Oddly enough, Global Warming may plunge Europe into a mini Ice Age. This may happen because the Isothermtic belt of warm Atlantic Ocean waters that travel from from the South, around the equator to the North around England. This Belt is referred to as the Gulf Stream, that produced many Tuna on my fishing tips out of Cape Hatteras. (The same Tuna loaded with Mercury)
Scientist were asounted when they recently discovered that the Isothermic Belt stopped moving for 4 days last year, for the first time!
Castiron, do you know what an Internet Troll is? I suggest you turn down the way overaggressive tone of your postings.
Sandor,
The “way over aggressive posts” as you call them are only necessitated because of the liberal, one-sided slant to some of the posts being given here (not yours, but others) like the guy with his Bush/Gore comment where Bush is somehow an idiot compared to Gore...get real...Gore flunked out of divinity school and didn’t finish law school......so then when someone like me actually takes time to research the facts, you call me an “internet troll” and “over aggressive”.......get real......are you suggesting the truth doesn’t matter? And what about BeGreen where he refuses to even acknowledge contrary scientific opinion on global warming....
Bottom line: you, Sandor, “search for the guilty (those blogging unsubstantiated facts) and punish the innocent (me who exposes the truth, by calling me an “overaggressive internet troll"). Get real, get a life and be academically honest with yourself and with others. The truth WILL set you free, Sandor (even if you don’t want it to)...LOL
My point is not that Glabal warming doesn;t exist, but that there’s virtually nothing to be done about it. We are as a species goingto continue to produce CO2 in quantities as large or larger than we currently are, and we will continue enriching the atmosphere in CO2. Even if we roll back to 1990 or 198 levels, we’re still enriching the atmosphere. The “natural” contributions to this process are still a little fuzzy, but humans are certainly contributing.
Which means (assuming there is a cliff) we can change how fast the train runs off the cliff, but not the basic process of running off the cliff. If we could wave a wand and magically stop emitting CO2, we might still go off the cliff (and cause widespread social upheaval), as we don’t really know what the natural processes are.
So yes, in the meantime, I’m cautiously optimistic we can start double cropping inthe upper Midwest. And maybe have some warmer winters for a while.
My point is not that Glabal warming doesn;t exist, but that there’s virtually nothing to be done about it. We are as a species goingto continue to produce CO2 in quantities as large or larger than we currently are, and we will continue enriching the atmosphere in CO2. Even if we roll back to 1990 or 198 levels, we’re still enriching the atmosphere. The “natural” contributions to this process are still a little fuzzy, but humans are certainly contributing.
Which means (assuming there is a cliff) we can change how fast the train runs off the cliff, but not the basic process of running off the cliff. If we could wave a wand and magically stop emitting CO2, we might still go off the cliff (and cause widespread social upheaval), as we don’t really know what the natural processes are.
So yes, in the meantime, I’m cautiously optimistic we can start double cropping inthe upper Midwest. And maybe have some warmer winters for a while.
Steve
Steve,
Interesting take...that even if we drastically reduce (or stop) CO2 production, that we might still go off the cliff. Note that I said that I AM for reducing/eliminating CO2 and other gases simply because if they weren’t there before, we shouldn’t be adding to them now. I see it as a two step process: 1) use technology to reduce emissions from cars, power plants, etc to reduce future emissions and 2) use technology to “sequester” CO2 already in the atmosphere.
Sequestering means using distillation to extract CO2 already in the atmosphere, liquefying or freezing it and dumping it into salt mines or elsewhere to “lock it” into a form that takes it out of the atmosphere. This could “buy us out” of any increases in atmospheric temps that MAY be due to CO2. Some drilling companies in the North Sea area are already doing this.
Another alternative: use space-borne or ground-based mirrors to reflect some solar energy back into space to help cool the earth.
By the way, when I hammered BeGreen to look at ALL sides of an argument, it was because there are “unintended consequences” of even environmentally friendly practices that need to be looked at and you’ll only learn about these if you review ALL the data...not just that which supports one “chosen” theory.
The example is that when aerosol dispersant’s and fine (non-soot like) particals were reduced in the atmosphere, we actually increased the solar radiation on the earth and INCREASED the heating effect over what it was. Why is this? Because the aerosol particals reflect some solar radiation...decreasing these particle’s increases incident solar radiation that reaches the earth and increases heating. Does this mean I’m for increasing soot and other fine particles? No way....just pointing out the “theory of unintended consequences”...which, by the way, you only see when you look at ALL the data, not just that that BeGreen wants to look at........ If for posting this, people like Sandor want to call me an “Internet Troll”, then so be it........
I don’t consider burning a renewable resource that benefits the forest when you remove it to be wasteful.
Not the same as driving a Suburban when you could accomplish the same thing with a Saturn, at any rate.
Wood and oil aren’t even in the same energy category. Thought you’d understand that one, Steve.
Well, wood surely puts out a lot more pollution per BTU created. And the problems we have are not just about energy, but about the waste products from it also.
Never saw the Gore movie, but the wife brought home the book (same presentation) from the library so I paged through it. One comparison that got me thinking is that our breathable atmosphere is VERY small. The book mentioned, given a desk globe, the atmosphere would be about the thickness of the coat of varish on it!
All these questions are so difficult. If you were going to scrap the Explorer and buy a car with double the mileage, then it might make sense....but passing it on to someone else who might drive it 3X as much as you....I don’t see the savings.
In other words, just because I leave NYC or Philly and come up to the hills, does not change the fact that NYC and Philly exist, nor does it change the output of the pollution there. I think it’s more like we are all little ants in the colony, and we need a group effort and group change in behavior to really turn things around. It actually has been done....many of our rivers and much or our air is cleaner than in the last 50 years.....this does not include Greenhouse gases, though.
BTW, the news this morning said they were going to start turning poultry rederings (chicken fat) into biodiesel. This presents a new problem to the vegetarians among us.
More trivia - William Clay Ford, Jr. - Ford CEO, is a vegetarian (good article about him in the NYT).
LOL!! well Craig, you’ll just have to quit sneeking out to the garage to tap the fuel tank on the car for that friday evening night cap.
This is not an us/them discussion. Surely as a scientist you have made an erroneous hypothesis once in your life? Isn’t that what science is all about? But now, after 25 years of concentrated testing, models and real results (aka glacial melt, arctic permafrost melt, greenland icecap melt), the period of hypothesis is over, global warming is here. The only question now is whether we will reach the point of dramatic shutdown of balanced systems in which case the growing of corn in ND is academic and moot.
BeGreen,
There are many notable scientists who say otherwise about global warming:
Richard Lindzen, MIT meteorology professor and member of the National Academy of Sciences:
and
William M. Gray, Colorado State University:
this last one, Dr. Gray...he was the one who predicts the hurricanes each year.....you gonna tell me he and the MIT prof are “crack pots”...?
how about some more from that web site:
Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics:
or
Tim Patterson [15], paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada:
so...not saying it ISN’T happening, all I’m saying is that the same group who was saying the “sky is falling” in the 19 with “global ice age” are now saying the “sky is falling” with “global warming” yet there are MANY CREDIBLE SCIENTISTS who say otherwise...that’s all I’m saying.
At least I’m willing to look at BOTH sides but you listen to only one side......
AND, as far as some “crop yields decreasing because of higher night time temps”, there are also NEW agricultural areas created because the higher temperatures will allow crops to be planted where they never could before.....but again, you look at only those areas that support your theory....all I’m saying is look at it in totality (i.e., the NET result).
The group of scientists from the 70’s are largely retired or dead. I do not know you. These are not “my” theories. You do not “know” me. Though you do resemble someone I “Frank"ly do know a little about.
Be green,
Your “therapy” is almost over, “Frank” or whoever you are...LOL...at least NOW you’re not continuing to delude yourself and you now ADMIT that there WAS a crackpot “global cooling” theory 30 years ago......hey, a few more steps in “castirons reality acceptance program” and you’ll be released......
You are however, still not being academically truthful when you try to discard the crackpot “global cooling” theory by saying “many of those scientists from the 70’s are dead”. OK..let’s say they’re all dead. You seem to think that being “dead” and having been replaced by a “living” group who are now saying “global warming”, somehow exonerates this first group while validating this second group ......it doesn’t! But hey, let’s say it does, for arguments sake. Then using your reasoning, you must also acknowledge another “living” group that disagrees with “global warming” and, unlike the global warming group, has NEVER waivered on their belief that their theory may be or is wrong! That’s all I’m saying.
So, what does this all mean: even though I doubt man is the deciding factor in the slight temperature rises we’ve seen, I agree that pouring massive amounts of CO2 and other gases into the atmosphere is NOT the right thing to do...doesn’t mean I believe that CO2 is causing global warming but rather we need to come up with more environmentally friendly ways of producing power, that is, producing power while adding little to nothing to the environment that wasn’t already there. This is validated by my first-hand experience as a former power plant engineer (at a coal and oil fired unit).
In the end however, even ultra clean power production still results in adding heat to the atmosphere since all energy is eventually disapated as heat but, we can at least demand that power production be as clean as possible.
Isn’t it amazing that two people, who are diametric in their beliefs on what is causing global warming, would both be pursuing the same end-game, but for different reasons!!! Gotta love it!
Hello,
I need to qualify my statement that:
“In the end however, even ultra clean power production still results in adding heat to the atmosphere since all energy is eventually disapated as heat but, we can at least demand that power production be as clean as possible”.
Comment: We only add additional heat to the atmosphere if we continue to use fossil fuels since we’re pulling these out of the ground, burning them and all the energy ends up heating the atmosphere to a higher level that we would have without burning these. I don’t think solar energy would add to this problem. Why? because without solar power, for example, a 1 sq meter patch of ground receives on average about 1 KW/hr of energy which heats the earth. A solar panel occupying this same 1 sq meter patch of ground intercepts this SAME quantity of solar radiation and turns some of it into electricity and the rest is dissipated as heat. In the end I think the heating effect is the same as if the panel weren’t there so there’s probably no (or little) net heating effect. Not so for coal, oil, natural gas, etc where we pull it out of the ground, burn it and add heat to the atmosphere.
Ok...I know Sandor...that makes me an internet Troll....
A troll is someone who hangs around the Ashcan making long, in-your-face gasbag posts with lots of capital characters, but who doesn’t contribute to the other forums. Trolls seem to think that they know it all, and anyone who disagrees with them is either a moron or a silly Liberal. Trolls quickly find that there’s nobody left to argue with, however, because nobody wants to feed the trolls. Trolls don’t understand this. They think they’ve won all the arguments, leaving everyone else speechless with their brillance. Satisfied that their work is done, trolls move on to the next website.
A troll is someone who hangs around the Ashcan making long, in-your-face gasbag posts with lots of capital characters, but who doesn’t contribute to the other forums. Trolls seem to think that they know it all, and anyone who disagrees with them is either a moron or a silly Liberal. Trolls quickly find that there’s nobody left to argue with, however, because nobody wants to feed the trolls. Trolls don’t understand this. They think they’ve won all the arguments, leaving everyone else speechless with their brillance. Satisfied that their work is done, trolls move on to the next website.
Eric,
No...I’m simply responding to what lib gas bags have already said and that morons appear to readily accept with no proof what-so-ever required........then when counter proof is provided by people like me, Liberal morons search for the guilty and punish the innocent by attacking people like me and calling me “Trolls”.........
Resorting to “name calling” when someone like me says “wait a minute...that’s not a valid argument” is typical of what Liberals do when the facts don’t support them.......so they go on the attack and name-call instead...........
I challenge you to move out of the Liberal moron category and address the issues:
1) someone called Bush a moron compared to Gore....we’ll, the facts say otherwise. Now, without calling me names, please tell me why you think Gore was a better student but keep in mind these facts: he flunked out of Divinity school, didn’t finish law school, etc.....
2) On the global warming issue......please, again, without calling me names, address the “global cooling” fiasco of 30 years ago and the same group now saying “global warming” and then address the contrary opinion (no global warming) that IS supported by very well respected scientists and THEN, after taking all than into account, you can shoot your mouth off and name call...but not before...........
3) as far as you untrue comment that trolls “don’t contribute to the other forums” ...this is again, a load of Liberal lies....... I’ve contributed to other forums including one detailed initial analysis on how to calcualte heat loss and to put sizing a stove into proper perspective.............
Any comments or are you going to trash me with more “name calling” rather than addressing the facts?
I’ll have to close it.....hey, cast, if you want a good one for the military, see my recent post about Fighting for our Stoves. I have to analyze it though, the last paragraph seems to be saying that he will only ‘defend” against actual attacks...in other words, not be the aggressor.
Hey, cast, you may not enjoy folks with other points of view...but no one is forcing you to come here - and I might say that you are not changing many hearts and minds. Either am I. The Ash Can is simply a place for our regular members to blow off steam...usually on topics at least somewhat related to energy.
You would (if you care) be much more effective without classifying folks into one of two camps. I mean, my goodness, you called Sandor a liberal! Heck, is Rummy a liberal also?
Ok, now for my final opinion, which is just a rehash of previous. I am not a scientist and in many ways could care less about global warming - it is really a bit too big to get my head around. BUT, there are so many other reasons to take the same actions (national security, energy independence, pollution reduction, etc.) that , IMHO, the point is moot. And, given the tendency of “your side” to talk about mushroom clouds and backpack bombs as imminent threats, I think you are calling the kettle black by questioning actual researched scenarios. After all, the fearmongering which makes you happy contains complete fabrications......so which are more “far out”?
If you think it is OK for 5% of the worlds population to use 25% of it’s resources, so be it. I don’t. And I see the solution based BOTH on legislation and technology.
