Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > New study into global temperatures      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 251
view profile
History
New study into global temperaturesPage 11 of 15    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15)
Ok, I went on a bit of an internet quest. I've been looking for some reference for Climate Change and emissions reduction evidence of successful implementation and evidence of positive impact.

Anyone have anything showing that? The only report I found was on the city of Portland Oregon from 1997 claiming they lowered their per capita emissions however that was pretty much negated by the closure of their nuclear power plant in favor of fossil fuel plant. http://goo.gl/K7Bfa

I'm trying to fill in a gap that I have in my own personal knowledge. The gap is that a successfully reduced emission changes anything other than the local air quality.

I found this data
http://ghgi.decc.gov.uk/documents/ES3_table_from_2005_NIR.pdf

This shows what looks to me like a reduction over a 13 year period. What was the positive impact of this other than reduced measured emissions at their source? I would think there has to be some correlation in something measured that reflects the reduction outside of local measurements.

I was not able to find much of anything that seemed to indicate there were any positive impacts from any of the efforts and money being spent.

I also just finished watching 'cool it' http://coolit-themovie.com/ Some of the technologies whizzed by at the end seemed interesting although I'm starting to think it is unwise to try to find a single global impacting solution. Even the idea of Co2 scrubbing has a huge flaw in storage.

Anyway, any references highlighting things that went right would be cool.
TBH – if the answer is that the positive effects are not measurable because they are too insignificant to have any impact that would really only support opposition to signing up for any ‘deal’ to meet emissions goals. So, I’m looking for supporting positive impact evidence. Not more evidence that it exists or is a problem. Not looking for a global change in temperature. Not looking for an aggregate change in global co2 levels. Looking for some form of accepted validation of impact.
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 252
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/22/2011 6:31:52 PM

though they do tend to be mutually exclusive


Actually somebody can be liberal, socialist and capitalist all at once, theyre NOT mutually exclusive except when one is practised to a ridiculously blinkered extreme

The NHS, UK pensions, human rights inclusion and welfare system would be prime examples of mixing all three "ologies" quite successfully
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 253
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/26/2011 9:29:39 PM
by the literature, the temperatures will continue to rise, no matter what.

1 degree or so, so far, a few more to come regardless of what we do.

solution?

there isn't one, not for the short term.

BUT we in the western world spend resources like drunken sailors, and do anything to keep the economy going.
we seem to think it's not right if the economy isn't growing, planet be damned
a mistake, I believe.

it's pretty much guaranteed the resources won't be there for the rest of the growing economies when they mature.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10783
but,
does temperature graph fig 2 have some truth to it?
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 254
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/26/2011 11:40:15 PM

by the literature, the temperatures will continue to rise, no matter what.

1 degree or so, so far, a few more to come regardless of what we do.


And the movie "Cool it", which addresses that specific issue with the economy and the overzealous end of world scenarios is bad because?

I have never been one to give any credit to the 'man made global warming' theory. When I see the 97% of the scientists agree that Dentine reduces cavities I must have some basic sense of logic to say, "ok, fine I have no basis to override the general consensus of scientific thought." However, that does leave me with the very simple question of, “What is the solution?" From this we have what is best called the, "stop gap" measures meant to curb the increase of CO2. This is the basic assumption that the rise in CO2 is the cause and that industry caused the dramatic rise in CO2.

Ok, I have now accepted that CO2 increase was man made and that the earth is in reality supposed to be moving toward an ice age but is in fact unnaturally warming.

Perfect. So we look at the "stop gap" measures. Seriously expensive. Involves a whole lot of bizarre tax games though... something about the assumption that if fossil fuels are made expensive we will use less. Sigh... Whatever.

Next we have the world summits to have the industrial nations reduce their use of carbon based fossil fuels in order to reduce emissions because the first world nations, (Especially America) are the most horrible of offenders in this greedy plundering of the world’s resources. OK F**** fine.

Ok.. NOW where the F* do we stand. The UK has been one of the strongest implementers of the carbon emission standards. The US although they have not agreed they have made many efforts internally to do it without agreeing to legal sanctions but they do concede that meeting the goals are economically rather difficult.

So, then we look again... We see that both the US and UK have not reduced anywhere near what they were hoped have done and in fact as a whole have still increased, however, at leat the increase is extremely constrained and not obscene. F****. So now what... Well now we have China. They basically look at the US. not signing up to the agreement and say FU why should we? Then comes India. They look and say, "Now this isn't right. We are finally rising and we cannot just shut down our progress. In fact comparatively speaking we aren't sh** compared to you."

Ok.... Hell, now what?

Well, I wasn't kidding about asking for that one report that showed that reducing emissions locally had the desired impact. Actual evidence. However, that evidence must not be in the form of measurements of CO2 emissions from the local source. The must be environmental, provable evidence. Show that reducing emissions had a reversals effect on the envir0nment in some provable way. There have been many successes in the global warming movement. To say that there have not is to be idiotic and without any concept of reality. I do hope you agree. Programs are being enacted all over the planet. Ordinances are being enacted all over the planet. Industries are changing their practices all over the planet. However, I have been unable to find a single credible source of positive environmental impact from anything that has been enacted.

There are only two possible reasons.
#1 - It is too late. The damage is irreversible.
#2 – It isn’t actually man made.

I am not trying to be a **** this is a dating site. I’m just trying to understand as a regular idiot living a regular life. Give me a reason to believe that swapping out my light bulb, separating my garbage, burying a poisonous battery operated vehicle makes any difference at all!!!!
And finally, Nuclear power. Why, why, why is it derided as the most horrific thing man has ever done yet replaces the primary source of fossil fuel use on the planet? I really do not grasp the logic.

Please help me understand.

PS: I was massively let down by science when I learned about nuclear power. I had the awesome fantasy world when I was young that nuclear power was a new form of power. You could drop in a nuclear fuel cell into a car and it would run for 10,000 years. When I learned that our greatest achievement in fuel was to boil water more efficiently I was rather disillusioned. The extent of our technology advancements is that we boil water really well to spin the turbines to generate electricity… I will never forget how let down I felt then… sigh…. Haha, yeah I was real impressed by Cold Fusion as well. Another attempt to boil water. :( Seems the only thing we haven’t figured out is how to boil water properly.
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 255
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/27/2011 3:26:32 AM
The 97% thing is just PR nonsense though as theres no shortage of well qualified and "previously reknowned" scientists who dont agree with with they hypothesis.

But as they werent on the email list then any "concensus" becomes worthless

Email 970.000 catholics and 30.000 non practicising catholics with a questionaire on catholocism as the only true religion and you will also get a "concensus" too

But send the same mail to 10.000 people in 10 different religions and you will get completely different results


As for nuclear power I think one of the problems with it is still cost. In order to move reliance to electricity most countries would have to upgrade their already crumbling and outdated electricity grids

So the "smarter" avenue from a monitary perspective is to up the prices and try to get people to pay the same for using less. That way the grids can limp by without needing too much spending on them and the revenue stream still keeps increasing along with the profits

And voila, everyone (who matters) wins

Just not the customers


A few years ago the UK declined a joint venture with one of the nordic contries for a high current feed to supply VERY cheap electricity to the UK that would be generated by thermal vents.

it would after the intial cost of the feed have meant very cheap electricity for the country without causing pollution and without the "risks" of nuclear power. But they declined

But as a country that "claims" to be soooo green that would seem pretty silly really? However, the profit and taxation to be had from a carbon neutral low cost form of energy is going to be very low on both counts

So green seems for the most part to only be "wanted" when it also coincides with taxation or increased profiteering and a similar type of ethos seems fairly constant across the majority of "green" schemes, maybe green is simply a reference to money rather than the enviroment?
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 256
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/27/2011 3:56:30 AM
Our current energy production models are shell games, moving actual costs around, hiding them, putting them on future generations, and exploiting, bombing, maiming, and stealing from those who have the resources coveted by the wasteful and wealthy nations.

Coal, oil, nukes and gas aka CONG leaves behind a legacy of pollution that will have to be dealt with for untold generations to come even though they may at some point, never have the benefits we currently assume by using CONG. It will be another 4 decades before they can finally contain the Fukushima mess onsite, and tens of thousands of years before it's contribution to the global radioactive fallout will fade from causing health issues. New open pit uranium mines in Australia and elsewhere will only add to the growing global buildup of human bourne radiation, as will all current nuclear plants as they rust and corrode, and have "incidents" and "accidents. Already 3/4ths of the US nukes are leaking tritium. Around these parts, acid mine drainage persists a hundred years after the coal was taken, and current coal ash ponds are time bombs behind earthen dams. Look at the aerial views of the tar sands projects to get a good view of how greed driven and desperate we have become. The flaming faucets of gasland are also a testament to that short-sightedness and irresponsibility of this generation of humans.

The faux "green" promise of biofuels is THE leading driver of land grabs/theft in the southern hemisphere right now. Growing trees or palm for biofuels will deplete soil nutrients in short order and we are currently depleting NPK fertilizers, 20 years or so left for the phosphorus part of the green revolution, and desperation fracking for the N, perhaps 150-200 years for potassium. Transportation for the rich vs. food and water for the poor will lead to yet more intense global political instability. Arab spring was just a preview of coming unattractions. Even US military analysts acknowledge the coming wars for food and water driving global insecurity.

Rather than focusing relatively abundant resources that we have remaining into some very real and needed solutions, we are squandering the opportunity to sate current demands. Even if you will never be convinced about AGW, the attendent mess we are creating via CONG should be enough to be concerned about and motivated to participate in solutions.
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 257
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/27/2011 5:28:32 AM
I think CONG (hadnt seen that term before) is already being surpassed and in some (but all the wrong ways) what you say "should" happen already is

Rather than wars over food, oil, gas or even coal the "haves" seem to be gearing up for control of the water system by buying up water rights the world over like theyre going out of fashion

And water is pretty much the ONLY resource that has no alternative

So whilst most of the world is busy being distracted by topics related to fossil fuels, arable land, pesticides and various other long term non entities very little focus is being paid to what is happening with the control, ownership and decimation of the natural water systems

But within a relatively short period of time water will become the main focus and will overshadow all other concerns of the population by which time it will probably be far too late to change what is happening now

Its a classic but globally proportioned version of "watch what my right hand is doing so you arent paying attention to what the left hand is upto"
 Kohmelo
Joined: 9/20/2011
Msg: 258
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/27/2011 12:20:12 PM
I'm totally lost on all this global warming stuff.

For every piece of information stating one thing, there's another that states the exact opposite.

I know that winter is being delayed. I can use Xmas as a mark point for yearly temerature drops and snow falls. It gets colder and snows later every year.

I'm currently selling plots of land in Antarctica and building a large boat to get there.
Any takers?
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 259
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/27/2011 2:36:25 PM
Nah, thanks for the offer but I'm staying where I am till the catastrophic flooding happens as a sea view will add thousands to the value of my house
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 260
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/27/2011 7:42:25 PM
the way we in the rich world consume, isn't good for any reason.

I and you have to cut back.

why?

ya why, figure it out for yourself.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 261
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/27/2011 8:36:00 PM

I know that winter is being delayed. I can use Xmas as a mark point for yearly temperature drops and snow falls. It gets colder and snows later every year.


Well, just to confuse you even more. I just got back from the mountains around Los Angeles. We had a good amount of snow :) Very awesome and just a bit early for snow at 5000 feet.

This is the part where the OMG WE ARE GOING TO DIE crowd changed the topic from 'global warming' to climate change.

The answer is in the solutions... they admittedly solve nothing but cost billions and we may as well throw in the towel and just say that its also the 1% that are being enriched.


the way we in the rich world consume, isn't good for any reason.

There ya go...


Sigh... if the climate change people would allow the science to separate from the political agendas and funding we would eventually have a clear picture. Probably not immediately but within a reasonable time period. However, it is not in our cards so we may as well pick a star and make a wish for guidance.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 262
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/27/2011 10:06:35 PM
"I'm totally lost on all this global warming stuff."

do the right thing, ya, I know, whats that?
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 263
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/28/2011 11:50:49 PM

Well, I wasn't kidding about asking for that one report that showed that reducing emissions locally had the desired impact. Actual evidence. However, that evidence must not be in the form of measurements of CO2 emissions from the local source. The must be environmental, provable evidence. Show that reducing emissions had a reversals effect on the envir0nment in some provable way.


I'm having a hard time wrapping my brain around your question. Do want an example of a local effort to reduce climate impacts that can be proven to have actually lessened global warming? That's like asking for a provable example of single individual smoking one less cigarette having an impact on the global cancer rate. We're pretty confident smoking increases cancer risk, but it's pretty difficult to prove beyond a doubt that one less cigarette smoked makes a real difference, even if we're at the same time confident that if global cigarette use was significantly reduced it would be reflected in the global cancer rate.

If on the other hand you're looking for examples of other environmental benefits from steps taken to reduce global warming, that's not hard to find at all. Reforestation efforts come to mind, as well as all the environmental and economic benefits of becoming more energy efficient.


So we look at the "stop gap" measures. Seriously expensive. Involves a whole lot of bizarre tax games though... something about the assumption that if fossil fuels are made expensive we will use less. Sigh... Whatever.


Those same bizarre tax games worked wonders to reduce acid rain and ozone depleting chemicals. And do you really not believe higher fuel costs reduce consumption? When gas prices go up, we use less. When they go down we use more. That's been demonstrated multiple times. Same holds for other energy use. Fuel efficient vehicle purchases go up when gas prices do, SUV purchases go up when gas prices drop.


However, that does leave me with the very simple question of, “What is the solution?"


There is no one solution. Just as there was no one solution that dramatically increased life expectancy today compared to what it was a century ago. It was a lot of sensible smaller solutions that collectively made a difference, and the same holds true for global warming. (And yes, both 'global warming' and 'climate change' are commonly used terms. One did NOT take the place of the other. The globe is warming which produces changes in climate that may or may not mean your home thermometer will read differently.)

So you probably won't get much immediate personal gratification from changing your personal practices if you're looking for an immediately observable environmental impact in your personal world. Swapping out your light bulbs WILL save you money. Recycling what you can from your trash does help keep product costs down, but it will be hard to demonstrate that in your own wallet. Better yet take steps to reduce your overall trash production.

And don't go burying any electric vehicles. The batteries can be recycled and the rest is far less poisonous than a gas powered car.

The benefits and risks of nuclear power have been discussed at length here in another thread. Even setting aside the radiation risks, it's not as clean as many make it out to be once you factor in impacts from uranium extraction, processing, and delivery plus power plant construction.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 264
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/29/2011 9:16:10 AM

No scientific institution of any note denies global warming and its another stupid slur to suggest that every single scientist is paid to lie by the government and provide the evidence they wish to receive ...why not present some evidence of this claim as it is just utter BS. You know prove your point don’t just say it


It really seems that "DENIER" is the only word you know.

I said that despite the fact that I have never been one to believe it. I accept the whole consensus thing because I have no justification to refute what seems like the majority of science says is true. IOW I am exercising my ability to alter my opinion. Something you may want to research.

My question was ... Show me some credible, generally accepted, scientific, corroborated evidence that any of the actions being recommended have the desired effect. Don't point me back to sources saying "IT'S REAL". Show me the evidence that anything suggested has an impact.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 265
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/29/2011 10:03:47 AM

I cannot offer proof of the effects of reduced c02 on the global temperature mainly because the global c02 level is increasing and as YOU NOTE we have not reduced them.
I cannot offer local evidence because temperature and climate are global and to expect a local effect for this is to just point out your lack of comprehension
WHY do you keep asking ?


If it cannot be shown that it has an impact then under what basis is it a valid action?
I understand that the evidence may not be found at a global scale. A reduction in one area and an increase in another may be a net gain so it is too complicated.

What would be acceptable would be a local environmental study showing improvement. What would not be acceptable was using the same measurements at the point of output and saying, "see we have less output" That is not evidence.

I am allowed to ask. It is a valid question.
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 266
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/29/2011 6:43:33 PM
Actually it wouldnt be surprising for a dip in the suns output to coincide with the temperature overall continuing to increase anyway

The suns energy is stored majoratively in the ocean as most land based heat radiates back into space overnight. But the seas patterns of warming and cooling based on the suns energy tend to work to a much slower pattern and lag behind changes in the suns output and as the oceans core temperatures are a strong climate driver it would be a bit riduculous to expect the overal temperature to directly or exactly mimic the sun anyway

I'm sure I read that solar flare activity is quite a big climate driver too, but a recent nasa discovery found that increases in solar flares can dependant on other factors cause either a positive or a negative climate effect but they didnt understand enough about the mechanism to explain why



As for "carbon neutral" I think thats almost a topic in its own right tbh. Many of the so called "green" programmes are far from either being carbon neutral or reducing carbon footprints. Infact many of the schemes have created additional carbon footprints that werent there to begin with in order to create "carbon credits" that can then be sold for huge profits (or methane credits technically as some involve livestock)

Infact it would be interesting to see genuine figures on things like the amount of energy used from start to finish in recycling programs, how many air miles and gallons of petrol/diesel the AGW machine uses each year as well as more detailed information on the side effects of using electric cars including the carbon footprint of the battery packs as well as the carbon footprint of the electricity they use and what the footprint would be if they were taken up in any real numbers as that would need many countries to massively upgrade their national grid system and generating capabilities

I would wager that very few "green" initiatives are actually very green at all unless you were talking about their profit making capabilities
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 267
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/29/2011 8:52:25 PM
http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/collections.cfm?collect=9

Ok so by playing taxaholic shell games there could be 50 billion to 300 billion per year.

IPCC I think are looking for 100 billion per year

And it's ok that not a single bit of evidence can be produced to show that it works. :) Awesome. I have some carbon credits for sale. Anyone want to buy them? One million each and you can help the environment. I wonder if that would be legal? I can already see the Spam and Infomercials.

I wonder how much of that revenue would actually go directly to continuing the search for an actual solution. Revenue...
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 268
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/30/2011 3:45:17 AM
Actually the CCX (started by Obama) turns over around 15 trillion US dollars (yup, thats TRILLIONS not millions or billions)

No idea what the London varient that Al Gore helped to set up turns over though but I daresay thats going to be pretty huge too

Both of those trade in carbon credits (Chicago Carbon eXchange)

You could be forgiven for thinking that a business turning over $15 trillion per year or more could single handedly stamp out world hunger, give the entire planet clean water and access to healthcare, education and basic infrastructure not to mention solving global warming, curing cancer and invent a marmite that EVERYONE likes

But alas no, it just makes people very very rich instead

What a surprise
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 269
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/30/2011 12:02:30 PM

You cannot argue we have no evidence of something we have not done and therefore conclude it does not work...it is illogical and a non sequitor hence why you have not challenged it when written as formal logic...if you wish to repeat it then fine but I wont waste any more time debating a fallacious point.

You are both entitled to your own view on this issue but please don’t try and think the science or logic backs up your positions.


Yet you fail to see the irony that you are asking people to believe and trust in something that can't be proven :) Why don't you try to tell a Christian that Jesus didn't exist.

Carbon tax credits are BS. Everything about using non incandescent bulbs is BS. There is a long list of BS from what other that agree with you called "FAUX GREEN" that is BS.

Reduce the amount of BS and show a clear method that leads to a solution that is backed by science. And most of all. This entire movement will die unless the tone is changed to success instead of doom. If you can't show one example of a success story you know that you are supporting the wrong guy. This is supposed to be science right. That means there should be a method to validate your theory. One that doesn't rely on trust.

I'm looking for science or logic to back up the justification that carbon tax credits will lower co2, that changing lightbulbs will lower co2, that closing down nuclear power plants reduces co2, all of these things done for 'green' purposes. You want me to vote for someone that would raise the priority of this... then prove it.
 Aristotle_Amadopolis
Joined: 12/8/2011
Msg: 270
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/30/2011 4:07:59 PM
Bottom Line.

Are things warming up?
Yes

Do they involve anything to do with C02?
Who knows and really arguing about it, is like deck chairs on the Titanic.

Are we affecting the climate?
Without a doubt, everything living thing does.

Is pumping massive amounts of stuff into the atmosphere going to hurt us?
I have no idea, but common sense dictates that for the most part it is not going to be good for you.

Are there things that will have little to no effect?
Yes, for example, if everyone drove a hybrid.

Are there things we can do that will have an immediate affect on temperatures?
Yes.

If you painted every roof white instead of black or used a solar panel that would capture that energy and not reflect it you would see an immediate affect on the temperatures.

The solutions involve being an adaptive species and stop thinking we can stop the train that is nature and administer things that will actually make a difference.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 271
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/30/2011 4:41:47 PM

The solutions involve being an adaptive species and stop thinking we can stop the train that is nature and administer things that will actually make a difference.


Thats my point. And carbon credits, lightbulbs, and windmills won't do it. There is no right to hundreds of billions of dollars on guesses.

The argument to tell india that they should lower their consumption of fossil fuels and slow down their success because it might help the planet in 100 years isn't going to work. Constantly calling America the most evil greedy and consumptive people on the planet will pretty much result in a middle finger back. Even if agreed. I have no problem with that.

Reducing the cost of energy for everyone, and cleaning the co2 output at the plants and then working on a solution for co2 storage makes the most sense. Restart NASA, build that awsome space elevator, ship the crap out to the moon. Science has the answer. But that doesn't involve taking away peoples rights and allows them to leave the lower classes. It does't make the obvious revenue generation that we get from taxes and schemes. That is all you will ever get if you leave it to the politicians to fix. And there will always be truebelievers. So... that is just the way of the world.

I know you don't have the immediate answer. But thats the point of having different opinions and allowing them to grow. You get different results and probably different solutions. When everyone agrees and thinks the same and they don't have an anwer you can be pretty confident that those people will never find an answer. What do we do with organizations that consume resources with no positive results. We eliminate them. That is the most rational thing to do.
 Aristotle_Amadopolis
Joined: 12/8/2011
Msg: 272
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/30/2011 5:49:39 PM
bottom line, we are consumers, therefore we do not get a say.

It is the producers that get the say and when someone sees away to make money their next goal is to maximize those profits.

So just like defense contractors need war to make money, so do energy producers.

The crazier things get then more they can charge.

To tell the world that things are changing and it might not be in our best interest is like letting me know water is wet.


"Never let the truth get in the way of a good story"
Rodney Hallworth, Fleet Street journalist 1968.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 273
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/30/2011 6:27:42 PM

bottom line, we are consumers, therefore we do not get a say.


In terms of energy production we are not direct consumers and this is where things get tricky. With energy we became beneficiaries of sorts to what they provide. We can't choose a better power provider. The consumer/supplier relationship is broken here. Alt forms of energy don't count as they are more expensive and less reliable. The same thing happened with Cable TV services, Natural Gas, and waste management and pretty much every 'service' that is provided that makes modern life, modern life. Let a few politicians in on the deal and the one thing that will never occur is efficiency or price reductions.

When you don't have a choice you are always forced to accept what is given at whatever cost. For some reason there is always someone at the top of that pile making a crap load of cash...
 pappy009
Joined: 2/3/2008
Msg: 274
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/30/2011 7:40:50 PM
For every unit of CO2 you need 1 atom of Carbon and 2 atoms of Oxygen...so if the CO2 level goes up by 1 per cent then the Oxygen level would go down by 2 per cent. So if the Carbon footprint goes up then the amount of Oxygen level goes down...has any scientist figured this out and how much Oxygen is left in the air...if it hits 15% then mankind will die...but wait a minute. When the snow melts it releases CO2 also. CO2 freezes in the Arctic and antarctic...could you imagine how much is frozen. Can scientist really know how much CO2 is being released from the Ice.

The PTB have successfully taxed everything on this planet except the Air...thats what this is all about to me. I also believe that the planet...Earth itself is heating up...because every planet in our solar system is heating up.

My understanding of this is that, we have been burning coal for thousands of yrs...maybe not on mass as today, non the less the air itself does purify itself....poisonous gas from car exhaust should have killed us yrs ago, but the air cleans itself...well the trees do. And we have cut down boreal forest on pretty well every country except Canada and Russia. The Amazon is half of what it should be. To me this is the problem and the PTB are simply capitalizing on the deli ma...the scientific community is divided...so who do you listen too...for me we created the problem by destroying nature...now we will suffer the consequences of our actions...one is get rid of multi-national corporations....its that simple....the consumer. We have the power but are the most divided segment of society. But if you say something your labeled a left wingnut......our society is a joke...supermarket mentality....and yes I am cynical....but not pessimistic.
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 275
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/30/2011 7:43:50 PM


Actually it wouldnt be surprising for a dip in the suns output to coincide with the temperature overall continuing to increase anyway


Yes good point when you stop putting energy into a system it would indeed not be surprising to see it cool down over a 30 year period when it is receiving less heat and we would expect it to heat up


Actually we would, thats kind of what a "lag" means

The seas core stores heat but and theres a delay between drops or rises in the seas core temperature influencing surface temperature

So we would expect a cooling core to not influence the surface temperature for a period of time afterwards and the same would apply to a warming core

And even then thats just one factor, So with a huge variety of both positive and negative drivers all working to varied time frames and cycles with either instantaneous effects or time delayed ones when one factor increases or decreases what net effect that would have cant be ascertained with any degree of certainty until the entire system is fully and meticulously understood. Which is a long way off from where we are now

So unless our climate only had the sun and CO2 having ANY effect on the climate direct and exact mirroring would be pretty much non existent. And the more things with a wider variety of cycles and lags you introduce the less clear the consistency you will get

Start to blend in reciprocal cumulative effects of multiple drivers and counter productive cummulative effects of multiple drivers and you have something heading towards chaos theory where 9 times out of 1o an increase in something might be mirrored and the 10th time it wont because several other drivers were at different points in their cycles or vice versa


Wow perhaps you could give us a link so we could see this peeer rewviwed paper that said

Solar activity is a big climate driver
It might be positive or negative
We don’t really understand enough about the mechanism to explain it
It is shame you don’t get science as that is actually hilariously funny – How would that get published? its just a paper that shrugs and goes I don’t know what solar flares do , how it does what it does or what the consequences would be or how it works – proper research there eh Mike :really really rolls eyes:


yeah sure, well the NASA link at least, seeing as its them that discovered it

I didnt realise you'd broken all your fingers and were incapable of doing so yourself

I'd suggest asking someone else though when you need your arse wiping though coz I'm busy that day

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/AGU-SABER.html

Is nasa "proper" enough research for ya?

And forgive me if I avoid wiki links seeing as its a very Pro AGW site and therefore a bit like asking the Pope about muslims really, so hardly a good place for objectivity or balance really
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > New study into global temperatures