Global Warming Again

[muntu]

anybody see national geographic's show on their channel last night ?. call me naive but i believe what the climatologists were saying....i believe their measurements of icecap temperatures and i believe their measurements showing increased glacial acceleration and i believe their explanations and i believe their photos from space showing the decrease in the square miles of reflective ice cover were not doctored [an equivalent area measured from the eastern seaboard to the mississippi north to south.] and the ramifications of that loss...plain physics.
many people.....the papered ones [as in doctoral thesis] are listened to simply because of their "intelligent input" casting aspertions to the contrary. i say,this show should be manadatory viewing before any nay sayers spout their opinions.........anybody ever see pictures of our planet taken from space at night ?........electricity has the north american continent,australia,europe and asia lit up like a christmas tree.....people..world population..fossil fuel being burned at ever icreasing rate..mean to tell me that the impact is minimal .........i dont think so.... if we could only see pictures from space taken 100 years ago....our planet would look like the dark side of the moon..........if you get a chance...watch the show...it doesn't paint a pretty picture.

[yaric008]

Ever see that show on WMFE I think it was.. It was like a NOVA program. It was about globlal cooling. Essentially all the particulat matter we pump into the air is begining to reflect sunlight away from Earth. They had a whole lot of proof including those pan evaporation tests that have been very reliable for some 100 years and then they had some guys in Europe that had been studying UV intensity for the past 50 years or so. I can't remember the exact amount of sun energy being reflected since the begining of the industrial revolution but it was some crazy number like 20-30%.

Then they discussed how this global cooling and global warming are competing each other and keeping the earth relativley about the same temp. If we start cleaning up our car exhaust by lowing PM the global cooling effect will decrease and global warming will be more dominant. Either way we lose, lol.

[muntu]

well...i dont know....but they talked of the danger of the greenland ice cap breaking off and melting and raising sea level 2 meters and if what they see happening in antartica continues that there is the possiblity of sea levels raising 6 meters...18ft about. that will make another "atlantis" out of florida and of course n.y. city would be all but inhabitable......20 million american citizens affected right there. storm intensities are also raising red flags. i guess human nature will take its course....sit up and take notice after the fact. like when agents advised authorities arabs were taking flying lessons and getting 767 sim. time and not wanting to learn how to land them...just fly them. what ticks me off is that the "smart" nay sayers are slowing down the proscess of a fix,because they are being listened to.at first they [climatologists] were saying year 2100 would see the result of their predictions...now they are saying 2050 and are totally alarmed at how fast things are accelerating.the ice core samples from drilling in antartica are yeilding more and more intriguing results....it amazes me that they can tell atmospheric co2 levels from 10,000 yrs ago.anyway...what will be will be.

[checkthisout]

Originally Posted by muntu

anybody see national geographic's show on their channel last night ?. call me naive but i believe what the climatologists were saying....i believe their measurements of icecap temperatures and i believe their measurements showing increased glacial acceleration and i believe their explanations and i believe their photos from space showing the decrease in the square miles of reflective ice cover were not doctored [an equivalent area measured from the eastern seaboard to the mississippi north to south.] and the ramifications of that loss...plain physics.
many people.....the papered ones [as in doctoral thesis] are listened to simply because of their "intelligent input" casting aspertions to the contrary. i say,this show should be manadatory viewing before any nay sayers spout their opinions.........anybody ever see pictures of our planet taken from space at night ?........electricity has the north american continent,australia,europe and asia lit up like a christmas tree.....people..world population..fossil fuel being burned at ever icreasing rate..mean to tell me that the impact is minimal .........i dont think so.... if we could only see pictures from space taken 100 years ago....our planet would look like the dark side of the moon..........if you get a chance...watch the show...it doesn't paint a pretty picture.

You can see it worked on you as you are now scared of a "Climate Apocalypse".

I don't go to Church and am far from being heavily religious, but I think that fear of "Climate Change" is replacing the fear of the Wrath of God.

It's just another emotional outlet for hypocrits who embrace half-truths and have to feel self-righteous about something.

Notice how many people lecture other people about their personal behavior when it comes to the "environment" but are guilty of the same behaviors themselves but don't see it that way.

GW fills the emotional hole that going to Church every Sunday used to fill.

[checkthisout]

I recall two different scenarios from Climate Change Alarmists.


This current cooling trend is predicted because the increased heat is increasing evaporation and cooling off the atmosphere and putting heat into the Oceans. The proof that "they" are right is in the fact that arctic ice is receding while the middle latitudes see much colder weather.

Ok makes sense.

This concludes in two scenarios. After the cooling trend, the planet becomes "heat bound" as clouds of water vapor trap in more heat etc, sea-levels rise, massive deserts etc. Our climate change Bible plague of locusts I suppose.

The second scenario is that if the artic ice melts, that it stops the undercurrents in the oceans that return cold water to the equator and circulate hot water towards the poles. Theory is that the cold water returning towards the equator is what drives the warm water towards the poles. Ok, sounds believeable, simple convection right?

This will lead to a new Ice Age.

This is why I can't help but think they know just enough to be dangerous and are driven by emotion which has lead to a large generation of pseudoscientists because they cannot tell us whether or not we are creating a new ice age or a giant sahara.

They have shaped it so that either way, "they" are right.

[action4478]

This is why I can't help but think they know just enough to be dangerous and are driven by emotion which has lead to a large generation of pseudoscientists because they cannot tell us whether or not we are creating a new ice age or a giant sahara.

They have shaped it so that either way, "they" are right.

What he said ....

Except for one thing .....





Money ....

[muntu]

so by your figuring,the people interviewed by national geographic are purposely leading us astray....quote "It's just another emotional outlet for hypocrits who embrace half-truths and have to feel self-righteous about something". well....aww righty then ...guess there's nothing more to be said.

[94_turbo]

Originally Posted by checkthisout

Most internet banter is conjecture.

I don't know about you but I am all for Nuclear Power. There is a lot of land in the United States that can be irrigated and inhabitated if we go even further and use Nukes for desalinization.

I also like the idea of using waste heat from Nukes to cook coal into liquid fuels.

All these projects are feasible but we have wasted the last 8 years investing in debt.

lot of land farmed--you know how many acres are NOT being farmed by farmers, and getting paid for it????--kind of like adc recipients----

[kude]

I have read there is a solar minmum happening represented by a decrease in sunspot activity: Sunspots It looks pretty inactive to me.

This could result in a trend of global cooling resulting in an eventual ice age. Cold water is supposed to absorb more carbon dioxide so that heating from it is mitigated.

I can only say scientists look at data and come to completely differnt ideas.

As far as heat being "wasted" from nuclear, all I can say is living things need heat to survive. As long as the heat does not leave the planet it aids life because life needs a certain temperature range. Too much is not good of course.

[checkthisout]

Originally Posted by muntu

so by your figuring,the people interviewed by national geographic are purposely leading us astray....quote "It's just another emotional outlet for hypocrits who embrace half-truths and have to feel self-righteous about something". well....aww righty then ...guess there's nothing more to be said.

Like anything I think the Truth is somewhere in between. We need to make changes but those changes will come naturally as fossil fuel supplies dwindle.

Al Gore is a Hedge Fund Manager with lots of Chicago friends where the CCX is located. He has an agenda to push and it's purely for profit. Nothing more nothing less. Large investment banks would have a field day speculating in Carbon Credits and take something that is a right (combustion) and charge you for it.

It's no coincidence that Goldman Sachs has large windpower investments and has given oodles of cash to "climate change" research.

I was watching a TV show that was showing some Islands that were beginning to be inundated by water. They never once told us how much the sea-level rose but implied that the reason the islands were flooding was sea-level changes caused by "climate change". When all was said and done did some research and found the area is in a volcanic hot zone and the island was located in a subduction area.

***???

It's the last thing I want to worry about and I don't want to deindustrialize the world back to the stone-age on a hunch and knee-jerk reactions based on propaganda. Look how much of an impact it had on you!

[Brian_C]

Originally Posted by muntu

so by your figuring,the people interviewed by national geographic are purposely leading us astray....quote "It's just another emotional outlet for hypocrits who embrace half-truths and have to feel self-righteous about something". well....aww righty then ...guess there's nothing more to be said.

For proof of being led astray, watch this documentary. It will change your mind, guaranteed. But please don't comment until you watch it. I took the time to sit through Al Bore's movie so I could see what all the hype was about. You need to see the following documentary so you can understand the other side of it.

Garage TV - video filmpjes - The Great Global Warming Swindle - Documentary Film - kyoto,swindel,global,warming,co2,greenhouse,broeik aseffect,verkiezingen,klimaat,opwarming

[roofeditor]

Originally Posted by muntu

so by your figuring,the people interviewed by national geographic are purposely leading us astray....quote "It's just another emotional outlet for hypocrites who embrace half-truths and have to feel self-righteous about something". well....aww righty then ...guess there's nothing more to be said.

That don't agree and have signed letters saying so. About 1/3 are climate scientists.

You might want to do a little research before you start jumping on the band wagon.

While you and Al Gore are at it, with shutting off 1/2 of the entire power grid in the USA (coal power) have you come up with an alternative?

Wind and solar could make a small dent but the only massive power that can replace coal is nuclear and nuclear is a topic I do know a little about!

[roofeditor]

Here is a little read for ya all.

my personal comments in caps!!!

High cost of green

Most of that money would go to help the auto industry engineer and manufacturer the vehicles and to provide cash incentives to offset their high costs to consumers.

These investments will require a firm commitment to reducing greenhouse gases, according to the report, regardless of cost. COST TO TAX-PAYERS??

If cost-effectiveness were the goal, improving the performance of today's internal combustion engines would be the best option. FIRST SMART REALITY STATEMENT!

Using technologies like turbocharging and advanced fuel injection to boost engine output would cost between $70 and $140 per car for each percentage point of CO2 reduction, according to the report. A 20% improvement in fuel efficiency would cost about $1,200 per vehicle. OK NOW READ THE SAME ON HYBRID!

Partly or fully electric cars can achieve much greater efficiency, but at much higher costs. For every percentage point decease in C02, a hybrid or electric car would cost about $140 to $280 more to produce. WELL NOW!

BCG estimates that a hybrid car today costs about $7,000 more to produce than a similar non-hybrid, but that that cost will come down to about $4,000 by 2020.

By that time, with a cost of $130 to $160 per percentage improvement in CO2 emissions, OH NO NOT CO-2 AGAIN!!!! hybrid cars will become an economical solution compared to further development of non-hybrid engines.

Plug-in vehicles of various types - plug-in only, plug-in hybrids and range-extended plug-in vehicles - present greater cost challenges because of they need expensive batteries. BCG estimates that by 2020, when battery costs will have come down, a battery for an electric car with an 80 mile range will still cost about $14,000. NO PROBLEM JUST DO IT WITH THE BAIL OUT!!

While some consumers will pay more for electric cars even if they don't make it up in fuel savings, most won't, the report said. That means government incentives to make up the price difference. OH THE GOVERNMENT AGAIN MORE BAIL OUT???

Hurting not helping If automakers are pushed to produce electric cars without this sort of government support, the industry could be headed for more financial trouble, Mosquet said. SO IF THE GOVERNMENT PUSHES CAR MAKERS TO MAKE MORE HYBRIDS THE CAR MAKERS WILL NEED MORE BAIL OUT? SEE A PATTERN HERE?

"We think the OEMs and suppliers are going to spend money on technology that won't find any market." he said. WITH $1.50 GAS COMPARED TO $4.00 GAS ELECTRIC CARS WILL NOT SELL!

Until governments come up with policies to support the electric car market, OEMs - meaning "original equipment manufacturers," an industry term for car companies - and their suppliers should be given grants to pay for development and manufacturing, said Mosquet.

Providing loans rather than grants, as the U.S. government has done, puts an unfair burden on the companies, he said. It assumes the companies will make money on these vehicles in the near future, which they will not, he said. MORE BAIL OUT MONEY?

Despite the high costs, BCG fully supports the push toward electric vehicles, he said. "BCG is known for making statements on things it believes in," he said, "even when it might seem counter-intuitive."


BCG IS NOT "BERKELEY" CONSUMER GROUP

IT'S BOSTON CONSULTING GROUP!!

[muntu]

....at myself. spent the hour looking at that video and you're right....i have had a change of mind. co2 is not the villian. thank you for the link. i'm getting to be not amazed at how easy it is to bait and catch with skewed reporting and how the voice of reason can be drowned out by people [in high places] with agendas.

[muntu]

i dont think the national geographic show was trying to mislead........the movement of glaciers were hard numbers...i forget now just how fast the acceleration was...from about an historic 2 ft a year to 48 ft a year.their spiel did not dwell on co2....they just called it as it as it showed itself....in greenland anyway they deduced the glaciers to be lubricating themselves from surface melt and seepage down to rock...so,correlating this info with the info in the second video i would guess we are on the hot side of the cyclical hot/cold polar melt/freeze cycle.....for me,the revelation of co2 content in the atmosphere being only about 0.045% and that mancaused co2 may be adding another 0.002% was the kicker that changed my mind.