Comments on: A test of global warming theory for smart High School kids to do http://www.bloggernews.net/114456 High-quality English language analysis and editorial writing on the news. Fri, 21 Nov 2008 09:49:46 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: ccchristopher http://www.bloggernews.net/114456#comment-259095 ccchristopher Sun, 16 Mar 2008 02:21:10 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/114456#comment-259095 We need to face reality. With the exception of nuclear energy which the political left refuses to allow, we currently have no reasonable substitute for fossil fuels. Wisconsinites and Minnesotans are never going to be able to heat their homes with wind or sun and the rest of the country will not have cars that run on wind or sun. Environmentalists are just now coming to the realization that biofuels are a bigger polution problem rather than a solution to fossil fuel. If CO2 is the culprit in climate change then we are doomed because nobody is going to do what is necessary to reduce CO2 (changing lightbulbs will do nothing). China and the rest of the world are not going to stop developing and the West is not going to accept no-growth economies (which is the only real way to reduce CO2). CO2 is going to increase. Get used to it. And don't tell us that hydrogen cars are the answer since the byproduct of burning hydrogen is water vapor which is the main greenhouse gas which accounts for 95% of the greenhouse effect. Let's get real. The market will probably do what needs to be done anyway. Let's see...higher energy prices=less demand/more conservation=cleaner environment. Sounds like a plan. We need to face reality. With the exception of nuclear energy which the political left refuses to allow, we currently have no reasonable substitute for fossil fuels. Wisconsinites and Minnesotans are never going to be able to heat their homes with wind or sun and the rest of the country will not have cars that run on wind or sun. Environmentalists are just now coming to the realization that biofuels are a bigger polution problem rather than a solution to fossil fuel. If CO2 is the culprit in climate change then we are doomed because nobody is going to do what is necessary to reduce CO2 (changing lightbulbs will do nothing). China and the rest of the world are not going to stop developing and the West is not going to accept no-growth economies (which is the only real way to reduce CO2). CO2 is going to increase. Get used to it. And don’t tell us that hydrogen cars are the answer since the byproduct of burning hydrogen is water vapor which is the main greenhouse gas which accounts for 95% of the greenhouse effect. Let’s get real. The market will probably do what needs to be done anyway. Let’s see…higher energy prices=less demand/more conservation=cleaner environment. Sounds like a plan.

]]> By: marsbeyond http://www.bloggernews.net/114456#comment-258928 marsbeyond Sat, 15 Mar 2008 20:14:12 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/114456#comment-258928 Climate change is probably dominated by the solar cycle and not manmade contributions. So what? Pollution sucks and kills people. We should stop burning all fossil fuels as soon as possible. We can stop all kinds of needless human suffiering now, not to mention the rest of the residents on earth. Climate change is probably dominated by the solar cycle and not manmade contributions. So what? Pollution sucks and kills people. We should stop burning all fossil fuels as soon as possible. We can stop all kinds of needless human suffiering now, not to mention the rest of the residents on earth.

]]> By: GreenNetizen http://www.bloggernews.net/114456#comment-258786 GreenNetizen Sat, 15 Mar 2008 16:08:05 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/114456#comment-258786 I've heard a little about the sunspot theory and you are right. It should be examined as well. Let's go with your premise. Are we not adding to the problem with our CO2? Are you asking people to consider a graph that shows the correlation between solar activity and temperature on earth and ignore the graphs that show increased levels of CO2 correlating to increased temperature? These are scientists too. It would be interesting it to put the temperature data, the solar data and the CO2 data up together and see what that shows. I think you have a point about the solar data but I'm not sure why you ignore the other. But there is more to the story than even these three elements. Warming or not, we are have huge issues with unsustainable business practices worldwide. Have you seen what they do to the oceans? Can you deny that mass numbers of species are go going extinct each year. Do you not think there should be limits to how many trees we cut down, how much pollution we are allowed to put into the air, how many species we endanger, how much wildlife we destroy, how many much sea life we consume? Yes, I read Jared Diamond’s book, “Guns, Steal and Germs” and I know a little our biological history. Let's me honest and look at the big picture. You have left a lot of the problem out of your argument. What we need is honest scientific arguments about the state of our planet. I’ve heard a little about the sunspot theory and you are right. It should be examined as well. Let’s go with your premise. Are we not adding to the problem with our CO2? Are you asking people to consider a graph that shows the correlation between solar activity and temperature on earth and ignore the graphs that show increased levels of CO2 correlating to increased temperature? These are scientists too.

It would be interesting it to put the temperature data, the solar data and the CO2 data up together and see what that shows. I think you have a point about the solar data but I’m not sure why you ignore the other. But there is more to the story than even these three elements.

Warming or not, we are have huge issues with unsustainable business practices worldwide. Have you seen what they do to the oceans? Can you deny that mass numbers of species are go going extinct each year. Do you not think there should be limits to how many trees we cut down, how much pollution we are allowed to put into the air, how many species we endanger, how much wildlife we destroy, how many much sea life we consume?

Yes, I read Jared Diamond’s book, “Guns, Steal and Germs” and I know a little our biological history.

Let’s me honest and look at the big picture. You have left a lot of the problem out of your argument. What we need is honest scientific arguments about the state of our planet.

]]> By: bangelin http://www.bloggernews.net/114456#comment-257696 bangelin Fri, 14 Mar 2008 15:37:22 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/114456#comment-257696 1) You don't need Excel, you can use open office. 2) Recently, the number of sunspot went down, but the temperate not so, except the last winter. Both the factors, (solar activity and greenhouse gas) have to be factored. The feeling is that if the sun stays on low activity in the 24 cycle, that will trump the global warming and we are lucky to have the time to develop a new energy model. The price of the oil will only going up, being a limited resource and the demand grows. In top of that, when you emit CO2, you are subtracting a breathable oxygen. If that is not reversed trough photosynthesis, you can imagine consequences. So the current model is not sustainable forever, and a push for change is healthy. 1) You don’t need Excel, you can use open office.
2) Recently, the number of sunspot went down, but the temperate not so, except the last winter.
Both the factors, (solar activity and greenhouse gas) have to be factored.
The feeling is that if the sun stays on low activity in the 24 cycle, that will trump the global warming and we are lucky to have the time to develop a new energy model.
The price of the oil will only going up, being a limited resource and the demand grows.
In top of that, when you emit CO2, you are subtracting a breathable oxygen. If that is not reversed trough photosynthesis, you can imagine consequences. So the current model is not sustainable forever, and a push for change is healthy.

]]>