PDA

View Full Version : Is There a Link Between Cosmic Rays and Global Warming?



Fraser
2007-Jul-04, 04:08 AM
As you might know, I've got a side job blogging over at Wired Science on their space beat. I just posted an article there about new research that refutes a possible connection between global warming and cosmic rays. ...

Read the full blog entry (http://www.universetoday.com/2007/07/03/is-there-a-link-between-cosmic-rays-and-global-warming/)

Aqualung
2007-Jul-05, 09:54 AM
Global warming is being caused because we are in an interglacial period. The Earths temperature will naturally warm up for some tens of hundreds of years more before starting to cool for the next glaciation.

I remember in the 60's and 70's being told that we should get ready for the next ice age because the world is cooling.

If scientists looked at bigger time scales, rather than the records kept since 1939 onwards, they will see a natural sinewave of cooling and warming over many hundreds of years.

The Romans grew vineyards in the UK farther north than Derbyshire without the aid of specially bred grape varieties. Those grape varieties are only just starting to be grown in the UK again and only on the south coast because the rest of the UK is still too cold for them. Their vineyards are well documented in the written record and there is no records of them burning vast amounts of wood, coal or oil to artificially raise the earths temperature.

Man made global warming is an invention of goverment with the sole aim of raising taxes. End of story...

Kwalish Kid
2007-Jul-05, 11:38 AM
Wow, the denier talk comes out fast. Is this guy paid by somebody?

GOURDHEAD
2007-Jul-05, 01:36 PM
Global warming is being caused because we are in an interglacial period. The Earths temperature will naturally warm up for some tens of hundreds of years more before starting to cool for the next glaciation.Seems plausible, but the energy to warm the Earth has to come from somewhere. If it's due to a lesser albedo, what started the albedo to lessen? None of the arguments I've seen or heard on either side of global warming or its causes is satisfactory.

nauthiz
2007-Jul-05, 03:23 PM
If scientists looked at bigger time scales, rather than the records kept since 1939 onwards, they will see a natural sinewave of cooling and warming over many hundreds of years.

They have done that. It's called paleoclimatology. And one of the interesting things they noticed is that what's been happening over the past 100 or so years doesn't really have much (maybe not any) historical precedent. Also, average global temperature does fluctuate over time but I'm not aware of any plots that can be easily approximated by a mere sine wave.

dhd40
2007-Jul-05, 04:33 PM
(SNIP) None of the arguments I've seen or heard on either side of global warming or its causes is satisfactory.

Thatīs the real problem from my point of view. We simply donīt know (yet).

cbacba
2007-Jul-05, 10:59 PM
Curious that there were no references to proponent researchers like Svensmark and Shaviv. Also, it would seem that there are some simplistic assumptions being made in an effort to do a strawman knockdown in the article. The references to higher altitude cloud formation should be more as should the poles have more clouds, not to mention some halfbaked comment that particles (cosmic rays are atomic nuclei subject to magnetic deflection, not fundamental particles or rays) should decay to water molecules.

First off, clouds form when existing h2o vapor condenses onto something. That means there has to be suitable h2o vapor and conditions to form. Then there has to be something to form on, like particulates or cosmic ray ionization trails. What's more, if there are already suitable 'somethings' to form on and conditions are acceptable, then the clouds would already have formed. Where there are no suitable 'somethings' to form on while there are suitable conditions for formation is where one should expect cosmic ray flux to have some sort of impact.

Many conveniently seem to forget that cosmic rays were discovered because they formed visible trails in Wilson's experimental cloud chamber - a device and an experiment crafted to probe the nature of cloud formation, but now forever remembered as the experiment that discovered cosmic rays.

EDG
2007-Jul-06, 05:21 AM
Thatīs the real problem from my point of view. We simply donīt know (yet).

Well, we do know. It's just that some people want to put current politics and their own personal convenience before making the lives of their children and grandchildren better.

It is established fact that CO2 and CH4 are good greenhouse gases - they trap heat. So humans pumping more of that in the air faster than it's being absorbed will increase warming because heat will be trapped.

Whether it's by a little or a lot is irrelevant - we know for a fact that it will happen to some extent. If global warming is all natural (and I don't believe for a second that it is) then we're not helping by exacerbating it. If global warming is all artificial then we're certainly not helping by pumping out more. So pumping more of that up there is Bad by any standards.

So there's no justification at all for continuing to blithely produce greenhouse gases. End of story ;).

Ivan Viehoff
2007-Jul-06, 02:33 PM
The Romans grew vineyards in the UK farther north than Derbyshire without the aid of specially bred grape varieties.That one is an urban myth. The remains of grapes have been found in northern England, but we haven't identified any vineyards. The Romans certainly grew grapes in southern Britain, but it is not clear that they made wine from them. The Romans certainly imported wine from the continent. You may find reference to "Wroxeter Roman Vineyard", but this is a new vineyard situated on the old Roman site, and there is no evidence that this was a vineyard in Roman times. Grapes have been grown in Britain post-Roman and prior to the current warm-up. They were certainly being grown here also at the time of the Norman conquest, and in the 17th-19th centuries. In the 19th century, the Marquess of Bute had a winery in Cardiff Castle where he made wine from grapes grown on his estates in Glamorgan.

Noclevername
2007-Jul-06, 04:00 PM
If global warming is all natural (and I don't believe for a second that it is) then we're not helping by exacerbating it.

I think you mean, if the current global warming is all natural or not.
That's the kind of non-specificity that lets GW deniers get all smug and say "Oh, it's happened before on its own, so we can't be responsible!" :doh:

EDG
2007-Jul-06, 07:10 PM
I think you mean, if the current global warming is all natural or not.
That's the kind of non-specificity that lets GW deniers get all smug and say "Oh, it's happened before on its own, so we can't be responsible!" :doh:

True, but the point was that we know those gases are greenhouse gases and therefore capable of warming the earth, so it seems somewhat irresponsible to continue to pump them out whether the current warming is because of us or not.

Dragon Star
2007-Jul-06, 08:18 PM
It's no question as to the fact that we are responsible for an unknown amount of Global Warming. The question is, how much. Anyone who states either way is totally responsible is 100% ignorant about the subject. It could be trace, perhaps a hundredth of a degree. Or it could be quite a large figure. WE DON'T KNOW.

That is the end of the story. Speculate all you want, your just peeing in the wind.

However, I bring this to the table: We spend Billions if not Trillions on making every industrialized nation on Earth Green, all to find out that we had only the trace effect as mentioned before. Was it worth it? The time, energy, price, panic...all for practically nothing.

Or say we do nothing, and all the ice melts over a hundred years time. Is it really that big of a deal? It's inevitable that Earth will yet again enter another Ice Age that will reset the Status quo.

I call all of it a waste of time and panic for the time being. Wait till you know the facts before making costly mistakes. Using resources to better the world is a wonderful thing, don't get me wrong...if done in a cost effective and timely manner. Not because the world thinks it's going to turn into a frying pan purely out of speculation.

nauthiz
2007-Jul-06, 08:33 PM
WE DON'T KNOW.

Though there are some pretty good estimates, complete with error bars and independent confirmation and all that.

EDG
2007-Jul-06, 08:46 PM
It could be trace, perhaps a hundredth of a degree. Or it could be quite a large figure. WE DON'T KNOW.

Again, you miss the point.

We know these gases cause warming. We also know that recently the Earth has warmed up faster than it ever has warmed naturally before. We know that we've been busily pumping out these gases for the past couple of hundred years or so. Either way we must be causing some warming, and that is a bad thing no matter what.

Maybe it's just coincidence that the earth decided to get a lot warmer for no apparent reason just when we happened to start pumping out greenhouse gases, but it's a lot more likely that it's getting warmer because of our actions. Cleaning up the environment is never a bad thing, and if it costs a lot of money to do it then so be it. But we have a choice between not bothering to do anything and dooming our descendents to a warmer world with more unpleasant environmental calamities and resource conflicts, or spending money and taking some action and responsibility now and maybe turning the tide (though it still won't get better for another 50 years or so, since the climate takes a while to react).

Honestly I can't see how anyone can sit there and blithely say "I don't believe in global warming" or "I don't believe that doing something about this is a good thing" or "I'd rather spend money on something else" with a clear conscience.

Noclevername
2007-Jul-06, 08:52 PM
However, I bring this to the table: We spend Billions if not Trillions on making every industrialized nation on Earth Green, all to find out that we had only the trace effect as mentioned before. Was it worth it? The time, energy, price, panic...all for practically nothing.

That's quite a set of assumptions there. How much time, energy, price, and "panic" (?) would we specifically be talking about here? And what plans to turn things "green", out of the many that have been proposed, are you specifically referring to?

nauthiz
2007-Jul-06, 10:31 PM
And how come spending money is only bad for a nation's economy when it's being spent on stuff that's somehow related to this "green" thing? Why wouldn't it put an upward pressure on the GDP just like any other spending? (One person's expense is another person's income.)

cbacba
2007-Jul-07, 04:28 PM
And how come spending money is only bad for a nation's economy when it's being spent on stuff that's somehow related to this "green" thing? Why wouldn't it put an upward pressure on the GDP just like any other spending? (One person's expense is another person's income.)

One must speak in generalities on what is 'good' and what is 'bad' for a nations's economy as buying a donut or pack of cigarettes or a box of chocolates is not necessarily 'good' if it leads to a shorter, less healthier life for the purchaser so it could be 'bad'. However, if the purchaser's joys in life consist of pigging out on donuts or smoking like a chimney and without that, has little reason to work, produce and contribute to society, maybe that vice isn't so 'bad' after all. economics is not unlike thermodynamics in that it's the bulk result of all those molecules moving around that count rather than the particular state of individual molecules.

Money is store of value and a medium of exchange. A $ bill is worth something only because someone else will exchange goods and services for it. While an economy - which is really just the total exchange of goods and services is not fixed and can grow or shrink, the wealth of a society is really just the capital goods or assets.

When gov. intervenes to force choices on people, those people are prevented from acting on their own preceived best interests. Usually, such intervention is also associated with what is in the best interest of the gov. and those controlling and influencing the gov. - but that's something a bit different.

With 'green' stuff being forced into the economy, what one tends to find is that it is forced because the people find it not in their best interests to do so on their own. Typically, it's due to higher costs and poorer performance of the 'green' choice. The 'higher costs' here is a key to your question.

If something, such as a 'green' vehicle, costs more than the alternatives, it's an indication that it costs more to produce. That means more resources had to go into producing that vehicle which means that vehicle has taken away more resources from other potential uses in the society. What's more, since this was forced on the purchaser, these resources would have otherwise been available for other use which means society or those in society would have had both a vehicle and something else rather than just a vehicle. Hence, society is poorer because of it.

I recall hearing something about calculations made recently concerning two vehicles, a 'green' Prius and a Hummer. It seems that considering the expected life span of both, initial costs and ongoing maintenance, that the Prius costs almost twice as much as the Hummer to own and operate. While one may consider that this costs only the owner, it was purchased with that exchange of value mechanism called money which was initially traded for work rendered by the owner. The owner could have had the vehicle of his/her choice plus perhaps something else (if they chose the lesser expensive alternative). Also, when the usefulness of the vehicle ended, there would have been less assets from society expended.

Disinfo Agent
2007-Jul-07, 09:02 PM
Wow, the denier talk comes out fast. Is this guy paid by somebody?I thought this ad hominem was unnecessary.

EDG
2007-Jul-07, 10:09 PM
I thought this ad hominem was unnecessary.

how the heck is that an ad hominem? If the guy's sitting there denying something then he's clearly a denier of it.

Disinfo Agent
2007-Jul-07, 10:31 PM
The "denier talk" expression was not nice (though I admit I may be missing some context), and the suggestion that the user gets paid for posting was definitely an ad hom.

Aqualung
2007-Jul-09, 07:56 AM
Again, you miss the point.

We know these gases cause warming. We also know that recently the Earth has warmed up faster than it ever has warmed naturally before.

Quite wrong. The earth warmed up over ten degrees in ten to fifteen years after the last ice age. The North Sea was formed in this period of time at the speed of a slow walk.

There is nothing wrong with caring for your local environment by not burning stuff that does not need burning or making engines more efficient. What we must not allow is governments, of whatever colour, using it to scare people into inappropriate changes in lifestyle, this covers every country in the world.

Ronald Brak
2007-Jul-09, 09:11 AM
The earth warmed up over ten degrees in ten to fifteen years after the last ice age.

Do you have some infomation on this? That's a pretty impressive temperature change.

nauthiz
2007-Jul-09, 03:06 PM
When gov. intervenes to force choices on people, those people are prevented from acting on their own preceived best interests. Usually, such intervention is also associated with what is in the best interest of the gov. and those controlling and influencing the gov. - but that's something a bit different.

I've noticed that assertion and the related claim that any government intervention is bad for the economy are very popular among various pundits with a clear political bias, frequently libertarian. But I have yet to see it expressed in, say, an economics textbook. As far as I can tell, it doesn't seem to get any traction with economists in general - otherwise, one would expect that there would be a lot more categorical disapproval of the likes of professional meddlers like Alan Greenspan. Nor have I seen a coherent explanation for what the mechanism for that effect would be.

I do notice that it seems to be based on the unstated assumption that the economy is entirely composed of individuals who always act rationally and in their own best interests (and, sometimes, at the expense of others if necessary). I've never seen any mainstream economic theory which rests on that assumption. Probably because it's so very specious - history and current events are littered with examples of people acting against their interest, often because they simply don't know everything. It's also littered with examples of governments honestly acting in favor of the public good. This exactly why most governments have agencies for regulating drugs and medical devices. Its case isn't helped any further by the fact that there are also so many examples of government intervention being really good for the economy - in the USA, the classic example is the New Deal.

cbacba
2007-Jul-10, 02:35 AM
I've noticed that assertion and the related claim that any government intervention is bad for the economy are very popular among various pundits with a clear political bias, frequently libertarian. But I have yet to see it expressed in, say, an economics textbook. As far as I can tell, it doesn't seem to get any traction with economists in general - otherwise, one would expect that there would be a lot more categorical disapproval of the likes of professional meddlers like Alan Greenspan. Nor have I seen a coherent explanation for what the mechanism for that effect would be.

I do notice that it seems to be based on the unstated assumption that the economy is entirely composed of individuals who always act rationally and in their own best interests (and, sometimes, at the expense of others if necessary). I've never seen any mainstream economic theory which rests on that assumption. Probably because it's so very specious - history and current events are littered with examples of people acting against their interest, often because they simply don't know everything. It's also littered with examples of governments honestly acting in favor of the public good. This exactly why most governments have agencies for regulating drugs and medical devices. Its case isn't helped any further by the fact that there are also so many examples of government intervention being really good for the economy - in the USA, the classic example is the New Deal.


THe economics is referred to as the Austrian School and it is embraced substantially by libertarians. Founders include luminaries such as Hyeck and Von Mises. If you need simple explanations, you should try Hazlett's Economics in One Lesson or perhaps The Law or Economic Sophisms by Fredrich Bastiat. It is not embraced by big government types.

As for the new deal, it turned a recession into the great depression. It was world war II that got us out of that depression. As for regulating drugs, it would seem you must not have been severely injured by a drug approved by the fda nor died awaiting for the fda to get around to approving a new drug. A fairly recent example of that was Brezhinsky in HOuston TX who had developed a treatment for incurable brain cancer. It took years for this 20-30% effective treatment to be permitted in a field with 100% mortality and whose alternatives, chemo, frequently caused brain damage and whose treatments resulted in no cures nor significant life extension.

People don't know what's good for them. THat's why someone 3000 miles away who has lumped people into groups can make decisions for groups that's good for everyone in the group. Wanna buy some oceanfront property in AZ? It's right next door to the lost dutchman mine.

Disinfo Agent
2007-Jul-10, 08:40 AM
As for the new deal, it turned a recession into the great depression.I think you've got your dates reversed there. But this is not the best place to discuss economics.

cbacba
2007-Jul-10, 08:39 PM
I think you've got your dates reversed there. But this is not the best place to discuss economics.

So you're saying the economy recovered in 1941 and world war II started in 1946? Or, are you stating that world war II started in 1929 and the depression started in 1933?

Noclevername
2007-Jul-11, 12:37 AM
I think you've got your dates reversed there. But this is not the best place to discuss economics.
So you're saying the economy recovered in 1941 and world war II started in 1946? Or, are you stating that world war II started in 1929 and the depression started in 1933?



Way to not discuss it. :rolleyes:

Disinfo Agent
2007-Jul-11, 02:40 AM
I didn't start it, and have little desire to pursue it, but I suppose I should at least clarify what I meant. Obviously it was that the New Deal followed the Great Depression, so it could hardly have caused it.

Upon further reflection, I suppose that cbacba's point may be that, while not having caused the Great Depression, the New Deal made it worse (that's what Milton Friedman and his school claim). But I'm confused by the distinction that cbacba attempts to make between "a recession" and "the Depression". Wasn't the Great Depression basically a recession?

Dragon Star
2007-Jul-11, 03:00 AM
That's quite a set of assumptions there. How much time, energy, price, and "panic" (?) would we specifically be talking about here?

Hold on, sometimes I can take this tinfoil bicycle helmet with bunny-ears and get them just right to read the future. I'll let you know when I uncover the details.

Results is the goal here, agree? Okay, break it down into economics (sorry if this angers you, but there is no way to not discuss it with the topic at hand).

Results = Time

Time = Money

Technology and research = Money + Time.

Now, what we've done is create a sum of money on an astronomical level to make Earth "green". (I'll define green as removing all current greenhouse producing ways of production and consumption). If you were to attempt this in any kind of early deadline to have an actual impact on greenhouse gas production (e.g. 50 years), you would spend more money then even exists both in physical and electronic currency to attempt it. The government spends billions for research on this topic and how to fix it and we know...what? Not to mention someone would have to tap China's shoulder and ask them to stop doing everything they're...well, doing. Good luck with that one.

Wait for the next ice-age. Natures equilibrium has worked for a few billion.


And what plans to turn things "green", out of the many that have been proposed, are you specifically referring to?All/any of them. What does that even matter? All are extensive/expensive/and time consuming on effective scales.

It can't be done in a timely manner. You're talking about removing/replacing the automotive industry, as well as Coal, Petrol, Natural Gas, and Cement production just to name a few. Oh, traditional combustion motors would become obsolete on all scales and need replacing.

If you can honestly argue that it can be done, I'd be more then happy to take a look at your ideas. (PM if including economics if you wish)

Disinfo Agent
2007-Jul-11, 03:14 AM
Not to mention someone would have to tap China's shoulder and ask them to stop doing everything they're...well, doing. Good luck with that one.We're all going to need good luck, but perhaps mostly good will. China is by no means the only country in the world with a tendency for inertia.

Dragon Star
2007-Jul-11, 10:29 PM
We're all going to need good luck, but perhaps mostly good will. China is by no means the only country in the world with a tendency for inertia.

Not at all, however, they would/will have the most difficulty producing compliance. Rules are created with the knowledge they'll be broken.

Noclevername
2007-Jul-11, 10:41 PM
Hold on, sometimes I can take this tinfoil bicycle helmet with bunny-ears and get them just right to read the future. I'll let you know when I uncover the details.

Results is the goal here, agree? Okay, break it down into economics (sorry if this angers you, but there is no way to not discuss it with the topic at hand).

Results = Time

Time = Money

Technology and research = Money + Time.

Now, what we've done is create a sum of money on an astronomical level to make Earth "green". (I'll define green as removing all current greenhouse producing ways of production and consumption). If you were to attempt this in any kind of early deadline to have an actual impact on greenhouse gas production (e.g. 50 years), you would spend more money then even exists both in physical and electronic currency to attempt it. The government spends billions for research on this topic and how to fix it and we know...what? Not to mention someone would have to tap China's shoulder and ask them to stop doing everything they're...well, doing. Good luck with that one.

Wait for the next ice-age. Natures equilibrium has worked for a few billion.

All/any of them. What does that even matter? All are extensive/expensive/and time consuming on effective scales.

It can't be done in a timely manner. You're talking about removing/replacing the automotive industry, as well as Coal, Petrol, Natural Gas, and Cement production just to name a few. Oh, traditional combustion motors would become obsolete on all scales and need replacing.

If you can honestly argue that it can be done, I'd be more then happy to take a look at your ideas. (PM if including economics if you wish)


So, since the most absolute extreme-- zero emissions-- is impossible, we shouldn't bother to try anything?

No.

Making our current energy usage more efficient will both lower CO2 emissions and reduce long-term costs. There are plenty of other plans-- which it seems you have only the vaguest awareness of, or you wouldn't be lumping them all together under "What does that even matter? All are extensive/expensive/and time consuming on effective scales" and "You're talking about removing/replacing the automotive industry, as well as Coal, Petrol, Natural Gas, and Cement production just to name a few. Oh, traditional combustion motors would become obsolete on all scales and need replacing", which is patently strawmannish. Most plans, other than the Unabomber's Manifesto, do not call for totally dismantling our infrastructure all at once. And "timely" is an ill-defined term, how many years/decades are there in a "timely"? How about an "effective scale"? Effective for whom, and how much?

As for letting "nature take its course", I'll just point out that extinction, including our own, is part of nature as well. So screw nature, let's make our own fate intead of relying on blind chance.

nauthiz
2007-Jul-11, 11:03 PM
THe economics is referred to as the Austrian School and it is embraced substantially by libertarians.

I'm aware of the school. I'm also aware that despite its popularity with political ideologues, it's not exactly one of the most pre-eminent schools of economics among those who manage to get articles published in journals. Largely because of its tendency to show little interest in (and lack of being based on) things like empirical evidence.

Lurker
2007-Jul-11, 11:58 PM
Wrong thread...

Dragon Star
2007-Jul-12, 12:54 AM
So, since the most absolute extreme-- zero emissions-- is impossible, we shouldn't bother to try anything?

No.

That's not what I said. We should take the steps we are at the moment, what I'm doing is questioning where we draw the line. Everyone that screams "GLOBAL WARMING ZOMG!" must believe we can actually do something about it starting NOW and can solve the problem with little complication. As much as 60% - 70% of Greenhouse is Water Vapor, leaving 30% perhaps 25% - 30% max is manufactured. Taking small steps will only dent this like a shopping cart hitting your car in a parking lot. It is kinda one of those things you have to attack full out to attain good results.

If it's us or not, it's here to stay until nature removes it. What's already in the air would take hundreds (and for some things like CO2, tens of thousands) of years to totally deplete even if production/consumption stopped today.


And "timely" is an ill-defined term, how many years/decades are there in a "timely"? How about definitions, then?

Timely:

before a time limit expires; "the timely filing of his income tax return"
done or happening at the appropriate or proper time; "a timely warning"; "with timely treatment the patient has a good chance of recovery"; "a seasonable time for discussion"; "the book's publication was well timed"
seasonably: at an opportune time; "your letter arrived apropos"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=0&oi=define&ei=T3OVRvmfFZS4ggTuo73FBg&sig2=QJ2bJlzCkiRULVPfznZ24Q&q=http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn%3Fs%3Dtimely&usg=AFQjCNEtgsoT6VuOyJ2oFrUqFUI_NVlzgA)Data is valuable and useful to analysts only if it represents organizational activities that are reasonably current. Timeliness is a function of the users’ requirements for currency and is consistent with user expectations. Timeliness is usually measured by how soon the data is available after some distinctive end-of-period such as “two days after the close of the month.” The act of getting the data to the users at the most opportune time.
it.csumb.edu/departments/data/glossary.html (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=3&oi=define&ei=T3OVRvmfFZS4ggTuo73FBg&sig2=yN74FjxflH3dtxBj_Ji7gw&q=http://it.csumb.edu/departments/data/glossary.html&usg=AFQjCNF_SMHIQpFrhMo9Ik9rNfjv_iF4SA)



How about an "effective scale"?
How about another ill-defined definition?

Effective: 1.adequate to accomplish a purpose; producing the intended or expected result: effective teaching methods; effective steps toward peace. 2.actually in operation or in force; functioning: The law becomes effective at midnight. 3.producing a deep or vivid impression; striking: an effective photograph.



As for letting "nature take its course", I'll just point out that extinction, including our own, is part of nature as well. So screw nature, let's make our own fate instead of relying on blind chance.So you're suggesting that GW is going to be our fate? ROFL!

What's the point? We have to leave this rock anyhow if we plan to survive, lets focus ourselves on that instead. Yellowstone Supervolcano can give a rats *** about global warming when it blows up and annihilates everything. :lol:

cbacba
2007-Jul-12, 03:01 AM
I didn't start it, and have little desire to pursue it, but I suppose I should at least clarify what I meant. Obviously it was that the New Deal followed the Great Depression, so it could hardly have caused it.

Upon further reflection, I suppose that cbacba's point may be that, while not having caused the Great Depression, the New Deal made it worse (that's what Milton Friedman and his school claim). But I'm confused by the distinction that cbacba attempts to make between "a recession" and "the Depression". Wasn't the Great Depression basically a recession?

that's correct. no real distinction, just another word to describe the same disaster without alarming the populace to the disaster - but this time it got stuck with the name The Great Depression - so much for not being alarming.

Noclevername
2007-Jul-12, 04:54 AM
Everyone that screams "GLOBAL WARMING ZOMG!" must believe we can actually do something about it starting NOW and can solve the problem with little complication.
Why would you listen to the Screaming Extremists at all? (good name for a band, though.)

"Must Believe"? How is that enforced, exactly? Do the Belief Police come to your door and say "You aren't radical enough about being Green! All you do is recycle and save energy! Environment UBER ALLES!" :rolleyes:


As much as 60% - 70% of Greenhouse is Water Vapor, leaving 30% perhaps 25% - 30% max is manufactured. Taking small steps will only dent this like a shopping cart hitting your car in a parking lot. It is kinda one of those things you have to attack full out to attain good results.
...And the water vapor is produced in greater amounts by heating caused by CO2. It's called positive feedback, and it happens all the time.

ADDED: 25-30%? if we have determined that human activity is resposible for a certain percentage of GW, Why do so many climatologists still disagree about whether we have any effect at all, and by how much?


So you're suggesting that GW is going to be our fate? ROFL! No. Read what I actually wrote. What you are saying is the opposite of what I wrote. No "naturally ordained" fate is in store for us, because we can and will choose what to do.


What's the point? We have to leave this rock anyhow if we plan to survive, lets focus ourselves on that instead.
Now that's what I'm talking about! :dance::clap::clap::dance:

Ronald Brak
2007-Jul-12, 07:30 AM
I'll just mention the following:

There is no need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 100%. Cutting CO2 emissions by 50% will be enough to minimize further climate change. The cost of reducing CO2 by this amount is generally estimated to be less that 1% of GDP over 10 years. By starting to make changes now we can avoid greater costs due to climate change in the future. That is, we can end up richer by reducing emissions than if we don't, in the same way it is economical to maintain your car with regular maintenance than to run it into the ground. There is some debate over just how much we should spend now to prevent problems in the future, but that issue often isn't addressed in popular forums.

People in China are very unlikely to ever produce as much CO2 per head as people in the United States. There are several reasons for this. One is that fossil fuels such as oil are becoming much more expensive than they were and secondly, advances in developed countries have lowered the cost of low emission alternatives such as wind, nuclear, solar, geothermal, tidal and wave energy making them much more attractive.

Dragon Star
2007-Jul-13, 01:25 AM
ADDED: 25-30%? if we have determined that human activity is resposible for a certain percentage of GW, Why do so many climatologists still disagree about whether we have any effect at all, and by how much?

lol, sorry, I stated that very incorrectly. The percentage that humans can contribute too from the total is that percentage. There is no determined percentage that is actually attributed to human activity. Otherwise, we wouldn't have this discussion.[/quote]