Glow balls

I have not been able to sustain much interest in the subject of global warmiong once I started thinking about it logically.

So here are some contradictory articles on the subject. …

Originally posted by The Register:

New research from NASA suggests that the Arctic warming trend seen in recent decades has indeed resulted from human activities: but not, as is widely assumed at present, those leading to carbon dioxide emissions.

Rather, Arctic warming has been caused in large part by laws introduced to improve air quality and fight acid rain.

Dr Drew Shindell of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies has led a new study which indicates that much of the general upward trend in temperatures since the 1970s – particularly in the Arctic – may have resulted from changes in levels of solid "aerosol" particles in the atmosphere, rather than elevated CO2.

Arctic temperatures are of particular concern to those worried about the effects of global warming, as a melting of the ice cap could lead to disastrous rises in sea level – of a sort which might burst the Thames Barrier and flood London, for instance.

After so many people died in London's worst known smog in 1952, Britain introduced The Clean Air Act.

Power stations had to build air filters into their chimneys and send the vented smoke higher up into the atmosphere.

Central heating was introduced into cities so that the power production could take place to windward, outside the town centre locations inspired by Victorian gas-works.

The result was that in winter during anticyclonic weather the fall-out tended to travel hundreds of miles.

Once central heating began to become popular in itself (no longer a requirement but a desired home improvement) the smoke stacks became taller and more efficient.
(After the collapse of several cooling towers in the 1960's it was understood that the outside of these buildings also needed streamlining.)

Whilst this might point to a change in the climates of some areas, the locations involved initially are small, though the output large and the changes to places where the pollution falls are much much larger and probably quite capable of benefiting from carbon dioxide input and small amounts of metallic trace elements.

A lot would depend on the types of fuels used. Dirty coal and sulphur rich oil would produce or tend to produce dangerous fall-out if not properly controlled. And governments have an history of covering up dangerous mistakes.

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Glow balls

  1. Originally posted by Weatherlawyer:

    Nothing has changed from the first search in forest debris for suitable twigs to cook your goose. Even with fracking, the unhealthy act of pouring water into depleted wells to encourage methane to come up out of it.

    I believe the planet was created for man to use to the praise of his god.To allow him to make the mistakes he was going to, the variety and recoverability was planned into the planet in what is today known as bio-diversity.When we ruin a region for one life form, it becomes a climate suited to other life forms. And slowly reverts back to the way things were.This tends to take centuries not decades. You can't have old growth forest in a clear felled region in a few decades, for example.I don't believe that once stopped, oil pollution is devastating, after several decades. Even though in the meantime the land become desert and deadly.And people die.Even though there was built into the planet all this recoverability, a prophecy from Jesus Christ has become a reality in my lifetime:"If the tribulation isn't cut short, not a living thing would survive."It's hard to believe that people were so wicked in the last days before the Flood but we have changed dramatically in my lifetime:Originally posted by Let us reason.org:

    “Over the years teachers have been asked to identify the top problems in America's public schools. In 1940 teachers identified talking out of turn; chewing gum; making noise; running in halls; cutting in line; dress code infractions; and littering. When teachers were asked the same question in 1990, it was a completely different assessment they identified drug abuse; alcohol abuse; suicide; rape; pregnancy; robbery; and assault.”

    http://www.letusreason.org/Proph.8.htmNot quite what you would expect god to step in and wash away.OTOH, he isn't ever going to interfere with us again in that sort of a way. He will let us sort ourselves out. Apparently those who fail to make the grade will not be around to get the benefit of Christ's new kingdom.But that is another story.I promise not to ram too much of my beliefs down your throat. Only just enough to keep you above water with a little swimming, …maybe.You will have to sort your own selves out in the time of the end anyway, so I shall leave you to it now. I might as well.

  2. I tend to gt a little involved in my hobby. (It's a good alternative to having a life -well it's a lot cheaper and I'm nothing if not cheap.)Here is one about the pros and cons of prose and cons:http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/03/beware_evangelists/Ignore the subject concentrate on the argument:Originally posted by The Register (again):

    Evangelists. Plenty of them hang out in the sustainability and collaboration fields where I work. Some irritate while others are acceptable. And this isn't because they necessarily reflect my views. (In case you were wondering.) The trick is to spot, early on, which variety you're faced with and make your excuses and leave if they're the 'wrong' kind.Last week, the Free Software Foundation, wrote to the Fortune 500 companies (well, it didn't bother with Microsoft) essentially telling them they'd be mad to upgrade to Windows 7. The article was about an evangelical organisation and it attracted evangelistic commentators, both pro- and anti-, as well as your everyday commentators. The end result is that anyone with the willingness to work through the comments, evangelistic or otherwise, would end up with an independent point of view, providing they read through with an open mind. If they didn't, they'd end up just strengthening their own prejudices.The sustainability and collaboration folk are no different. The evangelists are noisy, in your face, on conference platforms, lobbying whoever and wherever possible, frequently on the web with their blogs, Tweets and comments. They exist everywhere, and always have. The big difference today is that they can be more readily heard.You can get positive evangelists who show how life could be better. I have a lot of time for them, even if they turn out to be wrong. At least they're trying to help. Then you have the negative ones who are more intent on tearing down than building up. "This is wrong" or "you shouldn't do that" rather than "try this alternative" or "why not do this?". The same mentality, incidentally, as criminals.[Bullies, maybe but not necessarily criminals. I don't think many burglars announce their coming with tracts and leaflets or blog tweets.]A lot of evangelists are so immersed in their blinkered view of the world, that they forget (or ignore) the fact that their wheezes might cause more problems than they solve. We're shutting down coal and nuclear power stations to cheers from the acid rain and nuclear waste storage zealots. But how deeply have they considered where the energy is going to come from?Or, alternatively, what impact on our lives a profound cut in consumption will cause? I venture to suggest, 'not a lot'. Out here in the real world, we have to find solutions, not just state problems.In a way, the easiest ones to deal with are those that have 'Evangelist' printed on their business cards. They're being paid by someone to persuade others of the folly of their ways. You'll find these folk in many major IT companies. Others are not so obvious.Perhaps a company has plied them with gifts or other, more subtle, bribes. Recently I was talking with a Toyota (non-employee) iQ evangelist. She'd 'won' a car for a six month trial, in exchange for blogs and other social media outreach. Others are just total believers in 'the cause' simply because it makes sense to them within their own frame of reference.The answer has to be to filter them as quickly as possible. Find out who pays for their evangelism in money or in other ways. Ask them what alternatives they know about in detail. And get them to tell you what the long term implications of their advocacy are likely to be. Some will slink away from the interrogation. Some will bluster, so you can take your leave of them. Those that will remain probably have a good and well thought out story to tell.

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/03/beware_evangelists/I started out as a believer in the global warming idea. And I was never really convinced otherwise. However, I was put off by the choking pollution produced by imbecile evangelists of the Glowballs persuasion.And it was exactly for the above reasons.I do believe we are damaging the environment. The rapid disappearance of whole species is proof of this. But burning fuel is what distinguished knowing man from the animals.Nothing has changed from the first search in forest debris for suitable twigs to cook your goose. Even with fracking, the unhealthy act of pouring water into depleted wells to encourage methane to come up out of it.Where it becomes damaging is when pollution is used. Fracking is a good way to get rid of noxious substances that are expensive to treat.Hexavalent Chromium for example or Agent Orange/Organo-Phosphates.Don't get your knickers in a twist. As far as I know, all the post Vietnam War stockpiles of Agent Orange were poured down the mountains of Colorado, decades ago.I have no idea what they use to fracture rocks in spent oil wells.Nobody does (but the oil producers that is.)And if you can't trust them, who can you trust?

  3. I think I'll stop this thread now as someone with much the same ideals as I has actually done some serious research on the subject.He wrote a book about his facts:http://www.withouthotair.com/You can download it if you are seriously in need of help with this subject. I have. I might even read it too.Good luck to you.

  4. Originally posted by THe Register 1999:

    NASA research suggests Arctic warming is from human activities but not, as carbon dioxide emissions. Rather, Arctic warming has been caused in large part by laws introduced to improve air quality and fight acid rain.A new study indicates much of the general upward trend in temperatures since the 1970s – particularly in the Arctic – may have resulted from changes in levels of solid "aerosol" particles in the atmosphere, rather than elevated CO2.Much of the rise in polar temperature over the last few decades may have resulted from US and European restrictions on sulphur emissions.Sulphates scatter incoming solar radiation and have a net cooling effect on climate. The United States and European countries have laws reducing sulphate emissions. The result has been less atmospheric cooling from sulphates.Meanwhile soot from industrialisation in Asia, traps solar energy in the atmosphere and warms things up.The Arctic is especially subject to aerosol effects because the main industrialised areas are in the northern hemisphere and there's not much precipitation to wash the air clean."Right now, in the mid-latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere and in the Arctic, the impact of aerosols is just as strong as that of the greenhouse gases," says Shindell.The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have said that aerosol levels from dust storms and volcanoes alone would account for as much as 70 per cent of the temperature rise seen in the Atlantic ocean during the past 26 years.One measure put forward by geo-engineering advocates is the deliberate injection of sulphur particulates into the atmosphere. There might not even be any need, with China building sulphur-belching coal power stations and diesel vehicles at a furious rate in recent times.Global temperatures have actually dipped slightly over the last couple of years. Sulphate emissions cause acid rain but the issue isn't simple. And environmental policies can have unexpected effects.It might be more cost-effective to tackle emissions of black-carbon aerosols. Filtering soot from exhausts would be hugely easier than capturing and sequestering CO2, building a fully wind/electric Blighty or other ambitious eco-schemes.

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/09/arctic_aerosols_goddard_institute/Sulphates and carbon dioxide are plant foods. I don't know what all the fuss is about, at all. I really don't.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s