Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

old europe wrote:

Okay. Maybe we should define some common denominators.

There is global warming, as in observable global warming. It basically looks like this

Fine. Your common denominator works for me so far.

0 Replies

re centralised/decentralised electricity generation

I can well imagine George had one Thomas

but like you I cant think what it could be Smile

Maybe the US government has legislated for energy to behave differently in N America than Europe.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

I can well imagine George had one Thomas
but like you I cant think what it could be

I think the argument might have been that water heating doesn't make enough of a difference to offset the centralized system's increased efficiency at producing electricity. But I am approaching the age of 37, my memory is beginning to fail me, and don't quite remember what the argument actally was.

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Maybe the US government has legislated for energy to behave differently in N America than Europe.

Given Mr. Bush's attitude toward science, I am sure he hired some corporate lawyer to bend the laws of physics for him.

0 Replies

Maybe it does, Steve. I certainly can't generate the same wattage from a ton of coal as a commercial powerplant.

0 Replies

roger wrote:

Maybe it does, Steve. I certainly can't generate the same wattage from a ton of coal as a commercial powerplant.

thats not true actually Roger. Anyone can provided they invest enough in capital plant.

Admittedly if you sit there with a lump of coal and a lighted match, you will not make much electricity. But it might secure you a few days in the local psychiatric hospital.

0 Replies

Pffka writes

Quote:

Assume for just one moment that the CO2 chart is true and came from your own sources. Then what?

Well, then I would want to know some additional things. The CO2 spikes (that some believe triggered former ice ages) happened hundreds of thousands of years ago. Does CO2 remain trapped in polar ice in perpetuity? Or would it leach out over eons? In other words, will the current spike in CO2 levels look the same as other spikes a hundred milllion years from now?

Is the polar ice really that old? Or has it melted or evaporated in the past and reformed? Can anybody say for certainty?

And if it is proved that human activity is in fact the primary cause of an abnormal CO2 spike and that is abnormally affecting global climate, then I will be ready to cooperate with whatever is necessary to correct the situation.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Pffka writes

Quote:
Assume for just one moment that the CO2 chart is true and came from your own sources. Then what?

Well, then I would want to know some additional things. The CO2 spikes (that some believe triggered former ice ages) happened hundreds of thousands of years ago. Does CO2 remain trapped in polar ice in perpetuity? Or would it leach out over eons? In other words, will the current spike in CO2 levels look the same as other spikes a hundred milllion years from now?

Is the polar ice really that old? Or has it melted or evaporated in the past and reformed? Can anybody say for certainty?

And if it is proved that human activity is in fact the primary cause of an abnormal CO2 spike and that is abnormally affecting global climate, then I will be ready to cooperate with whatever is necessary to correct the situation.

yes
no
yes
yes
yes
no
good

0 Replies

You are asking for eye witnesses now?

I mean, as far as I know, you/we/one are/is certain about other things which have less scientific certainity.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Is the polar ice really that old? Or has it melted or evaporated in the past and reformed? Can anybody say for certainty?

Yes. The age of the polar ice can be determined with radioactive isotope dating, and it really is that old. My source is a fellow doctoral student I used to work with, and who had made his Diploma thesis on ice cores from Greenland (a German "diploma" in a natural science is somewhere between the American bachelor's and master's degrees)

0 Replies

and my friend who was doing a doctoral thesis in ice cones said a 99 with rasberry sauce was best.

0 Replies

Well, our local plants are at the mouth of the mine - that is, management decided it was cheaper (regardless of energy efficiency) to transport electricity than coal. Maybe it's just one of those philosophic differences.

0 Replies

Here's one scientist recently testifying to Congress that has an opposing opinion. I'm assuming they also heard from scientists who agreed with Thomas's friend.

http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/

I guess I also wonder about the polar ice remaining in perpetuity. If that is so, then it would stand to reason that addition moisture would add more ice until over hundreds of millions of years, all available water on earth would be contained within polar ice that never melts. Since we know that is not the case, it also stands to reason that trapped CO2 would also be released as the ice melts.

0 Replies

its not philosophy, its hard economics

power plant next to source of coal...obvious

but if the coal had a thousand outlets over the region what then?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Here's one scientist recently testifying to Congress that has an opposing opinion. I'm assuming they also heard from scientists who agreed with Thomas's friend.

http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/

I guess I also wonder about the polar ice remaining in perpetuity. If that is so, then it would stand to reason that addition moisture would add more ice until over hundreds of millions of years, all available water on earth would be contained within polar ice that never melts. Since we know that is not the case, it also stands to reason that trapped CO2 would also be released as the ice melts.

Jarowoski is out of date. Of course co2 is released from ice. But ice core samples show its highest now than for 500000 years.

0 Replies

The mind boggles.

500,000 years eh?A mere blink.If that.

0 Replies

CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas affecting the climate, methane from cows' farting, deep sea methane developed from fecal matter from fishes over centuries and frozen by the low temperature and deep sea pressure have somehow been released and bubbling up sporadically sinking shipping in the Bermuda triangle, is another greenhouse gas.

0 Replies

talk72000 wrote:

CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas affecting the climate, methane from cows' farting, deep sea methane developed from fecal matter from fishes over centuries and frozen by the low temperature and deep sea pressure have somehow been released and bubbling up sporadically sinking shipping in the Bermuda triangle, is another greenhouse gas.

Frozen anything at the bottom of the ocean?

Now that is funny. It's more likely that the Bermuda triangle is visited by UFOs than the water is frozen on the ocean floor.

0 Replies

I could answer that with something really silly, Steve, but it's been a great discussion overall, and I don't want to be the one to spoil it.

0 Replies

water vapour is a big greenhouse gas
and methane even more so

the warmer the planet, the higher th partial pressure of h2o.

if hydrates beneath the permafrost start to decompose thn it really will become ren away.

but we can safely leave that for future generations. mind you the dominant religion of tgose times is likely to be ancestor-cursing

sorry for typos

0 Replies

Then too, I have read that the single greatest source of green house gasses is from erupting volcanoes. Shall we cork 'em all?

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know