|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
Assuming Global Warming is a phenomenon created or accelerated by the emission of carbon gases, has anyone considered the impact of cremation of the dead on the atmosphere's temperature?
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, remember that the dead are a renewable energy source. The energy inside us came from the sun in the last few years: either from fruit and vegetables or from animals which themselves ate plants. So there's no net loss. Unless you like to eat coal.
Of course, the infrastructure currently required to burn bodies does rely on fossil fuels. A cleaner alternative would be to drop them into a volcano. Or maybe burn them in a nuclear reactor. You'd need a rather heavy lead urn to keep the ashes in, though. Might not be awfully practical.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As Deej points out, using fossil fuels to achieve cremation temperatures is not eco-friendly. If solar mirrors were used, it would be kinda cool.
Personally, I'm all for burial. Or composting.
One of my all-time most romantic songs is "Burial Waltz" by The Fugs:
"Do not surround me with wreaths of flowers
nor place upon my body the signs of a fetish
nor crescent, cross, phallus nor sun.
But bury me in apple orchard
that I may touch your lips again ...
Now all I need is to find the right guy to sing it to.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
So, if the energy came from the sun the gain is present because that energy was captured form a source outside the earth's atmosphere. But, while it was in plant form, the carbon was pretty much locked down. Burning releases it again.
Surely we'd be better mass buried down a deep mine? Of course the gases of decomposition would need to be handled.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JimB
|
 |
Likes it here |
Registered: December 2006
Messages: 349
|
|
|
Much of the problem with combating Global Warming is wasting time talking about sources that represent .001% of the problem while not talking about sources that represent 10%, 20% or 30% of the problem.
Let's talk about our willingness to give up some of the luxuries we enjoy in order to save our planet. The people next door insist in running the air conditioning 24/7 when, if they opened their windows, they would find a nice cooling breeze that would cost them and the environment nothing. At 5AM I stood at my kitchen window feeling that cool breeze and listening to their heat pump running not 20ft away.
Let's talk about reducing our use of automobiles and inconviencing ourselves a little with mass transit. This is a particular problem in much of the US. I no longer commute to work but work from my home (for nine years now). That is hardly a sacrifice though since the intrinsic benifits are rather extraordinary (these are besides saving over $100 a month in gas and car maintenance costs). My employer does sacrifice some since face-to-face meetings are not possible and alternative means of communication are required. Computers and the internet make my working at home possible and can provide replacement for the face-to-face meetings.
Let's talk about spending more for electricty to support renewable sources; I pay extra on my electricty bill each month to support the local wind turbine farm. Again, this is a very minor sacrifice that has significant benifits.
It is sacrifice that will save our planet, but most of us are unwilling to sacrifice even in small ways. If we don't start now future generations will have to sacrifice far more than we if they are to survive. It is true that the whole world must sacrifice to combat a world-wide problem; but if we don't begin as individuals there will not be a beginning until it is too late.
By the way, I have contracted with a company to cremate me when I die. It is a paid-for, done deal that will, hopefully, not be needed for many years. I believe that is far kinder to the environment than taking up land to plant an embalmed corpse in a box.
JimB
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's not carbon that is captured and then released a few years later that's a problem. It's carbon that's locked down over millions of years and then released all at once.
Pushing someone down a mine would be marginally better for the environment, but it would only be offsetting a tiny, tiny proportion of the carbon that is being burnt from fossil fuels. People only die once, whereas most people spend all their lives releasing greenhouse gases from fuel.
Bacteria, fungi, plants and small animals would probably appreciate a chance to re-use the nutrients locked up in the body. If you're feeling environmentally conscious, then ask to be buried in the bare earth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
I do not disbelieve that pollution assists any global warming, and I believe that we need to do all that you say, but in the name of common sense, not in the name of global warming, which is used as the universal devil incarnate.
There are many things that have created cycles in atmosphere in the past, all of which are huge. I am not denying that pollution and overconsumption is a potential contributor, but I am wary of insane initiatives like "Carbon trading" to continue to allow pollution if one does something elsewhere to unpollute.
Mass transit burns fossil fuels, too, sometimes locally, sometimes remote.
Nuclear power makes sense except for nuclear waste.
What do we do about China?
My question was to highlight some of the ludicrous things we are looking at.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wish those damned scientists would hurry up and implement cold fusion. 
David
[Updated on: Sun, 12 August 2007 19:55] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
I expect they will one day. Hmm, one of the proponents of that became a major proponent of the controlled demolition hypothesis for the World Trade Center, didn't he?
There is a great deal of quackery surrounding important areas because there is a load of money to be made.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Man you all hit really good points, I think the main one is that no one is willing to be the first to give up the things that make the world cozy for them both individually and collectively. In the end I don't really know how much difference it will make but we are a major part of the equation and can make a direct effect by our actions. Right on for cold fusion!
People will tell you where they've gone
They'll tell you where to go
But till you get there yourself you never really know
Where some have found their paradise
Other's just come to harm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JimB
|
|
Likes it here |
Registered: December 2006
Messages: 349
|
|
|
To me it is indeed common sense that we reduce and eliminate our destruction of our environment; but in reality it continues to accelerate. It is imperative that we control our greed and recognize our responsibility to future human beings to leave them a planet that can support life.
We certainly do not know enough about the natural cycles of earth's atmosphere; which span 10,000 to 100,000 years or more. Is the next ice age as inevitable as the sun rising in the east? We simply don't know; but I suspect that it is.
Nuclear waste, with a half-life of 20,000 years, has the potential of incalculable damage. I've often wondered why they don't simply put it on top of rockets and send it to the sun. Money is the answer, I know.
You ask "What do we do about China?" As is reflected in many aspects of life we must concern ourselves with what we can control, and therefore the question should be "What do we do about ourselves?". But to specifically answer your question: If China will not cooperate with our goals we begin by not buying products from China. That will require sacrifice since we will have to pay more for locally manufatured products, but it will enhance our local economies.
What really worries me about China is their massive size, both in terms of population and resources. It requires that we continue growing also; but is there not a limit to the population that our earth can support? I believe there is and that we are quickly approaching that limit. If we push China into a corner they may simply overrun the rest of the earth. Short of nuclear war, could we stop them? Would the war required to stop them not be Armageddon?
There are indeed many ludicrous things being suggested in terms of Global Warming and polution control. These seem to come mostly from politicians who are unwilling to be honest with people. Telling poeple they will have to sacrifice is not politically correct; it will not get them reelected. Our leaders are doing us a grave disservice by continuing to hide the sacrifices that will eventually have to be made. But they will be long gone by then and simply don't care about anything but their own careers.
JimB
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
We do need to act. Consuming resources willy nilly, releasing what may be greenhouse gases into the atmosphere ad lib has to be as great an error as spilling oil into the seas, though for different reasons. I simply question the linkage, not the common sense.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
JimB wrote:
> What really worries me about China is their massive size, both in terms of population and resources. It requires that we continue growing also; but is there not a limit to the population that our earth can support? I believe there is and that we are quickly approaching that limit. If we push China into a corner they may simply overrun the rest of the earth. Short of nuclear war, could we stop them? Would the war required to stop them not be Armageddon?
You know, there is a different question, and it is to do with territorialism. Not "could we stop them?" but "Why aren't we part of them?"
As part of something one can seek to change it. This is as just as true in our own minority now gay people are a real part of society in many places and an increasing part in others. We are part of "real society". If the global "we", like the USA, were part of a global cohesive whole...
But we can't be, because we are tribal and "they" are not "people like us". We must fight people who are not like us. It's because we always have.
[Updated on: Sun, 12 August 2007 20:51]
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JimB
|
|
Likes it here |
Registered: December 2006
Messages: 349
|
|
|
"It's because we always have." How true, how terribly true.
Part of the territorialism/tribalism you mention is how we view/define freedom. Even as similiar as we are I have seen in this forum and other forums differences in how those of us in the US and in the UK view and feel about the freedoms we expect as a part of everyday life.
The freedoms afforded the Chinese people today are far greater than they were 10 years ago, and drastically different from the days of Chairman Mao. And the future may prove that the degree of freedom that I enjoy today is simply impossible to sustain. But as we sit here today, the differences between the government of China and that of the US simply make a "WE" comprised of us and them unworkable.
There will be significant compromises on both sides for the whole-earth government, as invisioned in Star Trek, to become reality. But we have to avoid destroying ourselves first.
JimB
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
Ah, that "impossible we".
It is impossible because each mistrusts the other, and with good reason. Or so "we" believe.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is that what "we" really believe? The only thing i don't trust are the motives of those that lead us!
People will tell you where they've gone
They'll tell you where to go
But till you get there yourself you never really know
Where some have found their paradise
Other's just come to harm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
without embalming chemicals of course otherwise...
It's always the old to lead us to the war
It's always the young to fall
Now look at all we've won with the sabre and the gun
Tell me is it worth it all
~Phil Ochs "I Aint Marching Anymore"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JimB
|
|
Likes it here |
Registered: December 2006
Messages: 349
|
|
|
You brought a smile to my face, arich. You and I think alike. As far as what Timmy said, what is reality but what we believe? Right or wrong, what we believe is what is real to us.
JimB
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
Ah that is the "we". We have allowed "them" to invade our thoughts and control us when we have delegated power to them instead.
Totalitarian regimes such as China also only exist because the people allow it. But, when people are released from such a regime, as in Iraq, we see the local strife come back to the surface, or in the case of Yugoslavia (a sort of fake and forced nation created out of several incompatible Balkan states), we see religious zeal blamed for old injustices.
The world suddenly becomes too large for global friendships and local feuds must be settled before world citizenship is possible.
A couple of years ago I was in a Slovenian hotel. The receptionist had been in the army for 20 years. He was happy that Slovenia had escaped the Serbia/Bosnia stuff, and said it was mainly because the nation was Catholic, though it would not have mattered what it was as long as it was one thing, that it had attained peace very fast indeed after the breakup. He also said that his father had often told him that there could never be peace in the Balkans - far too many tribal and national feuds.
So, what is the future for co-operation in reduction of pollution and consumption?
Even if we can persuade China, what of the isolated imbecile who runs North Korea?
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JimB
|
|
Likes it here |
Registered: December 2006
Messages: 349
|
|
|
I may be mistaken but I believe you are suggesting that we should not strive to reduce polution and consumption because others will not. I do not agree with the premise that one should not strive to do right because others continue to do wrong.
However, I do agree with you regarding the futility of it all. I personally believe that when the final chapter of history is written that it will record the species Homo sapien as a failure. We will destroy all life either through war or by rendering earth uninhabitable. There will be no one here to celebrate the 22nd century.
Since I have no crystal ball or other powers to be certain of those beliefs then I accept the responsibility of striving to leave future humans an earth capable of supporting life. I believe in an after-life and will not enter it having failed in my responsibility to future humans, even though I believe that mankind as a whole will fail in that responsibility.
It starts with the individual and at that level there are no excuses.
JimB
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jim I heard recently that there are 0ne million environmental organizations I the world with one hundred million people working for these organizations world wide… I’m going like “What,” OK so I don’t know the breakdown or even the validity of these numbers and they do supposedly cover all environmental issues. The point is there are a lot of people out there that care and are working for the long term survival of the human species. The problem I see is, and Timmy pointed out, what has caused the break between what most people seem to want and what those we (elect?) should be doing on our behalf?
All I can say is what we need is to inform our selves, the information is out there, this isn’t some secret organization doin this stuff. Follow the money trail; you’ve said it as have many others here, and indeed elsewhere. That being said let me whisper a name in all your shell like ears, “Deloitte” goggle that name in conjunction with almost any other organization, governmental agency, country, you name it anything and see what you come up with. Hehe and this too is probable just a front but closer to the source. I don’t have all the answers but there are a lot of people looking for them.
People will tell you where they've gone
They'll tell you where to go
But till you get there yourself you never really know
Where some have found their paradise
Other's just come to harm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JimB
|
|
Likes it here |
Registered: December 2006
Messages: 349
|
|
|
There certainly are a great many people working to save our planet. They fight very hard every day on a large variety of issues and have been successfull in their efforts for many years. I grew up in Southern California and experienced the reduction in air polution the occured from the early efforts of some of these people.
The public has been educated for many years and, like myself, many have personal experience to draw from. A new generation has gained leadership positions from local to federal and will push the effort. They too understand that it begins with the individual; individual people, individual cities, individual states. Others follow suit and the momentum grows. There have been some set-backs because of the attitude of the current administration in Washington but I think that will be a temporary situation.
Even some third-world countries recognize the need and their initial developments incorporate what has been learned to reduce polution and consumption. There certainly is reason for hope and that is why we must each do what we can to ensure that future humans have a chance.
The PC I'm on now doesn't allow searches, it's too old and too small to upgrade. In the morning I'll use my work PC to search "Deloitte" as you suggest. That name looks very familiar and I don't know why; perhaps the search will answer that for me.
Many years ago I subscribed to the science magazine Discover and recently started again (they offered a great discount). I received the first one the other day and it contains a very interesting article titled "Science and Islam". That is my return whisper to you.
JimB
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
I think we should strive to do the right thing with pollution. It's not an "if you will so will I" thing. So you read me wrong on that.
I simply do not accept the universal mantra that it, of itself, causes global warming. I believe we should pollute less because it makes sense to pollute less. I recycle every darned thing that's recyclable.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JimB
|
|
Likes it here |
Registered: December 2006
Messages: 349
|
|
|
Timmy wrote> "I simply do not accept the universal mantra that it, of itself, causes global warming."
I would discount what they said and question the motives of anyone who said that polution was the sole cause of global warming. It undoubtedly is a significant factor and many of the other causes also add polution.
However, I do not find a "universal mantra" pointing only to polution. There are many articles and presentations regarding the contributions of the depletion of the ozone layer, the destruction of the rain forests, and population growth resulting in other vegitation losses including forests and wetlands to name a few.
Those fighting against polution are very active and vocal and use global warming as a tool in their efforts, perhaps too much. But there has been much evidence for many years regarding other causes.
JimB
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
We have to be very wary of cataloguing all ecological disasters such as deforestation under the heading "Global Warming" (cause or effect).
A few decades ago, had we then been aware of any warming, we might have cited the creation of dustbowls by incompetent use of furrow ploughs to expose the undersoil instead of using chisel ploughs to insert seeds into a fragile topsoil as either being caused by or as contributing to atmospheric change and warming.
We need to use the precise argument against the precise ecological atrocity or there is a huge danger of being proved wrong and thus ignored.
I'm wholly in favour of using real science to argue strongly against practices, but I need it applied with full rigour and correctly. There is a danger, especially with the pseudo-information available in the internet, that semi learning takes over from real study.
I am not at all saying that anything you have said is "semi-learning", I am arguing a parallel course with you, and in the same direction, namely the need to consume less and use correct resources. I am just wary of less well informed people jumping on incorrect bandwagons.
I include in this people like Bush and Blair (45 minutes to the launch of WMDs) who were (are) either malicious monomaniacs and psychopaths, or were imbecilic and deluded. Or both.
[Updated on: Tue, 14 August 2007 15:58]
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Really the Global warming thing is a bit over done and indeed just one small factor in a bigger much more serious picture. After all when Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines years ago it alone put more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere that man has since the beginning of the industrial age.
I find it kind of an obfuscation of the real over all eco disaster that is happening (which you have both mentioned) around the world, that are directly attributable to acts by man that can be traced to specific for profit companies and countries for that matter.
Japan for all intents seems to be all for ecological responsibility, yet they are one of the major deforesters of Amazonia, not to mention piles of wood chips, that had to represent many square miles of forest in Alaska, I’ve personally seem in Kenai being readied for shipment to Japan.
Look I know what I am saying makes me sound like a conspiracy theorist, but in reality I am saying just the opposite, this isn’t a conspiracy, it’s just a bunch of greedy people that are doing things in a way so that you can not see the forest for the trees. Follow the money trail! What are we going to do as individual consumers if we are not given the options that could ameliorate the situation? I may sound like an alarmist too but I don’t know that I know enough to start sounding the alarm, some are and they may be right from what can see. What is the point at which we pumps so many toxins in to the planet that it can no longer handle it?
BTW I was picking on Japan, there is enough blame to go around.
People will tell you where they've gone
They'll tell you where to go
But till you get there yourself you never really know
Where some have found their paradise
Other's just come to harm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
 |
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
"There is a danger, especially with the pseudo-information available in the internet, that semi learning takes over from real study."
So true. I meet so many wiki-know-it-alls and I have a tendency to rely on it too much, myself. But Wikipedia is just one source. Despite its aims, it is not fact anymore than any other encyclopedia, or any other single source.
I totally agree, timmy, that a rounded approach to environmental issues is important. If we limit our scope to the current buzzword- "Global Warming"- then as soon as Global Warming "goes away" then we lose our focus on the environment. The focus should be on the environment as a holistic issue. Global Warming could potentially be a major threat- even if it IS a mostly natural occurance. But there are other reasons and ways of taking care of the environment.
As you say, recycling makes good sense, even though it probably impacts very little on greenhouse gases or Global Warming. Conservation of resources makes sense, fighting poachers, protecting endangered species, putting a focus on lessening man's impact on the world and allowing the world to change it shape of its own accord.
We need to keep our sights on logic, reason and scientific methodology. There is so much information and misinformation in the current age. So much is presuasive, we must remain vigilant that our opinions are based on fact- not just on other opinions, otherwise there's no point to the Information Age at all! If we just believe opinion then we are no better than people in the Dark Ages who followed their local customs and superstitions.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm with you on this one, Timmy. I am more convinced by cyclical climate, more so since Channel 4's programme on sunspots. If you have the choice between polluting and not polluting, it makes sense not to pollute.
I think even the Chinese might begin to learn a lesson on pollution when it disrupts the Olympic games in Peking next year.
I notice that 'global warming' is being subtly altered to 'climate change'.
Btw, where are the Carribean hurricanes this year? We're halfway through the season and haven't heard of any yet.
Hugs
Nigel
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Saben, lets take scientific methodology and reason to task here for a sec.
I’ll start with steel, it’s something we use a great deal of and it’s production causes a great deal of damage to the environment to produce. Science has know for a long time that a spiders web is stronger than steel, produced at ambient temperatures with no damage to the environment. Now something of this nature could not take the place of all steel we use as it’s strength is mostly tensile, but it could take the place of a great deal of steel cable. The same is true of ceramics; muscles and gastropods produce it all the time in an environmentally friendly way.
We like Leonardo need to take a page from nature, reason tells me, reason also tells me that the people already producing these product are resistant to change because it will cut into their profit margins. Yet really in the long run it will be of greater profit to them, the environment, and us, It would be a win, win scenario if you follow the logic out. I think I am reasonable in asking, why do they not see this and act? I really do not know! This is why I keep saying we need to follow the money trail and ask the people with the money and those that advise them, why!
No offence to any of you, but the information is out there, on the net, facts! I’ve been a proponent of the “environment” movement for almost 35 years, most of it’s modern history. The bee in my bonnet is that in all that time not much more than status quo has been maintained; granted rivers don’t catch fire anymore, which happened in the city I am currently living in, in the late 60’s. Yet they do things like build shopping malls over what we call “Supper fund” toxic sites, this area is littered with, without cleaning them up!
As you said Saben the information is out there, it is up to us to find it and discern what is fact and what is fiction or at least enough to decide were you want to stand on this important issue.
People will tell you where they've gone
They'll tell you where to go
But till you get there yourself you never really know
Where some have found their paradise
Other's just come to harm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
Give me unbiased, neutrally funded, scientific proof and I will accept whatever it shows.
Until then I will continue to do my best not to pollute. But I drive a big car for my own safety (had a head on wreck that was proven in court not to be my fault and walked way happily), and it consumes fossil fuels faster than a smaller one.
I do not use patio heaters, I use clothes.
I absolutely agree that pollution should be reduced. An interesting argument on the radio today was to increase particulates in the air in order to reduce surface temperature and thus stored heat. There is some sense in that and some nonsense
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
 |
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Err.... no.....
But if you really think I should I will.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
timmy wrote:
> Give me unbiased, neutrally funded, scientific proof and I will accept whatever it shows.
This is a paradox.... while it exists..... it is impossible to exist.
No matter the research it is always biased.
>
> Until then I will continue to do my best not to pollute. But I drive a big car for my own safety (had a head on wreck that was proven in court not to be my fault and walked way happily), and it consumes fossil fuels faster than a smaller one.
>
> I do not use patio heaters, I use clothes.
>
> I absolutely agree that pollution should be reduced. An interesting argument on the radio today was to increase particulates in the air in order to reduce surface temperature and thus stored heat. There is some sense in that and some nonsense
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JimB
|
|
Likes it here |
Registered: December 2006
Messages: 349
|
|
|
The following is from a Discover Magazine interview with Henrick Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen.
"His studies show that cosmic rays trigger cloud formation, suggesting that a high level of solar activity - which supresses the flow of cosmic rays striking the atmosphere - could result in fewer clouds and a warmer planet. This, Svensmark contends, could account for most of the warming during the last century. Does this mean that carbon dioxide is less important that we've been led to believe? Yes, he says, but how much less is impossible to know because climate models are so limited."
You'll have to buy the magazine to read the rest; well worth the price of admission.
JimB
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
The important thing is, whether he is right or wrong, that we still husband our resources correctly and still minimise waste and pollution.
It's not "and thus we will be blameless", but "by this we will preserve our planet"
We have a duty to ourselves and future generations to provide them wth the best living conditions we are able instead of being labelled "the set of generations who wrecked our planet"
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JimB
|
|
Likes it here |
Registered: December 2006
Messages: 349
|
|
|
So far that's our legacy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
That really depends how far you choose to go back. Those who created the iron industries, who created town gas from coal, who caused fearful smogs, who created unfettered pollution, who allowed rivers to catch fire: those are the wrecking generations.
Those who are looking at stopping these ridiculous excesses, those are the generations who are trying to turn the corner.
I do not see myself as part of the problem, I am part of the solution. I am not part of the generations of ignorant wreckers.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Say there JimB I recall hearing about this relationship which seems to exist closely with cosmic rays and the measured worlds temperature. I saw where there was shown a graph of temp (Same on Al Gore used to show CO2 was to blame) and there was almost 100% correlation with changes in cosmic rays and temperature. It might be noted that the rise in CO2 levels did coincide but were about 300 to 400 years after the temp rise.
I think this is a most probable reason for the temperature fluctuations we are now seeing and that CO2 emissions are only one small part of the equation. As a previous post noted, the volcano eruption of Mt Pinatubo dwarfed man's efforts at pollution, especially CO2.
Remember too, all the energy contained in chemical bonds which we release for energy to run our cars/trucks, heat our houses, cook our food, are all the result of energy from the sun. The only energy not first coming from the sun is nuclear energy. So since the sun provides all our energy since the beginning of time, it also should be obvious that the total energy on the planet must be increasing. Remember in elementary physics where they taught you about the conservation of energy?
If the sun continues to supply energy to the surface of the earth, then logic has it that it will heat up. We do lose some of that energy to the space around us but that is not as much as we receive; I am sure just about any of you can confirm that fact. As the total energy level increases so will the temperature.
I fear that other global models also show that if there is too much warming of the Atlantic Ocean it will probably lead to another ice sheet decending on Europe. The warmer water will defeat the way the Atlantic current behaves and Greenland will no longer be green. It is an interesting theory and it could be what happened during the last ice age.
Also in parting with this whole thing. Why do you suppose Greenland was named "greenland" if it was so fully covered with ice? I know that it was definitely NOT that way when the Vikings first went there. How does global warming account for that? It was green and a good place to set up homes and then became covered in ice which is now receeding again.
My bet is with the cosmic rays.
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JimB
|
|
Likes it here |
Registered: December 2006
Messages: 349
|
|
|
You do a good job of expressing Henrick Svensmark's belief that cosmic rays are more responsible for rising temperatures than CO2 levels. You are also correct regarding the Atlantic currents bringing warmth to Europe. Too much fresh water from melting glaciers could disrupt this flow and bring on the next ice age. And it could happen surprisingly fast.
There are many areas on earth where evidence shows that the ecology has changed 100% over time (sea to desert, desert to forest); our planet is constantly changing. We measure time in minutes and hours while it uses centuries and millenia.
What is currently happening could be much more natural than we realize. If that is the case then there is really nothing we can do about it.
JimB
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benji
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: USA
Registered: August 2007
Messages: 297
|
|
|
Hello there, the fact is that a 1000 years ago Iceland was all ice and Greenland, now covered in ice, used to lush enough that the Vikings planted grapes and produced wine. Another fact is if man is causing all the recent (the sky is falling....Gore-ites) warming to the earth, why is it that same rise in temperatures are noted on Mars and Venus? Man made gases may have a slight impact on our planet, and I'm all for using cleaner fuels and energy. However, I don't need chicken littles spreading myths.
[Updated on: Fri, 24 August 2007 15:53] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
The Chicken Littles make money from falling skies. We Brits use umbrellas!
If we can persuade people to stop polluting, then I suppose the lies may be worth something, but a liar is still a liar.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
Re: Henrick Svensmark says MYTH 
Re: Henrick Svensmark says MYTH 
