Continue to Site

Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

Register Log in
  • Congratulations KootK on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

Educated" opinions on climate change - Part 4 27

Status
Not open for further replies.
Zdas04 is correct. However the quote from withouthotair was "...vulnerable to the whims of untrustworthy foreigners." And of course Canadians do not fall into that category.

HAZOP at
 
Them Canadians don't even talk the same language as us'ns. Actually, I'm on the Board of a Canadian company and we have more language problems than I do in Columbia (and I speak zero Spanish). Besides all that we're already importing 16% of our Natural Gas from Canada. Next step they'll join OPEC.

David
 
The high priests of the new religion have repeatedly claimed that the solar cycle, and sunspots, are not a significant part of the 'problem', while wallpapering over historical evidence that sunspot activity seem to be associated with temperature. This paper suggests a plausible mechanism for interaction between space weather (as it is known) and clouds, hence the albedo factor of the Earth.


quote:
When solar explosions interfere with the cosmic rays there is a temporary shortage of small aerosols, chemical specks in the air that normally grow until water vapour can condense on them, so seeding the liquid water droplets of low-level clouds. Because of the shortage, clouds over the ocean can lose as much as 7 per cent of their liquid water within seven or eight days of the cosmic-ray minimum.

"A link between the Sun, cosmic rays, aerosols, and liquid-water clouds appears to exist on a global scale," the report concludes. This research, to which Torsten Bondo and Jacob Svensmark contributed, validates 13 years of discoveries that point to a key role for cosmic rays in climate change. In particular, it connects observable variations in the world's cloudiness to laboratory experiments in Copenhagen showing how cosmic rays help to make the all-important aerosols.

/quote.

Cheers

Greg Locock

SIG:please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
 
Cranky108,

We shouldnt mention that we breath out Carbon dioxide or they might tax us on that too!

zdas04,

I like the term us'ns, at least it doesnt sound like you are claiming ownership of two continents.
 
csd72, I don't know about you, but most of that Carbon dioxide that I breath out comes from renewable sources (At least the food I eat does).

At issue is if they tax carbon, how will they consiter the renewable carbon?

 
Yes and there goes my idea of using charcoal instead of pencils.
 
I think the jury is still out on fossil fuels being a finite resource, unless of course, that one belives everything that is spoonfed them through the media.

First of all, fossil fuels are carbon based, are they not? Now then, is it not the excess presence of carbon that everyone is complaining about. Hydrogen seems to be in abundant supply on this planet, as well.

Am I missing something obvious or are we simply sitting on our hands and not developing the remainder to this equation???

Also, try googling "peak oil myth".
 
And to think we haven't touched those frozen hydrite deposits under the ocean. Or all the oil under antaritica.

And I hear Russia still has problems getting new drillers to develop new sources there (Maybe they run them off).

And we aren't drilling off the East and West costs, and there are still lots of coal fields abanded because of sulfer content.

We aren't near the end of fossil fuels, as the prices don't reflect that at all.
 
I am glad there are three people with the same sense of humour as me. that'd be jmw, me, and the compiler of that list.



Cheers

Greg Locock

SIG:please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
 
Thanks for the link JMW. The sky has been falling for quite some time now, it appears!
 
Just as the climate cycles, so do the scientists. Some of the young scientists worrying about global cooling in 1975 are now old scientists with their feet across the fence.
 
The 90 year old "seer" from Cornwall, UK, may have a point about this 20% oxygen atmosphere of ours being a problem. He pointed out that it is only recently that species have adapted to it. He said its a nasty gas similar to chlorine. So if we are going into the terraforming business lets bring it down to around 15%. I wouldn't be able to run any more but it would sure help the forest fire fighters in Canada. Who needs to run anyway?

HAZOP at
 
Seems to me that the main points in this yahoo story are that:
[ul][li]they don't believe it[/li]
[li]they don' trust the scientists[/li]
[li]they don't trust the politicians[/li]
[li]they don't think we can do any good anyway[/li]
[li]the economy is more important and since tackling climate change will put a big hole in the economy, that makes sense[/li][/ul]
So, these are all signs of a psychological barrier?
Sound to me like reason.
Next thing they'll want to treat that psychological disorder (once it has some fancy name like AAAGWS - Absolute Anti Anthropogenic Global Warming Syndrome).
What it really says is that in a democracy, the majority view, whether right or wrong, no longer matters; politicians are no longer in power to represent the people but minority interests - starting with their own very special minority interests.



JMW
 
Well one of those is right. Many of us don't trust the politicians, because they have lied to us to many times.

Politicians, like babys, should be changed often and for the same reason.

Or how about, do you know how to tell if a politician is lieing? There mouth is moving.
 
someone posted early on that the human population has increased significantly over the last century ... that's an awfull lot more of lungs taking on O2 and exhaling CO2 ...
and assume that the amount of vegation hasn't increased, ie forests converted into crop fields, so maybe the "natural" uptake of CO2 hasn't changed, in any case it certainly hasn't increased along with the population growth.

just a thought
 
Read a report somewhere that the rain forests don't give us a net O2 benefit because the O2 is taken up by organisms in the ground beneath the trees. i.e. If you just consider the trees, you get CO2 absorbed and O2 released. But if you include the organisms the forest supports you have no net CO2 reduction.
I'll try and find the report.

JMW
 
Not to mention most natural forests have been destroyed.


The world is screwed. I give it 10 to 20 years max until it's Thunder Dome time!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

EngineerRam
  • Locked
  • Question
Decoupling of Buyer's and Seller's Agents Fees - Real Estate - Implications on Engineering Industry
Replies
11
Views
636
IRstuff
IRstuff
271828
  • Locked
  • Question
Article on AI implementation in work flows
Replies
8
Views
426
IRstuff
IRstuff
geotechguy1
  • Locked
  • Question
Changes to the iron ring ceremony 4
2
Replies
31
Views
711
Sparweb
Sparweb
JohnRBaker
  • Locked
  • Question
How will the COVID-19 pandemic change the face of business... 7
2
Replies
27
Views
221
kissymoose
kissymoose
ash060
  • Locked
  • Question
FL Engineers - Collaspe result in changes
Replies
14
Views
178
-
?

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor

Back
Top Bottom