Cleaner Air Adds To Global Warming 751
shmlco writes "In the "You Can't Win For Losing" department, an article on the BBC web site is reporting that reduced air pollution and increased water evaporation appears to be adding to man-made global warming. Research presented at a major European science meeting adds to other evidence that cleaner air is letting more solar energy through to the Earth's surface.
Burn fossil fuels, you make things worse. Clean up your act, and you make things worse. Is it time to set off a few nukes and see if nuclear winter can cool things down?"
Angels Down? (Score:2)
Mike
Re:Angels Down? (Score:2)
he referred in that book to a world that was suffering from an ice age,
but that was not the issue, and it was not solved it in the text...
a solution was discussed/not implemented...
Re:Angels Down? (Score:5, Informative)
Acutally, the book was Fallen Angels [baen.com] by Jerry Pournelle and Michael Flynn, and it went a little further than that. The ice age had been held off by pollution-related greenhouse warming. It was only after the world cleaned up its act that the ice age came on.
It's a great book. The heroes were SF fans.
Re:Angels Down? (Score:2, Interesting)
Is it time to set off a few nukes? (Score:2, Flamebait)
This message brought to you by the Upright, Sensible People Department.
Re:Is it time to set off a few nukes? (Score:2)
Re:Is it time to set off a few nukes? (Score:2)
Anyway, very often I see an anti-circumcision guy around Chicago. He's got a massive beard and always seems to be rather passionate. I've often wanted to ask him if he happens to be circumcised, you know, just to figure out why he's so passionate about holding that sign.
Bad idea (Score:5, Funny)
Uh-uh. Last time I tried that on Sim Earth, my planet was overtaken by sentient robots. Of course, the robots eventually get taken out by carnivirous plants, but is that really much of an improvement?
So I set off a few planet busters (Score:5, Funny)
Must be due to the (Score:5, Funny)
Surely that doesn't change things? (Score:3, Interesting)
Cue lots of 'hilarious' ironic tabloid newspaper columinsts suggesting that we all fill up the SUVS to 'do our bit' though.
not that far off (Score:5, Interesting)
That's not a bad idea... (Score:2)
That said, I'd rather see something a little more organized like, say, a large solar shade positioned between the sun and the earth. It would be harder to implement, sure, but it would also be vastly easier to fine-tune -- if the scientists were a little bit off
AOL CDs and Chip bags (Score:2)
So you can spend $1 to bounce a kilowatt or you can spend thousands to do it in space. Seems obvious to me. Isn't Navada mostly federal land anyway?
Re:That's not a bad idea... (Score:3, Funny)
I keep trying to get "Launch Solar Shade" passed, but I can't get the votes - I have the energy market cornered and Lal, Santiago and Zakharov have decided that they don't want to trade with me.
I am going to nerve staple those bastards if I ever get my hands on them.
Re:not that far off (Score:2)
The simple amount of pollution that would be generated HERE on earth to accomplish this would be far worse than the benifits
Think about it.
Factory to Produce umpteen rockets
Factories to produce umpteen electronics for said spaceships
Power generation to produce fuel for umpteen rockets
Water vapor from launch of umpteen rockets
And on and on and on.
This is probably the same guy that says drive an electric car save the enviroment, when you boil it all down to generat
Re:not that far off (Score:2)
Re:not that far off (Score:2)
Re:not that far off (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a commonly held misconception.
1. Modern batteries for hybrid cars are recyclable.
2. Power generation from most current power plants, even coal burning ones, are less polluting per watt of power output than an internal combustion engine. The automotive combustion engine trades a lot of efficiency for the ability to be mobile, quick to start and stop, and run at a broad range of RPMs.
3. As more solar/wind/geothermal/tidal/whatever else environmentally friendly power generators are used, the electric car can use the power they generate without modifications.
The real problem with electric cars is the same problem we had with them at the beginning of the 19th century. Battery tech just hasn't improved enough to give them a long range.
Re:not that far off (Score:3, Informative)
At the powerplant Yes , at the Wheel NO, not even close.
Average loss in transmission is around 25-30% , Right there is enough, to make them equal.
And thats just on the high side, then look at step down transformer loss at around 5%
Ok, now on to transforming AC to DC and Charging the batteries. Here loss is around 20% depending on whos
Re:not that far off (Score:3, Informative)
Transmission efficiency * transformer efficiency * charging efficiency * storage to motor efficiency * drivetrain efficiency =
This is better than pump to wheel for an IC engine powered car.
I don't have, and can't find, the figures for refining crude but I've seen claims that the cost of refining a barrel of oil in 2004 was $10 so I'll assume 25% loss.
Gas fired electricity plants say 50% efficient. (probably can do better)
Re:not that far off (Score:2)
Would you want to risk missing out on first contact with an advanced race because Earth didn't pass the white glove test?
Re:not that far off (Score:5, Funny)
I agree (Score:2, Interesting)
By the time my kids are my age that may be the only option.
And it may not be a bad one
The U.S. has some nice large yield hydrogen bombs that are "clean" well as "clean" as a thermonuclear device can be.
Where is the question, would sea level blasts in the arctic work ? or maybe mid atlantic, shit Bikini Atol is still crapped up from last time maybe thats a good place
A "PURE" fusion device would be ideal.
Maybe we could create a "Du
Re:I agree (Score:2)
Wouldn't it be easier to paint the entire Sahara and Gobhi desert in white reflective paint to send more sun back into space?
I know nuclear weapons are kind of cool, but I still have a could more years before I can afford that fallout bunker.
Re:I agree (Score:3, Insightful)
How to solve global warming (Score:3, Interesting)
2. Shoot the beam to outer space
3. Profit!
New Ice Age will take care of it (Score:3, Insightful)
Change != Worse (Score:4, Interesting)
s/make things worse/change the environment/
Maybe we should just realize that we live and therefore we affect the world around us, and that the environment is ever changing. Oh, and things evolve. And it's not a good idea to build a dream home on a sand dune.
No, no, no... (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, the pollution was (or 'is', in southern Asia and China) *masking* the effects of increased warming at ground level. Cleaning up the air doesn't add additional forcing; it merely keeps it elsewhere.
I don't think I can bear to read the following hundreds of ignorant "I've heard it's all due to the sun getting hotter" crap we always get on Slashdot AGW stories. If you think that, you don't know what you're talking about. Go away and read Real Climate [realclimate.org] or, for a comprehensive refutation of all the trolls we can expect to see attached to this story, please refer to this excellent debunking of so-called 'sceptic' canards, lies and deliberate mis-statements of facts [blogspot.com].
Re:No, no, no... (Score:3, Insightful)
> heard it's all due to the sun getting hotter" crap we always get on Slashdot
> AGW stories.
Right, your religious faith sustains you through anything, especially anything as puny as logic or facts that don't support your beliefs. Dude, anybody that belives Global Warming is both a) established as a fact beyond debate and b) that the CAUSE of such warming is also established beyond debate is an ignorant savage deserving of e
Re:No, no, no... (Score:3, Insightful)
uh, mars has some very complicated warming/cooling trends due to it's wacky rotation. you can't just point to mars' weather getting warmer as proof that its the sun's fault.
Re:No, no, no... (Score:5, Insightful)
We've seen time and again that messing with the environment can have devastating repurcussions. A smaller scale example of this is the attempt by the US Army Corps of Engineers to drain the Everglades. Now huge amounts of money are being invested trying to fix what was done. And this is minor compared to the implications of trying to modify, one way or the other, the global climate.
It's good to clean up our environment and be good stewards of it, but at the same time, we can't halt industrial progress, nor should we. What happens if, a hundred years down the road, we discover global warming really was only a natural cycle of the Earth's climate? Now, what happens if current industrialized nations have strangled the ability of their economies to produce goods in an attempt to divert a coming 'disaster' that never materialized?
Already, punitive regulations and taxes are in place on industry making it very hard to profitably do business in the United States. This is a primary factor behind the outsourcing that people wring their hands over. As I said, behaving responsibly toward the environment is good, but we have to also balance the needs of being an industrialized society and not overreact against a threat we don't really undesrand.
Re:No, no, no... (Score:3, Informative)
Right data, wrong interpretation (Score:2)
As for the water vapor, water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas. When the earth gets warmer more water vapor is in the atmosphere. The reason we don't know exactly how warm it will get is because we don't know exactly where the water vapor sits in the atmosphere yet. However, just because water vapor is a greenhouse gas doesn't mean that humans aren't causing glo
*just* like the second law of thermodynamics... (Score:2, Insightful)
YOU CAN'T WIN
so sit back an enjoy the ride. Be true to yourself. Do what you need to do to sleep at night, and dont give a f*ck about what they say about global warming. Its been hot, its been cold, and we only have accurate weather data spanning about 100 years. If you think we can make accurate preditions based on 100 years of data (a piss in the bucket compared to the thousands or millions or billions of years this world has been in existance, depending on who you asked) then
Re:*just* like the second law of thermodynamics... (Score:2)
Did you buy it on the Future's Market?
Re:*just* like the second law of thermodynamics... (Score:3, Informative)
What an amazingly short-sighted view you have! If you're right, I suppose that means I should just go step out back and burn some plastic.
Even if you don't believe in a human contribution to global warming (hint: even the bush administration is admitting a link now, although they seem to think we shouldn't do anything about it) you must realize that things are getting worse for the humans. The majority of our oxygen comes from oceanic algae (the rainforest consumes almost as much oxygen in decomposition
Re:This is what I love about climate change... (Score:3, Informative)
There is tacit agreement that the earth is heating up, not that the cause of it is man made. These are two very different things.
There is also a large degree of opinion among those who think humans are to blame. Are they:
Causing most of the change, with minimal amounts of change being natural
Causing some of the change, and other parts are natural
Causing minimal change, and most of the change is natural
There is also a hugely varying amount of opinio
face it, we're powerless (Score:2)
Heh (Score:4, Funny)
I nominate Idaho for Nuclear Whipping Boy
the real answer: "It Depends" (Score:2, Flamebait)
The important part of the debate -- for me -- isn't so much global warmin
Clearly affecting global warming is the wrong goal (Score:3, Insightful)
In the 70s, scientists were absolutely convinced that they'd mastered the complex climate change models, and confidently assured us all that an Ice Age was imminent.
Nowadays, global warming is the new scientific fad. And not only does it appear that global warming is much greater in scope than any amount of anthropogenic factors can account for, it also appears that there's not much we can do about it anyway.
On top of all that, I suspect that the smarty men, for all their expert and well-intentioned efforts, still haven't mastered the climate change models to the extent some of us would like to think.
So I say we carry on as always: sometimes building, sometimes tearing down. Sometimes exploiting, sometimes preserving. Sometimes making a mess, sometimes cleaning it up. And always refining and improving our methods and priorities, not based on the current socio-scientific fads, but based rather on the traditional motivations: the ebb and flow of human desire, expressed individually and collectively by various means.
I mean, if we don't even properly understand climate change, and can have only a measurable but insignificant effect on it, then how can we possibly make good decisions about what sacrifices to make and what goals to pursue in relation to climate change?
There are plenty of other more sensible, more practical, and more meaningful reasons to change some of our behaviors. I, for one, would like to see more arguments for ecological responsibility based on those, and less arguments based on voodoo climatology.
Re:Clearly affecting global warming is the wrong g (Score:4, Informative)
No it isn't [realclimate.org].
If we can cause the problem, we can fix it. The only question is, will we?
Re:Clearly affecting global warming is the wrong g (Score:4, Insightful)
Boy, I'd like to be able to agree with you on that one. But I can't.
Aside from the question of unified will, which is big enough, we get to the point of physical possiblities. We're learning a lot about climate, weather, modeling, etc. But I suspect that the experts will be the first to admit that they're not experts. Engineering a climate is a far different thing from trying to decypher what is happening with one. We also know that some of these processes are very-long scale, certainly longer than quarterly profit reports or even election cycles, which only compounds the unified will problem.
What if the North Atlantic Conveyer stops? (for a theatrical example) Let's presume we want to restart it. How do we do that?
What if defrosting permafrost releases CO2 that dwarfs what we've released? How can we possibly compensate?
What if the Earth really WAS headed back into an ice age before we got going with the industrial revolution? What if global warming is what's keeping the climate friendly?
What if this is all so danged nonlinear? What if a friendly climate is NOT the norm? What if the Earth is *normally* encrusted with ice, or a hot jungle? What if our entire development as an intelligent species has been during an unusually friendly inter-ice-age?
Enquiring minds want to know.
Re:Clearly affecting global warming is the wrong g (Score:3, Informative)
No they didn't.
Yes, yes, they did. Perhaps you're too young to remember the scare, but I very clearly remember being terrified after listening to a scientist explaining to the viewing audience that we were all going to starve to death in the near future. Your link is quite convincing, and I'd probably believe it if it weren't for the fa
Re:Clearly affecting global warming is the wrong g (Score:5, Insightful)
In the 70s, scientists were absolutely convinced that they'd mastered the complex climate change models, and confidently assured us all that an Ice Age was imminent.
No they didn't.
Don't know how old you are hawkfish, but I distinctly remember that they did. The phobia of the 70's was distinctly the other way. I remember my parents arguing about climate cooling at the dinner table. My mother was convinced that an ice age was imminent. My father was very skeptical. The argument revolved around how well science could predict climate. My father was convinced that since he couldn't get accurate weather forecasts, that climate forecasts were even more suspect. Here we are, 35 years later and the same arguments are still playing out.
Re:Clearly affecting global warming is the wrong g (Score:3, Insightful)
If it's the latter, then that is exactly the parent posts point (if you bothered to even glance at the links).
The media reported an Ice Age was imminent. Peer-reviewed scientific journals did not.
Contrast that with today, when after a review of 981 ISI science journals, 75% of them were found to either explicitly or implicitly accept that global warming is occuring and that it is the result of human processes.
None of them were found to s
Sounds familiar (Score:2)
Wasn't this the plot of the Dinosaurs series finale?
Build better filters (Score:2)
Not to mention that the
And to think I was gonna buy a hybrid. (Score:2)
People who worry less live longer (Score:2, Flamebait)
Trust me, you will live a happier, longer life.
Equally fanatical conviction (Score:2)
Burn fossil fuels, you make things worse. Clean up your act, and you make things worse.
Kyotoists state both the reasonable and ridiculous with equally fanatical conviction. Truth is not their goal but the rejection of modern consumerism. Ask yourself is such people should have influence over global politics and economy.
Maybe it was going to happen anyway... (Score:2)
Thats because water vapor is a greenhouse gas. (Score:5, Informative)
No, really, it is.
Each gas that comprises the atmosphere has the capability to act as a greenhouse gas, and each one blocks different wavelengths of infared radiation. Some of then trap it when the sunlight passes through the atmosphere, some of them capture it when the radiation bounces off the earths surface back into the atmosphere.
C02, Methane, and *gasp* water vapor all contribute to heat retention in the atmosphere. It's basic Geography 101 shit that everyone learns.
However, since water vapor is, you know, an integral part of the atmosphere and several cycles on earth, we really can't do much about that. Better to worry about all the other gasses we up dump into the atmosphere that we can control.
Not Suprised (Score:2)
This isn't news! Its expected! But oh well.
Newsflash! Climate Models Incomplete! Pos. Wrong! (Score:2)
"One is to find ways of extending experimental investigations into the oceans and the developing world.
"The second is to integrate them into computer models of climate, something which is only just beginning to happen. "
So when someone says that we need "more research" into climate change, they may not just be a lackey of the oil companies, but they may actually be concerned that the science on this isn't really done yet.
No Surprise... (Score:5, Insightful)
Pollution = Greenhouse Effect
Greenhouse Effect = Increase in global temperature
Increase in temperature = More water evaporating
Vapourous water = Clouds
More clouds = Less sunlight getting through
Less sunlight = lower temperature
The point being that there is a sense of balance in place. Yes, we're messing things up, but there are some checks and balances that lessen the impact. That's not to say we should keep on polluting, but that the situation IS reversible if given time.
His other big environmental statement was that he'd wish the "Save the Rainforest" people would spend more than 5 seconds looking at their arguments. The fact is (again, according to him) that the rainforests are NOT the "lungs of the Earth." They actually do a small minority of the CO2->O2 conversion compared to what the oceans and seas do. Calcium Carbonate (CaCO3 = Limestone) in the oceans does much more. Plant life in the major bodies of waters (ie.- algae) also is a significant contributor (in relation to rainforests). But there is almost no major coverage of the damage we've done to the oceans through shipping, dumping and other pollution.
Interestingly, the tie-in between the two lies in the algae and plant life. An increase in temperature can lead to an increase of plant life that can convert the polluting gases into O2... as well as other pollutants.
The problem isn't necessarily that we're polluting the environment, it's that we're doing it faster than nature can balance it. This used to be due to ignorance, but now it's willful and due to monetary pressures and laziness.
Re:No Surprise... (Score:3, Interesting)
The weather satellites do give us pretty good information on the cloud cover, and the subject is known well enough to give good estimates of the total effect. Unfortunately, whether the total effect is "cooling" or "warming" varies on a daily (or hourly) time scale.
With a bi
They'll never believe it (Score:3, Insightful)
Between the 1950s and 1980s, the amount of solar energy penetrating through the atmosphere to the Earth's surface appeared to be declining, by about 2% per decade.
then later:
"During the solar dimming we had really no temperature rise. And only when the solar dimming disappeared could we really see what is going on in terms of the greenhouse effect, and that is only starting in the 1980s."
Every single time I've ever pointed out the global temperature drop from 1942 to 1975, a number of liberals jump at my throat and claim I'm making it up. Now here's a climatologist making the statement that temperature didn't rise from '50s to the '80s. The liberals will never buy this; that one statement of his invalidates the entire study in their eyes.
Re:They'll never believe it (Score:3, Insightful)
All conservatives care about the environment. Only liberals equate belief that global warming is caused by mankind's actions with caring for the environment.
The fact is, the global warming scare is the latest attempt by the far left to implement their near-genocidal "Earth First" policies to reduce human population by any means necessary.
If mankind's actions were the primary cause of global warming, the 1942-1975 data wouldn't be a cooling tre
Does this not raise red flags for anybody else? (Score:4, Insightful)
If both polluting and not polluting are correlated to global warming, is it not sensible to investigate whether or not NEITHER is causing global warming, and the correlation is indeed a false correlation? I mean, if A -> B and !A - > B, then one is tempted to conclude that B happens regardless of whether A happens or does not happen. And if that's the case, B is going to happen no matter what A does, which further means that B isn't influenced by A's behavior.
Now, I'm not so naive as to think that it's really this simple. I've long held that enacting crippling policies to "combat global warming" at this point is silly, and that more research and data collection is necessary before we can even set realistic and helpful goals. When research like this comes out, I feel that it bolsters that stand. But research like this also bears further investigation before we accept it at face value.
Re:Don't agree with global warming (Score:4, Insightful)
Point is that man-made pollution is more than the earth can absorb because there are too many humans. If we reduced the population, earth would be better able to absorb the naturally-created pollution.
Re:Don't agree with global warming (Score:3, Insightful)
What do you mean? If we're products of evolution, then we humans are supremely natural. Furthermore, everything we do is supremely natural. Just as bees act according to their nature, and whales act according to their nature, so do we act according to our nature. How could it be otherwise? At what point would you say that "un-nature" has been introduced into the process?
Lions use teeth and claws to take the
Re:Don't agree with global warming (Score:5, Insightful)
What do you mean? If we're products of evolution, then we humans are supremely natural.
There's a difference between being "natural" and "sustainable". The vast majority of natural creatures are also sustainable, because if you don't live a sustainable lifestyle your lifestyle (or species) will not persist. The unsustainable ones get winnowed out. Being "natural" or not has no bearing on whether your species will go extinct or not.
The word "natural" has become so mangled that it that it is both useless and meaningless except as part of a marketing campaign.
Re:Don't agree with global warming (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, but the parent post isn't talking about "sustainable", it's talking about "natural".
The vast majority of natural creatures are also sustainable...
Which means that some minority of natural creatures are not sustainable. Being in that minority doesn't make humans unnatural. As you make clear, appeals to sustainability are not appeals to nature. And thus objections to unsustainability are not objections to nature.
Our conclusions are the sam
Re:Don't agree with global warming (Score:4, Insightful)
Plants and plankton transformed the bloody atmosphere- so I would say they had a significant effect on the environment.
Soldier ants had a regular habit of laying waste to huge areas-- so... you get the point.
Most wildly successful species will reach numbers that impact the environment.
Re:Don't agree with global warming (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Don't agree with global warming (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps, but the evidence is that before our agriculture, the grassland habitats that are best for grazing animals were populated with lots of large grazers. We may not have changed the total number by much; we just replaced the wild grazers with domesticated grazers. We really don't know which direction we changed the numbers.
But the really fun part of the methane story is the recent discovery of the "missin
Re:Don't agree with global warming (Score:4, Insightful)
you're assuming that the only space and resouces that people use are the ones they're standing or living on.
what about the land needed to grow the food these people eat? that's not in cities. what about the water required to irrigate deserts so those people can have lettuce in january? that's not in cities. what about all the oil required to run suvs and make platic shampoo bottles for all those people? what about the massive hydro and coal electricity projects needed to run all those electric shavers and 60" televisions?
just consider food for a moment. the average north american diet requires 3 acres of areable land per person per year. for the entire population of the united states that works out to just less a billion acres.
overpopulated.
Re:Don't agree with global warming (Score:3, Interesting)
Your argument def
Re:Don't agree with global warming (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Don't agree with global warming (Score:3, Informative)
Now, because of the aging of the population and immigration, this hasn't translated into negative
Re:Don't agree with global warming (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Don't agree with global warming (Score:5, Informative)
Thus, by your math, the U.S. can provide all of the agricultural products that it needs, and this is supported by the positive balance of agricultural trade that the U.S. has shown for the last 40 years (2). We ship out things that we can grow more easily (e.g. corn), and import things that we can't (e.g. rice). That margin is dwindling, and we may start to import a bit more than we export, but this is primarily due to an increase in import of consumer-oriented products, not bulk imports. This suggests that to a large extent, this is due to consumers being more savvy and choosing to buy more imported products for variety, rather than because we can't produce enough food.
Anybody who says that that the U.S. can't feed itself is either misinformed or outright lying. Either way, that's a sure sign of somebody with a political agenda.
1. Source: WorldStats.org [worldstats.org]
2. Source: TruthAboutTrade.org [truthabouttrade.org]
Re:Don't agree with global warming (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually while the output per acre has increased, the output per litre of fertilizer has decreased. That means we push more and more fertilizer into the ground because otherwise nothing would grow anymore because the soil is in pretty bad shape.
That wouldn't be that much of a problem if fertilizer wouldn't be made out of oil. So yeah, the US is indeed overpopulated after th
Re:Don't agree with global warming (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, I'd say a lot of it is due to the ILLEGAL immigrant problem we now have. There is nothing wrong with the legal entry immigrants...that's what this country was built upon.
Ah yes, I see... legal immigrants somehow don't increase the population... it all makes perfect sense now...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I couldn't have put it better myself
Re:Don't agree with global warming (Score:4, Insightful)
There's a few dead indians who would like to have a word with you about that...
The country was founded on genocide and slavery, simple as that. Stop rose-tinting it in order to soften your xenophobic views.
Re:Preach to the rest of the world (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Don't agree with global warming (Score:4, Insightful)
Rural Illinoisan here to tell you how full of shit you are. Meat is easy, we have factory farms for that, a relative of my raises pigs by the tens of thousands....per facility that he owns, and he owns 6. And he's not the only one around here with such facilities. And chickens and other birds are similarly raised, intensively, in what are basically factories. Beef is a bit different, it's more open, but there's no lack of cattle around here either...it's a big business in fact.
And what the fuck do you mean we can't grow strawberries? There are more strawberry farms within a short distance of here than you can shake a stick at, apple and peach orchards as well. And vinyards too while we're on the subject, make damn fine wine.
As for vegetables, there are locally grown vegetables everywhere....but it is true that most large scale commercial production is in certain parts of the country. That's more of a factor of local economics than the condition of the land.
Re:Don't agree with global warming (Score:2, Funny)
Yes the world is overpopulated.
Re:Don't agree with global warming (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Don't agree with global warming (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Don't agree with global warming (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Don't agree with global warming (Score:2)
Humans seem to think that it is okay if we cover most of the land mass and reserve the remaining bits for the other billion species on this planet. Just like American pioneers who wanted to spread the US all the way to the other coast, humans want to cover the entire planet wit their species. It is animal nature. And even today mos
Re:Don't agree with global warming (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Don't agree with global warming (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Don't agree with global warming (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Don't agree with global warming (Score:2, Interesting)
Hmm... interesting conclusion.
Let's see, the earth is warming due in large part to the effects of human beings spewing crud into the atmosphere. A warmer earth tends to be covered with more water, have more violent weather patterns, and be all around less hospitable to life as we currently enjoy it. How do we spew crud into the atmosphere or otherwise adv
Re:Don't agree with global warming (Score:5, Insightful)
However, as environmentalism has matured (and as a younger generation has taken over), a lot of that has dissipated. Many of us would now say what we want is post-industrialism - a world where industry has been retooled so that sustainable management of inputs, outputs and waste are all part of the business model (rather than only the first two, and without regard to global issues). Industrialization was not only a vastly leap forward for humanity and its quality of life, but was in fact good for much of the environment: before industrialization people burned an awful lot of trees, farmed a lot of land poorly, and relied on massive animal stocks for transportation, and none of this was all that friendly to the earth. Now that we've seen the negative consequences of our current industrial methods, it's time for the next major leap forward. And despite all the propaganda, it's clear that pushing green industry will very quickly drive enormous economic growth and likely help humanity solve persistent problems like global poverty.
To answer the critics who say "if this is so great why doesn't business do it itself", I have a couple answers. First, as anyone who's worked at a startup or on a new product launch can tell you, markets move incrementally and businesses outpace them at their peril. So to get the market to surge forward, you often need external intervention. Second, much of what's needed is massive capital investment for long-term gain: in research, in infrastructure upgrades, and in capitalizing new technologies. Businesses generally do not have a 20 year mandate to improve infrastructure, whereas the government has exactly this mandate. And yes, the government intervention does makes mistakes, can promote inefficiency, or can produce unintended outcomes. But it almost always gets the market moving in the intended direction, and the mistakes can be cleaned up later.
If this all sounds a bit breathless, get me a gig at Wired. But I really do believe that investing heavily in this jump will give tremendous results for people, business, and countries.
Re:Don't agree with global warming (Score:2)
Well if by serious change you mean that two degrees makes Greenland's or Antartics temperature go from 31 to 33 degrees Fahrenheit...
Well... Then we are pretty much SOL.
Re:Don't agree with global warming (Score:2, Flamebait)
I'm reminded of scene from a movie, that one featuring Tommy Lee Jones versus a volcano that pops up under LA. Not a very good movie, but nevertheless... There's a scene where the love interest/geologist is explaining in
Re:Don't agree with global warming (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Don't agree with global warming (Score:5, Informative)
OK, dude, time for calorimetry 101. Let's assume for a second that the temperature increase was just for the oceans (to avoid messing around with too many different specific heats). Let's further assume that it only applies to the top centimeter of the water (ie, the rest of the oceans are not affected). What would the impact be of a 2 degree fahrenheit increase in the surface temperature?
That's a lot of energy to have floating around that we didn't used to have.
Re:Maybe that extra energy came from the Sun (Score:3, Informative)
The greenhouse effect does not affect the rate of heat absorbtion of the planet; instead it affects the rate of heat dissipation by slowing the rate at which heat radiates into space (IIRC, this has to do with the amount of IR radiation reflected by Co2 in the upper atmosphere).
Ice ages happen when the rate of reflection increases; glacial growth leads to more of the planet covered by reflective ice, leads to lower temperatures, leads to glacial growth (loop)
Re:Don't agree with global warming (Score:3, Informative)
Simple ,Chrome shingles. (Score:2)
Actually the reflective roofs would be nice here in Florida
Re:Ack (Score:2)
Re:We must completely ban the use of... (Score:2, Interesting)
It is found in 99% of cancer cells
Large quantities are known to kill people
It is found in quantity in the brains of sociopaths
It is a vehicle for spreading most diseases
A powerful solvent in and of itself
Allows the breeding of mosquitos
We actually got quite a few vehement people wanting to ban this chemical in all of its forms.