Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Essay about Global Warming
#1
Mankind has created a complicated society. One element in there is the urge for security and fear for insecurity. The latter however creates social interaction. A mutual enemy makes friends and having friends is what a herd needs. Therefore throughout the history life of man has been dominated by threats and enemies, real or imaginary. Most of the time the local competing tribes were not enough of a threat, therefore mankind created witches, leprechauns, devil, dragons, etc. We love to shiver of fear as it elicits compassion and understanding but what has this to do with global warming?

Already in the 19th century the radiative properties of certain gasses was discovered; Svante Arrhenius, a Swedish physician found out about the ability to convert heat energy from conduction to radiation and vice versa and he was the first one to contemplate the notion of greenhouse gasses to regulate the climate, which might explain the climate changes of the ice ages. This had nothing to do with fear and hype yet. Although in the mid 20th century the notion grew that increased use of combustion energy led to a dangerous uncontrolled climate experiment. However, humanity was engaged in so many conflicts, it didn’t need another fear factor.

Things changed in the 1970s and 1980s when UK prime minister Margaret Thatcher was confronted with a severe conflict with the coal workers, multiple strikes paralyzing the energy needs of the country. She realized that energy security was paramount for a healthy economy and would have loved to go fully nuclear against the will/ hype of the population against nuclear energy. This is where the global warming came in the first time as a political tool, when she was advised to propagate cutting emissions and go on alternative (nuclear) energy sources as solve the pollution problems as well in the process. So she did and at any suitable occasion she mentioned the oncoming global warming problems. Then something remarkable happened. The economists agreed, seeing the feasibility of nuclear power and the average civilian agreed having an aversion against the pollution and the problems forthcoming from the dependency on the coal. Not to mention that it was a joy for the more audacious green activists. Actually a miracle occurred, having a common problem, it reunited natural opposing parties as friends with a common objective, to fight off the threat. And having a happy population, also made the leadership happy in turn. So global warming was a very nice political instrument.

Well, in short, the IPC came into being and Kyoto and the more clever leaders, like Tony Blair, Al Gore, etc, seeking unity and prosperity, quickly learned that propagating global warming was politically very desirable. Nothing beats having a good enemy.

There is also science, after all, the greenhouse effect is pure physics and this is all about doing research, making observations and testing the forthcoming hypotheses. After all, the effect of increased CO2 may or may not going to affect climate a lot or a little. And whatever it is, it’s not going to be affected by what we like to happen. Nature follows its own rules regardless what we want. But since we like global warming so much, the IPCC was set off with the unofficial task to proof global warming, rather than investigate global warming. This is where the split occurs between desire and reality. Some scientists simply didn’t take it for granted. That’s natural. Scientists should never take anything for granted, not even the Dryas pollen in the Younger Dryas. Science is a constant process of trying to proof oneself false. If you can’t do that, then the chance is increasing that you may be right.

But the average citizen doesn’t seem to buy that. Global warming unites everybody as friends and cutting back the energy bills is a good thing anyway and wasn’t there something as peek oil? So why bother about fighting the global warming consensus. There can only be one reason for that right? Personal gain, paid by the oil companies; why else would you swim against the main stream and harass the consensus, securing the income of the oil companies. Traitors, climate deniers.

Wrong, skeptism is about the scientific process. You can’t fool reality and bending the scientific process is the ugliest thing a true scientist can imagine. Pursuing reality is more important than jumping on the bandwagon, even if that implies facing tar and feathers. Of course there may be many excellent reasons to cut back on emissions but it should be true reasons and no fallacies. Nothing should be forced by bending reality because we simply need to know what happened objectively to judge what is likely going to happen and our research shows a completely different world. I'd like to show some of that world but it needs some effort to understand to understand what's up. And you actuality would need to click a link every once and a while.
Reply
#2
Andre, I see Tony Blair's name up there, along with others as well. However, you left out an important one: Mararet Thatcher.

Global Warming: How It All Began, by Richard Courtney, thanks to the late John Daley. Most of the right, which are fighting this tooth and nail, either are unaware of her input, or don't wish to acknowledge it. Well worth reading, if you haven't already.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up” — Saint Al of the Gore -
Reply
#3
John L Wrote:Andre, I see Tony Blair's name up there, along with others as well. However, you left out an important one: Mararet Thatcher.

John, I think you will find Maggie's name in the third paragraph.

Andre, is that the same Richard Courtney from CS?
As Gary Lloyd said, "When the government’s boot is on your throat, whether it is a left boot or a right boot is of no consequence."
Reply
#4
scpg02 Wrote:
John L Wrote:Andre, I see Tony Blair's name up there, along with others as well. However, you left out an important one: Mararet Thatcher.

John, I think you will find Maggie's name in the third paragraph.

Andre, is that the same Richard Courtney from CS?

Yeshua! I thought I had read the entire post up there. I was moving back and forth, and totally overlooked that paragraph. Great minds still tend to think alike, even though some of them have this reading disability, of which I must plead guilty. :oops:
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up” — Saint Al of the Gore -
Reply
#5
I'm interested in modeling the effects of greenhouse gases. Do any of you know where I can find models for "participating gases" in the atmosphere? The problem with "participating gases" is that they absorb and then re-radiate energy. The model is therefore much more complex than gases which are absorbers, and do not re-radiate. Any leads you could give me would be appreciated.
Jefferson: I place economy among the first and important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.
Reply
#6
So far, so good.

I'd just like to add that I don't remember any men tion of GW in the 70's, at that time there already was a concern about energy and the ultimately limited supply of fossil fuels, brought about by the oil crisis in '72.

Coal had been identified as a source of pollution much earlier, not for the CO2, but the other toxic fumes which one could see and smell. Then there was acid rain as an issue, as far as I know GW has only become a theme in the 80's, originally is was just one issue amongst others as far as green politics are concerned, and I still tend to see it that way.
While there is no doubt man-made increased carbon levels do their part to raise the temperature, I do not share the alarmism of Gore and others.

Anyway, carry on...
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
Reply
#7
John L Wrote:Yeshua! I thought I had read the entire post up there. I was moving back and forth, and totally overlooked that paragraph. Great minds still tend to think alike, even though some of them have this reading disability, of which I must plead guilty. :oops:
Also, the article you added is 10 years old, and it shows, as in this little gem, for example:
Quote:Widespread imagined risk is to be expected as the end of the twentieth century (the end of the second millennium) approaches. Prophets of doom have occurred when the end of each past century approached. They always proclaimed that “the end of the world is nigh” unless people changed their ways and accepted great hardship. So, history suggests that the global warming scare or something like it can be expected at this time.
:o
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
Reply
#8
stroll Wrote:
John L Wrote:Yeshua! I thought I had read the entire post up there. I was moving back and forth, and totally overlooked that paragraph. Great minds still tend to think alike, even though some of them have this reading disability, of which I must plead guilty. :oops:
Also, the article you added is 10 years old, and it shows, as in this little gem, for example:
Quote:Widespread imagined risk is to be expected as the end of the twentieth century (the end of the second millennium) approaches. Prophets of doom have occurred when the end of each past century approached. They always proclaimed that “the end of the world is nigh” unless people changed their ways and accepted great hardship. So, history suggests that the global warming scare or something like it can be expected at this time.
:o

Does not matter on witt Stroll. If you will pause to read it, it talks about Madaam Thatcher's contribution, which was over 25 years ago. Facts are still facts, regardless their age. I thought you might know that already. Wink1

Incidentially, here is an article that is only as old as yesterday, The deceit behind global warming, By Christopher Booker and Richard North. And believe me, there is more than enough deceit going on about AGW. However, I realize that you will be hard pressed to make it through the entire article, I shall quote for you the final paragraph here.

Quote:If global warming does turn out to have been a scare like all the others, it will certainly represent as great a collective flight from reality as history has ever recorded. The evidence of the next 10 years will be very interesting.

and that Komrade will be the understatement of the 21st century.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up” — Saint Al of the Gore -
Reply
#9
John L Wrote:Does not matter on witt Stroll. If you will pause to read it, it talks about Madaam Thatcher's contribution, which was over 25 years ago. Facts are still facts, regardless their age. I thought you might know that already. Wink1
Oh, thanks for pointing this out, John.
Goodness knows where I found the quote, hmm, I might have come across the passage while reading the article. Thinking about it, I am quite certain that this is how it happened.

Facts are facts, opinions, half-truths and commentary are not.
I quoted an example to show that the emphasis of this interesting story is not that of a factual account. But the author does elaborate on the involvement of Thatcher as he saw it.

Quote:Incidentially, here is an article that is only as old as yesterday, The deceit behind global warming, By Christopher Booker and Richard North[/url][/u]. And believe me, there is more than enough deceit going on about AGW.
Seems like the line of argument is similar, but minus the honourable conservative Lady Thatcher and enter the hypocritical megalomaniac Gore to deceive the world with the help of a conspiracy of dishonest scientists. S6
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
Reply
#10
Guys,

I keep hearing that methane is a bad guy as well as CO2 in the GW crowd. This means we need less humans and animals doesn't it?
Reply
#11
There has been mention of cows' farts somewhere, but this is found on the IPCC site:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/134.htm#tab42
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
Reply
#12
By far the largest global producer of methane is the cultivation of rice in its artificial wetland environment! We wont even mention those wetlands that are the pet projects of some eco-wackos. One must also add that agricultural wastes also generate the gas (but hey you've got the GWers blathering on about tundra degredation). However, methane is a fuel source and can be converted to energy since it is the principal ingredient in natural gas!

http://www.gas-plants.com/methane-plant.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/leice...192512.stm

Here is the wit and wisdom of the EPA:

http://www.epa.gov/methane/sources.html

[Image: methane_naturalchart2.gif]
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the former."

Albert Einstein
Reply
#13
drgonzaga Wrote:[Image: methane_naturalchart2.gif]

I'm confused here. If natrual causes are so high, then what would we really consider termintes,..............'unnatural causes'? From what I can see by the chart, it would ALL be 'natural causes'. Am I wrong?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up” — Saint Al of the Gore -
Reply
#14
John L Wrote:I'm confused here. If natrual causes are so high, then what would we really consider termintes,..............'unnatural causes'? From what I can see by the chart, it would ALL be 'natural causes'. Am I wrong?

From what I understand, termites are increasing in number do to our cutting of the rain forests. So I've read anyway.
As Gary Lloyd said, "When the government’s boot is on your throat, whether it is a left boot or a right boot is of no consequence."
Reply
#15
drgonzaga Wrote:By far the largest global producer of methane is the cultivation of rice in its artificial wetland environment! We wont even mention those wetlands that are the pet projects of some eco-wackos. One must also add that agricultural wastes also generate the gas (but hey you've got the GWers blathering on about tundra degredation). However, methane is a fuel source and can be converted to energy since it is the principal ingredient in natural gas!
You may mention wetlands, if you like - but comparing ecological wetlands to artificial mono-cultures reveals once again how far your capable mind gets distracted by personal dislikes and opinionism.
Yes, biological waste is a source of methane, something the ecko-wackos and others are developing, a friend of mine, for example, who has installed a system to utilise this methane for gas lights in houses, in an inaccessible village mountain in Nepal - these ecko-wackos really are a nasty bunch of dreamers far from practical reality, aren't they? S6

John L Wrote:I'm confused here. If natrual causes are so high, then what would we really consider termintes,..............'unnatural causes'? From what I can see by the chart, it would ALL be 'natural causes'. Am I wrong?
Who has mentioned "unnatural sources"? Both the IPCC link and Gonza's graph specifically state "natural sources".
Now, of course 'unnatural' has a different meaning from 'artifical', as the doc indicated in an example already, or 'consequence of human activity'.

A scientific report on the development on greenhouse-gases would be incomplete without mentioning methane.
The hype about termites and farting cows may safely be dismissed as just that - hype. It makes catching headlines. S1
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
Reply
#16
Quote:comparing ecological wetlands to artificial mono-cultures reveals once again how far your capable mind gets distracted by personal dislikes and opinionism.

Ah, stroll, little me permits my peeves to affect judgment? Yet, elsewhere you went to the barricades for Chomsky, who does nothing but? I may be guilty of colorful language and delicious descriptives (as well as a penchant for the alliterative that is sometimes overboard) but I am always clear when I present opinion in contrast to facts! On my part, I am a hearty advocate for the wetlands, I have lived in them for most of my natural life from the bayous of East Texas to the hammocks of South Florida and have watched the consequences generated by political fools who now propose to rescue them through politics. HAH! Perhaps a new banner should be unfurled: What hath Progress Wrought? A perfect example of this foolishness is now being asserted in the US Congress against presidential veto, the so-called Water Projects Bill that pretends the "protection" of places such as the Everglades, but in reality is a massive expenditure for the generation of more levees and drainage systems that shall permit fools to live where they do not belong--unless willing to live in concordance with conditions [but somehow I doubt many will take to pirogues and stilt-houses].

Now if we are going to address who is being unnatural, you have to understand my distinction between ecologists and eco-wackos. Their language gives them away. The latter have no concept whatsoever of chemical processes yet are willing to pervert the natural in a most unnatural way. Atmospheric transport and degradation values for trace gases (and yes in terms of the overall atmosphere, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane can only be described as such) can be calculated and in terms of temperatures (or in the jargon of science spatio temporal patterns) the last mentioned is the most significant because as with other factors such as aerosols and halocarbons, such can be technologically harnessed and mitigated. Further, in terms of surface temperatures, methane generates greater warming kilo for kilo than carbon dioxide. Yet, forcing and its computer modeling has become its own industry (within the mystique of generating cash for research), e.g.:
[Image: figure2m.gif]
Here is how the Goddard Lab summarized it back in 2002:
Quote:The total "forcing" of climate since 1850 includes a "positive" effect from all the greenhouse gases, which would have a warming effect. Of the other anthropogenic forcings, black carbon has also had a "positive" effect, whereas the other factors including: aerosols, soil and dust, cloud changes, and land cover alterations have had "negative" or cooling effects. Of the natural forcings, an increase of the Sun's brightness has caused a positive forcing, while variations of volcanic aerosols have caused both positive and negative forcings.

Although the sum of all forcings coincidentally is similar to that for carbon dioxide alone, knowledge of each of the large forcings such as methane and black carbon (soot) is needed for development of effective policies.
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/200201...house.html

What is even more interesting, as the Goddard Lab noted, measurements of stratospheric H20 are markedly absent!

Measurements themselves become problematic as can be deduced from this abstract on Bangkok:
http://www.eric.chula.ac.th/gcrc/abstract/IGAC1/13.htm

For the brave of heart or those with specific titles in mind try wading through the science with this engine and then contrast the restraint in language with the rhetoric of the IPCC or worse the political wackos:

http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/253652.html

PS: I've given you a "backdoor" in hopes that you can thus access Citeseer.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the former."

Albert Einstein
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Disaster Addiction And Global Warming John L 109 10,676 12-04-2019, 10:23 AM
Last Post: JohnWho
  Global cooling, er, I mean warming, er, wait...PT. 2 John L 526 156,917 10-30-2019, 12:36 AM
Last Post: Canuknucklehead
  Positive News about Global Warming. John L 78 30,294 05-17-2015, 09:55 AM
Last Post: JohnWho
  Why Global Warming Isn't Consistant Buzz 39 25,252 10-19-2014, 03:34 PM
Last Post: SFX
  Global cooling, er, I mean warming, er, wait... Lisa 1,668 684,555 08-23-2014, 06:13 PM
Last Post: John L
  Global Warming Nazis John L 134 55,713 07-01-2014, 04:12 PM
Last Post: Paul In Sweden
  Science Fraud And Con Men: Diederik Stapel and Global Warming John L 0 1,742 04-30-2013, 08:58 PM
Last Post: John L
  Global Warming Debate, Split From ANWR Drilling Thread Matrix 113 49,378 12-28-2012, 10:53 AM
Last Post: sunsettommy
  Death By Global Warming John L 12 9,465 01-06-2012, 06:11 PM
Last Post: jt
  global warming to cause an extraterrestial attack mv 10 6,572 08-20-2011, 03:06 PM
Last Post: John L

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)