Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: ALIENS CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING - SERIOUSLY!
RockyMTNClimber    6/21/2007 12:30:31 PM
This is to put a final nail in the coffin of global warming. Man can not change the earth's tempurature. No evidence has ever or will ever compell science to say that. This is a silly notion played for political and religious resons. Below is a well thought out essay that everyone who believes in global warming, leprichans, and the stork that delivers babies should read. Check Six Rocky "Aliens Cause Global Warming" A lecture by Michael Crichton California Institute of Technology Pasadena, CA January 17, 2003 My topic today sounds humorous but unfortunately I am serious. I am going to argue that extraterrestrials lie behind global warming. Or to speak more precisely, I will argue that a belief in extraterrestrials has paved the way, in a progression of steps, to a belief in global warming. Charting this progression of belief will be my task today. Let me say at once that I have no desire to discourage anyone from believing in either extraterrestrials or global warming. That would be quite impossible to do. Rather, I want to discuss the history of several widely-publicized beliefs and to point to what I consider an emerging crisis in the whole enterprise of science-namely the increasingly uneasy relationship between hard science and public policy. I have a special interest in this because of my own upbringing. I was born in the midst of World War II, and passed my formative years at the height of the Cold War. In school drills, I dutifully crawled under my desk in preparation for a nuclear attack. It was a time of widespread fear and uncertainty, but even as a child I believed that science represented the best and greatest hope for mankind. Even to a child, the contrast was clear between the world of politics-a world of hate and danger, of irrational beliefs and fears, of mass manipulation and disgraceful blots on human history. In contrast, science held different values-international in scope, forging friendships and working relationships across national boundaries and political systems, encouraging a dispassionate habit of thought, and ultimately leading to fresh knowledge and technology that would benefit all mankind. The world might not be a very good place, but science would make it better. And it did. In my lifetime, science has largely fulfilled its promise. Science has been the great intellectual adventure of our age, and a great hope for our troubled and restless world. But I did not expect science merely to extend lifespan, feed the hungry, cure disease, and shrink the world with jets and cell phones. I also expected science to banish the evils of human thought---prejudice and superstition, irrational beliefs and false fears. I expected science to be, in Carl Sagan's memorable phrase, "a candle in a demon haunted world." And here, I am not so pleased with the impact of science. Rather than serving as a cleansing force, science has in some instances been seduced by the more ancient lures of politics and publicity. Some of the demons that haunt our world in recent years are invented by scientists. The world has not benefited from permitting these demons to escape free. But let's look at how it came to pass. Cast your minds back to 1960. John F. Kennedy is president, commercial jet airplanes are just appearing, the biggest university mainframes have 12K of memory. And in Green Bank, West Virginia at the new National Radio Astronomy Observatory, a young astrophysicist named Frank Drake runs a two week project called Ozma, to search for extraterrestrial signals. A signal is received, to great excitement. It turns out to be false, but the excitement remains. In 1960, Drake organizes the first SETI conference, and came up with the now-famous Drake equation: N=N*fp ne fl fi fc fL Where N is the number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy; fp is the fraction with planets; ne is the number of planets per star capable of supporting life; fl is the fraction of planets where life evolves; fi is the fraction where intelligent life evolves; and fc is the fraction that communicates; and fL is the fraction of the planet's life during which the communicating civilizations live. This serious-looking equation gave SETI an serious footing as a legitimate intellectual inquiry. The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. And guesses-just so we're clear-are merely expressions of prejudice. Nor can there be "informed guesses." If you need to state how many planets with life choose to communicate, there is simply no way to make an informed guess. It's simply prejudice. As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from "billions and billions" to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless, and has nothing to do with science. I take the hard view that science involv
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22   NEXT
eldnah       6/28/2007 8:30:35 AM
Jeff_F_F.... My comment on a Feverish planet was just a riff on Al Gore's "Our planet has a fever" speech to the US Senate, not a belief. I would like to ask, though, if we ever have the ability to fine tune the Earth's temperature, what is that temperature and who gets to decide what it will be. I believe different countries will have different optimal temperatures. What is a significant temperature change BTW? 1 degree Celsius or 1/2 or 2, + or - over the next hundred years, and cui bono?
 
Quote    Reply

buzzard       6/28/2007 8:54:13 AM

progress of a sort is indeed being made.  even the reluctant will now admit global warming is going on though they continue to deny we have any role in it.


Oh really? Funny, not all would agree with you. Not politicians seem to be falling in line like lemmings, but actual scientists don't seem so convinced. 


buzzard

 
Quote    Reply

andyf       6/28/2007 10:02:36 AM
well if you look atr the projected rises in temperature.. +5c in the next 100 years I believe was the figure, it has some interesting consequences
italy, spain and greece become desert, too damn hot to do much at all away from the coast, think egypt
france gets the climate of spain
russia gets siberia thawed out and useable to grow things on
holland, well, its ok, rocky will have a bumper sticker on his truck ' we will remember the tulips'
canada. gets to not freeze so bad, gets to be a breadbasket
usa, oh dear, well you've seen mad max right? the desert with gangs driving cars around it, shooting each other?
and in the uk, we get warm rain
 
Quote    Reply

Ehran       6/28/2007 12:19:12 PM

well if you look atr the projected rises in temperature.. +5c in the next 100 years I believe was the figure, it has some interesting consequences


it's awfully tough to believe anyone is going to predict something like how much the world is going to warm up in the next century.  it's not exactly hard to look at the world around us though and realize things are headed in a direction that's going to make most of the world unhappy maybe profoundly unhappy in the next century.  i'm rather hoping it's sunspots being the major driver for what's going on but if you look at the amount of greenhouse gasses we put into the system every year and the amount of tropical rainforest we obliterate every year i find it hard to write those off as being "insignificant".

 
Quote    Reply

buzzard       6/28/2007 1:43:11 PM




well if you look atr the projected rises in temperature.. +5c in the next 100 years I believe was the figure, it has some interesting consequences




it's awfully tough to believe anyone is going to predict something like how much the world is going to warm up in the next century.  it's not exactly hard to look at the world around us though and realize things are headed in a direction that's going to make most of the world unhappy maybe profoundly unhappy in the next century.  i'm rather hoping it's sunspots being the major driver for what's going on but if you look at the amount of greenhouse gasses we put into the system every year and the amount of tropical rainforest we obliterate every year i find it hard to write those off as being "insignificant".


The amount of greenhouse gasses we emit as a percentage of natural emissions and total volume in the atmosphere is still quite small. Of coruse given the dynamic system that the carbon balance actually is, if you put more CO2 in the air, plants grow faster and take it out faster. Nature always tends to like it's equilibirums, and shifts from those are corrected. 

As for the tropical rainforest shibboleth, if the rainforests were being chopped down at the rate Greenpeace et all claim, they would have been gone ten years ago. Hint for the suckers, forests grow back. None of the folks in Greenpeace(etc.) ever bother to factor that in. 

buzzard

 
Quote    Reply

Heorot       6/28/2007 3:04:35 PM

Remember the Channel 4 program I mentioned above. Well one of the items that stuck in my mind was the piece on Al Gore. They showed his presentation of a graph that showed temperature over time in an upper line and a CO2 graph over the same time on a lower line. The peaks and troughs exactly matched. Al said that this demonstrated the link between CO2 and temperature rise and that CO2 caused the rise. When the “sceptic” climatologist looked at the data, he discovered that the CO2 line was correct, but that Al Gore had shifted it 800 years leftward to get the match. In fact, the CO2 rise lags in time behind the temperature rise by that amount.

Global warming causes the CO2 rise, not the other way round.

The biggest reservoir of carbon (after rocks) is the oceans. CO2 is absorbed by the sea at the air/water interface. Rough cold seas absorb more CO2 the warm calm seas so when the Earth warms up, the oceans slowly warm up too, absorbing less CO2 in the process. That explains the delay between the temperature rise and the CO2 rise.
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    Data source?   6/28/2007 3:09:05 PM




well if you look atr the projected rises in temperature.. +5c in the next 100 years I believe was the figure, it has some interesting consequences




it's awfully tough to believe anyone is going to predict something like how much the world is going to warm up in the next century.  it's not exactly hard to look at the world around us though and realize things are headed in a direction that's going to make most of the world unhappy maybe profoundly unhappy in the next century.  i'm rather hoping it's sunspots being the major driver for what's going on but if you look at the amount of greenhouse gasses we put into the system every year and the amount of tropical rainforest we obliterate every year i find it hard to write those off as being "insignificant".




 
Quote    Reply

Heorot    Global Cooling   6/28/2007 3:12:32 PM
 
Quote    Reply

DropBear       6/28/2007 7:02:05 PM
I would almost like to say I get 10 times better gas mileage, but actually I wouldn't since I know that couldn't be possible and still keep my black/black 2004 Ford Mustang GT Mach1 rated at 310hp.  It's my first muscle car since my '72 Chevy Chevelle as a kid, and it's worth the extra gas money to feed the extra horses--the Netherlands be danged.  So when you're treading water over in Europe, think of me having a blast rolling on down the highway.
 

No arguments here. I am the ulimate hypocrit. I am an enviro scientist who happens to own a 4wd as well as a high output sports sedan. Global warming and Europe?
 
Carefactor = Zero.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    Man really does not polute   6/29/2007 10:56:43 AM
 
Man's influence on the global weather system amounts to exactly nothing. We do not statistically count as demonstrated by data from one natural event in June of 1991. Don't bother talking about our influence. There is no science that says we are effecting the earth's tempurature at all anyone who says otherwise is a fool.
 
Check Six
 
Rocky

ABSTRACT from: ht**tp://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Projects/Emissions/Reports/Pinatubo/pinatubo_abs.html

The climactic June 15, 1991, eruption of Mount Pinatubo injected a minimum of 17 Mt (megatons) of SO2 into the stratosphere--the largest stratospheric SO2 cloud ever observed. This study is an investigation of the immediate source of the sulfur for the giant SO2 cloud. Approximately 100 electron microprobe analyses show no significant differences, at the 95 percent confidence level, in S or Cl contents between glass inclusions and matrix glasses of the erupted dacite. These results indicate that there was no significant degassing of S or Cl from melt during ascent and eruption. Furthermore, the 17-Mt SO2 cloud contained over an order of magnitude more sulfur than could have been dissolved in the quantity of erupted silicate melt at the pre-eruption conditions. A major source of "excess sulfur" is therefore required to account for the SO2 cloud. Degassing of melt in non-erupted dacite as a source of the excess sulfur implies volumes of non-erupted dacite larger than the estimated volume of the magma reservoir beneath the Mount Pinatubo region. Direct degassing of excess sulfur from a basalt source seems unlikely, since the June 15 eruption products lack evidence of mixed or commingled contemporaneous basalt. Anhydrite decomposition rates at atmospheric pressure and expected eruption temperatures are extremely slow and grossly incapable of generating 17 Mt of SO2 by anhydrite breakdown in the eruption cloud. Anhydrite breakdown during ascent decompression is too slow to keep pace with conduit travel times, which were considerably less than 8 minutes. Flash-vaporization of sulfate-rich Pinatubo hydrothermal fluids during the eruption could have caused sulfate mineral deposition but virtually no SO2 production.

It is proposed that the dacite erupted on June 15 was vapor-saturated at depth prior to eruption, and that an accumulated vapor phase in the dacite provided the immediate source of excess sulfur for the 17-Mt SO2 cloud. Investigations based on exploration drilling for geothermal energy suggest that magmatic volatiles were discharged into the Pinatubo hydrothermal system from the vapor-saturated dacite prior to the 1991 eruption. Experimental studies, geobarometer results, and the H2O and CO2 contents of glass inclusions indicate that the Pinatubo dacite was saturated with water-rich vapor before ascent and eruption. Models for the composition of the pre-eruption vapor suggest that it contained a minimum of approximately 96 Mt H2O, 42 Mt CO2, and 3 Mt Cl, in addition to 17 Mt of SO2. The mole fraction composition of the vapor was X(H2O) = 0.80-0.83, X(SO2) = 0.01-0.04, X(CO2) = 0.15, and X(Cl) = 0.01, indicating that the vapor was not excessively SO2-rich. The volume and density of the vapor at depth prior to eruption were at least 0.25 km^3 and about 0.6 g/cm^3, respectively. Vapor comprised at least 5 volume percent of the pre- eruption dacite at depth; the bulk density of the pre- eruption dacite was less than 2.3x10^(12) kg/km^3. Solubility modeling indicates that the total amount of volatiles contained in the pre-eruption vapor and melt of the erupted dacite could not have been dissolved initially in completely molten dacite at the magma reservoir pressures, suggesting some process of pre- eruption vapor accumulation at depth.

The climactic eruption released the accumulated vapor in the estimated 5 km^3 of erupted dacite. About 6.25 wt percent of dissolved water was also degassed from melt during ascent and eruption; scaling to the volume of erupted dacite implies an additional release of 395 Mt of H2O. Additional yields of SO2, CO2, and Cl from degassing of melt were minor to insignificant during ascent and eruption. Thus, the minimum volatile emissions for the climactic eruption--from preeruption vapor phase and degassing of melt--were 17 Mt SO2, 42 Mt CO2, 3 Mt Cl, and 491 Mt H2O.

This study underscores the need for both petrologic measurements and emission measurements to constrain the quantity of dissolved volatiles and pre-eruption vapor in magma at depth. If explosive volcanism commonly involves magmas with substantial accumulated vapor, the volatile contents of glass inclusions alone are not a sufficient basis for inferring the total pre-eruptive volatile contents of magma and for predicting volatile emissions. Consequently, conventional petrologic estimates

 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics