B.VDBOS said:
At least where I am comming from, the changes are major, but it would be somehow to fast to blame it on global warming. If it keeps it that way the next 5 years, then it's somehow clear that something it wrong(because the weather was totally different within the last 5-6 years).
I know that place very well since I grew there. There used to be quite a large river that many years(20+ as I know it, 100 as I heard from others, maybe more, but the people are dead so they can't tell it how it was) never had a problem in sommer. But within the last 5-6 years the situation was very different, one could have crossed the river without getting wet at all(stepping on the stones). That was never the case before.
And this is just one example. The vegetation suffers a lot as well(including trees) since there is not that much water anymore. The springs which were plenty before are now non-existent. The weather in sommer is hotter and hotter, the spring comes sooner, the snow lasts shorter(if there is any).
This is the place I know best, that's why I comment on it.
Read my post again and again and again.millwood said:
Maybe you will finally understand.
Since the level is not normal/scarce what is remaining?
Or if you say it is normal/scarce, prove it.
Just a hint: one could demonstrate almost anything through elimination.
Who was he/she referring to in the context?
BTW, do you always act so bizzare when you feel cornered? Look at yourself what is that you are defending or try to promote as not being dangerous.
roibm said:
I don't think it is so bizzare for you to call others the way you did when you couldn't win an argument based on facts and reasoning.
roibm said:
I wouldn't mind defending a drug dealer for his rights given under the law because defending such a criminal is no difference from defending you, me or anyother person from persecution.
Not to mention that I am simply helping you present your supposedly abundant facts,
millwood said:I wouldn't mind defending a drug dealer for his rights given under the law because defending such a criminal is no difference from defending you, me or anyother person from persecution.
Not to mention that I am simply helping you present your supposedly abundant facts,
Read my post again and again and again.
Maybe you will finally understand.
Since the level is not normal/scarce what is remaining?
Or if you say it is normal/scarce, prove it.
Just a hint: one could demonstrate almost anything through elimination.
You have been speaking so much about this and you ignore it now? What do you prove by this. At least prove I am wrong.
I was finding the posts of Donaldson and Millwood in this thread quite bizarre, until it occurred to me that maybe they actually have never heard of global warming.
I can't believe that the education system in the US can really be that poor, or that people can actually be so ignorant about the issue which even Tony Bliar has called the biggest problem facing the world today.
I think you guys are just winding us up, but just in case you actually haven't heard of it, it works like this:
The best analogy is a greenhouse. Light from the sun falls on a greenhouse, it passes through the glass and hits the ground. The energy is re-emitted off the ground at a lower frequency/longer wavelength. Glass is less transparent to electromagnetic radiation at this new frequency, so the energy can't pass back out through the glass so easily. The trapped energy accumulates and heats up the greenhouse. Anyone who has a greenhouse or hothouse or who has left the windows of their parked car shut on a sunny day has observed this effect.
Now it so happens that certain atmospheric gases act like the glass of the greenhouse, ie certain gases are more transparent to the wavelengths travelling down from the sun than they are to the wavelengths emitted from the earth. So the presence of these gases causes the earth to be warmer than it would be without them. These gases are known colloquially as greenhouse gases. CO2 is such a gas, along with methane and a load of others.
Studies, computer models etc have shown that increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases increases the greenhouse effect. In short, increasing amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere cause the earth to warm up - 'global warming'. It is absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the heat energy produced by burning the fossil fuels, that is totally insignificant. Burning the fossil fuels releases CO2 which acts like the glass in a greenhouse which traps the heat of the sun. Once this process really gets going it is impossible to stop. Even if we stopped burning fossil fuels overnight, the spike in CO2 levels we have already created will cause significant warming for hundreds of years.
This is not an issue like smog or pollution or carcinogenic agents or toxins, where you can say that there is a safe level. It is rather that different amounts of greenhouse gases will cause the earth to stabilise at different temperatures.
There is now an almost universal consensus throughout the world that global warming is happening and the scientists have a pretty good idea of how much temperatures will rise and what we need to do to limit the rise. Hence the Kyoto agreement. It seems that only in the US do people pretend this is not happening.
By coincidence, the British Government announced today its latest target for reductions in CO2 emissions, we are aiming for a 15% cut. Not really enough but more than most countries. It is inevitable that the measures needed to meet this goal will make our industry less efficient and less competitive. But it seems that Britain takes its responsibility to our planet at least somewhat seriously and we are willing to become a bit less wealthy.
Millwood's philosophy is: "I work less than the guy next house over but make more money. My goal is to keep it that way."
Obviously someone so selfish will not understand why we are doing this.
I can't believe that the education system in the US can really be that poor, or that people can actually be so ignorant about the issue which even Tony Bliar has called the biggest problem facing the world today.
I think you guys are just winding us up, but just in case you actually haven't heard of it, it works like this:
The best analogy is a greenhouse. Light from the sun falls on a greenhouse, it passes through the glass and hits the ground. The energy is re-emitted off the ground at a lower frequency/longer wavelength. Glass is less transparent to electromagnetic radiation at this new frequency, so the energy can't pass back out through the glass so easily. The trapped energy accumulates and heats up the greenhouse. Anyone who has a greenhouse or hothouse or who has left the windows of their parked car shut on a sunny day has observed this effect.
Now it so happens that certain atmospheric gases act like the glass of the greenhouse, ie certain gases are more transparent to the wavelengths travelling down from the sun than they are to the wavelengths emitted from the earth. So the presence of these gases causes the earth to be warmer than it would be without them. These gases are known colloquially as greenhouse gases. CO2 is such a gas, along with methane and a load of others.
Studies, computer models etc have shown that increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases increases the greenhouse effect. In short, increasing amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere cause the earth to warm up - 'global warming'. It is absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the heat energy produced by burning the fossil fuels, that is totally insignificant. Burning the fossil fuels releases CO2 which acts like the glass in a greenhouse which traps the heat of the sun. Once this process really gets going it is impossible to stop. Even if we stopped burning fossil fuels overnight, the spike in CO2 levels we have already created will cause significant warming for hundreds of years.
This is not an issue like smog or pollution or carcinogenic agents or toxins, where you can say that there is a safe level. It is rather that different amounts of greenhouse gases will cause the earth to stabilise at different temperatures.
There is now an almost universal consensus throughout the world that global warming is happening and the scientists have a pretty good idea of how much temperatures will rise and what we need to do to limit the rise. Hence the Kyoto agreement. It seems that only in the US do people pretend this is not happening.
By coincidence, the British Government announced today its latest target for reductions in CO2 emissions, we are aiming for a 15% cut. Not really enough but more than most countries. It is inevitable that the measures needed to meet this goal will make our industry less efficient and less competitive. But it seems that Britain takes its responsibility to our planet at least somewhat seriously and we are willing to become a bit less wealthy.
Millwood's philosophy is: "I work less than the guy next house over but make more money. My goal is to keep it that way."
Obviously someone so selfish will not understand why we are doing this.
Maxwell said:
I didn't realize they are starting to teach highly politicized versions of science in Europe. I am certainly no expert on global warming, having read it in Mr. Gore's book in the early 1990s. so please allow this clueless admirer of your global-warming thesis to ask a few questions.
1) how many types of "greenhouse gases" are out there? For the increase of co2 to have a big impact, don't you have to prove (I know, that's the tough word) that its increase is significant for temperature increases?
For example, assume that you have two greenhouse gases, A and B. Gas A traps 1,000,000 units of energy and Gas B traps 1 unit of energy. so totay energy traped is 1,000,001 units.
See this evil person doubles the amount of Gas B in the atmosphere. Total units of energy trapped goes to 1,000,002. A mere 0.0001% increase.
or something alone those lines. I am sure they teach that in Europe.
2). What impact will higher temperature on the eco-system that will in turn reduce the temperature?
For example, what will higher temperature do to plant's growth? What will that in turn do to co2 levels?
To help you think a little bit better, imagine an otherwise identical world but with no co2. Will that world be cooler or hotter than ours? What does that mean for global warming?
3). lastly, what will high temperature do to the rainfall? and what will that do to the temperature of the earth?
Just some simple questions for you to pounder. Nothing you haven't thought through.
millwood said:
There is no need to define what is normal, since we are nowhere near that value.
The actual concentration is higher than it ever was(while the forests which absorb most of the co2 were greatly reduced), and it is not getting lower.
If you can, prove that normal is a value which is >= than the current CO2 level.
There is no need to prove that the CO2 concentration level goes hand in hand with the global warming. During the last 100,000 of years any peak in CO2 level was followed shortly by a temperature peak.millwood said:
Should I understand that the planet behavior changes just because you are around?
As about your other ideas, you ask but prove nothing. At least give us some links sustaining your visionary text.
My lack of belief in the global warming theory in not a lack of education. It's a lack of indoctrination.
A few years back, I read a study that debunked the whole thing. But it got very little puplicity. It stated (paraphrased) that CO2 was the third "greenhouse"gas. First war water vapor and second was a simple xxxthane gas, I think it was ethane). And CO2's contribution was so minute that it was like the gas B that traps 1 unit of 1000 in Millwoods example of first grade math for you envirosissys. Basically, All of the CO2 created by fosil fuel burning contributed less to the greenhouse effect that the sheep farts in New Zealand.
Our world is a constantly changing place. And who is to say that we are not part of nature. I'll continue to drive my big van, but use Beano in my starch foods. That'll help more than crying about oil.
A few years back, I read a study that debunked the whole thing. But it got very little puplicity. It stated (paraphrased) that CO2 was the third "greenhouse"gas. First war water vapor and second was a simple xxxthane gas, I think it was ethane). And CO2's contribution was so minute that it was like the gas B that traps 1 unit of 1000 in Millwoods example of first grade math for you envirosissys. Basically, All of the CO2 created by fosil fuel burning contributed less to the greenhouse effect that the sheep farts in New Zealand.
Our world is a constantly changing place. And who is to say that we are not part of nature. I'll continue to drive my big van, but use Beano in my starch foods. That'll help more than crying about oil.
I don't know why I bother to debate with selfish people like Millwood and Donaldson, but I think this issue is important so.....
On the one hand you have the overwhelming majority of climate scientists who conclude that global warming is real and we need to cut CO2 emission.
On the other hand you have a tiny minority of crackpot climate scientists, who insist it isn't.
On the one hand, almost every country in the world is committed to reducing or stabilising GHGs
On the other hand, the one country in the world which produces more GHGs per person than any other is too selfish to do the same.
All over the world, people are switching to more efficient cars, including increasing numbers of Diesel engined cars. In the UK, company cars are now taxed according to their CO2 emmissions.
In the US, the trend is towards less efficient cars like SUVs.
My car is a Diesel, it does 0-60 in about 8 seconds and it averages 36 mpg even on my journey to work. You don't have to sacrifice performance or comfort, you just have to buy a well-designed, well-engineered car.
OK, if you don't take my word for it, visit the websites of the oil companies. I'm sure you will agree that they have no interest in supporting the global warming theory unless they have concluded it is real. Look for instance at the BP site:
BP's position on Global Warming
On the one hand you have the overwhelming majority of climate scientists who conclude that global warming is real and we need to cut CO2 emission.
On the other hand you have a tiny minority of crackpot climate scientists, who insist it isn't.
On the one hand, almost every country in the world is committed to reducing or stabilising GHGs
On the other hand, the one country in the world which produces more GHGs per person than any other is too selfish to do the same.
All over the world, people are switching to more efficient cars, including increasing numbers of Diesel engined cars. In the UK, company cars are now taxed according to their CO2 emmissions.
In the US, the trend is towards less efficient cars like SUVs.
My car is a Diesel, it does 0-60 in about 8 seconds and it averages 36 mpg even on my journey to work. You don't have to sacrifice performance or comfort, you just have to buy a well-designed, well-engineered car.
OK, if you don't take my word for it, visit the websites of the oil companies. I'm sure you will agree that they have no interest in supporting the global warming theory unless they have concluded it is real. Look for instance at the BP site:
BP's position on Global Warming
Donaldson said:
Just out of interest, who exactly is it who you imagine wants to indoctrinate me into believing in global warming?
What vested interest do you imagine will benefit by me believing in this?
The obvious vested interest in this case is the oil companies, who want us to use their product. But even they now accept the threat posed by GHGs.
Is it not possible that you are the one who is indoctrinated?
Just out of interest, who exactly is it who you imagine wants to indoctrinate me into believing in global warming?
What vested interest do you imagine will benefit by me believing in this?
The obvious vested interest in this case is the oil companies, who want us to use their product. But even they now accept the threat posed by GHGs.
Is it not possible that you are the one who is indoctrinated?
Maxwell said:
Hey, don't expect too much from lazy people.
In US they still think that diesel should be used only by big trucks.
I drive diesel too, ~7L/100km(between 6.4 and 7.9, most of the times 7.2), and I think it is safe to assume that Donaldson's car is no match for my car(performance).
As about a really great engine when one feels the need for power:
"As of 4 April, Volkswagen will be enhancing the luxury class segment with a new dimension: the Phaeton V10 TDI, the most powerful saloon in the world with a diesel engine. Its 5.0-litre ten-cylinder power unit generates 230 kW / 313 bhp. From 2000 rpm upwards, the bi-turbo diesel direct injection develops a fabulous 750 Newtonmetres of torque."
http://www.seriouswheels.com/top-2003-VW-V10-TDI.htm
Maxwell said:
that's a pretty weak argument on your part.
Maxwell said:
On the one hand you had the overwhelming majority of scientists who concluded that the earth is the center of the universe and the earth is flat.
On the other hand you had one tiny crackpot scientist, who insisted it isn't.
so the earth must be the center of the universe and it must be flat. Case closed. Anyonen disagreeing is either ignorant or selfish.
Maxwell said:
and you don't think your little diesel actually emits more pollutants into the air than a typical gas engine?
Maxwell said:
those with vested interests in this case include also politicians, environmental fanatics, and people who cannot think critically, to name a few.
roibm said:
what makes you think so?
Maxwell said:
again, what makes you think so?
a tip for you: it is usually unsafe to assume anything.
Maxwell said:
why do anyone with any concerns about the environment and our reliance on petro-energy buy such a diesel gazzler? When people in Africa cannot afford to have a half decent meal, you will be driving down the highways (how many trees did they cut down to build that highway?).
Please care about others.