This is where I post, and you can post too!
Published on September 13, 2007 By Dan Greene In The Environment
I am finally becoming convinced that this is a real, man made + natural phenomenon. I have become convinced through making an in depth analysis, and seeing how science rather then politics or politicians are providing the tools to conclude that a potentially serious global warming series of events and trends is occurring.

The first bit of evidence you need to know when researching this, is understanding the "actual greenhouse greenhouse effect" and the "greenhouse effect of the Earth".

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/earthguide/diagrams/greenhouse/

Heat which is energy is transferred in 3 ways, conduction convection and radiation.

In a greenhouse the greenhouse gets heated from the sunlight. This light pours inside and warms the ground inside the greenhouse, which in turn warms the air just above it, this air through a process called diffusion which is when molecules move from an area of greater density to an area of lower density, fuels convection. Warmer air is less dense and cooler air is denser, cooler air being denser falls, while warmer air rises. Because the greenhouse is enclosed, it is a closed system, just like the Earth, however inside the Earth's closed system much more convection is occurring and the majority of heat that makes it into the Earth's system is re-radiated back at the planet.

The energy that travels through the vacuum of space is all radiation. On the Earth most of this energy is transferred via radiation and convection. Inside a greenhouse, sunlight penetrates the glass or plastic covering, via radiation. The glass or plastic is impermeable meaning that the molecules in a gas form cannot penetrate it and are trapped. Since they are trapped, the energy remains largely trapped, this is what increases the temperature inside the greenhouse.

On the Earth it works largely the same way, sunlight penetrates the atmosphere and is trapped. Some of it is re-radiated but a significant majority of that energy that gets into the system on Earth is drives out weather and climate.

The Earth's average surface temperature is about 33°C warmer than it would be without the greenhouse effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Greenhouse_Effect.png

When you increase the concentration of these greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which is occurring yearly, and has been since the industrial revolution, but not at the same magnitude as presently, the ability of the atmosphere to act as a stronger radiator of energy back into the Earth's system of energy containment is increased.

In the last 50 years the amount of greenhouse gases has steadily increased, measured in parts per million, is not at the highest level in recorded history.

We know that the rate is high because we can measure, and independently verify preserved samples, of ice, taken in the antarctic, which match up very consistently across the continent, as far back as about 800,000 years. The ice itself cannot be measured by temperature, as it doesn't remain the same temperature as it did since then, however it has remained a solid since the time, as evidence by the layers or freezing visually identifiable.

These layers, when measured for "greenhouse gases" show very consistent patterns, which correlate directly with temperature. As the presence of greenhouse gases increases the temperature of the climate increases, in direct proportion. This is important because it gives scientists the ability to accurately predict the trend that is is increased greenhouse gases present in the system, means increased average temperature.

Why is increased average temperature a concern? It has to do with raising sea levels, because of the polar ice melting, although very slowly, it is occurring. What happens when land masses are no longer covered by snow and ice, is very similar to what happens in a greenhouse, that landmass, is heated by radiation from the sun, and the air is warmed, and spreads out, further increasing the rates of convection and re-radiation of the energy from sunlight already trapped in the atmosphere.

Science as of yet, has no way of controlling either the amount of sunlight entering the Earth's atmosphere, or speeding up the process of removing the excess energy in the atmosphere, or reducing the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that are being produced and leading to the increased rate of energy accumulation inside the Earth's system.

Comments (Page 2)
5 Pages1 2 3 4  Last
on Oct 15, 2007
no what i said is that they had replaced the middle bird. ie in 7 years there were medium beaked finches again.


and your also wrong. all three types use a different part of the feed chain.
on Oct 15, 2007
and your also wrong. all three types use a different part of the feed chain


Like I said, I'd love to see the study...as I can only speculate without actually reading it.

Were they different species or the same species with different traits? If the latter then microevolution would have occured. If the former...then I have no clue what the hell would happen and I'd really like to read that study.

~Zoo
on Oct 20, 2007
I wrote this out, a few weeks ago and then didn't touch it. Renently I've gone through the process of building a new computer, trying to get microsoft to play nice and let me run XP for a reasonable cost, and then realizing what I thought I really want to do is run VISA Ultimate. Unfortunately, I don't think I like Vista, anyway on this piece of writing I appreciate the commentary.

It is my belief that global warming is inclined to be true and scientifically so. Of course there are people, corporations, governments each with their own agenda's and with thier own belife.

A lot of that truth gets lots in the bs that is the marketing and consumer world of American media, in election mode. It seems just like the commercialization of Christmas, the media is dragging out the election way before the holiday, i.e. election.

Anyway, on the subject of the global warming thing, one must answer 5 questions.

1. Is it really occuring?

I believe, the scientific data we have on hand is not really sufficient to close the book on this question and definetively answer it. However, I also believe that we have a very significant and potentially alarming correlation between our massive CO2 output, and the rise in average measured temperatures. Backed by historical correlation between temperatures in ice core samples, taken anywhere in the world where they have been frozen for hundreds of thousands of years.

2. What is causing it to occur?

There is a lack of evidence to definetly close the book on this too. It could be the sun just normally heating the planet more then in recent, recorded history, or the geological norms of the last few million years. Answer : Unknown. We only have maybe 300 to 500 years of accurately measures and recorded temperatures, and before that in written history perhaps 5000 years of recorded history, but few if any documents will provide the same level of measurable fidelity that would exist with a simple mercury therometer of today. Never mind computer models and scientific tools to measure temperatures to significant figures that were unheard of before the space age. What is lining up, and rather congruently is, the level of CO2, when the average temperature increases, in the atmosphere, that is the CO2 level goes up as the temperature goes up. They correlate. Mankind, through the industrial revolution, electrical power generation techniques, the internal combustion engine, and the global oil economy, contribute far greator CO2 emissions than in any event or point in history.

3. What are the effects if we do nothing?

This is no option and here is why. The human race is growing unchecked at a rapid pace, though not exponential, it certainly isn't linear. The planet was able to support millions, and may be able to sustain billions of people. It is hard to say, but there is obviously a number which cannot be sustainable supported with the technology we have and share today. Consider in 1950 there were 2.5 billion, only 50 years later, there were 5.9 billion, today, 6.7 billion. Perhaps in 2050 there will be 9 billion people on Earth. Drawing from the same pool of resources, causing the same level of pollution/emissions but at a greater rate because of the increased number of people. Even if we stopped contributing as a race, through industry and through individual consumption, if the human economy stopped suddendly, (which is impossible) the Earth's ecosystem is a titanic sized mass, and large masses don't change direction or speed, without great forces applied onto them.

4. What are they ways we can painlessly divert our lives to change the situation for the better?

People can continue to reduce, reuse, and recyle. Why is it that packaging materials are not reused? Why do we accept grocery stores, packing our goods for a single trip, in a brand new bag? There are lots of ways that we can intelligently conserve and develop new methods of power generation. The world is stuck on the oil economy, and though the oil companies would have you believe their objective is to move from that, their objective is to make money no matter what the costs to the environment.

5. What sacrifices are going to be necessary to both secure the future of the planet and stabilize and sustain the environment we have?

A. Get off the majority of the United States and the world off the oil economy, and into renewable and sustainable energy sources.

B. Re-invent packaging, to be recyable.

C. Change the debate from a political one to a scientic one.

Now for some responses to your interesting commentary...



"3. The planet will still be here, albeit in an altered state. This is only the natural course of things."

Unfortunately I believe that to be an unprobably event. If you plow over a plot of land, eventually you will see a forest or surrounding plant life return to the area plowed over, however if you put in a parking lot, and have traffic moving in and out daily, nothing grows there. I don't think a system as large as the Earth's will be as capable of supporting the variety of life that we have present today, in as stable a condition as we have today. However, nobody really knows.

"But can you imagine how these kinds of changes would affect the economy, and out lifestyle for that matter? I mean, imagine everyone having to change their cars just to avoid this theory of global warming? What about those who can't afford hybrids or electric cars? Don't expect me to sell my truck that is already paid for to get into a new expensive car just to save the planet. besides, who will buy my car? This just gets more and more rediculous the more you think about."

I suggest that we would make slow but determined changes. For example, on the transportation front, it is true that most people commute less than 60 mins one way to their work destination. So a trip, a charge, and another trip, and an overnight charge would work very well for an electrically owned vehicle.

If instead of shingles on your roof replaced every 20 years, you had solar powered cells, replaced every 30 years, you could not only charge your electrically powered car that way, but also pay for the bulk of your home heating and cooling bill, and if you had left over get a check or credit from the electric company.

Most Americans own two cars already, so if the second car you owned was a gas guzzler, you could drive it for long trips i.e. more than 200 miles. Or if you didn't want to own a second one, rent one when you needed to travel. Most Americans who have to travel a great distance use air travel and that is expected to increase in the future.

Do solar cells work? Yes, Do batteries work? Yes, Does the electric power grid already exist? Yes, Does the adaptor technology to charge a car from a 110 volt power outlet exist? Yes.

Instead of spending half a trillion dollars in Iraq to secure another stable oil reserve. Lets leave, and spend the next half a trillion we would have spend there, on developing the tools and technology to power our vehicles from the power outlet. Your next objection would be, that most of our power comes from coal and oil, and that is true, however with very little investment say $100 billion total, we could cheaply and easily produce solar cells, which provide power throughout the day, and build wind farms out in the country to provide power throughout the day and night. We could also build new nuclear fission power plants, because we already have a storage solution for the nuclear waste for both nuclear carriers, nuclear submarines, and the various nuclear power plants already in existence and operation in the country.

"so the solution would be to revert to pre-industrial times."

Only if you want to adopt an Amish way of life and want to live without electricity and automobile transportation. I favor a life with electricity generated cleanly or at least more efficiently, as well as better efficiency in our fuel economy by our internal combustion when necessary.

My commute to work is 20 miles there and 20 miles back. Assuming I had an electic car, instead of my 89 Buick, and I plugged in my car when I got there, it would be fully charged, after 8 hours, and ready for up to a 120 mile commute. In fact most of the trips I have taken this year have been well within an electric car's range. If I needed to go farther, or haul a load, which I do not do daily, then an internal combustion vehicle would be a good tool to use.

If I could accomplish the same trip for free and without polluting the air why would I choose to spend the money on the gas and pollute the air at the same time if I had an alternative available? Answer me that.
on Oct 20, 2007
Does the adaptor technology to charge a car from a 110 volt power outlet exist? Yes.


all this does is remove the tail pipe from your car to the power factory. at least at the moment.
on Oct 20, 2007
Your next objection would be, that most of our power comes from coal and oil, and that is true, however with very little investment say $100 billion total, we could cheaply and easily produce solar cells, which provide power throughout the day, and build wind farms out in the country to provide power throughout the day and night.




at the moment these techs. would not replace the coal.
on Oct 21, 2007
Nuclear power could replace coal over 25 years, as easily as we replaced horses with automobiles.

Moving the bulk of electrical power generation from coal to nuclear and then from nuclear to solar wouldn't be all that difficult. There is also a possibility of fuel cell technology.

I seriously don't see why nobody else seems to see, that we all have roof's with shingles instead of solar panels, and we all commute the distance electricity can take us, and we have a government that wastes money hand over foot on solutions to problems that aren't really solutions.

The amount of power generated by the size of a canopy at the gas pumps of my local gas station, here in Wisconsin, is sufficient to power the homes up and down the block adjacent to that service station. In Arizona the amount of sunlight that gets to the same sized solar panel is double that. The argument that we cannot provide the bulk of our power through solar is without fact. It may be a political problem, a startup capital problem, or it may be people wanting risk averse, but it definetly not a problem of not having the science and know how.

You dismiss the entire point and argument that alternative fuel and power generation is impossible or impractical, when you say...

"at the moment these techs. would not replace the coal."

Prove it! Please

In my defense I can tell you that the French get 75-85% of their electrical power from nuclear energy and Brazi gets almost 100% of their internal combustion economy from ethanol, so why here in the USA, the most technologically advanced country ever, are we not doing the same for the benefit of the world and for our own economy? I believe it is not a question of can we do it but do we have the will to do it?

Do this, type "nuclear power in france" into google and read a French perspective on the world. I'm not saying the French have it right I'm saying, why can't we do better and be at 90% nuclear providing power?

The reason France doesn't get involved in these wars in the mid-east for oil is very simple... They don't have to when their survival doesn't depend on it. Neither should ours, since we have a choice between being dependent on oil or not. Duh. I don't understand the argument that we can't afford it when Brazil and France can. Please do explain that shit to me lol.

I didn't go to college but I know bullshit when I see/hear/read it and the argument that we can't do it because of the money is just rich, pun intended.

Now If you wanna talk about how nuclear power is dangerous and lethal and how coal isn't, how you don't have to repaint your house every few years when you live next to a coal fired plant, or how asthma isn't increased by particulates in the air from coal fired plants. Sure we can talk all about that. Personally I think nuclear energy is a great direction for the USA to go in buy you all might have other feelings.
on Oct 21, 2007
Do this, type "nuclear power in france" into google and read a French perspective on the world. I'm not saying the French have it right I'm saying, why can't we do better and be at 90% nuclear providing power?


environmentalist


and that is also the answer to all of your other questions.


as for green power. we don't have enough farm land to grow corn for ethanol and food. also green power pollutes almost as bad as gas does. after all they are the same thing.

as for solar power there is another little problem and that is cash. the only ones who can afford it are the ones saying we need to use it as they burn more oil and gas and coal than the rest of us do.


i agree with nuclear power but everyones scared that their going to go boom like in the Ukraine.
on Oct 21, 2007
so have you replaced your tiles with solar panels.
on Oct 21, 2007
I am not an environmentalist. Does an environmentalist, drive a 1989 Buick? Does an environmentalist own a Quad Core CPU? Does an environmentalist, mow lawn with a motor lawnmower?

Give me a break, sure I use compact flouresent bulbs but not because they are more environmentally friendly but because they last longer. Which of my statements automatically makes me an environmentalist?

The one where I say, we can basically get free trips under 200 miles if we drive electric instead of internal combustion? If we have solar panels instead of shingles? Explain to me the benefit of having shingles on the roof over solar panels? Cosmetic appearance?

The problem with the cash for solar power, is we are taxed on gas, yet that money goes back into providing more roads for more cars to drive on and fuel the cars with more gas and oil. Hello, that is not breaking an oil/gasoline dependent cycle, Agree?

I further agree with you that Ethanol is not a further solution either. However, a car driving 85% ethanol yearly consumes 85% less gasoline. Once that gasoline is consumed it is lost forever and the energy consumed to make it is irreplenishable. The energy consumed to create ethanol is harvested continually in this country and abroad. We are the most advanced agriculturally on the planet, and your argument against ethanol is that we don't have enough farmland?

I think your understanding of agriculture is skewed, especially when I'll cite the laws of supply and demand which we can clearly both agree on, which further support a law which allows for a farmer to be paid for a crop even if it is not brought to market because of systemic oversupply.

Nuclear power is a great way to go and an intrepid president would be wise to put us into the path of nuclear and solar power generation.

If the government started offering the kind of grants and subsidization for solar panels they do for other useless bs to the rest of the country we would be weaing ourselves off oil at a rate or 1 or 2% a year, which would be a very great accomplishment in 50 years.

"the only ones who can afford it are the ones saying we need to use it as they burn more oil and gas and coal than the rest of us do."

Can we afford to continue to fight $500 billion wars for oil? Seriously would not that money have been better spent to rid our dependency for oil the same way the French have done. Do not deny that they sit in a much safer position when it comes to energy policy. World events and instability are not dictated to them. Why should they be to us?
on Oct 21, 2007
I am not an environmentalist. Does an environmentalist, drive a 1989 Buick? Does an environmentalist own a Quad Core CPU? Does an environmentalist, mow lawn with a motor lawnmower?


sorry that was the answer to your question i was not calling you an environmentalist. i usually use the fewest words possibly to answer a question
on Oct 21, 2007
Oh ok lol, I misunderstood. I don't consider myself to be an environmentalist, I do appreciate nature, but I am not in a position to exert influence or control on environmental issues.

I do think we as a nation should do more to secure our nations energy infrastructure, but not necessarily because its good for the environment, but because it will free us from having to make choices which in which the environment will lose out. If that makes me an environmentalist so be it. I'm comfortable with that.
on Oct 22, 2007
Funny blog.

One side: Dan Green, who write scientific reporter-grade articles about 2000 words long

the other side: Danielost who seems amused writing snippy small comments about 10 words long


Dan, he seems determined on tiring you out, why listening to him?
on Oct 22, 2007
One side: Dan Green, who write scientific reporter-grade articles about 2000 words long

the other side: Danielost who seems amused writing snippy small comments about 10 words long


lol!

Seriously, though, Dan, he's right about the article. This is a well written article regardless of the POV.
on Oct 22, 2007
Danielost who seems amused writing snippy small comments about 10 words long


why should i write 10 paragraphs when it isn't needed.


i should have just made it plural instead of singler. i usually type one thing and am thinking something else.
on Oct 22, 2007
but i will not take human caused global warming as the only cause as anything but politics. until someone tells me how humans are causing global warming on mars and pluto.
5 Pages1 2 3 4  Last