Thread: GLOBAL WARMING/CLIMATE CHANGE TRUE/FALSE

Originally Posted by NYCshaver

Who is playing those that believe in global warming? Climate Scientists?

And what is bad about reducing carbon emissions? Or investing in alternative means of energy? Or reducing our dependency on oil?

Nothing at all. Almost everyone agrees on that. Those are things we all need to survive and have a cleaner planet. As long as it does not weaken our Nation and reduce our personal freedoms. I think we can have it all, but the charlatans, both politicians and corrupted scientists need to be rooted out and we all need to roll up our sleeves.

Originally Posted by welshwizard

It's not. Roughly 50% of the cars on the road in Europe are diesels. It's true that the exhaust particulate emission has reduced considerably over the past few years due to common rail technology and the use of particulate traps.
I work on diesel powered passenger automobiles every day and the particulate traps on the newest vehicles are giving us maintenance headaches, because if the vehicles aren't subjected to hard use on a daily basis the traps block up beyond the ability of the technology to re-generate them.
In Europe the days of the diesel automobile are numbered because it looks like only gasoline engines will be able to meet future Euro spec. emission limits.
Just stand in our workshop for 10 minutes and you would soon realise that diesels aren't as clean burning as gasoline engines

I think you are talking some sense here.
Although car industry has even tried to develop catalytic systems that work (at least in theory), still large part of the particles and CO2 that goes into the atmosphere comes from the maritime and air jet engines that use light fuel oil, bunker fuel and kerosine (almost the same what it comes to wastes from the car diesel engines).
Ship industries have tried to develop fuel based engines with lesser emissions but they work mostly in their drawers desk and air jet engines have no catalytic systems at all (after burners don't count). LNG (iquefied natural gas) based ship engines are step forward but only temporary solution that will cause some new problems (not a subject of this topic).

As most of the (western) world much depends on trade and transports of energy (oil/gas), maritime and air transits will keep on pushing more and more particles and CO2 into atmosphere.

Unless we want to see all this end some day (even oil/gas supplies are limited) we need to concentrate more and more on scientific & technical research to develop engines that use some other fuel than oil. Engines that use clean(er) energy. This is no opinion, no political statement, but fact. The longer we keep on sticking with the techniques that are to end some day, the harder the crash landing will be. The system we have now gets more expensive as the time goes and in the long term regular tax payers pay the bill (although that will be smallest of our worries then).

Originally Posted by NYCshaver

Who is playing those that believe in global warming? Climate Scientists?

And what is bad about reducing carbon emissions? Or investing in alternative means of energy? Or reducing our dependency on oil?

As the post you quoted made clear it is the opinion of the author that BOTH sides are being played. Those that support the theory of global warming and those that don't. And we are being played by the "noble class" those few individuals and corporations that control almost everything. It's not a view I entirely buy but I though the post was quite clear.

Originally Posted by Kingfish

As long as it does not weaken our Nation and reduce our personal freedoms.

Then the global warming debate should be the least of your worries. Finding and using practical energy alternatives would strenghthen our nation, I think. As for reducing personal freedoms, well, I'd say that there are far more threatening things to that than scientists.

Originally Posted by commiecat

Then the global warming debate should be the least of your worries. Finding and using practical energy alternatives would strenghthen our nation, I think. As for reducing personal freedoms, well, I'd say that there are far more threatening things to that than scientists.

Rarely do I "debate" climate change, warming or whatever the flavor of the day is. Climate is changing, with or without man. That is a fact. Man's contribution to it, I don't know and neither does any other mortal for sure. Consensus was reached on models that indicate we are contrubuting by many scientist but not all. Science, the really good stuff was never about consensus, you know Pastuer, Avogadro, Arrhenius....

Finding real solutions and alternaties are important, no argument.

Two years of low sunspot activity is more concerning to me than the CO2. Are we going into a major cool down? If so, we better have some alternatives. Sunspot cycles and prolonged minimums trump anything we do. That is a fact, not theory, yet it is discussed very little in the context of the debate of anthropogenic influences.

Originally Posted by Kingfish

Two years of low sunspot activity is more concerning to me than the CO2. Are we going into a major cool down? If so, we better have some alternatives. Sunspot cycles and prolonged minimums trump anything we do. That is a fact, not theory, yet it is discussed very little in the context of the debate of anthropogenic influences.

Sunspot activity is cyclical, and we're at the bottom of the cycle. It's quite normal and the current lull in activity was predicted in '04 by scientists. Granted it seems that it happened a bit sooner than expected, but what's a few years when you're dealing with the life cycle of a star?

Originally Posted by commiecat

Sunspot activity is cyclical, and we're at the bottom of the cycle. It's quite normal and the current lull in activity was predicted in '04 by scientists. Granted it seems that it happened a bit sooner than expected, but what's a few years when you're dealing with the life cycle of a star?

It's all that man made pollution. It's being emitted into outer space and is being soaked up by the sun accelerating those cycles. I wouldn't be worrying about global warming. Once the Sun heats up we'll be on a giant cinder. You're all doomed. I'll tell you what I'll buy all your shaving gear now for centavos on the dollar.

Originally Posted by Kingfish

... snip...

Two years of low sunspot activity is more concerning to me than the CO2. Are we going into a major cool down? If so, we better have some alternatives. Sunspot cycles and prolonged minimums trump anything we do. That is a fact, not theory, yet it is discussed very little in the context of the debate of anthropogenic influences.

To my knowledge sun spot changes are not directly correlated
to radiant heat and energy output from the sun (warming). Correlations
do exist with the ozone layer/ ionosphere, Van Allen belts
and radio reception.

The interaction with overloaded global power grids is a social risk of
some importance.

Originally Posted by niftyshaving

To my knowledge sun spot changes are not directly correlated
to radiant heat and energy output from the sun (warming). Correlations
do exist with the ozone layer/ ionosphere, Van Allen belts
and radio reception.

The interaction with overloaded global power grids is a social risk of
some importance.

Do some research and you might be suprised. Low sunspot cycle has HUGE implications on climate change. 99.9% of our energy comes from the sun. It is the biggest factor of our climate and existance. Man is a little blip on the geological time scale. As a person of science I don't think our being here means as much as humans would like it to.
Maunder minimum chilled off the 1400s pretty darn quick. We are still warming out of that one, but maybe not for much longer. Nothing new under the sun
Dalton's minimum was a smaller one that gave the 1800s a smaller few decades of colder weather. Astronomers forcast this next cycle to be weak too. About 1/3 of normal if I remember. Do some research from non political sources if you can still find them. Very hard to do now on internet with the saturation of propoganda. I use to be able to look up climate graphs and study them with none of this theory one way or another and get better information. I hate this new age hype in science. I makes it cheap and common and abused.
Many predict cooling for the next few decades.
Not to be an alarmist, but the predictions are on the conservative side that we are in a cooling period that will affect us in our lifetime. In the early 1700s when they were documenting sunspots, they did not have the instruments we do today, and they most likely missed smaller ones that are counted today meaning this one is worth watching.

Do sun cycles affect earth's climate? Yes.

Does this mean that man made changes to the atomoshpere don't have any effect? No.