1
   

Climate Change must be tackled NOW

 
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jul, 2003 12:02 pm
I admire Thomas' patience. He has dispassionately laid out clear arguments against the global warming hysteria, and,in doing so, has made no attempt whatever to embellish his arguments with less than fully supported assertions, and has openly acknowledged his key opinions, clearly distinguishing them from his assertions of fact. Indeed, unlike me, he has not used strong, but not fully conclusive arguments concerning the quasi stability of the carbon cycle and the many other, not well understood factors behind the more or less continual climate change that has occurred throughout the life of the earth. In nearly all of this Wolf and others have simply changed the subject and gone back to their original arguments without responding at all to the substance of Thomas' conclusions.


Wolf wrote
Quote:
"In brief, the release of CO2 is not our enemy -- it's the most natural thing in the world. But the natural cycle gets disturbed when more CO2 is released than is reabsorbed; when prehistoric fossil sources are reintroduced into the scheme by artificial combustion, creating an overdose of CO2 that heaps up under the roof of the stratosphere."

This at least represents some acknowledgement of the dynamic processes involved in factors that influence climate. However it implicitly assumes that the earth's carbon cycle contains no elements that can damp small excursions in some of its boundary conditions. That is patently false. CO2 is absorbed in the oceans and combined there with calcium and other minerals into stable compounds (calcium carbonate). There are other processes as well - all have the potential to damp such excursions. Dynamic systems generally damp out small perturbations. One cannot dismiss out of hand the possibility that there may be elements of sensitive dependence in the dynamic of that cycle that could lead to catastrophic instability - (Hawking referred to that possibility in the material cited by Wolf.). However, I believe the geological record shows that this is not the case.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jul, 2003 12:16 pm
From the looks of the jungle I created in my back patio, I feel vindicated in that I'm really doing my part in absorbing carbon dioxide. Oh, if it were only that simple.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jul, 2003 12:58 pm
Just received the following link from a friend. Would like to hear opinions from the folks with some scientific background, and all others that wishes to contribute. c.i.
http://www.cheniere.org/
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jul, 2003 01:33 pm
Don't want to go talkin' 'bout no alternative energy. The oil men have had a bad time -- they're unctuous enough to delay the use of alternative energy while professing an advocacy for it.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jul, 2003 01:41 pm
Cicerone,

Do you remember the 70mpg carbureator that the oil companies were suposedly keeping off the market ? It disappeared only when the auto industry shifted to direct fuel injection. 70mpg, however, is still a distant goal.

All I saw on the web site were several violations of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and a number of semantical evasions and deceptions.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jul, 2003 02:53 pm
Well, since there are already some 3-ltr-cars (which should be equivalent to 70mpg), and Volkswagen constructed even a 1-ltr-car ... .

It's obviously just a matter of ourselves, the customers, who don't buy them - or one of the producers, who don't want to produce/sell them.

But definately not a distant goal re possibilty!
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jul, 2003 03:00 pm
Walter,

I was referring to 70mpg in American standard size cars with engine displacements of 5+ liters, This is a fantasy as are the proposals in the link to which I was referring.

I agree light weight, low torque autos can readily be made. The problem is, as you indicated, public acceptance.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jul, 2003 06:09 pm
like most north-americans we have a gasoline-engine automobile. it's almost four years old and almost paid for. shortly after we bought our car the toyata prius became available; perhaps we would have bought it, had we not just signed on the dotted line. usually we have kept our cars for seven to ten years(and were pretty unhappy when our vw-passat started giving us serious trouble after seven years). so, what do we do now? give away our present car and start paying for a new one(prius or similar, or walk and take the bus - standing at the bus-stop in a cold canadian winter is not very appealing), not very likely. i remember that several years ago an opposition member of the ontario legislature proposed giving every family a energy-efficient refrigerator for free; he reasoned - quite rightly - that it would result in considerably energy savings and would be cheaper than adding electric power-stations to meet increasing demand. the problem however was that it would have been impossible to produce enough new refrigerators quickly enough to make this power-reduction possible - so nothing really changed. new refrigarators are now of corse more efficient, but most families now have more than one, they are getting bigger...... and now we have a bit of a power crisis! pretty difficult for the human race to learn anything unless there is a crisis and it effects us PERSONALLY! in the meantime we just muddle on.hbg
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jul, 2003 10:16 pm
You should drop in more often, hamburger.
0 Replies
 
wolf
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jul, 2003 07:25 am
Quote:
Just received the following link from a friend. Would like to hear opinions from the folks with some scientific background, and all others that wishes to contribute. c.i.
http://www.cheniere.org/


Zero point energy is the energy that remains underneath the absolute zero temperature. It shows us that a vacuum is never empty -- on the contrary, the zero point field is the source of inertia we sought after.

Standard article on ZPE
Interview with Dr. Puthoff

Now, could we tap into this limitless form of vacuum energy, as cicerone's link purports?

We cannot get something for nothing—this would violate the conservation of energy and the second law of thermodynamics. But the upheavel zero point energy created in science is that there is no 'nothing'. Maybe we can find a convenient way to pay for the vacuum energy and thereby use it profitably. Perhaps, we need to look for wholly new types of devices and structures that are based on the unique properties of vacuum energy.

Experiments were done with a resonant cavity -- a sub-micron rectangular cavity that is vibrating due to its interaction with the zero point fluctuations of the vacuum. This is about the simplest machine we can make, and one of the first micro-machine designed to explore the link between our world and the world of vacuum fluctuations, with its enormous energy density. In the next decade or two, we hope to learn a lot more about this vacuum energy, and how to control it.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jul, 2003 09:57 am
wolf, In your estimation, do you think zpf has a future? c.i.
0 Replies
 
wolf
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jul, 2003 11:41 am
Everything leads to the high probability that zero point energy will ideally allow us to harness an unlimited source of energy in the future.

If this wouldn't succeed, the manipulation of the zero point energy field could lead to revolutionary leaps in spaceflight, because the ZPE field appears to be responsible for inertia. If we could somehow stir this field, surf on it if you will, we would avoid inertia. Non-gravitational spaceflight would be a reality.

UFOs, by the way, appear to be moving exactly in this manner.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jul, 2003 12:22 pm
Your mention of UFO's makes sense. They fly every which way at will. c.i.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jul, 2003 01:48 pm
Wolf has no reason to fear terrestrial global warming. He is on another planet.
0 Replies
 
wolf
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jul, 2003 03:33 pm
That's way below the belt of you, george.
0 Replies
 
wolf
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jul, 2003 03:44 pm
By the way, how typical of you to evade the latest warning by the World Meteorological Organisation. I have no choice but to post it again. I hope you will be chivalrous enough to shift your skeptical defense towards a more careful approach. That is, if you are indeed preoccupied with the fragility of life.

Quote:
Reaping the whirlwind

Extreme weather prompts unprecedented global warming alert


03 July 2003


In an astonishing announcement on global warming and extreme weather, the
World Meteorological Organisation signalled last night that the world's
weather is going haywire.

In a startling report, the WMO, which normally produces detailed scientific
reports and staid statistics at the year's end, highlighted record extremes
in weather and climate occurring all over the world in recent weeks, from
Switzerland's hottest-ever June to a record month for tornadoes in the
United States - and linked them to climate change.

The unprecedented warning takes its force and significance from the fact
that it is not coming from Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth, but from an
impeccably respected UN organisation that is not given to hyperbole (though
environmentalists will seize on it to claim that the direst warnings of
climate change are being borne out).

The Geneva-based body, to which the weather services of 185 countries
contribute, takes the view that events this year in Europe, America and
Asia are so remarkable that the world needs to be made aware of it immediately.

The extreme weather it documents, such as record high and low temperatures,
record rainfall and record storms in different parts of the world, is
consistent with predictions of global warming. Supercomputer models show
that, as the atmosphere warms, the climate not only becomes hotter but much
more unstable. "Recent scientific assessments indicate that, as the global
temperatures continue to warm due to climate change, the number and
intensity of extreme events might increase," the WMO said, giving a
striking series of examples.

In southern France, record temperatures were recorded in June, rising above
40C in places - temperatures of 5C to 7C above the average.

In Switzerland, it was the hottest June in at least 250 years,
environmental historians said. In Geneva, since 29 May, daytime
temperatures have not fallen below 25C, making it the hottest June recorded.

In the United States, there were 562 May tornadoes, which caused 41 deaths.
This set a record for any month. The previous record was 399 in June 1992.

In India, this year's pre-monsoon heatwave brought peak temperatures of 45C
- 2C to 5C above the norm. At least 1,400 people died in India due to the
hot weather. In Sri Lanka, heavy rainfall from Tropical Cyclone 01B
exacerbated wet conditions, resulting in flooding and landslides and
killing at least 300 people. The infrastructure and economy of south-west
Sri Lanka was heavily damaged. A reduction of 20-30 per cent is expected in
the output of low-grown tea in the next three months.

Last month was also the hottest in England and Wales since 1976, with
average temperatures of 16C. The WMO said: "These record extreme events
(high temperatures, low temperatures and high rainfall amounts and
droughts) all go into calculating the monthly and annual averages, which,
for temperatures, have been gradually increasing over the past 100 years.

"New record extreme events occur every year somewhere in the globe, but in
recent years the number of such extremes have been increasing.

"According to recent climate-change scientific assessment reports of the
joint WMO/United Nations Environmental Programme Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, the global average surface temperature has increased since
1861. Over the 20th century the increase has been around 0.6C.

"New analyses of proxy data for the northern hemisphere indicate that the
increase in temperature in the 20th century is likely to have been the
largest in any century during the past 1,000 years."

While the trend towards warmer temperatures has been uneven over the past
century, the trend since 1976 is roughly three times that for the whole period.

Global average land and sea surface temperatures in May 2003 were the
second highest since records began in 1880. Considering land temperatures
only, last May was the warmest on record.

It is possible that 2003 will be the hottest year ever recorded. The 10
hottest years in the 143-year-old global temperature record have now all
been since 1990, with the three hottest being 1998, 2002 and 2001.

The unstable world of climate change has long been a prediction. Now, the
WMO says, it is a reality.


What's your reaction? An open-minded one, please. No skeptical occultism.
0 Replies
 
wolf
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2003 07:06 am
George? Question
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2003 07:25 am
Wolf,

Your "Zero point energy" screed convinced me you should spend less time prowling the web for links that appear to support the opinions you have received from others, and more time in remedial instruction in high school physics.

There is little point in discussing this subject with you until you do this.
0 Replies
 
wolf
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2003 09:09 am
I didn't ask for your opinion on myself, I asked your reaction on the findings of the World Meteorological Organization, quoted above.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2003 03:55 pm
"The college idealists who fill the ranks of the environmental movement seem willing to do absolutely anything to save the biosphere, except take science courses and learn something about it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 12/25/2024 at 06:48:03