say what is right or wrong.
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    I post links for info, it does not mean that I agree with them.

    The links have conflicting views, its not our job to say what is right or wrong.
    Why would you post unsubstantiated garbage then? For info? You are not fooling me.

    Of course it is proper to post accurate links. What use are they if you post anything you find? How much value can we attach to your contributions now? Very little. Do you have any views of your own? You are not qualifying your links as speculative, but post them as facts. That is simply not cricket. Please give your links the proper consideration before posting them as legitimate, credible pieces of information.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day from the land of ozzzzz


    The information is not complete and proof is another issue.

    It is better to gain info rather than to hold it back.

    As for garbage, how would you know the difference.

    There are conflicting views, I posted both. Right or wrong thats another issue.


    This is my last post
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Sophomore andre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Costas
    G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

    It does not matter if the total population of the world thought that Man created the climate change.

    Scientific evidence rules over.

    Look at the facts and not the Rumors that makes alot of people money.
    I completely agree and that's exactly what scientist do their best to do. Most of them, including American atmospheric scientist work for the government and have no monitary incentives what-so-ever to bias their conclusions. If anything, there's been significant pressure on American scientist the past few years to silence them about the building scientific case that shows green-house gas driven climate changes. Only their objectivity, despite the hostile political environment, has kept them focused on keeping the science moving forward.
    If that's all true, then why isn't nobody commenting something like that on these blogs?

    http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/pr...ce-policy-4511

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/bl...sus-paper.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    We could speculate that real scientists are rather bored with Pielke, pere et fils, and can't be bothered any more to refute every bit of disingenuous silliness they publish. But who knows, the article has only been up a few days, there's still time.

    Regarding the hockey stick, the IPCC was concerned about AGW before the hockey stick was first published, because of simple chemistry (burning of fossil fuels) and physics (change in the radiation balance due to increased CO2 levels). Even Pielke Jr. knows this. A couple of months ago he published an article in which he acknowledged the problem of AGW, but chose to expound the political position that we cannot afford to do anything about it. I'm sure this article was discussed on this board.

    The hockey stick is real evidence for what humans have done and are continuing to do to the climate, but even if you choose to believe it's inaccurate, or insufficiently researched, or even politically motivated, you cannot deny the chemistry and the physics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Sophomore andre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    We could speculate that real scientists are rather bored with Pielke, pere et fils, and can't be bothered any more to refute every bit of disingenuous silliness they publish. But who knows, the article has only been up a few days, there's still time.

    Regarding the hockey stick, the IPCC was concerned about AGW before the hockey stick was first published, because of simple chemistry (burning of fossil fuels) and physics (change in the radiation balance due to increased CO2 levels). Even Pielke Jr. knows this. A couple of months ago he published an article in which he acknowledged the problem of AGW, but chose to expound the political position that we cannot afford to do anything about it. I'm sure this article was discussed on this board.

    The hockey stick is real evidence for what humans have done and are continuing to do to the climate, but even if you choose to believe it's inaccurate, or insufficiently researched, or even politically motivated, you cannot deny the chemistry and the physics.
    ad homimens, ad hominems. Do provide one, just one, very small piece of evidence that proofs Mann right and McIntyre wrong. Just talk science and not those pathetic personal attacks. Too sad for words.

    This is so incredibly pathetic.

    Incidentily the last time that extreme group think like this burst out from humanity roughhy three quartes of a century ago, it only cost 11 million lives. But luckily now we know what caused it.

    Okay I do understand that the slowly emerging discovery that there is no AGW whastsoever is extremely painful and devastating. But this kind of belligerence is making it way, way worse. It makes me more and more determined to revert to a single target in life, to devote everuthing I have to make the scaremongers pay all the way for the devastating they have done.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Invoking hitler???
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Sophomore andre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    172
    No Groupthink,

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

    Orwell 1984

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_(book)

    Blue planets in green shackles

    http://www.amazon.com/Planet-Green-S.../dp/B001A3W3BK

    ...Blue Planet in Green Shackles by Václav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic. President Klaus makes the case that policies being proposed to address global warming are not justified by current science and are, in fact, a dangerous threat to freedom and prosperity around the world. --- Klaus argues that the environmental movement has transformed itself into an ideology that seeks to restrict human activities at any cost, while pursuing an impossible utopian dream of a perfectly "natural" world. The supposed threat of human civilization against a fragile Earth has become an article of faith, especially in the realm of global warming activism. --- "The largest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy, and prosperity at the end of the 20th and at the beginning of the 21st century is no longer socialism," writes Klaus. "It is, instead, the ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous ideology of environmentalism." --- The publication of Blue Planet in Green Shackles - What is Endangered: Climate or Freedom? continues the Competitive Enterprise Institute's history of fighting alarmist climate policies. CEI has long argued that whatever challenges future climate changes might bring, the worst possible response is to restrict human freedom and slow economic growth and innovation. --- "Today, the global warming debate raging in both the United States and Europe has become extremely contentious. On both sides of the Atlantic, the debate has metastasized into cultural warfare against economic liberty," writes CEI President Fred L. Smith, Jr. in the book's foreword. "For that reason, pro-freedom voices are needed to reframe the debate to show how a free people can better address the challenges facing Western civilization...
    Now that's quite another scare, of which plenty of evidence is around here in this thread or any other pertaining AGW/climate change

    We can only hope that the inevitable cooling is fast enough to kill this otherwise unstoppable threat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    This threat is manifesting itself in Colorado in the construction of a second wind turbine factory, soon to be followed by a third, by the Danish firm Vestas. The total jobs created by this threat will be 2450.

    ConocoPhillips is building an alternative fuel research threat center just down the road. This second manifestation of the threat will employ hundreds of engineers and technicians in quite highly paid jobs.

    Meanwhile Range Fuels in Broomfield is threatening to produce oil from biomass, creating yet more jobs (I was head hunted by them - they threatened to pay me lots of money, but I turned them down )

    http://www.denverpost.com/energy/ci_10215313

    http://www.rangefuels.com/

    The Golden-based National Renewable Energy Laboratory, as well as research centers at the state's major universities, are viewed as providing "intellectual capital" that help draw companies such as Vestas to Colorado.
    The world moves on.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by andre
    Incidentily the last time that extreme group think like this burst out from humanity roughhy three quartes of a century ago, it only cost 11 million lives.
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Invoking hitler???
    Quote Originally Posted by andre
    No Groupthink,

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

    Orwell 1984
    Quite a nice piece of Newspeak and Doublethink, Andre. The party would be proud.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    sak
    sak is offline
    Forum Junior sak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Presently at ME
    Posts
    210
    Quote Originally Posted by sak
    Read the web “COPLANARITY SOLAR SYSTEM AND MILKY WAY
    http://biocab.org/Coplanarity_Solar_...d_Galaxy.html” it seams alarming if a cosmic cloud hit our solar system. Does this cloud include heavier debris enough to destroy/ damage mankind?
    somebody pl. answer this?

    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Sophomore andre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    172
    The groupthink issue fo three quarter of a century ago was Eugenics, resulting in the most extreme form of anti-semitism. The big question after WW-II how on Earth it was possible that a complete country population was brainwashed into believing in it. Nowadays this question is getting answered with the AGW cult.

    Everything is allowed to enforce the AGW scam, the only thing left that can maintain the herd together nowadays.

    I know that it is absolutely impossible to fight against it but if you find yourself back in a decade or two in another little ice age with a economy cripled by renewables, unable to cope, then you cannot say: "I habe es nicht gewüsst".

    Just show that Mann was right and McIntyre was wrong, just show what is happening to the global temperatures especially in comparison of the predictions. In reality AGW is long debunked, exit, in the mind of the people it lives on as the strongest religion ever.

    But the biggest loss is the complete corruption of Earth sciences.

    No cancel that, the even bigger loss is the systematic destruction of the tropical rain forests to make biofuels just because of the climate scaremongering. The biggest crime against the environment commited by the environmentalists
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by andre
    ... if you find yourself back in a decade or two in another little ice age with a economy cripled by renewables, unable to cope, then you cannot say: "Ich habe es nicht gewüsst".
    Fair enough.

    Quote Originally Posted by andre
    ...just show what is happening to the global temperatures especially in comparison of the predictions.
    See for example:

    http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P3-1470381701.html

    Information about climate and how it responds to increased greenhouse gas concentrations depends heavily on insight gained from numerical simulations by coupled climate models. The confidence placed in quantitative estimates of the rate and magnitude of future climate change is therefore strongly related to the quality of these models. In this study, we test the realism of several generations of coupled climate models, including those used for the 1995, 2001, and 2007 reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). By validating against observations of present climate, we show that the coupled models have been steadily improving over time and that the best models are converging toward a level of accuracy that is similar to observation-based analyses of the atmosphere.
    http://www.scitizen.com/stories/Clim...-Climate-Well/

    Quote Originally Posted by andre
    ... the even bigger loss is the systematic destruction of the tropical rain forests to make biofuels just because of the climate scaremongering. The biggest crime against the environment commited by the environmentalists
    Are you saying that environmentalists advocate deforestation for the production of biofuels?

    See for example:
    http://www.nature.org/wherewework/as.../art13329.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Sophomore andre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    See for example:

    http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P3-1470381701.html

    ...,.... we show that the coupled models have been steadily improving over time and that the best models are converging toward a level of accuracy that is similar to observation-based analyses of the atmosphere.
    See for instance:

    http://www.atypon-link.com/IAHS/doi/.../hysj.53.4.671

    Abstract
    Geographically distributed predictions of future climate, obtained through climate models, are widely used in hydrology and many other disciplines, typically without assessing their reliability. Here we compare the output of various models to temperature and precipitation observations from eight stations with long (over 100 years) records from around the globe. The results show that models perform poorly, even at a climatic (30-year) scale. Thus local model projections cannot be credible, whereas a common argument that models can perform better at larger spatial scales is unsupported.
    Quote Originally Posted by andre
    ... the even bigger loss is the systematic destruction of the tropical rain forests to make biofuels just because of the climate scaremongering. The biggest crime against the environment commited by the environmentalists
    Are you saying that environmentalists advocate deforestation for the production of biofuels?

    See for example:
    http://www.nature.org/wherewework/as.../art13329.html
    No wha't I'm saying is that good science leads to good policy and bad science leads to catastrophic policies like the call for biofuels for going carbon neutral. AGW is not even science anymore, following the definition of science being falsifiable. (and we all can clearly see why AGW is not falsifiable, not even after a prolonged cooling period).

    But the main problem is that if you don't listen and choose to character murder sceptics (oil companies etc) instead of doing some thinking, then you take the full responsibility for the oncoming disasters of that poor science and poor policy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    choose to character murder sceptics (oil companies etc)
    Andre, the oil companies are not among the skeptics. Their scientists (they employ a great many) know that AGW is real. Even ExxonMobil has stopped funding propaganda and is joining in the discussion of what to do about it.

    From EM's website:
    ExxonMobil takes the issue of climate change seriously and believes the risks of climate change due to rising greenhouse gas emissions warrant action. We are taking action on multiple levels, from reducing greenhouse gas emissions in our operations to supporting research into technology breakthroughs.
    You are arrogant to suggest that posters here are not "doing some thinking".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by andre
    But the main problem is that if you don't listen and choose to character murder sceptics (oil companies etc) instead of doing some thinking, then you take the full responsibility for the oncoming disasters of that poor science and poor policy.
    Is it your experience that you are not listened to?

    Here's a thought, you might consider not comparing the people who care about this issue to those who perpetrated the holocaust. You might avoid implying that environmentalists are raping the rainforests.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by sak
    Quote Originally Posted by sak
    Read the web “COPLANARITY SOLAR SYSTEM AND MILKY WAY
    http://biocab.org/Coplanarity_Solar_...d_Galaxy.html” it seams alarming if a cosmic cloud hit our solar system. Does this cloud include heavier debris enough to destroy/ damage mankind?
    somebody pl. answer this?

    Try posting this on the astronomy/cosmology forum. However, from a quick google that led to Astronomy.com it seems that we don't need to worry about this for 40 million years.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Sophomore andre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    172
    [quote="Bunbury"]
    choose to character murder sceptics (oil companies etc)
    Andre, the oil companies are not among the skeptics. Their scientists (they employ a great many) know that AGW is real. Even ExxonMobil has stopped funding propaganda and is joining in the discussion of what to do about it.

    From EM's website:
    ExxonMobil takes the issue of climate change seriously and believes the risks of climate change due to rising greenhouse gas emissions warrant action. We are taking action on multiple levels, from reducing greenhouse gas emissions in our operations to supporting research into technology breakthroughs.
    But they never did "funding" propaganda. All what happened is that standard support funding for all kind of research in all various terrains inevitably leads to a few lines from oil companies to realistic research institutes, as well as lines to climate scaremongers, which has been blown up well out of proportion by the Lysenkoists

    You are arrogant to suggest that posters here are not "doing some thinking".
    Nope: groupthink is about thinking the same and

    If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn’t thinking.’

    — George S. Patton
    http://creatingminds.org/quotes/thinking.htm
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    First it's Hitler, now it's Lysenko. Andre, you're a laugh a minute.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Sophomore andre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    First it's Hitler, now it's Lysenko. Andre, you're a laugh a minute.
    Right, let's have a laugh:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp_l5ntikaU
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Sophomore andre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    172
    The whole story is here btw

    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/1272

    Standard reply: 100% witch hunt, 0% factual evidence reply

    Suppose somebody was indeed thinking independently, wouldn't it occur that oil compagnies also understand reality and should aim for a long term stability in their market instead of maximizing short term profits. They aren't fools. They are just about as aware of everybody else about the oncoming mismatch between demand and supply and it's in their interest to solve that, instead of letting the economy crash. So it's in no way in their interest to fight moderation in the use of fossil fuel. So how does it feel to be manipulated by this demagoguery.

    It may be noticed that the BCC is slowly retreating from one of the global offence campaign against skeptics:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/climate/evidence/sceptics.shtml
    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
  •