posted on December 19, 2008 11:24:46 AM newThe tough part is linking human activities to changes in immense planetary scale mechanisms.
Ugh, I hate to say this, but on that point squirrel is right. If you watch the science channel at all, this is something that scientists all over the world are saying. Global warming is indeed a fact, however the earth has gone through many climate changes throughout its history including many ice ages. Scientists cannot be sure if what is happening is indeed man-made or just the earth's natural cycle. It's really a fascinating subject.
posted on December 19, 2008 12:17:59 PM new
With all due respect, I think it's the same scientists who used to say that the causality between cigarette smoking and lung cancer hadn't been proven, because lung cancer does occur even among those who have never smoked or been around smokers.
There have been climate cycles, as there will always be climate cycles. The overwhelming majority of scientists agree that human actions have (at least) exacerbated the cycle. There is room for considerable variation in their forecasts, but nobody is forecasting anything you would want to have happen (although my house's value would go up as beachfront property ).
I think that one of the problems is that it is called "global warming" so on the first cold day, many decide that it's just hokum. It should have been called "global variability" or something along those lines.
posted on December 22, 2008 09:52:59 AM new
The hole in the ozone was discovered in the 80s. It is directly connected to the polar vortex, and varies in size with the vortex. The vortex is caused by wind and current circulation. The vortex sucks in the ozone layer from the stratosphere where compounds in the upper atmosphere can react with ozone. Some scientists claim it has always existed and there are 2 who claim their data from the 50s shows it, but their claims are not supported by most.
As I previously stated, climatic models are so complex that until the advent of supercomputers, people were running around screaming about "global cooling". The problem is that the vast majority of people are near dolts who operate on the "it sounds good" theory. They will actively pursue something they know absolutely nothing about. If there are a handful of scientists who can understand even the programming for climate studies, how smart do you thing hundreds of celebrities crying "global warming" are?
So when you get your tipping point of dolts clammering for action, you get the massive spending of money and government bureaucracy. If the government is involved, somebody is getting paid and nothing is being done. If for example you wanted to reduce emissions, you would attack the major source: the generation of power and build nuclear plants and give people credits for alternate sources of power they install (the German gov does this). Instead you get "Ethanol" which analysis shows from seed to tank IS WORSE IN TOTAL CONTRIBUTION TO WARMING. You get hybrid cars whose best use (because of regenerative braking) is in inner city taxi cabs, being sold to idiots who commute log distances because it "sounds good". And as previously stated from dust to dust a hybrid has a GREATER negative impact on warming.
They focus on autos, a technology which has progressed GEOMETRICALLY, as a whipping boy, despite their contribution being way way down on the list. They do this because everybody gets a PAYDAY. Multi million dollar programs, regulations and the idea that you give a mfg some number and they match it whether physics says it's possible or not.
The Russians recently noticed an anomaly in climatic calculations. No matter what they did, they came up short: warming was greater than the model predicted. After getting data on solar measurements they found that the reduction in global air pollution has lessened the particulates in the atmosphere allowing more solar energy to reach the surface. I suppose if Kanye West started a new song and Bill Maher brought it up we could have everybody clammering to "pollute the air to save the planet."
To be a "theory", scientific evidence must be present to substantiate a hypothesis. If you have a theory of the relevance of man's contribution to the fact of global warming, you have to supply backup. And glaciers melting, hurricanes, etc, etc, have ALL happened MANY times in the Earth's geological history. Population has come and gone because of climate change, cooling and warming). Eons ago most of the US human population died out because a glacial dam receded and the raging flood out the St Laurence Seaway diverted the Gulf Stream.
Suppose you spend your trillions on global warming (and of course, the US has to do it first according to Kyoto), and Anok Krakatoa blows up?? It is growing larger every year. When Krakatoa blew up in the 1880s it sent billions of tons of debris and sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere that darkened the sky for years and affected climate for decades.
Then you also have the Earth's magnetic pole which has "flipped" several times throughout the eons causing dramatic climactic changes.
posted on December 22, 2008 02:16:01 PM new
I can buy the above squirrelstew, but what are you going to do?
"If there are a handful of scientists who can understand even the programming for climate studies, how smart do you thing hundreds of celebrities crying "global warming" are?"
is that to say, only the scientists who don't believe global warming has anything to do with man made events are the ones that understand the programming?
or more importantly, it depends on what those scientists ARE saying. if the only experts in the industry are all more or less saying the same thing, are other non scientists such as yourself dolts for not believing that the theory 'sounds good'?
I agree that we probably all make too much of this, because in the end it won't matter to our generation. we'll be dead and the earth will probably kill off all humans eventually anyway, so who cares what happens right?
another ice age WILL come. warming and cooling of the planet WILL happen with or without human beings on it.
I think the question is, can we make this place a little safer/cleaner for the period of time we get to exist on this planet before we are wiped off by something that we can't control?
thats where, for me, the debate should be. can we make minor changes in our lives that will help slow a process down that will eventually kill us? if so, that'd be kinda nice of us to do, even if it only helps our children and not us directly.
if not, well then screw it. im more interested in good fuel economy because it makes better sense financially than globally, when it comes to cars.
I agree a Pruis is a bad choice of car for someone that doesn't have to sit in stop and go traffic for a long time getting to and fro work. that doesn't mean just in town driving, there's a huge majority of people that would benefit from that cars ability to get good mileage when in a stop and go situation, on the highway OR in town.
it wouldn't make sense for people that don't live in those area's. then your best off just getting something that does really well overall when the whole regenerative braking thing wouldn't do you any good.
in Germany you can buy a Diesel VW golf that does 60+ mpg, and it is much less harmful on the environment to produce than a prius and its batteries.
too bad the Chevy cobalt is pretty much the only halfway decent MPG American car you can buy today that isn't a hybrid, but since its a regular gas model it still only does a little over 30 mpg.
edited to add: your doing more for the planet by fixing and driving your existing car forever than by buying anything 'new' anyway.
there are plenty of good cars on the planet already. stop making new ones and start fixing the old ones to keep using. there's no reason you can't keep existing cars on the road for MUCH much longer than they are currently, assuming of course you don't crash them into a wall.
).