Global warming

Status
Not open for further replies.
Heh, the gulf of mexico coastline is long, and there's the atlantic coast too...

Nah if it aint New Orleans it aint worth it. Theres nothing like 3 disasters in a decade to make people feel happy and take notice. Only this time I would like to see even more of the place destroyed, to save the world? :???:

Btw, I love corduroy's strawmen. He must feel really proud of his argumentative skills when he's knocking down claims in a single punch that nobody ever made! :LOL:

You'll never convince him so why bother?! :rolleyes:
 
That's just made-up bullshit. Look, if there is a cycle in temperature, then there has to be a physical process driving said cycle. So, what is the physical process, hmm?
Absolutely. Of course there's a physical process behind it. Or rather, a whole bunch of them.

It's like the full-spectrum graph on a frequency analyser, before you have it split them into all the individual ones that make it up.

And, most of those processes and feedback loops don't operate primary on or through the temperature. Like clouds and other water vapour: while the temperature is one of the parameters, there are many others as well. Or how about methane on the bottom of the sea?

They lag, and the overall temperature shows their synchronization.
 
You don't get to dismiss all of that with a couple of baseless general sweeping statements.

You want to claim global warming doesn't exist? Then I want an alternative scientific explanation supported with evidence to explain each and every one of those observations.

If you can do that then your argument will at least be approaching the validity of AWG.
How about "business as usual"? Look at the start of this thread.
 
Are you just making this stuff up?

Hockey_stick_chart_ipcc_large.jpg
You didn't read Harry's readme, did you? There's a few links to in in this thread. It's really insightful.
 
Absolutely. Of course there's a physical process behind it. Or rather, a whole bunch of them.

And, most of those processes and feedback loops don't operate primary on or through the temperature. Like clouds and other water vapour: while the temperature is one of the parameters, there are many others as well. Or how about methane on the bottom of the sea?
These are responses, not forcings. These effects are likely to effect the degree of warming that occurs as the result of some other forcing, but cannot, in and of themselves, cause a change in the climate.

As for the methane in the bottom of the sea, turns out that bacteria tend to eat that up before it reaches the surface, so it isn't a significant concern. Even if you thought it was, the total amount of extra methane in the atmosphere at present makes for a greenhouse effect about one fourth that due to the extra CO2.

They lag, and the overall temperature shows their synchronization.
Say what? What are you going on about?
 
You didn't read Harry's readme, did you? There's a few links to in in this thread. It's really insightful.

I'm not sure what Harry's readme is but if it's anything to do with the so called "climategate" then it has no baring on the accuracy of the data above.

Here's another chart showing many other independant studies resulting in the same conclusion:

1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png


More than twelve subsequent scientific papers using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records produced reconstructions broadly the same as the original hockey stick graphs, with variations in the extent to which the Medieval Warm Period and subsequent "little ice age" were significant, but almost all of them supported the IPCC conclusion that the warmest decade in 1000 years was probably that at the end of the 20th century. There have also been disputes about the use of Bristlecone and Foxtail Pine tree rings as temperature proxies — the National Research Council report recommends that “strip-bark” samples be avoided for temperature reconstructions[9] – but the same "hockey stick" graph is found in studies which do not use tree ring proxies.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy
 
Man, I'm so over this argument. Energy diversity is so obviously the right thing today regardless of what we think the climate is going to do that it's a become a moot point. Let's just get on with finding and transitioning to them.
 
Man, I'm so over this argument. Energy diversity is so obviously the right thing today regardless of what we think the climate is going to do that it's a become a moot point. Let's just get on with finding and transitioning to them.
While I definitely agree, that would prevent us from finding out if AGW is a real concern.

Too bad we don't have many Earths to experiment with. ;)
 
While I definitely agree, that would prevent us from finding out if AGW is a real concern.

Too bad we don't have many Earths to experiment with. ;)

Isn't that kinda the point? Since we only have the one Earth, even if there's only a small chance that AGW is real and caused by humans, shouldn't we err on the side of caution?

There are no second chances.
 
Isn't that kinda the point? Since we only have the one Earth, even if there's only a small chance that AGW is real and caused by humans, shouldn't we err on the side of caution?
Not at the cost of more government intervention and regulation and guaranteed worse standards of living for everyone anyways. Rising oil prices will achieve the same goal without the need of doing anything.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Isn't that kinda the point? Since we only have the one Earth, even if there's only a small chance that AGW is real and caused by humans, shouldn't we err on the side of caution?

There are no second chances.
Well, yes, but at that point it becomes religion, politics and marketing instead of science.

But I guess that's what it is in the first place.
 
Well, yes, but at that point it becomes religion, politics and marketing instead of science.
It certainly doesn't become religion or marketing. Politics, yes, because politics is about how we decide, as a society, what direction to move into the future. But that's not a bad thing or a good thing. It just is.
 
Company uses genetically altered bacteria to make diesel fuel:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110227/ap_on_bi_ge/us_growing_fuel

This (and algae, etc.) is the way we should use solar energy, not with useless and expensive panels that directly convert it to electricity. Living organisms are more efficient.

I fully support any technology that produces sustainable clean energy at close to or lower than today's prices. Cheap abundant energy is the only way for humanity to progress. Maybe then we'll see the return of supersonic passenger jets and space travel.
 
This (and algae, etc.) is the way we should use solar energy, not with useless and expensive panels that directly convert it to electricity. Living organisms are more efficient.
I'd love to see some calculations on how much energy they can get out per m^2 per year.
 
This (and algae, etc.) is the way we should use solar energy, not with useless and expensive panels that directly convert it to electricity. Living organisms are more efficient.
Photovoltaic cells is mostly a niche product, they're quite resource intensive to manufacture and don't deliver very high output.

However, there are other forms of solar electric energy production that are much more efficient, including stuff like stirling engines and steam turbines.

Algae is an ideal means of vehicle fuel production, and we should absolutely invest as much as needed to get this going. It's as close to free energy as we're likely to get.

Cheap abundant energy is the only way for humanity to progress.
Abundance is not the same as progress. It can easily be the opposite.

Maybe then we'll see the return of supersonic passenger jets and space travel.
Supersonic jets aren't really neccessary. They're just extremely wasteful in energy use, while not really bringing much benefit back to the world. So you can fly transatlantic in two hours instead of five and consume 10x the fuel per passenger of the slower aircraft, whoop de fucking doo, start your trip earlier.

We already have green rocket tech, so to speak, that's not the problem. You can't get more sustainable and environmentally friendly than burning liquid hydrogen/oxygen.

However, to really get space travel off the ground we need to get over our somewhat irrational fear of everything nuclear. Nuclear-thermal rocket engines have enormous thrust and scale up much better than conventional chemical rockets. That'll be the only way to bring significant payloads into orbit. It would also be safer, you wouldn't need heat shields and airbrake through the atmosphere to get back down, you'd just fire the main engines instead to slow down for re-entry instead.

So it's not politically correct, hauling nuclear reactors that weigh x tons up through the atmosphere, so what. It's the only really feasible way.
 
Are you sure subsonic flight is that much more efficient Grall? I mean it seems a significant quantity of energy is simply spent fighting 10ms^-2 accelleration towards the ground of a 100,000kg plane.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top