http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080103/94768732.html
Ron
Once upon a time, I paid big bucks towards an education to have some educated folks tell me that heat transfer can occur by one of three mechanisms, convection, conduction, and radiation. To this day I am not aware of any other way to transfer heat. Now since space is pretty near a vacuum, heat energy can't escape too much by convection - the movement of material, or conduction - transfering through the material. That leaves radiation to do away with all that extra energy that ends up as heat on our planet. The rocket scientist that wrote that Russian article you cited states that we can discount radiation, so all of that energy that our planet absorbs, by his account, ought to be accruing. If that were true, then at a thousand Watts per square meter of surface area for about 12 hours a day, we ought to have been well cooked a long, long time ago.
I don't know all of the answers regarding climate change, but I have been getting a bit better at recognizing bull waste in articles regarding it. Rich'A Joule saved is a Joule made'
Also, I wonder how much energy the earth radiates to the space on the dark side each night.[ Parent ]
The problem is, we've only been flying space vehicles for 50 years. That's only about 4 or 5 sunspot cycles, which will goof up the drag measurements big time over such a small interval. We'd need about 10-15 more cycles before we can account for the degree of expansion caused by solar cycles._____________________________
Alan Sheets[ Parent ]
Notice the instability in recent history
Southpaw[ Parent ]
However, based on my training as a climatologist and the last century's worth of collected data with a consistent methodology, I'll offer a couple of weak hypotheses:
I thought I asked you [nicely] to stop posting these trolling Diaries?
Friendship only goes so far.
T
Let him post one climate change diary per year, with this being the one for 2008. :-)
Volvo Farmer
May you always have success in your quest to irritate those who you despise. -Ben Goode [ Parent ]
Fair enough.
"Education consists mainly of what we have unlearned."--Mark Twain[ Parent ]
It might be that on the continent, where you are living this issue, 'climate change' is quite sensitive, because of the politics involved. But in any case many people involved in RE development are quite interested in this 'climate change' talk. Why should Ron be prevented to talk about this issue in his diary? Do you think that the differing opinions would cause too much quarreling?
On the other hand, one limitation I've got is with the language. What do you mean with 'trolling'?
- Hannu[ Parent ]
troll --(noun) : a troll is a person who posts inflammatory messages on the internet, such as on online discussion forums, to disrupt discussion or to upset its participants. The word, or its derivative, "trolling", is also used to describe such messages or the act of posting them. EXAMPLE: Please do not feed the troll.
trolling -- (noun) : an exaggerated condemnation usually made for provocation in an online forum. EXAMPLE: "Liberals don't support our troops." [ Parent ]
There have been some interesting comments in this thread as well, so maybe the subject is not played out yet. Though I made a little joke with our editor-at-large, I personally believe there should be an area of the website where we can blow off steam without being asked to shut up. Diaries would seem to fit that category best with what we have to work with here. Other forums often have a section called "completely off topic" where we can talk about whiskey or women or politics without fear of censorship, as long as we are civil to each other.
That being said, I can see the annoyance of the general community if the same controversial topic is harped upon with great regularity by a particular poster. I do think this is an important debate and maybe we should revisit it every few months, or once or twice a year, but every two weeks? Yeah, that might be considered trolling.
So how about that whiskey we've been having, eh? ;-)
BTH[ Parent ]
I posted this before, I'll post it again for folks who are interested in reading a good article that discusses the issues in some detail.
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
Here's a comment attached to the "It's all a conspiracy" article. I found it so compelling, I am going to paste it here.
------------------------------------------- Anyway, the right question to ask yourself is not whether scientists (on both sides) are right or wrong, but what are the dangers of letting an elite of politicians (possibly corrupted) to promote (and/or enforce) some solution for the alleged man-made global warming. Think about it: we finally accept global warming and scientists propose some solutions, but the final decisions about actions and their promotion and enforcement will be made by politicians. For policies on a global scale, right and wrong are relative, e.g. Wealthy countries may not have a problem moving towards alternative (to fossil fuel) power sources, but that's not the case for poor and/or developing countries.
I'm just afraid of what the 'ultimate' solution is going to be. I'm scared for sacrifices I'm going to be asked to make. I'm afraid that my sacrifices will be in vain.
What the solution will be? Taxes? Oil consumption reduction? Transportation (freedom) limitation? Population reduction!?...
Just ask yourself what you are willing to sacrifice to 'save the planet' and there you have it.
Also, just use you common sense and think about this: it's quite a coincidence that the 'man-made global warming' problem is going side-by-side with the oil price / oil production problem (see peak-oil) with CO2 being the convenient link.
The main promoted global warming solution is to reduce CO2 emissions, that means reduce fossil fuel consumption - hmm, that means peak-oil is solved too!!! Lucky us! One solution, two problems solved: that's great! Or not?
What if the actual problem is just one, that's peak-oil? What if 'man-made global warming' is just used to scare the shit out of me to accept any great sacrifice that peak-oil solution demands?
Terrorism (whether it actually exists or not) is used this way too.
Hey! Wait a minute: not to far ago some guys tried to convince the whole world that there was a 'global terrorism' problem: it didn't work quite as they wanted to, but who knows maybe 'global warming' will do the trick
What if humans are having a significant impact on climate? Should governments get involved to control our behavior - or will 'corporations'/free capitolism solve the problem?
Yes, I do think our current lifestyle is unsustainable =- free market capitolism by itself will not solve the problem. I think energy is expensive and people in the US and some other places are living beyond their means. Responsible government should step in and 'tweak' things a bit (or a lot) because it won't happen by itself. I know this is optimistic thinking on my part (the bit about responsible government).[ Parent ]
Good point. In fact it seems that government actions have had some success in cleaning up our environment in the past. Automobile emissions in this country are way down from 40 years ago. Rivers and other bodies of water are generally cleaner too. China and India? another story altogether.
If in fact, CO2 emissions are having a significant impact on climate, perhaps more laws could reduce the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere. However, I think that this lifestyle we are living is entirely dependent on burning things and I don't think that RE can ever possibly step up and fulfill the energy appetite that 6.6 billion souls have grown accustomed to. I don't even think that RE, if fully implemented could supply a quarter of the energy we use today. If you want to make steel, you gotta burn some coal. I like steel.
Here's what I'm trying to say: If, in fact CO2 emissions are leading to a disastrous future for humankind, I don't think there's any way to reduce them enough, on a worldwide scale to make any difference in the long run.
Ever since I watched that Zeitgeist movie someone posted in here, I have been more and more of the opinion of that guy whose comment I posted in the last thread. I ask myself these questions:
Why is global warming stated as fact in the media so often? I listen to NPR on a regular basis and have heard three or four stories a week for months now. Media is supposed to tell both sides of the story, yet I almost never hear a contrary viewpoint on the news. Why is that? There certainly is a contrary viewpoint. Look at this thread. look at the comments on that site you posted.
So here's my argument in a nutshell. If CO2 is going to ruin the earth, there are too many people burning too much stuff to ever get it under control, no matter what governments do. I think smart, wealthy people know this fact and are hoping to use this big scare of global warming to increase their wealth and influence. Smart, wealthy people own the media and are trying to convince me to give up something that I have, so that they can have more. I could never put my finger on it until I read the comment I posted, but I now truly believe this has EVERYTHING to do with peak oil, and nothing to do with saving the planet from climate change.
I like the fact that you are an optimist. This world needs more optimists. I feel bad being the pessimist all the time but from this side of the keyboard, I think I'm just being a realist, but maybe I'm just paranoid too. Maybe, John Lennon was right all along, and global warming and conspiracy theories don't have nearly as much to do with our future as does love
Governments have never been responsible. As far as I know they have never done anything promoting business other than war.
Politicians are quick to blame and slow to accept responsibility. One only has to glance at the 'oil situation' and see they run in a reactive rather than a pro-active mode. They get their life blood from subjecting those who are under their influence to vote for them.
One quick little observation, the government created 'environmental protection'. The blame is on the 'oil companies' for not building refineries. The 'environmental protection' agencies required the addition of MTBE to the gasoline supplies but accept no blame for it getting into the ground water. The problem was known for years before any action was taken.
It seems to me the folks promoting this warming idea are those that are profiting from the regulations and grants attached. I could be right. They may be a bunch of scoundrels. And, all political parties in the US are defiantly guilty.
I suspect any solutions will come from private industry, not government meddling.
Ron Adventure is just bad planning." -- Roald Amundsen [ Parent ]
I've wondered in the recent past with crude oil prices near $100 per barrel what is going on at the Alberta Oil or Tar Sands. Well, a Mining Engineer I know says the journals he reads state they are going great guns in increasing output. Lucky Canadians. They get to finance their Socialized Medicine at we American's expense. GeoM[ Parent ]
So I remain skeptical, but I am doing what I can to reduce my own pollution. Because even if we aren't making it worse we aren't making it better either.
Gordy[ Parent ]
the way i see things now, some were between the hiroshima blast in 1945 and the apollo 11 moon landing in 1969. mankind's childhood came to an end.
that means we take the responsibility on how things are done. how many of us there are , and were we are heading. not corporations or politicians . i want a lush, healthy planet. and a civilization that doesn't fall because it has used up it's resources.
so how do we get there from here?[ Parent ]
Cut the human population of the planet in half or by three quarters or.... That's the only way to get back to a healthy lush planet. Going from six billion to ten or twelve billion people isn't going to do it. Most of the nice farms that were here when I was a child have been broken up into lots or ten acre parcels. And a lot of that simply reflects the reality of many children per family. Of course, nature via viruses may solve that problem for us. GeoM[ Parent ]
war and plague are options but they make for bad t.v.
[ Parent ]
http://www.vhemt.org/
David[ Parent ]
by trading with them we are giving our tacit consent. now we are as guilty as those that perpetuate these injustices.[ Parent ]
