48 replies to this topic

[DougB]

Found an different article about the Mars Temperature:

http://www.heartland...cfm?artId=17977

and quoted from THAT article....

Iain Murray, senior fellow and global warming specialist at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said the Mars warming adds another level of uncertainty to claims that the Earth's modest recent warming is a result of human activity. "It is probably too much to claim that any one source is the principal driver of the warming trend on Earth," said Murray.

[gvdlans]

But also (in the same article):

"Sallie Baliunas, chair of the Science Advisory Board at the George C. Marshall Institute, said, "Pluto, like Mars, is also undergoing warming." However, Baliunas speculated it is "likely not the sun but long-term processes on Mars and Pluto" causing the warming. However, until more information is gathered, Baliunas said, it is difficult to know for sure."

So even if it is proven that Mars is undergoing warming, this does not necessarily mean that global warming because of greenhouse gases has to be dismissed. Besides, at this point of time there are only indications (reduction of frozen CO2 polar caps) that Mars is undergoing warming.

I still don't see a good basis for the statement that "NASA data indicates that the average temperature on Mars is ALSO increasing and correlating with the increases found on Earth.", similar can be said about the Mount Pinatubo story.

I am not convinced that earth is warming because of greenhouse gases or because of increased solar activity (or other reasons or combinations...). What I do see is that both sides use statements that are not based on scientific evidence. I see the same thing happening in this discussion forum.

[DougB]

What I do see is that both sides use statements that are not based on scientific evidence. I see the same thing happening in this discussion forum.

OUCH!
My bad, I was under the impression that this was a discussion topic....not a dissertation.
I'm on MUTE

[pleckner]

I just have to chime in.

If man is part of the problem and we deny that, and continue to do what we are doing, then the damage to the planet can be severe and will be detrimental to our way of life.

If man is not part of the problem but we take steps to minimize man's effect as if he were, then what harm have we done? We actually might create jobs in the interim. We might even be helping emerging industrialized countries to clean up their own act and actually become more efficient if not more technically sound.

[gvdlans]

What I do see is that both sides use statements that are not based on scientific evidence. I see the same thing happening in this discussion forum.

OUCH!
My bad, I was under the impression that this was a discussion topic....not a dissertation.
I'm on MUTE

Calm down please. This is a discussion topic in a chemical engineering forum. Trying to convince other people by making statements that are not based on hard facts or scientific evidence does not seem very useful to me.

However, if you do it in a smart way you may receive a Nobel prize for it ;-) See http://article.natio...jQ4OGFiZjFlNjc=

[Art Montemayor]

Well, the following US Senate report is out as of yesterday:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

The subject of Global Warming is specifically addressed by known or referenced, world-wide, recognized scientists. The reading is tedious but may be of direct interest.

[kevinlewis]

Hi
I don't think that these problems require any strong immediate action, other than
a general push for more fuel-efficient vehicles, better insulated houses, etc. But that
doesn't mean that it would be wise to ignore the problem, either. By the time you
see that the climate has changed, it will be too late to do much of anything.

[Johnson]

Join the discussion below:

We are polluting the earth, we are in need of alternate energy solutions, I think these are accepted as truth. Ok, is global warming happening yes or no? Let's take a look at what's the worst that can happen.


What's the worst that can happen?

How lucky do you feel?

[djack77494]

If man is not part of the problem but we take steps to minimize man's effect as if he were, then what harm have we done

We also might be unnecessarily diverting trillions of dollars, euros, and yen from places where they might do enormous good and save or improve countless lives. We could smash the onset of a worldwide economic crisis rather than precipitate one. This is not something to be taken lightly. I still say, "Show me the proof". I also still say that convincing proof will include a model that goes back far enough to include the "mini Ice Age" experienced in historical times.

[lewislee19]

Global warming is a hot topic today. With recent reports coming out regarding the state of our planet, the media and politicians nationwide have locked into "we are all going to die in a fireball of death" mode. However, global warming is a lot more complex than politicians and the media may tell you.

There are two issues at hand when the term "global warming" is thrown around. The planet is warming. This is a fact. We have been measuring surface temperatures of our planet for the last 200 years. In the past 30 years, the average temperatures on earth have been steadily increasing. The second issue is the more controversial one: Humans are the cause of global warming, through our pollution of the environment. Since the second industrial revolution in the late 19th century, humans have been pumping gases into the atmosphere. In the past 30 years, the earth has become warmer. But correlation does not mean causation. So is our putting gas into the atmosphere the cause of the warming that has occurred in recent years?

If you ask Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, George Soros, or the The New York Times, the answer is a certain, confident "yes." Others are not as sure. A chemistry professor I spoke with said the last place to turn for information on this theory of global warming is to politicians or the popular media. The study of global warming is a scientific study, he emphasized, and thus scientific papers are where one should look to find out about this phenomenon.

The recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, which is a "summary for policymakers," gives some insight into the warming of our planet. They say that they have "very high confidence (90 percent) that the globally averaged net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming." But the surface temperature readings only show warming in the past 30 years, not the past 250. In addition, there is still a 10-percent chance that global warming is completely unrelated to humans. As the science professor I interviewed put it, "Are you willing to bet the farm on 9:1 odds or less?"

Other scientific sources have also provided evidence for anthropogenic global warming; however, not one of these scientists is willing to say with even close to 100-percent certainty that humans are causing global warming. So many Americans and Bowdoin students are certain, but what is this based upon?

So global warming may or may not be anthropogenic. Say it is. How do we know what the future consequences of global warming are? Computer models have made predictions about what the causes may be, yet these models are imprecise. Many consider these computer models flat out wrong. Climate is an immensely complicated phenomenon, and computer models are nowhere near mimicking nature.

What we are going to do to stop global warming? Liberals nationwide have given President Bush much flak over not abiding by the Kyoto Protocol, which would require all the signing countries to bring their greenhouse gas emissions below 1990 levels. President Clinton did not submit the protocol for ratification in America, even though it was signed by America as a symbolic measure. We never hear criticism of Clinton for not taking measures on the protocol, but we do hear Bush bashing.

Even if the Kyoto protocol was followed though, it would only reduce levels to 1990 standards. The IPCC claims warming has been caused by humans for over 250 years! In addition, the Kyoto protocol was not signed by India or China, the two fastest-growing economic powerhouses in the world right now and also two of the biggest polluters. In order to eliminate all greenhouse gas emissions, we would have to return to the living conditions of 250 years ago! No, you say, we can develop new forms of energy such as wind and solar energy.

These "clean" forms of energy are not so clean to set up though. Creation of solar cells is devastating for the environment as the mining of the semiconductor materials requires substantial, notoriously dirty, open mining operations. Wind energy has been met with opposition from environmental groups who do not want wild land or seascapes sullied with turbines. Ted Kennedy is adamantly opposed to the wind frame proposed for the Massachusetts coast; presumably it will upset his view from the family compound. A permit to build a wind farm in Maine was just denied because it would spoil the view from the Appalachian Trail. There is one form of energy that suits our needs though: nuclear power. Ironically, many of the politicians who are against global warming are also against nuclear energy.

Lastly, let us look at the opposition to anthropogenic global warming theories. Besides the chemistry professor I talked to here at Bowdoin, many other scientists worldwide are not convinced that global warming is being caused by humans. Nir Shaviv, an astrophysicist at the University of Jerusalem, has said, "Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming." Dr. Timothy Ball, one of the first Canadians with a Ph.D. in climatology, believes that "global warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist." Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, has said, "The Antarctic is not warming and there is nothing in the models that distinguish the temperature trends they predict in the Arctic from those in the Antarctic." A quick Google search on Lindzen will supply anyone interested with dozens of reasons to be skeptical of anthropogenic global warming.

Therefore, before creating an opinion on whether or not global warming is being caused by humans, go and do the research. Look at scientific papers, what scientists are saying, and analyze both sides of the argument rationally. Do not rely on politicians and the media for your information.

700 years ago, everyone thought the Earth was flat. 100 years ago, some scientists believed you could ascertain everything there is to know about a person from feeling his or her skull. 35 years ago, there was a scare that global cooling was occurring. As a student at a top liberal arts college, it is your responsibility to do your own research, form your own opinions, and don't believe everything you see on TV.

[Patrician]

Pure scam.
I have university near me with astrophysics and meteorology. Professors say that it is connected with sun activity and climate periods on Earth. If you check history you can see that there were very cold and very hot periods. Lastly CO2 solubility in sea water. Higher temp. less solubility and more CO2 in atmosphere. Volcanos provide more CO2 than humans.
I can say that increase in pirate numbers increase temperature.
It's all about money and forcing new laws.

[Zauberberg]

Interesting standpoint by Patrician.

This topic is far away from my knowledge; however, recently I have watched one interesting movie titled "Zeitgeist" where, amongst other (and very intriguing) subjects it has been discussed about global warming - with conclusions being the same as the ones brought out by Patrician. Is it all about money?

http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/

[Zauberberg]

I apologize, the link to the movie is: http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

Apart from the first chapter which deals with religion and faith, the rest of the movie is very much interesting and it opens new horizons. Recommended stuff.

Best regards,

[Patrician]

I'll give you next example.
In EU which my country belongs to they implemented such things like "CO2 limits". Each country get its limits and if limits are crossed companies must pay for extra emission. Of course they don't have any choice but to put higher prices.

The funniest thing is how they get ammount of CO2 produced by each country. They just measure CO2 conc. in atmosphere.
Here comes air convection. Fumes from 300m exhaust stack can travel from Poland to France and vice versa. So for France or German goverment it is cheaper to reduce limits for Poland or other smaller countries.
Those limits are huge brake for economy not saying about all those "Green Companies" making money in Brussels.

[Zauberberg]

It looks like everything is a part of the same story. If you have watched "Zeitgeist", the following movie can also provide some interesting information about the "global economy" and money-making business of elite groups:

The Money Masters - How International Bankers Gained Control of America

[Patrician]

Yep, saw it.
I doubt it's about money. I think it's more about power.

[Qalander (Chem)]

Yep, saw it.
I doubt it's about money. I think it's more about power.

I feel that it was money power show and money making powers show

[Enginer]

I think the science of AGW is settled. The warming trend during the last warm phase of the PDO (Pacific Decadal Warming) coincided with Al Gore being Vice President, and having serious conversations with the Enron manager responsible for ERON's profitable trading of SO2 emission trading credits. They cooked up the idea of CO2 trading credits for two reasons:
1) to make money
2) to try to get mankind to reduce his energy footprint on the world.

Unfortunately, these efforts were made in the face of an internal ENRON report saying that it was unlikely that CO2 had much, if anything to do with CO2, the fact that CO2 HAS very little to do with the normal warming since the Maunder minimum of the 1600's, and the fact that around 1998, after a huge El Ninio, the PDO would finally enter a cool phase.

(CO2) Cap and Trade is being passed in the face of 10 years of nearly zero warming, and we appear to be entering a period of cooling. (NOT a new Ice Age, I'm pretty sure...) Piers Corbyn, the extremely successful WeatherAction forecaster, evn goes as far as to expect 100 years of cooling.

I have argued with professors who teach their classes that ocean acidifcation will cause a demise of calcium shell-life in the oceans that 1) it sure didn't, when atmospheric CO2 was over 2,000 ppm, and the great coral reefs started (back when ferns grew REAL well, thank you), pointing out that most pH samples are taken with 15 miles of poluted shores that are loaded with sewage runoff, dust, fertilizers, etc. In the center of the oceans, planktom are quite happy with the increased CO2.

If you ran a commercial green house, you would consider raising the CO2 artificially to 700 or even 1000 ppm (some species) for increased plant growth. Since numerous reputable predicitions of Little Ice Age conditions by 2030 have been made, we may thank our lucky stars if CO2 gets to 600 ppm in time to thwart global starvation.

Unfortunately we may have to wait until Winter Wheat crops fail before our Congress and the EU notices they are going in the wrong direction. The UN IPCC interpretations are just plain wrong!

[Qalander (Chem)]

Dear Enginer Hello/Good Morning,

Firstly I congratulate you on bringing in a really valid argument.

Secondly,I feel like disagreeing on the Vegetation% decreased globally will have almost 'Nil' or little effect on overall weather/atmospheric conditions;leaving aside the Enron and other Vested Interest parties in a way dodging the Whole Mass of Humans Globally.

Hope This adds point to ponder in addition to your remarks

[djack77494]

The recently publicized "Climategate" debacle adds an interesting dimension to this discussion. I cannot claim to have read and fully digested all of the pertinent data, and the number of experts who have done so is probably very small. I can say that trying to force your opinion and "call for action" on the public is a very serious step and needs to be met with very serious science. That appears to not have been done. Remember that there is a LOT of very serious money that will be thrown at this problem if it is deemed viable. That money will be diverted from many alternative worthy causes. All that I would demand as a member of the general public is that validated, peer reviewed models be developed that include the major weather patterns known to have existed in recorded history. We had an extensive period of warming in Medieval Times followed by the "Little Ice Age". I need to know that a model can accomodate these known historical facts before I'll accept being compelled to spend trillions chasing after some imaginary problem. What I really resent is the opinions of a few who approach dissent by "shouting down their opposition". I'm tired of hearing statements beginning with, "of course global warming is occuring". I'm also tired of hearing the "doom and gloom" scenarios of many of the world's cities being flooded, rich farmlands turning into deserts, etc. It is ridiculous and it's not how good science is done, and the public deserves good science.

[kkala]

The topic has been an interesting surprise for me, although I can say that people in Greece and SE Europe do not seem to be in doubt about global warming. But we are not (yet) decisive enough to apply hard measures, because of inertia and a desire not to quit conveniences. We follow European guidelines and burden the atmosphere more and more every year.
No, I cannot prove that CO2 is the cause of Global warming. Earth has seen many expansions and retreats of glaciers before industrial era. Greenland was warmer in 1000-1400, when inhabited by Vikings. Climate changes are mysterious. But the accelerated global warming of Earth has been observed and seems to be a fact. It makes a symptom.
A diagnosis has always doubt, yet we cannot lose much time investigating the case. The patient will die if we do not act now. Or the patient will be self cured, according to the other side. We can let destiny decide, or try to influence it for us.
The diagnosis of greenhouse effect is fair enough. The contribution of CO2 to warming has been proved, the Global warming had been predicted. Earth surface and atmosphere would be a closed system, if we did not introduce fossil fuel CO2 to this system. So temperature rise is a logical consequence. Models to "prove" this would certainly help, but I am not aware of them. They would be worthwhile and complex (since CO2 content exists in the sea, atmosphere, plants, animals, and all these CO2 contents are interrelated and temperature dependent), yet "not legible" by me (if some members know, please inform).
So I have to trust local "doctors", who seem sure about the "sickness" but not willing for sacrifices, which will be more and more: No cars, heavy taxes on fuels (if used), costly electricity, generous financial grants for other people to support green development, birth control...era of abundance may have passed. A Power Plant to liquefy "emitted" CO2 and send it into underground physical storage is being constructed in Germany. Solar, wind, sea wave energy is used for electricity production. It is logical to believe in positive carbon emission savings, if we consider the spent heat / electricity of equipment operating in these new Plants.
A lot of us may remember the ozone layer reduction caused by Freon and other hydrocarbons containing F & Cl. The harmful effect of them was found out ca 1970, but there were a lot of "doubts" on it (not so unbiased in my opinion). Clarification came ca 1988 and drastic measures ca 1998, but then the ozone "hole" needed almost a century (i.e. 2100) for restoration. In the case of Global Warming interests are apparently much stronger, yet all of us may pay for the delay. So Petroleum industry may try to lower the issue, contrary to Nuclear station constructors. Probably the ones to present the issue objectively are Engineers, Politicians and journalists do not seem to feel it.
Assuming that temperature increase cause desertification (Sahara area was cultivated a few thousand years ago, reason?) , we understand that this will occur in the hot zone of earth (India, Africa) where millions of people live. Raising temperature may do good to some Northern countries (not certain), not counter weighing Global damage.
I have just transfered local opinions on the subject, so that you may have a more "global" view. Research on the causes of Global warming should be continued, so that we can explain it and locate its causes. Until then, there is just a feeling (feeling, not proven opinion) that we act for reduction of CO2 emissions. Criticism on the CO2 cause of global warming without evidence of some other cause may be permitted in our society, but it is a luxury loosing time.

[terryc]

Join the discussion below:

I do not know if anybody has read a very interesting book called 'The Real Global Warning Disaster' by Christopher Booker, but I would strongly recommend it. I admit that I am a sceptic. I am afraid that neither Mr.Gore nor the IPCC come very well out of it. Still there are lots of references, which to me at least shows that the author has done his homework.

I would welcome comment from anybody who has read it. It seems to me, in the UK at least that the politicians (equivalent to lunatics) have taken over the asylum in the UK.

[Qalander (Chem)]

Join the discussion below:

I do not know if anybody has read a very interesting book called 'The Real Global Warning Disaster' by Christopher Booker, but I would strongly recommend it. I admit that I am a sceptic. I am afraid that neither Mr.Gore nor the IPCC come very well out of it. Still there are lots of references, which to me at least shows that the author has done his homework.

I would welcome comment from anybody who has read it. It seems to me, in the UK at least that the politicians (equivalent to lunatics) have taken over the asylum in the UK.

Hello/Good Evening,Merry Christmas terryc,

It's nice to meet a Salford colleague here.

I agree to your words;however is there any possibility to have a pdf of your reffered book above, to study and form a justified opinion with better info.

[StealthProg]

I do not intend to participate in a lengthy debate beyond posting this message. For those who are concerned about "carbon footprints" and "global warming", I would remind you that humans and all other mammals breathe in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide ... whereas trees and other vegetation breathe in carbon dioxide and breathe out oxygen. Lest we get carried away with getting rid of all carbon dioxide emissions, remember we depend upon the oxygen created by trees that need carbon dioxide to produce the oxygen we breathe.

This is some kind of hallucinogenic drug induced alternative reality argument right?