welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Global Warming -- No smoking hot spot?
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Mindslicer



Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 1804
Location: North of the People's Republic of Massachusetts

PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 8:52 pm    Post subject: Global Warming -- No smoking hot spot? Reply with quote

A bit of a long read, but interesting.

Quote:

No smoking hot spot
David Evans | July 18, 2008

I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.

FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I've been following the global warming debate closely for years.

When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.

The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.

But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:

1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.

Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.

If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.

When the signature was found to be missing in 2007 (after the latest IPCC report), alarmists objected that maybe the readings of the radiosonde thermometers might not be accurate and maybe the hot spot was there but had gone undetected. Yet hundreds of radiosondes have given the same answer, so statistically it is not possible that they missed the hot spot.

Recently the alarmists have suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, but instead take the radiosonde wind measurements, apply a theory about wind shear, and run the results through their computers to estimate the temperatures. They then say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hot spot. If you believe that you'd believe anything.

2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.

3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the "urban heat island" effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.

4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.


None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would dispute their relevance.

The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician's assertion.

Until now the global warming debate has merely been an academic matter of little interest. Now that it matters, we should debate the causes of global warming.

So far that debate has just consisted of a simple sleight of hand: show evidence of global warming, and while the audience is stunned at the implications, simply assert that it is due to carbon emissions.

In the minds of the audience, the evidence that global warming has occurred becomes conflated with the alleged cause, and the audience hasn't noticed that the cause was merely asserted, not proved.

If there really was any evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming, don't you think we would have heard all about it ad nauseam by now?

The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory.

What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue not to rise? The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions. If the reasons later turn out to be bogus, the electorate is not going to re-elect a Labor government for a long time. When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of their actions, they will be seen likewise.

The onus should be on those who want to change things to provide evidence for why the changes are necessary. The Australian public is eventually going to have to be told the evidence anyway, so it might as well be told before wrecking the economy.

Dr David Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.


Edit: Link.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
WheelsOfConfusion



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 12142
Location: Unknown Kaddath

PostPosted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 2:09 am    Post subject: Re: Global Warming -- No smoking hot spot? Reply with quote

Mindslicer wrote:
1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.

Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.

I can't find support for that statement anywhere. However, I did find something intresting about that, though in the form of a comment somewhere else:

Quote:
The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is not a hot spot 10km up. That effect is a predicted consequence of surface warming, whether from greenhouse or the sun.

The signature of greenhouse warming is stratospheric cooling. Which is what we're seeing. Which is why Evans doesn't mention it.

This statement DOES have support for it where I can easily find it, including actual papers from the AAAS, and reports from NOAA and NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. According to everybody other than Evans, we should see COOLING in the stratosphere due to greenhouse gases. Which is what we see.
He gripes that scientists are finding fault with the radiosondes data, but that data IS problematic whether Evans wants to admit it or not.

Quote:
2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.

O RLY?


Quote:
3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980).

Why doesn't that show up in the data, then? (source, data from GISS compiled for graphs in blog).
Quote:
Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the "urban heat island" effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses.

Old hat.

Quote:
4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.

We already know why that happens, because in the past CO2 was a feedback mechanism released when temperature rose, and subsequently drove further increases in temperature.
I mean, I already addressed this crap in the last global warming debate thread I thought. Maybe it was on some other forum, though.

Quote:
In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician's assertion.

Lots of people DID question it, and it was in fact dealt with by climate scientists. It turns out Gore was not dishonest at all. I would have expected somebody so closely associated with climate science to already be familiar with this.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Yorick



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 12101
Location: In the undersnow

PostPosted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 12:19 pm    Post subject: Re: Global Warming -- No smoking hot spot? Reply with quote

WheelsOfConfusion wrote:

Quote:
4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.

We already know why that happens, because in the past CO2 was a feedback mechanism released when temperature rose, and subsequently drove further increases in temperature.
I mean, I already addressed this crap in the last global warming debate thread I thought. Maybe it was on some other forum, though.

ah, but you didn't make your assertations directly to a climate scientist! If the right people don't hear your claims they can't tell you you're wrong to your face!


wait, something's amiss with that statement ...
_________________
Currently experiencing: not summer.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Mindslicer



Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 1804
Location: North of the People's Republic of Massachusetts

PostPosted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 12:38 pm    Post subject: Re: Global Warming -- No smoking hot spot? Reply with quote

WheelsOfConfusion wrote:
Mindslicer wrote:
1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.

Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.

I can't find support for that statement anywhere.


I found this. And I'm just bringing what I thought was new information to light, not necessarily changing my opinion yet.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
WheelsOfConfusion



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 12142
Location: Unknown Kaddath

PostPosted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 4:46 pm    Post subject: Re: Global Warming -- No smoking hot spot? Reply with quote

Mindslicer wrote:
I found this. And I'm just bringing what I thought was new information to light, not necessarily changing my opinion yet.

The only one I haven't heard before is the claim of a lack of hotspots. In fact, the lag in the ice core data between CO2 and temperatures is so old and so refuted that there's no excuse for somebody in the climate sciences to rehash it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_Public_Policy_Institute
Quote:
The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) is a United States based organization that is skeptical of human induced climate change.

It was formerly known as the Center for Science and Public Policy for the Frontiers of Freedom [1], a conservative think tank founded by former Republican senator Malcolm Wallop[2]. The institute describes itself as a

nonprofit institute of research and education dedicated to sound public policy based on sound science. Free from affiliation to any corporation or political party, we support the advancement of sensible public policies for energy and the environment rooted in rational science and economics. Only through science and factual information, separating reality from rhetoric, can legislators develop beneficial policies without unintended consequences that might threaten the life, liberty, and prosperity of the citizenry. [3]

The organization's Executive Director is Robert "Bob" Ferguson, a former Chief of Staff to Republican Congressmen Jack Fields (1981-1997), John E. Peterson (1997-2002), and Rick Renzi (2002). The chief science adviser to the institute is Willie Soon, PhD an astrophysicist and geoscientist, an opponent of man made global warming and advancer of the theory that climate change is caused by solar variation. The chief policy adviser is Christopher Monckton, a former special adviser to Margaret Thatcher and one of the UK's most prominent climate change sceptics. Further science advisers include William Kininmonth, Robert M. Carter, David Legates, Craig D. Idso, all known skeptics of man made climate change, and James J. O'Brien. Joe D'Aleo is the institute's Meteorology Adviser.

The institute has funded a film "Apocalypse No" intended to show the errors of the Al Gore film An Inconvenient Truth. It will show Monckton, chief policy adviser of the institute presenting a slide show to the Cambridge University Union examining climate change science. [4].

According to an non-cited page on ExxonSecrets.org, the Frontiers of Freedom Institute received a donation of $100,000 from ExxonMobil in 2002 for the foundation (in 2003) of the Frontiers of Freedom Institute's Center for Science and Public Policy [5].


Willie Soon apparently thinks that most climate change is due to solar variance:
Quote:
Willie Wei-Hock Soon (born 1966) is an astrophysicist at the Solar and Stellar Physics Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. He is known for his views that most global warming is caused by solar variation.

In addition to writing a range of technical papers on solar and stellar behavior, the physics of climate change, and an astronomy textbook for students who have no access to telescopes, Soon co-authored The Maunder Minimum and the Variable Sun–Earth Connection with Steven H. Yaskell (2004). The book treats historical and proxy records of deep climate change by examining the extended global cooling period known as the Maunder Minimum (c 1645-1715).[1] This period is notable for a dearth of solar activity, measured today in isotopic records and corroborated by eyewitness accounts of unusual weather at the time. In 2004 Soon was awarded the "Petr Beckmann Award for courage and achievement in the defense of scientific truth" by Doctors for Disaster Preparedness.[2]

He is associated with the George C. Marshall Institute, where he recently co-authored Lessons and Limits of Climate History: Was 20th Century Climate Unusual?[3] with Sallie Baliunas. The pair have also written for the Fraser Institute of Canada regarding Sun-climate connections. Soon and Baliunas have generated controversy [4] because their research was funded in part by the American Petroleum Institute[5], a trade association accused of exerting improper influence over U.S. climate change policy.[6]

He is chief science adviser to the Science and Public Policy Institute.

I bolded his coauthor because she's a lying nutcase.

For the record, let's check the data on solar activity and the 20th Century climate:
Here's one graph that tracks sunspot activity, CO2, and temperature. See how the sunspot activity and average temperature become divorced around 1960, around the time CO2 concentration rises sharply. In the last half of the graph, global temperature correlates more closely to greenhouse gases than to sunspots, which is basically what most scientists will tell you happened. That's because they think that human factors such as greenhouse gas emissions have overtaken the sun as the chief source of climate change since the middle of the last century.
Notice how solar activity never displays a significant overall trend, while global average temperature generally goes up.

Well this group certainly sound objective and non-partisan. I'm sure their general make-up of politically aligned heads and minority of scientists who disagree with the established consensus of every major scientific organization in the world is appraising things fairly and based on sound methodology, rather than on preconceived notions and ideology.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Mizike



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 5130
Location: Iowa City

PostPosted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 6:50 pm    Post subject: Re: Global Warming -- No smoking hot spot? Reply with quote

WheelsOfConfusion wrote:

I bolded his coauthor because she's a lying nutcase.


Oh, come on - some of this stuff really deserves to be quoted here.

Quote:
In 2003, Baliunas and Astrophysicist Willie Soon published a review paper on historical climatology which concluded that "the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium." With Soon, Baliunas investigated the correlation between solar variation and temperatures of the earth's atmosphere. When there are more sunspots, the total solar output increases, and when there are fewer sunspots, it decreases. Soon and Baliunas attribute the Medieval warm period to such an increase in solar output, and believe that decreases in solar output led to the Little Ice Age, a period of cooling from which the earth has been recovering since 1890.[11]

Shortly thereafter, 13 of the authors of papers cited by Baliunas and Soon refuted her interpretation of their work.[12] There were three main objections: Soon and Baliunas used data reflective of changes in moisture, rather than temperature; they failed to distinguish between regional and hemispheric temperature anomalies; and they reconstructed past temperatures from proxy evidence not capable of resolving decadal trends. More recently, Osborn and Briffa repeated the Baliunas and Soon study but restricted themselves to records that were validated as temperature proxies, and came to a different result.[13]

Half of the editorial board of Climate Research, the journal that published the paper, resigned in protest against what they felt was a failure of the peer review process on the part of the journal.[14][15] Otto Kinne, managing director of the journal's parent company, stated that "CR [Climate Research] should have been more careful and insisted on solid evidence and cautious formulations before publication" and that "CR should have requested appropriate revisions of the manuscript prior to publication."


Quote:
Baliunas earlier adopted a skeptical position regarding the hypothesis that CFCs were damaging to the ozone layer. The originators of the hypothesis, Paul Crutzen, Mario Molina and Frank Sherwood Rowland, were awarded the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1995. Her arguments on this issue were presented at Congressional hearings held in 1995 (but before the Nobel prize announcement).

Although Baliunas never publicly retracted her criticism of the ozone depletion hypothesis, an article by Baliunas and Soon written for the Heartland Institute in 2000 promoted the idea that ozone depletion rather than CO2 emissions could explain atmospheric warming.[17]


And perhaps most damning:

Quote:
Baliunas was technical consultant for the science fiction television series, Gene Roddenberry's Earth: Final Conflict which aired from 1997 to 2002.

_________________
Scire aliquid laus est, pudor est non discere velle
"It is laudable to know something, it is disgraceful to not want to learn"
~Seneca
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17134
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 9:05 pm    Post subject: Re: Global Warming -- No smoking hot spot? Reply with quote

Quote:
The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions.


this is what it always seems to come down to - "we can't make all these changes! IT'LL WRECK THE ECONOMY!!!".

now, i'm sure i'll be corrected if i'm wrong - but a big chunk of these carbon emissions are from burning petroleum products. the one we always think of is oil. you know, the stuff that is selling for $140+/barrel, with the price only predicted to rise. the stuff that most of the world is importing in ever-increasing amounts from a highly unstable section of the world increasingly governed by fundamentalist theocracies with policies of destroying other countries, and who haven't really come up with anything (like, say, jobs) that would give their youth some kind of future to work towards. we are sending them large sums of money, some of which is used to prop up dictatorships and some of which funds terrorism, which is directed against us. and we don't seem to have much to show for it, other than ever-increasing prices at the pump, and for home heating, and the like.

reducing carbon emissions by reducing oil use would a) make us independent of these people; b) defund terrorists who are attacking us; and c) lead to the creation of whole new industries that will produce different sources of energy. this is not an unreasonable expectation. there used to be whole industries based on whale oil; when the whales disappeared, other sources (like the petroleum industry) replaced them. "horsepower" used to mean genuine horses, with all the support-staff those entailed (grooms, farriers, knackers, buggy-whip makers, etc.) those jobs are now, for the most part, extinct - and yet the economy continued, buoyed by the Next Big Thing, the automobile. we haven't been relying on petroleum all that long - a bit over 100 years, perhaps. it won't be that earthshaking to replace it.

another source of carbon emissions is burning coal - something that also produces acid rain, which is also causing more than a few problems. while coal is more of a home-grown produce, at least for the u.s., replacing it as an energy source will probably solve more problems than it causes.

we are more likely to suffer electrical brownouts and blackouts and have our cars grind to a halt if we insist on using fossil fuels than we are if we go to other, infinitely renewable sources that don't require volumes of stuff to be moved around the globe. new inventions (like new ways to harness those energies) always involve new industries and new jobs. so why is changing our energy sources always linked to economic collapse? especially now, when insistence on sticking with the old sources is doing so much damage to the economy?

just for a change - let's give the science a pass this time, and talk about the economic implications. (especially since we've already argued the fallacies anti-global warming science to a standstill this month, and such arguments never seem to change anyone's mind.)
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nathan



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 6282

PostPosted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 2:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

A fun new idea: http://www.physorg.com/news135820173.html

Any chemists or fish tank owners wanna poke at it for me? I lack the appropriate sticks.
_________________
All our final decisions are made in a state of mind that is not going to last. - Marky Mark Proust
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Secret



Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 5429

PostPosted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 5:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wouldn't there be probably incredibly awful consequences from messing with the pH of the oceans?

I mean, algae alone...
_________________
rm wrote:
the grail is patient.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mr_Moustache



Joined: 01 Oct 2006
Posts: 9123
Location: The thing in itself that is Will

PostPosted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 9:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mouse seemed to take a kinda crazy turn Sad
_________________
When life gives you lemons, some people make lemonade. I just eat them and make a sour face.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17134
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 8:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

what - where?

and i don't know about throwing more stuff in the oceans. it does have a tremendous potential for unintended consequences.

plus, it's really big, and pretty well buffered. strikes me you'd have to add a _lot_ of lime to see a change in pH.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Yorick



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 12101
Location: In the undersnow

PostPosted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 8:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mouse wrote:
what - where?

going off the rails on a crazy train

_________________
Currently experiencing: not summer.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
nathan



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 6282

PostPosted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 2:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Secret wrote:
Wouldn't there be probably incredibly awful consequences from messing with the pH of the oceans?


According to my very limited understanding we already are... the oceans are becoming increasingly acidic, and that does have awful consequences.

mouse wrote:
and i don't know about throwing more stuff in the oceans. it does have a tremendous potential for unintended consequences.


Certainly seems so, but inaction does as well. The problem has been pretty unanimously recognized for a decade (?), and speculated about for far longer, yet actions here in the US have slowly progressed from jack to squat. Even in a best case post-election scenario (Obama and a BRAVE and MOTIVATED democratic majority) the oil/coal industry will still have significant political clout, so it seems very unlikely that US policies will spontaneously rival the progressiveness of our you're-a-peein' counterparts. Even if we go completely carbon free in ten years (I would be shocked), there's still a growing China/India/etc to worry about, and all the while hoping we don't/haven't triggered a runaway process bigger than our own inputs (methane trapped in permafrost + lowered albedo from melting ice + Aibo farts + etc etc etc).

I suspect all courses of action are potentially dangerous and stupid... I just don't have a good sense of how they compare to each other.
_________________
All our final decisions are made in a state of mind that is not going to last. - Marky Mark Proust
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17134
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 6:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

oh, we've been using the ocean as a garbage dump for a long long time - because it's so large, it seemed like it could swallow anything. well, now we know it can't - but i'm not sure we understand it well enough to fix things, other than by stopping what we are doing. take the lime solution - it will take a _lot_ of that stuff to change the pH of the ocean. i mean, a _lot_. now, they predict that changing the ocean pH will mean it can take up twice as much CO2 as creating the lime generates - but over how long a time? where will the volume of material come from, and what impacts will removing it have? sounds like it needs to be processed - if they are talking about what i think they are talking about, the stuff needs to be burned, then slaked. what are the implications of that? how are you going to transport it to the ocean, and distribute it? if you just dump it off the shore of australia (for example) and depend on the currents to move it around - well, as i recall, the circulation rate for the pacific gyres is on the order of a year or so; for vertical mixing, much longer. and whatever you do, you are going to have some sort of pH gradient until the stuff mixes - how extreme will it be? what will the impacts be?

better, i think, to first focus on stopping what we are doing now, seeing how much (if any) recovery that gives us, and then seeing what further can be done. that has risks, of course; we may lose organisms and ecosystems in the time it takes to work through that. but if china (for example) keeps polluting while the rest of us are trying to change things - is that really going to let us make progress?
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mr_Moustache



Joined: 01 Oct 2006
Posts: 9123
Location: The thing in itself that is Will

PostPosted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 7:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

i really hate it when people blame china. The western world polluted, looted, and god knows what else to create the current wellfare. Then, when other countries start to do the same we all go like.. hey you cant do that ! its bad for the environment. Really.

I think climate change is exactly what it is - a change in climate. I mean, the world shifted and changed forever. That isnt gonna stop just because we're here. Hell, we influenced it, or perhaps even gave it a good headstart. The same as a erupting volcano does.

But what kind of difference does it make ? i mena, does your car run just because it knows there a north pole? Does it feed children in africa?

I mean, change is part of life. Without it, we would still be monkeys. Or bacterias even.

All in all, i think we only can conclude that climate change will have consequences. Whether they will be good or bad in the end, who knows?
And even if they are bad, we would be still fighting the (rising) tide. In my opinion, we better just roll with the punches.
_________________
When life gives you lemons, some people make lemonade. I just eat them and make a sour face.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group