Eric D
Basic Member
Posts:104
 |
| 20 Jan 2009 07:18 PM |
|
One good thing from this nonstop arctic blast of winter, it will show the limits of a geo system, as many folks here are finding out. What I want to know, why don't we hear a word in the news about global warming this time of year? I guess I should be happy for global warming. Just think how bad this heating season really could have been without it! |
|
| Eric D<br>Southern Michigan |
|
|
|
|
geo fan
Basic Member
Posts:408
|
| 20 Jan 2009 07:31 PM |
|
my understanding on what to expect with global warming . Is an average world wide ( mainly ocean ) change in wind pattern . like a glass of ice water you can add allot of energy to it without a major increase in temp . our planet is a glass of ice water , we are at a saturation temp ( overall ) where both ice and water can exist , most of the added energy goes to changing the state of ice to water , as opposed to warming air or water . Once that energy doesn't have that great heat sink available to it . actually warming takes place
Maybe Im wrong but it sure sounds right |
|
|
|
|
geothermal4592
New Member
Posts:4
|
| 20 Jan 2009 07:47 PM |
|
Is there any possibility that the earths temps are cyclical and that global warming is a myth? |
|
|
|
|
geo fan
Basic Member
Posts:408
|
| 20 Jan 2009 08:03 PM |
|
Yes . Why risk it ?
Is there a possibility we got all the terrorists all ready , should we stop looking? |
|
|
|
|
TechGromit
Advanced Member
Posts:634
|
| 21 Jan 2009 08:39 AM |
|
I could be getting a whole hell of a lot colder if the link below is correct:
http://www.utne.com/2004-02-01/GlobalWarmingMayTriggeranIceAgeSoon.aspx
In short it says that if global warming disrupted the gulf stream, it could trigger a new ice age. In a few years you could be thiking about the good old days when it was ONLY -20 during the winter.
|
|
|
|
|
Ona
Basic Member
Posts:189
|
| 21 Jan 2009 11:20 AM |
|
While this phenomenon was referred to as "global warming" it is now referred to as Climate Change because while some areas will get warmer, some will in fact get cooler (but most areas will get warmer).
The reason that all reputable scientists now confirm that climate change exists and that we must act to suppress it is because even if this is a cyclical process, as a species the human race is emitting many thousands of tons of extra greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than what would naturally occur. So, while it might be cyclical that temps rise etc, we are pushing this swing in the cycle to a point where it may become out of control.
Let me make the point that the people who are trying to suppress climate change are not trying to "save the earth." What they are trying to do is prevent events from happening that will negatively effect humans. The Earth will survive climate change. The Earth will react with more violent storms and warming in some areas. Most scientists agree that geographic locations will get the same amount or more rainfall, but it will all happen in a few episodes which means drought with intermittent flooding. Actually many humans will most likely survive climate change, what we are losing is quality of life and unpredictable catastrophic weather.
|
|
|
|
|
Eric D
Basic Member
Posts:104
|
| 21 Jan 2009 12:18 PM |
|
Ona,
I’m not saying that there is or is not global warming. I do know that many universities are supplied moneys to study these affects. Your comment “all reputable scientists” has a strong undertone that if you don’t agree you're not reputable. It is a scientist job and responsibility to question everything and let the data tell the story, not the political realm. A big part of my job everyday is looking at data and drawing conclusions from it. These conclusions go through peer reviews and the validity is strengthened or the short comings are exposed.
If the data is out there that supports global warming, why isn’t shared? What I have found with much of this topic is opinions with references to data that leads nowhere. The link that TechGromit provided is a prime example. If you go to the link and click on any of the sources, they go nowhere. Why is that?
At the risk of being politically incorrect, I believe humans are being blamed for more then they deserve in regards to climate change of our earth. I would love to have the real data that proves me to be wrong. If you have a source please post it.
Regards, |
|
| Eric D<br>Southern Michigan |
|
|
ContractorPete
Basic Member
Posts:115
|
| 21 Jan 2009 12:36 PM |
|
What is the ideal temperature of earth? : ) |
|
| [email protected]<br> |
|
|
Ona
Basic Member
Posts:189
|
| 21 Jan 2009 02:28 PM |
|
There is not one ideal temperature for the Earth. The question at hand is: What is the ideal temperature for humans to live with the fewest respiratory diseases (have you noticed the spike in asthma? - both child and adult check out the Journal of American Medical Association (i.e. JAMA)). We also still want to able to produce the food that we have become accustomed to. |
|
|
|
|
Dean in Edmonton
New Member
Posts:16
|
| 21 Jan 2009 02:30 PM |
|
Global warming is in al gore's pocket.
Remember chicken little?
|
|
|
|
|
slenzen
Basic Member
Posts:434
|
| 21 Jan 2009 03:16 PM |
|
They changed from global warming to climate change so the elitists can implement their agenda whether it is getting warmer or cooler. Same crock of crap, different name. Similar to Democrats now becoming "Progressives"! Wow, "change" I can really believe in!
The weather man can't predict the weather accurately tomorrow. To think we can isolate man as the cause of weather change, throwing out DRASTIC weather change for millions of years before modern man's time and then projecting into the future is a joke.
Man didn't kill off the dinosaurs nor create the ice ages. I think man is a factor in the ecosystem but however, not a controlling factor. |
|
|
|
|
Ona
Basic Member
Posts:189
|
| 21 Jan 2009 03:40 PM |
|
Actually, man made GHG's are a large factor and as I wrote in my earlier post, it is enough of a factor to have already made changes. So, while we can control man made GHG emissions it seems logical that it would be where we would want to focus. I believe it is a respectable trait to try to be proactive about possible events rather than reactive. All scientists now agree that this is something to work on, I am surpised at the anger that is spouted with a scientific topic. Read the science and it is clear... I don't care about Al Gore or any other politicians, as a matter of fact, most scientists don't. Some people take this topic and yell "the sky is falling we must put all our resources into finding a solution" and some people say "load of crap, don't believe a work of it" both sets of these people are just trying to enrage people. The people who work in this field know that a true response is somewhere in the middle. We know that anthropogenic GHG emissions are not good so let's start to work on them... pretty simple. This should not be emotional, it is based on science.
|
|
|
|
|
geo fan
Basic Member
Posts:408
|
| 21 Jan 2009 09:20 PM |
|
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/index.htmlI think the EPA actualy explains it pretty well My major change in thinking on this topic happened when I had children . Its all about trying to provide the best world possible for them. The way I see it we have 2 choices do nothing , do something There is no blame , no party , no guilt , just two choices I would rather here , why not , then why should I but thats just me |
|
|
|
|
engineer
Veteran Member
Posts:2749
|
| 21 Jan 2009 11:23 PM |
|
It's headed down to 20 deg F here in Jacksonville, FL
Anyone have a part number for some of that global warming? |
|
Curt Kinder <br><br>
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is - Winston Churchill <br><br><a href="http://www.greenersolutionsair.com">www.greenersolutionsair.com</a>
|
|
|
geo fan
Basic Member
Posts:408
|
| 21 Jan 2009 11:29 PM |
|
20 thats tee shirt weather |
|
|
|
|
joe.ami
Veteran Member
Posts:4377
|
| 21 Jan 2009 11:37 PM |
|
One morning in Desert Storm we looked out into dark skies. Darker than night. The Kuwaiti oil fires postponed sunrise from 5 am 'til 10. We surmised it would be a banner day for Jehovah's Witnesses back home. "Experts" predicted long term consequence. The desert rained for 2 weeks- problem solved. Exon Valdez impact for years to come- 1year. World war 2 spilled more oil in the water in 1 day.
While it takes a certain amount of arrogance to think we can impact mother nature, I'm not opposed to good stuardship of my sons' planet, but I'm never a fan of junk science or intelectual dishonesty.
Two points I will never forget from my refrigerant handler's certification nearly 20 years ago;
The autors suggested that the fact that so many scientists searched for a solution must mean there's a problem (ummm, yeah scientists would never want government grants to research problems-real or imagined). CFC's are heavier than air (volcanos blasting chlorine and flourine gas into the air aren't the problem, can't get high enough, it's your hairspray). Mt St. Helena Washington didn't know this when she hit michigan with discharge.
I often joke as Eric has that my chattering teeth haven't signed onto the global warming band wagon.
We can agree to disagree on the science, but I think reasonable people will agree that the use of less energy is a good thing.
To save money (on the heating/cooling bill) or to save the planet, that's why we're all here.
J
|
|
Joe Hardin
www.amicontracting.com
We Dig Comfort!
www.doityourselfgeothermal.com
Dig Your Own Comfort! |
|
|
geo fan
Basic Member
Posts:408
|
| 21 Jan 2009 11:55 PM |
|
The only problem with the drop in the bucket mentality is that it leeds to a full bucket .
I beleive that the science is in on the fact that the world is changing . the argument is why and how much.
As I stated in my first post warming dosnt present itself in warmer temps at first .
To say what you or I do , or isolated small incodents ( in the scope of time ) has no lasting effect is for the most part true
but even a drip of water will cut stone if it drips long enough
smoking 100 packs of smokes in a month is bad , but you would recover
1 pack a day for 40 years you got problems
Every action will have a reaction , and thats no junk science |
|
|
|
|
joe.ami
Veteran Member
Posts:4377
|
| 22 Jan 2009 12:06 AM |
|
? |
|
Joe Hardin
www.amicontracting.com
We Dig Comfort!
www.doityourselfgeothermal.com
Dig Your Own Comfort! |
|
|
geo fan
Basic Member
Posts:408
|
| 22 Jan 2009 12:11 AM |
|
If thinking our actions effect the planet requires some arrogance
thinking our actions wont have consequences requires some ignorance |
|
|
|
|
joe.ami
Veteran Member
Posts:4377
|
| 22 Jan 2009 12:22 AM |
|
oookay...not sure Desert Storm, World War 2, Exxon Valdez or Mt. St Helena are typically thought of as "drops in the bucket", but did you find my last paragraph objectionable as well?
J |
|
Joe Hardin
www.amicontracting.com
We Dig Comfort!
www.doityourselfgeothermal.com
Dig Your Own Comfort! |
|
|