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

Use Of Icebergs


This topic has been archived.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

#1 Technocrat

Technocrat

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 81 posts

Posted 10 January 2010 - 11:44 PM

Dear all,

As we know the icebergs at the Arctic and Antarctic circles are melting down due to global warming. The level of oceans is increasing threatning the coastal cities to submerge under water.

I have an idea here: Estimate the quantity of ice that can melt per year and cut the ice off the iceberg and bring to the land where it can be used for industrial and municipal application. Thus we can save water under ground and above ground for future use.

Regards.

#2

  • guestGuests
  • 0 posts

Posted 15 January 2010 - 05:21 AM

Has to think about your calculation and the question you asked.

#3 StealthProg

StealthProg

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 51 posts

Posted 15 January 2010 - 04:27 PM

Won't that just reduce the icebergs twice as fast? :blink:

#4 djack77494

djack77494

    Gold Member

  • ChE Plus Subscriber
  • 1,282 posts

Posted 18 January 2010 - 03:25 PM

As we know the icebergs at the Arctic and Antarctic circles are melting down due to global warming. The level of oceans is increasing threatning the coastal cities to submerge under water.

I have an idea here: Estimate the quantity of ice that can melt per year and cut the ice off the iceberg and bring to the land where it can be used for industrial and municipal application. Thus we can save water under ground and above ground for future use.


Sorry but I can't let a comment like this get through unchallenged. NO, we do not all know that the Artic and Antartic are melting and that sea levels are rising and that coastal cities will soon be submerged. Take advantage of your critical thinking abilities to avoid becoming a sheep. Look into some sites that are critical of the herd mentality that you seem to espouse. For example, look into some of the other threads that address this very issue in this very website. Look also at some alternate view websites. For example, I like www.climatesceptics.com.au. Note sceptic is not denier; it's doubter. Your idea would work if only we could gather those molecules of ice that were fated to melt and put them to good use. I figure it would be tough to locate them, so the idea's not quite practical.

Edited by djack77494, 18 January 2010 - 03:26 PM.


#5 StealthProg

StealthProg

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 51 posts

Posted 23 January 2010 - 05:50 AM

I think those particular skeptics have a rather self serving agenda. I've were going to have this discussion it should be on real evidence. The weight of evidence is generally overwhelming in favor of global warming and most of the evidence against seems to be at best dubious and at worst has come from the ecological equivalent of a Baghdad taxi driver (and yes we did start a war on that one).

Sea levels have risen more rapidly in the last 50 years than in the past 100, it does coincide with a reduction in glacial mass. Its easy to find the raw data, go and look. Ok lets see some evidence against?


BTW Removing the exact iceberg molecules wouldn't help either as then simply other molecules would melt, hence the ice would still reduce twice as fast. Think heat balance. :blink:

#6 djack77494

djack77494

    Gold Member

  • ChE Plus Subscriber
  • 1,282 posts

Posted 29 January 2010 - 10:44 AM

I think those particular skeptics have a rather self serving agenda.

Unlikely. It makes much more sense that global warming promotors, often feeding at the goverment's teat, have a self serving agenda. Who would seek funding by proclaiming that there's no problem? Someone soon to be unemployed maybe. No one very smart.

I've were going to have this discussion it should be on real evidence. The weight of evidence is generally overwhelming in favor of global warming and most of the evidence against seems to be at best dubious and at worst has come from the ecological equivalent of a Baghdad taxi driver (and yes we did start a war on that one).

Well, we can agree on the need for real evidence, though I'm not sure how the Baghdad cab driver is involved. I have requested on numerous occassions that someone point me to a model that predicts manmade climate change AND includes known historical climate fluctuations including the Medieval Warm Period (about 1000 to 1300 B.C.) and the Little Ice Age that peaked in the late 17th Century. If you can't show me that, then you do not have an adequate climate prediction tool. Period and the end of discussion as far as I'm concerned. It's really not too much to ask for. Show me the model and I'll join the Global Warming bandwagon.

Once again, I'll refer critical thinkers to the excellent Australian website www.climatesceptics.com.au for some real analysis of this problem. I tried to upload a 3MB Power Point presentation on te topic but was unsuccessful; if someone knows how to do this, I'd be happy to try again. Quick summary:
1) This isn't about renewable energy, pollution or saving the planet. We all want those.
2) Climate change does happen and CO2 is a greenhouse gas. (Yes I admit this)
3) CO2 is NOT a pollutant. It is a wonderful substance absolutely necessary for life.
4) Increases in its concentration will act like plant fertilizer and make earth greener and more productive.
5) 95% of the 1% of Earth's atmosphere that can be called greenhouse gases is water vapor.
6) 3.6% is CO2, and not all of that is manmade.
7) Referenced website claims emissions trading will cost Australians $4550 per taxpayer per year.
8) It's futile to try to control CO2 emissions, especially if major emitters like China and India won't agree to meaningful reductions (not merely reductions in the rate of increse).
9) The evidence is not overwhelming; in fact it is pretty meager.
10) Climatic fluctuations do not seem well correlated to fossil fuel usage or, in the last decade, even to CO2 concentration.
11) This applies to atmospheric and ocean temperatures.
12) There is a lot of evidence that contradicts any correlation between manmade factors and global temperatures.
(I think the "deniers" are the ones who deny this.)
13) What will happen if we take draconian measures to "rein in" CO2? (per website cited)
a-Food prices will rise
b-Fuel prices will rise
c-Power prices will rise 100%
d-Unemployment levels will rise
e-Australia's economy will become the equivalent of Cambodia's within 10 years.
Is this a good thing? Should we rush forward without the facts? Might there be some drastic consequences to doing so? We've certainly heard all the "doom and gloom" forecasts of what happens if we ignore this problem. What happens if we take aggressive action? Anyone think about that?

#7 StealthProg

StealthProg

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 51 posts

Posted 29 January 2010 - 05:46 PM

"Leon and thousands of other Australian landholders have lost property rights due to the Kyoto protocol and other environmental laws"

If that doesn't make them biased I don't know what does...



1) This isn't about renewable energy, pollution or saving the planet. We all want those.

Irrelevant & meaningless statement...


2) Climate change does happen and CO2 is a greenhouse gas. (Yes I admit this)

Good Start...

3) CO2 is NOT a pollutant. It is a wonderful substance absolutely necessary for life.

It's a question of degree, oxygen is good, up to a point!

4) Increases in its concentration will act like plant fertilizer and make earth greener and more productive.

Not necessarily true, many modern plants (most cereals amongst them) are adapted to lower concentrations of CO2 and have a different metabolic cycles to older species.

5) 95% of the 1% of Earth's atmosphere that can be called greenhouse gases is water vapor.

Pointless statement designed to confuse the weak minded

6) 3.6% is CO2, and not all of that is manmade.

See above...

7) Referenced website claims emissions trading will cost Australians $4550 per taxpayer per year.

We have emmissions trading in Europe and it hasn't cost me anything yet, how is the number calculated?

8) It's futile to try to control CO2 emissions, especially if major emitters like China and India won't agree to meaningful reductions (not merely reductions in the rate of increse).

China is telling all its major manufacturer to reduce emissions by 20%, a lot more than the US has done! Again its just a paranoid statement aimed at fostering racism and mistrust.

9) The evidence is not overwhelming; in fact it is pretty meager.

In whose opinion, show us the data!

10) Climatic fluctuations do not seem well correlated to fossil fuel usage or, in the last decade, even to CO2 concentration.

So lets pick a years that don't correlate and claim none of it correlates, a weak understanding of statistics?

11) This applies to atmospheric and ocean temperatures.

Good.

12) There is a lot of evidence that contradicts any correlation between manmade factors and global temperatures.
(I think the "deniers" are the ones who deny this.)

Thats not what the data i've seen shows, lets see the original data that this statement is based on.

13) What will happen if we take draconian measures to "rein in" CO2? (per website cited)
a-Food prices will rise

yes

b-Fuel prices will rise

yes

c-Power prices will rise 100%

base on what and whose calcs?

d-Unemployment levels will rise

why?

e-Australia's economy will become the equivalent of Cambodia's within 10 years.

Garbage.

Is this a good thing? Should we rush forward without the facts? Might there be some drastic consequences to doing so? We've certainly heard all the "doom and gloom" forecasts of what happens if we ignore this problem. What happens if we take aggressive action? Anyone think about that?


Nothing above is at all convincing, its mostly just rabble rousing nonsense. Post the data, not the propaganda.


BTW the Bagdad taxi driver was the source of the info on the weapons of mass destruction, later proven to be incorrect. All the so called evidence against GW, such as 'Volcanoes emit more CO2 than people do', is pretty much in the same category - total garbage.

Edited by StealthProg, 29 January 2010 - 05:47 PM.


#8 StealthProg

StealthProg

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 51 posts

Posted 30 January 2010 - 08:16 AM

"I have requested on numerous occassions that someone point me to a model that predicts manmade climate change AND includes known historical climate fluctuations including the Medieval Warm Period (about 1000 to 1300 B.C.) and the Little Ice Age that peaked in the late 17th Century. If you can't show me that, then you do not have an adequate climate prediction tool."

How can you predict the known climate fluctuations when you don't have all the input data to reflect what what going on at the time? It's like trying to predict the stock market, you know the trend will be up when the economy is doing well, but you cant predict small day to day fluctuations.

#9 djack77494

djack77494

    Gold Member

  • ChE Plus Subscriber
  • 1,282 posts

Posted 01 February 2010 - 04:55 PM

How can you predict the known climate fluctuations when you don't have all the input data to reflect what what going on at the time? It's like trying to predict the stock market, you know the trend will be up when the economy is doing well, but you cant predict small day to day fluctuations.


Major historical climatic changes acting over centuries of duration are not akin to day to day fluctuations. As in any reputatable scientific endeavor, you must verify your model against past observed data. The doom and gloom folks are the ones who use short time periods which truly ARE subject to random fluctuations and about which it is very dangerous to draw conclusions. We do have historical data dating back more than a millenium, so use it - all of it. Extend the climatic models back to prior historical climatic changes. We should have all we need, including ice samples that could tell us the CO2 content of the atmosphere during those periods. (But be careful to determine whether elevated temperature is caused by elevated CO2 or is the cause of elevated CO2.)

I see you've taken a poke at the other points I've mentioned and I'm wondering if you bothered to visit the referenced website. You've thrown out a lot of statements that essentially say, "show me the data" and also insinuating that the data that "deniers" have used is not reliable. Well, I'd say the burden of proof should be on you. I also take issue with your brash brushing off the statement that water vapor makes up 95% of the atmosphere's greenhouse gases. Is it pointless or too confusing to inquire what impact higher CO2 levels will have on atmospheric water content? Could higher CO2 lessen the amount of water vapor in the upper, middle, or lower atmosphere? Though you don't appear to be overly naive, I have at least two peices of evidence to the contrary. One is your apparently uncritical acceptance of the standard Al Gore tripe and YOUR failure to rationally defend the conclusion. (By the way, just what is the conclusion besides CO2 is bad?) The more grievous, however, is to think that CO2 emissions trading hasn't cost you anything. Where do you think the money that is used to purchase the CO2 credits comes from? I know-it's from your pocket (unless you live in an unheated, uncooled tent and subsist on roots and berries and nutritious insects). And when you say that China is telling its major industries to reduce CO2 emissions by 20%, surely you don't think that China has actually COMMITED to reducing CO2 by 1 kg let alone 20%. What the government sincerely commits to is what will happen in any centrally planned economy. So go ahead and blast the industrialized world for being the ones (in my opinion erroneously) responsible enough to attempt to take strong actions to mitigate this dubious problem. Also, I'd be interested in hearing proposed solutions AND their costs. My solution is to send teams to the polar regions with cans of white paint while simultaneously forcing power plants to switch to coal and turn off their damn scrubbers. The resultant particulate loading in the atmosphere will easily negate any CO2 warming effect and will have the fringe benefit of solving the acid rain problem. All of which was caused by man's misguided attempts to interfere with nature by installing scrubbers on power plants in the first place.

Edited by djack77494, 01 February 2010 - 05:01 PM.


#10 StealthProg

StealthProg

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 51 posts

Posted 05 February 2010 - 04:13 PM

How can you predict the known climate fluctuations when you don't have all the input data to reflect what what going on at the time? It's like trying to predict the stock market, you know the trend will be up when the economy is doing well, but you cant predict small day to day fluctuations.


Major historical climatic changes acting over centuries of duration are not akin to day to day fluctuations.


The relative scale is similar, centuries of change in billions of years cf days in the life of the stock exchange, its simply a matter of scale. It is no more possible to know or measure all the inputs in to a stock market price than it is to know or predict all the inputs into the worlds climate.

As in any reputatable scientific endeavor, you must verify your model against past observed data.


There is no observed data for everything in the past, and you can not put every conceivable input variable into the model. That doesnt discredit the model, which is valid for the types of input for which it was programmed. They are not trying to match every conceivable historical blip, when most of the inputs aren't and cant be known.

The doom and gloom folks are the ones who use short time periods which truly ARE subject to random fluctuations and about which it is very dangerous to draw conclusions. We do have historical data dating back more than a millenium, so use it - all of it. Extend the climatic models back to prior historical climatic changes. We should have all we need, including ice samples that could tell us the CO2 content of the atmosphere during those periods. (But be careful to determine whether elevated temperature is caused by elevated CO2 or is the cause of elevated CO2.)


The oldest historical record of temperature is for the UK only and does not go back even half a millennium.


I see you've taken a poke at the other points I've mentioned and I'm wondering if you bothered to visit the referenced website. You've thrown out a lot of statements that essentially say, "show me the data" and also insinuating that the data that "deniers" have used is not reliable. Well, I'd say the burden of proof should be on you. I also take issue with your brash brushing off the statement that water vapor makes up 95% of the atmosphere's greenhouse gases. Is it pointless or too confusing to inquire what impact higher CO2 levels will have on atmospheric water content? Could higher CO2 lessen the amount of water vapor in the upper, middle, or lower atmosphere? Though you don't appear to be overly naive, I have at least two peices of evidence to the contrary. One is your apparently uncritical acceptance of the standard Al Gore tripe and YOUR failure to rationally defend the conclusion. (By the way, just what is the conclusion besides CO2 is bad?) The more grievous, however, is to think that CO2 emissions trading hasn't cost you anything. Where do you think the money that is used to purchase the CO2 credits comes from? I know-it's from your pocket (unless you live in an unheated, uncooled tent and subsist on roots and berries and nutritious insects). And when you say that China is telling its major industries to reduce CO2 emissions by 20%, surely you don't think that China has actually COMMITED to reducing CO2 by 1 kg let alone 20%. What the government sincerely commits to is what will happen in any centrally planned economy. So go ahead and blast the industrialized world for being the ones (in my opinion erroneously) responsible enough to attempt to take strong actions to mitigate this dubious problem. Also, I'd be interested in hearing proposed solutions AND their costs. My solution is to send teams to the polar regions with cans of white paint while simultaneously forcing power plants to switch to coal and turn off their damn scrubbers. The resultant particulate loading in the atmosphere will easily negate any CO2 warming effect and will have the fringe benefit of solving the acid rain problem. All of which was caused by man's misguided attempts to interfere with nature by installing scrubbers on power plants in the first place.


Interesting rant, not exactly sure what your point is.

Yes, I looked at the references website and found a chart showing a global temperature rise of +0.8 DegC since 1910

It is quite easy to 'poke' at 'the atmosphere contains water vapour' statement, it doesn't mean anything...

The models do contain enough detail to look at water vapour and cloud effects, why do you think they don't?

As to me personally paying for carbon trading credits which according to you and your reference site should add up to $4000+ / year, i can assure you that neither my tax, my food or the cost of heating and power has risen by anything like that much. In fact most of the rises are attributable to rising energy cost globally, so clearly the cost of carbon trading has been somewhat lower.

Lastly real actions are being taken in China and other parts of the world, I know this at first hand, for a fact, apparently your opinion differs but i'm not sure what evidence its based on other than pure bias? Ironically, the worlds biggest energy consumer is the least active in trying to control CO2.

The very website you reference, shows the data, that shows a global temperature rise. That matches pretty much with the model predictions for the known rise in CO2. If you want to prove the rise is due to some other reason, please go ahead I am sure we are all waiting...

Even better, if you can disprove global warming, you'll have to explain why the earth was hotter six billion years ago, when the suns output was lower and atmospheric CO2 was higher...

Edited by StealthProg, 05 February 2010 - 04:28 PM.


#11 djack77494

djack77494

    Gold Member

  • ChE Plus Subscriber
  • 1,282 posts

Posted 08 February 2010 - 06:17 PM

I'll try to make this simple. There are just a few important points to be made.

1-Attempting to avert presumed global warming by controlling CO2 emissions will be extremely expensive. How expensive? I don't know, but I do know that ideas have been floated around of doing things like sequestering CO2 in the deep ocean. And I do know that would be extremely expensive (and a huge energy consumer). If this circle (the GHW proponents) can seriously consider things like that as options, then they don't seem to be at all cost sensitive.

2-Proponents of draconian Greenhouse Warming (GHW) reduction efforts (and ALL such efforts will be draconian) need to justify to the payers why they should voluntarily reduce their standards of living to fight this "threat". The way science makes predictions about future events is with models. I would contend that any model worth its salt should fit the data (known as Evidence-based Science). Even if the quantity and quality of data is less than what might be hoped for, there is evidence of past climatic changes in historical times. In fact there have been several very significant climatic "fluctuations" in the last millenium. I would like a model that (at least to some degree) matches the historical trends. GHW proponents often state that short term temperature trends cannot be relied on as evidence of long term trends. Well, we have long term data. We have short term recent severe winters and mild summers that I know of (i.e. right now). We also have the last 10 - 11 years of measurements that seem to defy the warming predictions. So what's too short and what's not. I guess too short is anything that doesn't support the conclusion that we're all doomed and too long is anything that doesn't support the conclusion that we're all doomed. Sort of like if Europe is getting hotter, than it means we're seeing global warming, and if Europe is getting cooler, that's a sure sign of global warming disrupting the Gulf Stream and chilling Europe. I'm not sure what you were saying regarding the statement, "It is no more possible to know or measure all the inputs in to a stock market price than it is to know or predict all the inputs into the worlds climate." On what basis should we divert trillions of (currency of your choice) from the many worthy causes it could support to the supposed global warming problem? Aren't you predicting future global warming? What is your basis?

3-If you concur that CO2 is a minority component of Greenhouse gases (with toxic water vapor being the majority component) than how can you not be concerned about how water vapor will behave in this strange new world?

4-Everything I've read in the news suggests that China, India, and other developing countries will NOT reduce their CO2 emissions. Rather their contributions to CO2 reduction seem to be non-binding efforts to reduce the rate of increase in their emissions.

5-I know that this is terrible on my part, but I'd like to know the consequences of increased elevations of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. What does this mean? I hear about rising sea levels and the end of civilization as we know it. I think the first is quite a stretch and the second is utterly ridiculous. I can just as easily imagine some very pleasant consequences. Wouldn't quite a few of us prefer warmer weather? Lower heating bills? Better crop productivity? Who knows what we'd get. If you think my points are ridiculous, OK, you might be right. But maybe I think your points are equally ridiculous. Can we all say, "I don't know"?

6-As an engineer, I have always maintained that we must be effective. I have yet to hear of any solution that will be effective. I have heard that if we could immediately curtail all increases in CO2 emissions rates worldwide, then we'd still be in for some major troubles. (And we can't come close to doing that.) So, we can't effectively deal with this problem by reducing CO2 emissions. We need alternative and truly innovative solutions. My proposal is to first adequately study and understand what we are facing. I mean solid, peer reviewed, evidence based understanding of the cause and effects of elevating CO2 concentrations. We can't formulate effective strategies to solve a problem that we don't fully understand.

Edited by djack77494, 08 February 2010 - 06:21 PM.


#12 StealthProg

StealthProg

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 51 posts

Posted 11 February 2010 - 04:42 PM

3-If you concur that CO2 is a minority component of Greenhouse gases (with toxic water vapor being the majority component) than how can you not be concerned about how water vapor will behave in this strange new world?


Actually getting tired of this one, as i've said many times before water vapor is modeled in the climate models, period!

The issue here is not how expensive it is or whether its even feasible to fix global warming. The debate was, or is global warming man-made period? What to do about it is a different discussion so lets not confuse two topics.

Of course emission will continue to grow in the developing world, but they have committed to reducing emissions from existing sources, no-one wants to stop them developing.

The point i've made many times is also very simple. You, like many skeptics have put forward from very little to no meaningful evidence that suggests global warming is not man made.

The very site you quote points you to data that shows the last decade is the warmest on record.

You claim you want hard scientific evidence to prove the point, but then use FOX news as the source of your own skeptic information, hardly scientific.

You claim we have climate data going back a millennium, we don't. You know a climate model cant model every nuance of the climate as not all input data is available, yet you seem to think this is an argument winner, clearly it cant be and isn't.

Most of the skeptic 'evidence' is based on misquotes and misinformation, for example a misquote from Sir John Haughton has been used on over a million websites and in numerous books and articles. His own book, supposedly the source of the quote, doesn't contain the quoted phrase.

Frankly, global warming may or may not turn out to be due to human activity, but the skeptics are not helping their own cause by the kind of discussions that they seem to prefer and the types of information being held up as 'evidence'.

If this was going to be a rational debate based on evidence and sound theory it might be interesting to continue, but clearly it isn't. It's not interesting to have a debate based largely on conspiracy theories and propaganda.

Edited by StealthProg, 11 February 2010 - 04:43 PM.


#13 djack77494

djack77494

    Gold Member

  • ChE Plus Subscriber
  • 1,282 posts

Posted 15 February 2010 - 07:01 PM

The issue here is not how expensive it is or whether its even feasible to fix global warming. The debate was, or is global warming man-made period?.

This seems to be getting tiresome for both of us, and I think you ignore reputable evidence that fails to support your point of view at least as much as you accuse me of that. I'll make two more points, then probably stop responding since we're not going to make much progress it seems.

Point (really a question) #1 is: Do we have a model that is inclusive of past known significant climatic changes. I'm talking about the real deal and not "blips" in the data. Major climatic shifts that last decades to hundreds of years should be in the model. I don't want to follow a month by month or even a year by year plot of the data - I agree the data is not that good. I just want to know if the model gives a clue that a major climatic event even occurred. That doesn't seem overly demanding to me.

Point #2: I can't restrict the topic as you seem to have done. Engineering is all about practicality. Expensive solutions we can't afford are no solutions at all. Also, data or theories without consequences or that can't be tested are more philosophy than science. (Assuming that it exists) I don't care if global warming is man made or not. Do you think it's bad if it is man made but good (natural) if not? I say, "it doesn't matter". What matters is what is the impact? If unacceptable, can we fix it? How? How much? No other questions are relevant to an engineering solution to the situation. (Of course I know the problem is likely to be very complex with many answers rather than a single comprehensive answer.)

#14 kkala

kkala

    Gold Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,939 posts

Posted 16 July 2011 - 08:19 AM

I happened to follow this hot discussion now. Frankly, the negative feed backs struck me, since opinions should not have been penalized. Argumentation on global warming cannot be purely scientific, at least in the forums, and only through conviction can an opinion gain ground. This is a patient task, like a debate on politics.
I believe we should try to reduce global warming, though I cannot prove it scientifically, like so many other important things of life. This belief is rather based on feelings and mass media, which seems to have different targets in several parts of our world (public opinion seems to be different between Continental Europe and USA). I would like to have scientific evidence that CO2 increase from 280 to 390 ppm has caused about 1 oC average temperature increase, but I see it is difficult. And if it is so, long term model of atmospheric temperature may be impossible due to so many parameters (like stock exchange predictions). Although I have expressed view for Global Warming (GW) in http://www.cheresour...rue-phenomina/'> http://www.cheresources.com/invision/topic/12682-is-global-warming-a-true-phenomina/, some points (same or additional) are pointed out here below.
1. No doubt there are interests hidden in both sides. Nuclear Power Plants would take advantage of GW fear, Petroleum mining and refineries would feel better without GW fear. Delay in clarifying the reasons of GW (or even research for it) may be due to some of these interests affecting mass media. An objective assessment is hard, yet necessary. International community as a total has not yet considered the matter seriously enough? I can only see spread opinions for or against GW, not a reliable opinion (documented and approved by an international scientific team) to eliminate fear and doubt.
2. Freon can be a good example from the past (John Gribbin, The hole in the sky: Man's threat to the ozone layer). Doubts, arguments, asserted incomplete proof about its destructive role on ozone layer (apparently ignited by interests) delayed measures for about 20 years (approx 1975-95). Measures against CO2 emissions, if evidence for its contribution to GW gets convincing, will need decades to be implemented. The more delayed the more draconian future measures will have to be.
3. http:// www.climatesceptics.com.au seems not to be objective, rather promoting fears among Australians concerning the financial charges for Anthropogenic GW reduction. Event of Australian bankcrupcy due to carbon tax looks funny. At any case sacrifices will be hard for all. Here in Greece most of electricity is generated through coal burning, but carbon tax consequences have not been yet felt.
4. Water vapor / clouds contributes more than CO2 in the greenhouse effect. But more clouds result directly from temperature increase. Increased CO2 result in increased humidity and clouds, which intensify GW. So CO2 concentration is the "independent variable" of GW, intensified by the subsequent increase of humidity / clouds. A self accelerated action, making situation worse. This is my understanding from readings, assuming that CO2 contributes to GW.
5. Some 40 years ago or more, authors qualitatively predicted GW due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Some of us may remember it written in the university books. So CO2 is a greenhouse gas, diagnosed long time ago. Its quantitative effects may not have been clarified yet.
6. It is important to know extent of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, compared to "natural" ones. In an old book, probably reflecting situation before 2nd world war, global anthropogenic CO2 emissions were about one third of the total (33%). Nowadays this part is expected to have greatly increased. "Natural" CO2 emissions come mainly from moors, environmentally protected nowadays as refuge of wildlife and insects. So most of the existing mores cannot be eliminated.
7. We have seen molten icebergs and molten ice in Arctic land and Patagonia, even on North pole. I think GW is not doubted, its causes are in doubt and under investigation. I wish it would be due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions, since that can be restored. Even with sacrifices, to be (rightly??) distributed among society members.
Every theory (particularly with such economic consequences) is natural to come as an idea first, corrected and scrutinized by science later. The engineering approach concerns implementation, which is a later stage. But (at least in our societies) it cannot be realized in practice, unless it gets matured in people's minds. The principle "do not proceed beyond mentality" is not limited to law science only. Where are we now? Rather before scrutinizing, trying to get a mature opinion. But "time is not on our side" (Norman & Elizabeth Lieberman, "A working guide to Process equipment", McGraw-Hill 2008).
8. I believe GW is not for earth good, globally. A lot of people live in the tropical zones. Further increase in temperature can cause desertification. For instance, India faces water shortage in several places, as I understand. GW will get the case much worse. Is there any assessment on GW consequences internationally? Probably even Greece can face partial desertification, due to GW plus excessive irrigation.
9. As said, above does not consist a scientific opinion. Hopefully maturity on the matter is promoted by exchanging similar views and comments.

Edited by kkala, 16 July 2011 - 08:54 AM.


#15 JMW

JMW

    Gold Member

  • ChE Plus Subscriber
  • 166 posts

Posted 19 July 2011 - 06:54 AM

There is a problem that there is a correlation between sunspot activity and climate.
Fine. Now I must confess to being one of those people who actually think the sun has something to do with climate, so this is interesting to me.
However, correlation is not causation and thus the AGW camp have been able to throw out any such consideration. Until now. Now there are some useful studies on the interaction of solar particles with clouds that are providing the necessary mechanisms that can turn that correlation into a cause and effect relationship.

What is most interesting also is that the raw temperature data shows no evidence of the AGW's claimed global warming, it appears that this is only revealed by the "homogenisation" of the data i.e. the corrections applied to the raw data by the climate scientists using computer programs they refused to release under the freedom of information acts in the US and UK. To mea, the "warming" is thus an artifact of the "homogenisation".

Thing is, as pointed out about, "deniers" don't stand to make money. Al Gore and others stand to make incredible amounts. The BBC pension fund is heavily dependent on AGW being the accepted religion. WWF has some kind of scheme going with rain forests that also stands to make them a fortune.

There are too many problems arising from the AGW agenda that are actually harmful.
For example, SOX emissions have made many power stations burning fossil fuels, neutral for warming. A nobel prize winning scientist called for Sulphur to be deliberately introduced into the atmosphere, via rockets and artillery,as a means to provide global cooling. An idea that has evolved o include artificial volcanoes. He needn' have worried. The ICC cannot rightly say whether western efforts to reduce sulphur in fuels has had any effect and it now seems that China has been busily compensating for the west removing sulphur through its increased industrial activity; so much so that, just as with much earlier studies of "global chilling" (based on evaporative studies I seem to recall), the AGW camp declare that it is all "masking the true effects of warming. "

AGW is bad science. It is not even science in the true sense since the ideal science is where the theory and data are published in full so that others can and should seek to disprove it. That has never happened with the temperature data.


The "denier" sites are well worth visiting.

#16 JMW

JMW

    Gold Member

  • ChE Plus Subscriber
  • 166 posts

Posted 20 July 2011 - 07:09 AM

I'll make it easy with the "denier site" links. Here is one to WUWT and an article on the CERN CLOUD experiments, CERN CLOUD Experiments

This is another interesting link: Kiwigate
Note the connections to the Hadley Centre.

Edited by JMW, 20 July 2011 - 08:26 AM.


#17 dubulup

dubulup

    Brand New Member

  • Members
  • 2 posts

Posted 03 January 2012 - 04:51 PM

“I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them,”

interesting read