4
   

Global warming overblown?

 
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2004 04:51 am
Bromeliad

We have been putting some serious energy into fusion power since the 1950's. That's the whole problem, more energy in that out. Or did you mean low energy nuclear reactions aka cold fusion?

As it happens it does seems that at last the US government is taking cold fusion seriously, but we are a long way from even proving the science let alone building machines.

High temperature superconductors will save energy, but they are horrendously expensive and again the technology is nowhere near mature.

Energy efficiency is an obvious step. But no American government will ever get elected on such a ticket. Americans like cheap oil and gas, and like driving big airconditioned cars. There is no way Americans would tolerate even European prices for petrol (gas), let alone the sort of price needed to really force the austere use of cars that is needed.

(If I was dictator-for-the-day, I would introduce the 70/70 law. Every new private car to return 70 mpg minimum or be speed limited to 70 mph maximum ...the national speed limit in the UK. What's the chance of that happening?)

There will have to be a new energy mix in future. But oil and gas will still play a part until there's are no more easily extractable reserves. The rest will be nuclear, coal, renewable and novel forms of energy geothermal etc. But all that wont stop global warming. There is a hystersis lag. What we have been doing for the last 100 years is beginning to hit us now, and it will get worse over the next 100 years. I am not necessarily a pessimist, but observing what is happening, what is technically possible and most important the political will to do something, I have no reason to be optimistic.

You say "our children" may live comfortably. I would qualify that and say the children of the ruling elites only have a guaranteed comfortable living. And that's all they are interested in, thats why they dont do anything.
0 Replies
 
neil
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2004 04:41 pm
The consensus seems to be pessimism and I have to admit neither the private sector nor the government seems to be effective in finding workable solutions for our long list of problems and potential problems. For the sake of the grandchildren, we must keep trying with moderate grants to research and pilot programs to even the ideas which have low probability of success. It would be helpful if we stopped telling lies, half truths and false inferences including the kind where we are more or less innocent because we have been deceived by others.
As I suggested scientists who are sure of their conclusions are scarey. Neil
0 Replies
 
neil
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2004 04:59 pm
I agree, somehow, we must get our children, and grandchildren enthused about science. How about special tax exemptions as prizes for persons who prove their expertise in good hard science and technology? Unfortunately many liberals think it is wicked to reward success/ I think rewarding success is essential to future prosperity. Neil
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2004 06:13 pm
I don't really take much notice of the scientists anymore, I just know that our summer's used to finish in about March, and now we're still swimming on the beach in May. We're in the middle of winter here, and the sun is shining brightly and people are walking around in shorts and t-shirts. I've seen the weather change drastically in just my lifetime. You'd have to be living in a cocoon not to see it. Our winter temp's are 5 degrees above what they used to be. If it's not a conservative/liberal issue, then why are conservatives the only ones questioning the reality that everyone can see?
0 Replies
 
MyOwnUsername
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2004 06:20 pm
minor changes: "summer used to begin in June,and now we are swimming in April. On January 2nd, that supposed to be coldest part of year I am sitting with my friends in short sleeves..."

Besides that - I am signing Wilso's post
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2004 07:45 pm
Wilson and MOU, When I visited Peru last year, our tour guide who lives in Cuzco told us that the Andes mountains have less snow now than when she was a child. I've been looking at information about Antarctica because I'll be visiting there in January 2005, and the scientists there also claim that the ice is melting at faster rates. When my wife and I visited Canada last year, we visited the Columbia ice fields, and the guide told us that the ice there is also melting. Whether we can translate all of this as a consequence of humans is not decisive. We just don't know, but the trends towards warming seems obvious. How long will this trend continue before a cooling trend?
0 Replies
 
Col Man
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jul, 2004 02:37 am
im gutted Confused
australias got all our sun Sad
its supposed to be winter there and they have sun and drought Confused
its supposed to be summer here and it hail stoned yesterday Sad and theres nothing but clouds and rain
and its cold toooo Sad
oh sorry the sun did come out for all of three hours yesterday
whatevers going on the weathers has changed in the last twenty years since i can remember Exclamation
0 Replies
 
Col Man
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jul, 2004 02:42 am
visiting antarctica...lucky you
thats something ive always wanted to do
i knew a guy from the british antarctic survey he did a slide show about antarctica and his 20 years there while i was on a greek island with him 2 years ago
it looked pretty cool
lots of penguins and seals and snow and ice
but hey its so expensive last trip i saw was 20 thousand dollars
crazy
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jul, 2004 04:26 am
Quote:
When my wife and I visited Canada last year, we visited the Columbia ice fields, and the guide told us that the ice there is also melting. Whether we can translate all of this as a consequence of humans is not decisive.


Athabasca? Been there.

Not decisive? Well its strong enough for the IPCC to say:

"There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last fifty years is attributable to human activities" - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2001 report.

And in the UK:-

Climate change is the biggest environmental issue facing us today. In January 2004, the UK Government’s chief scientific advisor described the threat of climate change as more serious than the threat of terrorism. It is happening now and its effects will be felt by all of us, especially by poor people in poor countries.

from http://www.oneworld.net/external/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.peopleandplanet.org.uk%2Fclimatechange%2Fbriefing.php

But as I said, relax, future generations will pick up the tab.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jul, 2004 09:49 am
Steve, I'm 69 today; global warming is the concern of current and future generations. With capitalism controlling most of what is produced that harms our environment, I don't see any short-term solutions.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Jul, 2004 08:20 pm
After listening to those of you from Europe and "down under" and your changing weather patterns, I will add that the meterologists are now saying that the U.S. Southwest is the the worst drought in 500 years. We are, however, enjoying warmer winters but cooler summers.

Then I found the following article from 26 years ago which is just a blip of time in the grand scheme of things.

Anybody think they're all mostly just guessing?

FROM
Newsweek
April 28, 1975 Studies
Facts & Figures

The Cooling World
There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production- with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas - parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia - where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree - a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. "A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale," warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, "because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century."

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth's average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras - and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the "little ice age" conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 - years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.

Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. "Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data," concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. "Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions."

Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases - all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.

"The world's food-producing system," warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA's Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, "is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago." Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

Reprinted from Financial Post - Canada, Jun 21, 2000

All Material Subject to Copyright

http://www.globalclimate.org/Newsweek.htm
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Jul, 2004 09:07 pm
I remember those "next ice age screeds." By golly, our power plants just might be staving it off. A possibility, not a fact.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jul, 2004 04:28 am
Yesterday it was hotter in the middle of our winter than it was in Europe in the middle of their summer. It was a big story in the papers today. I'm sure many people sat on park benches in the blazing sunshine to read them.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jul, 2004 04:50 am
Our "summer" weather is definitely weird this year.

Last week it was cool, even chilly. We decided to turn the house heating on. Then we had "April showers" weather, in July. Now today it's humid and hot.

I'll leave the long-term prognoses to the experts, who seem to differ, but normal it ain't.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jul, 2004 05:29 am
McTag wrote:


I'll leave the long-term prognoses to the experts, who seem to differ, but normal it ain't.


When trees are spontaneously bursting into flames the conservatives will still be saying it's all a liberal conspiracy.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jul, 2004 07:31 am
I don't see this as a liberal vs conservative issue and would like this discussion to stay with the science. My concern as a U.S. citizen and as a citizen of the world is that I do no harm.

But I enjoy air conditioning and being able to freeze foods and to buy frozen foods. I enjoy the many products that factories produce and, while I enjoy driving my small call when I'm driving alone, I otherwise enjoy big, powerful cars, especially for long road trips which I also enjoy.

It is good to see lesser deveoped countries also learning to enjoy these things and thereby improving opportunities and quality of life for their citizens.

So far we have opinions in this thread that global warming is happening and our activities are helping it along vs

Global warming is happening but not due to anything humans are doing vs

We should go ahead and make changes now just in case we might cause global warming vs

There is no evidence of global warming vs

Maybe in fact the trend is global cooling vs

Who the hell knows?

I'm the the last camp. I'm all for developing newer and better technologies, but isn't that what we've always done? I do not wish to diminish my quality of life or encourage others to diminish their quality of life just to follow bad science.

Here's another perspective (please note the last paragraph posted below):

Changing Weather? Facts and Fallacies About Climate Change and Weather Extremes

Accu-Weather
By Norman J. Macdonald, M.S. and Joseph P. Sobel, Ph.D.
March 15, 1995

Executive Summary

Understanding the causes for changes in the weather day to day and year to year can be difficult because the complex systems underlying weather and climate change are not completely understood.

Recent articles in the press have reported that our weather is becoming more and more extreme and more destructive. Hurricane Andrew, devastating floods in California and the Midwest and the brutal winter storms that struck the Northeast last year are cited as the most recent signs that extreme weather events are becoming more intense and more frequent. Some people suggest that the planet is becoming warmer, largely as a result of the increased use of energy and the resulting increase in carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse" gases, and that this warming is causing weather to become more extreme.

But what are the facts? Is our weather becoming more hostile? To find out, the Global Climate Coalition asked Accu-Weather, Inc., to investigate historical weather records to determine if severe weather events are more frequent or more intense today than in the past and to uncover any scientific basis for linking "global warming" to our changing weather.

Accu-Weather examined relevant historical land, water and satellite weather data, conducted numerous personal interviews with scientists active in the field, reviewed pertinent literature on the subject and analyzed global weather data published by various organizations. Accu-Weather concludes that:

No convincing observational evidence has been found to show that hurricanes, violent tornadoes and other extreme events are more common now than they were 50 or 100 years ago. The greater attention now paid to sever weather events may simply reflect three non-weather related facts: (1) more people live in areas that were once sparsely populated or even uninhabited; (2) local media are now able to quickly report severe weather events that are occurring, or have just occurred, in distant parts of the globe; and (3) more sophisticated weather monitoring systems and a more widely distributed population mean that extreme events in remote areas are more likely to be detected.

The number of deaths in the United States caused by extreme weather disasters declined during the latter part of the century, but the values of property damage increased. This reflects both the improvements made in systems for detecting and providing early warning of danger, and the fact that more people are populating areas where severe weather is likely to occur.

Average global temperatures have increased slightly within the past 100 years, but this increase falls within the limits of natural climate variability and does not necessarily signal that greenhouse gases are causing global warming. Much of the temperature increase occurred before 1940, while the majority of greenhouse emissions occurred well after 1940.

Excerpted: Full article at:
http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=114
0 Replies
 
neil
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jul, 2004 08:10 am
60 years ago we had lots of military weather men. They got the GI bill and studied climate etc. A panic was needed to get funding to pay all these experts, so they tried new iceage, but most places got warmer, so they tried to scare us with global warming. It is warmer than in 1946, about 1 degree c = 1.8 degrees f. Will it be still warmer in 2012? Stay tuned and we shall see. It might be colder than 1946.
We can (and should) capture some carbon dioxide that is coming out of the ground and pump it into old wells, deep mines and deep natural caverns to be released, when and if, we get new ice age shortly after, or instead of global warming. Lets go with some pilot programs and stop wasting money on phoney studies. Neil
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jul, 2004 08:19 am
Neil LENR = low energy nuclear reaction. (aka cold fusion)

I think the debate over global warming has moved on from Is it real? and Have we caused it? to What can we do about it?

The consensus scientific opinion is that warming is a fact and that it is happening at an alarming rate. The consensus political opinion is to wish it wasn't.
0 Replies
 
neil
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jul, 2004 09:36 am
Hi Steve: Many have doubts about "alarming rate" GPS = global posititoning service shows no increase in the average radius of the Earth in the oceans, possibly because the melt water is increasing the amount of 4 degrees c water on the ocean bottoms. 4 degrees c = 39 degrees f is the temperature at which water has maximum density and thus occupies the least volume per ton. It could also be that the core and mantle are cooling and shrinking at a rate that cancels more and warmer ocean surface water.
I am open minded about LENR = cold fusion and zero point energy, even some of the claims of Nicoli Tesla fans.
As far as I know I can't buy a one cubic meter box for $1000 that can be expected to produce one watt for the next 100 years. Why would we believe the box would still produce one watt in 2104?
For more utility; more than one watt, a smaller box and/or lower price is needed, but there are some applications for such a box now, if the 100 years is probable. Neil
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jul, 2004 02:09 pm
As stated in the article in my post just previous to this one, these scientists dispute any evidence that minimal global warming in the last 100 years exceeds normal climatic variables and they say that most of the warming that does exist occurred before 1940 before there were significant greenhouse gas emissions.

It is all very perplexing.

And while I understand nothing about cold fusion, I do believe we have a tiny fraction of the science we will have in the next 50 years, let alone the next 100 years. Who knows? Maybe by then we can neutralize radioactivity and do all sorts of things that are problematic now.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Evolution 101 - Discussion by gungasnake
Typing Equations on a PC - Discussion by Brandon9000
The Future of Artificial Intelligence - Discussion by Brandon9000
The well known Mind vs Brain. - Discussion by crayon851
Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter' - Discussion by oralloy
Blue Saturn - Discussion by oralloy
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High - Discussion by gungasnake
DDT: A Weapon of Mass Survival - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/04/2024 at 10:15:02