HOME  |  NEWS  |  BLOGS  |  MESSAGES  |  FEATURES  |  VIDEOS  |  WEBINARS  |  INDUSTRIES  |  FOCUS ON FUNDAMENTALS
REGISTER   |   LOGIN   |   HELP
<<  <  Page 22/54  >  >>
mlewus
User Rank
Iron
Re: Look at the Predictions...
mlewus   10/2/2012 4:00:44 PM
NO RATINGS
Hi  felerbach, looks like you posted yours while I was still writing mine, sorry. I guess brilliant minds think alike?

mlewus
User Rank
Iron
Re: Look at the Predictions...
mlewus   10/2/2012 3:59:20 PM
NO RATINGS
I had a professor in college who always told us to "consider the source"

Take a look at the credentials for these esteemed scientists, and you will learn much about the realities of the climate "debate" in America. Based on their titles, only three of these guys are even remotely involved with climate research, and two of those are meteorologists.  Of the rest, we have a former conservative Republican Senator and astronaut trained as a Geologist, several journalists who write about the climate but do not study it, and the remainder are a jumble of technologists, physicists, astrophysicists, and science federation presidents. And finally, my personal favorite, Burt Rutan, who, while being a great engineer, admits on his Wikipedia page that he is not a scientist at all, but rather a "climate change hobbyist" who refused to be interviewed by Scientific American because of their "climate change bias". Distinguished scientist?

Yet Mr Murry ends his article with, "They are, quite simply, distinguished scientists with a dissenting opinion..." Perhaps they are distinguished and competent in their studied fields, but climate change is not the field of expertise for most if not all of this group. This makes their opinion of no more value than anyone else's.

You will note the complete absence of anyone who does actual climate change research from this list of scientists. Why? Because in fact there is NO significant scientific debate on climate change in the climate research community and there has been little to none for years. According to an article I read in "Science News" last year, 97% of articles published in the scientific press in the previous few years did not dispute Anthropogenic global warming. But some 70% of articles in the general press do. Thus the "debate" is political, not scientific.

I am old enough to remember the Nicotine debate in the 1960s. This is identical, they even use the same tactics. Even the same words, it's uncanny. "There is no scientific proof", "High level scientists say...", "it's only natural", and all of the other FUD we heard last time. And it will likely end the same way, only when the preponderence of evidence becomes so large that it can no longer be ignored. Like, say, when they have to permanently evacuate the first major coastal city due to sea level rise.

So you might ask, how is it that this gaggle of scientists, journalists, and engineers got a highly politically charged opinion published four weeks before a presidential election in the Wall Street Journal, that stalwart of American conservatives, in such a way that it sounds like climate research scientists are in horrible disagreement?  Gee, I wonder.

This political crap is something I expect from the Wall Street Journal. But I don' expect it from Design News. This is an engineering publication, Mr. Murray. Please spare us the politics.

feierbach
User Rank
Gold
global warming critics
feierbach   10/2/2012 2:39:34 PM
NO RATINGS

The problem in a nutshell is: Are these scientists climate scientists? You can be a professor, a Nobel Laureate, a scientists with a raft of PhDs it doesn't matter. You have to be a student of climatology and plugged into data and the climate models to grasp what is actually going on. These naysayers are biting around the edges. Some may not care if many pacific islands disappear, along with half of Florida and the flooding of many coastal cities. There will be gainers from global warming including Canada and Russia which will end up with more agriculture. All indications are that global warming is happening faster that predicted. This is largely due to climate modelers being conservative in their predictions to be more believable. Unfortunately that has come back to bite them giving credence to the naysayers that their models are not accurate.

There is one piece of the argument that has to be granted to the naysayers and that is our star, the Sun, is a variable star and we can only make an educated guess what its output will be in the future based on past performance. We have no control over the Sun but we do have control over our burning of fossil fuels and it is quite clear from the data that fossil fuel burning has had a bigger effect over time than the Sun's variability even though we haven't a reliable record of the Sun's performance in the last couple of hundred years. In the area of climate change the Earth's weather system has positive feedback so trends tend to get amplified. As the Earth heats up ice, that reflects sunlight back into space, melts and no longer serves that function, permafrost melts releasing methane, eventually oceans heat up, methane hydrate melts and more methane is released, and so on.

I'm an electrical engineer and not a climatologist so what I've said should be taken with a grain of sea salt.

sbkenn
User Rank
Silver
Re: Look at the Predictions...
sbkenn   10/2/2012 1:07:52 PM
NO RATINGS
Fine, burn wood from sustainable forests.  It is the release of millions-of-years-worth-of-laid-down-carbon that I see as the main problem.  Many places aren't getting warmer, but many are, all round the weather is getting less predictable, and pushing records.  The places that are warming fastest are the places that help stabilise the weather systems ... the ice masses that don't move much, and we really don't know what the result will be.  I lean to caution.  I want to breath clean air, and I don't want my grandchildren to say "if only my grandparents generation had been more careful".

kf2qd
User Rank
Platinum
Look at the Predictions...
kf2qd   10/2/2012 12:41:06 PM
I live in South Texas. We pay a lot of attention to the hurricane predictions every year. It was supposed to be terrible last year and this because of global warming. Last year we Had DON (better named Dud) that hit here in Brownsville and did absolutlely nothing. Had 1 that ran up the eastern seaboard and caused a bunch of flooding. This year we had 1 hurricane hit souther Mexcco and 1 go through New Oleans and caused a little flooding. Last year ist seemed like they named every cloud and most of them were nothing. Last year was a scorcher down here, but this year the temperature didn't break 100 til after the first of september and is now peaking in the low 90's.


Previously we had lived in northern Indiana. My boss had a fruit farm. Apples and Peaches. Except the weather had been so cold for several years that he was getting no peaches. Last time thathappened was in the 1960's.

And then we hear that the winters are colder because of "global warming". But most of the conversation insisting that it is real seems to be centered on how do we use "global warming" to controls other peoples lifestyles.

Oh - and some of the brilliance of the "global warming" crowd. Can't burn wood and wood products because that will release carbon Dioxide. Yes, but the carbon dioxide from burning wood and wood products is easily recycled into more wood and wood products. The sun shines, the trees grow, we harvest them and start over again. But most of the "environmental" crowd can't see that trees are a crop just like corn and beans and cucumbers. In East Texas a few years back they had to cut pine trees and burn them because they got too old and unhealthy and the pine beetles were doing damage to the unhealthy as well as the healthy trees. Perhaps, if they had harvested the trees after growing for 25 years they could have used the wood and the trees would grow again. But no, they were cut and burned. Brilliant use of a natural resource.

Fred McGalliard
User Rank
Silver
Re: Has nobody heard of Milankovitch?
Fred McGalliard   10/2/2012 11:16:21 AM
NO RATINGS
Dear Jarvis. Yes I have heard of Milankovitch. So has every scientist I have read on the subject of GW. I can't say as much for the political GW side, which I mostly ignore, along with their opposite. I suspect if you think no one who is convinced of GW, in the scientific world that is, knows or is mentioning the long term solar cycles, you are not reading broadly enough. Of course I speak from 60 years of study so there may be some modern folk who are not as well studied as they should be, Milankovitch is like freshman level study now. All I can tell you for sure is that the solar insolation was very much part of the GW studies funded by NOAA back about 5 years ago that I did read. Actually with few exceptions most scientists are not idiots or easily forced to accept anything. They got to be scientists because they were rabble rousers of the first order, back in their days as students, and questioned everything they were told. Most of us still do, politics or not.

Fred McGalliard
User Rank
Silver
Re: Global warming
Fred McGalliard   10/2/2012 11:05:47 AM
NO RATINGS
Hi Tim. GW does not have two sides. There is fact, as poorly as we may understand it, and all else is false. I do observe that many of the Pro side (in the political argument that is) overstate the effects, the rates of onset, and the likely consequences of our inaction, and our action, and way understate the ability we have to amelorate the effects. On the other side, however, is a lot of absurd shouting and downright silly positions. There is no question at all that we are warming, slowly so far, and that human action is impacting that substantially. It is very unclear how much simply reducing a bit the rate of increase in combustion of fossile fuels could even slow down the rate of change over the next 20 years or so. And there are 3-4 major tripping points that could make abrupt changes with very challenging impacts to everyone, whether they believe in GW or not. Right now, all I can hope for is that the US wide (except the west coast) drought and super hot summer is not becoming the new norm. Wringing our hands and saying "It's not my fault." won't cool us off one little bit. Nor improve the skiing. Practice eating less and change to water sports I guess.

jljarvis
User Rank
Gold
Has nobody heard of Milankovitch?
jljarvis   10/2/2012 10:13:07 AM
NO RATINGS
Over a hundred years ago, Milutin Milankovitch calculated the occultation of the earth's orbit around the sun.   It has a 70,000 year cycle.   To think that we are on a stable planet is foolishness. 

Yet not one of the environmental activists ... not ONE ... has mentioned the Milankovitch cycles, or seems willing to admit that there may be something greater than man at work, here. 

If one refers to first principals...(and to paraphrase a former president): 

It's the SUN, stupid!  

I would submit that this entire debate is over the wrong thing.  Whatever the climate is doing, we still need to be good stewards of the environment.  And we can do that by adopting serious policies with respect to energy, waste, and water.  The focus needs to be there, not on the level of an atmospheric trace gas. 

And by the way,  fully 1/3 of atmospheric CO2, net of plant uptake, is generated by commercial aviation, and directly injected in the stratosphere every day.  This isn't generally discussed, why?  Perhaps because environmental activists are busy flying to conferences?  Or maybe they're too busy to run the numbers.
  The data was available at the time of the Tokyo accords.

 

wade
User Rank
Bronze
co2
wade   10/2/2012 9:32:01 AM
NO RATINGS
can always argue whether co2 is good or bad for the earth but these scientists must like the oceans to be more on the acidic side and hate polar bears.

Steve the Chemist
User Rank
Silver
Re: It's Not Just One Question
Steve the Chemist   9/17/2012 4:09:21 PM
NO RATINGS
Atlantic Conveyor not yet broken.  Maybe the Brits will be affected, and so if it gets broken, try to fix it.  My guess is the Gulf of Mexico, the  GOM puts out so much 

hot salty water into the Gulf Stream  and so the shape of the ocean floor combines with the bulge of North Africa to keep the North Atlantic stable. 

The Antarctic Circumpolar Current is a different matter. 

That one already had a major anomaly this past year and knocked a few microseconds off the clock here and there.   When the rotational momentum from the ACC  Antarctic Circumpolar Current gets knocked into the west coast of South Africa, the continent gets pushed faster.

Whole earth spins a bit faster.   This is fun.  Just like being on a merry-go-round. 

People hop on and fall off.  Ocean currents are the same. 

Arctic Circumpolar Current spins then goes off track. 

Even Magellan could notice the current as we go past Good Hope and 

Tierra del Fuego.  And when that current breaks into the South Atlantic, 

that is measurable and real.  So the air and the oceans do interact. 

Only the people are too slow to understand what is happening. 

 

<<  <  Page 22/54  >  >>


Partner Zone
Latest Analysis
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administrationís recent backup camera mandate could open the door to more vehicle innovations, including better graphical displays, 360-degree camera views, and the increased use of Ethernet.
With support from National Instruments, a group of dedicated students from Connally High School in Austin, where more than 50% of the students are at risk of not graduating, have created a successful robotics team that is competing in the FIRST World Championships.
Solar Impulse 2 -- a 100% solar-powered airplane -- has been completed. It features several advanced materials, some developed specifically for next year's attempted around-the-world flight.
Sherlock Ohms highlights stories told by engineers who have used their deductive reasoning and technical prowess to troubleshoot and solve the most perplexing engineering mysteries.
Lumus and eyeSight have partnered to create consumer-grade devices that offer all the prime functions of smart glasses without the bulk.
More:Blogs|News
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