Re: OT: Global Warming Validation

From: <Jack>
Date: Mon Jul 02 2007 - 00:54:00 EDT

Hi Steve.....

I'll put in my two cents, knowing that Chris has chimed in on the side of the vast majority of climate scientists (at least that is what I hear.....) who say that the global warming is man-made.. I will try to live my life supporting their hypothesis.....living small and trying to be as carbon neutral as possible because I feel that that is close to how I live my life anyway. I don't live in a big house, live close to work, try to be energy efficient and use mass transit as much as possible, and am fortunate to be in a climate temperate locate. I try not try to waste. But as this issue goes, I do not know the answer, but I must say I am generally a skeptic. After all, Science has been wrong before and will most likely be wrong again.
  And of course science has been many many times too.

I keep going back to a diagram I saw (in an article written by peter huber) that related the worlds carbon flux; the atmosphere holding about 730 billion tons; and the interchange between the atmosphere and vegetation & soil (vegetation & soil holding 2000 billion tons) being about 120 billion tons up to the atmosphere and 119 billion tons down to earth, the interchange between land use and the atmosphere 1.7 billion tons up and 1.9 billion tons down; the interchange between the oceans (the oceans holding 38,000 billion tons) and the atmosphere at 88 billion tons up and 90 billion tons down; fossil fuels (homes, industry and transportation) add 6.3 billion tons, but do not soak any up. So I see the contribution of the human society's carbon to the atmospheric balance, but I also see that in terms of percentages, it is not much. But I understand that his small bit could kick start the warming cycle, if we agree that the warming and cooling cycles have always been and   always will occur.....in the end, who really knows? I think most scientist will say that the have temperature data from the past and they have computer models for the future.

As the world population moves toward 8 and 9 billion people, anything humanity does will tax the world's natural resources and have consequences. This is why I tend to go along with the argument. I also now that Americans will be asked to do their part; some think because it is fair, some because we need to
"payback" the world for causing this event. As our culture and civilizations
grow more sophisticated and advanced we will need more energy and will find it in order to survive.

I do believe in the quest for doing things that are sustainable. I still see fancy vacation homes with beautiful river rock walls or granite slabs in their kitchen and wonder if this is a good thing to foster. There are only so many rocks available, only so much granite available, sometimes wonder about the quest for all things from "nature". Shouldn't we be encouraging things
"recyclable"?

To blame the last century's quest for oil for all our ills means we must also blame coal, and strip mining, and whaling, and large net fishing trawlers, and water politics and water waste, and logging, and political acts of imperialism....so much others...all, I would argue, acts of a less knowing and less sophisticated culture. But if not the west, it would be another culture that would lead the way.....as wasteful as the path has been. It is a consequence of a world that now supports 7 billion people, many of them starting to move into lifestyles that for many years, we in the west were only fortunate to have.

ok....I'll stop now....(smile)

Jack


Jack Osborn, P.E.
Mechanical Engineer
IC Engineering

   510 242 - 3094

Gents

Has anyone found a step-by-step validation of the currently held belief that our planets atmospheric temperature is being increased significantly by man made activity?

To date I have assumed it (man made global warming) to be true based on three things:

  1. Atmospheric CO2 levels are rising and increased CO2 compounds greenhouse effect. I have never done the sums though; Ive always assumed that the idea is believable based on what I was told, as a schoolboy, about planet Venus plus some vague conclusions drawn during my time as a combustion engineer. One would have to be an idiot, however, to deny that C02 production is increasing.
  2. CO2 production mostly results from exothermic chemical process. Burning fossil fuel makes heat which raises temperatures. No brainer, although again I have never calculated the extent. Has anyone seen a heat balance calculation?
  3. My usual reference document for passing interest global topics is New Scientist magazine. They said so, so I went along because I have found them reliable on a number of topics.

Currently, I have a few mates who claim the whole global warming thing is crap and can be explained away by solar emission intensity cycles. I looked at this about 5 years ago, but discounted it due to, from memory, reference (3). It is a strong argument though.
With some horror I realised that my diasgreement with my mates is based on belief (in science) rather than science (itself).

So I would appreciate some guidance in directing me to a justifiable scientific path that can support, or refute the man made global warming concept.

Google cant
  do this - yet, so the war of the robots is not here - yet.

Thanks in anticipation.

Steve


Picture this – share your photos and you could win big! http://www.GETREALPhotoContest.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us

PipingOffice - Excel Spreadsheets for Piping Calculations http://www.pipingoffice.us/

Main site: http://www.pipingdesign.com

Yahoo! Groups Links 

________________________________________________________________________________\

Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Received on Mon Jul 02 00:54:00 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Oct 27 2008 - 20:24:13 EDT