So, what did happen to all that warmth?

[Mikebits]

What I wonder is this? Let's say global warming (hypothetically) does occur, and the Arctic caps melt. Now fresh water from the melted ice dilutes the Northern Atlantic which in turn disrupts the Gulf stream of warm air that Europe now receives. Would this not cause Europe and other parts of the world to begin cooling and in essence lead to a cooling period or perhaps another ice age period?

As the globe cools, the polar caps would again reform and the gulf stream would restore itself, sort of a feedback mechanism. Based on past historical models I suppose this take a long period of time.

It seems to me that moving North would only be temporary solution as this region would be doomed to a period of very unpredictable weather.

I dunno, just wondering...

 

[HarveyH42]

It has taken me over an hour to read these 250 threads.
Never have I seen so much “intellectual thought” from electronics personnel, who (we) are generally rated as “non-caring” and totally incapable of describing their (our) thoughts.
It’s great to see such an involved discussion and it is obvious that many of the posters have put a lot of effort into their contribution.
But one point has been missed. The cost of implementing the “Carbon Scheme.”
In Australia, it has been costed at $600 per year increase in electricity bills per household. And this is just a starting point. All other materials will be increased proportionately as nearly everything (steel, bricks, concrete etc etc etc) require heating in some form to produce a product.
The whole Carbon-Equalization-Scheme is obviously a ploy to make someone filthy rich.
As Charlie Brown in Peanuts, said: I’ll sell you this bag of hot air for 5 cents.”
Placing a carbon tax on the middle-class is going to be an enormous burden when the real increase in fuel-burning is taking place in China and India.
Australia exports 250 million tons of coal each year and each ton of coal produces nearly 3 tons of carbon dioxide, when burnt. Australia is the 4th largest polluter in the world and it looks like the Australian government is going to make the “peasants pay.”
Someone is going to be in charge of “sucking the peasants dry” and it’s going to be another fiasco like: “Fannie Mac” and “Freddie Mae” (intentional).
This is the real issue and I think some of the brilliant readers of this post should put their minds to work and come up some suggestions on how to solve this issue.
I don’t have an answer other than harness tidal action, wind and hydro. All the other possibilities (solar and nuclear) use more energy and produce more pollution than the energy gained from the reaction.
It’s no good running around in circles with: “the temperature is rising” “the temp is falling.”
We need to suggest some combative measures and not be “taken for a ride” with massive cost increases to our basic supplies.

That's pretty much the scheme, to drive up energy prices to the point where alternatives are more competitive or cheaper than fossil fuels. They don't take into account that the higher prices, taxes, fines, and whatever else the governments use to force CO2 control, will just be passed on to everybody else in the chain. I'm guess many of the people, who invested in 'green' energy, weren't seeing the huge profits, or the cost of production coming down any time soon, so they needed to create a bigger demand, by raising the cost of using fossil fuels. I would guess that CO2 levels will continue to rise, indicating tight restrictions, and so on, until they can no longer blame CO2 emissions, or find some other culprit with profit potential.

The part about this whole thing, is that these climate scientist don't seem to address anything that doesn't involve the continuing warming. We've had warming trends in the past, and it's cooled down again. Why is this time different? What caused the cooling in the past? CO2 is natural and necessary, nature must have some way of regulating the levels, even the huge surpluses released from volcanoes. Taxing CO2 emissions is the best solution? Pretty much since the last Ice Age, the planet has been on a warming trend, some years more than others. Time is a creation of man, not everything runs on the same clock...

 

[Thunderchild]

Every person I know at some time or another comments on how out culture is changing, becoming more and more corrupt in some fashion or another. Some find the changes more disturbing than others. Things you see on TV today that would never have been accepted 40 years ago, people not taking time to know their neighbors, children being raised by daycare workers instead of their mothers, divorce rates sky high, drug and alcohol addiction worse than ever before...etc etc. While I wouldn't say the world is falling apart, it is plain to see that our values are changing and becoming more and more self serving as a whole.

The effects of it can be seen everywhere. People in every walk of life have things to hide, personal demons, ambitions. People are a lot less mindful of the repercussions of their actions. If they are benefited in the here and now by doing something "wrong", sometimes the reward of doing the wrong thing is outweighed by the risk. Previous generations of people had a stricter moral compass and were more dilligent in doing the right thing no matter the cost. While there have always been bad people doing bad things, this is true of older generations "by and large" to borrow Brownout's term.

off the current topic the above is very true and no are values are not simply changing, society is going to pot ! its no wonder the divorce rate is high and kids are not brought up properly peolple go into things so more quikly these days and for the wrong reasons, I've tried being friendly with my neihbours but they just don't want to know infact act like I'm trying to do them. we live in rather nasty times where it is dog eat dog !

 

[Thunderchild]

It seems to me that moving North would only be temporary solution as this region would be doomed to a period of very unpredictable weather.

I dunno, just wondering...

you hit the nail on the head, and what do you think we are experiencing already ? hotter and hotter summers and worse spike in bad/cold weather

 

[tcmtech]

Our last few summers have been steadily getting cooler. 8 years ago my air conditioning ran me over 3000+ KWH a year and has steadily dropped to a now all time low of just over 100 KWH last summer and I have done nothing to my house or AC system in that time.
Our winters are getting back to what they where 20 years ago. Last night dipped down to -31 F. (not as uncommon as everyone seems to remember) If I was to go by what evidence I see of a warming trend I would say its not warming up but rather cooling down.

Last winter the locals where screaming that it was the coldest winter and heaviest snow falls we have had in history! Until the older generation brought out the books and showed everyone that we only had about half the peak levels of snow that was more typical during their younger years and that last winters average temperature was not any different than they where decades ago. Then everyone got quiet for some reason.

We got used to the warmer winters and warmer summers that the el nino effect brought us for a number of years but now that has apparently ran it course and things around here are returning to normal again. It always surprises me that the ones who scream the loudest about how something has changed also have the shortest memory's as to how things where not so long ago.

 

[kchriste]

It has taken me over an hour to read these 250 threads.

I don't think I would have the patience to read this entire thread in one sitting. Good on ya mate!

Never have I seen so much “intellectual thought” from electronics personnel, who (we) are generally rated as “non-caring” and totally incapable of describing their (our) thoughts.
It’s great to see such an involved discussion and it is obvious that many of the posters have put a lot of effort into their contribution.
But one point has been missed. The cost of implementing the “Carbon Scheme.”

You are right about the "green taxes" being used as a palatable tax for the masses. It is very difficult for democratic governments to increase taxes, so when they can find one they can justify under the guise of "doing the right thing" they will jump on it.
I think if we wish to keep our purely capitalist system, and reduce CO2 emissions, that this is the only way to do it. Companies are driven by profit motive so we must make renewable energy more profitable than nonrenewable ones. The other alternative is socialism, which not many here agree with, so I'll leave that alone for now.
We could simply wait until oil becomes so scarce and expensive that renewables are cheaper, but this would have environmental consequences that may threaten our society's existence. And would probably cost us more to fix than the implementation of all the "green taxes" to date. So how do we do this? There will be the inevitable lobbying from the oil companies to do nothing. Or as is happening in Alberta Canada right now where the oil companies are lobbying the gov for lower royalty payments on oil and gas. In fact, one method that governments can take action and reduce taxes for the little guy (at least in their jurisdiction), is to boost the royalties they charge the oil companies. They could then make it revenue neutral by giving everyone an income tax cut. This is what was tried in Alberta to a limited degree and the oil companies didn't like it one bit. The problem with these schemes is that it becomes a shell game and becomes difficult for the average citizen to figure out who the net winners and losers are.

 

[kchriste]

What I wonder is this? Let's say global warming (hypothetically) does occur, and the Arctic caps melt. Now fresh water from the melted ice dilutes the Northern Atlantic which in turn disrupts the Gulf stream of warm air that Europe now receives. Would this not cause Europe and other parts of the world to begin cooling and in essence lead to a cooling period or perhaps another ice age period?

Mike, the Gulf stream is an ocean current which keeps Western Europe warmer than it would be normally. At the same time it keeps the Florida peninsula cooler than it would be. So if the gulf stream was severely disrupted, Florida could get noticeably hotter while England got cooler if the "stream" shifted, moving the major cooling and heating points somewhere else. So we would have local cooling AND local warming. I think the loss of the arctic ice would have a major effect on solar heat absorption in the north causing it to get even warmer.

It seems to me that moving North would only be temporary solution as this region would be doomed to a period of very unpredictable weather.

Not only that, just look at the housing crisis you guys just went though. And that was all based on an orgy of derivative markets, bad loans, etc. ie: A disaster built on a flawed imaginary finanical system which had nothing to with "reality" whatsoever.
Now imagine trying to "sell" your home in a very low demand area and trying to buy in a highly desirable area! On top of that, you would have to pay for an entire new town complete with infrastructure, businesses, etc. People who say, "Oh we'll just move" are simply living in a dream world. Yea, it's OK if one or two people do this. Change it to a huge mass of people and it is an entirely different matter.

 

[killivolt]

Mike, the Gulf stream is an ocean current which keeps Western Europe warmer than it would be normally. At the same time it keeps the Florida peninsula cooler than it would be. So if the gulf stream was severely disrupted, Florida could get noticeably hotter while England got cooler if the "stream" shifted, moving the major cooling and heating points somewhere else.

It would shift. Places where you see an increase in heat will flow naturally to the lower state. Heat flows toward cold.

 

[BrownOut]

At this point

The believers also say they are right and all of their information and data are real and true yet they have earned themselves a solid track record of having lied, faked findings, manipulated numbers, falsified records, and have earned themselves a rather obvious reputation as being at best questionable and likely untrustworthy in there motives or at least morally questionable and likely inept at scientific research and data collection methods and cause and effect correlation.
Yet the skeptics have no questionable reputation and bad track record or associated proof of having done bad things associated with them. They just keep saying we dont exactly know but here is what we have found and suspect to be true at this point and it doesn't seem to say much of anything is absolutely conclusive. At most they say some things have shown negative declines but others have also shown increased positive gains as well. They do have a strong stand on the overall level of study needing to be far greater and far more encompassing being right now their general consensus is that the global systems are far to big and complex to accurately and reliably predict anything from at this point.

Yet another utterly false and unsubstantiated claim about "believers." Nobody has shown that any of those who support the science has lied or made any false claims of any kind. We have show the most complete research and analysis and backed off of it up with solid evidence. On the other hand, the other side has presented incomplete data, speculation and misrepresented their uniformed and uneducated opinions as researched facts. We've shown over and over that these false conclusions have no bases in any scientific or logical thought. Each time the nonbelievers show up with some claim that comes out of nowhere, those who support science have offered counter intelligence only based on published facts and sound science.

You're grapsing at every twig and tuft of grass on your way off the cliff.

 

[tcmtech]

Yet another utterly false and unsubstantiated claim about "believers." Nobody has shown that any of those who support the science has lied or made any false claims of any kind. We have show the most complete research and analysis and backed off of it up with solid evidence. On the other hand, the other side has presented incomplete data, speculation and misrepresented their uniformed and uneducated opinions as researched facts. We've shown over and over that these false conclusions have no bases in any scientific or logical thought. Each time the nonbelievers show up with some claim that comes out of nowhere, those who support science have offered counter intelligence only based on published facts and sound science.

You're grasping at every twig and tuft of grass on your way off the cliff.

Seems sort of strange to me how the skeptics come to the exact same conclusions about the believers work. But yet which side gets all the media attention for falsifying their work?
Oh what we already know that part as this thread was started because of that very problem having happened, again.

So how is openly admitting to not being sure and openly suggesting that more study of the rest of the system is needed grasping at straws but yet basing an enter theory on 100 PPM of something while saying the other 999900 PPM have no relevancy not?

This just seems backward to me.

 

[BrownOut]

I don't recall anyone making any such claim, maybe you're daydreaming. And I believe that everyone so far believes that more study of the system is needed.

 

[Sceadwian]

Brownout, I think you may be under a very distorted perception. People that attack global warming mongers and question the science are not unbelievers, they simply question the science involved. There is very little hard science involved in much of the data presented by global warming activists, merely interpretations of extrapolated data. That is NOT science, it's a best guess, that's no way to determine the way the entire global economy runs. Especially considering the claims made can't even be substantiated for hundreds or thousands of years. It's crack science 100%

It is obvious we should attempt to decrease the amount of energy we use and the amount of material we cast off this is basic common sense , the basic law of entropy comes into play, simply put the less we use the longer what we have will last. As far as global climate at large goes it will change NO MATTER WHAT WE DO. NOTHING the human race can do can control the energy cycles on this planet, we merely influence them, and only a very minor amount.

 

[kchriste]

NO MATTER WHAT WE DO. NOTHING the human race can do can control the energy cycles on this planet, we merely influence them, and only a very minor amount.

I don't think you can scientifically say that since, because as you have already stated, we don't know the all facts and hard science about global climatology yet.

 

[Sceadwian]

kchriste, we do know the general global climate in the past before mans influence changed dramatically, which means we KNOW it can be changing now without any influence from man. Determing what our influences actually is in incredibly complex because all we know are the generalities not the specifics. We can't remove ourselves from the data anymore so there is no longer a control for scientific measurement of the difference of our influence to the same conditions without our influence. We do however know that at best we are an influence not the cause. There is far far too many/much natural C02 to blame it all on mans CO2 contribution. Even then that's only one tiny portion of the dynamics involved in our global climate and ecology.

People are stupid, they will see someone saying we're bad for the environment and they'll show those graphs and people will BELIEVE that that data proves that what the person was saying was actually true, and it's nothing more than cheap junk psychology of the masses, unfortunately it's VERY effective. No science involved, no truth of any kind, not even a vague glimmer of intelligent conversation. Just someone with with a desired goal that found a means to that end and could give a damn about the truth behind the science.

 

[HarveyH42]

Personally, I think the Sun, in its self, has a lot more to do with our climate changes, than the greenhouse gasses. It is after all the source of all the heat that is being trapped, and it isn't exactly a steady, unchanging level. Remember something from the Ozone Layer days, about Cosmic Rays, ionizing the upper atmosphere as well, these levels, fluctuate as well, but don't see any mention of how these to things have anything to do with the warming trend. Both would seem to have a big, and unpredictable influence on climate. If Global Warming was a real concern, there should be some other factors to consider, besides just CO2. Why just focus on a single element, of a much larger system? Why exclude all else? Mostly, because CO2 is pretty much the only thing, that could be manipulated. Everything else is out of our hands, and would put the whole thing in a more correct perspective.

The CO2 angle isn't hard science, it's an observation, and speculation as to what it means, an opinion. There are a lot of things that look great on paper, but when it gets down to the hard science, they fail. Remember Cold Fusion?

 

[Mikebits]

Personally, I think the Sun, in its self, has a lot more to do with our climate changes, than the greenhouse gasses.

I agree with you here, the sun must have a role in all this cylic nature of our climate, additionally I have read that the earth orbit wobbles every so x thousands of years which explains the cyclic nature of the earths climates such as Ice ages and warming periods, some say we are changing the natural occurance.

Much like the homeostatic conditions that must be maintained in the human body like blood pH and temperature, the earth is similar and on its own accord can maintain that balance. Like our blood pH a minor change numerically speaking can spell disaster or death. The homeostatic conditions of earth must be similar and I think a small change out of the norm such as added CO2 can tilt the scale in the scheme of things and result in a major upset of the balance.

I am sure know one knows for sure, but we should do our part to mitigate any impact that us humans have on the overall ecological scale and not tilt the balance in a negative way. Worst case, we find cleaner energy and less pollution, I don't know how it is where you are from but the LA smog blocks my view of Mars...

 

[HarveyH42]

Well, we do know that the Earth must have been warmer, and a lot more CO2 in the environment, before the great Ice Age, and unfortunately the Ice Cores, where else would all the fossil fuels have come from? I got a hunch that the Earth is still in recovery, and still has a ways to go, before we reach normal, let alone pushing it past balanced. There is plenty of time to study further, and to ease into better energy production. This sudden panic and rush tactic isn't going to be good for us either. Will we choose to feed our families or heat our homes? How are people going to get to work? Will the paycheck even cover transportation? Tax the rich, means it get's passed down to the less well off. Less pay, higher cost of living. We are doing so great as it is, cap and tax, is literally going to kill a lot of people, don't think affordable health-care is going to help that much. Doesn't make much sense for people to suffer and die now, so that hypothetically future generations might have cleaner energy, that would probably have come to pass anyway. Most people are already sick of fuel pumps and electric companies, and quite a few are cutting the leash they hold on us.

 

[colin55]

Which travels faster: Heat or Cold?

Heat. Because you can catch Cold.

 

[smanches]

I've read before that there was much more oxygen in the atmosphere during the dino-age. I think it's based on the size of the nasal passages compared to how large the creatures were back then. I wonder if the atmospheric pressure was more back then, due to more gases being in the atmosphere than now?

 

[Thunderchild]

I don't think I would have the patience to read this entire thread in one sitting. Good on ya mate!

You are right about the "green taxes" being used as a palatable tax for the masses. It is very difficult for democratic governments to increase taxes, so when they can find one they can justify under the guise of "doing the right thing" they will jump on it.
I think if we wish to keep our purely capitalist system, and reduce CO2 emissions, that this is the only way to do it. Companies are driven by profit motive so we must make renewable energy more profitable than nonrenewable ones. The other alternative is socialism, which not many here agree with, so I'll leave that alone for now.
We could simply wait until oil becomes so scarce and expensive that renewables are cheaper, but this would have environmental consequences that may threaten our society's existence. And would probably cost us more to fix than the implementation of all the "green taxes" to date. So how do we do this? There will be the inevitable lobbying from the oil companies to do nothing. Or as is happening in Alberta Canada right now where the oil companies are lobbying the gov for lower royalty payments on oil and gas. In fact, one method that governments can take action and reduce taxes for the little guy (at least in their jurisdiction), is to boost the royalties they charge the oil companies. They could then make it revenue neutral by giving everyone an income tax cut. This is what was tried in Alberta to a limited degree and the oil companies didn't like it one bit. The problem with these schemes is that it becomes a shell game and becomes difficult for the average citizen to figure out who the net winners and losers are.

your forgetting that the "green taxes" are being used to build new coal powered stations, so it makes them useless, unless the money is actually used to make investments and incentives for more carbon neutral AND renewable power sources they are not green taxes at all, just daylight robery !, if the oil companies are taxed more guess who will get that cost ? us the little guys.

The first thing the goverment has to do if they really want to put the economy AND then the environment right is to regulate chinese imports, only let good quality goods in (I just bought a cheap fan heater that was a fire waiting to happen 30 seconds after switch on, luckily I bought it and fixed it), the good stuff from china needs heavily taxing, this will give the goverment revenue and take it from those profitting (chinese manufacturers) whilst doing the most harm (china is not very good at using renewable energy), next manufacturing needs re-establishing locally so that people do have jobs and we are making goods in our own countries again instead of burning gallons of fuel to ship them round the world and then back again as landfill only months after they were purchased.