Until eons of time have passed, it seems none of us can have a perspective to be able to discern a man-made phenomenon from a natural climatic cycle. I don't question that the human race and its industries have produced solid, liquid, and gaseous wastes. I do question that these wastes trump the effects of natural geologic cycles. For example, the Sahara Desert has had cycles (starting about 10,000BC) with arid conditions and times of moderate climate and lush vegetation with a return to the arid land mass we see today. The ancient people populating that area had nothing to do with these historic changes. In more historically recent times, we have had what has been called the "Little Ice Age," from about 1550 AD to 1850 AD. I don't believe anyone has established a positive link between mankind's activities and this phenomenon.
I have seen the same arguments over and over again in every forum. Each side presents only their half of the facts and ignore the rest. Each side thinks they are right because they only have half the biased facts. I hear volcano, solar flares, mini ice age. Is always the same.
Once and for all, hope somebody will put together a website to gather all the pro and con compare notes and see what the conclusion is. Each argument with each counter argument checked against accepted scientific findings. Weed out the speculative theories. Funny such an important subject, and nobody has done that yet. Even wikipedia only has a small incomplete argument on global warming.
Maybe people just like to argue without coming to any conclusion. Even if the conclusion is inconclusive, which it probably is, at least we know where we stand, and have a feel for the risk of climate change will be.
I don't buy for a second climate change is so difficult to understand only the experts know the answer. That kind of bogus don't pass the smell test. That was what they said about financial derivatives for years until the financial crash of 2008, and the concept of derivatives turns out to be so simple and so stupid anybody can see is a scam. Don't ever fall for only experts can understand argument. Question any article that even suggest that.
One would hope that there could be a middle ground between the two. But the zealots on both sides just seem to dig in their heels, demonize the 'non-believers' and then move even further away from a possible compromise.
Funny - now we've gone from politics to religion on this.
Yes - there is a group that leave all their problems up to God as if there is nothing they can do - and that's a misguided concept for sure.
HOWEVER, in this case we have another entire group who now see "Mother Nature" as their God which needs to be worshipped and feared. Beyond that, the same group views government as their "pastor" or "shepherd" who will guide them to a pure and sinless CO2 free life to be lived without the shame of excess or SUV. You'll find these folks with heads rotating in slightly hypnotic manner and hands extended in solemn worship before one of those large three bladed whirling crosses in the hallowed ground of green.
Yes it is amazing, Rob. My natural tendacy as an engineer is to get to that bottom line and find a solution (my wife hates it - she's only looking for sympathy not a solution). This subject is similar - proposed solutions portray as much hurt and fear as the problem.
I agree ChasChas, there are better posts. What's amazing though is the number of posts -- more than 265 now. While I know this is a controversial issue, and it's been used incessantly in the political realm, it's still surprising that it prompts such passion.
GlennA, we are talking two different things here, spiritual needs and natural needs. We are the stewards of the earth - no question there. We are sheep spiritually - spiritually lost if we try to figure it out with the mind.
George Washington said to strive to keep alive that celestial light called the conscience. Without the spiritual side, mankind is truly lost - especially naturally.
(I think there are better posts for this subject.)
I sometimes wonder about the symbology in Religion. The people of the congregation are referred to as a 'flock' (e.g. sheep) and the Pastor / Reverend / Priest / (your favorite here) is the 'shepherd'. Since the sheep are not capable of making the correct decisions for their best welfare, they depend on the shepherd to look after them. And then I think about the phrase "like lambs to the slaughter". There is no need to confront difficult decisions when you can leave it all up to God. But what happens when it turns out this was a test to see if Man could be responsible, and make the correct difficult decison, and failed ? I guess by the time you get your answer, it may be too late.
"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. Then kill all the engineers." (revised) Shakespeare's Henry VI. Imagine a world with no engineers. We could all ride horses, without horseshoes of course, but no cars. No oil drilling and plastics will go away. Mining metals will cease and metal goods will disappear. With no metals and oil, farming output will shrink, and along with it, our population. Highways will be a thing of the past as well as aircraft. A perfect world as envisioned by many.
This Global Warming topic belongs in Design News right along with the topic of Tips for Machining an Antique Hit and Miss engine. It is as useful as a football bat. It is being used in an attempt to get people to take sides in a non existant issue except for the "should we pay international or national carbon taxes?" and such nonsense lines.
My recommendation: Delete this entire theme, thread, and editorial and return to real engineering issues. At least we are reducing our silicon footprint, but are flooding the universe with trillions and trillions of ones and zeros. Perhaps there is a connection between Global Warming and excess bits as we are producing trillions of them per second. If we get too many 1's on one side of the globe, will this cause the earth to wobble skewing the warming data? This needs to be investigated quickly as we cannot afford to wait for all the evidence.
By most descriptions, I am a conservative. But unlike many characterizations in posts here, I believe the evidence that shows the earth is warming. Glaciers don't disappear when it's cold and snowing. For me the question is whether the global warming is man-made. It makes sense that industrial and automotive polution is causing some chemical reactions in the atmosphere. But is there more to it? Recently I took an Earth Science class at the local community college. The class was informative but the "information" was totally skewed to the "man is plague on the earth" side of the conversation. Citing a study of polar ice, a chart was shown that gave the average global temperature for the last 20,000 years(? sorry, can't remember the exact range of the chart and study). The chart showed 3 peaks and 2 valleys. The most recent valley reached it's bottom more than 2,000 years ago and has been rising ever since. The argument presented in the class is that human population growth was the reason for the rise. But when we looked at the population charts it didn't line up. When this was pointed out to the teacher, the discussion was dropped and never mentioned again. So I believe the warming evidence, but can't believe that it is all man-made.
So is it possible that the earth is simply going through its natural cycles of warming and cooling? Is it possible that man's polution is only contributing to an existing cycle? Is it necessary to further cripple American industry to conduct the "we can stop global warming" experiments? Must all industry leave America before the "environmentalists" are content that we Americans have done our part to "save the planet"? Can we, as a nation, agree to a middle ground of some action without devastating our economy?
Are they robots or androids? We're not exactly sure. Each talking, gesturing Geminoid looks exactly like a real individual, starting with their creator, professor Hiroshi Ishiguro of Osaka University in Japan.
For industrial control applications, or even a simple assembly line, that machine can go almost 24/7 without a break. But what happens when the task is a little more complex? That’s where the “smart” machine would come in. The smart machine is one that has some simple (or complex in some cases) processing capability to be able to adapt to changing conditions. Such machines are suited for a host of applications, including automotive, aerospace, defense, medical, computers and electronics, telecommunications, consumer goods, and so on. This discussion will examine what’s possible with smart machines, and what tradeoffs need to be made to implement such a solution.