I got a lot of answers to my questions about global warming last night while watching TV. There was a show discussing the issue on the History Channel. It was not sensationalist; there was no suggestion that we were in for a world of hurt until around the end of the century. But there was an explanation of what happened in the past millenniums when there was an increase in greenhouse gases and global average temperatures increased over 15F. In at least 2 cases there was mass extinction. The same was true when greenhouse gases decreased abnormally, except that it led to ice ages, including one where the entire globe was encased in ice. In all cases so far, the changes in carbon dioxide or methane concentrations in the atmosphere were natural. Cold spells are typically due to a change in the ellipticity of the Earth's orbit around the sun. When the orbit is elliptical, ice ages are more apt to occur. We are in an elliptical period right now, but global temperatures are rising. The most reasonable explanation is that greenhouse gases, most notably carbon dioxide, are increasing at a high rate. How do scientists know the concentration of carbon dioxide over the millenniums? They collect ice core samples from Greenland and Antarctica and determine the carbon dioxide concentrations in the ice strata. Maybe we really do need to make an effort to control greenhouse gases.
Oh, yeah. The hook to cars is that we need to drive smaller vehicles more efficiently and find alternate forms of energy for the cars, like electric motors. There is a pilot coal burning plant in Illinois that exhausts it's vapors underground. Maybe that concept will supply clean energy from a traditional source of electricity.
What is truely amazing to me is how people demand concrete proof to even consider the concept that humankind is adversly affecting our environment while at the same time they believe in, and defend vigourously as fact, their religous beliefs with absolutely zero concrete proof.
What else is amazing to me is how we debate the issue of what is causing climate change and whetehr it is a natural cycle ot not - while ignoring the concept of how the heck we are going to adapt when climate change(naturally occurring or otherwise) happens.
And even more amazing is how we want to shift our fuels to a crop based fuel while knowing that climate change is happening and that it may affect our ability to predict future crop success.
What is truely amazing to me is how people demand concrete proof to even consider the concept that humankind is adversly affecting our environment while at the same time they believe in, and defend vigourously as fact, their religous beliefs with absolutely zero concrete proof.
I love this one. About 30 years ago....The RadCons used this to argument against the scientific community to show proof that Smoking is bad for you. They wanted concrete proof that Smoking caused cancer or other lung diseases. The fact that cancer and lung disease appears in people who DON'T smoke was their proof that smoking can NOT be the cause. There are still people who believe that smoking is NOT bad for you.
Do any of you know there's a society called the Flat-Earth society?? (http://www...ociety.htm) They actually believe the earth is flat. I've met one. His logic is....Prove to me the earth is a sphere. Well you can't if you ignore all Pictures or any other scientific evidence as proof. From their point of view....The earth looks flat. He even made the statement that he took a 10' piece of wood and laid it end to end for miles and it was very very flat. With logic like that...how can you possibly win??? Beef was that you???
If these sweeping climate changes have happened in the past, well before industrialization mind you, then what difference does it make if there are man-made Co2 emissions or not? Furthermore, literally every lifeform, and almost every physical object in the world is carbon-based to begin with. If the enviromentals are to be believed and we would have to give up pretty much everything to appease the gods and somehow stop the upcoming inundation, which will happen anyway since its part of cycle that has been going on since the dawn of time.
"If these sweeping climate changes have happened in the past, well before industrialization mind you, then what difference does it make if there are man-made Co2 emissions or not?"
The problem is that we might kill ourselves. At some point, the man-made process of global warming might become uncontrollable. Do you want to commit collective suicide with a few billion of your closest friends?
If the enviromentals are to be believed and we would have to give up pretty much everything to appease the gods and somehow stop the upcoming inundation, which will happen anyway since its part of cycle that has been going on since the dawn of time.
We have time to make reasonable decisions about how to approach reducing our output of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Sensationalists seem to get the most press, and that's what you hear about. Consider small things that you can do to reduce your impact. If most people do that, it will be a great start.
Yes, global warming and cooling *is* a process that has been going on for eons. Some of the natural processes that could take it off the scale like huge volcanic eruptions or asteroid impacts could happen at any time. I just don't think that we should accept an abrupt end to mankind at our own hands just because it might happen at any time anyway.
If these sweeping climate changes have happened in the past, well before industrialization mind you, then what difference does it make if there are man-made Co2 emissions or not?
There is no doubt that the earth has suffered far greater calamities in the past. It is an amazing, self regulating system that always seeks balance. The earth will survive regardless. The larger question then becomes, will it be conducive to human life after it has stabilized in its latest state?
Furthermore, literally every lifeform, and almost every physical object in the world is carbon-based to begin with. If the enviromentals are to be believed and we would have to give up pretty much everything to appease the gods and somehow stop the upcoming inundation, which will happen anyway since its part of cycle that has been going on since the dawn of time.
Yep, humans have survived all of the changes in the earth's ecosystem over their relatively brief existence on the surface of the earth. But, is that the type of life you would bestow upon future generations? A life of hardship that could have been prevented had we opened our eyes and accepted the possibility that we were cr@pping in our own bed? We, as the self ordained top creature on the earth, tend to look down on other animals that don't know enough not to do that kind of thing and yet, here we are...
The earth has survived asteroid impacts that are belived to have decimated 90+ % of the species on the planet, huge methane releases from tectonic fractures below the oceans, volcanoes and other sorts of nasty events that made life difficult for the survivors. We use the word survivor to describe someone/thing that has lived through a test. Why would we intentionally invite such a test upon ourselves?
Hey, I'm no treehugger and I think the earth can compensate to some degree for the sins we do against it. But to continue to soil the earth that we rely upon for our existence while burying our heads in the sand hoping there is no problem or that it magically goes away is just plain stupid. Then again, we're talking about humankind so...
Is the earth warming, probably. Is there a direct correlation of CO to the earths temp., probably not. That is what bothers me about the whole debate. Alot of people take it as fact that CO is the only cause for global warming. It is not that simple. The earth is a dynamic and ever changing place. Just like evolution, we understand alot more than we did before, but in no way do we understand everything, or can prove, the complete process. Do we need to comsume every bit of energy in the world, definetely not. We can change our habits and still live comfortably. And if we do reduce our emissions and the earth cools and heads towards another ice age, what do you want a cool earth or warm earth. I don't think we have much say in the matter, but many people think we can affect the climate. Just when you think you understand something, everything changes. If you can give me a non-fossile burning engine, at an equivelant price, to power my vehicles, I'm all for it, until then we have what we have.
Are you aware that the polar icecaps reached their larges mass this winter since record keeping has begun on them? Or that the glaciers in Greenland are growing?
Anyway, this whole subject is IMHO better posted on a political or an earth science forum than a car repair forum. We get into long threads about this issue, an issue on which there is clearly disagreement within the scientific community, and help no one.
I tend to agree with you; global warming now drives the agenda of the whole European Union, with a population larger than the US and Canada combined. All car and building design is influenced by this controversial "myth" and the result will be very good ecological designs that we can license later. China, the big polluter, is now a world leader in solar cell, as well as high performance battery research.
Norway, a country with more oil than is knows what to do with, is a dedicated believer in global warming and a leader in sequestering CO2 in depleted oil reservoirs in the North Sea.
Even EXXON now has come around and is no longer actively financing "research" (buying PHDs)to prove global warming is a myth.
Are you aware that the polar icecaps reached their larges mass this winter since record keeping has begun on them? Or that the glaciers in Greenland are growing?
I think that would be startling news to every glaciologist on Earth. Last I heard, the Greenland and Antartica icecaps were shrinking at the fastest rate ever observed. Please quote some reliable sources (and that doesn't include the Nazi News Network, a.k.a. Fox).
Agree that the Arctic ice was reduced to such a level last summer that the Northwest Passage was open to navigation by normal ships. Since we have severe climate swings, those that don't believe in Global Warming will clutch at any temporay straw, no matter how nonsensical, to try to prove the opposite.
This week the West had a late spring snow storm, which will no doubt be interpreted as a sign of global COOLING!
A 2 pack-a-day smoker (who subsequently died of cancer)once firmly told me that the link between smoking and lung cancer was a hoax, but admitted that "non-smokers were healthier when they died!".
The most difficult thing residents of Los Angeles had to accept in the early sixties was that their beloved cars were the cause of photochemical smog!! A local professor firmly and scientifically established the link, but he was villified by many non-believers.
Ronald Reagan believed that acid rain was caused by trees.
"Are you aware that the polar icecaps reached their larges mass this winter since record keeping has begun on them? Or that the glaciers in Greenland are growing? "
Simply saying something does not make it true. Nor does it give the person who says it any credibility. However, it does suggest a very clear link between how little the average citizen understands of environmental, technological and scientific matters and the policies of the US government.
It's not CO, it's CO2.
The physics is simple, and it's very similar to why your car gets hot out in the Sun: light can enter the windows, and warm the car. It is reradiated at long IR wavelengths, which cannot go thru glass. Just like a greenhouse. CO2 and glass (and methane) all behave this way.
The CO2 level is higher than it has been for at least 800,000 years, and maybe many millions. You can easily estimate how much fossil fuel we have burned in the last few hundred years, and account for the increase.
So when there are alligators in Sweden, what will Texas be like?
We need a lot more money for research (which is why Congress and the President cooperated to cut research funding in the basic physical sciences). Best thing you can do in the meantime is try to consume less.
So when there are alligators in Sweden, what will Texas be like?
It's hard to tell. It could be Texas would end up like the South American rain forest. We really don't know, but it will take a long time no matter what.
By the way, do folks know why Greenland is called that? Because when the Vikings first discovered more than a thousand years ago it *was* green. There are old Viking villages there that have been researched and that were apparently based on a sheep and goat herding economy. That means lots of vegetation. The Viking villages died out when the weather turned cold and they could no longer raise crops and sheep. So, I don't know what the current global warming trend might do, but I know for sure there have been warm periods in the past.
Now, I normally don't post in these kind of threads because it borders on religious arguments. So, I won't post again in this one. All I'm saying is *we* *don't* *know* what will happen and how bad/good it might get. A stray meteor could wipe us all out next week for all I know.
Yup, the earth is 4.55 Billion years old. We've been tracking its temperature for what, 100 years? Its atmospheric constituants for what, 35 years? And we're arrogant enough to think we know that these fluctuations are abnormal?????
No, some people are smart enough to determine what the temperatures were like in the past by either reading the historical record or looking at geological evidence. The historical record is mostly anecdotal, but it is clear that there have been significant fluctuations even during man's time on Earth. The geological record goes back farther and for the oldest evidence supposes that huge boulders that don't match the surrounding geologic formations were moved by glaciers, about the only natural phenomenon large enough to move those immense boulders around.
Luckily, by examining ice cores, seabed cores,and tree rings in very old trees, we can go back at least 1000 years and accurately log what temperature and precipatation were over that period.
The findings very accurately parallel the actual weather recorded (by description, what plants grew)in Europe since the Middle Ages.
All these previous fluctuations were cuased by natural cycles and random events, such as massive volcanic eruptions and meteorites hitting the earth.
All these methods together allow past weather patterns to be documented, so that natural cycles and non man-made issues (such as the Little Ice Age) are isolated.
In actual fact, of course it does not matter much if you believe in man-made global warming as such; we will have to cope with it , since tempertures will keep rising for the next 40 years at least, and icepacks will keep melting and the US South will keep getting dryer and dryer.
I don't know if those in charge of water supply for Southwestern cities believe in global warming or not but they are very busy planning for a future with less water, more evaporation, and higher temperatures.
I always wonder just how gullible allegedly educated people can be. Let me see, not too many years ago, we were told R-12 magically floated up in the air 15 miles and destroyed the ozone. Millions of people fell for this hoax, and this planet spent several trillion dollars to get rid of R-12, whose patent amazingly had just expired. R-12 is a very heavy molecule, also relatively inert. Yes, if you can get it up there 15 miles it might mess up the ozone, but it is too heavy. Rocks do not fly.
The, er, um, people who insisted R-12 magically floated way up there viciously attacked anyone who understood R-12 could not get itself up there.
And, this whole mess was caused by liberal journalists who were so stupid they didn't understand ozone is made by sun particles hitting the outer atmosphere. And, in the winter at the poles, the outer atmosphere is not hit by the sun. That is the definition of winter.
Yet, on any of these topics any attempt to present actual scientific fact on the topic results in the usual suspects, with their smart-alecky comments about flat world believers, etc. Nothing but ad hominem attacks attempting to prevent the truth from getting out.
Just yesterday, a paper was releases showing that calculations on CO2 somehow failed to measure the effect of water vapor on absorbing CO2.
This is purely a political hoax from those who want one-world government with themselves in charge, and anyone who doesn't believe their lies dead and buried ala Plato; Stalin; Castro; and Poi Pot.
How many of you have access to old National Geographic magazines, perhaps in CD form? I have them. IN the late 19th Century, there was great concern about melting glaciers, and in the early 20th Century they came back.
I graduated from high school in 1960. Since then, there have been two cycles. First, we were going into an ice age; then we were going to melt; then we were going to freeze, now we are going to melt again.
There has been no increase in average temperature since 1998. Last year, the average temperature dropped 0.7 degrees Celsius. In 1990, the Arctic ice pack reversed its direction, and La Niña (note correct spelling) changed to El Niño. Approximately a year ago, the ice pack reversed its direction again, and El Niño changed back to La Niña. Last winter (summer to us in the north) a South American city had its first snow in nearly 100 years. Last winter was the coldest in a long time.
The scoundrels responsible for this garbage are desperate to get their laws passed, and to create a major depression putting most people out of work by shutting down production of almost everything, so they can take charge of the mess and boast how they are fixing things for us. They also want a drastic reduction in world population, and have said so repeatedly.
The average temperatures in the 1950s-1960s are just arbitrary and related to just the dataset shown. Look at the steady, long-term climb in average global temperature over the last century. The industrial revolution got into full swing around 1900 or so, and the general change is up. Certainly there are natural processes that act on the earth, and have done so for billions of years. But look what we've done in just 100 years; the average temperature climbed 1 degree. That does not seem like much to me either, but the greatest average excursions are on the order of 15 to 20 degrees Celsius. That's when most everything dies. Including us. I'm not over the top like some people are. We could easily have 100 years before it becomes a serious issue. But it is easier to correct a problem before it becomes too severe.
04/06/2008 10:36:04 PM
