Amiga.org
Coffee House => Coffee House Boards => CH / Science and Technology => Topic started by: nadoom on January 16, 2007, 09:23:02 AM
-
For god sake doo something, or we are all going down the {bleep}ter.
on watching that film i must say i am quite disturbed by it, we really are on the road to hell at the moment. Do you think we can turn it around? Do we still have time? what about the legacy we are leaving for our children!
-
Do your bit. and then at least, it wont be your fault!
actually, you can make a (slight) difference. but it helps if your local authority does decent recycle collections, and someone strangles Bush, and the Dodge design team (I saw one of those big b4st4rd 4x4s they do - I swear it had its own oil refinery on the back...)
-
I dont think i will to worried about who is to blame when im starving to death in the frozen wastelands of what used to be called the uk :)
i was considering buying a 4x4, after watching that i dont think i could bring my self to do that.
I think it is a duty for individuals to make an effort, but the airlines and companies produce a massive amount of pollution on their own, so everyone needs to make an effort.
I hope george bush lives till he is 200 so he can see what he has done to the world :-/
-
Cue the inevitable claim/counterclaim "discussion"...
The problem with global warming is that the issue has become totally politicised in the worst possible way so that clarity has become near impossible.
Some will have you believe it's an entirely natural phenomenon, others will have you believe it's entirely caused by human activities.
The truth of the matter is that nobody is sure what the current trend really indicates. That said, it's my opinion that given there is evidence to suggest we are aggrivating the problem we should do what we can to minimize that effect and see how it pans out. It's the logical course to take. Unfortunately, governments rarely, if ever, consider anything beyond their term in power. Given we could be looking at massive problems in say 50 years time and not tomorrow, no existing government really cares.
-
The best remedy is to stop breeding like rabbits. That will solve the problem in a natural way in less than 50 years. Unfortunately, cutting down on having children is considered a big taboo.
-
The truth of the matter is that nobody is sure what the current trend really indicates.
Quite true. If anything, it has shown that non-linear dynamics are complex beasts.
-
@Karlos, everyone
Please try and view An Inconvienient Truth, some of the data presented is truely quite shocking.
The Link between CO2 and Temperature has been already established in the top graph
the bottom graph shows the CO2 present in the antartic ice, going back some 600,000 years. It never went above a certain level.
(http://sharpgary.org/CO2GlobTemp.gif)
(http://whyfiles.org/211warm_arctic/images/atmo_temp_change.gif)
-
Cymric wrote:
The best remedy is to stop breeding like rabbits. That will solve the problem in a natural way in less than 50 years. Unfortunately, cutting down on having children is considered a big taboo.
First of all we are not breeding like Rabbits, in fact many European countries have dangerously large negative population growth. In addition, with the current AIDs epidemic, there is going to alot of places with no people in Africa, India and China in the next 30 years as I see no effort in India and China to solve the problem and in Africa the epidemic at least in some areas may have already reached the point at where it can't be stopped.
-Tig
-
Nadoom,
If you would quote from data not from the IPCC it would be much easier to take it seriously.
-Tig
-
Karlos wrote:
...
The truth of the matter is that nobody is sure what the current trend really indicates. That said, it's my opinion that given there is evidence to suggest we are aggrivating the problem we should do what we can to minimize that effect and see how it pans out. It's the logical course to take. Unfortunately, governments rarely, if ever, consider anything beyond their term in power. Given we could be looking at massive problems in say 50 years time and not tomorrow, no existing government really cares.
Here are my thoughts on "what we can do to minimize that effect":
Back in 1971 (when I was 14) our teacher performed an experiment that produced detonating gas by the electrolysis of water in a chemistry lesson. Finally he ignited the gas in the test tube and it blew the test tube into pieces with a loud bang.
Our teacher then said that the reaction of hydrogen and oxygen is much more fierce, produces much more energie than the reaction of e.g. petrol and air and produces zero air pollution, as the result of this reaction is steam.
At the very same moment my finger went up and I asked my teacher:
"So why do all the cars still use petrol or diesel instead of hydrogen and oxygen?"
His answer was:
"If this was possible they would have done so long before!"
Later - in the course of my training as a machinist at KHD (Magirus Deutz) - I asked the same question to my foreman at KHD's engine research centre.
He answered basically the same as my teacher before, but he became more precise:
"If hydrogen and oxygen react, it results in a very high firing temperature, which would make the intake- and exhaust-valves melt."
These answers did not satify me and so I decided to make an experiment on my own.
My hobby was flying RC model aircrafts at that time and from that I had a spare 0.33 cm^3 petrol model engine.
With my limited resources I "electrolysed" me some cm^3 of detonating gas (took me two weeks with a 12V transformer and an old aquarium), slightly modified the model engine by taking off its tank and carburetteur and supplying the detonating gas instead of petrol.
Then I started the engine and - woooohooo! - it ran!
It ran for about 30 seconds until all the detonating gas was consumed.
Later I re-mounted tank and carburetteur and it ran flawlessly with petrol again.
So I had my proof that it worked.
Some years later - while studiyng engineering - I learned about constructive measures to avoid the melting of metal at such temperatures. After all the engines of the Space Shuttle (which burn hydrogen and oxygen as well) don't melt either...
But from my own experiment I knew how time-consuming the production of hydrogen and oxygen by electrolysis of water would be - and so started to look for a more efficient way to do this. After some years of research I had an idea how I could produce H & O much faster and at an lower energie footprint - I still have to prove with an experiment that it works.
But nevertheless electricity is still reqired for this process. And if we're talking about operating all combustion engines worldwide with H&O, then we're talking about a fair amount of electricity that's needed for the H&O production.
Then a next idea began to shape out.
If I want to reduce the emissions of the cars to save the environment by using H&O, then we can't use "dirty" electricity for that.
I thought about the way it is now:
We drill holes into the earth and pump up what's left of the sunshine from some million years ago (oil, result from ancient forests) and burn this in order to be mobile, while at the same time the sun still sends us a comparable amount of energy like millions of years ago.
So today we end up with the energy of the daily sunshine PLUS the energy of the daily sunshine from some million years ago that made the ancient forests grow from which the oil stems we burn when we drive by car, sail by ship or fly by plane.
So I thought that if we today "dig out the sunshine of the past" and burn it to be mobile and want to change that to a "clean" mobility, we must reduce the daily sunshine that hits the ground here on this planet today by exactly *that* amount we are burning "sunshine of the past" to be mobile.
When thinking about possible solutions, a sunshade sprang to my mind.
What, if we built a huge solar cell platform in the orbit that works as an jalousie, collects the electricity of all solar cells, transfoms it to rays and sends it down to earth wireless?
(I recently read about an technique for wireless energy transmission and it works already on distances up to 30km - I'm confident that with goal-oriented research 300km and more are no problem at all)
If the orbit is calculated accordingly, so that this platform can throw a big enough shadow on desert areas, I would expect low (air) pressure in this areas as a consequence.
As normally rain comes with low pressure, such an desert area might start to grow green again, which would improve our air quality and climate significantly.
But I'm afraid such a project is far too big for one nation - and if I look at the current political conditions worldwide I have not much hope that this could be realized anytime soon.
(Sorry for my long posting)
-
IIRC, there are combustion engines fueled by hydrogen.
The problem with a big solar shade is, that the World's weather system is extremely complicated, and placing a big umbrella above the Sahara desert would undoubtly affect the weather on a global scale. What we need is a safe, clean and unlimited power source. :-|
-
I'm building my own private fusionreactor as I speak!
-
whabang wrote:
IIRC, there are combustion engines fueled by hydrogen.
Yes, indeed.
I had the chance to drive one of Ford's prototypes with internal combustion engine fuelled with hydrogene at Ford's research centre in Aachen...
whabang wrote:
The problem with a big solar shade is, that the World's weather system is extremely complicated, and placing a big umbrella above the Sahara desert would undoubtly affect the weather on a global scale.
Is it really a problem, if it affects the wheather on a global scale for the better?
I mean - since the beginning of industrialisation mankind is affecting the climate on a global scale negatively - it's time for a turnaround!
whabang wrote:
What we need is a safe, clean and unlimited power source. :-|
Well, as I see it my concept offers clean and unlimited power source and even the possibility to improve our climate - it's up to mankind to do it and to make it safe.
-
whabang wrote:
IIRC, there are combustion engines fueled by hydrogen.
The problem with a big solar shade is, that the World's weather system is extremely complicated, and placing a big umbrella above the Sahara desert would undoubtly affect the weather on a global scale. What we need is a safe, clean and unlimited power source. :-|
How about completely covering the entire Sahara Desert (and anywhere else bloody hot like parts of Australia) with solar panels and hooking them up to the ¨international grid¨. ;-)
-
Argumentum ad Nauseum.
Look at the sort of language being used here. Some people behave as though the appearance of the word 'truth' in a title equals the works being a fact.
-
iamaboringperson wrote:
Look at the sort of language being used here. Some people behave as though the appearance of the word 'truth' in a title equals the works being a fact.
so please tell us what is not fact in Gore's slideshow.
IMHO, all global warming deniers are to aides bush, brainwashed people by the exxon to blindly deny the FACTS and the CONSEQUENCES that ALL the world is suffering today.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6321351.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1940117.stm
bloody republicans. THIS WORLD DOES NOT ONLY BELONG TO YOU.
-
IIRC, there are combustion engines fueled by hydrogen.
The problem with hydrogen is that you don't find it in free form ready for you to collect and use. You need energy to "extract" hydogen from other compounds (water being the most famous of them), and burning hydrogen is going to give you less energy back than the amount you put in to extract hydrogen in the first place.
And if you had that energy in the first place, then why not use it directly?
The ones who want hydrogen are the ones that want to keep the status quo of things as much as possible, as the hydrogen economy is very much compatible with the oil economy in terms of infrastructures (not to mention that you can extract hydrogen from oil too).
If you want to know in detail why the hydrogen economy doesn't make sense, follow this link (http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2006/12/why_a_hydrogen_.html).
-
Quite true. If anything, it has shown that non-linear dynamics are complex beasts.
Not quite true. All scientists (except the few ones on the payroll of exxon and the likes of them) agree upon the fact that it's more than likely that it's all our fault. Someone here already posted the links to the recent happenings...
-
iamaboringperson wrote:
Argumentum ad Nauseum.
Look at the sort of language being used here. Some people behave as though the appearance of the word 'truth' in a title equals the works being a fact.
Or covering Australia completely so the inhabitants have no escape.
Only Adz and family excepted. :-)
-
CannonFodder wrote:
whabang wrote:
...
How about completely covering the entire Sahara Desert (and anywhere else bloody hot like parts of Australia) with solar panels and hooking them up to the ¨international grid¨. ;-)
The problem I see with this is that the dark solar cells become quite hot when the sun is shining on
them - easily 80+°C.
If you install the solar cells anywhere here on earth, they will release the heat from the sunshine to the surrounding air.
What we are looking for is a way to keep the heat entirely away from earths atmosphere (-> global warming).
I'd say the only way to achieve this is to install the solar panel in an orbit...
Furthermore an orbital installation would give the advantage, that you have sunshine for 24 hours every day up there - no clouds, no day/night.
And keep in mind:
Sunshine doesn't cost anything - it's for free!
-
@nadoom
I watched this film on the plane on a 24-hour flight recently. So I admit I wasn't too fresh, but I noticed plenty predictions of the effects of climate change. And it all looked very nasty. Then there was plenty pictures of power stations and factories spewing out foul-looking gases. But the link between the two, which is surely the linchpin of the entire film, was very weak indeed.
When Gore at last got to it, he showed the first graph you linked to (your link is broken btw). He showed that over the last million years (or whatever it was) that CO2 and temperature were linked. Then he got to the present day and showed that the CO2 level was far above anything in the last million years. And this is recorded, not predicted levels.
Now, he glossed over this very quickly, and I was tired when watching it, but I swear he did not show the temperature for the corresponding current period where CO2 is way above anything theorized in the last million.
Why didn't he show the current temperature? The data is available. Is it, perhaps, because the temperature for this recent period of record high CO2 levels does not rise in-line with the CO2 level? The link between CO2 and temperature is not linear.
Nadoom, your first image (which ironically is broken as it disproves your own point) shows the logarithmic link between CO2 and temperature and debunks Gore's entire film.
-
Are you telling me that global warming doesnt exist?
i reviewed the film and grabbed a few screen shots:
1. This is CO2 And Temperature over the last 600,000 years you can see what happens post industrial revolution. you can see the link between them, it is so clear to see.
http://www.huwnad.com/CO2Temp.png
2. This shows the atmospheric temperature ovet time, its a screen shot so i couldnt grab the entire graph, suffice to say that the the rises on the right correspond to our recent history.
http://www.huwnad.com/atmosptemp.png
3. Hottest years on record, many are in the last 14 years
http://www.huwnad.com/hottestyears.png
-
nadoom wrote:
Are you telling me that global warming doesnt exist?
No, I didn't say that. I do think some form of warming is currently happening inline with the Earth's natural cycle but I'm not concerned about it.
1. This is CO2 And Temperature over the last 600,000 years you can see what happens post industrial revolution. you can see the link between them, it is so clear to see.
http://www.huwnad.com/CO2Temp.png
This is the graph I meant. You can clearly see the jump in CO2 levels on the graph (although the scale is such that it makes it seem more dramatic), and you can clearly see a similar jump in the temperature has not happened! In fact, there is missing data on the temperature series: the temperature on that chart does not extend to the present day.
This is because there is no dramatic jump in the temperature inline with CO2 levels. The relationship is not linear, as can be seen in this graph despite the crucial data being missing or removed. The more CO2 we pump into the air, the less it will affect temperature. Al Gore's chart proves this.
The CO2/temperature link is circumstantial at best. It's a bit like saying the sun rises every day, and we all age - the two things are happening together, so they must be related!
2. This shows the atmospheric temperature ovet time, its a screen shot so i couldnt grab the entire graph, suffice to say that the the rises on the right correspond to our recent history.
http://www.huwnad.com/atmosptemp.png
Because the film couldn't prove a CO2/temperature linear relationship then this is meaningless.
3. Hottest years on record, many are in the last 14 years
http://www.huwnad.com/hottestyears.png
Again, this is showing results without providing evidence linking them to any cause.
-
Dandy wrote:
CannonFodder wrote:
whabang wrote:
...
How about completely covering the entire Sahara Desert (and anywhere else bloody hot like parts of Australia) with solar panels and hooking them up to the ¨international grid¨. ;-)
The problem I see with this is that the dark solar cells become quite hot when the sun is shining on
them - easily 80+°C.
If you install the solar cells anywhere here on earth, they will release the heat from the sunshine to the surrounding air.
What we are looking for is a way to keep the heat entirely away from earths atmosphere (-> global warming).
I'd say the only way to achieve this is to install the solar panel in an orbit...
Furthermore an orbital installation would give the advantage, that you have sunshine for 24 hours every day up there - no clouds, no day/night.
And keep in mind:
Sunshine doesn't cost anything - it's for free!
Actually, the thing is these things will mostly reflect light and heat back into space.
besides, any 80+°C change in the panels can be used to heat water - thus cooling the panel.
the real problem isnt heating the surrounding air, but the air retaining heat too readily.
a lot can be done at home, without needing to resort to new/untried tech:
* Dont leave powerpacks/chargers plugged in and switched on when not in use - the same goes for TVs too: dont leave 'em on standby, switch 'em off!
* Use flourescent tubes/energy saving bulbs in place of incandescent bulbs - and switch em off when not in use!
ask yourself:
* 'Do I REALLY need to drive a 4 litre 4x4 to Tescos/school/work and back ?'
* 'Do I REALLY need to drive fast ?' (40-60mph is about the most fuel efficient speed range to drive - given aerodymanics/engine efficiency etc)
* 'Do I REALLY need to drive, when its only a mile away ?'
while we're doing that, we're playing the small steps game, and will make big energy savings, giving us time to make the big steps like fuel cell cars, biofuels etc.
just my 4 penn'orth!
-
This is the graph I meant. You can clearly see the jump in CO2 levels on the graph (although the scale is such that it makes it seem more dramatic), and you can clearly see a similar jump in the temperature has not happened! In fact, there is missing data on the temperature series: the temperature on that chart does not extend to the present day.
This is clearly due to the fact that the temperature reacts to the rise in CO2 in a slightly delayed manner, That makes perfect sense. You have no evidence to suggest that the rise in temperature will not occur. Whereas that graph which is based on hard facts shows a clear link.
Seeing as there is 600,000 years of precedent showing that there is a link, logic dictates that such a rise will occur, the link is too established to argue over it.
The other 2 grabs show that in the short term the atmospheric temperature is heating.
There are other factors that suggest the world weather is getting more and more unstable, the weather in the uk has changed dramatically in my own life time! All this turmoil in the weather has to be attributed to something, and i think the graphs to a long way to explaining it.
In any case if u beleive the hype or not, is that we need to start living sustainably, we have the tools all we need is the willpower.
-
nadoom wrote:
This is the graph I meant. You can clearly see the jump in CO2 levels on the graph (although the scale is such that it makes it seem more dramatic), and you can clearly see a similar jump in the temperature has not happened! In fact, there is missing data on the temperature series: the temperature on that chart does not extend to the present day.
This is clearly due to the fact that the temperature reacts to the rise in CO2 in a slightly delayed manner, That makes perfect sense.
Your "slightly delayed" theory is contrary to the chart you're presenting as evidence. Why does this delay only occur in the modern warming and none of the others?
You have no evidence to suggest that the rise in temperature will not occur. Whereas that graph which is based on hard facts shows a clear link.
I didn't say temperatures weren't rising: I said they weren't rising in line with CO2 levels, which suggests that the current modern (slight) warming is not caused by man's activities. Your chart proves this. If you were right, the current temperature would be off the chart. Instead the (conspicuously absent) current temperature does not remotely show any relation to the jump in CO2 levels.
Seeing as there is 600,000 years of precedent showing that there is a link, logic dictates that such a rise will occur, the link is too established to argue over it.
Just one paragraph earlier you refuted the chart's evidence by saying there's a "delay" to prove one point. Now you're accepting that chart's evidence to prove another. You can't have your cake and eat it!
As I said, I think the temperature rise will occur in line with previous natural, man-free, warmings.
The other 2 grabs show that in the short term the atmospheric temperature is heating.
There are other factors that suggest the world weather is getting more and more unstable, the weather in the uk has changed dramatically in my own life time! All this turmoil in the weather has to be attributed to something, and i think the graphs to a long way to explaining it.
They do indeed explain it. They show that the Earth's climate works in cycles, and we are just living through the cycles.
In any case if u beleive the hype or not, is that we need to start living sustainably, we have the tools all we need is the willpower.
I agree with you here actually. We need to get off the fossils and onto something renewable. I don't like that we are dependent on middle eastern regimes (and in about a decade Russia) for energy.
-
>>Cue the inevitable claim/counterclaim "discussion"...
The problem with global warming is that the issue has become totally politicised in the worst possible way so that clarity has become near impossible.
Hum,
They dont have any scientific arguments against Global warmng now.
An influential global panel of scientists declared today that global warming is "unequivocal", that its effects are likely to last for centuries, and that mankind is almost certainly to blame.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - which draws together 2,500 scientists from more than 130 countries - issued its strongest warning on the consequences of warming as it published what is considered the most authoritative research yet on the issue.
While the IPCC’s previous assessment in 2001 rated the link between the warming planet and human behaviour as "likely", which is said to mean a probability rate of 66-90 per cent, this has now been revised to "very likely" - a greater than 90 per cent chance that mankind is to blame.
Source (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2580953,00.html)
Changes in the atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases and aerosols, in solar radiation and in land surface properties alter the energy balance of the climate system. These changes are expressed in terms of radiative forcing, which is used to compare how a range of human and natural factors drive warming or cooling influences on global climate. Since the Third Assessment Report (TAR), new observations and related modelling of greenhouse gases, solar activity, land surface properties and some aspects of aerosols have led to improvements in the quantitative estimates of radiative forcing.
Climate report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/02_02_07_climatereport.pdf) (2.2mb, PDF)
-
Well, once the almighty Attenborough (http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article570935.ece) said it was so, the debate was over, as far as I'm concerned. ;-)
-
Okay, I'm more than willing to accept the concept of global warming.
However (in the UK at least), we're entrusting the issue to a political party who are unable to respond to any issue without some think tank ceaselessly gibbering 'Tax! Tax!'.
-
Agafaster wrote:
...
Actually, the thing is these things will mostly reflect light and heat back into space.
I don't think so:
"Problem: Current Solar Cells can "receive" just one wavelength
The weak point of previous solar cells is rooted in physics: The principle is that an arriving photon overrides the so called "semiconductor bandgap", the "energy distance" within an semiconductor between an electron fixed in the crystal and an electron free to move. This means, that all components of the sunlight with longer wavelengths and lower energy levels have no effect on the solar cell other than heating it up. A light beam of exactly the correct wavelength releases one electron and therefor is transformed into current with optimal efficiency.
Light beams of shorter wavelengths - thus the entire visible light spectrum, ultraviolet radiation and so on - as well just produce one charge carrier, which receives the energy of the bandgap. Thus the higher energy content of the visible light can't be utilised and only leads to a warming of the solar cells again (Nano Letters, vol 6, p 424)."
No mention of "reflecting to space"...
Agafaster wrote:
besides, any 80+°C change in the panels can be used to heat water - thus cooling the panel.
However - last but not least the heat ends up in the athmosphere.
Agafaster wrote:
the real problem isnt heating the surrounding air, but the air retaining heat too readily.
So in the last consequence heating the surrounding air leads to a global warming.
Agafaster wrote:
...
ask yourself:
* 'Do I REALLY need to drive a 4 litre 4x4 to Tescos/school/work and back ?'
* 'Do I REALLY need to drive fast ?' (40-60mph is about the most fuel efficient speed range to drive - given aerodymanics/engine efficiency etc)
* 'Do I REALLY need to drive, when its only a mile away ?'
...
Well - I sold my car two years ago.
Depending on the weather I either take the bus or ride my bicycle to work (about 4 miles each direction).
My life is much more relaxed now...
-
"Problem: Current Solar Cells can "receive" just one wavelength
this solar technology (http://www.stellaris-corp.com/technology.htm)
-
blobrana wrote:
>>Cue the inevitable claim/counterclaim "discussion"...
The problem with global warming is that the issue has become totally politicised in the worst possible way so that clarity has become near impossible.
Hum,
They dont have any scientific arguments against Global warmng now.
...
That's right.
Now it's time to come up with neat ideas how to fix the mess...
-
nadoom wrote:
For god sake doo something, or we are all going down the {bleep}ter.
on watching that film i must say i am quite disturbed by it, we really are on the road to hell at the moment.
Yeah, it really disturbed me too - but not for the same reasons:
http://shillard.blogspot.com/2006/09/al-gore-liar-plain-stupid-or-both.html
It's a bit like kicking a puppy, but at least you feel sorry for the puppy.
-
Agafaster wrote:
* Use flourescent tubes/energy saving bulbs in place of incandescent bulbs - and switch em off when not in use!
ask yourself:
* 'Do I REALLY need to drive a 4 litre 4x4 to Tescos/school/work and back ?'
* 'Do I REALLY need to drive fast ?' (40-60mph is about the most fuel efficient speed range to drive - given aerodymanics/engine efficiency etc)
My car's trip computer tells me that it reaches maximum fuel efficiency @ 130km/h - that's consistently the lowest Litres/100km figure. So in the interest of sustaining the planet, I drive @ 130km/h whenever I can.
BTW: You might want to check out the effects of sustained UV lighting on the human body before you go advocating it as the obvious replacement for incandescent bulbs. GovCo here has just announced than incandescenets will be phased out from 2010, so by 2009 I will have acquired a 50 year supply.
-
I agree with the optimum speed for fuel efficiency issue, my Alfa seems to sip fuel sparingly at 70mph but drinks like Ollie Reed when negotiating towns and worst of all, speed bumps.
-
Wilse wrote:
Well, once the almighty Attenborough (http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article570935.ece) said it was so, the debate was over, as far as I'm concerned. ;-)
Quite possibly the only civilized man left in this filthy self obsessed world we live in. ;-)
-
nadoom wrote:
For god sake doo something, or we are all going down the {bleep}ter.
on watching that film i must say i am quite disturbed by it, we really are on the road to hell at the moment. Do you think we can turn it around? Do we still have time? what about the legacy we are leaving for our children!
What about the more important issues like overfishing? Recent studies show that the oceans will be pretty much empty by as little as 50 years if the current trend continues. If the sealife dies, then the whole food chain will collapse which will cause mass extinction of all life on earth.
The global warming trend is highly exaggerated by the news media, because such stories sell. There is indeed a warming trend, but it is also a fact that the earth has been much warmer than this in the past and that we are also currently emerging from a small ice age.
But yes, there is a warming trend and we humans have most likely a role in this trend, but some of it is also due to natural fluctuations of the climate. But collapsed food chain and pollutants going into the food chain and nature is a much bigger treat to the survival of us humans. But this news does sadly not sell so much, since it is not something that the average person notice these days.
Did you by the way know that Greenland was in the past green and ice free? And that they have also found fossils of tropical plants and animals in the arctic Norwegian island called svalbard, which suggest that the climate has been much warmer even here in the very north.
The southern polar cap is actually now experiencing the opposite of here in north and the ice cap has actually been increasing over the last years.
-
First of all we are not breeding like Rabbits, in fact many European countries have dangerously large negative population growth.
That is indeed true for some European countries, but the world population is sadly still increasing drastically for every year and i think it is going to be hard for us to do something about that now, other than if we manage to start a war with weapons of mass destruction. What we need to do is to colonize another planet like Mars.
But i think in the end that diseases and such will take care of some of our problem.
-
First of all we are not breeding like Rabbits, in fact many European countries have dangerously large negative population growth
Good job they allow immigrants in then eh?
-
PMC wrote:
I agree with the optimum speed for fuel efficiency issue, my Alfa seems to sip fuel sparingly at 70mph but drinks like Ollie Reed when negotiating towns and worst of all, speed bumps.
Must be a Euro thing - my Merc guzzles fuel like it's going out of fashion as well when at slow, stop-start speeds.
Give me a motorway anyday. Preferably one with a lot of signs sporting big black circles with diagonal lines.
-
Hum,
They dont have any scientific arguments against Global warmng now.
Perhaps, but the sad fact is that any policy making will be in the hands of politicians, which are susceptable to lots of other arguments other than scientific. As I said, the argument has become politicised which is one of the worst things that can happen. Absolutely no genuinely effective counter measures are remotely possible (thanks to realpolitik) now.
Face it, we're fecking doomed :lol:
-
blobrana wrote:
Hum,
They dont have any scientific arguments against Global warmng now.
An influential global panel of scientists declared today that global warming is "unequivocal", that its effects are likely to last for centuries, and that mankind is almost certainly to blame.
Climate report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/02_02_07_climatereport.pdf) (2.2mb, PDF)
The IPCC Summary for Policymakers, is the work of political appointees, not of scientists. The scientific, fourth assessment report will not be available for another three months.
Verdict first, then trial.
Alice in Wonderland
The rules for the fourth assessment report specifically require changes to be made to the body of the report to match the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.
-
@Metalman:
Something I posted on whyzzat applies equally well here:
"I used to "know" there was no such thing as climate change and that attempts to prove otherwise were part of a global conspiracy.
Then I reluctantly accepted it as fact but was 100% certain it was all natural and that attempts to prove otherwise were part of a global conspiracy.
Then I reluctantly accepted that man helped cause it.
I accepted that there was no global conspiracy.
Because I realised the real cause.
It was Clinton's fault."
;-)
-
It's a religion.
(http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/06.06.15.HolySmokeMir-X.gif)
Eco-pilgrims gather to 'heed the Goracle' (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070222.wxgoresb22/BNStory/ClimateChange/home)
-
Oh boy, it just gets better.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/gores-mansion-uses-too-much-power/2007/02/28/1172338670663.html
That puppy just got another kick in the guts.
-
The Goracle says: "Conserve as I say, not as I do."
While Melissa Etheridge was performing her "award winning song" (http://www.melissaetheridge.com/meNews.php#ff80808111054c44011105c46e3c0002) at the Oscar's, text scrolled behind her containing various environmental messages. One said, "Reduce your carbon emissions to zero."
Guess she's recommending that environmentalists stop breathing, but doesn't realize even in death they'll still emit carbon dioxide, until totally decomposed.
Repent, Sinners!
Earn Eco-Salvation the Quick and Easy Way (http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2007/02/save_the_planet.html)
:-P
-
metalman wrote:
...
Guess she's recommending that environmentalists stop breathing, but doesn't realize even in death they'll still emit carbon dioxide, until totally decomposed.
...
Although I love jokes and laughing, I'd say this issue is far too serious to make jokes about it...
:roll:
-
Little green men in spaceship SUVs are to blame.
Global Warming on Mars (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html)
-
I still wonder what the argument against trying to conserve energy is? Lazyness?
-
Moan about taxes, while driving around in SUV's wich have a maelstrom in the tank. Nice.
-
Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
Moan about taxes, while driving around in SUV's wich have a maelstrom in the tank. Nice.
Whom are you referring to?
-
my truck has a 5.7l engine in it but i have towed numerous vehicles to recycling, am i ok?
we have been tracking the earths temp and gas levels for such a small period of time. we can guess about levels in the past and try to use science to decrease our innacuracies somewhat but the fact remains we dont really know for sure if its happenning, if it is our fault and if we can change it.
im all for changing as much as we can. but blindly spouting doom and gloom is going to creat a bubble of hype that will burst eventually.
we have been increasing gas millage and decreasing emissions (here in the us anyway) we will continue. less gas money each month and cleaner air isnt hype it is real and will help us change,
btw i said here in the us because i dont know about most other countries, i know many foreign cars have to significantly modified to pass our emissions standards if they werent specifically designed to be sold in the us.
-
KThunder wrote:
my truck has a 5.7l engine in it but i have towed numerous vehicles to recycling, am i ok?
My truck(s):
2.0L Gas, quarter ton
7.3L Turbo Diesel, three quarter ton
Both have been used to haul to the recycling (scrap) yard.
We should get an award pin like when you donate blood. :-P
But I'd rather have a cut from the "carbon offset scam" (http://signal94.blogspot.com/2007/03/global-warming-is-gores-retirement-plan.html)
-
I heard the temp on Mars(?) is rising like our own. When are these Environmentalists going to pull their heads out of the sand and do something about the energy wasting Martians, before it's too late?
-
Let's take a step back for a minute:
Fact - temperatures are rising
This is an issue we can't ignore because sooner or later we'll get screwed with another New Orleans. Hell, my home county in the UK at barely above sea level. Temperatures go up, sea levels rise, people displace.
Fact - we're running out of fossil fuels
We're looking toward new oil and gas fields in harder to reach places. Sakhalin Island? We didn't have the technology to get the gas out of the ground twenty years ago. Now we're being forced to work harder to get the resources we need.
Fact - our politicians appear to be hijacking the environmental agenda
Here in the UK we've had few new roads, a 40% increase in traffic and fuel prices have nearly doubled in ten years. Most of it due to tax. Tony Blair wants Britain to lead the way in reducing carbon emissions - fine, except for one thing. He's {bleep}ting us.
I asked the Minister for Climate Change Elliot Morely why air travel is being encouraged while car use is being discouraged and he confirmed that 10% - yes 10% of carbon emissions are from cars:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4856386.stm
Turns out, that this figure includes not only cars, but busses, trains and lorries.
More worryingly, aircraft on long haul flights which enter our airspace or are bound for non-EU countries aren't even included in "official" stats for air industry carbon emissions (5% and climbing rapidly - and that's just the official figures which exclude the examples I've given. And Blair wants more airports!).
As long as politicians hijack climate change for the purpose of revenue raising and massage statistics, the general public won't take the message seriously.
Fact - We have stringent carbon emission targets to meet
Yep, again the powers that are are going to screw us. They want air travel to grow, as it encourages trade and foreign revenues to contribute to our economies. The private individual is going to subsidize the cost of the growth.
In summary, I've no doubt that we need to be very concerned about climate change and also the useage of fossil fuels. However, I do not believe we're going about it in the right way. We need more investment in cleaner and more reliable public transport - we've had it in the UK - but private rail companies are hiking costs in line with fuel prices for the benefit of shareholders. Why?
We need rapid research of renewable energy sources. Why is the UK government not significantly increasing it's funding into nuclear fusion research?
-
We need more investment in cleaner and more reliable public transport - we've had it in the UK - but private rail companies are hiking costs in line with fuel prices for the benefit of shareholders. Why?
Greed is good.
We need rapid research of renewable energy sources. Why is the UK government not significantly increasing it's funding into nuclear fusion research?
Probably due to this lot's sucessful publicity over the years (http://www.cnduk.org/pages/campaign/npwr.html)
-
@PMC
Exactly the sort of politically motivated statistical fudging I was getting at when I said:
The problem with global warming is that the issue has become totally politicised in the worst possible way so that clarity has become near impossible.
-
free energy,
type steorn in google and tell me what you people think.
-
Looks like perpetual motion to me. Much as I enjoy well established areas of physics getting a shake up, the first law of thermodynamics is pretty damn robust and has stood the test of time.
Its all well and good them claiming to be awating validation by cynics but the burden of proof is really theirs IMNSHO. So, unless they provide a working specimen and the theoretical physics behind it I'm not remotely convinced.
-
Nuclear Fusion and nuclear fission are two separate things entirely. The former promises cheap energy and reduced radioactive waste having long been a holy grail for cheap and renewable energy.
-
shillard wrote:
Oh boy, it just gets better.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/gores-mansion-uses-too-much-power/2007/02/28/1172338670663.html
That puppy just got another kick in the guts.
Talk about completely missing the point.
:roll:
the former vice president invests in enough renewable energy to make up for the home's power consumption.
-
T_Bone wrote:
I heard the temp on Mars(?) is rising like our own. When are these Environmentalists going to pull their heads out of the sand and do something about the energy wasting Martians, before it's too late?
T_Bone!
How the hell are ya?
:pint:
-
T_Bone wrote:
I heard the temp on Mars(?) is rising like our own. When are these Environmentalists going to pull their heads out of the sand and do something about the energy wasting Martians, before it's too late?
Let's hope Mars warms up enough for all the dry ice to sublime and maybe the increase in temperature and surface pressure might liberate some water. That'd get the terraforming crowd all excited ;-)
-
Karlos wrote:
T_Bone wrote:
I heard the temp on Mars(?) is rising like our own. When are these Environmentalists going to pull their heads out of the sand and do something about the energy wasting Martians, before it's too late?
Let's hope Mars warms up enough for all the dry ice to sublime and maybe the increase in temperature and surface pressure might liberate some water. That'd get the terraforming crowd all excited ;-)
Speed up terraforming, hit Mars with an asteroid.
These are available, unless they hit earth first. :-P
Asteroid "2003 QQ47" potential strike date March 21, 2014 (http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/09/02/asteroid.reut/index.html)
"2002 NT7", February 1 , 2019 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2147879.stm)
"2004 MN4", April 13, 2029 (http://www.physorg.com/news2505.html)
-
Wilse wrote:
shillard wrote:
Oh boy, it just gets better.
Gore's home used 191,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006 (http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/gores-mansion-uses-too-much-power/2007/02/28/1172338670663.html)
That puppy just got another kick in the guts.
Talk about completely missing the point.
:roll:
the former vice president invests in enough renewable energy to make up for the home's power consumption.
>>>"carbon offset scam" (http://ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=258075474834657)
Al Gore buys his carbon offsets from himself.
-
Looks like there could be plenty (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6459967.stm) of water to liberate too...
When the viking probes subjected the martian soil to heat and water vapour, a considerable quantity of (presumably chemically bound) oxygen was released.
Should knock a comet, preferably one rich in tholins and what not, into a collision path with the place :lol:
-
Karlos wrote:
Should knock a comet, preferably one rich in tholins and what not, into a collision path with the place :lol:
With a comet Mars could even be repositioned to a closer orbit!
Eight ball corner pocket. ;-)
-
Only Dave Lister is allowed to play pool with planets.
-
Wilse wrote:
T_Bone wrote:
I heard the temp on Mars(?) is rising like our own. When are these Environmentalists going to pull their heads out of the sand and do something about the energy wasting Martians, before it's too late?
T_Bone!
How the hell are ya?
:pint:
Drunk on green beer and still warming the planet :lol:
-
T_Bone wrote:
...
Drunk on green beer and still warming the planet :lol:
Green Beer:
Take a "Koelsch" glass (0.2 litre), fill one small finger's breadth of "Curacao Blue" in it and fill up the rest with beer (preferably Koelsch).
You'll end up with a "toxic green" looking beer - and if you happen to have more than 4-5 glasses of it, the night might become interesting...
:-D :-D :-D
-
Aaaah, so that was the junk I had in Berlin 12 years ago.
-
Dandy wrote:
Green Beer:
Take a "Koelsch" glass (0.2 litre), fill one small finger's breadth of "Curacao Blue" in it and fill up the rest with beer (preferably Koelsch).
You'll end up with a "toxic green" looking beer - and if you happen to have more than 4-5 glasses of it, the night might become interesting...
:-D :-D :-D
Ah! My college Rugby team had a variation on that called a "Green {bleep}".
Take one pint glass, add a shot of Vodka and a shot of Blue Curacao. Fill the rest of the glass with Kronenburg or Lowenbrau (Loony Brew) and serve.
This was usually followed by frequent baring of one's derriere and the singing of lewd songs.
@Dandy, does it have a similar effect on your side of the North Sea?
-
The programme claimed to lay bare all the fallacies that have created the "great myth" that is man-made global warming. However, the programme itself was riddled with holes. We mention a few of these issues below, and provide links to other websites that have done a good job of outlining the programme's flaws.
As New Scientist's editor, Jeremy Webb, put it: previously climate sceptics were seen to deconstruct the arguments of climate change scientists. What was different about last week's documentary was that it constructed a complete argument to explain why our planet's climate is changing - in essence, variations in solar activity.
Read more (http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20070322124449279)
-
Ah! My college Rugby team had a variation on that called a "Green {bleep}".
Take one pint glass, add a shot of Vodka and a shot of Blue Curacao. Fill the rest of the glass with Kronenburg or Lowenbrau (Loony Brew) and serve.
This was usually followed by frequent baring of one's derriere and the singing of lewd songs.
We had a similar one in days gone by "The Green Monster":
Half pint of super-park-bench-wino-strength white cider
Half a pint of Warstarter(Warsteiner) or Special Brew (I love you, yes I do, gonna spend all my money on you!)
Shot of Vodka (or window cleaner ;-))
Shot of Blue Curacao.
Drink 4 of them in a row, if you live you are harder than me! :lol:
-
PMC wrote:
Ah! My college Rugby team had a variation on that called a "Green {bleep}".
Take one pint glass, add a shot of Vodka and a shot of Blue Curacao. Fill the rest of the glass with Kronenburg or Lowenbrau (Loony Brew) and serve.
This was usually followed by frequent baring of one's derriere and the singing of lewd songs.
@Dandy, does it have a similar effect on your side of the North Sea?
You can bet on that!
(Even without the Vodka!)
-
Martians in SUVs are to blame. They probably use more than one square of toilet paper per sitting too. (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21606753-2,00.html)
Climate change hits Mars (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece)
Mars is being hit by rapid climate change and it is happening so fast that the red planet could lose its southern ice cap.
Scientists from Nasa say that Mars has warmed by about 0.5C since the 1970s. This is similar to the warming experienced on Earth over approximately the same period.