Global Warming Poll - Page 3


View Poll Results: Do you like global warming?

Voters
505. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes I love it.

    314 62.18%
  • No, it's bad.

    191 37.82%
Page 3 of 21 FirstFirst 12345613 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 409

Thread: Global Warming Poll

  1. #41
    Registered
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    55
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Default

    Thanks Michael, and all those who are now seeing things in a better light, and using their common sense to do some research in a balanced way.
    No doubt we should be aware of our slowly dwindling resources (although we still have enough for the forthcoming generations) and take care to use them wisely. We also should take steps to minimise or reduce our pollution. However, climate change has little to do with the present "climate change" People seem to be so worried about this climate change that they become so fearful. This fear always lead to panic and action that leads to our destruction if we don't be more aware. Fear always breed more fear and in the end, we destroy ourselves by our illogical actions. There are so many examples of this kind of attitude throughtout history of the human population that there is no need for me to mention them.
    However, instead of now trying to think of how to overcome and adapt to the coming changes, we are all squabbling over thoeries that we know to be incorrect. We need to think of ways to make this climate change work for us to our advantage, and also make the necessary changes in some places to survive. By doing so, we are going to benefit and also enjoy the advantages of the change in our environment. Remember that change occurs in the normal course of our ever "evolving" environment and there are occurances in the Universe that we, as humans, cannot change.



  2. #42
    Member sdantonio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    938
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Default

    Hi Michael,

    You’re actually mixing 2 different cycles. The sunspot cycle, which is responsible for the majority of solar flares, is scheduled to hit maxima in about 2010 or 2011 (I forget which year). The last maxima, in the late 1990’s, (it’s an 11 year cycle) were responsible for wide ranging outages of cell phones, satellite feeds and even power outages. Sunspots are relatively cool spots on the suns surface. When they collapse the result in solar prominences or flares (for the larger sun spots). This results in the release on massive proton ejecta, which then wreaks havoc with electrical systems on earth (providing we are in the way of the ejecta). It’s also responsible for the aurora (the proton hitting oxygen and nitrogen in the upper atmosphere). Considering how much more dependent we are now of delicate electronics like computers, 2010-2011 is going to be an interesting time.

    There is another cycle, a 40-year cycle for the total energy output of the sun. This cycle is currently near it’s maximum. A Canadian solar physicist released a paper the other week stating proof that all the global warming effects (which in reality amounts to a mean temperature increase on 0.5 degrees worldwide) are due to this 40-year cycle. I haven’t read his paper yet, so I’m a little skeptical. Not that the global warming effects are due to the cycle, but that he has found a way to separate this cycle from the other possible variables.

    As an interesting side note, the South Africans were complaining about the low turnout for the Al Gore Live Earth concerts due to snow and unseasonably cold weather. You just can’t rely on that global warming.

    However, I do like blaming things on the cows if I can. It gets the PETA people really agitated.

    If you cut it to small you can always nail another piece on the end, but if you cut it to big... then what the hell you gonna do?

    Steven


  3. #43
    Member sdantonio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    938
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Default

    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...ec_cycle24.htm

    Look at the graph about half way down the page (smoothed sunspot cycle), were actually at a pretty low spot for the past few years. But it's going to geg bumpy soon.

    I this brief writeup the protons I alluded to are lumped together in the general term ions.

    If you cut it to small you can always nail another piece on the end, but if you cut it to big... then what the hell you gonna do?

    Steven


  4. #44
    Registered
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    United States Of America
    Posts
    16
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Default

    Prosper, not informing the public as to how to protect themselves is criminal. Not telling them what is going to happen is also criminal. We in this country have faced Civil War, 2 World Wars, and the Great Depression. Fear did not cause widespread panic or cause us to become paralyzed. We did what we needed to do to survive and PREVAIL. If the public is informed the same way as was the news of all those aforementioned wars etc. I think the vast majority of people will be more interested in surviving than rioting.
    Forget about the envoirnment. It will be years before anything remotely resembling an enviornment will emerge. After this passage we will pick up the pieces and go on. Unfortunately most within 100 miles of an ocean or large body of water will not survive. If you look at the worlds population you will see that the vast majority of people live within 100 miles of a shoreline. Hence the overpopulation remedy that so many are clamoring for. If they are not told to move closer to the interrior of the country they will be lost. Think Im making all this up? Take a look at how many of the U. S Government agencies have already moved inland. Now ask yourself why.
    Michael



  5. #45
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1408
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Default

    [QUOTE=sdantonio;317992] You just can’t rely on that global warming.

    QUOTE]

    Dear Steven,

    Over here in the UK, we had a really hot April.

    Out came the "Global Warming" people.. "Obvious proof, "we told you so "etc.

    May and June were pretty cold and miserable, and a bit rainy.

    Out came the "Climate Change" people. They were the same people of course, plucking dodgy data to support their very lucrative industry.

    They simply will not go away.

    Best wishes

    Martin



  6. #46
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    12177
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sdantonio View Post
    ......The sunspot cycle, which is responsible for the majority of solar flares, is scheduled to hit maxima in about 2010 or 2011 (I forget which year).....This results in the release on massive proton ejecta, which then wreaks havoc with electrical systems on earth (providing we are in the way of the ejecta)........There is another cycle, a 40-year cycle for the total energy output of the sun. This cycle is currently near it’s maximum. A Canadian solar physicist released a paper the other week stating proof that all the global warming effects (which in reality amounts to a mean temperature increase on 0.5 degrees worldwide) are due to this 40-year cycle......
    Here are some IFs. After all if the Global Warming Crowd are allowed to play the if - then game and predict doom and gloom surely I can do the same.

    There are a number of scientists who are of the opinion that solar flare activity also acts to reduce the cosmic ray flux hitting the Earth. And because cosmic rays may have an influence on cloud formation a reduced flux could cause a reduced cloud cover which could decrease the Earth's albedo which could contribute to warming.

    So we are moving toward a period of enhanced solar flare activity...therefore there is warming from reduced cloud cover and we are at the maximum, or mid point (?) of an increased solar energy output...so therefore it is a double whammy.

    But all good (?) things come to an end. In ten years time we should be in a low solar flare condition...i.e. lots of (or at least more) clouds and at the same time we will be well into the decline of the 40 year solar energy cycle...so double downward whammy.

    If it all comes to pass it will be interesting to see how the gloom and doomers rationalise it. Of course if it doesn't come to pass I guess a lot of people will have waterfront property facing the wrong way.

    An open mind is a virtue...so long as all the common sense has not leaked out.


  7. #47
    Member sdantonio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    938
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Default

    Geoff,

    Excellent "IF Game". I like the way you think. The only point I would make is that is the past 10 years or so the sun has become noticeably dimmer (noticeable to very sensitive scientific instruments). This is due to soot (particulates) in the atmosphere. I have no idea at all how much this would counter the effect of the reduced cloud formation, if at all.

    So do we hurry up and pump more soot into the air. I think this would have it's own problems.

    There was a study just released today. One of the global warming folks big "if's" is the possible melting of the Greenland glacier (sea levels rise, mass panic, Las Vegas gets flooded, Elvis returns, etc). According to this study, in the last big global warming event 169,000 years ago) where the mean temp of the earth went up 9 degrees, the majority of this ice sheet stayed intact and didn't melt. I didn't listen to carefully to the report, but it was based on DNA analysis of organisms trapped in the glacier and using that to identify the organisms and then extrapolate back to how thick the glacier was when they were trapped.

    Looks like I'm not getting my beach front property any time soon (going to be stuck 50 miles inland I guess)

    If you cut it to small you can always nail another piece on the end, but if you cut it to big... then what the hell you gonna do?

    Steven


  8. #48
    Member sdantonio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    938
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael4yah View Post
    If you look at the worlds population you will see that the vast majority of people live within 100 miles of a shoreline. Hence the overpopulation remedy that so many are clamoring for. If they are not told to move closer to the interrior of the country they will be lost. Think Im making all this up? Take a look at how many of the U. S Government agencies have already moved inland. Now ask yourself why.
    Michael
    Wow, that explains why last week I saw the White house on the back of a flatbed truck with a sign saying "Ohio or bust" on the back. And of course Haliburton blew up the levies in New Orleans by planting dynamite underwater because George Bush hates African Americans. Of course this can't be proven or disproven because the only way to see under water is with mask and snorkel and the government didn't issue masks and snorkels to the residents of NOLA. More population control theories brought to you by the far left bloggers... sewing the seeds of terror worldwide. (I think that one was from the Michael Moore blog, but I could be wrong about the source).

    Sorry, I just can't let this one go by.

    If you cut it to small you can always nail another piece on the end, but if you cut it to big... then what the hell you gonna do?

    Steven


  9. #49
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1408
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Default

    Dear Geof,

    Far from me to suggest that your science is in anyway flawed, but I was curious about albedo. Wiki is a pretty dodgy source of knowledge, but here goes.....

    In realistic cases, a bidirectional reflectance distribution function (BRDF) is required to characterise the scattering properties of a surface accurately, although albedos are a very useful first approximation.

    Probably entirely true.

    The words "a very useful first approximation", however, made my hair stand on end.

    Sounded a bit too much like the stuff from the Climate experts.

    Best wishes,

    Martin



  10. #50
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    12177
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sdantonio View Post
    ... According to this study, in the last big global warming event 169,000 years ago) where the mean temp of the earth went up 9 degrees, the majority of this ice sheet stayed intact and didn't melt. I didn't listen to carefully to the report, but it was based on DNA analysis of organisms trapped in the glacier and using that to identify the organisms and then extrapolate back to how thick the glacier was when they were trapped....
    Yes I read that one.

    The "soot" bit I have read about and I think it is not soot but things such as sulfur dioxide which can cause high level haze. As far as I can gather reading different sources there is disagreement whether this cause cooling or warming.

    martinw; It sounds like the Wiki people are getting a bit carried away...they do sometimes. Here is the simple minded meaning I am using; "The term albedo (Latin for white) is commonly used to applied to the overall average reflection coefficient of an object". Viewed from above, on average, clouds are whiter than ground and they scatter back incident radiation. There is controversy, as I mention above, as to whether clouds are net warmers or coolers.

    An open mind is a virtue...so long as all the common sense has not leaked out.


  11. #51
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1408
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Default

    Dear Geof and Steve,

    Thank-you for the posts.

    I live and learn.


    Best wishes

    Martin



  12. #52
    Member sdantonio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    938
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Default

    Martin,

    The easiest way to think of albedo is, as Geoff said, white. To be a little more specific, the lighter the color the more it will reflect light, the darker the color, the less reflected light.

    In planetary physics, celestial bodies are generally characterized by their albedo. Given a star 93 million miles away your less likely to bump into a clean snowball than a lump of coal because more light will be reflected from the snowball (and it will be more easily seen) due to it's higher albedo (or coefficient of reflection).

    Geoff's point is that the fluffy white clouds reflect a lot of the suns energy back into space, keeping the earth cool (something easy to verify by just standing outside on a hot day and waiting for a cloud to pass overhead which is also equivalent to walking under a shady tree). Global warming, coupled with decreased cloud formation (due to increased solar flare activity) may just give me my beach front property.

    If you cut it to small you can always nail another piece on the end, but if you cut it to big... then what the hell you gonna do?

    Steven


  13. #53
    Registered
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    115
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Default

    There is so much junk science associated with the "Global Warming" hysteria it too much to keep track of.

    The earth is always in some type of ice age, I believe were coming down off one now, but when thats done we'll be coming into another one at some point.

    AlGore's global warming map was critically flawed. He used a Mercator projection. He was showing polar areas that had receded. Well the numbers would have looked quite different with an accurate map projection.

    Picture a glass of ice water, with ice cubes floating around in it. The top third or so of the cubes sticks above the waterline. This is the earth. Now let the glass of ice water warm up and the cubes melt, does the water level raise?

    At most all we could cause the sea levels to raise is probably a lot more like a few inches, not a hundred feet.

    The whole "we only have thirty years of oil left" thing is total BS too. Thats what they were saying many years ago, we'd be out now if it was true. Thirty years from now they will be saying the same thing, and there's a reason for that too. It is because of accounting practices that consider future reserves to have less value based on how far into the future they will be available. SPV (Sum of Present Value) Its BS.

    What I am expecting to happen is we (society) will give in to the BS the greenies are pushing (its already happening). Years from now everything will still be okay and those wacko's will claim we were saved thanks to them, and they'll just get worse then!!

    Last edited by punisher454; 07-10-2007 at 05:51 AM.


  14. #54
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    12177
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by punisher454 View Post
    .... Picture a glass of ice water, with ice cubes floating around in it. The top third or so of the cubes sticks above the waterline. This is the earth. Now let the glass of ice water warm up and the cubes melt, does the water level raise?

    At most all we could cause the sea levels to raise is probably a lot more like a few inches, not a hundred feet............
    It is okay to be a skeptic but make sure your scepticism is well founded.

    What you say is correct for ice that is floating in the sea. When ice on land melts and the resulting water flows into the sea the then the sea level will rise.

    There is enough water in the ice on the Antartic continent and Greenland that if it did melt then sea levels would rise many tens of feet.

    The big question is will it melt.

    An open mind is a virtue...so long as all the common sense has not leaked out.


  15. #55
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1408
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Geof View Post

    The big question is will it melt.
    And the Climate Change industry will reply.."We can't take the risk, Geof"

    On and on it goes...

    Best wishes


    Martin



  16. #56
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    12177
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by martinw View Post
    And the Climate Change industry will reply.."We can't take the risk, Geof"

    On and on it goes...

    Best wishes


    Martin
    True, and if it was remotely possible that we could do anything about it I may accept that reasoning.

    I have read one article by a climate scientist/oceanographer who pointed out that IF the fossil CO2 we have released is the cause of the warming, and IF we stopped emitting fossil CO2 completely right now the warming would probably continue for 50 years, maybe more. Climate/weather responds with an enormous lag; after all on an annual basis the shortest day of the year, i.e. the day with the least sunlight, precedes the coldest month of the year by about six weeks.

    I have stated it before; IF the CO2 is responsible for the warming a lot of people had better start learning how to live underwater; there is no way to avoid it even if the world's entire economy was shut down.

    An open mind is a virtue...so long as all the common sense has not leaked out.


  17. #57
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1408
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sdantonio View Post
    Geoff's point is that the fluffy white clouds reflect a lot of the suns energy back into space, keeping the earth cool (something easy to verify by just standing outside on a hot day and waiting for a cloud to pass overhead which is also equivalent to walking under a shady tree). Global warming, coupled with decreased cloud formation (due to increased solar flare activity) may just give me my beach front property.
    Dear Steve,

    Yes, I can see that the white fluffy stuff could reflect solar radiation back into space, but won't it also prevent the Earth's heat being radiated back out as well, and cause the Earth to be warmer.

    Sorry if my physics is iffy.


    Best wishes


    Martin



  18. #58
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    12177
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by martinw View Post
    Dear Steve,

    Yes, I can see that the white fluffy stuff could reflect solar radiation back into space, but won't it also prevent the Earth's heat being radiated back out as well, and cause the Earth to be warmer.

    Sorry if my physics is iffy.


    Best wishes


    Martin
    Your Physics is not iffy; that is the crux of the controversy.

    If you have clouds only during the day and clear at night it is obvious that the net effect is cooling.

    If you have clear during the day and cloudy at night the net effect will probably be heating.

    If you have completely clear skies day and night there are very wide diurnal temperature swings; these are typical desert conditions.

    If you have constant overcast cloud day and night you have small diurnal temperature swings.

    But in the third and fourth situation which gives the greatest NET heat gain? It depends on where this is happening, does the earth's surface in that region have a high or low albedo? There are so many variables you can make your reasoning fit any conclusion.

    The response of the Anthropogenic Global Warming Crowd is: "it is so complicated we will ignore it."

    An open mind is a virtue...so long as all the common sense has not leaked out.


  19. #59
    Gold Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2712
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Default

    My Witch Doctor/Environmentalist said I shouldn't worry about running out of oil or global warming caused consuming it. He claims there isn't enough oxygen left to burn it. What we need is a carbon dioxide fuel cell. lol

    DZASTR


  20. #60
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1408
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Default

    Dear Geof,

    Many thanks for your last post. This is interesting stuff.

    For what it's worth, my real problem with Climate Change is my childish suspicion of politicians and those who shout in their ears loudest.

    Climate Change , (rather like Terrorism) is such a fantastic opportunity for the power-hungry to boss and restrict the activities of the citizenry.

    Sorry, ranting again...

    Please keep the physics coming.

    Best wishes

    Martin



Page 3 of 21 FirstFirst 12345613 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


About CNCzone.com

    We are the largest and most active discussion forum for manufacturing industry. The site is 100% free to join and use, so join today!

Follow us on


Our Brands

Global Warming Poll

Global Warming Poll