Jump to content



Featured Articles

Check out the latest featured articles.

File Library

Check out the latest downloads available in the File Library.

New Article

Product Viscosity vs. Shear

Featured File

Vertical Tank Selection

New Blog Entry

Low Flow in Pipes- posted in Ankur's blog

We Need A New Forum Title - Ice Age Discussion


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
9 replies to this topic
Share this topic:
| More

#1 DougB

DougB

    Brand New Member

  • Members
  • 8 posts

Posted 23 April 2008 - 09:37 AM

Sorry to those who actually think that humans have an affect on the environment. As stated by those scientist that are NOT politically motivated, the Earths temperature is highly dependent on....... the SUN.

The earth has now cooled 0.7 C in one year and places the average temperature to where we were in the 1930s. Hmmmm......isn't that the beginning of the Industrial Revolution?

Those fans of links.......

http://www.foxnews.c...,352241,00.html

#2 Art Montemayor

Art Montemayor

    Gold Member

  • Admin
  • 5,645 posts

Posted 23 April 2008 - 10:14 AM


DougB:

It looks like you are in a good geographical location relative to those folks up in the Northeast - like Boston and New York. Most folks in Phoenix that I know would welcome another "Little Ice Age". It could cut down their air conditioning bills.

Just making a little levity; I'm on my way to Tucson on May 2nd to be with my granddaughters. I love Arizona just the way it is - although Phoenix in July - August takes a lot of adjusting in personal life style. No amount of remedial CO2 removal is going to cool down Phoenix. It has always been hot and I think it will always be hot - regardless.

There is a Senate bill coming up this Spring that proposes what some estimate to be a $1.7 Trillion "Carbon" tax imposed by the US government. If the weather starts to cool down, what kind of tax can the politicians come up with to continue their squeeze on us taxpayers?


#3 djack77494

djack77494

    Gold Member

  • ChE Plus Subscriber
  • 1,282 posts

Posted 25 April 2008 - 02:32 PM

Many years ago I was involved with a research institute and was instructed to investigate how we might tap into the (then) growing concern over "Global Warming". Around that time, I found what has become my favorite magazine article of all time. It's entitled "The Cooling World" and it appeared in the 28 April 1975 issue of Newsweek magazine. Plenty of data, graphs, and seemingly solid reasoning are presented in this ONE PAGE article, along with claims of potentially catastrophic outcomes that are sure to follow. Makes for very interesting reading and I urge anyone interested in this topic to try to obtain a copy of the article.

The tone of the article is remarkably like the tone of more modern articulations about global warming. In fact, the last sentence of the article was, "The longer the planners delay, the more diffficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality." In my situation, it was recommended that I focus more on data to support Warming and not cooling (because that was where the money was). Since then I confess to becoming increasingly cynical, and can relate quite well with DougB's comment about scientists who are NOT politically (or economically) motivated. I do not consider myself to be anti global warming, but I do consider that the sum total of human knowledge about long term climatic change is well covered using a single word - clueless. We don't know if (long term) the earth is warming or it is cooling. We don't know which is good and which is bad or if both are good or both are bad. We don't know who might be affected and how. Will there be winners and losers? Who will they be? Is there anything we can do to impact what must be incredible forces that could cause such an effect? What is it, how much will it cost, and does the cost justify the benefit? I absolutely believe we should study this potential problem. I absolutely do not believe we should subscribe to the incredible fear mongering I've heard. Taking actions like I've heard proposed will take enormous resources and there will be a corresponding cost in humankind's well being and therefore in lives. The time has come to take action, and the action that should be taken is to study the problem.
Doug

#4 DougB

DougB

    Brand New Member

  • Members
  • 8 posts

Posted 09 May 2008 - 03:40 PM

Well said Doug. I really do not believe that there is any anthropogenic global warming. I am also not saying that we shouldnt be responsible stewards of the earth. However I have a HUGE problem when it comes to the Government wanting to levy billions of dollars on carbon releases (someone should remind them that humans release carbon on every exhale). To place that kind of legislation and then a pay to play program is ridiculous when there really is no proof of such man made warming.

#5 djack77494

djack77494

    Gold Member

  • ChE Plus Subscriber
  • 1,282 posts

Posted 12 May 2008 - 01:21 PM

It's especially onerous coming from the one world government folks (not meaning to offend). Dollars = Health & Well Being for real people. Please quantify for me the net impact (the pluses & minuses) of trying to stabilize CO2 levels. Show me that the monumental efforts won't cost (much) more than the benefits. Even opponents to the worldwide GHG elimination campaign want to be good stewards of the earth and its inhabitants. Being good stewards, however, means identifying and implementing good strategies and not running around like a headless chicken yelling, "we better act immediately or it will be too late". Whenever a high pressure sales pitch like this one is made, you'll not find me responding well. I just get kinda cynical and start thinking about following the money trail. First, do no harm.

#6 kevinlewis

kevinlewis

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 10 posts

Posted 01 January 2009 - 11:01 PM

Hi Friend's
I absolutely do not believe we should subscribe to the incredible fear mongering I've heard. Taking actions like I've heard proposed will take enormous resources and there will be a corresponding cost in humankind's well being and therefore in lives. The time has come to take action, and the action that should be taken is to study the problem.

#7 StealthProg

StealthProg

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 51 posts

Posted 09 January 2010 - 05:45 AM

Hi Friend's
I absolutely do not believe we should subscribe to the incredible fear mongering I've heard. Taking actions like I've heard proposed will take enormous resources and there will be a corresponding cost in humankind's well being and therefore in lives. The time has come to take action, and the action that should be taken is to study the problem.


Hasn't it had a about 30+ years of study?

#8 djack77494

djack77494

    Gold Member

  • ChE Plus Subscriber
  • 1,282 posts

Posted 08 February 2010 - 06:29 PM

Show me the model and use it to generate past, current, and future climate. Then show me the data.

#9 StealthProg

StealthProg

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 51 posts

Posted 11 February 2010 - 04:48 PM

Show me the model and use it to generate past, current, and future climate. Then show me the data.


Show me the input data for the past say pre-1900.

#10 Andres Valencia Michaud

Andres Valencia Michaud

    Veteran Member

  • Members
  • 38 posts

Posted 12 February 2010 - 06:47 PM

I wanted to add the following:
It seems here, many people don't believe humans are responsible of the global warming and do not think it's really affecting our lives. I'll use an example easy to follow for chemical engineers. I live in Chile. Our capital city is Santiago. This city is sorrounded by mountains and is our biggest, most populated and industralized city.500 years ago, when spanish conquerors came, there wasn't a fog cloud covering the city. The winds play with the fog swinging it up and down the city. The fog has less density than sea-level air, but not lesser density than mountain-high air. 500 years ago, the climate was average for what spanish thought it was a mediterranean climate and because they originated mostly from the mediterranean side of Spain, they liked it. Since it's foundation the temperature has risen at least 2ºC (3,6ºF).

What is the problem? CO2. GHG are called that way because the effect a green house has over the plants... temperature in a green house tends to be higher than outside, preventing delicate crops to wither and die.

Remember once upon a time Earth was hot? well, plants absorbed the CO2, diluting the GHG. Not anymore, because we cut our trees... So it will rise the temperature again.

As ChEng's... what's the matter with us? To give one example: which power plant is more efficient? a) one located in a cold region B) one located in a hot region.

I can keep on this conversation, but think about this one again: Male testicles are outside the body because it is needed to keep a lower temperature for the sperm. Wearing tight underwear damages this balance. So, think again what's the real effect of warming up the planet...I can't say what's the effect of lowering the planet's temp, but I'm pretty sure warming it up is against us.




Similar Topics