[742]

Originally Posted by ///Matt

PROPAGANDA.

Not saying it's all lies, but it's definitely geared towards convincing you to do something the producers want.

Like Fox News?

[ganeil]

Originally Posted by 742

Like Fox News?

And ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, CNN, NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, Boston Globe, Time, Newsweek...

[///Matt]

Originally Posted by dr325i

Math & Engineering ... Spelling...
Ahm, yes, the top Engineering school where we focused on Math and Engineering, not spelling and grammar... Again, shows some points about your IQ, Mr. Mensa...



Sorry, not much to base an opinion about you except your known age and childish comments, just like this one... You just keep proving it yourself...

Anyway, there are much better things here to discuss than answer your empty assults...

[DFW_M]

Originally Posted by ganeil

And ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, CNN, NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, Boston Globe, Time, Newsweek...

Yep, the news is so unreliable today...
I am hoping that the political division would be put aside on this issue. Somehow, I believe that the opinions would have been reversed if, say, Bob Dole came up with this movie...

[Romo]

Originally Posted by dr325i

Exactly, that is why we should make sure we're not causing the majority of it, and we are to find the way to slow it down or reverse it.

Slowing down or reverse can never be done by lowering CO2 emissions. A simple volcano eruption would produce an amount of CO2 that humans have never produced before.
Furthermore, CO2 isn`t the worst global warming gas, that in fact is CH4, wich comes in incredeble amounts out of our oceans.
In either case it`s like bringing water to the sea, it will never make a difference .
Of course it is a verry good thing to make cleaner energy, to have en produce less pollution and showe some good behavior towards our planet called Earth, there is no substitute yet........................

[DFW_M]

Originally Posted by Romo

Slowing down or reverse can never be done by lowering CO2 emissions. A simple volcano eruption would produce an amount of CO2 that humans have never produced before.
Furthermore, CO2 isn`t the worst global warming gas, that in fact is CH4, wich comes in incredeble amounts out of our oceans.
In either case it`s like bringing water to the sea, it will never make a difference .
Of course it is a verry good thing to make cleaner energy, to have en produce less pollution and showe some good behavior towards our planet called Earth, there is no substitute yet........................

So, are you saying it is meant to be and the end is nearing...
Interesting how these excessive levels of CO2, temperature, and other adverse environmental things happened in last 50-ish years during the industrial boom... Makes me believe that we are indeed contributing the majority to it?

[ganeil]

Originally Posted by dr325i

So, are you saying it is meant to be and the end is nearing...
Interesting how these excessive levels of CO2, temperature, and other adverse environmental things happened in last 50-ish years during the industrial boom... Makes me believe that we are indeed contributing the majority to it?

The earth's temperature stayed constant until 50 years ago?

Hurricanes, tornadoes, heat waves are a new phenomenon?

No one doubts that the earth is currently in a warming trend but to lay that fact at the feat of man's activities without examining the current conditions in relation to the earth's history is pointless. The bottom line is fossil fuels drive the world economy and artificially restricting their use will have a severe economic costs for very questionable benefits.

[Romo]

Originally Posted by dr325i

So, are you saying it is meant to be and the end is nearing...
Interesting how these excessive levels of CO2, temperature, and other adverse environmental things happened in last 50-ish years during the industrial boom... Makes me believe that we are indeed contributing the majority to it?

What I`m saying is that there are people/ governments/companies who are gonna make HUGE proffits because we have to decrease CO2 levels and we have to pay big money for that.
The verry sad thing is however; We are gonna pay money for something that NEVER won`t work..................................also sad is that most people are glad to pay because they are realy convinced it will make a difference, never knowing that this is a complete rip of!!

Nature will take it`s course, so it was in the past, so it will be in the future, we must not make the human race to important, we are less than a one days fly in the universe.

[DFW_M]

Originally Posted by ganeil

The earth's temperature stayed constant until 50 years ago?

Hurricanes, tornadoes, heat waves are a new phenomenon?

No one doubts that the earth is currently in a warming trend but to lay that fact at the feat of man's activities without examining the current conditions in relation to the earth's history is pointless. The bottom line is fossil fuels drive the world economy and artificially restricting their use will have a severe economic costs for very questionable benefits.

Pointless or not...
Definitely...fairly constant (and lower) till lately (1970's and on)... By constant I am saying over the previous (lets say 200 years).
Some say, the sun got hotter, but what I don't buy is how come it is getting so rapidly hotter all of the sudden. See the links -- only Gov't agencies no "Global Warming Propaganda" stuff:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

Further from NOAA (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/...warming.html):
"Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are about 370 ppmv. The concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today, has not been exceeded in the last 420,000 years, and likely not in the last 20 million years. According to the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES), by the end of the 21st century, we could expect to see carbon dioxide concentrations of anywhere from 490 to 1260 ppm (75-350% above the pre-industrial concentration)."

NASA (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20060925/):

"A new study by NASA scientists finds that the world's temperature is reaching a level that has not been seen in thousands of years."

Someone is passing the wrong info out there...

[mike138]

[ganeil]

Originally Posted by dr325i

Pointless or not...
Definitely...fairly constant (and lower) till lately (1970's and on)... By constant I am saying over the previous (lets say 200 years).
Some say, the sun got hotter, but what I don't buy is how come it is getting so rapidly hotter all of the sudden. See the links -- only Gov't agencies no "Global Warming Propaganda" stuff:

But there has been no increase in the rate of warming since the 1970's. In fact it has been very stable at 0.17deg C/decade.

Also from Cambridge astrophysicist Nigel Weiss:

"Typically, sunspots flare up and settle down in cycles of about 11 years. In the last 50 years, we haven't been living in typical times: "If you look back into the sun's past, you find that we live in a period of abnormally high solar activity," Dr. Weiss states.These hyperactive periods do not last long, "perhaps 50 to 100 years, then you get a crash," says Dr. Weiss. 'It's a boom-bust system, and I would expect a crash soon." In addition to the 11-year cycle, sunspots almost entirely "crash," or die out, every 200 years or so as solar activity diminishes. When the crash occurs, the Earth can cool dramatically. Dr. Weiss knows because these phenomenon, known as "Grand minima," have recurred over the past 10,000 years, if not longer."

[DFW_M]

Originally Posted by ganeil

But there has been no increase in the rate of warming since the 1970's. In fact it has been very stable at 0.17deg C/decade.

Also from Cambridge astrophysicist Nigel Weiss:

"Typically, sunspots flare up and settle down in cycles of about 11 years. In the last 50 years, we haven't been living in typical times: "If you look back into the sun's past, you find that we live in a period of abnormally high solar activity," Dr. Weiss states.These hyperactive periods do not last long, "perhaps 50 to 100 years, then you get a crash," says Dr. Weiss. 'It's a boom-bust system, and I would expect a crash soon." In addition to the 11-year cycle, sunspots almost entirely "crash," or die out, every 200 years or so as solar activity diminishes. When the crash occurs, the Earth can cool dramatically. Dr. Weiss knows because these phenomenon, known as "Grand minima," have recurred over the past 10,000 years, if not longer."

So if the CO2 concentration by the end of 21st century really reaches 1200 ppm (according to NASA above), you think that the temperature will only rise by 1.7 degrees (0.17C/dec). Why would the Green Gas (CO2), that constitutes a large portion of Venus atmosphere, increase by 4x if the only thing we're seeing is the "Sun's phase"?

[ganeil]

Originally Posted by dr325i

So if the CO2 concentration by the end of 21st century really reaches 1200 ppm (according to NASA above), you think that the temperature will only rise by 1.7 degrees (0.17C/dec). Why would the Green Gas (CO2), that constitutes a large portion of Venus atmosphere, increase by 4x if the only thing we're seeing is the "Sun's phase"?

You assume that the models used by the IPCC are accurate and that their worst case scenario will come to pass. There are major problems with the methodology used by the IPCC and the assumptions they made in their models.

Here is one major flaw:

Regarding these models, the Third Assessment’s Summary claims that:

“Confidence in the ability of models to project future climate has increased. Understanding of climate processes and their incorporation in climate models have improved, including water vapour, sea-ice dynamics, and ocean heat transport.”

Yet Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, professor of meteorology at MIT and a lead author of Chapter 7 of the TAR, commented on this claim:

“This statement summarizes a chapter which points out that all these things are done poorly, and that no model comes close to realistically depicting clouds. Moreover, clouds and water vapor are so intimately related that it is inconceivable that one would get water vapor right and clouds wrong. It also ignores that it is the behavior of water vapor and clouds (the atmosphere’s main greenhouse substances) are responsible for model predictions of large warming. Increased CO2 alone, will produce little warming (about 1 degree Celsius for a doubling of CO2). This point is made in Chapter 7.”

[TommyBahama]

first he invented the internet, now he is single handly saving the world. ladies and gentlemen i think we are witnessing the second coming. Jesus is back and his name is Al Gore.

[DFW_M]

Originally Posted by ganeil

You assume that the models used by the IPCC are accurate and that their worst case scenario will come to pass. There are major problems with the methodology used by the IPCC and the assumptions they made in their models.

Here is one major flaw:

Regarding these models, the Third Assessment’s Summary claims that:

“Confidence in the ability of models to project future climate has increased. Understanding of climate processes and their incorporation in climate models have improved, including water vapour, sea-ice dynamics, and ocean heat transport.”

Yet Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, professor of meteorology at MIT and a lead author of Chapter 7 of the TAR, commented on this claim:

“This statement summarizes a chapter which points out that all these things are done poorly, and that no model comes close to realistically depicting clouds. Moreover, clouds and water vapor are so intimately related that it is inconceivable that one would get water vapor right and clouds wrong. It also ignores that it is the behavior of water vapor and clouds (the atmosphere’s main greenhouse substances) are responsible for model predictions of large warming. Increased CO2 alone, will produce little warming (about 1 degree Celsius for a doubling of CO2). This point is made in Chapter 7.”

So, it says 1C if the CO2 doubles, hence close to 2C (assuming a non-linear relationship) if it quadruples as the NASA report predicted.

From the graphs depicting the history of temperature, it looks like over past hundred of years we warmed up by only 0.2-0.5C, and experienced a jump of about 0.4C in last 30-ish years. Don't you think that your assertion of 2C warming would be significant??? So, actually, yes, the CO2 level does have a lot of influence on it.

Aside those articles you pointed to, lets use a common sense. The CO2 traps the heat in the atmosphere, my 5-year-old knows that. More of CO2 in the atmosphere is not good, we should all agree on it. Most of CO2 comes from our by-products -- fossil fuels, and other burning stuff we produce. Is that the only and the major cause of the warming...maybe, maybe not. If we limit the production of CO2, would it benefit us -- no doubt.

So, we can call it a Global Warming (increasingly becoming a political terminology), or less O2 in the air, or more $hit in the air...does not matter. More CO2 up there is not a good thing.

[ganeil]

Originally Posted by dr325i

So, it says 1C if the CO2 doubles, hence close to 2C (assuming a non-linear relationship) if it quadruples as the NASA report predicted.

From the graphs depicting the history of temperature, it looks like over past hundred of years we warmed up by only 0.2-0.5C, and experienced a jump of about 0.4C in last 30-ish years. Don't you think that your assertion of 2C warming would be significant??? So, actually, yes, the CO2 level does have a lot of influence on it.

Aside those articles you pointed to, lets use a common sense. The CO2 traps the heat in the atmosphere, my 5-year-old knows that. More of CO2 in the atmosphere is not good, we should all agree on it. Most of CO2 comes from our by-products -- fossil fuels, and other burning stuff we produce. Is that the only and the major cause of the warming...maybe, maybe not. If we limit the production of CO2, would it benefit us -- no doubt.

So, we can call it a Global Warming (increasingly becoming a political terminology), or less O2 in the air, or more $hit in the air...does not matter. More CO2 up there is not a good thing.

There is a cost/benefit consideration here. You assume no benefit from increased CO2 and warming, only cost but no cost to lowering CO2 and only benefit.

Also, how can we have only warmed 0.2-0.5C in the past 100 years when the rate of warming has been 0.17C per decade for 30 years?

[DFW_M]

Originally Posted by ganeil

Also, how can we have only warmed 0.2-0.5C in the past 100 years when the rate of warming has been 0.17C per decade for 30 years?

Pretty clear plot from NOAA

[NaTuReB0Y]

Who killed the electric car?

I remembered doing a research paper in college about 12 years ago....

that by 2008....10% of all California Cars will be Electric Cars......and it's 2007!

[ganeil]

Originally Posted by dr325i

Pretty clear plot from NOAA

I may not be too good at math but isn't going from -0.4 in 1900 to +0.5 in 2000 a change of 0.9?

[DFW_M]

Originally Posted by ganeil

I may not be too good at math but isn't going from -0.4 in 1900 to +0.5 in 2000 a change of 0.9?

your math is OK, your graph interpretation needs more work...
Anyways, you're focusing on the wrong point. The point is that a warm up of 2C is more significant than 0.5, or 0.9C...

[E91 Dude]

Originally Posted by NaTuReB0Y

Who killed the electric car?

I remembered doing a research paper in college about 12 years ago....

that by 2008....10% of all California Cars will be Electric Cars......and it's 2007!

Have you seen that movie? I just watched "Who Killed the Electric Car" last night. It was a good watch too.

[DFW_M]

Originally Posted by E91 Dude

Have you seen that movie? I just watched "Who Killed the Electric Car" last night. It was a good watch too.

so...who killed it?