Starship Asterisk*

William Roeder wrote:

BMAONE23 wrote:There is a definite component that points directly to mans alteration of the earth. Which can be determined in the Fact that over the course of the last 100 years, worldwide average temps have risen by .08dC to 1.2dC but urban areas (where man & polution sources are located) are up 2dC to 2.8dC over the same time period.
That is to say that urban area temp increases over the last 100 years are more than double that of rural area increases. More people per mi3 seems to equate to greater temp increase...Man appears to have a definite effect.

More antidotal evidence. You site local changes and equate that to global. You say mans definite effect but point to no sources.
I previous pointed to a http://www.hawaiireporter.com story. As search of that site for the word "global" would have reveled:
A Scientific Basis for Doubting Man-made Global Warming
Earth's 'Fever' Breaks: Global COOLING Currently Under Way
New Jason Satellite Indicates 23-Year Global Cooling
Global Warming Goes Round And Round
and many more.
Start researching these links and you'll find Facts against man made global warming by experts.
Where are the experts For? And don't say Gore and his very flawed 400 scientists report, that has been reputed.
Al Gore Denies Global Warming in His Meal Ticket

William,
It is obvious that you disbelieve in global warming so you look for evidence to support your view. Since the science is imperfect in regard to the cause, there is a wide range of possibilities. Again, since you believe as you do, youwill naturalle put more credence on those papers that present the data that supports your viewpoint.
I on the other hand, believe that there is a real problem and threat to ecological stability happening and that we are part of the problem. I therefore will search for, find and present papres and articles counter to your viewpoint.
You will say that my chosen data is obviously flawed because it goes counter to yours, and I will likely say the same thing about yours.
Respectfully, we agree to disagree.
But one thing will always remain fact: Man is the ONLY creature on the face of the earth that can elect not to add fuel to the warming situation but still does.
If it were decided tomorrow that, nationwide, there will be no more burning of fossil fuels in 5 years, there would be viable alternatives in 4 years..
If it were decided tomorrow that, nationwide, there will be no more utilizing production methods that include oil products in 5 years, there again would also be viable alternatives in 4 years.

Man pollutes only because he chooses to rather than develope and implement totally clean alternatives.

William Roeder wrote:

bystander wrote:effort still must be made to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels

The problem is that there is no substitute for oil.

The US uses five million barrels of oil a day for non-energy uses. Thats almost half.

We've been playing with wind and solar for 30 years. They are still more than twice as expensive as oil. If they were viable the market would have already moved there.

Nuclear would be an alternative except for the environmentalists and their restrictions.

The best news I've read recently, was the new genetically engineered bacteria that eat waste organics and crap out oil. But that still won't be a replacement. We need to drill for more. Most of the locations they allow drilling doesn't have much oil.

There are many alternatives to oil:


For electricity production

Nuclear - Can be expanded, but waste disposal is an issue.

Hydroelectric - Most good sites for dams already taken, but a few smaller sites may be available.

Photovoltaic Solar electric.

Solar heat projected and concentrated to heat boilers

Waste products used as liquid and gas sources, including landfill gas and biofuels from waste products can likely be expanded.

Geothermal heat pumps. Can only be used in certain locations.

Wind. Can be expanded.

Improved electrical storage, to permit more extensive use of wind energy.
Electrical power from more distributed sources, to reduce power loss in line transmission.
Technologies to capture wave energy and tidal energy.



Automobile power:

Biofuels from food crops, such as ethanol. At best, a very small part of the solution.
(biodesiel Vegitable oil based fuel, Ethanol from both Corn and Sugar)

Some technologies which may be developed in the next few years include:

Biofuels from plant material other than foods, including algae.

Improved batteries, to permit electric cars. May possibly be powered by solar panels on roofs of garages.


If there is one thing man can do, it is solve a particular problem if attempted. We just have to want to make the attempt.

G'day BMAone23

Focus Fusion is being researched and millions of dollars are going into it.

This will not come in for another 20 years about.

harry wrote:G'day BMAone23

Focus Fusion is being researched and millions of dollars are going into it.

This will not come in for another 20 years about.

I must admit..I haven't heard of the term "Focused Fusion" but I'll have to look more closely at it
Thanks Harry

G'day BMAone23

This link may help on Focus fusion

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-b ... &version=1

oops came back

Forgot this link

Focus Fusion Society
http://focusfusion.org/

well, putting in my two cents

i recently read a book (State of Fear by Michael Crichton, and before you write off what he says, most of his books use referances and are based on fact that he spins a plot around) that reveals that something called land usage heat(or something along those lines )is mostly the thing causing the increase in temperature, in urban areas. I can see how thoroughly industrialized nations would have a higher temperature, through looking at the graphs.
I want to see the temperature increase IN THE ATMOSPHERE over some place remote like the pacific ocean, or any other ocean. These areas would be least likely to have been affected by global warming, and if there is a definite, big, increase in temperature, then i will be thoroughly convinced.

Conro wrote:well, putting in my two cents

i recently read a book (State of Fear by Michael Crichton, and before you write off what he says, most of his books use referances and are based on fact that he spins a plot around) that reveals that something called land usage heat(or something along those lines )is mostly the thing causing the increase in temperature, in urban areas. I can see how thoroughly industrialized nations would have a higher temperature, through looking at the graphs.
I want to see the temperature increase IN THE ATMOSPHERE over some place remote like the pacific ocean, or any other ocean. These areas would be least likely to have been affected by global warming, and if there is a definite, big, increase in temperature, then i will be thoroughly convinced.

Looking at this graph from the NASA GISS site, it looks like the Ocean temps have risen by .6dC or 1dF since 1880. Many people will scoff and say "That is only 1 degree farenheight, hardly equates to global warming" But when you consider the ammount of water there is in the oceans, It takes a significant ammount of heat energy to raise this impressive volume by 1 degree.

And when you look at this graph it appears like the Northern Hemisphere has seen a significantly larger increase than the southern hemisphere which can also be evidenced in that the north polar ice cap is rapidly decreasing (most of the ice up there is considered first year ice) while the Antarctic is more stable (though heavy ice calving is evident and southern ice shelves are diminishing) BTW most heavily industialized natione are located in the northern hemisphere.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

well, i get the part about that industrialized nations, and everything, but while there is rapid decline in ice in the north, there are also glaciers that are actually advancing. I looked up the effect I was looking for and it was the urban effect. The urban heat island effect is basically microclimates set up by the land structures around it. This will obviously influence the heat around the temperature gauging stations


http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/re ... ofig3a.gif

This graph shows how the majority of surface temperature stations are located in highly densely populated areas. Doesn't this show beyond a slight doubt that the results of these stations are biased, not because they want to be, but because of the urban heat island effect.

Part of the glacial advance can be attributed to the speed with which the glaciers are moving. As surface temperatures warm (Ice surface in this case) the glacial ice melts forming ponds on the surface. These Glacial Melt Pools find their way through cracks in the ice to the ground surface beneath. There, the melted water acts as a lubricant decreasing friction between ice and rock allowing the ice to move faster (in some cases, more than twice as fast) This gives the appearance of advancing glaciers but it actually creates a strain on the remaining structure by thinning (stretching) the remaining smaller mass of ice over a larger area. The end result is a more tenuous glacial structure over the entire area of the glacier

Though there are some southern hemisphere glaciers that are stable or growing. But then the global warming situation isn't affecting the southern hemisphere as much as it is the northern one. (Gee you would think that if it were caused by solar activity, it would affect both hemispheres equally.)

This image shows the retreat of Grinnell Glacier from 1940 to 2006

Perito Moreno in Argentina is advancing but it is located in the southern hemisphere where everything is still more stable.
Retreating Glaciers In The Bhutan-Himalaya are easily visible in this image The nice "Blue" finger lakes at the ends of the glaciers used to be white ice instead of blue water (glacial melt)

here is an interesting PDF put out by the Alaska Park Science
http://www.nps.gov/akso/AKParkScience/C ... molnia.pdf

G'day Bmaone23

Nice links mate,,,,,,,,Thank you for sharing

bmaone23,

okay, but if you have are saying that the southern hemisphere isn't affected as much, then why are people so worried about the break off of antarctica??

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... lting.html

The global effect, must be then from the sun's rays since (someone on here said this), most of the land mass of the Earth is in the northern hemisphere. Now how then would humans be causing the ice to be not only melting, but accelerating in Antarctica?

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzzzz

Just thinking aloud.

Whats happening under the ground?

Could continental drift cause a cycle and effect the melting to the Ice?

Look at Ice land, its not ice.

Conro wrote:bmaone23,

okay, but if you have are saying that the southern hemisphere isn't affected as much, then why are people so worried about the break off of antarctica??

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... lting.html

The global effect, must be then from the sun's rays since (someone on here said this), most of the land mass of the Earth is in the northern hemisphere. Now how then would humans be causing the ice to be not only melting, but accelerating in Antarctica?

The immediate concern with Antarctic Ice Shelf as opposed to Arctic sea ice is the fact that the Arctic sea ice acts to displace ocean water and therefore has little affect on sea level rise (though it does affect the arctic Polar Bear as it is the bears only hunting ground and the arctic seals main home and breeding ground)

The problem is in the melt:
Greenland ice mass would contribute 7 meters or about 22 ft of sea level rise in the event of a catastrophic meltdown
The West Antarctic Ice Shelf (WAIS) would raise sea levels by 5 meters or about 16 ft.
If both the East & West Antarctic ice sheets destabilized and melted, sea levels would rise by 70 meters or 220 ft.

It is this projected sea level rise that is causing the concen over Antarctic ice melting and Ice Shelf loss.

Of course we can't forget those Penguins that travel hundreds of miles from the ice edge in winter to hatch their eggs so that when summer arrives, the fledgelings will be near the edge of the ice. If that edge travels too close to lands edge, the entire species will loose its rookery before the fledgelings are ready to swim away.

http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2004/ ... heimer.pdf

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

If the ocean rises by 70 m, I would be left with an ocean front property.

That would be a profit of 8 million dollars.

I'm going to run my car non stop.

hey,that's an idea...

You see, I'm not trying to argue global warming. I'm trying to argue the cause of global warming. I think humans have a much smaller impact on the world than currently projected. I think that it would be catastrophic if the ice shelves in Antarctica suddenly broke off and melted (although I'm a little uncertain that it would happen in a day, and then sea levels rise in a day. It would probably happen over periods a decade that the sea level would rise). It's unfair of you to bring up emotional points in an argument that's not over the emotional aspects of global warming, rather than the causes of global warming

I recently read an article in discover magazine about cloud cover.
"His studies show that cosmic rays trigger cloud formation, suggesting that a high level of solar activity—which suppresses the flow of cosmic rays striking the atmosphere—could result in fewer clouds and a warmer planet. This, Svensmark contends, could account for most of the warming during the last century. Does this mean that carbon dioxide is less important than we’ve been led to believe? Yes, he says, but how much less is impossible to know because climate models are so limited."

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jul/th ... %20warming

As he said later, "Our idea reverses that, turns things completely upside down, saying that the climate is a result of how the clouds are." This could completely change the way people look at the climate change. At points of incredibly high solar activity, there would be less cosmic rays hitting the Earth resulting in less cloud cover, and therefore the warmer Earth. There has been much more solar activity in the past hundred or so years that it's possible this could be the cause of global warming.

G'day conro

I posted this on page 1

Man has been accused of climate change without evidence.

Yes Man is polluting the local environment and is a problem for health. But! is this causing climate changes.

This is very interesting and is worth reading. Science applied to the problem.

http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/publications.htm

SOLAR ROTATION, IMPULSES OF THE TORQUE IN THE SUN'S MOTION, AND CLIMATIC VARIATION


Quote:
ABSTRACT. Running variance analysis and maximum entropy spectral analysis applied to Mount Wilson rotation data yield arguments in favor of a connection between variations in the Sun's rotation rate, energetic X-ray flares, and impulses of the torque (IOT) in the Sun's irregular motion about the barycenter of the planetary system. Such IOT, that have been shown to be related to the secular cycle of solar activity and excursions of the Maunder minimum type, also seem to be linked to outstanding peaks in geomagnetic activity, maxima in ozone concentration, incidence of blocking type circulation, as well as rainfall over Central Europe, England/Wales, eastern United States, and India. Statistical tests, that confirm these links, additionally point to IOT connection with temperature in Central Europe and the number of icebergs that pass south of latitude 48° N. IOT relationship with X-ray flares and strong geomagnetic storms was tested in successful long range forecasts.


http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/cycles.htm
http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/extrema.htm
http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/swinging.htm
http://www.john-daly.com/sun-enso/sun-enso.htm
http://www.griffith.edu.au/conferenc...pdf/ICS176.pdf

Climate change is important to all of us. Pollution is critical for clean air.

As global warming increases MAN will need to ADAPT.

I dont know about glaciers but ice in my refrigerator is definitely melting.. that thing needs a reset.

btw, how about some unrelated rap?

Conro wrote:I think that it would be catastrophic if the ice shelves in Antarctica suddenly broke off and melted (although I'm a little uncertain that it would happen in a day, and then sea levels rise in a day. It would probably happen over periods a decade that the sea level would rise).

I calculated about a year ago that melting the ice of Antarctica and Greenland will take about 150 years, if 1% of the energy of the sun currently received by the earth is "reserved" for melting the icecaps. The rise of the sealevel would be catastrophic (for us): about 75m. I would be living 80 m below sealevel!

Yeah, I too would be under about 50m of water.
GLUB
GLUB
GLUB

I would be dead for a while when it happen. So i'm O.K.?

Well,
The NORTHEAST PASSAGE above Russia has been open for some time now and has been during northern summer for a few years now

Oh Boy!

Here are some nice images of the top of the world on this date in history
2001 through 2008
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere ... 010910.png
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere ... 020910.png
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere ... 030910.png
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere ... 040910.jpg
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere ... 050910.jpg
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere ... 060910.jpg
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere ... 070910.jpg
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere ... 080910.jpg

G'day BMAONE23

You must be on top of this topic.

You give out more links than I do.

Put another shrimp on the babi.