I have been thinking a lot lately. I have come to the conclusion that the world needs to scrap Global Warming restrictions until we can get the worldwide economy out of its nose dive.
When you're driving your car and you do something stupid and it goes skidding recklessly off the road. At that time you do not get out of the car to check the air pressure of your tires. You've got more important things to do, like steering the car so you don't crash. If you do get out of your car it will crash and you will die. This is what the world is doing with fears about global warming. If we do need to put restrictions on manufacturing, now is not the time. thousands of people are losing their homes. Do we really want to cripple an economy that has already lost a leg?
Let's use some common sense and send a strong message to James Hansen at NASA. Now is not the time for drastic changes that mean lost jobs. When we are back on our feet we can decide how to power the planet without coal. Wait till the unemployment rate goes back up.
Just a bit of a thought. Maybe more later.
Showing posts with label Global Warming. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Global Warming. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Jet stream Cycle?
With all the hype that continues to be run about Global Warming, I have a question. Is it possible that the jet stream cycles through a location change that could affect the perceived global warming?
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Polar bears resort to cannibalism as Arctic ice shrinks: "Really"
It is nice how some scientists can make any picture conform to their view of reality. Case in point:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/09/23/arctic.ice/index.html?iref=mpstoryview.
Lets put a little perspective on this article. We know that the ice did not get to where it is in one day. We know that the ice has been decreasing for years; so if the fact that the ice extent is greater at the end of the melting season than this time last year is not a coincidence but an actual reversal in trend, which only time will reveal. Then this scientist's opinion that it is not in fact gain means nothing. The simple fact is that it is an increase from last year. If this year's increase over last year becomes a trend, an average increase of 9% every year would lead to an accumulation of over 400% in 40 years. Just imagine 400% of 4.67 million square km. That is 18.68 million square km in 2050. That is approximately more ice than the minimum in 1979 by about 10 million square kilometers by my eyeball of the 1979 minimum shown on the chart in the link below.
NSIDC Sea ice minimum extent 1979-2008
http://nsidc.org/news/press/20081002_seaice_pressrelease.html
Let's also keep in mind that it is not a decreasing rate of decline but an actual increase from the previous year. obviously, one season does not mean that things have changed. But we also need to keep in mind that we need not listen to the rhetoric of a scientist who's guess about next season's minimum can be no better than mine.
Why did the maximum for the 1979 and 2008 seasons start out so close together?
The numbers below are taken from these two sites
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2008/040708.html
http://nsidc.org/news/press/20081002_seaice_pressrelease.html
March 2008 Maximum extent 15.21 million square kilometers
September 20008 Minimum 4.52 million square kilometers
March 1979 Maximum extent 15.75 million
September 1979 Minimum 7.1 million square kilometers
I'm personally curious about a few things: the last 2 years the ice has experienced an accelerated rate of both warming and cooling. Why? If it was CO2 driven global warming I would personally expect an increase of warming in general and not an increase of cooling. Maybe somebody who reads this might have a good explanation for this.
I'm also curious as to why the maximums were so close for these years.
I will be watching. I'm beginning to believe that we are at the end of a long warming period and we are in for some very cold weather in the next couple of years.
We will all half to watch and see.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/09/23/arctic.ice/index.html?iref=mpstoryview.
Lets put a little perspective on this article. We know that the ice did not get to where it is in one day. We know that the ice has been decreasing for years; so if the fact that the ice extent is greater at the end of the melting season than this time last year is not a coincidence but an actual reversal in trend, which only time will reveal. Then this scientist's opinion that it is not in fact gain means nothing. The simple fact is that it is an increase from last year. If this year's increase over last year becomes a trend, an average increase of 9% every year would lead to an accumulation of over 400% in 40 years. Just imagine 400% of 4.67 million square km. That is 18.68 million square km in 2050. That is approximately more ice than the minimum in 1979 by about 10 million square kilometers by my eyeball of the 1979 minimum shown on the chart in the link below.
NSIDC Sea ice minimum extent 1979-2008
http://nsidc.org/news/press/20081002_seaice_pressrelease.html
Let's also keep in mind that it is not a decreasing rate of decline but an actual increase from the previous year. obviously, one season does not mean that things have changed. But we also need to keep in mind that we need not listen to the rhetoric of a scientist who's guess about next season's minimum can be no better than mine.
Why did the maximum for the 1979 and 2008 seasons start out so close together?
The numbers below are taken from these two sites
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2008/040708.html
http://nsidc.org/news/press/20081002_seaice_pressrelease.html
March 2008 Maximum extent 15.21 million square kilometers
September 20008 Minimum 4.52 million square kilometers
March 1979 Maximum extent 15.75 million
September 1979 Minimum 7.1 million square kilometers
I'm personally curious about a few things: the last 2 years the ice has experienced an accelerated rate of both warming and cooling. Why? If it was CO2 driven global warming I would personally expect an increase of warming in general and not an increase of cooling. Maybe somebody who reads this might have a good explanation for this.
I'm also curious as to why the maximums were so close for these years.
I will be watching. I'm beginning to believe that we are at the end of a long warming period and we are in for some very cold weather in the next couple of years.
We will all half to watch and see.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Blackholes effect on warming
Hypothesis:
Black holes exert an enormous amount of force on a system even to the point of bending light waves.
In the suns trajectory through space, it is possible that it has crossed closely to such phenomena multiple times. if the sun should cross such a force in a parallel plane to the Earths orbit it is likely that the earth could receive less energy as some of that energy gets pulled in the direction of that force. Maybe it is possible that such forces coincide with glaciation periods.
I found this article, http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/01/rogue-black-hol.html. I want to check into this idea more thoroughly.
Black holes exert an enormous amount of force on a system even to the point of bending light waves.
In the suns trajectory through space, it is possible that it has crossed closely to such phenomena multiple times. if the sun should cross such a force in a parallel plane to the Earths orbit it is likely that the earth could receive less energy as some of that energy gets pulled in the direction of that force. Maybe it is possible that such forces coincide with glaciation periods.
I found this article, http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/01/rogue-black-hol.html. I want to check into this idea more thoroughly.
Monday, April 9, 2007
Can we stop global warming?
Wrong question!
If we know that the earth has had 5 ice ages, and that the dinosaurs lived in a time when the earth was much hotter; why are we trying to stop global warming, when we should be trying to figure out how to live with extreme climate change--both freeze and boil?
Why is it that no "brilliant" climate scientists seem to have studied whether or not the water vapor is capable of escaping earths gravity? the only way that global warming is a real problem is if it is possible for our waters to leave us altogether.
If global warming warms the entire earth, why is it that these scientists haven't considered the fact that more land will become livable and even more land will probably become arable? Lands in extremely cold places, such as Siberia, north Canada, and Alaska, will become more livable. Much land will also become arable that was previously barren: just think of all the new lands that will grow crops when they are unfrozen.
In summary, I think we need to change the focus and intention of our studies of climate so that we can live with the inevitable when it happens.
If we know that the earth has had 5 ice ages, and that the dinosaurs lived in a time when the earth was much hotter; why are we trying to stop global warming, when we should be trying to figure out how to live with extreme climate change--both freeze and boil?
Why is it that no "brilliant" climate scientists seem to have studied whether or not the water vapor is capable of escaping earths gravity? the only way that global warming is a real problem is if it is possible for our waters to leave us altogether.
If global warming warms the entire earth, why is it that these scientists haven't considered the fact that more land will become livable and even more land will probably become arable? Lands in extremely cold places, such as Siberia, north Canada, and Alaska, will become more livable. Much land will also become arable that was previously barren: just think of all the new lands that will grow crops when they are unfrozen.
In summary, I think we need to change the focus and intention of our studies of climate so that we can live with the inevitable when it happens.
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
Global Warming debate ended?
Really? In the 70's the prediction was an ice age. those predictions seemed to have failed. Now we are expected to believe the results of a models that have not been proven accurate which say were gonna cook? If you read anything about global warming and the "science" involved in the calculations you realize that many things need to be considered in the calculations and that there are probably billions of factors that have not been considered.
The biggest problem is that people forget, all to readily, that scientists are human: they make mistakes sometimes on purpose. They even forget that scientists are often not motivated by science, but by economic gain. People have already forgotten the big mess that Dr. Hwang created in Korea over his fabricated genetic experiments.
If Dr. Hwang fabricated research for financial gain, just how many are out there that haven't been found out yet? What this means is that you shouldn't necessarily buy what someone says just because they are a "scientist", or for that matter have a PhD. You need to filter everything you hear and read through your own reasoning process.
I often read the overused pedantic that we should yield to "Peer reviewed journals." This is hype and down right crap. What these people fail to tell you is that there are scientists who pass phony research off for years before it is found out to be false. So lets step back in time 5 years, Dr. Hwang is a renowned, peer-reviewed, published, PhD. scientist. According to certain said scientists we should believe him because he is "peer-reviewed." I don't know about you, but knowing what I know now about Dr. Hwang, and extrapolating that situation to the fact that others like him have to exist, I am still going to rely on my own brain to process what I see and decide whether I should believe it or not.
Here are a couple more cases to illustrate my point:
These scientists fabricated lab data http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/2003/Lab-Falsified-Tests6sep03.htm, This Bell Labs scientist faked data http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/15/11/2, The scientist who falsified this information cost the US tax payer $10 million per year for a program based on falsified information http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,38366,00.html --And those in the global warming camp claim that anyone who resists is being buttered by the oil industry.
Setting all this Global Warming bologna aside, we need to stop polluting our environment for the sake of our environment, but not at the cost of bankrupting small countries. I am appalled to see how much trash people throw out. People walking down the street, seeing no receptacle, drop trash on the ground. It has to stop people.
The biggest problem is that people forget, all to readily, that scientists are human: they make mistakes sometimes on purpose. They even forget that scientists are often not motivated by science, but by economic gain. People have already forgotten the big mess that Dr. Hwang created in Korea over his fabricated genetic experiments.
If Dr. Hwang fabricated research for financial gain, just how many are out there that haven't been found out yet? What this means is that you shouldn't necessarily buy what someone says just because they are a "scientist", or for that matter have a PhD. You need to filter everything you hear and read through your own reasoning process.
I often read the overused pedantic that we should yield to "Peer reviewed journals." This is hype and down right crap. What these people fail to tell you is that there are scientists who pass phony research off for years before it is found out to be false. So lets step back in time 5 years, Dr. Hwang is a renowned, peer-reviewed, published, PhD. scientist. According to certain said scientists we should believe him because he is "peer-reviewed." I don't know about you, but knowing what I know now about Dr. Hwang, and extrapolating that situation to the fact that others like him have to exist, I am still going to rely on my own brain to process what I see and decide whether I should believe it or not.
Here are a couple more cases to illustrate my point:
These scientists fabricated lab data http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/2003/Lab-Falsified-Tests6sep03.htm, This Bell Labs scientist faked data http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/15/11/2, The scientist who falsified this information cost the US tax payer $10 million per year for a program based on falsified information http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,38366,00.html --And those in the global warming camp claim that anyone who resists is being buttered by the oil industry.
Setting all this Global Warming bologna aside, we need to stop polluting our environment for the sake of our environment, but not at the cost of bankrupting small countries. I am appalled to see how much trash people throw out. People walking down the street, seeing no receptacle, drop trash on the ground. It has to stop people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)