Global warming.

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Sat Feb 10, 2007 1:39 pm

There are other hypotheses to explain either partially or entirely the current rise in temperature upon the earth. Still it is clear that human activities must have some contributing effect and it is a matter of debate how much is that effect. Given that, when considering what kind of actions are required to slow-down or halt the negative influence of human activity it becomes a very complicated issue. Surely govenment and industry in the modern world has resisted the call to action because of the cost. For example, coal is very a cheap and abundant natural resource in the U.S. and is used to produce a huge percentage of the U.S. electrical supply. As a consequence, so-called greenhouse gases are released. For decades research has attempted to develop technology which will burn cleaner or develop alternatives to fossil fuel use. Today we are still waiting for these new technologies to show promise. The only successful plan will be a 'cheap' plan. Coal burning is just one of many activities which must be modified or eliminated in order to reduce the impact of GW, all of which have a corresponding economic impact. Granted some will say, what is the cost if we do nothing? But I would ask, can we really make a difference? Do we know how much we should do in order to prevent undo economic impact? Do we know how much we shouldn't do in order not to over-react? Even if we could suddenly stop all U.S. contribution to GW, would it make a difference? How do we control deforestation, how do we provide meat and rice for billions of people and how do we encourage the third-world nations to become part of the modern era while imposing on them the same regulations and resistrictions we now feel are necessary to prevent disaster?

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Sat Feb 10, 2007 2:38 pm

looks like the current warm trend is 100% normal
nothing to see here
move along

the co2 levels look a little high though
I suggest everone stop eating baked beans immediately

kbs2244 · Post by **kbs2244** » Sat Feb 10, 2007 4:41 pm

Back to the concept of the Earth being smoother than an orange.
It just seems to me that it is a huge amount of egotism on a humans part to think they can have any effect on the climate of this globe.
The scale of things is beyond our comprehension, let alone changing.
At our worst, or best, we have about as much effect as a cat sneeze.

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Sat Feb 10, 2007 5:03 pm

kbs2244 wrote:At our worst, or best, we have about as much effect as a cat sneeze.

I am sure you have heard of the "butterfly effect". The atmosphere is such a chaotic system, that cat sneeze could trigger a typhoon in Cambodia.

You are right. And how can we know what real effect we might have.

kbs2244 · Post by **kbs2244** » Sat Feb 10, 2007 8:30 pm

I am told it was a good movie, but it seems like bad science.

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 3:34 pm

When you look at the ice core data and similar graphs the first thing that strikes me at least is the manner in which the peaks and troughs follow in sequence. Without man's help that would imply a cooling in the near future, we may end up being very grateful for all the CO2 we can lay our hands on.
Research is being carried out in Switzerland on the effect that cosmic rays have on cloud formation and global temps as that is not normally included in climate models. Solar activity is apparently at a 10k yr high as well.
Don't think my little Fiat Punto will make much difference one way or the other if the Sun's output varies.

kbs2244 · Post by **kbs2244** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 3:55 pm

Or the two Lincolin Town Cars in my garage.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 3:56 pm

why would anyone need two lincoln town cars

kbs2244 · Post by **kbs2244** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 4:19 pm

Conspicuous consumption.
And a bad back with a need for a 100 mile a day job.
Image is everything.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:52 am

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 363818.ece

When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works. We were treated to another dose of it recently when the experts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued the Summary for Policymakers that puts the political spin on an unfinished scientific dossier on climate change due for publication in a few months’ time. They declared that most of the rise in temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases.

And the disagreement goes on.

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 1:03 pm

No Beag the argument doesn't go on. Most people have no interest in science and simply accept what the TV blurbs tell them, if enough money comes forward to support a contrary view on global warming it will be just as freely adopted as the present one.
None of the climate models that I have seen pay any attention to cosmic rays, if you leave those out what else is ignored? GIGO.
Their sea level rises, for example, are as vague and as much value as Nostradamus's predictions.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 3:30 pm

Most people have no interest in science and simply accept what the TV blurbs tell them

especially if its on uktv history

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Wed Feb 14, 2007 8:31 am

http://www.livescience.com/environment/ ... seeds.html

More on the "Doomsday Vault" with good global warming links.

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Wed Feb 14, 2007 10:42 am

The doomsday vault. What an interesting project. Too bad they can't do the same for elephants and black rhinos whose doomsday is rapidly approaching.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Wed Feb 14, 2007 11:37 am

too bad they can't do the same for me and the women of my choice