<<  <  Page 51/54  >  >>
User Rank
How about a timeout here?
Island_Al   2/6/2012 10:13:00 AM
Geologists tell us we had a huge ice sheet over a mile deep covering most of what is today the US.  It seems it also extended over much of Europe too.  And this was not the first ice age by any means.  It took a period of global warming to melt these.  Calculate the BTUs to melt an ice block 1/3 the surface area of the globe and a mile thick!  Something caused this.  Any theory that includes Fortean, pre-humans (or even alien) technology might have a few skeptics.

Global climate change appears to be a rather poorly crafted political ploy to lower the standard of living of everyone on the planet.  As I include myself and rather large family in this grouping, I am involved.  One does not need to be a "climate scientist" to have reasons to be involved.  Reducing out carbon footprint is another scam to take our collective livelihood away.

Next assume these people are absolutely correct in every prediction and humidity and CO2 increases.  Perhaps we will lose low laying areas from floods.  But we might also get bumper crops of food as our growing areas move northward.  Does growing bananas in Quebec sound like a face worse than death?

The "science" covers 50 years of fair sea and land temperatures and historical temps go back about 100 years.  I'm not an ME, but I do know that heat and temperature are very different quantities.  Think heat content and latent heat.  It's much like using a voltmeter to measure watts or joules.   (Yes, I am one of those electric guys.)  The subject is far more complex than we can even imagine.  As far as the scientific method, think BioDome near Tucson.  It did not work as the science predicted and the attempts to support humans for a year failed after a few months.  It seems pretty clear to me that all we have hear at this time is expert opinion while real science is being ignored.

Study the subject; yes.  Make it a political tool; hell NO!


User Rank
It's Really Three Questions
mr88cet   2/6/2012 10:02:56 AM
  • istheincreaseincarboncompoundsintheatmospheresignificant?
  • aretemperaturesonaglobalscaleandoverthelongtermrisinganysubstantialamountasaresult?
  • howdirewilltheconsequencesbe?

i'dbeinterestedwherethesescientistsop-edfallsoneachoftheseindividualquestions,andespeciallythesecond. besticantellfromthisarticle,regardingthethirdquestion,theydon'texpectdireconsequences,butiwasn'tclearwheretheystandonthefirsttwo.


ithinkthequestionthatisn'tdiscussedanywherenearenoughistherateatwhichwemustreplaceenergyinfrastructurebeforewerunoutoffossilfuelsaccordingtotheusdepartmentofenergy(http://www.eia.doe.gov/aer/pdf/pages/sec2_6.pdf),theusused94,578trillionbtusofenergyin2009. let'sguessthatoilwillbecomeuneconomicalin2050-nobodyknowsforsure,butthat'saguess. supposewedecidethatourcurrentcoalandoilinfrastructureneedstobereplacedwith1/3nuclear,1/3wind,and1/3photovoltaicby2050. ifyoucrankthroughnumbers,it'salmostbeyondbelief: thedeploymentrateworksouttosomethinglike:

1600sq.ft.ofsolarpanelspersecond,onelargewindturbineevery3minutes,and onefull-sizednuclearpowerplanteveryweek.
continuously,for40years! thisisaccordingtoasciencechannelprogramawhilebackcalledpowerplanets. ididalittlewebresearch,andthesenumbersseemaboutright(actually,mynumberscameoutconsiderablymorepessimistic).

thisisnoteventalkingaboutthecostofthisinfrastructure; it'sjusttherequiredrateofdeploymentinordertohaveitalltherebefore2050. ifthe2050guessiswrong,andit'sactually2100,theneven~halfthatrateofdeploymentisstaggering!

User Rank
Lets Take a Step Back
ervin0072002   2/6/2012 9:52:46 AM
Let's take a step back and think about this. We really need to carefully analyze this before we sell our souls to the devil. It is true people use public paranoia for personal gain. This could very well be the case. I am not saying change your beliefs. All i ask is keep an open mind. It is true plants love CO2 so it is not a far-fetched idea that as we increase CO2 content in the atmosphere our forests grow at an accelerated rate to compensate. This is just an opinion in my part. I have still not chosen which side i should take.

User Rank
Re: Consensus
Yury   2/6/2012 9:51:34 AM
According to http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html#articleTabs%3Dcomments:
"Happer's statement that "there has been no warming since 2000" is simply false, (and he receives the 2010 climate BS (Bad Science) award for making that statement) and his statement that "the IPCC models are exaggerating the global warming trend" is statistically insignificant. He might as well have stated "the IPCC models are underestimating the global warming trend" and that also would have been statistically insignificant.

Every student with at least one course in statistics understands that Happer is "cherry-picking" in the noise, and that the timeframe (a decade) is simply too short for any significance claims,. Thus, either Happer is knowingly misleading his audience, or he is seriously statistically incompetent. Either way he just blew his scientific credibility."

User Rank
Re: Consensus
OnnaSinkinShip   2/6/2012 9:49:32 AM
Yes, I am willing to bet that my descendants will not suffer if we resist the panic attack by AGW proponents.

Hysteria over "statistic-based" scientific conclusions does not have a good track record.

User Rank
Global Warming
EricMJones   2/6/2012 9:44:38 AM


We live in the Holocene interglacial epoch. In this period the earth has been warming and virtually all recorded human history from about 11,550 years ago took place in it. There is every reason to believe we will return to mile-thick glaciers sometime in the future.


Whether or not human civilization is mostly responsible for the increase in global warming has been the popular argument. (Not all temperatures records agree even on this basic issue!). Humans are certainly partly responsible for this Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). But there are some issues that should be considered, and there are many reasons for taking a less rabid view:


1)    Science is not a matter of getting everyone to agree. Really it isn't. Honest!


2)    In the words of Dr. David Deutsch, it is too late to prevent a global-warming disaster if there is to be one. In fact, it was too late to stop the global-warming disaster even in the 1970's when the best scientific theory said that atmospheric pollution was going to cause a new ice age that would kill millions. We can fix the current problem somewhat, but we can't prevent it.


3)    When the pilgrims landed in 1620, one could walk across New York harbor on the ice. The Earth is now, not as much warmer than average, as it then was colder than average. Hmmmm..


4)    Have you seen the Sun recently? It is now quieter than any time in the last century. No sunspots mean a cooler Sun. Many AGW people are in a panic over this. Google "Maunder Minimum" to see why.


5)    Check "Milankovitch Cycles". Milankovitch calculated the various components of Solar system mechanics to show what caused the ice ages. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
ALL the calculations point to a coming ice age.


6)    Having a baby is the super-humongous-GIANT carbon footprint. Little has been said about this. A US baby generates a lifetime 1,000,000 kg of CO2. Until environmentalists look at population growth, they're just whistling past the graveyard. But even so, population rate of increase has been declining for a century. Best estimates are 9.2-9.5 Billion people in 2050 and that's about the maximum. It looks like a slow reduction after that. Don't panic. Read:



So call me a "Biostitute" "Denier"or whatever. I'll take the long bet. In the meantime, let's clean up the planet and live a good life.


User Rank
gVOR08   2/6/2012 9:39:50 AM
WTF is this political article doing in my Design News? 

User Rank
jljarvis   2/6/2012 9:38:54 AM
Can you say Milankovitch?   Milan Milankovitch calculated the 70,000 year occultation period of the earth's orbit, and discussed the implications for climate shifts as the north and south poles are progressively more exposed to solar flux.  This was done a hundred years ago, and seems never to enter our current discussions.

I have yet to see a computer model which shows a clear Milankovitch related baseline, and then posts the modelling for AGW above that.  

I have no doubt that there are climate shifts in process...warming some places and cooling others.   Look at Europe this year!   But that may be an indicator of a weakening gulf stream/labrador current, which is itself an indication of shifts in the thermohaline circulation in the north atlantic, and a symptom of increased solar flux on the north polar regions.

There is no doubt....NO DOUBT... that we need to look after our use of energy, minimize our production of waste, and secure clean potable water.   But we must separate responsible environmental conservation from the heated political debate about AGW.

From an engineering perspective, by the way, it's a lot easier to measure the BTU or KWH input to a system than it is the trace gas effluent.   If AGW is real, we're focussing on the wrong variable to monitor....not to mention that CH3 is 30 times worse, as a greenhouse gas than CO2...and bovine flatulence is a major component of atmospheric methane.

User Rank
JPW   2/6/2012 9:35:04 AM
When I was listening to my favorite Science radio, Science 360, it was noted that 97% of climate scientists believe that this is ocurring (does anyone have actual statistics to back/refute that statement). So that the Wall St. Journal can find 16 scientists that still believe this is not ocurring is not surprising. I remember watching a Science Channel show that featured a scientist who doesn't believe in evolution, though the show name and scientist name escapes me.

The point the Science 360 host was making is that the overwhelming scientific consensus, backed even by our own National institutes is that it is happening. There will almost always be dissent; dissent is healthy.

However, the quesiton I always pose is this...are you willing to bet your childrens future and their childrens future on being right about it not happening and/or not being caused by human activity. What's the cost if you 3% are incorrect?

The reason Wall St. Journal and other oppose the science is actually not rooted in science, but in the politics of our so called "free market" and the cost they believe they are incuring because of the 97% of scientiss. As a voting Libertarian, I cringe every time these Republican free market frauds get up and deride science because of the cost that their backers will pay; i.e. those industries that would be regulated to reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions. If you look at their positions on other "free market" issues you'll see that they are frauds; for instance, NASA as "good" for the country when most Americans could give a hoot about what it does and USDA subsidies (ooh don't get me started with that bit LOL).

The point is...this is not about science it is about regulation and the desire to not be government regulated. There are different ways to regulate and it is amazing that most American's are oblivious to the fact that much of regulation is industry self-imposed, not government imposed. One can see this by just going through the mountains of standards created by ANSI, much of which, is self-policing.

User Rank
Re: Remember, “Spontaneous Generation” theory
Cassiopeia   2/6/2012 8:53:38 AM

It is true that scientific ideas have changed substantially since Aristotle's day, but this was well before the scientific method was formulated.  More typically nowadays scientific theories aren't completely overturned but modified.  For example Newtonian physics > Relativity > Quantum Mechanics. Strictly speaking the former is incorrect, except for special cases, however for mechanical Engineers it is usually a good enough approximation for most practical purposes.

To call Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) a theory is of course rather ingenuous since its basis forms the operation of many of our scientific instruments. Indeed even Sceptics use instrumentation using the same principles responsible for AGW to estimate atmospheric temperatures! AGW can therefore be considered, at least in its most basic form, a scientific fact. That is why you will not find any serious climate scientist, even the few Sceptics who will deny this.

However, it is also possible that subsequent research may change views on the sensitivity of the climate, and the subsequent temperature rise.  This will be probably due to the feedback effects from clouds and ice which are difficult to model. Indeed, the IPCC already provide a range of estimates to reflect this uncertainty. However, this is where sceptics and in particular certain policymakers and politicians draw the wrong conclusions. This very uncertainty is the best reason for taking action, in fact we would have to be very certain of a low sensitivity of the climate to greenhouse gases not to take action.

<<  <  Page 51/54  >  >>

Partner Zone
Latest Analysis
These are the toys that inspired budding engineers to try out sublime designs, create miniature structures, and experiment with bizarre contraptions using sets that could be torn down and reconstructed over and over.
Connected sensor-enabled applications will improve the consumer experience -- and generate new revenue streams.
PowerStream is deploying the microgrid at its headquarters to demonstrate how people can generate and distribute their own energy and make their homes and businesses more sustainable through renewables.
Printrbot unveils its all-metal Printrbot Simple, bringing durability to low-cost 3D printers.
Today's robots should be respected, and humans should be wary of their growing skills and sophistication. Quite simply, robots are better than us in a lot of ways. Here are 10 of them.
Design News Webinar Series
3/27/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York / 7:00 p.m. London
2/27/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York / 7:00 p.m. London
12/18/2013 Available On Demand
11/20/2013 Available On Demand
Quick Poll
The Continuing Education Center offers engineers an entirely new way to get the education they need to formulate next-generation solutions.
Apr 21 - 25, Creating & Testing Your First RTOS Application Using MQX
SEMESTERS: 1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5

Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.
Next Class: April 29 - Day 1
Sponsored by maxon precision motors
Learn More   |   Login   |   Archived Classes
Twitter Feed
Design News Twitter Feed
Like Us on Facebook

Sponsored Content

Technology Marketplace

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
Copyright © 2014 UBM Canon, A UBM company, All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Service