global dimming

[annihilation]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/


Im watching a NOVA show on global dimming. Very interesting stuff. How our haze and smog causes less light to hit the surface of the earth. It in return slows down the global warming. Overall its a very interesting episode about another facet of our amazing earth.

[ogukuo72]

Another interesting thing which the documentary didn't bring out: the theory behind global dimming contradicts the theory behind global warming. You can have one or the other, but not have both. Which might be why you don't hear the environmentalists make a big fuss of this.

[Miles.]

I watched it. It was an idiotic show.

"With all climate models, there are many unknown factors."

Well, no sh!t. Unknowns such as "will life adapt and overcome?"

[DaveDash]

Global Warming is a fact. The world is a lot warmer now than what it was in the Roman days. Most of North Africa around the time of Carthage was quite lush and green. It's been happening for thousands of years.
Whereas pollution has only been around for the past hundred if that.

Pollution may be accellerating Global Warming, but the Earth is getting warmer non-the-less.

Climate change happens naturally. The Earth 'resets' itself when things tend to get too much.

Global Warming probably isn't the big issue. Ozone depletion and water contamination is a bigger issue IMO.

[annihilation]

Another interesting thing which the documentary didn't bring out: the theory behind global dimming contradicts the theory behind global warming. You can have one or the other, but not have both. Which might be why you don't hear the environmentalists make a big fuss of this.

They both work in conjunction, they do not contradict. Global dimming reduces the impact of global warming.

[ogukuo72]

Global Warming is a fact. The world is a lot warmer now than what it was in the Roman days. Most of North Africa around the time of Carthage was quite lush and green. It's been happening for thousands of years.
that the Earth is "much warmer" now than in Roman times.

Does this or does this not include the period roughly between 1300 and 1850 called the Little Ice Age?

Refer to the following graph, helpfully innotated:
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Moberg2005.gif

It's taken from this website:http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Proxies.htm

There has not been significant deviations (i.e. +/- 1C) from the 1961-90 mean over the past two thousand years.


Ozone depletion and water contamination is a bigger issue IMO.
With regards to Ozone "depletion", refer to the following website:
http://www.junkscience.com/Ozone/ozone_seasonal.htm

An interesting quote from the website reads:

The conceptual "ozone layer" is not some delicate, static and fragile wrapping about the outer atmosphere but rather a dynamic and highly volatile component, both created and destroyed by solar radiation. Ozone creation is a continuous process, so we can not "run out" of stratospheric ozone. The more ozone (O3) is destroyed, the more free oxygen radicals (O1) are available to bind with free oxygen (O2) to create ozone (O3), the same applies with free oxygen (O2).

Another interesting quote:

Regardless, life flourishes in the tropics, where stratospheric ozone levels are never high and where solar radiation bombardment is roughly 1,000 times higher than that received in the region of the Antarctic Ozone Anomaly.


They both work in conjunction, they do not contradict. Global dimming reduces the impact of global warming.

I know where you are coming from. If you look at the issues only on the surface, there does not appear to be any contradiction, but a better understanding of the scientific concepts and theories behind both global dimming and global warming will show that there is a fundamental contradiction between the mechanisms that scientists claim to be at work. For more information, please refer to the following website:
http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/category/climate-change-forcings

There's already too much confusion out there. The opinions of many people are being formed by half-informed ideas, and wild theories, which is not helped by alarmist "experts" and sensationalising media.

[Creeper]

Global Warming is a fact. The world is a lot warmer now than what it was in the Roman days. Most of North Africa around the time of Carthage was quite lush and green. It's been happening for thousands of years.
Whereas pollution has only been around for the past hundred if that.

Pollution may be accellerating Global Warming, but the Earth is getting warmer non-the-less.

Climate change happens naturally. The Earth 'resets' itself when things tend to get too much.

Global Warming probably isn't the big issue. Ozone depletion and water contamination is a bigger issue IMO.

IMO: Pollution accellerates G.W. dramitically, review satellite-based weather records from major/developing cities/areas around the world, evidence speaks clearly.
"Climate changes naturally", disagree - to point, I equate your statement and mine to the previous weather records here in the S.E. US. Since the 70's to mid 90's . there has been a winter schudule of cold wet weather, i.e: snow. ice etc,,. In the past, oh 5-7 ys, very little or zero snow/ice. most importantely, this past winter season, a few snow flakes for an hour, Hell - i didn't even get a hard on from it. I was bummed-totally.
Lastley, The population growth and development of concrete, gases and etc, may have an equational factor in climate change/GW.

[DaveDash]

Does this or does this not include the period roughly between 1300 and 1850 called the Little Ice Age?

Refer to the following graph, helpfully innotated:
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Moberg2005.gif

It's taken from this website:http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Proxies.htm

There has not been significant deviations (i.e. +/- 1C) from the 1961-90 mean over the past two thousand years.

Interesting. I can equally come up with graphs which contridict this one from scientific organisations.

One specifically mentions that prior to 1850 no reliable way of measuring temperature was around.

Again if you look at the climate of Europe/North Africa 2000 years ago it was significantly different that it is today.



With regards to Ozone "depletion", refer to the following website:
http://www.junkscience.com/Ozone/ozone_seasonal.htm

An interesting quote from the website reads:


Another interesting quote:



Again im skeptical. I happen to live very close to one of the holes in the Ozone and it's only getting worse.
Im sure the numerous people here getting bad skin cancer recently are 'heartwarmed' at the fact there is nothing to worry about Ozone depletion according to junkscience.




There's already too much confusion out there. The opinions of many people are being formed by half-informed ideas, and wild theories, which is not helped by alarmist "experts" and sensationalising media.




Totally, but don't forget not even 'science' agrees on the issue.

[ogukuo72]

Dave, that's the same trouble that I have here. It's difficult to seperate the wheat from the chaff. Even the "experts" contradict themselves. So, I don't take it seriously when people disagree or agree with me - after all, as amateurs, we know even less than the "experts" do!

Part of the problem is that there is a variety of theories and concepts out there, and there's no agreement on any fundamental issues. That is why, Annihilation might very well be right when he says there's no contradiciton, and I might also be right when I say there is, as it all depends on what we mean when we say Global Warming or Global Dimming, or which theories we are using.

To state my position very briefly, I believe that the main mechanism associated with Global Warming is solar radiation - i.e. the amount of solar radiation falling on the Earth. This amount is not constant, but fluctuates cyclically. Indeed, for a period (in the 1960's and 1970's), the scientists were worried about Global COOLING. That was also the period in which solar activity was less active than at present. Global Dimming is associated primarily with this mechanism. If there's less sun, well, it becomes dim!

The mechanism that was discussed in the BBC Global Dimming documentary (2002 I believe) was aerosol or particles in the air, which BBC blamed on pollution. This is not a new idea.

A very popular idea in the 1970's - widely exploited by anti-nuclear activists - was the idea of a nuclear winter, where the destruction of buildings, the burning of carbon material (i.e. people, plants etc), would throw up large amount of ash into the air, blocking out the sun and leading to a cooling of the earth.

There's a certain prima facie evidence for this, in that huge volcanic eruptions such as that of Krakaota <sic?> in 1873 was thought to have lowered the Earth's temperature (not surprisingly, this is disupted by some scientists and supported by others!).

The primary mechanism is not the ash/particles/pollutants/aerosols themselves but cloud formation. Particles in the air allow water to condense more readily, forming clouds. This cloud cover shelters the Earth from the sun, and prevent it from being heated up.

The mechanism that environmentalists blame for anthrogeneric global warming is the so called 'greenhouse gases' (they always loved their catchy terms, don't they?), e.g. carbon dioxide. These gases are blamed as they "trap" heat more readily.

Water vapour - i.e. clouds - is the most highly effective 'greenhouse gases', although this has not been emphasised by environmentalists, whose "favourite", carbon dioxide, is not as effective in trapping heat.

So, more clouds would lead to BOTH Global Warming and Global Dimming.

Here's the rub: Global warming should lead to higher temperature, and global dimming should lead to lower temperature. So the same mechanism (i.e. water vapour/clouds) would lead to both higher temperature and lower temperature, depending on which is more convenient to the environmentalists' agenda at a particular point in time! How convenient!

[DaveDash]

That's very interesting. Thanks.

[XShipRider]

The problem with global warming "experts" is this becomes their
raison d'etre. They make their living predicting gloom and doom.
Research dollars flow and all the "experts" are happy.

[fargo]

I can only go on what I know as it were. Around here in rainy old England we are in a drought, and there are serious worries about our water supply this summer. 5 years ago we had floods and I was putting sandbags infront of my house and bailing out water from my garden (I was lucky, but others in my street were flooded out). It is alot warmer now than it used to be around here. This is not just heresay, we can grow all sorts of stuff in our gardens now that we could'nt 15 years ago. That increase in warmth has meant that lots of insects and creatures that did'nt make it to the UK because it is too cold now do (strange ladybirds that eat the native species was the one last year). Apparenlty these swings in the weather are a sign of global warming.

I think that anyone who refutes global warming has their head in the sand. I believe that man has had, and continues to have an impact, and that impact is only going to accelerate as countries like China and India economies grow. I hope that we can find a more effient way to generate electricity and a green alternative to the combustion engine is long overdue IMHO.

[Supe]

Dave, that's the same trouble that I have here. It's difficult to seperate the wheat from the chaff. Even the "experts" contradict themselves. So, I don't take it seriously when people disagree or agree with me - after all, as amateurs, we know even less than the "experts" do!


Hit and run comment. If the articles or papers, research are paid for by interest groups, then information in it has to be deemed somewhat suspect. So, it pays to look up just who the 'experts' are. In such examples, you have to question the neutrality/objectivity of the research. Results and information can be omitted or skewed to favour a position - the nuclear energy debate in Australia has seen both sides guilty of this and the debate almost reverts to being ideologically driven and ending up very partisan.

[ogukuo72]

It is alot warmer now than it used to be around here. This is not just heresay, we can grow all sorts of stuff in our gardens now that we could'nt 15 years ago. That increase in warmth has meant that lots of insects and creatures that did'nt make it to the UK because it is too cold now do (strange ladybirds that eat the native species was the one last year).
No doubt. There's even talk that vineyards might make a return to England. That's right, there used to be vineyards in England before the Little Ice Age. :)


Apparenlty these swings in the weather are a sign of global warming.
Or it could be a sign of ... swings in the weather. Weather fluctuation is nothing new, and could or could not have anything to do with "Global Warming" or "Global Dimming". It's becoming a habit to blame ANY "anomalies" on "Global Warming", until people realise that "anomalies" is normal when it comes to complex systems such as weather.


I think that anyone who refutes global warming has their head in the sand.
I seem to have this amazing ability to continue to breathe and type even as my head is in the sand!

But seriously, you got the problem the other way round. The environmentalists haven't proved that there's such a phenomenon as "global warming".

It's like someone claiming that "It is dangerous to allow inter-racial marriages. I can't prove it, but unless you can refute what I said, then you must believe it."

If refusing to believe something until I've good reason to, or seen good evidence to, is sticking my head in the sand, well ... excuse me ... I'm sticking my head back in the sand.


I believe that man has had, and continues to have an impact, and that impact is only going to accelerate as countries like China and India economies grow.

Here it is again. Why China and India? Is it the economic boogeyman again? Well, why don't we make a deal with the environmentalists - they would volunteer to live their lives like that of an Indian or Chinese peasant, receive the same pay, eat the same food, stay in the same type of habitat, and travel in the same form of transport.


I hope that we can find a more effient way to generate electricity and a green alternative to the combustion engine is long overdue IMHO.
There is a more efficient way of generating electricity, and it's already available in many countries. It is called Nuclear Power.

And yes, a "green" alternative to the combusion engine is long overdue. Why? Because thus far, no one has developed another engine or motor that is more energy efficient than the internal-combustion engine in converting matter into energy (without setting off a nuclear explosion, that is). If such an engine exist, then you can be sure everybody will want one.


Hit and run comment. If the articles or papers, research are paid for by interest groups, then information in it has to be deemed somewhat suspect. So, it pays to look up just who the 'experts' are. In such examples, you have to question the neutrality/objectivity of the research. Results and information can be omitted or skewed to favour a position - the nuclear energy debate in Australia has seen both sides guilty of this and the debate almost reverts to being ideologically driven and ending up very partisan.
True.

But in this case, we must include the environmentalists under "special interest groups" as well. So we must treat them with the same wariness that we treat commercial interests like BP or Exxon-Mobile.

Wait, what am I talking about? Environmental groups like Greenpeace ARE commercial interests! They sell a "service" to consumers, primarily in the West, and they earn "revenue" for that "service"!

I am willing to make a bet that the CEO (or equivalent position) of the Greenpeace movement makes more than an average Indian farmer. If I am wrong, I'll instantly write a check of 100SGD to Greenpeace. Anyone wants to take the bet?

[fargo]

No doubt. There's even talk that vineyards might make a return to England. That's right, there used to be vineyards in England before the Little Ice Age. :)


Already here mate, and producing wine.

http://www.wineanorak.com/engl.htm



Or it could be a sign of ... swings in the weather. Weather fluctuation is nothing new, and could or could not have anything to do with "Global Warming" or "Global Dimming". It's becoming a habit to blame ANY "anomalies" on "Global Warming", until people realise that "anomalies" is normal when it comes to complex systems such as weather.


Could be, would'nt it be great if it was, we would'nt have to worry. But what if it wasn't - are you prepared to gamble your future and your kids future on it ? When I get to the pearly gates I would rather say I tried than I did nothing. The science arguments will trundle on will one interest group predicting the end is nigh and the other saying nothing is wrong. All I know is my environment is changing. Another instance is look at the increase in asthma in children. Nobody can say for sure if it is air pollution, but I would rather have clean air and hope that it reduced asthma than pretend the two are not related.



I seem to have this amazing ability to continue to breathe and type even as my head is in the sand!

But seriously, you got the problem the other way round. The environmentalists haven't proved that there's such a phenomenon as "global warming".

It's like someone claiming that "It is dangerous to allow inter-racial marriages. I can't prove it, but unless you can refute what I said, then you must believe it."

If refusing to believe something until I've good reason to, or seen good evidence to, is sticking my head in the sand, well ... excuse me ... I'm sticking my head back in the sand.


Good for you. Even Mr Bush managed to get his head out the sand. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2023835.stm)




Here it is again. Why China and India? Is it the economic boogeyman again? Well, why don't we make a deal with the environmentalists - they would volunteer to live their lives like that of an Indian or Chinese peasant, receive the same pay, eat the same food, stay in the same type of habitat, and travel in the same form of transport.

Why India and China ? Lets see :

1) Huge populations.
2) Increasing urbaisation as they move to the cities.
3) Increasing wealth
4) Increasing disposable income
5) Increasing demand for oil to fund more cars, electricity for electrical goods.

I think that getting good macro generation of power from CHP systems, photovoltaic, wind, river, sea etc... is better than burning oil. If we in the west could influence these new economic powerhouses to look at these options to reduce the burden on a finite resource it could only be to the good. No idea where this says they should all live like peasants.




There is a more efficient way of generating electricity, and it's already available in many countries. It is called Nuclear Power.

And yes, a "green" alternative to the combusion engine is long overdue. Why? Because thus far, no one has developed another engine or motor that is more energy efficient than the internal-combustion engine in converting matter into energy (without setting off a nuclear explosion, that is). If such an engine exist, then you can be sure everybody will want one.


True. You are keen on who is influencing who and why people do certain things - is the oil industry reliant on the automobile industry ? Are economies reliant on selling petrol/gas ? (the UK one is certainly our tax on fuel is huge - not sure what the US does in terms of tax on fuel). Where is the economic pressure to find a clean engine ?




But in this case, we must include the environmentalists under "special interest groups" as well. So we must treat them with the same wariness that we treat commercial interests like BP or Exxon-Mobile.

Wait, what am I talking about? Environmental groups like Greenpeace ARE commercial interests! They sell a "service" to consumers, primarily in the West, and they earn "revenue" for that "service"!

I am willing to make a bet that the CEO (or equivalent position) of the Greenpeace movement makes more than an average Indian farmer. If I am wrong, I'll instantly write a check of 100SGD to Greenpeace. Anyone wants to take the bet?

I am an average punter with an open mind, not a green beardy hippy, but I am convinced that the "do nothing, everything is fine" argument is not tennable anymore. I would rather we spent £millions on "green" technologies and schemes and were proved that we were wrong in 50 years time than face the cost and consequence of being right.

[Laworkerbee]

Ozone depletion and water contamination is a bigger issue IMO.

X2................

[incommin]

I'm in my 60's. When I was in jr high, the teachers were talking of the comming of a new ice age because the world was getting colder. The earth is warming......what other things are contributing?

Reduction in forest areas thru clearing; more roads and larger cities (heat sinks); volcanic activity; major forest fires; solar activity; warming of oceans and changes in currents; release of ocean gases (from the water, sediments and sea vents).....are a few....... these are things we have little control over. Man does not like change, but change happens anyway and man and other animals adjust. We always have and always will.

[ogukuo72]

I'm in my 60's. When I was in jr high, the teachers were talking of the comming of a new ice age because the world was getting colder. The earth is warming......what other things are contributing?

Reduction in forest areas thru clearing; more roads and larger cities (heat sinks); volcanic activity; major forest fires; solar activity; warming of oceans and changes in currents; release of ocean gases (from the water, sediments and sea vents).....are a few....... these are things we have little control over. Man does not like change, but change happens anyway and man and other animals adjust. We always have and always will.

Well said!:)

[Supe]

A
I am an average punter with an open mind, not a green beardy hippy, but I am convinced that the "do nothing, everything is fine" argument is not tennable anymore. I would rather we spent £millions on "green" technologies and schemes and were proved that we were wrong in 50 years time than face the cost and consequence of being right.


Well said. I'd put myself in the same basket. No loony partisan views. This is a beautiful planet and we only get one to work with. Quality of life can't be measured in dollar terms or material possessions alone. I'd like as much pristine environment as possible remain free from exploitation. And, those new technologies (green) are industries waiting for folks to make their fortunes on. As an example: Within the I.T sector, there's a move away from power hungry chips - to ones that are much more efficient. Power efficiency means decreased operating costs. Corporations are forced to become 'greener'. I see that as a positive thing.

[fargo]

I'm in my 60's. When I was in jr high, the teachers were talking of the comming of a new ice age because the world was getting colder. The earth is warming......what other things are contributing?

Reduction in forest areas thru clearing; more roads and larger cities (heat sinks); volcanic activity; major forest fires; solar activity; warming of oceans and changes in currents; release of ocean gases (from the water, sediments and sea vents).....are a few....... these are things we have little control over. Man does not like change, but change happens anyway and man and other animals adjust. We always have and always will.

True enough - I am in my 30's and I remember my teachers telling me an ice age is overdue. Animals and man can adjust to small changes, large changes trigger extinctions (dinosaurs). I am not willing to bet my future on a small change. I would rather over react now and admit being wrong later (but have a cleaner world to live in) than not react and see (or my children see) the consequenses.

[XShipRider]

True enough - I am in my 30's and I remember my teachers telling me an ice age is overdue. Animals and man can adjust to small changes, large changes trigger extinctions (dinosaurs). I am not willing to bet my future on a small change. I would rather over react now and admit being wrong later (but have a cleaner world to live in) than not react and see (or my children see) the consequenses.

Yes, to err on the side of caution is usually a good idea. But at what
economic cost? Start telling people they're going to lose their jobs,
regardless of country, and you can kiss any and all reforms good-bye.

There are those who will say "it doesn't matter" and that "we need
to do something now." Okay. There are also those who say
economics must be put aside in favor of Kyoto. I would agree except
it's not being put aside for so-called "developing nations." Either
everyone has to meet the same strict criteria or no one does.
China is included in the "developing nations" clan yet there is
talk already of them overtaking the US in GDP in less than half
a century. Hmmmm..... Is Kyoto for the planet? Or rather to bring
the US down economically? Fair questions both.

The reason I say "fair questions both" is if we're serious about cleaning
up the planet then all emissions cuts have to be even across the board,
none of this "developing nations" garbage. If we allow developing
nations to pollute or emit at higher levels what's to stop them from
continuing when they achieve economic parity with other nations?
If it curtails their newly found economic parity you can bet they
will tell the rest of the world where they can stick the protocol.

Lastly, what can man do to stop an ice age? If global warming is
a natural trend then what choice do we have but to go along for
the ride?

[Flagg]

I'm concerned about the prospect of global warming, but I have ZERO tolerance for agenda wielding eco-militants.

Does it bother me to see places like Indonesia and Brazil(two significant "lungs" for the planet) being slashed and burned on a massive scale in the chase for TEMPORARY dollars?

Hell yeah!

Does overexcessive and incredibly wasteful use of energy(waste of ANY kind for that matter) by many fat and lazy idiots in the west drive me nuts?

Hell Yeah!

But the eco-militants need better PR for a start, not to mention strong consideration for relocation to Guantanamo for terroristic activities in the case of groups like ELF.

The thing that gets me about the "greenies" is they strive to attain an aggressively antagonistic position to the mainstream of their own nations(and the west as a goup has made some significant strides in the reduction of pollution, albeit with a plenty of room left to improve).

Those groups define the meaning of the word attention whore as well as how NOT to do things.

Opposing those creating or magnifying the problem will not solve it.

I mean honestly, when is the LAST time(or even the FIRST) that a group like Greenpeace actually accomplished anything other than getting on TV with some incredibly inane stunt?

The course of nations is supertanker slow in response to a call for action.

Asking for a 180 degree turn is not likely to happen, EVER.

Telling Ma and Pa American that they're evil isn't going to win their support, they may have a tenuous moral victory, but the victory wanted has nothing to do with ego, and everything to do with results.

Whereas attacking the global warming problem by means of death from a 1000 cuts is actually feasible.

Don't DEMAND the death penalty for Hummer drivers, ASK for an additional 10MPG over 10 years.

But that would be too much real work, and not enough high profile rebellion to suit their agenda.

[XShipRider]

I'm concerned about the prospect of global...
...rebellion to suit their agenda

Well said.

I am a firm believer in increasing MPG ratings and requirements. There's no reason
we can put men on the moon but not master the internal combustion engine.
Or for that matter, come up with a better form of conveyance.

[fargo]

You are spot on, luckily, as far as I am aware, we don't have real nut job environmental outfits like ELF in the UK, but as you have stated it comes down to individual responsibility - you can't u-turn a government, but you can: stop buying timber cut from non-renewable sources, use energy saving devises (light bulbs, turn off the TV at the power socket, try cycling instead of driving if practical etc..).

We had a West Sussex Council planning officer come and talk to us about this yesterday and it was very interesting - he said he remembers the Oil crisis in the 70's and all of these energy saving measures were implimented, not because of environmental concerns, but due to a shortage of oil. He said that the situation now with high oil prices is very similar and to remain economically competitive in the long term businesses need to reduce their energy consumption and increase thier energy efficiency. As an example, in the UK gas and electricity bills have risen between 18-30% over the last 6 months - he said a local infant school's gas bill had gone from £10,000 pa to £15,000.

It now makes economic sense in the UK to be more efficient with your power consumption.

[Flagg]

Well said.

I am a firm believer in increasing MPG ratings and requirements. There's no reason
we can put men on the moon but not master the internal combustion engine.
Or for that matter, come up with a better form of conveyance.

A GOOD bit of progress was made in the late 80's in terms of average MPG figures, but them it went in the toilet with exempted "light trucks" and the age of the SUV.

But yeah I totally agree.

Put something fair, reasonable, and achievable in place with enough time for car companies and such to adjust.

Current incentives for alternative power installations in the US are AWESOME.

I'm about to do one in my house over the coming months, so I'm quite jealous.

[incommin]

What is all this talk of energy conservation...... we have plenty of energy..."energy can neighter be created or destroyed, you can only change its state"....the amount of energy availbale isn't the issue...it is how we obtain and use energy that is the issue.

[Flagg]

What is all this talk of energy conservation...... we have plenty of energy..."energy can neighter be created or destroyed, you can only change its state"....the amount of energy availbale isn't the issue...it is how we obtain and use energy that is the issue.

Ok mister smartypants non-answer physics professor......While energy can neither be created nor destroyed, no one has yet to come up with a cheap, easily transportable, relatively safe, and mass-scale implemented alternative to petroleum without upsetting the global economy.

I don't think people scraping for money to maintain their cheap energy lifestyle in the SUV and McMansion are going to be in the appropriate mood to discuss or enjoy the irony of the Laws of Thermodynamics or be willing to listen to global warming doomsayers.

Instead of sharing the 1st law with us, get back to your textbooks and go make me a perpetual motion machine!!!

[Lazy Lob]

What is all this talk of energy conservation...... we have plenty of energy..."energy can neighter be created or destroyed, you can only change its state"....the amount of energy availbale isn't the issue...it is how we obtain and use energy that is the issue.


Define energy rofl


We are basically doomed and it’s all down to economics. If we in the west devise new (and expensive) energy sources with zero emissions or at least that are renewable it means that the oil markets have just lost a bunch of clients.

Therefore oil prices come down and the Chinese, Indians etc can buy more of it and produce their goods even more cheaply. So in effect we are going to be screwed from all sides.

Bringing the Chinese, Indians and all other economies on board is a non starter. The only thing that we can hope for a very large “pre”-catastrophic event that will also affect these emerging economies in such proportion that their governments may sit up and listen.

In the mean time the Tony and Dave show are just feeding us spin.

[incommin]

Ok mister smartypants non-answer physics professor......While energy can neither be created nor destroyed, no one has yet to come up with a cheap, easily transportable, relatively safe, and mass-scale implemented alternative to petroleum without upsetting the global economy.

I don't think people scraping for money to maintain their cheap energy lifestyle in the SUV and McMansion are going to be in the appropriate mood to discuss or enjoy the irony of the Laws of Thermodynamics or be willing to listen to global warming doomsayers.

Instead of sharing the 1st law with us, get back to your textbooks and go make me a perpetual motion machine!!!

My point is that energy abounds. One day we will run out of light crude. The oil companies will devote the $$$ to producing fuel from heavy crude and oil shale...... hundreds of years of carbon based energy there.... before that is gone we will be growing our carbon based fuels..... life and the cost of fuel (energy) is going to increase as the demands around the world increase. Our situation is somewhere in the middle between the tree huggers who want nothing to change...preserve everything just like it is for our kids and their kids (which isn't going to happen) and the totally blind who think global warming is a falsehood made up by crazy nuts.
I happen to like my truck and sports cars....I like my big house that only my wife and I live in..... I like my boats and my son loves his flying.... I probably consume three thimes the energy that my father did.... but that is life, that's living....you only get to go round once in this life....you may as well make the most of it if you can......
As for scraping for $$$ to drive their SUV's and live in McMansions.... the answer is downscale....

[Adz]

Soon wearing sunnies during the day will be like wearing sunnies inside. It is totally uncool. Will give british generals more of an excuse to critise their US counterparts.

[fargo]

Define energy rofl


We are basically doomed and it’s all down to economics. If we in the west devise new (and expensive) energy sources with zero emissions or at least that are renewable it means that the oil markets have just lost a bunch of clients.

Therefore oil prices come down and the Chinese, Indians etc can buy more of it and produce their goods even more cheaply. So in effect we are going to be screwed from all sides.

Bringing the Chinese, Indians and all other economies on board is a non starter. The only thing that we can hope for a very large “pre”-catastrophic event that will also affect these emerging economies in such proportion that their governments may sit up and listen.

In the mean time the Tony and Dave show are just feeding us spin.

Good post. The main thing would be if we could have a rational debate like this thread rather than the bollox that is in the media. I think everybody deep down knows that our current consumption is not sustainable - we just need to figure out the best way to change that does not put short term profits above long term survivability. I am glad I don't have to make these decisions.

[Lazy Lob]

Thank you. I am afraid we are well past the point of no return whatever we do in the West. The third world and the developing economies are aiming for the same quality of life we have in the West. They are hell bent on attaining it the quickest and cheapest way possible. I don’t blame them.

We in the west have arrived at our privileged position in life through several factors. One of the negative ones is the massive output of CO2 and other residues. Some of the positive ones include the modern day stability that our secular societies have given us. This has allowed specialisation and industry to flourish.

This last part our forefathers worked very hard for and we have exported way too cheaply. Knowledge is a commodity and industrial knowledge even more so. We have given it away, squandered it.

Yet we sit in our ivory towers and have the gall to preach to the Brazilians about deforestation. Here in Europe we have decimated our own forests and do nothing about their repopulation. We import fruits from all the corners of the globe at huge hidden costs. Our macro economics stink. I have said this before, but has anyone factored the cost of invading Iraq into what a barrel of crude really costs. I haven’t but I’m sure it would put the barrel at well over $100 if not more.

And we have gits like Cameron with windmills on their houses. Tonies who spout bullshyte every time they speak and the list goes on.

There was another thread recently about the only way out would be reducing the world’s population by 90%. Well, it may come to that but it won’t be the scientists who do it. We are not that much different to a bacterial colony on agar jell.

We have no one else to blame but ourselves.

Rant over.

[fargo]

As one of my collegues (ex PTI) put it

"bring on bird flu"

;)

[Lazy Lob]

As one of my collegues (ex PTI) put it

"bring on bird flu"

;)

As long as it doesn't "do" me! rofl

[annihilation]

Thank you. I am afraid we are well past the point of no return whatever we do in the West. The third world and the developing economies are aiming for the same quality of life we have in the West. They are hell bent on attaining it the quickest and cheapest way possible. I don’t blame them.

We in the west have arrived at our privileged position in life through several factors. One of the negative ones is the massive output of CO2 and other residues. Some of the positive ones include the modern day stability that our secular societies have given us. This has allowed specialisation and industry to flourish.

This last part our forefathers worked very hard for and we have exported way too cheaply. Knowledge is a commodity and industrial knowledge even more so. We have given it away, squandered it.

Yet we sit in our ivory towers and have the gall to preach to the Brazilians about deforestation. Here in Europe we have decimated our own forests and do nothing about their repopulation. We import fruits from all the corners of the globe at huge hidden costs. Our macro economics stink. I have said this before, but has anyone factored the cost of invading Iraq into what a barrel of crude really costs. I haven’t but I’m sure it would put the barrel at well over $100 if not more.

And we have gits like Cameron with windmills on their houses. Tonies who spout bullshyte every time they speak and the list goes on.

There was another thread recently about the only way out would be reducing the world’s population by 90%. Well, it may come to that but it won’t be the scientists who do it. We are not that much different to a bacterial colony on agar jell.

We have no one else to blame but ourselves.

Rant over.

Good rant....

[fargo]

As long as it doesn't "do" me! rofl

I am relying on my innate human nature that makes my brain say - it won't be me. Fingers crossed ;)

[incommin]

The greenies and tree huggers are partly responsible for the mess we are in. The US hasn't built a new refinery in the past 25 years becasue the "nuts" made it too costly. There are areas where we can dirll in known oil and gas fields but are stopped by those who don't want that done in "their favorite spots". The problem is that we are all connected. Man is connected to the earth and the earth is connected to our economy. Monkey with one and you change the other. We too often forget the law of unentended consequences. The earth is entering a warming cycle. It was going to come no matter what man did or didn't do.... Man make make it come a little more rapidly.....but it was coming with or without our help. There are no bad guys in this...... Making money is not bad... greed is not necessarly bad. Staying alive and feeding families is going on around the world. More and more third world countries are becoming 1st world societies and they want the life style we enjoy..... as the rapest told his victim....you may as well relax and enjoy it....its coming anyway!

[Lazy Lob]

The greenies and tree huggers are partly responsible for the mess we are in. The US hasn't built a new refinery in the past 25 years becasue the "nuts" made it too costly. There are areas where we can dirll in known oil and gas fields but are stopped by those who don't want that done in "their favorite spots". The problem is that we are all connected. Man is connected to the earth and the earth is connected to our economy. Monkey with one and you change the other. We too often forget the law of unentended consequences. The earth is entering a warming cycle. It was going to come no matter what man did or didn't do.... Man make make it come a little more rapidly.....but it was coming with or without our help. There are no bad guys in this...... Making money is not bad... greed is not necessarly bad. Staying alive and feeding families is going on around the world. More and more third world countries are becoming 1st world societies and they want the life style we enjoy..... as the rapest told his victim....you may as well relax and enjoy it....its coming anyway!

Feeding ones family is not an entitlement, it's a consequence of our miserable existence. Neither right nor wrong, bad or good. The continual reference to the past to explain or even excuse our present political, social or enviromental situation is, at best pathetic.

Pray tell where you got the information for this current "cycle" you mention, without invoking past, unconnected events. (i.e industrialised civilisations did not exist then). Just because there are cycles does not mean this is one of them.

I don't want to sound like an a-hole but its this type of ego-centric, fatalist and, dare I say it, religious point of view that has helped to get us into this predicament.

As Leonard Nimoy would say "it's not logical Captain"

[incommin]

Feeding ones family is not an entitlement, it's a consequence of our miserable existence. Neither right nor wrong, bad or good. The continual reference to the past to explain or even excuse our present political, social or enviromental situation is, at best pathetic.

Pray tell where you got the information for this current "cycle" you mention, without invoking past, unconnected events. (i.e industrialised civilisations did not exist then). Just because there are cycles does not mean this is one of them.

I don't want to sound like an a-hole but its this type of ego-centric, fatalist and, dare I say it, religious point of view that has helped to get us into this predicament.

As Leonard Nimoy would say "it's not logical Captain"

Consequence of our miserable existance????? Pathetic???? Do you not read...... ???? Archaeology, paleobotany, paleontology, all point to climate changes that reflect periods of warmer and cooler periods...... my religious view has nothing to do with my view on where we are in this warming trend. Once I was a soldier....and a dam good one. Now I am a criminalist, trained to gather and look at facts...... devoid of emotions....

I and my family do not live a miserable existance...... Many in this world do....... many are trying to make their lives better.... some will make it...others will not. If you do not like your existance, change it. Quit whinnnnnnning about it.

[Lazy Lob]

Consequence of our miserable existance????? Pathetic???? Do you not read...... ???? Archaeology, paleobotany, paleontology, all point to climate changes that reflect periods of warmer and cooler periods...... my religious view has nothing to do with my view on where we are in this warming trend. Once I was a soldier....and a dam good one. Now I am a criminalist, trained to gather and look at facts...... devoid of emotions....

I and my family do not live a miserable existance...... Many in this world do....... many are trying to make their lives better.... some will make it...others will not. If you do not like your existance, change it. Quit whinnnnnnning about it.

You are quite right. I do understand a wee bit about paleolithic times. But the problem is that we are a few centuries past that. In fact we are in the post industrial era. Cycles have changed and this MAY not be one of them. And it seems science backs me on that one.

Your soldiering experience has nothing to do with this. You are mixing a bunch of unrelated stuff here to justify yourself.

Our culture of entitlement is what makes us miserable. Its what makes us blind to the facts which you say you view without emotion. We are not entitled to anything.

I never said anything about not liking my existence. Quite to the contrary. Accusing some one like me of being a whiner just shows what a fatalist you are.

[Laworkerbee]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUiP6dqPynE&feature=Featured&page=1&t=t&f=b

Gores fear movie trailer here

[incommin]

You are quite right. I do understand a wee bit about paleolithic times. But the problem is that we are a few centuries past that. In fact we are in the post industrial era. Cycles have changed and this MAY not be one of them. And it seems science backs me on that one.

Your soldiering experience has nothing to do with this. You are mixing a bunch of unrelated stuff here to justify yourself.

Our culture of entitlement is what makes us miserable. Its what makes us blind to the facts which you say you view without emotion. We are not entitled to anything.

I never said anything about not liking my existence. Quite to the contrary. Accusing some one like me of being a whiner just shows what a fatalist you are.

First- Explain what you mean by "culture of entitlement".

Second - When you put " our miserable existance" into a topic that tends to imply that one is miserable.....

Third- Soldiering has everything to do with what I am, how I think, how I see the world (I saw a lot of it as a soldier), and how I deal with issues.

Forth - We are not guaranteed anything. We come into this world with nothing and we depart with nothing. However, in between those two events, what we have earned or paid for we are entitled to.

[XShipRider]

Your soldiering experience has nothing to do with this. You are mixing a bunch of unrelated stuff here to justify yourself.

Sort of like blaming religion ... :roll:



and, dare I say it, religious point of view that has helped to get us into this predicament.

Leaping logic Batman! Which predicament? Global warming? Socio-economic? War?
d) all of the above.



Please see the humor in my post.

[ogukuo72]

I wonder if things are really as bad as they are.

Scientists and environmentalists are special interest groups. They depend on public fundings and donations for $$$. The more alarming they can make things sound, the more $$$ they'll get. This is an incentive for them to make things out to be as alarming and as frightening as possible.

[incommin]

I wonder if things are really as bad as they are.

Scientists and environmentalists are special interest groups. They depend on public fundings and donations for $$$. The more alarming they can make things sound, the more $$$ they'll get. This is an incentive for them to make things out to be as alarming and as frightening as possible.

"I wonder if things are really as bad as they are"?????

Did you leave out a word or two, or three, or ?????? Things really are as good or bad as they are!

You are right about the special interest groups..... They want $$$$$ and attention.

Things are what they are. We can control a few small things, but we can't stop the world from changing (That is what the Islamic terrorists want to do......keep their world from changing). It is going to change. Climate is going to change. So people will be better off, others will have problems...
But it isn't worth wringing our hands over....

[ogukuo72]

It's a rhetorical device!:)

[Lazy Lob]

First- Explain what you mean by "culture of entitlement".

Second - When you put " our miserable existance" into a topic that tends to imply that one is miserable.....

Third- Soldiering has everything to do with what I am, how I think, how I see the world (I saw a lot of it as a soldier), and how I deal with issues.

Forth - We are not guaranteed anything. We come into this world with nothing and we depart with nothing. However, in between those two events, what we have earned or paid for we are entitled to.


1) The belief that we are entitled or even owed goods and / or services whether social, private or unnecessary without having necessarily earned them. But you already knew that.

2) Rhetorical.

3) I don't really know you.

4) I fully agree with the first part. The second part is what we strive for. But sometimes they get taken away.

You still haven't told me why you think this current cycle we are starting is a repetition of cycles past.



Sort of like blaming religion ... :roll:


Leaping logic Batman! Which predicament? Global warming? Socio-economic? War?
d) all of the above.



Please see the humor in my post.

Holy semantics Robin. Global whining of course.

Yes secularitry and religion do tend to be on opposite sides of the coin. I believe that without the secular aspects of British society in those days science and the industrial revolution would not have come about, or at least at the rate it did.

[fargo]

As lazy has pointed out - its hard to justify past cycles of weather change as there has never been a time in our planets life when man has pumped out so much co2 and other crap into the atmosphere.

As has also been mentioned earlier in this thread - did'nt 30-60 years ago teachers tell us we were entering another ice age ? And now its getting warmer.....what gives Batman.....

[ogukuo72]

Simply put, we simply do not know enough about the weather to really know whether there's an upward trend in world temperature attributable to human activities.

Even if we can prove conclusively that there is indeed an upward trend, we don't know if humans were responsible for it.

Even if we can prove that humans were responsible for it, we don't know if we can do much about it.

Simply put, no one has shown any proof that modifying our behaviour right now will have any significant long term impact on the environment.

[fargo]

Simply put, no one has shown any proof that modifying our behaviour right now will have any significant long term impact on the environment.

Are you willing to gamble your and your childrens future that it won't ?

[XShipRider]

Are you willing to gamble your and your childrens future that it won't ?

Yep.:)

Your parents and mine didn't seem to care about the next ice-age
when that was the accepted mantra.

[Lazy Lob]

Simply put, we simply do not know enough about the weather to really know whether there's an upward trend in world temperature attributable to human activities.

Even if we can prove conclusively that there is indeed an upward trend, we don't know if humans were responsible for it.

Even if we can prove that humans were responsible for it, we don't know if we can do much about it.

Simply put, no one has shown any proof that modifying our behaviour right now will have any significant long term impact on the environment.

We do know enough and we know its a direct result of human activity. That is beyond doubt and proven. There are no other sources releasing such large quantities of co2 into the atmosphere. That is fact and accepted the world over, even by governments. Except for David Bellamy.

The pending ice age was considered to be a fully natural phenomenon. This is not. There are solutions that can stop and even reverse the trend but we are all too busy in our Batcaves watching Celebrity Tossers.

[fargo]

Looks like we dont have to worry anyway :

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=78937

Scary stuff.

[XShipRider]

The pending ice age was considered to be a fully natural phenomenon. This is not. There are solutions that can stop and even reverse the trend but we are all too busy in our Batcaves watching Celebrity Tossers.

So, over the course of the last 30 years, the "natural phenomenon"
vaporized being replaced by global warming? I'm confused. If this
manmade disaster has been creeping up on us since the start
of the industrial revolution, how is it that only the last 30 years
seems to be showing the warming trend?

Don't hate me because I'm beautiful.

[incommin]

We do know enough and we know its a direct result of human activity. That is beyond doubt and proven. There are no other sources releasing such large quantities of co2 into the atmosphere. That is fact and accepted the world over, even by governments. Except for David Bellamy.

The pending ice age was considered to be a fully natural phenomenon. This is not. There are solutions that can stop and even reverse the trend but we are all too busy in our Batcaves watching Celebrity Tossers.

Sources of CO2: volcanic action, combustion of organic matter (burning of wood and coal and vehicle fuels), respiration of aeroic organisms (of which you are one), microorganisms, and fermentation.

Man produces only a fraction of the co2 gas...... mother nature produces much more than man does. The amount of co2 produced by humans is rising.. because the world population is rising. No way to stop that either.
No matter what any rational, well educated person says, you are not going to change your views...... and you are not likely to change mine....
As far as risking the future for my kids and their kids..... the world is going to be different for them no matter what you or I do.... things change, mother nature keeps moving on....

[Lazy Lob]

Sources of CO2: volcanic action, combustion of organic matter (burning of wood and coal and vehicle fuels), respiration of aeroic organisms (of which you are one), microorganisms, and fermentation.

Man produces only a fraction of the co2 gas...... mother nature produces much more than man does. The amount of co2 produced by humans is rising.. because the world population is rising. No way to stop that either.
No matter what any rational, well educated person says, you are not going to change your views...... and you are not likely to change mine....
As far as risking the future for my kids and their kids..... the world is going to be different for them no matter what you or I do.... things change, mother nature keeps moving on....

We will never know, our kids may. But there is also the strategic spin off from alternate energy sources. But that's another story.

[fargo]

Imagine not being dependent on other countries for your energy.......what a dream.

[praetorian6]

"Global Warming" and all the hype it has created in the news is really much to do about nothing. The earth's climate has always gone through cycles and will continue to do so, even when there aren't any people left on it to freak out about it. The last large and rapid climatic change affecting the atmospheric and oceanic circulation and temperature, and the hydrological cycle, occurred during the last ice age and during the transition towards the present Holocene period (which began about 10,000 years ago). If the media was around back then it would probably blame the increase of temperatures on cavemen eating too much Mastadon red meat and farting too much, which lead to increased levels of CO2 into the atmosphere.

The last hundred years-which obviously includes the years of the most industrial release of CO2-saw an increase of a whopping one degree F. Amazing. Even then, the warming has not been globally uniform. Some areas have actually cooled over the last hundred years-southeastern US is a good example.

People have to look at the big picture. Sure there are greenhouse gases that warm the planet. If there wasn't the temperature of the Earth would be about zero degrees F (-18°C) instead of its present 57°F (14°C). And yes, people have added more CO2 to the atmosphere. I'm sure that's front page news, being that there are more people. So what. What's the point? One degree in the hundred years of the most industrial period. I'm just saying you're kids, grand kids and great grand kids are probably not going to worry about frying to death because grandpa drove a SUV. Here's a little article related:



Scientists cool outlook on global warming
By Jennifer Harper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
April 21, 2006

Global warming may not be as dramatic as some scientists have predicted.
Using temperature readings from the past 100 years, 1,000 computer simulations and the evidence left in ancient tree rings, Duke University scientists announced yesterday that "the magnitude of future global warming will likely fall well short of current highest predictions."
Supported by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation, the Duke researchers noted that some observational studies predicted that the Earth's temperature could rise as much as 16 degrees in this century because of an increase in carbon dioxide or other so-called greenhouse gases.
The Duke estimates show the chances that the planet's temperature will rise even by 11 degrees is only 5 percent, which falls in line with previous, less-alarming predictions that meteorologists made almost three decades ago.
In recent years, much academic research has indicated otherwise, often in colorful terms and citing the United States as the biggest contributor to global warming. This month, a University of Toronto scientist predicted that a quarter of the planet's plants and animals would be extinct by 2050 because of rising temperatures. On Wednesday, two geophysics professors at the University of Chicago warned those who eat red meat that their increased flatulence contributes to greenhouse gases.
Last year, Oregon State University research linked future "societal disruptions" with global warming, while the Carnegie Institution reported that the insulating influence of northern forests alone would raise the Earth's temperature by 6 degrees. In 2004, Harvard University scientists informed Congress that warming had doomed the planet to climatic "shocks and surprises."
The Duke research, however, found substantial ups and downs in the Earth's temperature before modern times, countering other studies that confine noticeable temperature increases to the industrialized era. Marked climate change in other centuries resulted from "external forcing," said the Duke findings, citing volcanic eruptions and other influences.
"Our reconstruction supports a lot of variability in the past," said research director Gabriele Hegerl of Duke's Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences.
Although her study found that the Earth is, indeed, warming, Ms. Hegerl discounts dire predictions of skyrocketing temperatures. The probability that the climate's "sensitivity" to greenhouse-gas levels would result in drastically higher temperatures is "substantially" reduced, she said.
Ms. Hegerl and her four-member team based their conclusions on thermometer readings over the past century, along with "ancient climate records," including tree-ring studies and ice-core samples that revealed hot and cold spells and airborne particulates over a 700-year period. In addition, they created 1,000 computer-based weather simulations for the past 1,000 years.
"Ancient and modern evidence suggest limits to future global warming," the study concluded. It was published in the journal Nature.
The topic of global warming, meanwhile, will be framed dramatically in "An Inconvenient Truth," a 94-minute documentary featuring former Vice President Al Gore, who has deemed rising temperatures "a planetary emergency." The Hollywood production will be released to theaters in May and is billed by producer Davis Guggenheim as "the most terrifying film you will ever see."
The production also recommends that viewers take "political action." On Tuesday, Mr. Gore paid Roy Neel, a longtime Democratic adviser, $40,000 to help him create a public outreach program on global warming, the New York Daily News reported.
The American Spectator and columnist Jonah Goldberg have accused Mr. Gore of "green" scaremongering.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060420-115953-7360r.htm