If you track the popular Internet videos, you may have come across a British TV production called The Great Global Warming Swindle (Google Video). I do not wish to defend the propaganda, the personalities, or the several straw man arguments that appear in this lengthy program.
All I want to focus on is the science.
This is a study of some global warming dissenters in the climate field.
Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth is also explored, in particular Gore's central claim, the theory of manmade global warming as a result of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere:
"The relationship is very complicated, but there is one relationship that is far more powerful than all the others, and it is this: when there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer." --Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth
This quote is presented in The Great Global Warming Swindle at around 20 minutes in, and then it is mercilessly shredded by the climate scientists.
According to Al Gore's theory, increased levels of carbon dioxide CAUSE an increase in global temperature. But, interestingly enough, Al Gore does not prove this in his film. Far from it. The very real possibility that increases in temperature cause an increase in carbon dioxide levels (and not vice-versa) is never addressed. Al Gore has short-changed humanity in this most glaring omission: establishing causation.
So, which is it?
Does a rise in carbon dioxide cause a rise in the temperature?
OR, does a rise in the temperature cause a rise in carbon dioxide?
This is no small question. The entire global economy is being reengineered on the assumption that the first scenario is true. But is it really?
What About 800 Years of Lag?
The big counter-argument to Gore is made by Professor Ian Clark, Dept. of Earth Sciences at the University of Ottawa. Clark says that the ice core record shows that changes in atomospheric carbon levels come after the temperature has already changed, in one example by as much as 800 years.
"CO2 clearly cannot be causing temperature changes. It's a product of temperature. It's following temperature changes." --Professor Ian Clark
This is highly significant, if true, as it completely disproves Al Gore's theory of manmade global warming. This view is seconded by Professor Tim Ball, a Climatologist at the University of Winnipeg:
"But the ice core record shows exactly the opposite. So the fundamental assumption, the most fundamental assumption of the whole theory of climate change -- due to humans -- is shown to be wrong." --(emphasis in original) Professor Tim Ball, Dept. of Climatology, University of Winnipeg
Is There a Better Alternative Theory?
The film presents an alternate theory that better matches the data: Changes in sun activity cause changes in global temperature.
This article is a load of rubbish. Of course the burning of fossil fuels and human activity is heating up the planet. One only need look back in time and compare the volumes of fuel bought, sold and used, and compare it to temperatures then to where we are today. I am positive the graph keeps pushing upward. Another real factor is the fact of mans incessant use of cementing the planet. With the developing of new roads and highways, and the building of new buildings, parking lots especially in cities, captures a lot of heat, and holds that heat causing a natural rise in temperature. No matter how you look at it fossil fuel use manipulates the building and construction materials that traps heat on earth. With more and more cars being built they are metal and they act just like the cement capturing the heat. Of course the planet is getting hotter. With CO2 rushing up into the atmosphere it acts as an insulator and keeps it hot inside, like a rising oven.
The politics is about not stopping Bush and everyone knows it, so stop bullshiting us John. Its about the War in Iraq. How do we think democracy can come to Iraq if they have no income? And their income comes from Oil. The Bush crooks want to exploit that oil in securing Iraq for America's security not Iraq's or the worlds. The world will become worse each and everyday if we continue on this free fall Bush is intending to push America off the cliff with.
I can hear Mr. Britches Bush now say are we going to allow some global warming threat stop our plans in the Middle East? Are we to think over 3,000 soldiers died for nothing, because of spreading Democracy? And this is where the lie is exposed! Because Bush should not have gone to War, and he is responsible for those deaths of not only US troops, but thousands of innocent Iraqis, and now he is planning to destroy the rest of the world with his archaic caveman thinking by stealing Iraqi Oil while getting ready to wage war with Iran.
We should never had gone into Iraq in the first place. Those issues could have been resolved peacefully, but Bush is a Warrior not a peace diplomat; which issues like this could have been used to convince positive change.
Not only is Bush insane he is blind and wants to take us all to his hot hell hole by supporting bad science and bad politics for his economic lies.
That's it. What causes the changes in the sun's activity? First these nay-sayers argue that Global Warming doesn't exist until it may be too late save the planet in a condition to host life. What proof do they offer that their mistakes aren't a habit?
Perhaps they have a corrective injection and the needle poised to control the sun. We need to dredge up an "activity" to put these planet killers in jail.
by
emily horswill (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 66 comments)
on Friday, April 6, 2007 at 1:13:29 AM
I really don't understand this irrational reasoning.
Actual scientists show that increased solar activity leads to increases in temperature, and vice-versa. You can argue the matter scientifically, and explore the issue, find alternative studies, etc.
But you really don't know anything about these people. Claiming that they said something you have no evidence for in the past is made out of thin air, and is not honest argument. Calling them names like "planet killers" is ad hominem garbage.
I believe most of the world's problems are a result of this knee jerk reactionary irrationalism which is not based on facts, but on being a member of some group. Groupthink (a psychologically proven phenomenon) is just as much a part of the problem here as anywhere else.
- sigh - Seventy or eighty percent of the work done is unnecessary.
It is done to make the money to live, because the infliction of finance means everyone has to pay for everything, food included, so we cannot live without working.
All the energy used in this unnecessary work and the means of its generation is overheating the planet, and the situation is already much worse than we are led to believe. - sigh -
A hundred and fifty years ago a Russian professor fingered the lubricating quality of oil and said, "But you can't burn this!" - Dammit, we have done nothing else BUT burn it! That's what cars and transport and travel are FOR! - To enable us to both burn oil and spend! And the infliction of the fiction of cash only enables us to do it all quicker and better. - In whose benefit? - In the benefit of those who inflict and manipulate cash. - And who are they? - sigh -
Do I really have to tell you again?
So, Gore nothwithstanding, not what, but WHO is really overheating the planet?
I have told you before, but if you want me to tell you again, you only have to say.
by
amazin (34 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 400 comments)
on Friday, April 6, 2007 at 5:26:22 AM
A lot of knee jerk, a lot of hystrionics. I see no scientific support of the theory that carbon dioxide CAUSES global warming. Since that is the topic of my article, I would expect the responses to at least tangentially reference the subject.
The film above (which you really should watch if you're going to comment), shows that the global temperature FELL for four decades, the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s and most of the 1970s. In the mid 70's, the leading train of thought predicted an impending "ice age." Carbon levels were rising at the same time global temperature was falling. This goes directly to the heart of the theory. Rather like a wooden stake.
I am not interested in ignorant knee jerk party line nonsense. If you have valid research that refutes what I said, then provide it.
The only valid points I have seen are that human development (cities and paving over the natural landscape) do trap heat more than otherwise. This is a localized phenomenon, and it is not support of the carbon dioxide theory which allegedly drives global warming. Apples are not oranges.
The fact is that significant research disproves the theory of "manmade global warming", and this is not a settled subject. I'll be damned if I'm going to allow new nuclear plants to be built on the basis of such flimsy science. Al Gore has some explaining to do. The fact that he never proved his case when he had a perfect opportunity to do so (his own documentary film), is highly suspicious.
Sorry to keep you waiting. I was trying to find an article I read recently on 'global dimming', which indicates that the problem is much worse than was previously thought. And I found it here -
And of course the condition of the sun at any time affects the climate on earth. The sun eventually will swallow the earth, and think what that will do to the climate.
Seriously though, we are making a hell of a mess of the planet, and this is being done by industry and human activity as needlessly revved-up by the fiction of 'the economy' and all that financial trash. - I can explain it all to you if you want, and how it done, but I have the feeling you wouldn't want to know, as you seem to have an agenda in mind.
Kind regards anyway.
by
amazin (34 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 400 comments)
on Saturday, April 7, 2007 at 10:32:03 AM
"I can explain it all to you if you want, and how it done, but I have the feeling you wouldn't want to know, as you seem to have an agenda in mind."
You don't know anything about me. I could say the same to you, but the link you provided seems to make MY case:
"NARRATOR: Burning fuel doesn't just produce the invisible greenhouse gases which cause [sic] global warming. It also produces visible pollution, tiny airborne particles of soot and other pollutants. These produce the haze which shrouds our cities. So Ramanathan wondered: Could this pollution be causing Global Dimming?"
So, global dimming is not even claimed to be a CARBON DIOXIDE issue. As the title of my piece, and the issue in dispute, is the invisible gas CARBON DIOXIDE I'd say I should expalin it all to you again. Or, you could reread the article above.
Other climatologists have falsified the CARBON DIOXIDE hypothesis in three differentt ways. Since the entire global warming movement is about limiting CARBON DIOXIDE and forcing these limitations onto the planet even though it may be a bogus issue, I remain skeptical in my highly reasoned assessment, despite the apparent "agenda" of others.
This BBC piece ASSUMES that CO2 "causes" global warming and does not prove it. The global dimming phenomenon is interesting and should be studied further, but you have not disproven anything those other scientists have told us about CARBON DIOXIDE.
When you claim other climatologists, whom exactly are you talking about. The 10% who will dispute GW because it conflicts with their one experiment concerning the sun??? How very convenient. GW testing involved thousands of in-field and in-laboratory experiments, compared against historical data, peer reviewed and then final hypothesis. Any one of these experiments, whether from a biologist or a climatologist, could have some debate to issues within the experiment, BUT when you put them all together the case for GW is very strong. Although, it is so easy to find one or two articles/experiments, pick them apart and then you can find out what you really wanted to find out in the first place (and save all of us a bunch oftime and brain cells), which is totally unrelated to GW. You just hate Al Gore, period. So all you need to look for is a way to disagree with GW and you found it with a very limited and nowhere near majority of climatologists who take your view and then you insult my capability to make independent, unbiased opinions.
I marvel how some people actually think that after 3 decades of scientific research that all of these gifted scientists just disregarded or forgot to factor in the suns powerful affect on planet earth.
I'm sorry that I can't just quote out of thin air the hundreds of articles over the years that helped me come upwith my opinion that GW is real until someone disproves the theory, all the while you probably can name every article that goes with your theory, all three of them....
BTW, I'm not going to debate this with you because your theory does not hold water in the majority opinion. You've made a minority decision, you're the one who has to do the proving and what you have so far is interesting, but lacking and is only a small part of the overall theory that man is contributing to this mess.
by
denvan (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 28 comments)
on Saturday, April 7, 2007 at 2:26:59 PM
More nonsense that you people have no basis for. When you can't support your argument you resort to character issues. I don't "hate" Al Gore. I actually shelled out $22 for his DVD, which until recently I believed was on the level. Take your drugstore pop psychology and shove it up your ass.
" So all you need to look for is a way to disagree with GW and you found it with a very limited and nowhere near majority of climatologists who take your view and then you insult my capability to make independent, unbiased opinions. "
What nonsense, unrelated to the topic, and even to the article I wrote.
Saying that the majority must be right and the minority must be wrong is an "independent unbiased opinion?" Science is not dependent upon the popularity of the idea. Only that it cannot be disproved, falsified, as this one apparently has been.
I'm not sure why demanding PROOF is so unthinkable to you knee jerkers. We are talking about remaking the world over, on the basis of unproven theories, and empowering certain people politically, economically, and many of the proposals are Stalinistic global monitoring schemes of everyone's carbon emissions. What's more, questioning the basis for this has entered the realm of the unthinkable, no matter if evidence exists to dispute the conclusions.
Gore pretended that he was presenting proof when he showed a massive graph of two sets of data in his film. He did not establish which change was causing which, and that is my area of contention.
There are more than three scientists who dissent. The film (which you apparently still haven't watched, although you keep arguing irrationally) shows at least six or seven on camera.
I am intrigued by the global dimming phenomenon, which may actually stand up to scientific scrutiny, while the CO2 hypothesis dies off eventually.
The people on this site, however, seem to be lightweight thinkers whose first instinct is to attack the character and purported motivations of anyone who dissents. That is a recipe for inbreeding, stagnation, herd behavior and ultimately an intellectual dead end.
How Do We Know that the Atmospheric Build-up of Greenhouse Gases Is Due to Human Activity?Four lines of evidence prove conclusively that the recent buildup of carbon dioxide arises largely from human activities.
The nuclei of carbon atoms in carbon dioxide emitted by burning coal, oil, and natural gas (fossil fuels) differ in their characteristics from the nuclei of carbon atoms in carbon dioxide emitted under natural conditions. Coal, oil, and natural gas were formed deep underground tens of millions of years ago, and the fraction of their nuclei that were once radioactive has long ago changed to non- radioactive carbon. But the carbon dioxide emitted from natural sources on the Earth's surface retains a measurable radioactive portion. As carbon dioxide has been emitted through fossil fuel combustion, the radioactive fraction of carbon in the atmosphere has decreased. Forty years ago scientists provided the first direct evidence that combustion of fossil fuels was causing a buildup of carbon dioxide and thereby diluting radioactive carbon in the atmosphere by measuring the decreasing fraction of radioactive carbon-14 captured in tree rings, each year between 1800 and 1950.
Secondly, scientists began making precise measurements of the total amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, and at the South Pole in the late 1950s. They have since expanded their observations to many other locations. Their data show convincingly that the levels of carbon dioxide have increased each year worldwide. Furthermore, these increases are consistent with other estimates of the rise of carbon dioxide emissions due to human activity over this period.
A third line of evidence has been added since 1980. Ice buried below the surface of the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps contains bubbles of air trapped when the ice originally formed. These samples of fossil air, some of them over 200,000 years old, have been retrieved by drilling deep into the ice. Measurements from the youngest and most shallow segments of the ice cores, which contain air from only a few decades ago, produce carbon dioxide concentrations nearly identical to those that were measured directly in the atmosphere at the time the ice formed. But the older parts of the cores show that carbon dioxide amounts were about 25% lower than today for the ten thousand years previous to the onset of industrialization, and over that period changed little.
The final line of evidence comes from the geographic pattern of carbon dioxide measured in air. Observations show that there is slightly more carbon dioxide in the northern hemisphere than in the southern hemisphere. The difference arises because most of the human activities that produce carbon dioxide are in the north and it takes about a year for northern hemispheric emissions to circulate through the atmosphere and reach southern latitudes.
Carbon dioxide is released to the atmosphere by a variety of sources, and over 95% percent of these emissions would occur even if human beings were not present on Earth. For example, the natural decay of organic material in forests and grasslands, such as dead trees, results in the release of about 220 billion tons of carbon dioxide every year. But these natural sources are nearly balanced by physical and biological processes, called natural sinks, which remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. For example, some carbon dioxide dissolves in sea water, and some is removed by plants as they grow.
As a result of this natural balance, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere would have changed little if human activities had not added an amount every year. This addition, presently about 3% of annual natural emissions, is sufficient to exceed the balancing effect of sinks. As a result, carbon dioxide has gradually accumulated in the atmosphere, until at present, its concentration is 30% above pre- industrial levels.
Direct atmospheric measurements of other human-produced greenhouse gases have not been made in as many places or for as long a period as they have for carbon dioxide. However, existing data for these other gases do show increasing concentrations of methane, nitrous oxide, and chlorofluorocarbons over recent decades. In addition, ice core data are available for methane and for nitrous oxide that demonstrate that the atmospheric concentrations of these gases began to increase in the past few centuries, after having been relatively constant for thousands of years. Chlorofluorocarbons are absent from deep ice cores because they have no natural sources and were not manufactured before 1930.
Yeah I read the article. I also know 1+1=2 where two is the answer and the changes which have produced more CO2 has also increased the temperature. I found this read, the authors can be found by following the link. http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/globalchange/index.html
The Greenhouse Effect is commonly mentioned in the context of ?Global Warming?, that is, the observation that the northern hemisphere has warmed by more than 1°F over the last 100 years, and that the decades of the 1980s and 1990s have been the warmest on record, as far as can be ascertained, for the last 1000 years. What is at issue when discussing global warming, however, is not the Greenhouse Effect by itself, but an additional Greenhouse Effect, in excess of the one that Earth has naturally. The Excess Greenhouse Effect is produced by the release of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, from human economic activities.
To understand the natural Greenhouse Effect (which makes Earth a pleasant place to live) we have to look at the energy balance between incoming sunlight heating Earth and outgoing heat radiation cooling the planet. The two must balance, since the Earth has stayed at roughly the same temperature for millions of years (as shown by the fact that the fish and corals in the ocean and the trees and insects on land have been around for a very long time). If we were to measure the temperature of the Earth from space, the Earth's effective radiation surface (not the ground surface, but what-is-seen-from-space-in-the-infrared, actually a zone) would show a temperature of roughly ?18 degrees Celsius (about 0°F). This is the temperature that is appropriate for the requirement that incoming and outgoing energy must balance. At this temperature, our planet radiates a quantity of heat into space that is the same as that amount of sunlight received from the Sun that is converted into heat on the ground and in the atmosphere.
How then can we speak of ?global warming? when we have just stated that the Earth (as seen from space) MUST stay at the same temperature? And how is it that the average temperature of the Earth?s effective radiation surface is only a chilly 0°F? How can we get away with wearing T-shirts?
The key to understanding this apparent contradiction is to remember that we live at the bottom of the gaseous sea called ?atmosphere.? As far as the Earth?s radiation balance is concerned, the lower atmosphere and the surface of Earth form part of a ?warm interior? of the planet. In the process of ?global warming?, this interior ? the lower atmosphere ? warms up.
The relevant surface for re-radiation of heat that we see from space is located well above the real surface of the Earth where we live. The Earth?s heat radiation zone is centered about 5000 meters up (17,000 feet) within the atmosphere. To get a better handle on this concept consider the following: the difference in elevation between 0 meters and 5,000 meters corresponds to a difference in temperature of about 60°F. In other words, at sea level it is 60°F warmer than it would be without the atmosphere. How does global warming affect this picture? We must assume that, upon warming the lower atmosphere, the radiative surface (what-is-seen-from-space-in-the-infrared) moves upward in the atmosphere. The rise can be seen in the changing positions of the snow line (the elevation where snow stays on the ground) and tree line (the elevation where it becomes too cold for trees to grow). However, despite all these changes happening in the lower atmosphere, the overall temperature of the planet as seen from space stays the same.
How is it possible that the Earth exactly balances the incoming sunlight with the outgoing heat radiation? The answer is simple: the amount of heat radiation from Earth is precisely tied to the temperature of the atmosphere. If the temperature of the heat radiation surface is too low and Earth radiates too little heat to keep the balance, Earth will warm up and then radiate more heat into space. If the temperature of the heat radiation surface is too high and Earth radiates more heat than it receives, the planet will become colder and consequently radiate less energy back to space. Overall, this ?negative feedback? stabilizes the radiation balance despite all the variations of temperature from one place to another and within the vertical column of the atmosphere. It sets the temperature so that the incoming and outgoing energy is balanced.
We can get another idea about what the temperature on Earth would be like without a greenhouse atmosphere by contemplating the Moon. The Earth?s satellite has no atmosphere because its gravitational force is not strong enough to retain gas for long. It has the same distance from the Sun as the Earth, but its temperature varies enormously: where the Sun is shining, the Moon?s temperature rises to 230°F and where it is dark falls to negative 290°F. The average surface temperature of the moon is also near 0°F. By contrast, the average surface temperature of the Earth is 60°F at sea level. On Earth, the contrast between maximum and minimum temperatures would not be as great as on the Moon, even without an atmosphere, because the Earth rotates once in a day, while the Moon only rotates once in a month. However, without an atmosphere the Earth?s contrast between day and night and the contrast between summer and winter would be very large indeed.
Not all the gases in the atmosphere are equally active in keeping Earth warm. In fact, the atmosphere?s most abundant gas, molecular nitrogen, does very little in this regard, and the same is true for the second most abundant gas, molecular oxygen. The most important ingredient of the air for producing the greenhouse effect is water vapor. However, its abundance depends on the air's temperature. The warmer the air, the more water vapor it can hold. (As air cools, the vapor condenses into rain or snow.) It is carbon dioxide which moves the air toward higher temperature, so that water vapor can take over and warm it some more. Carbon dioxide molecules intercept infrared radiation, warming the air, which increases water vapor through evaporation from the sea surface and from plants and soil moisture. Water vapor then increases the temperature even more. The process is checked by a rise in infrared radiation to space and by formation of clouds.
Unfortunately, the role of clouds in the radiation balance is as yet poorly understood. Different types of clouds have different effects, and this makes the calculations complicated and the results uncertain. Clouds reflect sunlight, reducing the incoming energy that can be converted to heat. (On a hot summer day, when clouds start covering the sky, we feel relief from the shading.) Clouds also intercept heat radiation from the Earth?s surface and atmosphere, and radiate heat back down, warming the surface. (A cloudy night in the desert is much warmer than one with a starry sky.) Which of these processes ? reflection of sunlight or trapping of outgoing heat ? dominates in a given situation depends on circumstances and on cloud properties. The uncertainties surrounding the role of clouds prevent a precise calculation of the effects of the excess Greenhouse Effect (from release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases) on the temperature of the lower atmosphere. From the fact that the natural Greenhouse Effect keeps us nice and warm, we know that the Greenhouse Effect works. Thus, we know that global warming is inevitable when greenhouse gases are added to the atmosphere. Estimates of overall warming from a doubling of carbon dioxide fall largely within the range of between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees Celsius (roughly 3 to 8°F), although values outside this range also have been suggested.
by
Dom Jermano (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 40 diaries, 930 comments)
on Monday, April 9, 2007 at 11:22:36 PM
When we get to the actual science, it's not so cut and dry.
"Unfortunately, the role of clouds in the radiation balance is as yet poorly understood. Different types of clouds have different effects, and this makes the calculations complicated and the results uncertain. Clouds reflect sunlight, reducing the incoming energy that can be converted to heat. (On a hot summer day, when clouds start covering the sky, we feel relief from the shading.) Clouds also intercept heat radiation from the Earth?s surface and atmosphere, and radiate heat back down, warming the surface. (A cloudy night in the desert is much warmer than one with a starry sky.) Which of these processes ? reflection of sunlight or trapping of outgoing heat ? dominates in a given situation depends on circumstances and on cloud properties. The uncertainties surrounding the role of clouds prevent a precise calculation of the effects of the excess Greenhouse Effect (from release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases) on the temperature of the lower atmosphere."
These are complex systems with more factors than we can contemplate. What I do know for sure is:
1. Gore's film does not prove the theory of manmade global warming
2. The data he presented of carbon dioxide CAUSING temperature fluctuations is a fraud, because the carbon dioxide levels change AFTER the temperature changes, by hundreds of years. This is because the oceans absorb more CO2 when colder, and emit more CO2 when hotter. This also means that there is no historical precedent for greenhouse gases initiating a change in the temperature (at least not the last 640,000 years).
3. A period of global cooling occurred from 1940-76, with the alarmists of the day predicting a new ice age, even though "greenhouse gases" were steadily increasing.
4. Changes in solar activity correlate to the changes in global temperature more precisely than do CO2 level changes. This means that the sun output is driving the global temperature changes, including during that 1940-76 period that remains unexplained by the CO2 theory.
5. Manmade contributions of CO2 are a small percentage, "IN THE SINGLE DIGITS, PERCENTAGE WISE" of the total CO2 in the atmosphere. When they talk about a "doubling," it appears that they mean a doubling of the small percentage contributed by humans, not the total amount of CO2 (correct me if I'm wrong).
6. CO2 actually has beneficial uses, like keeping agriculture alive. Demonizing it so thoroughly while understanding its role so "poorly," seems a bit premature to me.
I have done my own research. And I continue to do so.
Should the sun activity slow down, and temperatures start falling globally, will we be begging for more "greenhouse gases" to keep us from freezing to death?
by
johndoraemi (17 articles, 12 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 166 comments)
on Wednesday, April 11, 2007 at 12:24:12 PM
The radioactive waste is the problem, with workers working around it for reprocessing. And the life is limited. Reprocessing costs billions and it really does not eliminate the waste. All it does is slow down the amount of waste tostore.Because after reprocessing the reprocessed rods, you still have the same problem of where to store the waste. 2nd reprocessing is useless. There is not a great deal of uranium in the world, and with its limited supply how is spending billions to build these plants to later sell as cheap electricity? The Nuke business is like the Oil business, low supply and the price keeps climbing.In fact it certainly costs more in building the recycling plant than the cost to build the original nuke plant that supplies the electricity. Nuke power for electricity is a bandaid; and then countries are going to be fighting over who gets the nuke materials; the military for bomb building or for the electricity grid. With the heat given off by these plants how can they honestly say nuclear power does not cause global warming? And the heat lasts for years in its radioactive waste form. They should save the uranium for their plans in space. Ship payloads to Mars, and build a plant there. Certainly it would benefit that planet, give it heat, and plenty of space to store the waste. You Scientists don't use your head enough I think. Obviously politicians never do anyway. Mars is the perfect place for Nuclear Technology.
by
Dom Jermano (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 40 diaries, 930 comments)
on Monday, April 9, 2007 at 8:07:24 AM
The sun has been extremely active over the last several years - this is scientific fact. Our magnetic field surrounding our planet has been fluctuating like crazy - another fact that interferes with the other electrical properties of our planet that drives our weather systems. Also, Mars has been experiencing climate change, even Jupiter has a new red spot - a storm so massive you could fit multiple earths inside of it.
Now, I do believe we are harming our planet - probably in more ways than we know. Anything introduced into an environment in an over-abundant or unnatural way could be considered a pollutant. If you dump a bunch of crisp clean fresh water into a saltwater tank you'll kill your fish. I have no doubt that our addiction to fossil fuels is bad for our planet, and may be compounding the problem at hand. Also, theses resources are finite, and we already possess the technology to produce energy without burning fossil fuels - which is another reason not to fight wars over them!
However, to dismiss the other events in the solar system as a non-issue, while blindly following Al Gore and crew won't help us in the long run. If you'll notice, we already see where this is going - Entities like the UN put out reports talking about the current/impending water shortages and drought, and simultaneously Forbes is running articles on how water will be the next OIL - that the privatization of water will be where the moneys at! This is only one example of many where world leaders and businessmen are feverishly trying to use this cause to screw people over rather than taking the steps to prepare and make the real sacrifices to ensure our future prosperity.
Is climate change occuring - YES
Should we believe everything politicians or UN sposored scientific events have to say on global warming so quickly - NO
There should be rational public debate followed up by real measures - paying carbon taxes and changing our lightbulbs will have little benifit while we're still fighting imperialist wars for oil and land.
by
Ben (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 46 comments)
on Monday, April 9, 2007 at 10:32:48 AM
"I have no doubt that our addiction to fossil fuels is bad for our planet, and may be compounding the problem at hand. "
Of course pollution is a problem. I do believe there are cleaner ways of burning fuel which do not produce so much smog and particulates, but will still emit CO2. This is a very complex area (as evidenced just in the responses here).
The point is that this obsessive focus on carbon dioxide is probably a sleight of hand technique to have the rubes staring at one thing while the magicians manipulate a whole lot of other things. In particular, you should be very, very afraid of Democrats who found nuclear power as the next holy grail.
There was an article around 9-11, that I will find, that told of what would havehappened if one of the hijacked planes had crashed into the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant (which it flew right over) instead of the World Trade Center.
I will not live near a nuclear power plant, period. And have moved with the mind of getting away from them. The operators have no liability if their reactor destroys hundreds of square miles of property, including yours.
CORRECTION:
I had an error in my original article. The .054% CO2 figure should have been 0.54%. Apparently no one noticed.
by
johndoraemi (17 articles, 12 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 166 comments)
on Monday, April 9, 2007 at 1:32:19 PM
"Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. It traps heat radiation that is attempting to escape from Earth. The physics of this process was established by the Irish physicist John Tyndall (1820 - 1891) and the effect was calculated by Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius (1859 - 1927). " I got this from: http://earthguide.ucsd.edu So Gore is an alarmist for calmly repeating a scientific fact? Inhof insults Gore and calls him a fear monger and tries to get him to sign a contract, then he puts up a picture of a girl dressed in rags and says Gores policies will cause her heating bill to go up so much that she will need TWO blankets to keep warm.
by
Pleru (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 10 comments)
on Monday, April 9, 2007 at 4:13:34 PM
"In fact, the answer is not known with a high degree of certainty, not only because of the lack-of-equlibrium problem (which involves uptake of heat by the ocean), but also because of additional complexities arising from air pollution, trace gases other than carbon dioxide, possible changes in the brightness of the Sun, and effects from volcanic activity."
Further data cited conflicts with other studies:
"The minor drops in temperature right after 1900 and after 1960 coincide with reduced solar activity. "
This is outdated and inaccurate. The solar record corresponds dramatically on a decade by d
