Global Warming
-
Surely by now we all know that global warming isn't warming but movement of heat!!! Heat from Texas is going up North to finally heat those Penguin's toes, they deserve warm toes. Now people in Houston get to play in the disgusting white powder know as snow. (It is cold and wet, I don't like either, so snow is the Anti-me) ;)
Yeah, I spent the last 11 years in Maracaibo, where 40 C is normal and 50C happens at times. I think I recall that it got all the way down to 19 C once, maybe. Snow in Houston? I might need to think about going back down south!! :)
CQ de W5ALT
Walt Fair, Jr., P. E. Comport Computing Specializing in Technical Engineering Software
-
I hope you're joking, because obviously, no-one who talks about global warming ever suggests that it means that no where on earth will ever get cooler for short periods. It snowed in Dallas a few days ago.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
I enjoy leaving off smilies and joke icons and watching people guess. Thanks for playing.
CQ de W5ALT
Walt Fair, Jr., P. E. Comport Computing Specializing in Technical Engineering Software
-
It is plainly true that there will be positives and negatives to any climate change that occurs, naturally or otherwise. It's also plainly true that the sea rises anyhow, and any problems that this causes man ( just like the statistics on the growth in casualities and losses due to hurricanes ), are mostly caused by our desire to live on coastlines. I would love it if, instead of blindly spending money to try to 'stop warming' or 'stop CO2', we did actual cost benefit analysis of what we hope to do, and what we can expect to get for our money. What I mean is, I am sure that the people most likely to be affected, would benefit more from direct investment, than some sort of CO2 cap and trade deal.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
No argument from me on this one. My concern is that so much effort is being poured into reducing carbon dioxide emissions etc. (not a bad thing, of course) and little consideration is being given to the idea that it might be unstoppable, regardless of what caused it. If a major climate change is happening, whatever caused it, it might well be that sticking plastic bottles in a green bin and turning the TV off standby simply isn't enough to prevent it, then what? I'd be putting serious research money into considering how we'd handle a climate change, rather than throwing it at what might be a futile effort at stopping it. Note: This doesn't mean I think high levels of pollution are acceptable. I just think the idea that if we all recycle etc. everything will be alright is a little far-fetched.
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
There is evidence that there has been no recorded rise in temperature in the last 80 odd years (the era of accurate measurement).
Where ?
Dalek Dave wrote:
I do believe, as it happens, that there may be a slight warming, but cannot see how CO2 can be blamed.
This isn't church, what we believe doesn't really matter. The arguments against CO2 that I've read are ludicrious ( for example, warming started before we started to use cars, well, yes, it started when we started to burn all the forests down ).
Dalek Dave wrote:
It is just dim to say 'It is man-made' without all the facts and evidence.
Which is why I like to read the statements and the data released by people who have more time to investigate such things than I do, and make a conclusion ( which, as I have said, needs to be more nuanced than 'these are the 100% facts' ), rather than come up with my own theories.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
More than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying, in part, "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate." (Go to www. oism.org for the complete petition and names of signers.) Surveys of climatologists show similar skepticism. Satellite readings of temperatures in the lower troposphere (an area scientists predict would immediately reflect any global warming) show no warming since readings began 23 years ago. These readings are accurate to within 0.01ºC, and are consistent with data from weather balloons. Only land-based temperature stations show a warming trend, and these stations do not cover the entire globe, are often contaminated by heat generated by nearby urban development, and are subject to human error. All predictions of global warming are based on computer models, not historical data. In order to get their models to produce predictions that are close to their designers’ expectations, modelers resort to "flux adjustments" that can be 25 times larger than the effect of doubling carbon dioxide concentrations, the supposed trigger for global warming. Richard A. Kerr, a writer for Science, says “climate modelers have been ‘cheating’ for so long it’s almost become respectable.” And it is this "Cheating" that has been leaked recently from the University of East Anglia. Temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period (roughly 800 to 1200 AD), which allowed the Vikings to settle presently inhospitable Greenland, were higher than even the worst-case scenario reported by the IPCC. The period from about 5000-3000 BC, known as the "climatic optimum," was even warmer than that. Vines were being grown and wine produced in Northern England in the 1300's! And remember that the most southerly point of Britain is still further north than the most northerly point of the US (Alaska excluded). The best argument is this...Ask a meteorologist what the weather will be like in two weeks time.
------------------------------------ In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. Stephen J Gould
-
Dan_Martin wrote:
Whether or not the changes are man-made or controllable is a matter for some debate.
I do believe that the degree to which they are man made is a subject for debate. The estimate given by scientists today is that there's a 90% chance that it is, but that could still be wrong. Intelligent discussion allows for such margins. Saying there's no such thing as warming because it snowed two years running, is obviously a glib comment and I would hope is not meant as a precursor to intelligent discussion on the issue.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
Saying there's no such thing as warming because it snowed two years running, is obviously a glib comment ...
Who said that? I think you are imagining things, Christian. Too much trying to read between the lines maybe?
Christian Graus wrote:
... and I would hope is not meant as a precursor to intelligent discussion on the issue.
I wasn't aware that The Lounge was for intelligent discussion. My bad.
CQ de W5ALT
Walt Fair, Jr., P. E. Comport Computing Specializing in Technical Engineering Software
-
More than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying, in part, "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate." (Go to www. oism.org for the complete petition and names of signers.) Surveys of climatologists show similar skepticism. Satellite readings of temperatures in the lower troposphere (an area scientists predict would immediately reflect any global warming) show no warming since readings began 23 years ago. These readings are accurate to within 0.01ºC, and are consistent with data from weather balloons. Only land-based temperature stations show a warming trend, and these stations do not cover the entire globe, are often contaminated by heat generated by nearby urban development, and are subject to human error. All predictions of global warming are based on computer models, not historical data. In order to get their models to produce predictions that are close to their designers’ expectations, modelers resort to "flux adjustments" that can be 25 times larger than the effect of doubling carbon dioxide concentrations, the supposed trigger for global warming. Richard A. Kerr, a writer for Science, says “climate modelers have been ‘cheating’ for so long it’s almost become respectable.” And it is this "Cheating" that has been leaked recently from the University of East Anglia. Temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period (roughly 800 to 1200 AD), which allowed the Vikings to settle presently inhospitable Greenland, were higher than even the worst-case scenario reported by the IPCC. The period from about 5000-3000 BC, known as the "climatic optimum," was even warmer than that. Vines were being grown and wine produced in Northern England in the 1300's! And remember that the most southerly point of Britain is still further north than the most northerly point of the US (Alaska excluded). The best argument is this...Ask a meteorologist what the weather will be like in two weeks time.
------------------------------------ In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. Stephen J Gould
Dalek Dave wrote:
The best argument is this...Ask a meteorologist what the weather will be like in two weeks time.
That's just stupid, sorry.
Dalek Dave wrote:
Satellite readings of temperatures in the lower troposphere (an area scientists predict would immediately reflect any global warming) show no warming since readings began 23 years ago.
So perhaps their predictions are wrong. I mean, maybe not, but it's at least as possible.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
More than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying, in part, "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate." (Go to www. oism.org for the complete petition and names of signers.) Surveys of climatologists show similar skepticism. Satellite readings of temperatures in the lower troposphere (an area scientists predict would immediately reflect any global warming) show no warming since readings began 23 years ago. These readings are accurate to within 0.01ºC, and are consistent with data from weather balloons. Only land-based temperature stations show a warming trend, and these stations do not cover the entire globe, are often contaminated by heat generated by nearby urban development, and are subject to human error. All predictions of global warming are based on computer models, not historical data. In order to get their models to produce predictions that are close to their designers’ expectations, modelers resort to "flux adjustments" that can be 25 times larger than the effect of doubling carbon dioxide concentrations, the supposed trigger for global warming. Richard A. Kerr, a writer for Science, says “climate modelers have been ‘cheating’ for so long it’s almost become respectable.” And it is this "Cheating" that has been leaked recently from the University of East Anglia. Temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period (roughly 800 to 1200 AD), which allowed the Vikings to settle presently inhospitable Greenland, were higher than even the worst-case scenario reported by the IPCC. The period from about 5000-3000 BC, known as the "climatic optimum," was even warmer than that. Vines were being grown and wine produced in Northern England in the 1300's! And remember that the most southerly point of Britain is still further north than the most northerly point of the US (Alaska excluded). The best argument is this...Ask a meteorologist what the weather will be like in two weeks time.
------------------------------------ In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. Stephen J Gould
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
The best argument is this...Ask a meteorologist what the weather will be like in two weeks time.
That's just stupid, sorry.
Dalek Dave wrote:
Satellite readings of temperatures in the lower troposphere (an area scientists predict would immediately reflect any global warming) show no warming since readings began 23 years ago.
So perhaps their predictions are wrong. I mean, maybe not, but it's at least as possible.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
Dalek Dave wrote: The best argument is this...Ask a meteorologist what the weather will be like in two weeks time. That's just stupid, sorry.
Why Stupid? They CANNOT tell you what it will be like in 2 weeks, so why should they be believed about 50 years hence?
Christian Graus wrote:
Dalek Dave wrote: Satellite readings of temperatures in the lower troposphere (an area scientists predict would immediately reflect any global warming) show no warming since readings began 23 years ago. So perhaps their predictions are wrong. I mean, maybe not, but it's at least as possible.
Their predictions are at the heart of the matter. The Point being that the measurements show NO rise in tropospheric temperature. They have been found out. No can we stop being taxed and bossed about. Can we have our proper lightbulbs back and can we all just concentrate on living full rewarding lives and work out a way to live together peaceably?
------------------------------------ In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. Stephen J Gould
-
I hope you're joking, because obviously, no-one who talks about global warming ever suggests that it means that no where on earth will ever get cooler for short periods. It snowed in Dallas a few days ago.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Actually I think it's pretty funny. And it usually snows in Dallas every year or two, but not Houston. Historically Houston has snow about every 10 - 11 years, that coincidentally happens to be the average sunspot cycle length. This sunspot cycle is currently in the minimum and it has been a longer than normal minimum. Some people have wondered if we're in another Maunder Minimum, but I don't think the hamsters would let Chris do that to us. Is there a correlation? Sure. Does it mean anything? Who knows. It's pretty well known that climate has changed many times over the geological history of planet earth. We produce oil from reefs that are in northern Michigan. Sea level fluctuations are well documented in the geological record. Anyone who thinks that the climate ever stopped changing has serious problems!
CQ de W5ALT
Walt Fair, Jr., P. E. Comport Computing Specializing in Technical Engineering Software
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Dalek Dave wrote: The best argument is this...Ask a meteorologist what the weather will be like in two weeks time. That's just stupid, sorry.
Why Stupid? They CANNOT tell you what it will be like in 2 weeks, so why should they be believed about 50 years hence?
Christian Graus wrote:
Dalek Dave wrote: Satellite readings of temperatures in the lower troposphere (an area scientists predict would immediately reflect any global warming) show no warming since readings began 23 years ago. So perhaps their predictions are wrong. I mean, maybe not, but it's at least as possible.
Their predictions are at the heart of the matter. The Point being that the measurements show NO rise in tropospheric temperature. They have been found out. No can we stop being taxed and bossed about. Can we have our proper lightbulbs back and can we all just concentrate on living full rewarding lives and work out a way to live together peaceably?
------------------------------------ In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. Stephen J Gould
Dalek Dave wrote:
They have been found out.
Perhaps so, but then you will have to await the outcome of the independent review. Until then, you can read this (just released) New method of measuring ocean CO2 could lead to 'early-warning system'[^].
Dalek Dave wrote:
Can we have our proper lightbulbs back and can we all just concentrate on living full rewarding lives and work out a way to live together peaceably?
No, perhaps, and not necessarily doable
-
Well, as another indication of global warming, it is now snowing in Houston, Texas, USA on December 4th. Last year it snowed on December 10th. I believe this is the first time it has ever snowed 2 years in a row in Houston -- I know it is during my lifetime here. Ahh yes, global warming ...
CQ de W5ALT
Walt Fair, Jr., P. E. Comport Computing Specializing in Technical Engineering Software
The global warming / climate change cultists are finished now that its all been exposed as a fraud. No amount of denial will save them, they are finished finished FINISHED!
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Dalek Dave wrote: The best argument is this...Ask a meteorologist what the weather will be like in two weeks time. That's just stupid, sorry.
Why Stupid? They CANNOT tell you what it will be like in 2 weeks, so why should they be believed about 50 years hence?
Christian Graus wrote:
Dalek Dave wrote: Satellite readings of temperatures in the lower troposphere (an area scientists predict would immediately reflect any global warming) show no warming since readings began 23 years ago. So perhaps their predictions are wrong. I mean, maybe not, but it's at least as possible.
Their predictions are at the heart of the matter. The Point being that the measurements show NO rise in tropospheric temperature. They have been found out. No can we stop being taxed and bossed about. Can we have our proper lightbulbs back and can we all just concentrate on living full rewarding lives and work out a way to live together peaceably?
------------------------------------ In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. Stephen J Gould
Dalek Dave wrote:
Can we have our proper lightbulbs back
Why? High-efficiency bulbs use less power, meaning lower bills. They cost a bit more, but they break-even quite soon.
If you truly believe you need to pick a mobile phone that "says something" about your personality, don't bother. You don't have a personality. A mental illness, maybe - but not a personality. - Charlie Brooker My Photos/CP Flickr Group - ScrewTurn Wiki v3
-
Isn't that why they now prefer the term "Climate Change"? That the climate changes is a fact that I don't believe anybody would dispute. Whether or not the changes are man-made or controllable is a matter for some debate.
Dan_Martin wrote:
Isn't that why they now prefer the term "Climate Change"?
I remember it being called that at the outset (20 or however many years ago). "Global Warming" was just dumbing down for the sake of the media, IIRC.
Anna :rose: Tech Blog | Visual Lint "Why would anyone prefer to wield a weapon that takes both hands at once, when they could use a lighter (and obviously superior) weapon that allows you to wield multiple ones at a time, and thus supports multi-paradigm carnage?"
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Regardless of what proportion is man made, that the earth is in the process of warming is pretty much beyond dispute
The point is that it IS in dispute. There is evidence that there has been no recorded rise in temperature in the last 80 odd years (the era of accurate measurement). The evidence that there has been warming can be explained by measurement criteria (ie microclimates and topgraphy). I do believe, as it happens, that there may be a slight warming, but cannot see how CO2 can be blamed. Methane is 100x more effective as a Greenhouse gas, and three major Volcanic Releases in the past 100 years will have put more of that into the atmosphere than all of industry. (Mount St Helens alone accounted in one blast the entire output of the US Methane releases since the USA was created). Then there are the sulphates released as well, these will cause a diminuation in stratus based measurements. It is just dim to say 'It is man-made' without all the facts and evidence.
------------------------------------ In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. Stephen J Gould
Dalek Dave wrote:
The point is that it IS in dispute.
I can see that they (the scientists) cannot get to agree on that point. I can also see that there are much more, uhm, drastic weather phenomena, such as many more storms, many more hottest-day-eva, many more no-rain-in-N-weeks summers, many more biggest-snowtime-eva than before, or at least so it seems according to older peers. Maybe the climate is not getting warmer. The average temperature is the same, but we're getting hotter summers and colder winters, which happens to be the worst case because we need more power both in summer (A/C) and winter. Assuming that we're the cause for the climate change, I'm quite sure that we cannot reverse it in reasonable time (e.g. a few decades). At any rate, reducing CO2 emissions means using less fossil fuels, thus our reserves will last longer. Also, recycling more waste is good also because, usually, it takes less energy and thus costs less than producing new materials. Moreover, if we can get to reduce the non-recyclable part of the waste, that's good because we need less incinerators or dumps.
If you truly believe you need to pick a mobile phone that "says something" about your personality, don't bother. You don't have a personality. A mental illness, maybe - but not a personality. - Charlie Brooker My Photos/CP Flickr Group - ScrewTurn Wiki v3
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
Can we have our proper lightbulbs back
Why? High-efficiency bulbs use less power, meaning lower bills. They cost a bit more, but they break-even quite soon.
If you truly believe you need to pick a mobile phone that "says something" about your personality, don't bother. You don't have a personality. A mental illness, maybe - but not a personality. - Charlie Brooker My Photos/CP Flickr Group - ScrewTurn Wiki v3
Dario Solera wrote:
but they break-even quite soon.
...and cause migraines. ...and take forever to make a decent light, so you find yourself just leaving them on for periods when you *might* come back to a room! Iain.
I have now moved to Sweden for love (awwww). If you're in Scandinavia and want an MVP on the payroll (or happy with a remote worker), or need contract work done, give me a job! http://cv.imcsoft.co.uk/[^]
-
Yeah, I spent the last 11 years in Maracaibo, where 40 C is normal and 50C happens at times. I think I recall that it got all the way down to 19 C once, maybe. Snow in Houston? I might need to think about going back down south!! :)
CQ de W5ALT
Walt Fair, Jr., P. E. Comport Computing Specializing in Technical Engineering Software
Laugh out loud, and I do have an opposition to silly abbreviations
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
The point is that it IS in dispute.
I can see that they (the scientists) cannot get to agree on that point. I can also see that there are much more, uhm, drastic weather phenomena, such as many more storms, many more hottest-day-eva, many more no-rain-in-N-weeks summers, many more biggest-snowtime-eva than before, or at least so it seems according to older peers. Maybe the climate is not getting warmer. The average temperature is the same, but we're getting hotter summers and colder winters, which happens to be the worst case because we need more power both in summer (A/C) and winter. Assuming that we're the cause for the climate change, I'm quite sure that we cannot reverse it in reasonable time (e.g. a few decades). At any rate, reducing CO2 emissions means using less fossil fuels, thus our reserves will last longer. Also, recycling more waste is good also because, usually, it takes less energy and thus costs less than producing new materials. Moreover, if we can get to reduce the non-recyclable part of the waste, that's good because we need less incinerators or dumps.
If you truly believe you need to pick a mobile phone that "says something" about your personality, don't bother. You don't have a personality. A mental illness, maybe - but not a personality. - Charlie Brooker My Photos/CP Flickr Group - ScrewTurn Wiki v3
Dario Solera wrote:
Also, recycling more waste is good also because, usually, it takes less energy and thus costs less than producing new materials.
I'd love to see the data to back that statement up. It would mean that most all industries have been operating suboptimally and would provide an economic incentive to recycle.
Dario Solera wrote:
Moreover, if we can get to reduce the non-recyclable part of the waste, that's good because we need less incinerators or dumps.
Yeah, figuring out how to do it economically is the trick.
CQ de W5ALT
Walt Fair, Jr., P. E. Comport Computing Specializing in Technical Engineering Software
-
Well, as another indication of global warming, it is now snowing in Houston, Texas, USA on December 4th. Last year it snowed on December 10th. I believe this is the first time it has ever snowed 2 years in a row in Houston -- I know it is during my lifetime here. Ahh yes, global warming ...
CQ de W5ALT
Walt Fair, Jr., P. E. Comport Computing Specializing in Technical Engineering Software
-
Isn't that why they now prefer the term "Climate Change"? That the climate changes is a fact that I don't believe anybody would dispute. Whether or not the changes are man-made or controllable is a matter for some debate.
Dan_Martin wrote:
Isn't that why they now prefer the term "Climate Change"?
In my day we referred to it as "weather".
Ennis Ray Lynch, Jr. wrote:
Unpaid overtime is slavery.
Trollslayer wrote:
Meetings - where minutes are taken and hours are lost.
-
Dario Solera wrote:
Also, recycling more waste is good also because, usually, it takes less energy and thus costs less than producing new materials.
I'd love to see the data to back that statement up. It would mean that most all industries have been operating suboptimally and would provide an economic incentive to recycle.
Dario Solera wrote:
Moreover, if we can get to reduce the non-recyclable part of the waste, that's good because we need less incinerators or dumps.
Yeah, figuring out how to do it economically is the trick.
CQ de W5ALT
Walt Fair, Jr., P. E. Comport Computing Specializing in Technical Engineering Software
Walt Fair, Jr. wrote:
I'd love to see the data to back that statement up. It would mean that most all industries have been operating suboptimally and would provide an economic incentive to recycle.
For Aluminum[^] the energy delta is ~20:1. Steel[^] returns 4:1 Glass[^] is only 3:2 Plastic (see previous link) can be as high as 10:1; but varies by type, is typically converted into non recyclable forms instead of back into plastic bottles, and being much less dense is more heavily affected by transportation costs. eg styrofoam is almost never recycled because the cost of driving a truck/rail car of it is more than the savings from recyling.
3x12=36 2x12=24 1x12=12 0x12=18