Do you believe in Climate Change
Solar Thermal Magazine
2011/10/16 21:06:24
|
|
|||||
|
112 votes
|
|
11% | ||
|
87 votes
|
|
9% | ||
|
76 votes
|
|
8% | ||
|
709 votes
|
|
72% | ||
An imbalance like this drives global warming — since more energy is coming in than leaving — and, because it occurred during a period when the sun was emitting comparatively low levels of energy, the imbalance has implications for the cause of global warming.
The results confirm greenhouse gases produced by human activities are the most important driver of global climate change, according to the researchers.
They found that the Earth absorbed 0.58 watts of excess energy per square meter than escaped back into space during the study period from 2005 to 2010, a time when solar activity was low. By comparison, the planet receives 0.25 watts less energy per square meter during a solar minimum, than during a period of maximum activity in the sun's 11-year cycle. (Currently, the sun is in the midst of Solar Cycle 24, with activity expected to ramp up toward solar maximum in 2013.)
"The fact we still see a positive imbalance despite the prolonged solar minimum isn't a surprise given what we've learned about the climate system," lead researcher James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said in a statement. "But it's worth noting, ...
An imbalance like this drives global warming — since more energy is coming in than leaving — and, because it occurred during a period when the sun was emitting comparatively low levels of energy, the imbalance has implications for the cause of global warming.
The results confirm greenhouse gases produced by human activities are the most important driver of global climate change, according to the researchers.
They found that the Earth absorbed 0.58 watts of excess energy per square meter than escaped back into space during the study period from 2005 to 2010, a time when solar activity was low. By comparison, the planet receives 0.25 watts less energy per square meter during a solar minimum, than during a period of maximum activity in the sun's 11-year cycle. (Currently, the sun is in the midst of Solar Cycle 24, with activity expected to ramp up toward solar maximum in 2013.)
"The fact we still see a positive imbalance despite the prolonged solar minimum isn't a surprise given what we've learned about the climate system," lead researcher James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said in a statement. "But it's worth noting, because this provides unequivocal evidence that the sun is not the dominant driver of global warming."
Personally I think that, as the polar ice is missing in the summer, the suns energy is refracted into the water and absorbed instead of reflected back into space.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/sci...
I DO.......................BECAUSE IT'S A "SIGN OF KING JESUS CHRIST COMING"......................
MATTHEW 24:3-44
I "believe it", like I believe other evidence-based theories used in scientific fields, like the Theory of Gravity, Atomic Theory, etc.
http://www2.ucar.edu/news/846...
Have a nice day...
Now, how about that 'natural cycle', hmmm? What happened to it? Looks like someone's thrown a spanner in the spokes in the last couple of hundred years, doesn't it? Well that's what happens when you pump hundreds of billions of tons of global warming gas into the atmosphere - the planet warms up. Duh!
. OMG! The Earth's temperature is up a whole degree since 1 A.D. Run for the hills, Chicken Little!!!
No, maybe we should innovate and develop new technologies further developing new industries and markets. How can you assume that burning fossil fuels and running industries as we do today is the only way of doing things. We are a clever, inventive and innovative species and should come up with new solutions to solve these problems and create new opportunities.
The internal combustion engine was invented in the 1850s and has since remained (for the most part) unchanged. Sure, it has been optimized, but in contrast to EVERY OTHER invention and industry on the planet it has stagnated since invention. It's about time we sit back and think "Hey maybe we should do that better", and I'm sure you will find this won't kill jobs or kill industry but OPEN jobs and OPEN industry.
No we can't just shut energy off ... this is what I have been saying for decades, there is no doubt in my mind that burning all of this fuel must be having effects, some not so good but you can't stop the Earth from turning, you at best could influence the speed (lol).
When I worked in Ft. McMurray I tried to get Syncrude to use my system to reduce the GHGs from their "Heavy Haulers" (100 ton+) industrial trucks, explaining to them that shutting down the "Tar Sands" wasn't forceable, however, working on reducing the resulting damage could bring peace for them since it would defeat all of Green Peaces' protests when they could honestly reply ... "We are trying to change" ... and that I would verify working in partnership with them to achieve a noticable difference ...
I felt I had to respond since this sounded so seemingly short sighted,
Wow, where do I start? Well;
The combustion of fuel does cause mostly water vapor from the hydrogen and oxygen combining and yes it is the greatest amount of GHGs produced from burning petroleum type fuels. The amount of liquid water that results is even more than the original fuel i.e.; 1 measure of fuel when combusted produces more than one measure of water, 1 fuel = 1.1+ water vapor.
So is this why are the oceans rising?
Not only this but no doubt it contributes greatly considering the BILLIONS OF BARRELS burned every day, and that have been combusted since when it started.
As for the heat contributed;
If you were to drive a vehicle for 100 miles and it made 25 miles/ gallon, in that distance and with 4 gallons used the heat released and dumped directly to the atmosphere would have heated the average house in Northern Canada for 24 hours in a -30 Celsius temperature. With all of the GHGs directly discharged into our atmosphere.
As for explosive energy lost; (re the reverse of the above)
When a house in Northern Canada is heated to offset the heat loss due to an external temperature of -30 Celsius for 24 hours as much explosive energy was lost as equates to that which would have driven the car fo...
&
I felt I had to respond since this sounded so seemingly short sighted,
Wow, where do I start? Well;
The combustion of fuel does cause mostly water vapor from the hydrogen and oxygen combining and yes it is the greatest amount of GHGs produced from burning petroleum type fuels. The amount of liquid water that results is even more than the original fuel i.e.; 1 measure of fuel when combusted produces more than one measure of water, 1 fuel = 1.1+ water vapor.
So is this why are the oceans rising?
Not only this but no doubt it contributes greatly considering the BILLIONS OF BARRELS burned every day, and that have been combusted since when it started.
As for the heat contributed;
If you were to drive a vehicle for 100 miles and it made 25 miles/ gallon, in that distance and with 4 gallons used the heat released and dumped directly to the atmosphere would have heated the average house in Northern Canada for 24 hours in a -30 Celsius temperature. With all of the GHGs directly discharged into our atmosphere.
As for explosive energy lost; (re the reverse of the above)
When a house in Northern Canada is heated to offset the heat loss due to an external temperature of -30 Celsius for 24 hours as much explosive energy was lost as equates to that which would have driven the car for 100 miles. With all of the GHGs directly discharged into our atmosphere.
Meanwhile since the co2, so2, nox, and other GHGs are currently being dumped directly into the air we breathe, and also the heat isn't utilized in the engine, meanwhile the explosive energy isn't used for heating purposes, so would it not make more sense to extract all of the energy to a higher degree of efficiency? ...
And would it not also make sense to 'sequester' the GHGs if possible? Just in case pollution is acknowledge by the nay-Sayers later?
Well I have worked for 30+ years in hydrocarbon fuel combustion/ engineering, and have designed a system to improve fuel efficiency in transport by 25%+ and in heating and process heat combustion this could achieve an unbelievable 80+%.
Not only that, in the process of doing this both systems are now subject to an "Exhaust Gases Scrub" that removes 100% of the 'water soluble' (Acid Rain Causing) GHGs.
This is my website about it; http://tawnybill.tripod.com/i... (cut & paste)
It is in transition to the ... 'new http://goodsenserules.com'... paid web hosting.
For those that would like to DO SOMETHING about GLOBAL WARMING/CLIMATE CHANGE, this is an avenue of address that has Global potential, join me in making this work!
Thanks for reading this, if you have any questions please don't hesitate to e-mail me at;
tawnybill@yahoo.ca.
Cheers,
Willy.
THE U.S. NAVY in it's own paper titled:
Navy Climate Change Road Map 21 may 2010
an excerpt:
"A preponderance of global observational evidence shows the Arctic Ocean is losing sea
ice, global temperatures are warming, sea level is rising, large landfast ice sheets
(Greenland and Antarctic) are losing ice mass, and precipitation patterns are
changing." ref 1,2
"While there has been criticism on the details of the methods and results found
in reports published by the IPCC and other entities, the Navy acknowledges that
climate change is a national security challenge with strategic implications for the Navy.
Climate change is affecting, and will continue to affect, U.S. military installations worldwide.
Melting permafrost is degrading roads, foundations, and structures on DoD and
USCG installations in Alaska. Droughts in the southeast and southwest U.S. are
challenging water resource management. Sea level rise and storm surge will lead to an
increased likelihood of inundation of coastal infrastructure, and ma...
THE U.S. NAVY in it's own paper titled:
Navy Climate Change Road Map 21 may 2010
an excerpt:
"A preponderance of global observational evidence shows the Arctic Ocean is losing sea
ice, global temperatures are warming, sea level is rising, large landfast ice sheets
(Greenland and Antarctic) are losing ice mass, and precipitation patterns are
changing." ref 1,2
"While there has been criticism on the details of the methods and results found
in reports published by the IPCC and other entities, the Navy acknowledges that
climate change is a national security challenge with strategic implications for the Navy.
Climate change is affecting, and will continue to affect, U.S. military installations worldwide.
Melting permafrost is degrading roads, foundations, and structures on DoD and
USCG installations in Alaska. Droughts in the southeast and southwest U.S. are
challenging water resource management. Sea level rise and storm surge will lead to an
increased likelihood of inundation of coastal infrastructure, and may limit the availability
of overseas bases."
The following is from The Director of the Navy's Task Force Climate Change.++
Navy Rear Adm. David W. Titley:
"The observations have shown us that through the 20th century, sea level rose by an average of two millimeters per year, So that means over the course of the century, we had about 20 centimeters, or roughly eight inches, of sea level rise. The sea level rise we've seen in the first 10 years of the new century is already 50 percent greater than the average sea level rise in the 20th century."
'nough said!
references:
1. UNSW Climate Change Research Centre, The Copenhagen Diagnosis, 2009:
Updating the World on the Latest Climate Science (November 2009).
2. United States Global Change Research Program, Global Climate Change Impacts in
the United States, Cambridge University Press (2009).
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/...
+http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/2...
++ http://www.navy.mil/Search/pr...
Navy Official Discusses Climate Change Investment Strategy
Story Number: NNS100621-08
6/21/2010
By Bob Freeman, Office of the Oceanographer of the Navy
other sources hopelessly out of date yet correct and still ignored:
* Popular Science Aug 1989 "Global Warming: Are we waking up 15 years too late?"
**Fundamentals of Meteorology Second Edition Louis J. Batton ISBN 0-13-341123-0
Please read this information with an open mind. And without malice. Save our planet.
http://www.facebook.com/peopl... profile
http://davinci-concepts.blogs... SynergyIsBest (I describe my engines)
http://twitter.com/ ultrakeen (I look for business and environmental contacts)
ubernerd1956@yahoo.com contact me here http://images.sodahead.com/pr...
Who are "actual climatologists " name sources. not Faux News
"Climate Change" was Geoge Bush's answer to "Global Warming", because the Republicans refused to use that phrase in any campaign. But it is "Climate Change". Man made climate change. Warmer weather on the surface sounds good: less snow,less fuel used in winter etc. But what you have to realize is: the planet takes turns sticking alternate poles into total darkness each year. Plunging it to low temps then with the higher temps in between the winds have more energy. With an increased strength and incidence of tornadoes, increased incidence and strenghth of hurricanes, flooded lowlands are just the tip of the iceberg of global climate change. Don't forget increased incidence of drought, increased incidence of wild fires, increased incidence of forest fires increased incidence of floods etc.
Beside I miss the seasons. Weather changed every three months not every three days. In fall the leaves would turn after the first cold night. Then they would fall over the cooling phase of fall. now the trees are kept warm to long. So the snow catches the leaves and power failures are inevetable. Other seasons have their own problems. But Jon Sewart is on got to
go.
I doubt it.