|
|||||||
| Register | Forum Rules | Members List | Today's Posts | Search | Bookmark & Share  |
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#2
10-09-2009
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
  
__________________
"Man's capacity for justice makes democracy possible; but man's inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary." R.N. 
|
|
#3
10-09-2009
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
 Can you fit your piston into my cylinder, or would it need to be bored oversive?
__________________
*More posts than Bionca* [QUOTE=God(from Futurama)]Right and wrong are just words; what matters is what you do... If you do too much, people get dependent on you. And if you do nothing, they lose hope... When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.
|
|
#5
10-09-2009
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
 
__________________
"Man's capacity for justice makes democracy possible; but man's inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary." R.N.
|
|
#6
10-10-2009
|
||||
|
||||
|
Hi there.
Well about the global warming thing, then there was the global cooling, but when i was a kid, living in Canada and in the winter at night i would look at the skies and if ther was a good cloud cover the next day was mild, but if it was free of clouds the next day was COLD, so global warming? i'm not so sure, and as it was stated before who knows what the "normal" temperature change is over centuries or mileniums so it is all pretty much theoretical, but polution is a real problem that has to be addressed the sooner the better, and if the threat of global warming does that, then it is not a bad thing. JohnDowe.
|
|
#7
10-10-2009
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
The little ice age was from 16th century to the mid 19th century as cause of less sun activity and more volcano activity. Quote:
Isn't it alarming that an Ice Age is coming and temperature is significant rising. There is no question that Steam, Carbon Dioxide, Methane, Nitrous Oxide and Halocarbon cause a Greenhouse effect. Ice cores show us that these compounds had a constant value in the atmosphere for min. 800.000 to 20 Million years, maybe much longer. 8.000 years ago (start of farming) this changed slightly. But with the industrial revolution the atmosphere change significant. In 2 hundred years the Carbon Dioxide value has risen about 40%, and the other greenhouse gases have risen comparable. I don't think it's a good idea to burn over hundred of million year's stored fossil carbon in 300 year's. This must have an effect on the climate. And it's not only the gases we produce, there is a massive methane production by mass animal husbandry, man burned and chopped forests for farming land and other need. We pollute more and take nature capacitate to compensate it. Bio Diesel sound good but has worse effect on climate than fossil Diesel. There is not enough cheap useable space for the plants that are needed to make Bio Diesel. So poor countries burn down forests to get mono plant farming land to get money without taken care of nature. And the process of making Bio Diesel out of plants is not very effective by now. A Question, why do we burn an amazing unlasting resource we are addicted to? Just one example what can be made of oil is plastic. What would life be without plastic? Do you own a single pair of shoes without plastic in the sole? How many of your clothes are made with plastics? What is the isolator around almost every electric wire or electronic chip? In what is your food packed? Most that is used to seal (or gasketed) like windows or fridges. Nearly everything that is glued i.e. Plywood or Fiberglass. And everything else you could easily see made of plastic if you look at it with full awareness. Last edited by Tread; 10-10-2009 at 06:31 PM.
|
|
#8
10-11-2009
|
||||
|
||||
|
Anthropocentric global warming
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998. But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures. And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise. So what on Earth is going on? Climate change sceptics, who passionately and consistently argue that man's influence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming. They argue that there are natural cycles, over which we have no control, that dictate how warm the planet is. But what is the evidence for this? During the last few decades of the 20th Century, our planet did warm quickly. The Sun (BBC) Recent research has ruled out solar influences on temperature increases Sceptics argue that the warming we observed was down to the energy from the Sun increasing. After all 98% of the Earth's warmth comes from the Sun. But research conducted two years ago, and published by the Royal Society, seemed to rule out solar influences. The scientists' main approach was simple: to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature. And the results were clear. "Warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But one solar scientist Piers Corbyn from Weatheraction, a company specialising in long range weather forecasting, disagrees. He claims that solar charged particles impact us far more than is currently accepted, so much so he says that they are almost entirely responsible for what happens to global temperatures. He is so excited by what he has discovered that he plans to tell the international scientific community at a conference in London at the end of the month. If proved correct, this could revolutionise the whole subject. Ocean cycles What is really interesting at the moment is what is happening to our oceans. They are the Earth's great heat stores. Pacific ocean (BBC) In the last few years [the Pacific Ocean] has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down According to research conducted by Professor Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University last November, the oceans and global temperatures are correlated. The oceans, he says, have a cycle in which they warm and cool cyclically. The most important one is the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO). For much of the 1980s and 1990s, it was in a positive cycle, that means warmer than average. And observations have revealed that global temperatures were warm too. But in the last few years it has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down. These cycles in the past have lasted for nearly 30 years. So could global temperatures follow? The global cooling from 1945 to 1977 coincided with one of these cold Pacific cycles. Professor Easterbrook says: "The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling." So what does it all mean? Climate change sceptics argue that this is evidence that they have been right all along. They say there are so many other natural causes for warming and cooling, that even if man is warming the planet, it is a small part compared with nature. But those scientists who are equally passionate about man's influence on global warming argue that their science is solid. The UK Met Office's Hadley Centre, responsible for future climate predictions, says it incorporates solar variation and ocean cycles into its climate models, and that they are nothing new. In fact, the centre says they are just two of the whole host of known factors that influence global temperatures - all of which are accounted for by its models. In addition, say Met Office scientists, temperatures have never increased in a straight line, and there will always be periods of slower warming, or even temporary cooling. What is crucial, they say, is the long-term trend in global temperatures. And that, according to the Met office data, is clearly up. To confuse the issue even further, last month Mojib Latif, a member of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) says that we may indeed be in a period of cooling worldwide temperatures that could last another 10-20 years. Iceberg melting (BBC) The UK Met Office says that warming is set to resume Professor Latif is based at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University in Germany and is one of the world's top climate modellers. But he makes it clear that he has not become a sceptic; he believes that this cooling will be temporary, before the overwhelming force of man-made global warming reasserts itself. So what can we expect in the next few years? Both sides have very different forecasts. The Met Office says that warming is set to resume quickly and strongly. It predicts that from 2010 to 2015 at least half the years will be hotter than the current hottest year on record (1998). Sceptics disagree. They insist it is unlikely that temperatures will reach the dizzy heights of 1998 until 2030 at the earliest. It is possible, they say, that because of ocean and solar cycles a period of global cooling is more likely. One thing is for sure. It seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over. Indeed some would say it is hotting up.
__________________
*More posts than Bionca* [QUOTE=God(from Futurama)]Right and wrong are just words; what matters is what you do... If you do too much, people get dependent on you. And if you do nothing, they lose hope... When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.
|
|
#9
12-12-2009
|
||||
|
||||
|
Who stands to benefit from ' Global Warming ' hysteria ?
Quote:
I find much in common between Angry Postman's views and my own. The list of ' Beneficiaries ' from continued promotion of the Global Warming theory is yards long. The politicians and ' Green-slanted Politics ' would almost certainly head the list. It's a common political ploy to make a statement about which few would disagree, and then, when they're still mumbling their agreement, to make a suggestion which has no provable direct link with the first assertion made. For example : Yes, Global Warming exists. The fossil record shows that without a doubt. Next proposition : We are here, therefore we must be a significant factor in the existence of this phenomenon today. NO ! THAT DOES NOT FOLLOW AT ALL ! Let's face it, In Gaia terms we are like ants crawling on the floating masses of this earth's crust. We are clearly an irritant, but I would be very surprised if we are much more than that - unless, of course we explode Plutonium Bombs and contaminate the planet's atmosphere for millenia to come, or explode so many nuclear devices that we affect the tilt of the Earth's axis in some way. Let's face it, aren't we deluding ourselves with man's endless desire to be in God-like control of our environment, master of all living things and masters of our own destiny ? Why, we can't even control ourselves ! ! OK Then when was the last time a known living organism affected the temperature of the Earth ? And we are so presumptuous to think that we are the chosen ones ? YES, by all means respect the planet that we live in and which supports us, but don't assume that we control its destiny by our puny activities. YES, take in moderation, harvest and recycle, renew resources, and then both the planet and ourselves will benefit. And those factors that are the MAJOR promotors of Global Warming and Cooling. Do we really know it all ? Or are we simply playing a guessing game about those factors way back in the geological record which brought about such profound changes that Life itself was eradicted from huge tracts of the Earth ? I think the Jury is very much out on this, and will remain so for a long time to come. OK, let's keep our planetary ' garden ' tidy, nourished and watered as far as is within our power to do so, and trust in Gaia to do the right thing ( and, sadly, not necessarily by us ! )
|
|
|
|
Hybrid Mode
