|
|
#32
11-22-2004, 07:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Difference between Science and Polictics
[ QUOTE ]
Nope, a sham is what it is. Read some of the links in my hydrogen post, someone caluclated that the UK needs to increase its electicity generation by 500% in order to use hydrogen instead of oil for transportation. 500% and you are not allowed to use fossil fuels, how do you do that? Simple answer, you don't. There are so many problems with hyrdrogen it's hard to know where to begin. [/ QUOTE ] I think that problem could be solved with fusion (in 50 years, or way too late). I think hydrogen may still be viable (but a pain in the rear), but I agree that we need to look for alternatives. 
|
|
#33
11-22-2004, 07:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How can you look at this chart and not be worried?
[ QUOTE ]
How can you look at this chart and not be worried? Seriously? If you tell any scientist (that knows about the subject) that global warming and the extra C02 in the air is nothing to worry about they will laugh at you. [/ QUOTE ] Easy I'll be dead by the time this ficticious Global Warming hogwash is proven to be false. Just in case there is a tiny shred of truth to the pseudo-Science then all you 21 year olds will suffer the consequences and that is tough.
|
|
#34
11-22-2004, 07:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What global warming?
[ QUOTE ]
A 20-30% increase came and went a long time ago. The amount of carbon we are putting in the atmosphere is growing by leaps and bounds every year. We are not talking about percentage, we are talking about a multiplication factor. Look at my chart. Pay attention to the C02 increase and the temperature increase. Do you see anything stick out? That H20 statistic is very misleading. [/ QUOTE ] It seem that your graph is still a little controversial. I've linked to this article by a Berkeley professor Richard Muller: Global Warming Bombshell. There is no political agenda in that article -- only scientific interest. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Fact 3. It is publicized that the global surface temperature has increased by 1deg C over the last century, and that this is due to anthropogenic activity. [/ QUOTE ] It's more like 2 degrees C. [/ QUOTE ] Hah. Come on, read your own graph, it's not hard to do. [ QUOTE ] Even with energy usage staying the way it is you may see an increase of 6-8 degrees in your lifetime. Add developing China and other countries, not to mention the already failing natural carbon sinks and who knows whats going to happen. As for those that are disputing the Carbon and temperature warming facts, I ask them to look at the chart and give me a reason why we shouldn't worry about it. [/ QUOTE ] My interest in global warming is scientific but you don't sound like a scientist, more like an apocalypse preacher. A reason why we might not have to worry about your graph is that it might be wrong. Look -- noone denies the mechanism of more CO2 warming the planet, but the magnitude of the human effect on temperature is unknown. Journalists and politicians make it a fact that we'll see 6-8 deg C within our lifetimes, but it's very far from a settled issue. [ QUOTE ] Do you work for an oil company? What political motivations do academic scientists have that are conflicting interests? [/ QUOTE ] Now why would you say that? Do you see how much of your bias it shows? Would it change anything if I was a particle physicist working at the largest national research lab? I don't know what it's like to work in the climate research field but it must be pretty different than what I am used to. Richard Muller likes to rant about it. He is not a Nobel prize winner, but he does have a McArthur award to his credit.
|
|
#35
11-22-2004, 07:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How can you look at this chart and not be worried?
I'll throw the ball right back to you.
How can you look at this chart and not be worried? Seriously? Is there any scientist who would look at this graph, and not be immediately worried that the next Ice Age might be right behind the corner? We are living in the longest interglacial period on record in the last 1 million years. It has lasted more than 10,000 years, while a typical interglacial lasts 2-4k years. 
|
|
#36
11-22-2004, 08:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How can you look at this chart and not be worried?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] For instance, let's look at what www.globalwarming.org has to say: [/ QUOTE ] Don't you think we should first look at who www.globalwarming.com is? An initial search turns up this information, for instance: "Cooler Heads Coalition and its website globalwarming.org (http://www.globalwarming.org/index.php) were revived by Consumer Alert's National Consumer Coalition in April 2004... Consumer Alert and National Consumer Coalition are industry friendly groups that oppose regulations on industry...” The so called “Cooler Heads Coalition” is a right-wing front group for industry, formed “to dispel the myth of global warming.” (from their site) You’d be hard pressed to find any reputable scientists or groups of scientists who think global warming is a “myth.” [/ QUOTE ] Don't you find it unfortunate that the debate about global warming is driven by political groups? There aren't many research fields where political agengda gives you an attractive answer. Do Americal oil conglomerates and automobile manufacturers cause global warming that will wreak havoc in the developing world? Political bias will give you an attractive answer. Can a missile defense shield work? Same thing. Does universe accelerate in its expansion? Now the fact that you voted for John Kerry is very unlikely to introduce a bias into your work.
|
|
#37
11-22-2004, 08:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How can you look at this chart and not be worried?
[ QUOTE ]
I'll throw the ball right back to you. How can you look at this chart and not be worried? Seriously? Is there any scientist who would look at this graph, and not be immediately worried that the next Ice Age might be right behind the corner? We are living in the longest interglacial period on record in the last 1 million years. It has lasted more than 10,000 years, while a typical interglacial lasts 2-4k years. [/ QUOTE ] I'll throw the ball back at you. Ever wondered why those peaks were 100K years apart? Did that article tell you? I'm guessing no, but I don't know what article that graph came from so I couldn't check. http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon...olcanoes.shtml There are many other reasons ice ages occur. It's a cycle alright, but nothing to do with the atmosphere. It's from asteroids and supervolcanoes. Will comment later, have work to do.
|
|
#38
11-22-2004, 08:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How can you look at this chart and not be worried?
[ QUOTE ]
tific interest. [ QUOTE ] Fact 3. It is publicized that the global surface temperature has increased by 1deg C over the last century, and that this is due to anthropogenic activity. It's more like 2 degrees C. [/ QUOTE ] Hah. Come on, read your own graph, it's not hard to do. [/ QUOTE ] This is the only thing you've said I agree with. I made a mistake and I admit it. I rounded up, I should not of done that. It is between 1-2 degree, the exact amount is argueable. The article you talk about references University of Massachusetts geoscientist Michael Mann. The graph I linked to is built from different sources. The sources are listed on the graph. At first glance, your article looks irrelevant. http://www.technologyreview.com/arti...ller101504.asp Also, it appears Muller couldn't get his findings published, I wonder if there is more to this story. If a paper isn't published, it ussually means the story was found to be bogus due to peer review. There are dozens of ways you can get a paper published, Nature isn't the only game in town. Something doesn't smell right. Right now, I'm not putting a whole lot of stock in that article. Don't have time to thoroughly check, will comment later.
|
|
#39
11-22-2004, 08:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How can you look at this chart and not be worried?
[ QUOTE ]
Ever wondered why those peaks were 100K years apart? [/ QUOTE ] Yes. [ QUOTE ] Did that article tell you? I'm guessing no, but I don't know what article that graph came from so I couldn't check. http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon...olcanoes.shtml There are many other reasons ice ages occur. It's a cycle alright, but nothing to do with the atmosphere. It's from asteroids and supervolcanoes. [/ QUOTE ] Now I understand. Everytime that the Earth recovers from the last asteroid and supervolcano by violently warming within a very short period of time, this triggers the next asteroid to hit within 2,000 years to blacken the sky and put the Earth back into deep freeze. The next asteroid waits until the Earth warms again. If it is not available, a volcano erupts.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
