It's ok to make comments, but to make blanket statements with no supporting evidence (WhEEngineer) is irresponsible and one of the biggest reasons that people are so confused. Keep your unbased opinions to yourself, or find a non-professional avenue to spew your garbage. I happen to be one that actually looks at evidence, but it doesn't take a genius to see the real evidence, the oceans are rising "a satellite-measured average rate of about 3.3 ± 0.4 mm per year from 1993 to 2009" ^Nicholls, Robert J.; Cazenave, Anny (18 June 2010). "Sea-Level Sea-Level Rise and Its Impact on Coastal Zones".Science Magazine328 (5985): 1517–1520.doi:10.1126/science.1185782. Also the world's glaciers are disappearing. We can't know for sure if man is causing it, but we do know that high CO2 levels were experienced in the earth's history during warmer times, and we know that man's influence creates large amounts of CO2 through our use of fossil fuels and the removal of foliage that absorbs CO2. We didn't need any real evidence to be convinced that OJ was a murderer, why is so hard to believe that global warming is caused by man? Is it really that much of a stretch of the imagination? Should we just turn a blind's eye to the mounting evidence, stick our heads in the the sand and hope that everything cools down? I really WANT TO BELIEVE that man is the cause, because if it is a normal global trend, than there is nothing we can do about it. To conclude, I would like to see the end to the use of fossil fuels regardless of their global ramifications. I would like to ride my Harley down the road without breathing nasty, gasonline burning cars. I would like to walk into a city and breathe fresh air, instead of the noxious fumes of a million cars, busses and trucks laying stagnant between the buildings. I want us to be a smarter society, ruled more by common sense, than lawmakers who cater to the rich regardless of the harm to the general public their policies impart.
Without a scientific time study transfered to an empirical matrix, considering all known variables, to predict what effects so-called global warming has on the everchanging atmosphere of earth, all the human opinion on earth are just cheap words. An old inuit, far north, stated the suns longivity in his location had grown from around 1 month to 2 months in his lifetime, giving rise to the probability of earths change in its position to earth. Without a scientific study, (none exists) my suggestion that the CO2 which has changed a few parts per million over the years our instrumentation is capable of identifying any change at all might be to suggest the curve may be related to or near a parallel with humanities rapidly increasing population on earth. As the sun orbits our galactic center every 230 million years or so, and near 200 million is spent in long periods of glaciation, we can surely continue to expect continual change in earths atmospheric ionization structure. The book sellers always discover from someone else they suddenly become an expert on, as there are no others with any valid study to disprove whatever they say in their little books to get attention.
Time changes all things
few people are capable of preparing a math platform to prove anything, these people are vastly over represented in this blog.
only truth, the same from all perspectives will stand the test of time---We have far more serious changes going on having negative affects on our society than the questionable CO2 change---Free Trade, or permitting free trade with a country sworn to destroy our way of life, enslave their people and use free trade as a weapon to steal our factories, and shutter our small family goods and services businesses, that once provided more jobs than people. Unless we return to the days of an independent country, making in america, what america consumes, with import taxation to discourage slavery and be proactive american science and technology. The accrued taxation used to support our infrastructure is lost to slave nations and american slavers, lime the walton family who take mor e money out of our economy than 30 % of our workforce---we have a lawyer, judge, politician, lobbie/client problem, city, county, state, and federally pseudo elected officials and administraitors are destroying our way of life---The young between 18 and 29 are 56 % unemployeed, off the chart, not n unemployment therefore they are not among the unemployed
affirmative action ACORN splnter groups granted census authority by executive order, also have responsibility for election protocol, armed with 3 billion in stimulus money we can expect another electionfraud, or term of obanomics, and the end of our nation, as we know it
As any person (born and) raised near the arctic circle and now in his fifties knows beyond a shadow of a doubt, the climate has warned radiclly in those areas. Big changes in flora and fauna from the days of my youth are obvious, when I visit my ancestral homes now. There have been dramatic changes in people's life styles and clothing. I wonder if sellers of recreational and sport clothing can corraborate this with their sales figures because gas grilles, chaise lounges, t-shirts and shorts are ubiquitous there now (in summer) but were unheard of then.
So, FACT is, significant parts of the globe have warmed up over the last few decades.
As a side fact, mines have gone into operation in Greenland in recent years that just a decade ago were inaccessible, buried underneath 60 feet of ice that now has melted.
But is it manmade or man contributed?
It matters not that the globe has gone through periods of cooling and warming before human habitation. It matters only if the habitation of humans is generating the effects that can cause warming, whether just like those that have occurrred naturally or new modes.
My understanding is that experiments have been conducted that prove that CO2 in an "atmosphere" receiving sun light radiation has a significant heating effect, i.e. the green house effect is, again, FACT. It therefore stands to reason that if human habitation releases large quantities of CO2 into the atmophere it can have a heating effect.
How big an effect? Well 40 million barrels of oil bunred 365 days a year for 5 decades or so might have an effect, I'd say. Does any minimally scientifically educated person think that 40 million barrels of oil per day for decades HAS NO (warming) EFFECT? Add to that deforestation/tree burning, coal burning, gas combustion, etc. Still conclude it has NO EFFECT?
To convince me that GW is real and not a boon doggle all the forecaster's have to do is publish the assumptions on which they have based their predictions and the method(s) they are using to calculate their predictions. I can judge for myself if said assumptions and methods are reasonable. I have never seen any info on what they are basing their predictions. I really doubt that their predictions can stand in depth examination.
40 years ago I led a comparision study of the various solar heating and cooling simulation programs that were in vogue. The differences in assumptions and input data were amazing as were the outright programing errors.
There's a big difference between a climatologist and a meteorologist. Climatology is about the signal, and meteorology is about the noise. Also, many weather people are simply talking heads and not meteorologists, so don't expect too much.
You really should do some research before you post. Most of what you claim is more than likely due to you not being a climatologist, so why post them, or at least let the researchers speak for themselves by providing links to their work. And your claim about global cooling prediction in the 1970s is just not true!
My local Weatherperson can't predict the temperature within 1 degree C beyond today, much less 10 days - and I'm expected to believe in predictions of tens of years? Back in undergrad days, circa 80s, Ohio State University measured Ice Core samples and one of the parameters of interest was temperature. The fluctuations were significantly larger (defined as greater than 10 degrees C) change in temperature as compared with what we're arguing about (less than 3 degrees C) over a fairly short time span (defined as between 50 and 200 years). While I'm no Geologist or Climatologist, if these changes occcured pre "man-made/caused" interference, I'm sure we'd all (humans) be more certain the Scientists of today knew what they were talking about if they could identify, explain, and define / model the cause of these changes and incorporate them sucessfully into their current working (? not sure how well it's working - neither is my local Weatherperson, so this must be a subjective term) model of the earth's environment.This model would be able to plot the large increases as well as large decreases and accurately (within 1 degree perhaps - or is that asking too much?).
Bottom line, I'll have more confidence when my local Weatherperson can predict daily temperatures a year in advance and be more than 3 sigma accurate. I'm expected to be within 3 sigma in my calculations / tests / and predictions in my job. Heck, just to give them the benefit of doubt, make it very simple and only predict the daily temperatures 2 weeks in advance and be within 2 sigma accurate. At that point, then I'll have much more confidence in their predictions of tens of years. The best my Weahterpeson can do is a 3 degree F guarantee for tomorrow (not any further out than that and it should be noted that the prediction is given at 11 pm the night before) - and they are no where near 99% accurate. Based on this demonstrated peformance - I can only expect the current estimations of Climate warming will have similar results.
One last thing; the reason so much effort was put into the ice core studies back in the 70s - 80s is because during the 70s it was predicted by these same Scientists that we were going to see temperatures dropping.
New versions of BASF's Ecovio line are both compostable and designed for either injection molding or thermoforming. These combinations are becoming more common for the single-use bioplastics used in food service and food packaging applications, but are still not widely available.
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 radio show will show what’s possible with smart machines, and what tradeoffs need to be made to implement such a solution.