Gas Prices RANT!!!!

[pdwyer]

The increase in CO2 is due to global warming not the other way around

The data doesn't support you. Why did you believe global cooling was more correct?

Source is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

[Kaeru Gaman]

But Kaeru, I like you so we can agree to disagree.

definitely
I like you, too
and I don't dislike american people in general...

but I'm mofo allergic towards some "american" topics, I truly dislike the US in general, sorry.....

--------------------------------------------------------

The increase in CO2 is due to global warming not the other way around

The data doesn't support you. Why did you believe global cooling was more correct?

sorry, Paul, Weavster is right.
if you take more precise statistics, you can see that the up and downs of the CO²
follow the up and downs of the temperature by 16 years, and not the other way round...

sure, some human influence is connected with global warming,
but the main factor still is solar activity

...that does not mean that it's ok for me to produce CO² like hell.
sure I prefer more "green" energy sources than combustion.

[pdwyer]

I'm not going to defend data I didn't research myself so I won't just jump up and down and say "you're wrong". Could you provide some more information to back up your claim?

I assume theres a reason why you believe one story and not another.

I'm happy to judge from facts and if I've misunderstood the situation till now I'd like to know.

I'm skeptical of your claim though (because I have no data I guess)

[pdwyer]

Thinking about you comment on "following" statistics. I don't think that's evidence in itself. That CO2 is produced by global warming is already known (long frozen areas of land have long since unable-to-rot vegetation etc) which is why as a chain reaction it can get worse quicker. This would describe what you see in graphs but that doesn't make it the root cause.

Likewise there's more too it than CO2 too.

But I'm still interested in hearing your evidence

[Kaeru Gaman]

it was a tv-documentation on "arte" or "3sat"...
they also interviewed a scientist who already did statistics in the 70s and
remembered that back then everybody thought a new ice-age would come.
another scientist showed a diagraph of the 20st century that displayed,
that CO² followed the temperature wich followed solar activity...

sadly I don't remember the name of the scientists or even the dokumentation...

personally I rather believe scientists who are less popular amongst businessmen and politics...

[edit]sorry, mistake

That CO2 is produced by global warming is already known

erm.. so I say, don't I?
*puzzle* erm.. hu?

[pdwyer]

Like this you mean? The section on "Carbon cycle feedbacks"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of ... ck_effects

All you've really said is that you know that you're right and added only a couple of sentences in support.

It's certainly a very complex process from what I read, more so that "it works the other way around" would suggest.

As for it all being "complete bollocks" though... I think I'm more inclined to belive what I read from people who can back up their sources. It may turn out to be wrong but it's looking to be better researched at this point in time

[thefool]

damn you're funny

GLOBAL WARMING IS A MYTH!!!
why??

Because we say so.

Ok where's your evidence?

I don't have anything but i'm right



Sorry thats just complete utter bullshit. Luckily for me, pdwyer handled the stuff pretty well while i was eating dinner

and yes weavster: that pollution is another thing i didn't have in my comment, but you are right about that thing.

[pdwyer]

[edit]sorry, mistake

That CO2 is produced by global warming is already known

erm.. so I say, don't I?
*puzzle* erm.. hu?

What I mean by this, is that it's known to occur. This is very different from saying that "Global warming is caused by CO2" is "the wrong way around". They can both effect eachother. Like what is described in the wiki link above onf carbon feedback.

From what I understand (and I'm no scientist) CO2 is just one of many of the causes of global warming but it is sgnificant. It's a problem because as things get warmer, even more CO2 goes into the atmosphere naturally on top of what we put in. Reducing it now might just be a bandaid, perhaps once the chain reaction is kicked off you can't just take the pilot light away and expect the fire to die (so to speak).

I don't think it is completely understood by mankind anyway but I think it deserves our attention. Maybe it's just a case of "the sooner we start reducing CO2, the sooner we'll learn we are barking up the wrong tree and find the real cause". But I think that's unlikely

[thefool]

of course its a chain reaction. And of course the warmer it is the more co2 is produced. But you (americans) help kicking the chain to a start!

beside with your consumption in like 8 weeks we'll run out of gas and have trouble just because you can't grap your bike once in a while.

[Kaeru Gaman]

... They can both effect eachother. Like what is described in the wiki link above onf carbon feedback.

From what I understand (and I'm no scientist) CO2 is just one of many of the causes of global warming but it is sgnificant. It's a problem because as things get warmer, even more CO2 goes into the atmosphere naturally on top of what we put in.

from what I understand, it's not yet proved that CO2 really is one of the most significant causes.
some scientists even doubt that is is a cause at all, because the mesured
CO2 concentration followed the temperature and not the other way round.

there are other causes, too, like e.g. the ozon problem,
the evaporation from the oceans what is also a self supporting circle...

a really significant cause only few want to see is airtraffic.
the contrails support a really significant greenhouse effect.
...something the richer people don't want to hear, they want their aircrafts,
so they rather tell the folks that every car is significant.

[thefool]

very relevant: http://youtube.com/watch?v=_W-fIn2QZgg

[Rings]

very relevant: http://youtube.com/watch?v=_W-fIn2QZgg

rofl, you made my day.....

[Kaeru Gaman]

[...]
Andere Kritiker der Analysen und Prognosen, die Fachleute aus aller Welt für den IPCC zusammenfassen, werden ernst genommen - zumal wenn sie, wie der Heidelberger Paläoklimatologe Augusto Mangini, handfeste Daten vorlegen. Einige Skeptiker verneinen zum Beispiel, dass die Daten zur weltweiten Temperaturverteilung auf einen signifikanten Erwärmungstrend hindeuten.

Am populärsten unter den sogenannten Klimaskeptikern ist die Auffassung, dass es zwar eine Erwärmung gibt, diese aber nur Teil natürlicher Variationen ist und zum seit jeher dynamischen Klimageschehen der Erde gehört. Allein die Aktivität der Sonne und nicht die des Menschen wird dabei oft für steigende Temperaturen verantwortlich gemacht. Schließlich gibt es auch jene, die nichts an den Grundaussagen des IPCC bezweifeln, außer, dass der Klimawandel katastrophal ausfallen könnte. Die Menschheit werde sich, wie schon so oft, an neue Umweltbedingungen anpassen, der teure Klimaschutz sei deswegen müßig, heißt es.

Vergleich von Klimaarchiven der letzten Jahrtausende
Professor Dr. Augusto Mangini, Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften

Professor Mangini relativierte diese Aussage jedoch wieder, indem er von seinen Forschungen an Stalagmiten in verschiedenen Höhlen der Welt berichtete. Die Stalagmiten sind natürliche „Klimaarchive“, denn anhand ihrer temperaturabhängigen Wachstumsphasen kann man bei gleichzeitiger Altersbestimmung der jeweils untersuchten Schicht verläßliche Rückschlüsse auf die Sonneneinstrahlung, die Temperatur und den korrespondierenden CO2-Gehalt der Luft ziehen. Bestätigt wird die Richtigkeit der Ergebnisse durch die Wetteraufzeichnungen der Neuzeit. Auch er erhält eine steil ansteigende Temperaturkurve für die letzten Jahrzehnte. Vor ca. 1000 Jahren gab es jedoch schon einmal eine Warmphase, deren Temperaturen über unseren heutigen lagen.

e.g. search for "Augusto Mangini"... my Google does not find english articles...

[thefool]

so a few "scientists" who can't even write in english say that? interesting!!
Watch the link and you'll get my point

[Kaeru Gaman]

Did cosmic rays cause ice ages?

Ice ages could be caused by changes in the flux of cosmic rays hitting the Earth according to three physicists. Jasper Kirkby of CERN, Augusto Mangini of the University of Heidelberg and Richard Muller of the University of California at Berkeley suggest that the cosmic rays exert their influence through their effect on clouds. By challenging the established insolation theory of glacial cycles, the physicists are sure to encounter opposition from the geophysics community (arXiv.org/abs/physics/0407005).

Kirkby and colleagues have presented new data on the cosmic-ray flux as recorded in the beryllium-10 content of deep ocean sediments. They say that the data suggests a link between the number of cosmic rays arriving on Earth and the glacial cycles. Beryllium-10 is produced when cosmic rays interact with particles in the Earth's atmosphere and then falls to the ground, where it is stored in ice or ocean sediments.

The possible links between cosmic rays and glacial cycles follows on from previous work that linked cosmic rays to climate change. In 1997 Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friss-Christensen of the Danish Space Research Institute proposed that high fluxes of cosmic rays could lead to more clouds and a cooler climate, and vice versa. The Danish scientists proposed that changes in the strength of the solar wind -- the stream of charged particles that flows from the Sun -- could lead to changes in the cosmic ray flux.

Kirkby and co-workers have now put forward two new mechanisms that could cause the cosmic ray flux to vary. One is an orbital modulation of the geodynamo that would results in changes in the strength and direction of the Earth's magnetic field. Such an effect was recently discovered in long-term measurements of the geomagnetic field and can also, say Kirkby and co-workers, be seen in the beryllium-10 data. Measurements on stalagmites in northern Oman and the Austrian Alps provide further support for this hypothesis.

"The idea suggested is controversial but not crazy," says Peter Thejll of the Danish Meteorological Institute. "I think it is well worth discussing."

The standard insolation model of glacial cycles was first put forward by the Serbian astrophysicist Milutin Milankovitch in 1912. Milankovitch proposed that ice ages were caused by variations in the amount of sunlight hitting the Earth and were linked to a very gradual cyclic change in the shape of the Earth's orbit around the Sun. However, while the insolation model can explain a glacial cycle with a period of the 41 kiloyears (kyr) that is observed in the paleoclimatic data, it predicts a 400 kyr cycle that has not been observed. Moreover, it cannot explain a 100 kyr cycle that is also present.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/19866