Why the western distinction? Australia has cars... (Raod trains too)
Asia...Middle East.. Europe.. They more or less all have cars. And all developed countries are flying the "go green" banners. Just curious why a Green Westerner is laughable but a green.. anyone else seems reasonable.
I do agree with the general point of your comment. I just think it's true for all countries trying to go green.
Yeah fair enough access_guy. I meant to refer to the "western" aspirational lifestyle.
PNGBill. Although smog is reduced the overall pollution continues to rise. The soot has been stopped but carbon dioxide is invisible.
Indeed the reduction of soot and aerosols such as sulphur dioxide is helping to increase the temperature because they no longer block the sunshine from reaching the ground.
Ships are a major producer of sulphur dioxide and this is now getting reduced by new laws. The heating due to their carbon emissions had been somewhat offset by the SO2 until now.
OK, how do we know for sure that Carbon emissions are actually heating up the Earth as much as we are giving it credit for.
Fact: In terms of earth lifespan, the human race has only existed for a brief moment.. I forget what they compared it to, but something about if the earths history was compressed into a single day, we would be on it for less than a few seconds.
So our recorded temperatures don't really show a true history of earth temps.
Fact: It was Hot in the time of the T-Rex
Fact: Through tree rings scientists were able to establish "climate charts" dating back much further than humans have recorded temperatures. I watched a video of it in my earth sciences class in 4th year. Interestingly, it's a hockey stick curve, over and over again...
Now i'm not saying we shouldn't bother.. because clearly that would be an unwise choice. We should try to be as efficient and clean as possible. But we are so worried about global temperatures, but the earth has been much hotter than it currently is. I think there is a possibility that we think we are bigger than we really are, as a species.
I too am waiting for the experts to explain why the earth was supposed to be 2deg c hotter 2,000 years ago yet we question it changing now?
Also, 300 years ago we had a mini ice age, again, before the industrial age had a chance to make a diff.
What is the effect on the planet of Australia's annual bush fires?? These have been a natural occurrence for milloins of years?
Ever watched a child trying to protect a sand castle from the rising tide?
What about the current Iceland volcano ? Has the "experts" put the pollution of this into perspective on climate change ?
I am all for massive change on how we live but just not sure if we can stop "climate change" as such when history shows this to something of a natural occurrence.
Unfortunately, the "good" team are just as likely to present Statistics in their favour as the "bad" team.
We know that many gasses absorb infrared energy and so prevent heat being reradiated into space during the night. We would freeze if it was not for that tiny fraction of CO2 in the atmosphere.
The only way we loose heat is by reradiation. The maths is quite simple. The temperature difference between us and deep space is about 300K. With the same input flux, a one percent decrease in reradiation will result in about three degrees increase in temperature to compensate.
Since industrialisation the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere has increased by about 25 percent.
Fact: In terms of earth lifespan, the human race has only existed for a brief moment.. I forget what they compared it to, but something about if the earths history was compressed into a single day, we would be on it for less than a few seconds.
So our recorded temperatures don't really show a true history of earth temps.
Meteorological records are very brief. However several techniques can be used to determine prehistoric temperatures. Temperatures continue to fluctuate but the upwrd trend is clear.
Moreover the GreenHouse Effect is not based on observed temperature rise but models which show that increasing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses will increase average global temperature.
Code:
Fact: It was Hot in the time of the T-Rex :)
There have been many times when Earth was hotter. They correspond well with times when the CO2 content was higher. BTW the main reason what is now Antarctica was hotter back then is that circumpolar currents were forced into low lattitudes by the shere size of Gondwana, bringing heat southwards. Now these currents effectively isolate the continent from the equatorial zone.
Code:
Fact: Through tree rings scientists were able to establish "climate charts" dating back much further than humans have recorded temperatures. I watched a video of it in my earth sciences class in 4th year. Interestingly, it's a hockey stick curve, over and over again...
Yes, temperature rises very fast at the onset of warm periods. This is believed to be due to several factors causing positive feedback. Carbon dioxide increases the acidity of water causing faster erosion of carbonate rocks which releases CO2. Methane hydrates are released. Methane is 20 times more greenhouse active than CO2. Icecaps melt decreasing reflection of incoming sunlight.
The hot cycles end when vast amounts of carbon are removed from the atmosphere by vegetable matter being laid down into what become coal and oil strata. What do you think might happen when all that carbon goes back into the atmosphere?
As the site says the graph was prepared by a climatologist and a meteorologist. The early parts show inferred climate data averaged over time without short term fluctuations. The later parts show short term fluctuations. The graph is worthless especially the dotted section.
Now i'm not saying we shouldn't bother.. because clearly that would be an unwise choice. We should try to be as efficient and clean as possible. But we are so worried about global temperatures, but the earth has been much hotter than it currently is.
The Eath's climate has changed before. However it has never experienced such a rate of change as we are seeing now without catastrophic effects. Ecology can adapt to gradual change but not to such rapid increase in temperature.
I think there is a possibility that we think we are bigger than we really are, as a species.
Deniers often claim that the planet is so big that one species could not have such a great effect. We have enormously changed the planet in a very very short time.
Some say that the miniscule quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere could not possibly affect the planet. Well eat a piece of cyanide the size of a grain of salt and tell me something so small could not have an effect.
Actually the mini ice age was mostly about Europe. Recent discoveries suggest that loops in the jet stream can profoundly alter weather in Europe. This past winter was one of those events.
Despite this nothern winter which denier like to trot out as "evidence" global average temperature increased over the past year.
What about the current Iceland volcano ? Has the "experts" put the pollution of this into perspective on climate change ?
Icelandic volcanic activity changes over a fifty to eighty year cycle. it is short term. Over half of the more than 80 million tonnes of carbon dioxide released by humans in the past 24 hours will still be 500 years time. The capacity of the ocean to absorb it is falling every year.
I am all for massive change on how we live but just not sure if we can stop "climate change" as such when history shows this to something of a natural occurrence.
Climate change is a natural occurrence. However the rate of change we are currently experiencing is unprecedented and is definitely due to human activity, mostly through burning od carbon based fuels.
Code:
Unfortunately, the "good" team are just as likely to present Statistics in their favour as the "bad" team.
The climate statistics are wholely in favour of the models predicitng rapid change. The deniers cherry pick weather data to mach their faith.
One of their favourites had been to point at temperatures falling in the upper atmosphere. They are but this is due to the greenhouse effect keeping heat closser to the ground. Struggling to deny the change they are now turning towards arguments that the change will be for the better.
Climate models are actually predicting a slight fall in average global temperature over the next couple of decades partly due to the cycles of the sun which just peak in output last year. This will be followed by a rapid increase.
Unfortunately the deniers will seize upon the reduction as evidence for their case despite it actually adding to the veracity of the models. Fools will continue to hear what they want to hear.
You guys are all completely forgetting Ground Source Energy!! This will always be there, and for as long as the sun is still shining we can extract energy from the earth we live on!!
This is the next big step in green technologies!
check out geothermalint (.) co (.) uk. they have a great guide to geothermal energy!
Geothermal Generation stations.... maybe,
But geothermal heating units like the ones from the website you provided... i completely disagree with.
They are incredibly Expensive to install.
due to being a rare type of system, repair costs are much higher than a traditional system.
In some cases I am familure with, there have been concerns that install causes groundwater contamination, and in other cases, slope instability (site specific of course)
Most of the heating systems for homes use a pump... and the pump uses electricity... probably generated via conventional means. $50 to run the pump for a month means the coal plant burns $50 more coal, which isn't much different than the gas furnace the system replaced. so you spend a pile of money to get almost no benefit.
On top of that, the transportation method for the ground heat is usually not water, it is some type of refrigerant, usually toxic. and in the event of a leak in the system, it's possible these chemicals could seep into the groundwater.
"Facts" on reliability might indicate that the systems are reliable, but it's also a function of numbers.
If i go build a car, and make 50 of them, and they are all excellent quality with no problems for the first 5 years, i can say i have a 100% reliability rating. compared to GM... which might have.. ionno lets say 60%. But GM makes millions of cars. so that's not a fair comparison.
Same goes for Geothermal systems, there are not enough yet to make a true comparison to traditional systems.
Most of the heating systems for homes use a pump... and the pump uses electricity... probably generated via conventional means. $50 to run the pump for a month means the coal plant burns $50 more coal, which isn't much different than the gas furnace the system replaced. so you spend a pile of money to get almost no benefit.
I have friends in Swden who have replaced their electric heating with a heat pump system. Their house is just as warm as it was and he claim a significant redution in their eletricity costs so they are definitely seeing a benefit. I guess it all depends on your particular circumstances
